/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/140610.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, June 10, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 114 Headlines 14051 MANCHESTER: Court Decertifies "Carroll" Class Suit ABBEY PARK: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages and Damages AEROPOSTALE INC: Bid for Collective Action in "Bath" Suit Granted ALIN CONSTRUCTION: Sued Over Unlawful Pay Practices and Policies ALLIANCEONE RECEIVABLES: Sued for Violating Debt Collection Law ALPHA NATURAL: Awaits Final Approval of Settlement in UBB Suit ALPHA NATURAL: Trial Date on Motion to Junk W.Va. Stock Suit Set ALPHA NATURAL: Still Faces Suit Over Settlement of Mining Mishap ALPHA NATURAL: Stay in Del. Massey Shareholder Suit Extended Anew ALPHA NATURAL: Argument in NCI Employee's Suit Expected in 2014 ARRANCADA FOOD: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages and Damages BAYBRIDGE ENTERPRISES: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Suit Says BAYER AG: Faces Suit in Connecticut Over ERISA Violations BELL CONSTRUCTION: "Daniels" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages BILL HALL: Rodriguez Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages BOULDER BRANDS: NY Labeling Suit Stayed Pending Cal. Court Ruling BLUE BUFFALO: Falsely Marketed Pet Food Products, Suit Says CAREER EDUCATION: Accord in Ill. "Ross" Securities Suit Approved CAREER EDUCATION: Insurer Disputes Coverage in Securities Suit CAREER EDUCATION: "Enea" Plaintiffs Seek to Amend Complaints Anew CAREER EDUCATION: "Surrett" Suit Over UTPA Stayed Pending Appeal CAREER EDUCATION: Vasquez-Patterned Suit Has 1,047 Plaintiffs CAREER EDUCATION: "Wilson" Employment Suit Over ARSC Remanded CAREER EDUCATION: Ill. Court Okays Accord in "Nimely" Labor Suit CATERPILLAR INC: Sued Over Defective Regeneration System Parts CITIGROUP GLOBAL: 2nd Cir. Vacates Securities Settlement Denial CREDIBLE SECURITIES: "May" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations DAIMLER TRUCKS: Suit Seeks to Recover Retirement Benefits DAKA ARMS: Failed to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Suit Says DENDREON CORP: Opt-Outs in Securities Suit Accord Pursue Own Suit DYNAMIC CORPORATE: Sued Over Breach of Fair Labor Standards Act FLORIDA REGIONAL MEDICAL: "Green" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation FORD MOTOR: May Tax Suit Costs Among Plaintiffs, Court Says GEISHA ASIAN: Sued Over Failure Pay Minimum and Overtime Wages GENCOR NUTRIENTS: Falsely Marketed Testofen Products, Suit Says GENE BY GENE: Has Invaded Class Members' Privacy, Suit Says GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Duarte" Suit in Fla. Over Vehicle Defects GENERAL MOTORS: Recall Probe to Clear Senior Management of Blame GENERAL MOTORS: Wants to Fight Ignition Switch Suits in New York GENERAL MOTORS: Number of Ignition-Linked Crashes Reaches 47 GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: States to Get $105MM in Drug Settlement GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: California to Get $7-Mil. From Settlement GOOD STEER: Faces "Herrera" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime JAMBOX INC: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages and Damages KALCO LAUNDRY: Sued for Failing to Pay Overtime & Minimum Wages KANGADIS FOOD: Files for Bankruptcy Due to Class Suit LEGACY NURSING: Sued for Failing to Pay OT Wages Pursuant to FLSA LHC GROUP: Louisiana Shareholder Litigation in Discovery Stage MASTEC SERVICES: Faces "Cisneros" Suit Over FLSA Violation METLIFE INC: Still Faces Suit by Retirement System in New York METLIFE INC: Remand of Ala. Securities Lawsuit Faces Objection METLIFE INC: Summary Judgment to MLIC in TCA Lawsuit Appealed METLIFE INC: Metropolitan Life Faces "Owens" TCA Lawsuit METLIFE INC: MLIC Faces Indemnity Claim by Sun Life Assurance METLIFE INC: Trial in "C-Mart," "Cadenasso" Lawsuits Set in Aug. NAT'L FOOTBALL: Ex-Miami Dolphins Player Files Concussion Suit NUVERRA ENVIRONMENTAL: Deposits $6.1MM to 2010 Stock Suit Fund NUVERRA ENVIRONMENTAL: Continues to Face 2013 Shareholder Suit PACIFIC BIOSCIENCES: Lawsuit by Opt-Out Voluntarily Dismissed PELLA CORP: Judge Says Class Action Settlement "Scandalous" PEOPLES BANK: Motion for Judgment in Overdraft Fees Suit Denied PRICELINE GROUP: Still Faces Suits Over Hotel Occupancy Taxes PRICELINE GROUP: Pays $0.6MM to Hawaii After Tax Ruling PRICELINE GROUP: Opposes Move to Amend Antitrust Lawsuit Anew PRIORITY PAYMENT: Sued Over Failure to Pay Over Time Wages ROCKING 8: Faces "Puente" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Files Motion to Dismiss Stock Suit in Okla. SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Employees Amend Complaint for Overtime Pay SEBERT LANDSCAPING: Has Refused to Pay Compensation, Class Claims SUPPORT.COM INC: To Settle Consumer Lawsuit Over Software THANG DANG: Faces "Lopez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages TREE.COM INC: Settlement Process Ongoing in "Boschma" Lawsuit TREE.COM INC: No Trial Date Yet for Class Claims in "Dijkstra" TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY: Shareholders Expand Class Period of Lawsuit UNITED PARCEL: Feb 2015 Trial Set in Franchisees' Suit UNITED PARCEL: Suit in Quebec Over Brokerage Services Dismissed UNITED PARCEL: Suit Over Freight Forwarding Services in Discovery UNITED STATES: Veterans File Lawsuit Over Agent Orange WARNER MUSIC: Reply to Cert. Motion in Price Fixing Suit Due June WARNER MUSIC: Final Hearing on $11.5MM Accord Set for Oct. WHOLE FOODS: Accused of Violating Fair Credit Reporting Act ZILLOW INC: Motion to Dismiss Stock Suit Pending in Wash. Court ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Discovery Ongoing in "Meridian Funds" Suit ZIONS BANCORPORATION: "Barlow" Overdraft Fees Suit Accord Okayed ********* 14051 MANCHESTER: Court Decertifies "Carroll" Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------- THELMA WHITE and NICOLE CARROLL, Individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. 14051 MANCHESTER INC. d/b/a HOTSHOTS SPORTS BAR & GRILL, et al., Defendants, NO. 4:12- CV-469 JAR, (E.D. Mo.) is before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Missouri and Illinois State Law Claims as a Class Action, Defendants' Motion to Decertify Collective Class, Defendant Daniel Volmert's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Defendant Julie Volmert's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Defendants' Motion to Strike and Exclude Expert Testimony, Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment on Individual Liability of Daniel and Julie Volmert and Memorandum in Support, Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment on Liability and Memorandum in Support, and Defendants' Combined Motion to Strike Affidavits and Memorandum in Support Thereof. In a memorandum and order dated May 30, 2014, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/ikQomafrom Leagle.com, District Judge John A. Ross denied the Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Missouri and Illinois State Law Claims as a Class Action; Defendant Daniel Volmert's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; Defendant Julie Volmert's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment on Liability and Memorandum in Support; and Defendants' Combined Motion to Strike Affidavits and Memorandum in Support Thereof. The Defendants' Motion to Decertify Collective Class was granted. The Defendants' Motion to Strike and Exclude Expert Testimony was denied as moot. Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment on Individual Liability of Daniel and Julie Volmert and Memorandum in Support was granted. Judge Ross decertified this matter as a collective action, and dismissed without prejudice the claims of all opt-in plaintiffs, leaving before the Court the named plaintiffs who originated this action. The Court directed Plaintiffs' counsel to notify the opt- in plaintiffs that the collective action has been decertified and their FLSA claims are no longer pending before the Court. Thelma White, Plaintiff, represented by Russell C. Riggan -- russ@rigganlawfirm.com -- RIGGAN LAW FIRM, LLC & Samuel W. Moore -- smoore@rigganlawfirm.com -- RIGGAN LAW FIRM, LLC, and: Cyrus C. Dashtaki, Esq. DASHTAKI LAW FIRM LLC 5205 Hampton Ave. St Louis, MO 63139, United States Telephone: (314) 932-7671 Nicole Carroll, Individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Cyrus C. Dashtaki, DASHTAKI LAW FIRM. LLC, Russell C. Riggan, RIGGAN LAW FIRM, LLC & Samuel W. Moore, RIGGAN LAW FIRM, LLC. 14051 Manchester, Inc., Defendant, represented by Christopher O. Bauman -- cbauman@bbdlc.com -- BLITZ AND BARDGETT & Jason Turk -- jturk@bbdlc.com -- BLITZ AND BARDGETT. 12154 Rock Road, Inc., Defendant, represented by Christopher O. Bauman, BLITZ AND BARDGETT & Jason Turk, BLITZ AND BARDGETT. 950-952 South Highway, LLC, Defendant, represented by Christopher O. Bauman, BLITZ AND BARDGETT & Jason Turk, BLITZ AND BARDGETT. 12644 Dorsett Road, LLC, Defendant, represented by Christopher O. Bauman, BLITZ AND BARDGETT & Jason Turk, BLITZ AND BARDGETT. 215 O'Fallon Place, LLC, Defendant, represented by Christopher O. Bauman, BLITZ AND BARDGETT & Jason Turk, BLITZ AND BARDGETT. 4021 Union, LLC, Defendant, represented by Christopher O. Bauman, BLITZ AND BARDGETT & Jason Turk, BLITZ AND BARDGETT. 1636 Country Club Plaza, Inc., Defendant, represented by Christopher O. Bauman, BLITZ AND BARDGETT & Jason Turk, BLITZ AND BARDGETT. 730 HSBG, LLC, Defendant, represented by Christopher O. Bauman, BLITZ AND BARDGETT & Jason Turk, BLITZ AND BARDGETT. 1319 Central Park, LLC, Defendant, represented by Christopher O. Bauman, BLITZ AND BARDGETT & Jason Turk, BLITZ AND BARDGETT. ABBEY PARK: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages and Damages ---------------------------------------------------------- Clyde Richard Cunningham v. Abbey Park Gardens I Condominium Association, Inc., Case No. 9:14-cv-80650 (S.D. Fla., May 16, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid wages, compensation and damages pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act. Abbey Park Gardens I Condominium Association, Inc., is a corporation conducting business in Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd William Shulby, Esq. 2800 Weston Road, Suite 101 Weston, FL 33331 Telephone: (954) 530-2236 Facsimile: (954) 530-6628 E-mail: tshulby@shulbylaw.com AEROPOSTALE INC: Bid for Collective Action in "Bath" Suit Granted ----------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Susan D. Wigenton granted a motion for conditional certification of a collection action in the case captioned CORA BATH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. RED VISION SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant, CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:13-02366 (SDW) (MCA), (D. N.J.). Red Vision is a Delaware Corporation headquartered in Parsippany, New Jersey that provides title search services and real estate data solutions to customers across the United States. The Plaintiff worked in Red Vision's employ as a title examiner from approximately September 2007 until 2011. The Plaintiff alleges that Red Vision failed to add her piece-rate earnings with her hourly rate of pay for purposes of calculating overtime pay. The Plaintiff filed the Motion for Conditional Certification of Collective Action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Court found that the Plaintiff and Red Visions' other title examiners are similarly situated for FLSA purposes. Judge Wigenton also denied the defendant's motion to dismiss the case pursuant to Federal Rule Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). A copy of the District Court's May 29, 2014 Opinion is available at http://is.gd/B9Xk6Dfrom Leagle.com. CORA BATH, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff, represented by ANDREW R. FRISCH -- afrisch@forthepeople.com -- MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.. RED VISION SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant, represented by JEFFERY ALAN MEYER -- jmeyer@kdvlaw.com -- Kaufman Dolowich & Voluck, LLP. ALIN CONSTRUCTION: Sued Over Unlawful Pay Practices and Policies ---------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Gonzalez, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v. Alin Tolly, and ALIN Construction, INC., Case No. 1:14-cv-03499 (S.D.N.Y., May 15, 2014), arises from the Defendants' unlawful pay practices and policies pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act. ALIN Construction, Inc., is a domestic business corporation located at 32D Monsey Boulevard, Monsey, NY 10952. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph D. Nohavicka, Esq. MAVROMIHALIS PARDALIS & NOHAVICKA, LLP 3403 Broadway Astoria, NY 10006 Telephone: (718) 777-0400 Facsimile: (718) 777-0599 E-mail: jnfirm@aol.com ALLIANCEONE RECEIVABLES: Sued for Violating Debt Collection Law --------------------------------------------------------------- Shimshon Wexler, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Allianceone Receivables Management, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-03542 (S.D.N.Y., May 16, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for the alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Allianceone Receivables Management, Inc., is a Delaware corporation doing business in New York with an address at 111 Eighth Avenue in New York, NY 10011. The Plaintiff is represented by: Aaron Cohen, Esq. THE COHEN LAW OFFICE, PC 675 Third Ave-8th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 813-2000 Facsimile: (212) 537-6861 E-mail: acohen@cohenlawpc.net ALPHA NATURAL: Awaits Final Approval of Settlement in UBB Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia entered an order preliminarily approving a settlement reached by Alpha Natural Resources, Inc. in a suit filed by Massey Energy Company stockholders in the wake of the Upper Big Branch (UBB) explosion, according to the company's May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. Alpha Natural Resources, Inc. awaits final approval of a settlement it reached in a suit filed by Massey Energy Company stockholders in the wake of the Upper Big Branch (UBB) explosion, according to the company's May, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. On April 29, 2010 and May 28, 2010, two purported class actions that were subsequently consolidated into one case were brought against, among others, Massey, now the Company's subsidiary Alpha Appalachia Holdings, Inc. ("Alpha Appalachia"), in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia (the "Court") in connection with alleged violations of the federal securities laws. The lead plaintiffs allege, purportedly on behalf of a class of former Massey stockholders, that (i) Massey and certain former Massey directors and officers violated Section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 thereunder by intentionally misleading the market about the safety of Massey's operations and that (ii) Massey's former officers violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by virtue of their control over persons alleged to have committed violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act. The lead plaintiffs seek a determination that this action is a proper class action; certification as class representatives; an award of compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial, including interest thereon; and an award of reasonable costs and expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees. On February 16, 2011, the lead plaintiffs moved to partially lift the statutory discovery stay imposed under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. On March 3, 2011, the United States moved to intervene and to stay discovery until the completion of criminal proceedings allegedly arising from the same facts that allegedly give rise to this action. On July 9, 2012, the court entered an order maintaining the stay of discovery until the earlier of either the completion of the United States' criminal investigation of the UBB explosion or January 15, 2013. The court has extended the stay several times; most recently, on July 18, 2013, the court further extended the existing discovery stay until January 15, 2014. On April 25, 2011, the defendants moved to dismiss the operative complaint. On March 27, 2012, the court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss. On July 16, 2012, the Company filed its answer to the consolidated amended class action complaint. In October and December 2013, the parties participated in mediation. In December 2013, the parties reached agreement on all material terms of settlement, including a cash payment of $265,000,000. In February 2014, the parties reached agreement on definitive settlement documentation, subject to court approval, and on February 5, 2014, the lead plaintiffs moved the court for preliminary approval of the settlement. On February 19, 2014, the Court entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement subject to a final determination following a settlement hearing on June 4, 2014. On February 25, 2014, pursuant to the terms of the settlement, the Company made an initial payment of $30,000,000 into an escrow account. Pending final determination, the plaintiffs may not further prosecute the action. If the Court approves the settlement, it would result in the dismissal of the action. Whether the Court will approve the settlement, and the timing of any such approval, remains uncertain. The Company expects insurance recoveries of approximately $70,000,000 to help cover the cost of the settlement. ALPHA NATURAL: Trial Date on Motion to Junk W.Va. Stock Suit Set ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Boone County Circuit Court has set a preliminary trial date of June 24, 2014 on a motion to dismiss a lawsuit by Massey Energy Company stockholders over disclosures regarding Alpha Natural Resources, Inc.'s Emerald mine, according to the company's May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. On July 13, 2012, a purported class action brought on behalf of a putative class of former Massey stockholders was filed in Boone County, West Virginia Circuit Court. The complaint asserts claims under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, against the Company and certain of its officers and current and former directors, and generally asserts that the defendants made false statements about the Company's Emerald mine in its public filings associated with the acquisition of Massey by the Company (the "Massey Acquisition"). The plaintiff seeks, among other relief, an award of compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial. On August 16, 2012, the defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia. On August 30, 2012, the plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case back to the Circuit Court of Boone County, West Virginia. On September 13, 2012, the defendants filed an opposition to the plaintiff's motion to remand. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the action on October 19, 2012, and the plaintiff filed an opposition to that motion on November 2, 2012. On November 5, 2012, the federal court remanded the case back to the Boone County Circuit Court (without ruling on the pending motion to dismiss). The plaintiff filed an amended complaint in the Boone County Circuit Court on February 6, 2013. The defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint on March 22, 2013 and March 29, 2013. On March 27, 2014, the Boone County Circuit Court held a hearing regarding the motions to dismiss. The motions remain pending. The Boone County Circuit Court has set a preliminary trial date of June 24, 2014. On April 25, 2014, the named plaintiff in the West Virginia Circuit Court action described filed a second complaint in Greene County, Pennsylvania, Court of Common Pleas, again asserting claims under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, against the Company and certain of its officers and current and former directors, and generally asserts that the defendants made false statements about the Company's Emerald mine in its public filings associated with the Massey Acquisition. The plaintiff seeks, among other relief, an award of compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial. ALPHA NATURAL: Still Faces Suit Over Settlement of Mining Mishap ---------------------------------------------------------------- Alpha Natural Resources, Inc. continues to face a lawsuit in the Boone County Circuit Court filed by the families of the deceased miners who settled claims prior to mediation of an original case, according to the company's May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. On April 5, 2012, one of the families of the deceased miners filed a class action suit in Boone County Circuit Court, purportedly on behalf of the families that settled their claims prior to the mediation, alleging fraudulent inducement into a contract, naming as defendants Massey Energy Company, the Company and certain of its subsidiaries, the Company's CEO and the Company's Board of Directors. On June 17, 2013 and August 29, 2013, two complaints were filed in Boone County Circuit Court alleging personal injury claims relating to the UBB explosion. The Company moved to dismiss both complaints on July 17, 2013 and October 16, 2013, respectively. The motions remain pending. ALPHA NATURAL: Stay in Del. Massey Shareholder Suit Extended Anew ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Delaware Chancery Court has again extended the stay in In re Massey Energy Company Derivative and Class Action Litigation and the court further extended the existing discovery stay until the earlier of the completion of the United States' criminal investigation of the Upper Big Branch mine, according to Alpha Natural Resources, Inc.'s May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. In a case filed on April 23, 2010 in Delaware Chancery Court, In re Massey Energy Company Derivative and Class Action Litigation ("In re Massey"), a number of purported former Massey stockholders (the "Delaware Plaintiffs") allege, purportedly on behalf of Massey, that certain former Massey directors and officers breached their fiduciary duties by failing to monitor and oversee Massey's employees, allegedly resulting in fines against Massey and the explosion at UBB, and by wasting corporate assets by paying allegedly excessive and inflated amounts to former Massey Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Don L. Blankenship as part of his retirement package. The Delaware Plaintiffs also allege, on behalf of a purported class of former Massey stockholders, that certain former Massey directors breached their fiduciary duties by agreeing to the Massey Acquisition. The Delaware Plaintiffs allege that defendants breached their fiduciary duties by failing to secure the best price possible, by failing to secure any downside protection for the acquisition consideration, and by purportedly eliminating the possibility of a superior proposal by agreeing to a "no shop" provision and a termination fee. In addition, the Delaware Plaintiffs allege that defendants agreed to the Massey Acquisition to eliminate the liability that defendants faced on the Delaware Plaintiffs' derivative claims. Finally, the Delaware Plaintiffs allege that defendants failed to fully disclose all material information necessary for Massey stockholders to cast an informed vote on the Massey Acquisition. The Delaware Plaintiffs also name the Company and Mountain Merger Sub, Inc. ("Merger Sub"), the Company's wholly-owned subsidiary created for purposes of effecting the Massey Acquisition, which, at the effective time of the Massey Acquisition, was merged with and into Massey, as defendants. The Delaware Plaintiffs allege that the Company and Merger Sub aided and abetted the former Massey directors' alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and agreed to orchestrate the Massey Acquisition for the purpose of eliminating the former Massey directors' potential liability on the derivative claims. Two additional putative class actions were brought against Massey, certain former Massey directors and officers, the Company and Merger Sub in the Delaware Court of Chancery following the announcement of the Massey Acquisition, which were consolidated for all purposes with In re Massey on February 9, 2011 and February 24, 2011, respectively. The Delaware Plaintiffs seek an award against each defendant for restitution and/or compensatory damages, plus pre-judgment interest; an order establishing a litigation trust to preserve the derivative claims asserted in the complaint; and an award of costs, disbursements and reasonable allowances for fees incurred in this action. The Delaware Plaintiffs also sought to enjoin consummation of the Massey Acquisition. The court denied their motion for a preliminary injunction on May 31, 2011. On June 10, 2011, Massey moved to dismiss the Delaware Plaintiffs' derivative claims on the ground that the Delaware Plaintiffs, as former Massey stockholders, lacked the legal right to pursue those claims, and the Company and Alpha Appalachia Merger Sub moved to dismiss the purported class action claim against them for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. On June 10 and 13, 2011, certain former Massey director and officer defendants moved to dismiss the derivative claims and filed answers to the remaining direct claims. On September 14, 2011, the parties submitted a Stipulation Staying Proceedings, which stayed the matter until March 1, 2012, without prejudice to the parties' right to seek an extension or a termination of the stay by application to the court. The court approved the stipulation and entered the stay that same day. The court has extended the stay several times; most recently, on February 4, 2014, the court further extended the existing discovery stay until the earlier of the completion of the United States' criminal investigation of the UBB explosion or July 15, 2014. ALPHA NATURAL: Argument in NCI Employee's Suit Expected in 2014 --------------------------------------------------------------- Briefing before the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia has been completed in a suit filed by a former employee of Nicewonder Contracting, Inc., but oral argument has not yet been scheduled and is expected to occur later in 2014, according to Alpha Natural Resources, Inc.'s May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. In December 2004, prior to the Company's acquisition of Nicewonder in October 2005, the Affiliated Construction Trades Foundation ("ACTF"), a division of the West Virginia State Building and Construction Trades Council, brought an action against the West Virginia Department of Transportation, Division of Highways ("WVDOH") and Nicewonder Contracting, Inc. ("NCI"), which became the Company's wholly-owned indirect subsidiary as a result of the Nicewonder acquisition, in the United States District Court in the Southern District of West Virginia. The plaintiff sought a declaration that the contract between NCI and the State of West Virginia related to NCI's road construction project was illegal as a violation of applicable West Virginia and federal competitive bidding and prevailing wage laws and sought to enjoin performance of the contract, but did not seek monetary damages. On September 30, 2009, the District Court issued an order that dismissed or denied for lack of standing all of the plaintiff's claims under federal law and remanded the remaining state claims to the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia for resolution. On May 7, 2010, the Circuit Court of Kanawha County entered summary judgment in favor of NCI. On June 22, 2011, the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals reversed the Circuit Court order granting summary judgment in favor of NCI, and remanded the case back to the Circuit Court for further proceedings. Following remand, ACTF filed a motion for summary judgment, which the Circuit Court denied on November 9, 2011. ACTF challenged the order denying its summary judgment motion to the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals. On June 21, 2012, the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals issued an opinion finding that ACTF has standing to pursue its claims and remanded the case back to the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia for further proceedings. NCI's portion of the highway project under the contract is complete. The case is now pending in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia. A settlement between NCI and ACTF was agreed upon in early January 2013, prior to the scheduled trial date, January 14, 2013. The Company does not expect to incur any out-of-pocket expenditures in connection with the settlement. The trial proceeded among the remaining parties. On February 7, 2013, the Company received notice of a purported class action lawsuit against NCI filed in the Circuit Court of Mingo County, West Virginia by a former NCI employee (the "NCI Employee Litigation"). The plaintiff in the NCI Employee Litigation is represented by the same attorney who represents the plaintiff in the ACTF litigation, and the complaint's allegations raise issues similar to those in the ACTF litigation. On February 26, 2013, the Circuit Court of Kanawha County ruled that the contract in dispute in the ACTF litigation, as well as the awarding and implementation of the contract were in violation of West Virginia law. The Company is reviewing the Court's ruling and evaluating its implications in relation to the NCI Employee Litigation. The Company believes that NCI has meritorious defenses to the claims asserted in the NCI Employee Litigation. NCI filed its answer to the complaint in the NCI Employee Litigation on March 4, 2013. On April 23, 2013, the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia, granted NCI's motion to transfer and entered an agreed order transferring the NCI Employee Litigation from the Circuit Court of Mingo County to the Circuit Court of Kanawha County. On November 14, 2013, the Circuit Court of Kanawha County granted NCI's Motion to Certify Questions of Law to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, where the case is now pending. Briefing before the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia has been completed, but oral argument has not yet been scheduled and is expected to occur later in 2014, with a decision possibly late this year or early in 2015. ARRANCADA FOOD: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages and Damages -------------------------------------------------------------- Claudio Arcentales-Fernandez and Rafael Espinobarros-Reyes, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. Arrancada Food Group, INC., 90 Amster Enterprises, LLC, Pizza Pasta etc. Corp., and/or any other business entity doing business as Famous Amadeus Pizza, and Amadeus Manata, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-03526 (S.D.N.Y., May 16, 2014), seeks to recover from the Defendants, unpaid minimum wages and minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post- judgment interest and attorneys' fees and costs. Arrancada Food Group, Inc., 90 Amster Enterprises, LLC, and Pizza Pasta Etc. Corp are New York business corporations, organized, operating and existing under the laws of the State of New York, doing business as "Famous Amadeus Pizza", with multiple locations in New York City, and a principal place of business at 840 8th Avenue, New York, New York 10019. The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter Hans Cooper, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER, P.L.L.C. 708 Third Avenue, 6th Flr New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 209-3933 Facsimile: (212) 209-7102 E-mail: pcooper@jcpclaw.com BAYBRIDGE ENTERPRISES: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------- Wilian Encalada, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Baybridge Enterprises Ltd., Case No. 1:14- cv-03113 (E.D.N.Y., May 18, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid wages from defendant for working more than 40 hours in a week and not being paid an overtime rate of at least 1.5 times the regular rate for each and all such hours over forty in a week, and maximum liquidated damages and attorneys' fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Baybridge Enterprises Ltd., is a domestic New York corporation. The Plaintiff is represented by: Abdul Karim Hassan, ABDUL HASSAN LAW GROUP, PLLC 215-28 Hillside Avenue Queens Village, NY 11427 Telephone: (718) 740-1000 Facsimile: (718) 740-2000 E-mail: abdul@abdulhassan.com BAYER AG: Faces Suit in Connecticut Over ERISA Violations --------------------------------------------------------- Karen Ali, writing for The Connecticut Law Tribune, reports that Milford resident Gerald Passaro II was one of the plaintiffs in a federal lawsuit in Connecticut that challenged the federal Defense of Marriage Act. In 2012, U.S. District Judge Vanessa Bryant struck down a portion of the law that barred same-sex couples from receiving federal benefits, and the case was combine with a New York challenge that ultimately resulted in the U.S. Supreme Court ruling a key provision of DOMA unconstitutional. Now Mr. Passaro is back in federal court in Connecticut. He claims that even though DOMA is no longer on the books, his now- deceased partner's former employer won't provide him with spousal survivor benefits. Specifically, the lawsuit says that Bayer AG is violating provisions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The lawsuit was filed by Boston-based Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders. GLAD says that Mr. Passaro -- referred to as Jerry in legal documents -- should receive benefits from the Pittsburgh- based Bayer Corp. because his late husband, Thomas Buckholz, worked as a chemist for the company in Connecticut more than 20 years before his death in 2009. The lawsuit claims that Bayer's pension plan is "legally obligated to extend -- and has no discretion to deny -- a [qualified preretirement survivor annuity] to Jerry because Jerry is a surviving spouse within the meaning of governing federal law and, as a surviving spouse, is entitled to a QPSA." After 13 years together, Messrs. Buckholz and Passaro were married in front of a Christmas tree in their home in November 2008, shortly after Connecticut began allowing same-sex marriages. Mr. Buckholz was already seriously ill with lymphoma, and died two months later, days before his 48th birthday. Mr. Passaro, a former hair stylist, is disabled and receives a Social Security check for less than $1,000 a month, according to the GLAD website. According to GLAD, before Mr. Buckholz died, he believed he had received assurances from Bayer that his partner would be the beneficiary of his pension. But after Mr. Buckholz died, Mr. Passaro requested the benefits -- which would total a little more than $500 a month, according to GLAD -- and was turned down by Bayer, its benefits provider Vanguard and Bayer's ERISA Review Committee. According to the lawsuit, Bayer cited DOMA in its refusal. In 2010, Mr. Passaro became one of 13 plaintiffs in the Connecticut DOMA challenge, Pedersen v. Office of Personnel Management. In June 2013, the Pedersen victory for the plaintiffs was confirmed when the U.S. Supreme Court found DOMA unconstitutional in United States v. Windsor. According to the GLAD lawsuit, after the Windsor decision, Mr. Passaro again asked Bayer for the spousal pension benefits. The pharmaceutical company again said no. A Bayer spokesman said the company was unable to provide an immediate comment. "Despite the fact that DOMA has been found unconstitutional, Bayer continues to deny benefits to [Passaro] even though its pension plan provides benefits to all surviving spouses and even though federal law mandates pension benefits for surviving spouses under plans like Bayer's," said Gary Buseck, who is GLAD's interim executive director. "Bayer has turned a deaf ear to its legal and moral obligation to the widower of a dedicated employee, who is in need of this basic support that his husband earned." BELL CONSTRUCTION: "Daniels" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Tacareious Daniels, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Bell Construction L.L.C., a Louisiana Limited Liability Company, and RAY BELL, Individually, Case No. 5:14-cv- 01004 (W.D. La., May 16, 2014), is brought against the Defendants pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, to recover unpaid back wages, an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. Bell Construction L.L.C., is a Louisiana Limited Liability Company located in Minden County, Webster Parish, Louisiana. The Plaintiff is represented by: Rene Fernandez Rocha, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN 909 Poydras St Ste 1625 New Orleans, LA 70112 Telephone: (305) 989-8688 E-mail: rrocha@forthepeople.com BILL HALL: Rodriguez Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Gena Rodriguez, and others similarly situated v. Bill Hall, Jr. Trucking, Ltd.; Iron Horse Transport, LLC; and, Dominique Hall, as Administratrix of the estate of Bill Kall, Jr., Case No. 5:14-cv- 00459 (W.D. Tex., May 16, 2014), seeks damages for unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and a reasonable attorney's fee and costs. Bill Hall, Jr. Trucking, Ltd., is a limited partnership of the State of Texas and maintains offices in San Antonio, Texas, with satellite terminals in Uvalde, Texas, and San Marcos, Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel B. Ross, Esq. Charles L. Scalise, Esq. THE ROSS LAW GROUP 1104 San Antonio Street, Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 474-7677 Facsimile: (512) 474-5306 E-mail: dbr@rosslawpc.com charles@rosslawgroup.com BOULDER BRANDS: NY Labeling Suit Stayed Pending Cal. Court Ruling ----------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York stayed all activity in a case over the labeling of Boulder Brands, Inc.'s Smart Balance Fat Free Milk products pending a decision on class certification in a California case over the labeling and marketing of Smart Balance Butter & Canola Oil Blend products, according to Boulder Brands's May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. On February 21, 2013, a putative class action lawsuit relating to the labeling of Smart Balance Fat Free Milk products was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging that the label and marketing was misleading because, although the labels says "Fat Free Milk" the product contains 1g of fat from the Omega-3 fatty acid oil blend in the products. After the Company's motion to dismiss was partially granted by the court, it answered the remaining allegations of the complaint, denying the substantive allegations. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against these allegations. On July 28, 2012, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California claiming that the labeling and marketing of Smart Balance Butter & Canola Oil Blend products is false, misleading and deceptive (the "California Case"). The plaintiffs have moved to file a second amended complaint and to substitute a new class plaintiff. The Company is opposing both motions. A substantially similar class action lawsuit related to the labeling and marketing of Smart Balance Butter & Canola Oil Blend products was filed on August 9, 2012 in the Southern District of New York. In light of its similarity to the California Case, the Southern District of New York stayed all activity in the case pending a decision in the California Case on class certification. BLUE BUFFALO: Falsely Marketed Pet Food Products, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------- Maja Mackenzie as an individual, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. The Blue Buffalo Company, LTD., Inc., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 9:14-cv-80634 (S.D. Fla., May 13, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for the alleged unlawful, fraudulent, unfair, negligent, misleading, and deceptive representation that its products contains "No Chicken/Poultry By- Product Meals", that it contain no corn, wheat, or soy, or artificial preservatives, and that they provide superior nutrition compared to other comparable pet food products. The Blue Buffalo Company, LTD., is a Delaware corporation located at 11 River Road, Wilton, CT 06897. The Plaintiff is represented by: Howard Weil Rubinstein, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD W. RUBINSTEIN, P.A. 1615 Forum Place, Suite 4C West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Telephone: (832) 715-2788 Facsimile: (415) 692-6607 E-mail: howardr@pdq.net - and - Joshua Harris Eggnatz, Esq. THE EGGNATZ LAW FIRM, P.A. 1920 N. Commerce Parkway, Suite 1 Weston, FL 33326 Telephone: (954) 634-4355 Facsimile: (954) 634-4342 E-mail: JEggnatz@eggnatzlaw.com CAREER EDUCATION: Accord in Ill. "Ross" Securities Suit Approved ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois finally approved the settlement reached in Ross, et al. v. Career Education Corporation, et al., according to the company's May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. Ross, et al. v. Career Education Corporation, et al. On January 13, 2012, a class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, naming the Company and various individuals as defendants and claiming that the defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") by making material misstatements in and omitting material information from the Company's public disclosures concerning its campuses' job placement rates and its compliance with accreditation standards. The complaint further claimed that the individual defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by virtue of their positions as control persons of the Company. Plaintiff asked for unspecified amounts in damages, interest, and costs, as well as ancillary relief. On March 23, 2012, the Court appointed KBC Asset Management NV, the Oklahoma Police Pension & Retirement Systems, and the Oklahoma Law Enforcement Retirement System, as lead plaintiffs in the action. Lead plaintiffs subsequently filed an amended complaint, asserting the same claims alleged in the initial complaint and seeking damages on behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's common stock between February 19, 2009 and November 21, 2011 (the "Class"). On June 12, 2013, the parties agreed to settle the Ross litigation, subject to final Court approval and settlement of certain shareholder derivative actions and subsequent related claims (the "Derivative Settlements"). As previously disclosed, the Derivative Settlements received Court approval and were dismissed with prejudice in the first quarter of 2014. Under the Derivative Settlements, the Company's directors' and officers' liability insurers have paid $10.0 million towards the settlement of this litigation. On November 6, 2013, the Court entered an order preliminarily approving the Ross settlement. On April 16, 2014, the Court finally approved the settlement and dismissed the action with prejudice. Pursuant to the terms of the Ross settlement agreement, the Class will receive a total of $27.5 million in consideration of the proposed settlement and the parties will release all claims. The Company's directors' and officers' liability insurers paid $22.5 million of the settlement amount, $10.0 million of which was funded pursuant to the Derivative Settlements, and the Company paid the remaining $5.0 million. However, the Company is seeking recovery of that amount from one of its insurers, Axis Insurance Company ("Axis"), but has not recorded a receivable for this additional amount as it is not deemed probable as of March 31, 2014. Axis is seeking a declaration of no coverage. In connection with the Ross settlement, the Company entered into an additional settlement on April 15, 2014 with certain members of the Class pursuant to which the Company expects to pay approximately $3.8 million. The Company is seeking recovery of this amount from Axis. CAREER EDUCATION: Insurer Disputes Coverage in Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Claims and counterclaims were filed between Axis Insurance Company and Career Education Company in connection with coverage for a recently settled securities class action and shareholder derivative actions, according to Career Education Corporation's May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. On December 11, 2013, Axis Insurance Company filed a declaratory judgment action in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Chancery Division, naming the Company and various individuals as defendants in connection with coverage for the recently settled securities class action and shareholder derivative actions. Axis seeks a declaration of no coverage. On March 11, 2014, the Company and the individual defendants responded to Axis's complaint and asserted counterclaims pursuant to which the Company claims approximately $10.0 million in coverage. On April 22, 2014, Axis responded to the Company's counterclaims. CAREER EDUCATION: "Enea" Plaintiffs Seek to Amend Complaints Anew ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in the suit Enea, et al. v. Career Education Corporation, California Culinary Academy, Inc., SLM Corporation, and Sallie Mae, Inc. filed a motion seeking leave to file a third amended complaint, according to Career Education's May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. Plaintiffs filed this putative class action in the Superior Court State of California, County of San Francisco, on or about June 27, 2013. Plaintiffs allege that CCA materially misrepresented the placement rates of its graduates, falsely stated that admission to the culinary school was competitive and that the school had an excellent reputation among restaurants and other food service providers, represented that the culinary schools were well- regarded institutions producing skilled graduates who employers eagerly hired, and lied by telling students that the school provided graduates with career placement services for life. The plaintiffs or putative class members here co-signed the loans for students to attend CCA, some of whom were Amador class members. Plaintiffs seek restitution, damages, civil penalties and attorneys' fees. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss and to strike class action allegations on October 31, 2013. A hearing on the motions was conducted on March 14, 2014. Thereafter, the Court issued two separate orders granting the motion to strike the class allegations and the motion to dismiss without leave to amend. Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking leave to file a third amended complaint and/or for reconsideration of the Court's orders. CAREER EDUCATION: "Surrett" Suit Over UTPA Stayed Pending Appeal ---------------------------------------------------------------- All proceedings with the trial court in the suit Surrett, et al. v. Western Culinary Institute, Ltd. and Career Education Corporation have been stayed pending the outcome of an appeal regarding arbitration and on the resolution of the issue on court jurisdiction, according to Career Education's May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. On March 5, 2008, a complaint was filed in Portland, Oregon in the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon in and for Multnomah County naming Western Culinary Institute, Ltd. and the Company as defendants. Plaintiffs filed the complaint individually and as a putative class action and alleged two claims for equitable relief: violation of Oregon's Unlawful Trade Practices Act ("UTPA") and unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 10, 2008, which added two claims for money damages: fraud and breach of contract. Plaintiffs allege that Western Culinary Institute, Ltd. ("WCI") made a variety of misrepresentations to them, relating generally to WCI's placement statistics, students' employment prospects upon graduation from WCI, the value and quality of an education at WCI, and the amount of tuition students could expect to pay as compared to salaries they could expect to earn after graduation. WCI subsequently moved to dismiss certain of plaintiffs' claims under Oregon's UTPA; that motion was granted on September 12, 2008. On February 5, 2010, the Court entered a formal Order granting class certification on part of plaintiff's UTPA and fraud claims purportedly based on omissions, denying certification of the rest of those claims and denying certification of the breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims. The class consists of students who enrolled at WCI between March 5, 2006 and March 1, 2010, excluding those who dropped out or were dismissed from the school for academic reasons. Plaintiffs filed a Fifth Amended Complaint on December 7, 2010, which included individual and class allegations by Nathan Surrett. Class notice was sent on April 22, 2011, and the opt-out period expired on June 20, 2011. The class consisted of approximately 2,600 members. They are seeking tuition refunds, interest and certain fees paid in connection with their enrollment at WCI. On May 23, 2012, WCI filed a motion to compel arbitration of claims by 1,062 individual class members who signed enrollment agreements containing express class action waivers. The Court issued an Order denying the motion on July 27, 2012. On August 6, 2012, WCI filed an appeal from the Court's Order and on August 30, 2012, the Court of Appeals issued an Order granting WCI's motion to compel the trial court to cease exercising jurisdiction in the case. The oral argument on the appeal is set for May 9, 2014. All proceedings with the trial court have been stayed pending the outcome of the appeal. CAREER EDUCATION: Vasquez-Patterned Suit Has 1,047 Plaintiffs ------------------------------------------------------------- There are approximately 1,047 remaining plaintiffs in a consolidated action that asserts the same claims as in the suit Vasquez, et al. v. California School of Culinary Arts, Inc. and Career Education Corporation, according to Career Education's May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. On June 23, 2008, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the Los Angeles County Superior Court entitled Daniel Vasquez and Cherish Herndon v. California School of Culinary Arts, Inc. and Career Education Corporation. The plaintiffs allege causes of action for fraud, constructive fraud, violation of the California Unfair Competition Law and violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act. The plaintiffs allege improper conduct in connection with the admissions process during the alleged class period. The alleged class is defined as including "all persons who purchased educational services from California School of Culinary Arts, Inc. ("CSCA"), or graduated from CSCA, within the limitations periods applicable to the alleged causes of action (including, without limitation, the period following the filing of the action)." Defendants successfully demurred to the constructive fraud claim and the Court has dismissed it. Defendants also successfully demurred to plaintiffs' claims based on alleged violations of California's former Private Postsecondary and Vocational Educational Reform Act of 1989 ("the Reform Act"). Plaintiffs' motion for class certification was denied by the Court on March 6, 2012. Plaintiffs' counsel have filed eight separate but related "multiple plaintiff actions" originally involving a total of approximately 1,000 former students entitled Banks, et al. v. California School of Culinary Arts; Abrica v. California School of Culinary Arts; Aguilar, et al. v. California School of Culinary Arts; Alday v. California School of Culinary Arts; Ackerman, et al. v. California School of Culinary Arts; Arechiga, et al. v. California School of Culinary Arts; Anderson, et al. v. California School of Culinary Arts; and Allen v. California School of Culinary Arts. All eight cases are pending in the Los Angeles County Superior Court and the allegations in these cases are essentially the same as those asserted in the Vasquez class action case. The individual plaintiffs in these cases seek compensatory and punitive damages, disgorgement and restitution of tuition monies received, attorneys' fees, costs and injunctive relief. All of these cases have been deemed related to the Vasquez class action and therefore are pending before the same judge who is presiding over the Vasquez case. On June 15, 2012, pursuant to a stipulation by the parties, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint in the Vasquez action consolidating all eight of the separate actions. The complaint was thereafter amended to add additional plaintiffs. As a result of these amendments, there were at one time approximately 1,438 plaintiffs, the majority of whom enrolled between 2003 and 2008 (about 10 of the plaintiffs enrolled in 2009 and 2010). On June 22, 2012, defendants filed motions to compel arbitration of plaintiffs' claims. On August 10, 2012, the Court granted the motions with respect to approximately 54 plaintiffs. Nine arbitration demands were filed before the American Arbitration Association, one of which was tried to a final award and eight of which were settled. The remaining plaintiffs' claims were settled prior to arbitration demands being filed. The total liability for all of these claims was an immaterial amount. Following the resolution of these claims, other settlements, and the voluntary dismissal of certain claims, there are approximately 1,047 remaining plaintiffs in the consolidated action. The Company and plaintiffs' counsel have executed an agreement regarding the framework for individual settlements with approximately 950 of the remaining individual plaintiffs. Pursuant to this settlement arrangement, defendants will pay a maximum of $17.5 million in the aggregate to fund the individual plaintiff settlements, attorneys' fees and administrative costs of the settlement, subject to certain excluded costs which defendants will be separately responsible for. The settlement amounts for each individual plaintiff will be determined by a third party. If any plaintiff decides not to accept the settlement, then the amount allocated to that plaintiff will be returned to defendants. Defendants have the right not to proceed with the settlement if a specified number of plaintiffs do not accept the settlement. Defendants' liability pursuant to the settlement is estimated to be $15.5 million to $17.5 million; however, defendants do not have a reasonable basis to estimate where in that range the liability is likely to be. Accordingly, for the quarter ended March 31, 2014, the Company is maintaining a reserve of $15.5 million based on its assessment that the settlement is probable. Approximately 97 of the remaining plaintiffs are not within the purview of the settlement arrangement described in the preceding paragraph. Any liability to these plaintiffs is expected to be an immaterial amount. CAREER EDUCATION: "Wilson" Employment Suit Over ARSC Remanded ------------------------------------------------------------- The case Wilson, et al. v. Career Education Corporation is on remand to the district court for further proceedings on the sole question of whether CEC's termination of the Admissions Representative Supplemental Compensation ("ARSC") Plan violated the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, according to the company's May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. On August 11, 2011, Riley Wilson, a former admissions representative based in Minnesota, filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The two- count complaint asserts claims of breach of contract and unjust enrichment arising from the company's decision to terminate its Admissions Representative Supplemental Compensation ("ARSC") Plan. In addition to his individual claims, Wilson also seeks to represent a nationwide class of similarly situated admissions representatives who also were affected by termination of the plan. On October 6, 2011, the company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On April 13, 2012, the Court granted the company's motion to dismiss in its entirety and dismissed plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim. The Court dismissed this action with prejudice on May 14, 2012. On June 11, 2012, plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit appealing the final judgment of the trial court. Briefing was completed on October 30, 2012, and oral argument was held on December 3, 2012. On August 30, 2013, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling on plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim but reversed and remanded for further proceedings on plaintiff's breach of contract claim. On September 13, 2013, the company filed a petition for rehearing to seek review of the panel's decision on the breach of contract claim and for certification of question to the Illinois Supreme Court, but the petition was denied. The case now is on remand to the district court for further proceedings on the sole question of whether CEC's termination of the ARSC Plan violated the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. CEC has answered the complaint, and the parties have exchanged initial disclosures. On February 19, 2014, the Court ordered the parties to commence fact discovery as to the issue of liability. CAREER EDUCATION: Ill. Court Okays Accord in "Nimely" Labor Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted final approval of the settlement reached in Nimely, et al. v. Randstad General Partners, Randstad USA, Randstad Inhouse Services L.P., and Career Education Corporation, according to Career Education's May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. On December 30, 2012, April R. Nimely, a former hourly, non-exempt call center employee based in Illinois filed a putative class and collective action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the Company and various entities of the staffing firm Randstad, which the Company used to supplement its own staff at some of its call centers. The complaint asserts claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act ("IWPCA") arising from the alleged failure to pay wages for work performed before and after shifts and during breaks. The putative collective class was defined as "[a]ll persons who worked for [d]efendants as telephone dedicated employees, however titled, who were compensated, in part or in full, on an hourly basis throughout the United States at any time between December 30, 2009 and the present who did not receive the full amount of overtime wages earned and owed to them." On February 27, 2013, defendants filed their answers to the complaint and motion to dismiss the IWPCA count of the complaint. On June 14, 2013, plaintiff filed her motion for class certification. The parties subsequently reached an agreement to settle the matter for an immaterial amount. On November 29, 2013, the Court entered an order granting preliminary approval of the settlement. On March 25, 2014, the Court granted final approval of the settlement and dismissed the case. CATERPILLAR INC: Sued Over Defective Regeneration System Parts -------------------------------------------------------------- G&G Specialized Carriers, LLC, a Wisconsin corporation, on behalf of others similarly situated v. Caterpillar, Inc., Case No. 2:14- cv-00567 (E.D. Wis., May 16, 2014), arises from the alleged defective Caterpillar Regeneration System material and/or workmanship causing the vehicle to not function as required under all operating conditions, on a consistent and reliable basis, even after repeated emissions warranty repairs and replacements. Caterpillar, Inc. is a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business located at 100 NE Adams Street, Peoria, Illinois 61629, and is registered to conduct business in Wisconsin. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey A. Leon, Esq. COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP LLC 513 Central Ave-Ste 300 Highland Park, IL 60035 Telephone: (847) 433-4500 Facsimile: (847) 433-2500 E-mail: ecf@complexlitgroup.com CITIGROUP GLOBAL: 2nd Cir. Vacates Securities Settlement Denial --------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Hamblett, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that Southern District Judge Jed Rakoff's denial of a settlement agreement between the Securities and Exchange Commission and Citigroup in 2011 was vacated on June 4 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. A three-judge panel said Judge Rakoff applied the wrong standard when he blocked a consent decree between the SEC and Citigroup Global Markets over mortgage-backed securities on Nov. 28, 2011, and set a trial date. The ruling by Judges Rosemary Pooler, Raymond Lohier and Susan Carney follows a March 2012 decision by a circuit motions panel staying Judge Rakoff's order to proceed to trial. The case is U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission v. Citigroup Global Markets, 11-5227-cv. The SEC and the bank had come to terms over allegations Citigroup had misrepresented its role and influence in a billion-dollar fund collateralized by subprime securities that were tied to an imploding housing market. The commission had accused the bank of misleading fund investors that the portfolio was selected by an independent investment advisor, and investors suffered millions of dollars in losses while Citigroup was reaping some $160 million in profits short selling the very same investments. As part of the settlement, Citgroup agreed to pay $285 million in disgorgement, prejudgment interest and civil penalties, agreed to injunctive relief and promised to make internal changes to prevent such situations in the future. Judge Rakoff criticized the consent decree signed by the parties as the latest in a series of cases in which the SEC alleged serious securities fraud for which the defendant admitted no wrongdoing -- a practice he said was "hallowed by history but not by reason." Judge Rakoff also questioned why culpable individuals were not held responsible and Citigroup and its shareholders had to pay the penalty. He said the decree was "neither fair, nor reasonable, nor adequate, nor in the public interest." The SEC asked the Second Circuit to reverse and petitioned for a writ of mandamus ordering Judge Rakoff to approve the settlement. A motions panel of Judges Pooler, John Walker and Pierre Leval stayed Judge Rakoff's ruling on March 15, 2012, finding that there was a likelihood the parties would succeed on the merits. Because there was no adversarial briefing, the motions panel also appointed John Wing, partner at Lankler, Siffert & Wohl, as pro bono counsel to argue Judge Rakoff's position. Writing for the circuit on June 4, Judge Pooler said, "[Wednes]day we clarify that the proper standard for reviewing a proposed consent judgment involving an enforcement agency requires the district court to determine whether the proposed consent decree is fair and reasonable, with the additional requirement that the 'public interest would not be disserved,'" -- language from the U.S. Supreme Court decision of eBay, Inc. v. Merc Exchange, 547 U.S. 388 (2006). She said the circuit was omitting "adequacy" from the standard as borrowed from the class action context but "particularly inapt in the context of a proposed SEC consent decree." On remand to Judge Rakoff, she said the judge, in assessing the "fairness" and "reasonableness" of a consent decree, may need to make additional enquiries of the parties, but it can only go so far. "The primary focus of the inquiry, however, should be on ensuring the consent decree was procedurally proper, using objective measures . . . taking care not to infringe on the SEC discretionary authority to settle on a particular set of terms." "It is an abuse of discretion to require, as the district court did here, that the SEC establish the 'truth' of the allegations against a settling party as a condition for approving the consent decrees," Judge Pooler said. Oral argument was heard at the circuit on Feb. 8, 2013, with Deputy General Counsel Michael Conley of the SEC representing the commission and Brad Karp, a partner with Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison for Citigroup. The circuit expressed concern about taking the interlocutory appeal and said it didn't want to get into the business of reviewing every case where a judge balks at accepting a settlement. Judge Pooler wrote that, in order for a court to take an interlocutory appeal of the denial of a settlement, a party must show they have effectively been denied injunctive relief and that denial will result in irreparable harm. "That standard is satisfied here," she said. Seth Taube, a former SEC enforcement prosecutor and special assistant U.S. Attorney in the Southern District who heads Baker Botts' securities litigation practice, said that although Judge Rakoff was reversed, the judge made his point. "The irony is that the SEC has caught up with Judge Rakoff's concept even though the circuit reversed him -- the SEC has since adopted a policy, in certain serious cases, of insisting on an admission of wrongdoing," said Mr. Taube, who is not involved in the Citigroup case. "The other interesting piece of the case is, it's really about a division of powers between the branches of government: the circuit is basically saying it's the executive branch that decides what's in the public interest and, in most cases, the judiciary must respect that decision." "The decision gives a court very limited ability to say an SEC consent judgment is not reasonable." In a statement, SEC Enforcement Director Andrew Ceresney said the agency was pleased. He said the SEC will continue to seek admissions of wrongdoing in appropriate cases but recognized that reaching settlements without admissions sometimes enable regulatory agencies to return money more quickly to harmed investors. Dennis Kelleher, president of Better Markets, a Washington-based group that advocates strict financial regulation, applauded the appeals court for citing previous law making clear that judges should not merely "rubber stamp" agreements but ensure they are fair and reasonable. Mr. Kelleher said the group looked forward to Judge Rakoff's analysis in future proceedings of whether there was collusion to reach the deal or an effort to mislead the judge about the scope and terms of the settlement. CREDIBLE SECURITIES: "May" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations ------------------------------------------------------- William May, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. Credible Security Services, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-00091 (N.D. Fla., May 13, 2014), seeks to recover compensatory and liquidated damages, attorney fees, and other relief from the Defendant for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Credible Security Services, LLC, is a Florida corporation that provides security services in Alachua County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew William Birk, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW BIRK 309 Ne 1ST St. Gainesville, FL 32601 Telephone :(352) 244-2069 Facsimile: (352) 372-3464 E-mail: mbirk@gainesvilleemploymentlaw.com DAIMLER TRUCKS: Suit Seeks to Recover Retirement Benefits --------------------------------------------------------- Alan J. Meyers, Rocco H. Colanero, and Allen Penley, Eddie Warren Bridges, on behalf of themselves and a similarly situated class, and International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America-UAW v. Daimler Trucks North America, LLC and Daimler Trucks North America Welfare Benefit Plan, Case No. 2:14-cv-02361 (W.D. Tenn., May 15, 2014), seeks to recover benefits due and to clarify rights to benefits due the Individual Plaintiffs and the Proposed Plaintiff Class under the Defendants' Retiree Welfare Benefit Plan to remedy a breach of fiduciary duty, as well as attorneys' fees and other relief. Daimler Trucks, Inc. is a Delaware corporation, and is a subsidiary of Daimler AG. Daimler Trucks conducts business in the Western District of Tennessee, including at its parts distribution center in Memphis, Tennessee. The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Nickelhoff, Esq. Mami Kato, Esq. SACHS WALDMAN, P.C. 2211 E. Jefferson Avenue, Suite 200 Detroit, MI 48207 Telephone: (313) 496-9429 E-mail: anickelhoff@sachswaldman.com mkato@sachswaldman.com - and - Michael F. Saggau, Esq. ASSOCIATE GENERAL COUNSELINTERNATIONAL UNION, UAW 8000 East Jefferson Avenue Detroit, MI 48214 Telephone: (313) 926-5216 E-mail: msaggau@uaw.net - and - Samuel Morris, Esq. GODWIN MORRIS LAURENZI & BLOOMFIELD, P.C. Morgan Keegan Tower 50 N. Front St., Ste. 800 Memphis, TN 38103 Telephone: (901) 528-1702 Facsimile: (901) 528-0246 E-mail: smorris@gmlblaw.com DAKA ARMS: Failed to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------ Michael Shaon and Jill Weller, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. Daka Arms, LLC d/b/a Taps House of Beer, Case No. 4:14-cv-01341 (S.D. Tex., May 15, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay the Plaintiffs' minimum and overtime wages required by the Fair Labor Standards Act. Daka Arms, LLC is a domestic company that owns and/or operates a bar in Houston, Texas known as "Taps House of Beer". It is an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert R Debes , Jr, Esq. SHELLIST, LAZARZ & SLOBIN, LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Ste 1515 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 623-0900 Facsimile: (713) 623-0951 E-mail: bdebes@debeslaw.com DENDREON CORP: Opt-Outs in Securities Suit Accord Pursue Own Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- A group of individual investors who elected to opt out of the settlement in In re Dendreon Corporation Class Action Litigation is pursuing the same allegations in their suit Christoph Bolling, et al. v. Dendreon Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:13-cv-0872 JLR, according to the company's May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. The Company and three current and former officers were named defendants in a consolidated putative securities class action proceeding filed in August 2011 with the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington (the "District Court") under the caption In re Dendreon Corporation Class Action Litigation, Master Docket No. 2:11-cv-1291 JLR. The lawsuit was settled on stipulated terms that received final Court approval in August 2013. The settlement has become effective, and the litigation has been dismissed against all defendants with prejudice. A group of individual investors who elected to opt out of the class action settlement commenced their own action in the District Court alleging securities fraud on May 16, 2013. That action, captioned Christoph Bolling, et al. v. Dendreon Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:13-cv-0872 JLR, names the same defendant parties and generally alleges the same underlying facts as were asserted in the class action -- i.e., that the Company made various false or misleading statements between April 29, 2010 and August 3, 2011 concerning the Company, its finances, business operations and prospects with a focus on the market launch of PROVENGE and related forecasts concerning physician adoption, and revenue from sales of PROVENGE. In addition to claims under the federal securities laws, the Bolling plaintiff group also purports to assert certain claims under Washington state law. Based on information provided informally by plaintiffs' counsel, the plaintiff group, which totals approximately 30 persons, purports to have purchased approximately 250,000 shares of Dendreon common stock during the relevant period, an amount that equates to under 0.5% of the estimated shares that comprised the plaintiff class in the class action. The Bolling plaintiffs filed an amended complaint July 16, 2013. On August 9, 2013, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint, and the Court held a hearing on that motion January 3, 2014. On January 28, 2014, the Court issued an order granting the motion in part and denying the motion in part. Specifically, the Court dismissed plaintiffs' claims based on the federal securities laws and the Washington Consumer Protection Act; however, the Court denied the motion as to plaintiffs' state law claims for fraud and negligent misrepresentation. The Court granted plaintiffs 20 days leave to amend on the dismissed claims. On February 17, 2014, plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint. Defendants moved to dismiss that complaint on March 24, 2014, and briefing on the motion was scheduled to be completed by May 14, 2014. The Bolling plaintiffs seek unspecified damages. DYNAMIC CORPORATE: Sued Over Breach of Fair Labor Standards Act --------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Calderon, on behalf of himself and all others similarly- situated v. Dynamic Corporate Holdings, Inc. D/B/A AT&T Product Center, and Front Page Inc., and Butler Realty Corp., and Rockville Centre wireless Inc., and Riverhead Wireless Corp., and Long Beach Wireless,Inc., and Bay Shore Wireless, Inc., and Mark Butler, and Tony Saracini, and Mitchell Penn, and John Cruz, each in their professional and Individual Capacities, Case No. 2:14-cv- 03093 (E.D.N.Y., May 16, 2014), seeks to recover damages and equitable relief based upon the flagrant and willful violations of the Plaintiff's rights guaranteed to him, and all others similarly situated pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act. Front Page Inc., is a domestic business corporation organized under the laws of the State of New York that maintains its principal executive office at 1925 Bellmore Avenue, Bellmore, New York 11710-5639. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander T. Coleman, Esq. Michael J. Borrelli, Esq. Kelly Anne Magnuson, Esq. BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES PLLC 1010 Northern Blvd, Suite 328 Great Neck, NY 11201 Telephone: (516) 248-5550 Facsimile: (516) 248-6027 E-mail: atc@employmentlawyernewyork.com mjb@employmentlawyernewyork.com kam@employmentlawyernewyork.com FLORIDA REGIONAL MEDICAL: "Green" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation ------------------------------------------------------------- Lawrence Green, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated, v. North Florida Regional Medical Center, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv- 00090 (N.D. Fla., May 13, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C. Sections 201, et seq., by failing to pay the Plaintiff minimum and overtime compensation. North Florida Regional Medical Center, Inc., is a Florida corporation that operates a hospital in Alachua County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew William Birk, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW BIRK 309 NE 1ST ST GAINESVILLE, FL 32601 Telephone: (352) 244-2069 Facsimile: (352) 372-3464 E-mail: mbirk@gainesvilleemploymentlaw.com FORD MOTOR: May Tax Suit Costs Among Plaintiffs, Court Says ----------------------------------------------------------- Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that Ford Motor Company, having prevailed in a 15-year-long class- action suit by truck dealerships, may tax litigation costs jointly and severally against the plaintiffs, a federal judge says. The May 29 ruling may mark the end of Bayshore Ford Truck Sales v. Ford Motor Co., a litigation saga that began in 1999 when 74 dealers claimed Ford violated a contract to supply them company products when it exited the heavy truck business two years earlier. U.S. District Judge Jose Linares granted the plaintiffs summary judgment in 2005 and certified the class in 2006. In a damages trial of 11 bellwether cases in June 2012, a jury awarded $29 million. But in September 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed the judgment and the damages award, finding Ford's continuing sale of spare parts fulfilled its obligations under the Ford Heavy Truck Sales and Service Agreement that each dealer signed. On remand, Judge Linares dismissed the breach-of-contract claims. That ruling is the subject of two separate appeals pending at the Third Circuit, one by the 11 plaintiffs who participated in the trial and another by the 63 who did not. In October 2013, Ford moved for $393,953 in costs as a prevailing party under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d). The total was reduced to $327,987. Of that, $213,756 was for a supersedeas bond that Ford purchased to allow it to pursue its appeal without paying the underlying judgment from the jury trial. The plaintiffs argued that imposing joint and several liability would distribute the costs unevenly. But Judge Linares said it would be unfair for Ford to have to collect costs from 74 parties individually. The plaintiffs failed to show it would be difficult to coordinate dividing the costs among themselves, he said. Judge Linares also rejected the plaintiffs' argument that they should not bear the cost of the bond because they were willing to waive its posting. The taxing of the bond cost is allowed under local court rules, Judge Linares said, and he called "disingenuous" the plaintiffs' claim that they would waive posting, noting they never objected to the bond or indicated their willingness to waive it. The plaintiffs further argued that the taxation of costs should be deferred while the Third Circuit appeals are pending. But Judge Linares said the pending appeal only addresses the application of the court's mandate and therefore the taxation of costs is not premature. Judge Linares, in granting costs other than attorney's fees, affirmed a March 28 decision by Deputy Court Clerk John O'Brien, who reduced the total by $65,966. Among those knocked out were costs for digital preparation of clips from videotaped depositions for showing at trial, and preparation of visual aids to present at trial. The court called the digital video expenditure "glitz" and "an effort to wow" the jury. The $10,137 bill for that service was disallowed, as was all but $450 of a $48,522 bill for preparation of visual aids, which was deemed the work of an expert or consultant and thus not subject to taxation. Plaintiff lawyer Eric Chase -- echase@bressler.com -- of Bressler, Amery & Ross in Florham Park, declined to comment on the ruling, as did Erica Songer of Hogan Lovells -- erica.songer@hoganlovells.com -- in Washington, D.C., representing Ford. GEISHA ASIAN: Sued Over Failure Pay Minimum and Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Gabriel Facundo, Teofilo Maldonado, and Rufino Pablo Caballero, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. Geisha Asian Cuisine, Inc., Sing Luck Garden, and Sandra Xiu Xia Zheng, Case No. 1:14-cv-03528 (S.D.N.Y., May 16, 2014), seeks to recover from the Defendants, unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs. Geisha Asian Cuisine, Inc., is a domestic business corporation of the State of New York, with a principal place of business at 3468 Broadway, New York, New York 10031. The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter Hans Cooper, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER, P.L.L.C. 708 Third Avenue, 6th Flr New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 209-3933 Facsimile: (212) 209-7102 E-mail: pcooper@jcpclaw.com GENCOR NUTRIENTS: Falsely Marketed Testofen Products, Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Brian O'Toole, Robert Sokolove, and Michael Bitton, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Gencor Nutrients, INC., Case No. 2:14-cv-03754 (C.D. Cal., May 15, 2014), arises from the alleged false advertising and marketing of Testofen or nutritional supplements containing Testofen, an extract of the herb fenugreek as "testosterone boosters," representing that Testofen has been "clinically proven" to increase free testosterone levels. Gencor Nutrients, Inc., is a California corporation having its principal place of business in Orange County, California. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Barry R. Himmelstein, Esq. HIMMELSTEIN LAW NETWORK 2000 Powell Street Suite 1605 Emeryville, CA 94608-1861 Telephone: (510) 450-0782 Facsimile: (510) 380-6147 E-mail: barry@himmellaw.com GENE BY GENE: Has Invaded Class Members' Privacy, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------- Michael Cole, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Gene by Gene, LTD, a Texas limited liability company d/b/a Family Tree DNA, Case No. 1:14-cv-00004 (D. Alaska, May 13, 2014), seeks to put an end to the Defendant's alleged unlawful disclosure of the Plaintiff's and the Class' highly sensitive genetic information in its public website without the Plaintiff's and the Class' consent. Gene by Gene, LTD, is a State of Texas limited liability company located at 1445 North Loop West, Suite 820, Houston, Texas 77008. The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas K. Mertz, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DOUGLAS K. MERTZ 319 Seward Street, Suite 5 Juneau, AK 99801 Telephone: (907) 586-4004 Facsimile: (907) 586-4141 E-mail: dkmertz@ak.net GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Duarte" Suit in Fla. Over Vehicle Defects ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ruth Duarte, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. General Motors LLC, Delphi Automotive PLC, and Delphi Automotive Systems, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-21815 (S.D. Fla., May 16, 2014), arises from the Defendants' failure to disclose and active concealment of a defect in certain GM vehicles that renders them unsafe to drive and has killed at least 13 innocent victims and possibly hundreds more. General Motors LLC is a limited liability company formed under the laws of Delaware with its principal place of business in Michigan. The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam M. Moskowitz, Esq. Harley Shepard Tropin, Esq. Robert J. Neary, Esq. Thomas A. Tucker Ronzetti, Esq. Tal J. Lifshitz, Esq. KOZYAK TROPIN & THROCKMORTON 2525 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 900 Coral Gables, FL 33134-6036 Telephone: (305) 372-1800 Facsimile: 372-3508 E-mail: AMM@kttlaw.com hst@kttlaw.com rn@kttlaw.com TR@kttlaw.com tjl@kttlaw.com GENERAL MOTORS: Recall Probe to Clear Senior Management of Blame ---------------------------------------------------------------- Supriya Kurane, Ankush Sharma and Peter Henderson, writing for Reuters, report that an internal probe of General Motors Co's GM.N delay in recalling cars with defective ignition switches linked to at least 13 deaths is expected to conclude there was no concerted coverup and clear senior management of blame. The probe is expected to conclude that CEO Mary Barra, executives who reported directly to her, the board of directors and former CEO Dan Akerson did not know about the defective switches before December 2013, The Wall Street Journal said, citing people familiar with the matter. The report will conclude that GM managers did not make connections and act on evidence of problems linked to deadly accidents, and it will recommend changes to GM culture and management, the Journal said. GM is expected to announce the dismissal of "a number of people," including the engineer who designed the ignition switch, Raymond DeGiorgio, and some members of the company's legal department, the newspaper said. But GM's general counsel, Michael Millikin, who was co-lead of the internal probe with former U.S. prosecutor Anton Valukas, is expected to continue to work for the automaker and is cleared of responsibility for the mishandling of defects and the recall delay, the people told the newspaper. Ms. Barra was expected to announce the findings of the internal probe on June 5. The No.1 U.S. automaker has recalled 2.6 million cars because of the switches, which GM engineers have known about for more than a decade. In the wake of the internal report, the GM board is expected to form an operational risk-management committee, the Journal said. GM spokesman Greg Martin did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment. GM faces investigations by Congress, the Justice Department, the Securities and Exchange Commission and several states. It has also been sued by families of crash victims and investors, all of whom are likely to pour over GM's report for evidence to back their claims. On May 16, GM was fined $35 million for its delayed response to the defect, the maximum that can be imposed by the U.S. Department of Transportation. The faulty switches are in older, inexpensive models such as the Saturn Ion and Chevrolet Cobalt. GM began recalling the cars in February. The defective switches, which are cheap to fix, can unexpectedly turn from the "on" position to the "accessory" position, causing engines to stall, airbags to fail during crashes and power steering and power brakes to malfunction. While the carmaker has acknowledged 13 deaths related to the ignition switches, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has said the number likely could be higher. Reuters reported on June 2 that at least 74 people have died in crashes similar to those GM has linked to the faulty switches, based on an analysis of government data. The largest U.S. automaker has made several changes to its organizational structure since the recall, saying it would improve vehicle quality and safety. The company also has announced the exit of several executives in moves it said were unrelated. In addition to naming a global vehicle safety chief in March to improve the process for catching defects and calling for recalls sooner, GM split its engineering division into two units the following month and assigned one of its top attorneys to advise the new safety chief on legal issues. Mr. Valukas, co-lead of the probe, is well respected for his investigation of Lehman Brothers after the financial services firm collapsed in 2008. He alleged then that Lehman used accounting gimmicks and had been insolvent for weeks before it filed for bankruptcy. But the law firm of which he is chairman, Jenner & Block, has worked with GM since 2002, and at least two of the automaker's former top attorneys, Robert Osborne and Elmer Johnson, were partners at the Chicago law firm. That led to questions of conflict of interest for the law firm, when the probe was announced in March. GM at the time said there was no such issue and that Mr. Valukas had been charged to go "where the facts take him." GENERAL MOTORS: Wants to Fight Ignition Switch Suits in New York ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bloomberg News reports that General Motors Co. wants to return to a New York courtroom to fight at least 90 ignition-switch defect lawsuits while some car owners are driving for the cases to be heard by a California judge seasoned in auto litigation. A panel of federal judges was set to decide at a meeting on May 29. Their ruling, which could come within a week, will be the first significant step in resolving whether GM is liable for the switch defect and owes billions of dollars in damages to the owners of Chevrolet Cobalts and other cars. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation will also select the judge who will handle the combined cases. Many car owners want the case handled by the judge overseeing sudden-acceleration lawsuits against Toyota Motor Corp. while GM prefers Manhattan, where a bankruptcy judge approved its reorganization. The decision on "venue can have an impact, and not just because it could go to a particular judge," said Alan Rothman, a product- liability lawyer at Kaye Scholer LLP in New York who isn't involved in the litigation. "It will impact which circuit's law will apply," he said, referring to different rules that apply in different regions. GM was sued after it began recalling 2.59 million Cobalts, Saturn Ions and other small cars in February. The company said heavy key rings or jarring can cause the ignition switch in some cars to slip out of the "on" position, cutting off power and deactivating air bags. The company has linked to the defect to at least 13 deaths. U.S. probes GM has agreed to pay a record $35 million fine as part of the U.S. Transportation Department's investigation into how the company handled the recall, which is the subject of probes by Congress and the Justice Department. Car owners who sued claim GM knew of the defect for at least a decade and failed to correct it. They seek group status on behalf of all owners of defective cars and want to recover their vehicles' lost value. Bob Hilliard, a plaintiffs' lawyer, has said he seeks to recover $6 billion to $10 billion. GM was sued in federal courts across the U.S., with at least 27 cases now pending in California alone. As is typical, the multidistrict panel will decide whether to group the cases as one and send them to a particular court and judge as a way to streamline the litigation. State-court cases and those alleging wrongful death won't be included. Several plaintiffs' lawyers say the cases should be consolidated before U.S. District Judge James Selna in Santa Ana, Calif., about 30 miles south of Los Angeles. Judge Selna presides over pending suits on behalf of 16 million owners of Toyota vehicles subject to sudden and unintended acceleration. Speed, efficiency Steve Berman, a lawyer for some plaintiffs, said in a March court filing that Judge Selna is well-versed in auto litigation and knows how to handle the pre-trial disputes that inevitably arise over depositions and the exchange of evidence. "Speed and efficiency are paramount," wrote Mr. Berman, an attorney with Seattle's Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. The focus "of the ignition-switch actions is the fraud perpetrated on the plaintiffs." Other plaintiffs want the cases to be heard in Chicago, Miami or Corpus Christi, Texas, where they have sued. GM wants the cases consolidated in the federal court in Manhattan, about a mile from where a prior incarnation of the company filed for bankruptcy in 2009. Company lawyers say proximity to the bankruptcy court trumps Judge Selna's experience. The New York court "is in the best position to coordinate with the bankruptcy proceedings in that district," GM's lawyer, Andrew Bloomer of Chicago-based Kirkland & Ellis LLP, said in an April 25 filing with the panel. Shed liability That's especially so because GM will argue as part of its defense that a June 2009 bankruptcy court order, approving the sale of assets belonging to the now-defunct General Motors Corp. to a new and similarly named entity, allowed it to shed legal liability for most economic-loss claims arising from the ignition defect. "Those types of claims were never assumed by New GM," Bloomer wrote. GM's second choice for a court location is Detroit. James Cain, a GM spokesman, said the company's court filings speak for themselves and declined to comment further. Separately, GM has asked U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Robert Gerber in Manhattan to issue an order affirming that most economic loss claims can't be pursued now. Customers, creditors On May 16, Judge Gerber ordered the plaintiffs and the carmaker to file briefs on whether old GM broke rules by not treating customers with defective cars as creditors when it filed for bankruptcy and whether that company hid evidence of the defect. The multidistrict panel will consider which judges are most familiar with automobile cases and which courts have capacity to take on a large litigation, Mr. Rothman said. The panel will also weigh whether a certain location is most convenient for lawyers and their clients. "The panel is not bound to transfer to a district where any case is pending," he said. Rulings on where the case will be tried are sometimes "the most intriguing and least predictable" decision the panel makes, he said. GENERAL MOTORS: Number of Ignition-Linked Crashes Reaches 47 ------------------------------------------------------------ Chris Isidore, Chris Kokenes and Rene Marsh, writing for CNNMoney, report that more crashes are now being attributed to faulty ignitions in General Motors vehicles. GM has raised the number of frontal-impact crashes linked to the problem ignitions to 47 from 32, according to company spokesman Greg Martin. Because of the flawed ignition, key rings holding more than one key could cause the ignition to suddenly switch to the accessory or off position. That can lead to a loss of power -- disabling power braking and steering and interrupting airbags from deploying in an accident. GM says the number of deaths tied to front impact crashes stemming from this defect remains at 13. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration chided the automaker for the way it handled the recall and said that the number of deaths tied to the problem was likely higher. "GM knew about the safety defect, but did not act to protect Americans from that defect until this year. The families and friends of those lost in the crashes have the deepest sympathies of everyone at NHTSA. They deserve straight answers about what happened to their loved ones," NHTSA said in a statement. "The final death toll associated with this safety defect is not known to NHTSA, but we believe it's likely that more than 13 lives were lost," NHTSA said. GM spokesman Jim Cain said the automaker was aware of the NHTSA statement and that "if necessary we will adjust the number." GM has come under fire for the way it handled the flawed ignition switch. Company employees knew about the defect for more than a decade before a recall was initiated in February 2014. So far, the automaker has recalled 2.6 million cars worldwide due to the ignition switch. CEO Mary Barra has revamped how GM handles safety issues. A new unit charged with quickly uncovering safety defects has begun to aggressively issue recall notices for problems beyond the ignition switch. The company has initiated 30 separate recalls covering 13.8 million U.S. cars and trucks, and 15.8 million vehicles worldwide, in 2014. That's more cars and trucks than GM sold in the five years since emerging from bankruptcy protection in 2009. So far GM has agreed to pay the maximum fine of $35 million to NHTSA for the delay in the ignition recall. And it will be subject to closer oversight by the regulator. The Justice Department is also considering whether to bring criminal charges against the automaker. A similar probe over Toyota's 2009 and 2010 unintended acceleration recalls led to a $1.2 billion fine earlier this year. The company estimates it will cost $1.7 billion to repair the cars recalled so far in 2014. That expense essentially erased the profit the company would have reported in the first quarter. GM shares are down 18% this year, lagging behind rivals Toyota and Ford Motor. GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: States to Get $105MM in Drug Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------ The Associated Press reports that GlaxoSmithKline PLC will pay $105 million to dozens of states to settle allegations that it unlawfully marketed its asthma drug Advair and the antidepressants Paxil and Wellbutrin. Under the settlement announced on June 4, the London-based pharmaceutical also agreed to rules that bar it from paying doctors to promote its products; providing financial incentives that encourage salespeople to market drugs for unapproved uses; marketing drugs using results from inadequate studies or making unapproved claims that a product was "better, more effective, safer or has less serious side effects," according to a statement from California Attorney General Kamala D. Harris. California was among states whose attorneys general filed identical lawsuits in local courts. It will receive more than $7 million -- the largest single portion of the settlement -- after the deal is approved in San Diego County Superior Court. The state lawsuits claimed that GlaxoSmithKline violated state consumer protection laws by misrepresenting the uses and qualities of the drugs and marketing them for purposes unapproved by the Food and Drug Administration -- a practice called off-label marketing. GlaxoSmithKline did not acknowledge any wrongdoing under the settlement, which is similar to one reached with the federal government in 2012 for a record $3 billion. Its marketing practices also are under investigation in Britain, China and several other countries. Nearly every big drugmaker has been prosecuted for off-label marketing and agreed to settlements with the government. Last year, Pfizer Inc. agreed to pay nearly $491 million to resolve an investigation into off-label marketing of the organ transplant drug Rapamune by a company Pfizer later acquired. The GlaxoSmithKline settlement covers 44 states and the District of Columbia. It doesn't include Alaska, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Hampshire, South Carolina or West Virginia, although Louisiana previously settled its own suit. GlaxoSmithKline said it already has put reforms in place. Four years ago, GlaxoSmithKline committed to "stopping payments to doctors to speak about our products, stopping payments to doctors to attend medical conferences and cutting the tie linking the pay of our sales representatives who call on prescribers in the U.S. to the number of prescriptions issued," the company said in a statement. It said it was also rolling out such changes outside the U.S. GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: California to Get $7-Mil. From Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that California will receive a $7 million chunk of a multistate settlement with drug manufacturer GlaxoSmithKline PLC over its marketing of medications for asthma and depression. The California Office of the Attorney General accused the company of promoting the drugs for off-label uses not approved by the Food and Drug Administration. In exchange for being released from those claims, GSK has agreed to pay a $105 million settlement to be divided up among California, 43 other states with a stake in the case, and the District of Columbia. The California complaint and the state's settlement with GSK were both filed on June 4 in San Diego County Superior Court, and California received the largest share of the payout, according to the attorney general's office. "Patient care is undermined when pharmaceutical companies promote uses for drugs that have not been approved by the FDA or pay medical professionals to promote certain drugs," Attorney General Kamala Harris said in a press release. GSK, which has not admitted any wrongdoing, was represented in the deal by Covington & Burling partners Matthew O'Connor in Washington, D.C., and Emily Johnson Henn in Redwood Shores. The settlement prohibits GSK from making false claims about its products and from providing sample drugs to doctors who are expected to prescribe them for off-label uses. It requires the company to report research in an accurate and objective manner. The drug company is barred from providing incentive pay to its sales and marketing employees based on their sales volume. "GSK is the first pharmaceutical company to commit to fundamental reforms to our business model in the U.S. and around the world by stopping payments to doctors to speak about our products, stopping payments to doctors to attend medical conferences and cutting the tie linking the pay of our sales representatives who call on prescribers in the U.S. to the number of prescriptions issued," spokeswoman Mary Anne Rhyne said in an email. The attorney general's office accused GSK of misleading asthma patients who used the inhaled drug Advair. The FDA approved the drug in 2000 for patients with severe asthma whose symptoms were not controlled by other medications. But in 2010 added the warning that Advair is linked to an increased risk of death and should not be used unless necessary. "From the time of Advair's launch in 2000 until the 2010 label changes, GSK used false and misleading representations to promote Advair as a first line treatment for all asthma patients, including mild asthma patients," according to the complaint. The drug company also provided financial incentives to its sales representatives encouraging them to falsely represent the drug to health-care professionals as a treatment for mild asthma, the attorney general's office alleges. GSK marketed antidepressants Paxil and Wellbutrin to patients under the age of 18, even though the medications only had been approved to treat adult patients, according to the complaint. The attorney general's office alleges GSK also marketed Wellbutrin for off-label uses, such as treatment of sexual dysfunction, anxiety, addictions, bipolar disorder and obesity. The company paid health-care professionals to attend lavish meetings in Jamaica and Bermuda, where GSK provided information about using Wellbutrin to treat such ailments, according to the complaint. The June 4 settlement echoes a 2012 settlement the company reached with the U.S. Department of Justice. In that case, GSK agreed to plead guilty and pay $3 billion to resolve civil false claims charges and criminal charges of introducing misbranded drugs and failing to report drug safety data to the FDA. That resolution was the largest health-care fraud settlement in U.S. history, and the largest payment ever by a drug company, according to the Justice Department. GOOD STEER: Faces "Herrera" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- Henry Herrera, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. The Good Steer Drive-in Inc. d/b/a The Good Steer and Robert L. McCarroll, Case No. 2:14-cv-03094 (E.D.N.Y., May 16, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act. The Good Steer Drive-in Inc. is a domestic business corporation of the State of New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter Arcadio Romero, Esq. Andrea Rodriguez, Esq. FRANK & ASSOCIATES P.C. 500 Bi-county Blvd, 112n Farmingdale, NY 11735 Telephone: (631) 756-0400 Facsimile: (631) 756-0547 E-mail: promero@laborlaws.com atarazi@laborlaws.com JAMBOX INC: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages and Damages ---------------------------------------------------------- Dana Taylor Garcia, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Jambox, INC. d/b/a Jambox Entertainment, Leroi Evans, and Cathy Palmisano, Case No. 1:14-cv-03504 (S.D.N.Y., May 15, 2014), seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid minimum wages, unpaid straight time wages, unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act. Jambox, Inc., is a domestic business corporation organized under the laws of the State of New York, with a principal place of business at 352 Seventh Avenue, New York, New York 10001. The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Cilenti, Esq. Peter Hans Cooper, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC 708 Third Avenue 6th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 209-3933 Facsimile: (212) 209-7102 E-mail: pcooper@jcpclaw.com KALCO LAUNDRY: Sued for Failing to Pay Overtime & Minimum Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Leida Campos, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. Kalco Laundry, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-03491 (N.D. Ill., May 13, 2014), arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 201, et seq., and Illinois Minimum Wage Law, 820 ILCS 105/1 et seq., for the Defendants' failure to pay the federal and state mandated minimum wages and overtime wages to the Plaintiff and similarly situated employees. Kalco Laundry, Inc., is an enterprise doing business in the judicial district of Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: Carlos Gerardo Becerra, Esq. BECERRA LAW GROUP, LLC 332 S. Michigan, Suite 1020 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone :(312) 957-9005 Facsimile: (773) 890-7780 E-mail: cbecerra@law-rb.com KANGADIS FOOD: Files for Bankruptcy Due to Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------- Privately held Kangadis Food Inc. has sought bankruptcy protection after costs defending itself in a class action suit related to the alleged misbranding of its Capitriti olive oil product hurt its liquidity. Themistoklis Kangadis, the CEO and president, says that although the Debtor's business remains profitable, a class action lawsuit commenced against the Debtor in April 2013, has forced the Debtor to incur more than $1.4 million in litigation defense costs over the past 16 months. Indeed, the Debtor projects that if the class action proceeds to trial, the Debtor will incur $750,000, or more, in additional litigation costs in 2014. In the class action, District Court Judge Rakoff entered an order certifying the class, but has not made a finding of liability or damages. Judge Rakoff has scheduled a jury trial to begin Sept. 3, 2014, which may last up to two weeks. The ability of the Debtor to operate its business will be severely hampered if it funds the litigation costs necessary to prepare for and conduct a two-week jury trial. But for these litigation costs, the Debtor's operations are profitable. The Class Suit On April 8, 2013, Joseph Ebin and Yeruchum Jenkins commenced a class action against the Debtor in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York titled Joseph Ebin, Yeruchum Jenkins, et al. v. Kangadis Food Inc., d/b/a The Gourmet Factory, Index No. 1:13-cv-02311 (JSR), asserting causes of action for fraud and breach of warranty under both New York and New Jersey law relating to the Debtor's alleged misbranding and sale of "olive-pomace oil" as "olive oil." Notably, the class action relates only to the Debtor's "Capitriti" brand of oil. Judge Rakoff certified the Class Action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, over the Debtor's objection. On Dec. 11, 2013, Judge Rakoff issued an order granting class certification, and on Feb. 25, 2014, issued a memorandum opinion setting forth the reasons for that ruling, and a separate memorandum order denying the Debtor's motion for summary judgment. Among other things, Judge Rakoff found that there are triable issues of fact relating to whether olivepomace oil is "olive oil." Judge Rakoff also determined that the burden of proof for damages rests with the Debtor. Therefore, the issues remaining before the District Court are: (i) whether the Debtor is liable; (ii) if so, the amount of damages, if any; and (iii) identification of the individuals entitled to damages. Judge Rakoff did express some concern about the plaintiffs' ability to identify class members by referring to objective criteria. This is known as the "implied requirement of ascertainability." (citing Weiner v. Snapple Beverage Corp., 2010 WL 3119452 at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 5, 2010)). Indeed, Judge Rakoff acknowledged that class members will not have receipts or remember details as to their purchases of the Debtor's Capatriti oil. Accordingly, any declaration those class members might sign with respect to their purchase of the Debtor's products would be unreliable. The Debtor and its attorneys in the class action, Fox Rothschild LLP, estimate that it will cost approximately $750,000 to complete the jury trial of the class action litigation, in addition to the approximately $1.4 million already incurred. The trial is scheduled to begin Sept. 3, 2014. The Debtor filed the Chapter 11 case to enable the Bankruptcy Court to expeditiously estimate the Class Action claim, which will enable the Debtor to preserve its business and pay its creditors. Estimation Motion The Debtor has filed with the bankruptcy court a motion seeking to estimate the class action claim under Section 502(c) of the Bankruptcy Code. The Debtor wants the claims estimated at $0 given the strength of its defenses. Mr. Kangadis says it is essential that the Class Action claim be estimated for both confirmation and distribution purposes, so that the Debtor can promptly confirm a plan of reorganization in this case. Except for the disputed class action claim and the claim of the debtor's class action counsel, the Debtor only owes approximately $500,000 to unsecured creditors. Thus, the Debtor is confident that, without the expense and disruption caused by the Class Action, the Debtor can promptly confirm a plan in this case. Mr. Kangadis expects that a chapter 11 plan will be filed by the Debtor in the next two weeks. For the calendar year ending Dec. 31, 2014, the Debtor projects that it will be profitable if it is not required to continue to pay for legal fees and related expenses with respect to the class action. About Kangadis Food Formed in 2003, Kangadis Food Inc. is an importer of olives and other European delicacies, and a leading distributor of olive oil. The Debtor sells its products under the brand names "Capatriti," "Porto," "Olio Villa," "Zorba," and "Kivotos". The company is 100% owned by the Kangadis family. The company says that for the past six years, the popularity of its olive oil product sold under the brand name "Capatriti" has grown over time, and it is one of the leading brands in the New York metropolitan area. As of its bankruptcy filing, Kangadis Food employs 51 people, and operates from a 75,000 square foot facility located in Hauppauge, New York, that serves as a warehouse, production facility, and shipping center. As of the Dec. 31, 2013, the Debtor, on an unaudited basis, had total assets of $12,259,802 and total liabilities of $6,136,456, which amount does not include any disputed claim relating to the class action. As of the Petition Date, the Debtor owes $3.5 million on a line of credit with Citibank, N.A. Judge Robert E. Grossman is assigned to the case. The Debtor has tapped Gerard R Luckman, Esq., and Adam L Rosen, Esq., at Silverman Acampora LLP, in Jericho, New York, as counsel. LEGACY NURSING: Sued for Failing to Pay OT Wages Pursuant to FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------------- Rhonda Jeffers and Cassondra Phillips, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Legacy Nursing Services, LLC and Tracy Sandoval-Jones, Case No. 3:14-cv-00197 (E.D. Tenn., May 15, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Legacy Nursing Services, LLC, is a New Mexico limited liability company that does business in Tennessee. Its principal office is in New Mexico. Its registered agent for service of process is Tracy Sandoval-Jones, 617 North 1st Street, Grants, New Mexico, 87020. It provides home healthcare services to its clients, including nursing care and assistance with cooking, cleaning, personal care, transportation, and medications, in the East Tennessee area and in other states. The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Scott Jackson, Jr., Esq. R. SCOTT JACKSON, ATTORNEY AT LAW 4525 Harding Road, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37205 Telephone: (615) 313-8188 Facsimile: (615) 313-8702 E-mail: rsjackson@rsjacksonlaw.com LHC GROUP: Louisiana Shareholder Litigation in Discovery Stage -------------------------------------------------------------- The parties in the suit City of Omaha Police & Fire Retirement System v. LHC Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 6:12-cv-01609-JTT-CMH are presently conducting fact discovery, according to the company's May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. On June 13, 2012, a putative shareholder securities class action was filed against the Company and its Chairman and Chief Executive Officer in the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, styled City of Omaha Police & Fire Retirement System v. LHC Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 6:12-cv- 01609-JTT-CMH. The action was filed on behalf of LHC shareholders who purchased shares of the Company's common stock between July 30, 2008 and October 26, 2011. Plaintiff generally alleges that the defendants caused false and misleading statements to be issued in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, amended ("the Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and that the Company's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer is a control person under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. On November 2, 2012, Lead Plaintiff City of Omaha Police & Fire Retirement System filed an Amended Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws ("the Amended Complaint") on behalf of the same putative class of LHC shareholders as the original Complaint. In addition to claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, the Amended Complaint added a claim against the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer for violation of Section 20A of the Exchange Act. The Company believes these claims are without merit and intends to defend this lawsuit vigorously. On December 17, 2012, the Company and the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint, which was denied by Order dated March 15, 2013. The parties are presently conducting fact discovery. MASTEC SERVICES: Faces "Cisneros" Suit Over FLSA Violation ---------------------------------------------------------- Pablo Cisneros and Bernardo Vega, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly-situated v. Mastec Services Company, Inc., and Jose Mas, Jeff Muoio, Jay Caroll, Dimas Medeiros, John Shaw, Douglas Carter, and Brendan Dowling, each in their individual and professional capacities, Case No. 1:14-cv-03109 (E.D.N.Y., May 16, 2014), seeks to recover damages and equitable relief based upon the flagrant and willful violations of the Plaintiffs rights guaranteed to him, and all others similarly situated pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act. Mastec Services Company, Inc. is a Florida corporation with its headquarters located in Coral Gables, Florida, and is registered to receive process within New York State at Corporate Creations Network, Inc., 15 North Mill Street, Nyack, New York, 10960. The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter John Andrews, Esq. BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 1010 Northern Blvd, Ste 328 Great Neck, NY 11021 Telephone: (516) 248-5550 Facsimile: (516) 248-6027 E-mail: pja@employmentlawyernewyork.com METLIFE INC: Still Faces Suit by Retirement System in New York -------------------------------------------------------------- The suit City of Westland Police and Fire Retirement System v. MetLife, Inc., et al., filed January 12, 2012, continues in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, according to the company's May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. Seeking to represent a class of persons who purchased MetLife, Inc. common shares between February 2, 2010, and October 6, 2011, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint alleging that MetLife, Inc. and several current and former executive officers of MetLife, Inc. violated the Securities Act of 1933, as well as the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by issuing, or causing MetLife, Inc. to issue, materially false and misleading statements concerning MetLife, Inc.'s potential liability for millions of dollars in insurance benefits that should have been paid to beneficiaries or escheated to the states. Plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. The defendants intend to defend this action vigorously. METLIFE INC: Remand of Ala. Securities Lawsuit Faces Objection -------------------------------------------------------------- The magistrate judge handling the suit City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief System v. MetLife, Inc., et al. recommended granting a motion to remand the case to state court and the defendants have objected to that recommendation, according to the company's May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. The suit pending in the N.D. Alabama was filed in state court on July 5, 2012 and removed to federal court on August 3, 2012. Seeking to represent a class of persons who purchased MetLife, Inc. common equity units in or traceable to a public offering in March 2011, the plaintiff filed an action alleging that MetLife, Inc., certain current and former directors and executive officers of MetLife, Inc., and various underwriters violated several provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 related to the filing of the registration statement by issuing, or causing MetLife, Inc. to issue, materially false and misleading statements and/or omissions concerning MetLife, Inc.'s potential liability for millions of dollars in insurance benefits that should have been paid to beneficiaries or escheated to the states. Plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. Defendants removed this action to federal court, and plaintiff has moved to remand the action to state court. The magistrate judge recommended granting the motion to remand to state court and the defendants have objected to that recommendation. METLIFE INC: Summary Judgment to MLIC in TCA Lawsuit Appealed ------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs have appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the grant of summary judgment to Metropolitan Life Insurance Company in a consolidated suit over the use of the Total Control Accounts (TCA) to pay life insurance benefits, according to MetLife Inc.'s May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. Keife, et al. v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (D. Nev., filed in state court on July 30, 2010 and removed to federal court on September 7, 2010); and Simon v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (D. Nev., filed November 3, 2011). These putative class action lawsuits, which have been consolidated, raise breach of contract claims arising from MLIC's use of the TCA to pay life insurance benefits under the Federal Employees' Group Life Insurance program. On March 8, 2013, the court granted MLIC's motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs have appealed that decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. METLIFE INC: Metropolitan Life Faces "Owens" TCA Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------- A suit Owens v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on April 17, 2014, according to MetLife Inc.'s May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. This putative class action lawsuit alleges that MLIC's use of the Total Control Accounts (TCA) as the settlement option for life insurance benefits under some group life insurance policies violates MLIC's fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). As damages, plaintiff seeks disgorgement of profits that MLIC realized on accounts owned by members of the putative class. METLIFE INC: MLIC Faces Indemnity Claim by Sun Life Assurance ------------------------------------------------------------- Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada is seeking indemnity claim from Metropolitan Life Insurance Company for some or all of the sales practices claims regarding individual policies sold by MLIC and transferred to Sun Life, according to MetLife Inc.'s May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. In 2006, Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada ("Sun Life"), as successor to the purchaser of MLIC's Canadian operations, filed a lawsuit in Toronto, seeking a declaration that MLIC remains liable for "market conduct claims" related to certain individual life insurance policies sold by MLIC and that have been transferred to Sun Life. Sun Life had asked that the court require MLIC to indemnify Sun Life for these claims pursuant to indemnity provisions in the sale agreement for the sale of MLIC's Canadian operations entered into in June of 1998. In January 2010, the court found that Sun Life had given timely notice of its claim for indemnification but, because it found that Sun Life had not yet incurred an indemnifiable loss, granted MLIC's motion for summary judgment. Both parties appealed but subsequently agreed to withdraw the appeal and consider the indemnity claim through arbitration. In September 2010, Sun Life notified MLIC that a purported class action lawsuit was filed against Sun Life in Toronto, Fehr v. Sun Life Assurance Co. (Super. Ct., Ontario, September 2010), alleging sales practices claims regarding the same individual policies sold by MLIC and transferred to Sun Life. An amended class action complaint in that case was served on Sun Life in May 2013, again without naming MLIC as a party. On August 30, 2011, Sun Life notified MLIC that a purported class action lawsuit was filed against Sun Life in Vancouver, Alamwala v. Sun Life Assurance Co. (Sup. Ct., British Columbia, August 2011), alleging sales practices claims regarding certain of the same policies sold by MLIC and transferred to Sun Life. Sun Life contends that MLIC is obligated to indemnify Sun Life for some or all of the claims in these lawsuits. These sales practices cases against Sun Life are ongoing, and the Company is unable to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss arising from this litigation. METLIFE INC: Trial in "C-Mart," "Cadenasso" Lawsuits Set in Aug. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Trial is set for August 2014 in the cases C-Mart, Inc. v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., et al. (S.D. Fla., January 10, 2013) and Cadenasso v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., et al. (N.D. Cal., November 26, 2013, subsequently transferred to S.D. Fla.), according to MetLife Inc.'s May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. Plaintiffs filed these lawsuits against defendants, including MLIC and a former MetLife financial services representative, alleging that the defendants sent unsolicited fax advertisements to plaintiff and others in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227 ("TCPA"). In the C-Mart case, the court granted plaintiff's motion to certify a class of approximately 36,000 persons in Missouri who, during the period of August 7, 2012 through September 6, 2012, were allegedly sent an unsolicited fax in violation of the TCPA. Trial is set for August 2014. In the Cadenasso case, which has been transferred to Florida and assigned to the same judge as the C-Mart case, plaintiff seeks certification of a nationwide class of persons (except for those in the C-Mart class) who were allegedly sent millions of unsolicited faxes in violation of the TCPA. Trial has also been set in Cadenasso for August 2014. In both cases, plaintiffs seek an award of statutory damages under the TCPA in the amount of $500 for each violation and to have such damages trebled. NAT'L FOOTBALL: Ex-Miami Dolphins Player Files Concussion Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that Hall of Fame quarterback Dan Marino is among the latest group of football players to file a concussion-related lawsuit against the National Football League. The 52-year-old former Miami Dolphins quarterback is one of 15 former players who filed a lawsuit in federal court in Philadelphia last week. Marino and the other 14 plaintiffs join more than 4,800 others who have alleged the NFL misled players about the long-term dangers of concussions. The NFL has denied those claims. The lawsuit doesn't specify any medical problems suffered by the plaintiffs including Marino, who retired in 1999. It seeks unspecified damages and medical monitoring. The NFL and the original group of players agreed on a $765 million settlement last August. But the settlement was rejected by a federal judge in January. NUVERRA ENVIRONMENTAL: Deposits $6.1MM to 2010 Stock Suit Fund -------------------------------------------------------------- Cash payments of $6.1 million from Nuverra Environmental Solutions, and the remaining $7.4 million from insurance proceeds, were deposited into escrow in April 2014 in relation to the settlement of In re Heckmann Corporation Securities Class Action (Case No. 1:10-cv-00378-JJF-MPT), according to Nuverra's May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. On May 21, 2010, Richard P. Gielata, an individual purporting to act on behalf of stockholders, served a class action lawsuit filed May 6, 2010 against the Company and various directors and officers in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware captioned In re Heckmann Corporation Securities Class Action (Case No. 1:10-cv-00378-JJF-MPT). On March 4, 2014, the Company reached an agreement in principle to settle this matter by entering into a Stipulation of Settlement with the plaintiffs. Under the terms of the agreement, which must be approved by the court, the Company has agreed to a cash payment of $13.5 million, a portion of which will come from remaining insurance proceeds, as well as the issuance of 0.8 million shares of its common stock. The Company has agreed to provide a floor value of $13.5 million on the equity portion of the settlement. Consequently, if the value of the 0.8 million shares issued in connection with this settlement is below $13.5 million at the time of the final court approval of the Stipulation of Settlement, the Company will be required to contribute additional shares (or cash, at its option) such that the total value of the cash and equity portions of the settlement consideration is equal to $27.0 million. Cash payments of $6.1 million from the Company, and the remaining $7.4 million from insurance proceeds, were deposited into escrow in April 2014 and the shares will be deposited into escrow when the settlement becomes effective upon final court approval. The Stipulation of Settlement remains subject to court approval and will resolve all claims asserted against the Company and individual defendants in the case. As a result of the pending settlement of this matter, the Company recorded an additional charge of $7.0 million in the quarter ended December 31, 2013, to effectively accrue for the proposed settlement. The Company could incur additional non-cash charges in future periods if the market value of the 0.8 million shares exceeds $13.5 million upon issuance. NUVERRA ENVIRONMENTAL: Continues to Face 2013 Shareholder Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Nuverra Environmental Solutions continues to face a consolidated lawsuit claiming it made certain material misstatements and/or omissions relating to operations and financial condition, according to the company's May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. In September 2013, two separate but substantially-similar putative class action lawsuits were commenced against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors alleging that the Company and the individual defendants made certain material misstatements and/or omissions relating to the Company's operations and financial condition which caused the price of its shares to fall. By order dated October 29, 2013, the two putative class actions were consolidated and a consolidated complaint has been filed. In September and October 2013, three separate but substantially-similar shareholder derivative lawsuits were commenced against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors alleging that that members of the Company's board of directors failed to prevent the issuance of certain misstatements and omissions and asserting claims for breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss these claims in February 2014. Also in October 2013, two identical shareholder derivative lawsuits were commenced against the company and certain of the Company's current officers and directors alleging breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment. By order dated January 28, 2014, these two actions were consolidated, and the plaintiffs have yet to file a consolidated complaint. PACIFIC BIOSCIENCES: Lawsuit by Opt-Out Voluntarily Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------------- The parties to an action filed by a single individual who opted out of the state court settlement of In re Pacific Biosciences of California Inc. S'holder Litig. filed a stipulation voluntarily dismissing the case with prejudice and the suit was accordingly terminated, according to the company's May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. On October 25, 2013, the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo, granted final approval of a settlement of three class action lawsuits that had been consolidated as In re Pacific Biosciences of California Inc. S'holder Litig. In addition, on February 28, 2014, the company entered into an agreement to settle the claims of the single individual who opted out of the state court settlement and to dismiss with prejudice the remaining claims asserted in the lawsuit filed in December 2011 in United States District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned Primo v. Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:11-CV-06599. Pursuant to this agreement, on March 12, 2014, the parties to the Primo action filed a stipulation voluntarily dismissing the case with prejudice. The Primo action was accordingly terminated on March 17, 2014. PELLA CORP: Judge Says Class Action Settlement "Scandalous" ----------------------------------------------------------- Lisa Hoffman, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that a class action settlement before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit appeals panel was a "scandalous" assemblage of conflicts of interest, cozy relationships, dubious calculations, ethical wrongdoing and judicial inattention, that, in the end, amounted to a decidedly raw deal for the consumers suing Pella Corp. over alleged window defects. That was what Seventh Circuit Judge Richard Posner concluded about the proposed settlement in Eubank v. Pella Corp., an 8-year-old dispute, that Judge Posner and two fellow judges threw out on June 2. "The district court approved a class action settlement that is inequitable -- even scandalous," Judge Posner wrote on behalf of the three-judge panel, referring to U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. "Class counsel sold out the class." The tangle of problems began, according to the opinion, with the selection of dentist Leonard Saltzman as the sole named plaintiff in the suit, which claimed Pella's ProLine casement windows had a design defect that allowed water to penetrate and damage the windows' frames. The case, Judge Posner wrote, dripped impropriety and conflict of interest. The lead class counsel was Mr. Saltzman's son-in-law, Paul M. Weiss of Chicago's Complex Litigation Group, the opinion says. Mr. Saltzman's daughter, Jamie Weiss, also a lawyer, is a partner in her husband's firm. The couple are defendants in a lawsuit charging them with misappropriation of assets from their former firm, Freed & Weiss, which had served as class co-counsel in the Pella case. Illinois' attorney discipline commission has recommended Paul Weiss' suspension for 30 months for alleged sexual harassment and indecent behavior involving seven women. Judge Posner found a financial motive in the haste to reach a settlement. "Weiss may have been desperate to obtain a large attorney's fee in this case before his financial roof fell in on him," Posner wrote. Four other named plaintiffs were added to the case, joining Mr. Saltzman. But when the proposed settlement was presented to the district court, those four opposed it, while Saltzman embraced it. Paul Weiss replaced the objectors with four new plaintiffs, who supported the deal. That deal was stacked in favor of the plaintiffs' attorneys and Pella, with the class members an afterthought, Judge Posner wrote. The settlement called for the attorneys to receive $11 million up front, while the class members were to file complicated, 12-page claim forms and wait. Pella also agreed to pay immediately a $2 million advance to the lead class counsel -- money that Paul Weiss, embroiled in legal trouble, could well use, Judge Posner wrote. An estimate by the class counsel put the total available to the class members at $90 million, which U.S. District Judge James Zagel signed off on. Judge Posner did his own calculations and came up with a sum, at the very most, of $22.5 million, but more likely $8.5 million. If correct, that would mean the attorneys would pocket at least half of the class' total settlement award, or far more, he wrote. Judge Posner faulted Judge Zagel for, among other things, signing off on the settlement before the deadline for submitting claims had expired; for not kicking Saltzman and Paul Weiss off the case; for not disapproving whole sections of the proposed settlement; and for not demanding a fair and accurate accounting of the total award and its distribution. "[A]lmost every danger sign in a class action settlement that our court and other courts have warned district judges to be on the lookout for was present in this case," Judge Posner wrote. "Most were not even mentioned by the district judge and those that were received a brushoff." The panel, which included circuit judges Ann Williams and John Tinder, reversed and remanded the case, and called for Weiss, Saltzman and Complex Litigation Group to be replaced, and the four original named plaintiffs reinstated. PEOPLES BANK: Motion for Judgment in Overdraft Fees Suit Denied --------------------------------------------------------------- The North Carolina Business Court denied the motion of Peoples Bank for judgment in a suit related to its assessment and collection of overdraft fees, according to Peoples Bancorp Of North Carolina, Inc.'s May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. On April 2, 2013, the Bank received notice that a lawsuit was filed against it in the General Court of Justice, Superior Court Division, Lincoln County, North Carolina. The complaint alleges (i) breach of contract and the covenants of good faith and fair dealing by the Bank, (ii) conversion, (iii) unjust enrichment and (iv) violations of the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act in its assessment and collection of overdraft fees. It seeks the refund of overdraft fees, treble damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief. The Plaintiff seeks to have the lawsuit certified as a class action. On June 6, 2013, the Bank filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, which was heard in the North Carolina Business Court on October 1, 2013. On April 15, 2014, the North Carolina Business Court denied the Bank's motion for judgment on the pleadings. The effect of the court's ruling, which is not a determination on the merits, is to allow the case to proceed to the next stages of the legal process, including discovery and determination as to whether class certification is appropriate or not. The Bank continues to believe that the allegations in the complaint are without merit and intends to vigorously defend the lawsuit, including the request that the lawsuit be certified as a class action. PRICELINE GROUP: Still Faces Suits Over Hotel Occupancy Taxes ------------------------------------------------------------- The Priceline Group Inc. continues to face lawsuits over hotel occupancy taxes, excise taxes, sales taxes, according to the company's May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. The Company and certain third-party online travel companies ("OTCs") are currently involved in approximately forty lawsuits, including certified and putative class actions, brought by or against states, cities and counties over issues involving the payment of travel transaction taxes (e.g., hotel occupancy taxes, excise taxes, sales taxes, etc.). The Company's subsidiaries Lowestfare.com LLC and Travelweb LLC are named in some but not all of these cases. Generally, each complaint alleges, among other things, that the OTCs violated each jurisdiction's respective relevant travel transaction tax ordinance with respect to the charges and remittance of amounts to cover taxes under each law. Each complaint typically seeks compensatory damages, disgorgement, penalties available by law, attorneys' fees and other relief. In addition, approximately seventy-nine municipalities or counties, and at least eleven states, have initiated audit proceedings (including proceedings initiated by more than forty municipalities in California, which have been inactive for several years), issued proposed tax assessments or started inquiries relating to the payment of travel transaction taxes. Additional state and local jurisdictions are likely to assert that the Company is subject to travel transaction taxes and could seek to collect such taxes, retroactively and/or prospectively. PRICELINE GROUP: Pays $0.6MM to Hawaii After Tax Ruling ------------------------------------------------------- During the three months ended March 31, 2014, The Priceline Group Inc. paid approximately $0.6 million under protest to the State of Hawaii related to a ruling on local hotel occupancy tax, according to the company's May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. In January 2013, the Tax Appeal Court for the State of Hawaii held that the Company and other OTCs are not liable for the State's transient accommodations tax, but held that the OTCs, including the Company, are liable for the State's general excise tax on the full amount the OTC collects from the customer for a hotel room reservation, without any offset for amounts passed through to the hotel. The Company recorded an accrual for travel transaction taxes (including estimated interest and penalties), with a corresponding charge to cost of revenues, of approximately $16.5 million in December 2012 and approximately $18.7 million in the three months ended March 31, 2013, primarily related to this ruling. During the three months ended March 31, 2014, the Company paid approximately $0.6 million under protest to the State of Hawaii related to this ruling. The Company has filed an appeal now pending before the Hawaii Supreme Court. Other adverse rulings include a decision in September 2012, in which the Superior Court in the District of Columbia granted summary judgment in favor of the District and against the OTCs ruling that tax is due on the OTCs' margin and service fees, which the Company is appealing. As a result, the Company increased its accrual for travel transaction taxes (including estimated interest), with a corresponding charge to cost of revenues, by approximately $4.8 million in September 2012 and by approximately $5.6 million in the three months ended March 31, 2013. Also, in July 2013, the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, ruled that the Company and the other OTCs are liable for tax and other obligations under the Chicago Hotel Accommodations Tax. A summary judgment to determine the extent of the liability is now pending. In addition, in October 2009, a jury in a San Antonio class action found that the Company and the other OTCs that are defendants in the lawsuit "control" hotels for purposes of the local hotel occupancy tax ordinances at issue and are, therefore, subject to the requirements of those ordinances. The Company intends to vigorously appeal the trial court's judgment when it becomes final. PRICELINE GROUP: Opposes Move to Amend Antitrust Lawsuit Anew ------------------------------------------------------------- Online travel company defendants in a multidistrict antitrust litigation by persons who purchased hotel room reservations, filed an opposition to plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a Second Consolidated Amended Complaint, according to The Priceline Group Inc.'s May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. On August 20, 2012, one complaint was filed on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased hotel room reservations from certain hotels (the "Hotel Defendants") through certain OTC defendants, including the Company. The initial complaint, Turik v. Expedia, Inc., Case No. 12-cv-4365, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleges that the Hotel Defendants and the OTC defendants violated federal and state laws by entering into a conspiracy to enforce a minimum resale price maintenance scheme pursuant to which putative class members paid inflated prices for hotel room reservations that they purchased through the OTC defendants. Thirty-one other complaints containing similar allegations have been filed in a number of federal jurisdictions across the country. Plaintiffs in these actions seek treble damages and injunctive relief. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") heard arguments on a motion for consolidation and transfer of pretrial proceedings under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 on November 29, 2012. Pursuant to JPML orders, all of the pending cases were consolidated before Judge Boyle in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. On May 1, 2013, an amended consolidated complaint was filed. On July 1, 2013, the Company, together with the other OTC defendants and Hotel Defendants, filed a joint motion to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint. On February 18, 2014, Judge Boyle dismissed the amended consolidated complaint without prejudice, and ordered that plaintiffs must move for leave to amend within thirty days if they wish to file a second consolidated amended complaint, and further ordered that any such motion for leave to amend be accompanied by a synopsis explaining why a second amended complaint would overcome the deficiencies stated in the court's February 18, 2014 Memorandum Opinion and Order. On March 20, 2014, plaintiffs moved for leave to file a proposed Second Consolidated Amended Complaint (the "proposed SCAC"). The proposed SCAC names only the OTC defendants as defendants and alleges that the OTC defendants violated federal and state laws by entering into minimum resale price maintenance agreements with the Hotel defendants and by conspiring to enforce the terms of those resale price maintenance agreements. On April 3, 2014, the OTC defendants filed an opposition to plaintiffs' motion for leave to file the proposed SCAC. PRIORITY PAYMENT: Sued Over Failure to Pay Over Time Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- Karlton Britton on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Priority Payment Systems, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-01475 (N.D. Ga., May 16, 2014), is brought against the Defendant to obtain full and complete relief for the Defendant's failure to pay overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act. Priority Payment Systems, LLC is a Georgia Corporation located at 2001 Westside Parkway, Suite 155, Alpharetta, Georgia 30004. The Plaintiff is represented by: Louise Ngozi Smith, Esq. SMITH LAW, LLC P.O. Box 1396 Dacula, GA 30019 Telephone: (678) 691-5676 Facsimile: (770) 674-1122 E-mail: louise@smithlaw-llc.com - and - William Julian Smith, III, Esq. SMITH LAW, LLC P.O. Box 1396 Dacula, GA 30019 Telephone: (678) 691-5676 Facsimile: (770) 674-1122 E-mail: bjsmith3414@gmail.com ROCKING 8: Faces "Puente" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jose L. Puente, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Rocking 8 Transportation, Inc., Case No. 14-cv-01357 (S.D. Tex., May 15, 2014), seeks to recover overtime compensation, liquidated damages, costs and reasonable attorneys' fees as permitted by the Fair Labor Standards Act. Rocking 8 Transportation, Inc., is a corporation formed and existing under the laws of the State of Texas. It maintained and operated a scrap metal transportation business in Harris County, Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alan Luis Quiles, Esq. 8100 Washington Ave, Suite 250 Houston, TX 77007 Telephone: (800) 789-9243 E-mail: alanquiles@gmail.com SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Files Motion to Dismiss Stock Suit in Okla. ------------------------------------------------------------- The defendants in "In re SandRidge Energy, Inc. Securities Litigation" have filed respective motions to dismiss a consolidated amended complaint, which are pending before the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, according to the company's May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. On December 5, 2012, James Glitz and Rodger A. Thornberry, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated stockholders, filed a putative class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma against SandRidge Energy, Inc. and certain current and former executive officers of the Company. On January 4, 2013, Louis Carbone, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated stockholders, filed a substantially similar putative class action complaint in the same court and against the same defendants. On March 6, 2013, the court consolidated these two actions under the caption "In re SandRidge Energy, Inc. Securities Litigation" (the "Securities Litigation") and appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On July 23, 2013, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, which asserts a variety of federal securities claims against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors, among other defendants, on behalf of a putative class of (a) purchasers of SandRidge common stock during the period from February 24, 2011 to November 8, 2012, (b) purchasers of common units of the Mississippian Trust I in or traceable to its initial public offering on or about April 12, 2011, and (c) purchasers of common units of the Mississippian Trust II (together with the Mississippian Trust I, the "Mississippian Trusts") in or traceable to its initial public offering on or about April 23, 2012. The claims are based on allegations that the Company, certain of its current and former officers and directors, and the Mississippian Trusts, among other defendants, are responsible for making false and misleading statements, and omitting material information, concerning a variety of subjects, including oil and natural gas reserves, the Company's capital expenditures, and certain transactions entered into by companies allegedly affiliated with the Company's former CEO Tom Ward. The defendants have filed respective motions to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint, which are pending before the court. SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Employees Amend Complaint for Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------------------ Current and former employees of SandRidge Energy, Inc. filed an amended complaint at a court-specified deadline on April 2014, according to the company's May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. On July 15, 2013, James Hart and 15 other named plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas in an action undertaken individually and on behalf of others similarly situated against SandRidge Energy, Inc., SandRidge Operating Company, SandRidge E&P, SandRidge Midstream, Inc., and Lariat Services, Inc. In their Amended Complaint, plaintiffs allege that the defendants failed to properly calculate overtime pay for the plaintiffs and for other similarly situated current and former employees. The plaintiffs further allege that the defendants required the plaintiffs and other similarly situated current and former employees to engage in work-related activities without pay. The plaintiffs assert claims against the defendants for (i) violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, (ii) violations of the Kansas Wage Payment Act, (iii) breach of contract, and (iv) fraud, and seek to recover unpaid wages and overtime pay, liquidated damages, statutory penalties, economic damages, compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and both pre- and post-judgment interest. On October 3, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a Motion for Conditional Collective Action Certification and for Judicial Notice to Class and a Motion to Toll the Statute of Limitations. On October 11, 2013, the defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss and a Motion to Transfer Venue to the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma. On April 2, 2014, the court granted the defendants' Motion to Dismiss and granted plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint by April 16, 2014, which they did on such date. SEBERT LANDSCAPING: Has Refused to Pay Compensation, Class Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Eduardo Lagunes, et al., on behalf of themselves and all other plaintiffs similarly situated, known and unknown, v. Sebert Landscaping Company d/b/a Great Impressions, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-03488 (N.D. Ill., May 13, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure and refusal to pay compensation to their employees, including the Plaintiffs. Sebert Landscaping Company, d/b/a Great Impressions, Inc., is an enterprise that provides landscaping and maintenance services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jawayria Zarreen Kalimullah, Esq. FARMWORKER AND LANDSCAPER ADVOCACY PROJECT 33 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 900 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 784-3541 E-mail: jawayriak@gmail.com - and - Meghan A. Vanleuwen, Esq. John William Billhorn, Esq. BILLHORN LAW FIRM 120 S. State Street, Suite 400 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 513-9555 E-mail: mvanleuwen@billhornlaw.com jbillhorn@billhornlaw.com SUPPORT.COM INC: To Settle Consumer Lawsuit Over Software --------------------------------------------------------- Support.com, Inc. is in the process of settling complaints over the design of one of its software products and the method of promotion of this product to consumers, according to the company's May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. On February 7, 2012, a lawsuit seeking class-action certification was filed against the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, No. 12-CV-00609, alleging that the design of one the Company's software products and the method of promotion to consumers constitute fraudulent inducement, breach of contract, breach of express and implied warranties, and unjust enrichment. On the same day the same plaintiffs' law firm filed another action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, No. 12-CV-0963, involving similar allegations against a subsidiary of the Company and one of the Company's partners who distributes the company's software products, and that partner has requested indemnification under contract terms with the Company. The law firm representing the plaintiffs in both cases has filed unrelated class actions in the past year against a number of major software providers with similar allegations about those providers' products. On June 18, 2012, the Company entered into a settlement which remains subject to final court approval. Under the terms of the settlement, the Company would offer a one-time cash payment, which is covered by the Company's insurance provider, to qualified class-action members. In addition, the Company would offer a limited free subscription to one of its software products. In accordance with ASC 450, Contingencies, the company estimated and recorded a charge against earnings in general and administrative expense in the second quarter of 2012 of $57,000 associated with the limited free software subscription. The Company denies any wrongdoing or liability and entered into the settlement to minimize the costs of defense. THANG DANG: Faces "Lopez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pedro Hernandez Lopez and other similarly-situated individuals v. Thang Dang Farms, LLC D/B/A Dang Farms, A/K/A LP Produce Nhan Huu Dang, and Thang Q. Dang, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-21811 (S.D. Fla., May 16, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, as well as an additional amount as liquidated damages, costs, and reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act. Thang Dang Farms, LLC, D/B/A Dang Farms A/K/A LP Produce is a corporation registered to do business in Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 3100 South Dixie Highway, Suite 202 Miami, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com TREE.COM INC: Settlement Process Ongoing in "Boschma" Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- A nominal payment into the settlement fund for the case Boschma v. Home Loan Center, Inc., No. SACV7-613 (U.S. Dist. Ct., C.D. Cal.) was made in late 2013, according to the Tree.com, Inc.'s May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. Boschma v. Home Loan Center, Inc., No. SACV7-613 (U.S. Dist. Ct., C.D. Cal.). On May 25, 2007, the plaintiffs filed this putative class action against Home Loan Center, Inc. ("HLC") in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The plaintiffs allege that HLC sold them an option "ARM" (adjustable- rate mortgage) loan but failed to disclose in a clear and conspicuous manner, among other things, that the interest rate was not fixed, that negative amortization could occur and that the loan had a prepayment penalty. Based upon these factual allegations, the plaintiffs asserted violations of the federal Truth in Lending Act, violations of the Unfair Competition Law, breach of contract, and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The plaintiffs purport to represent a class of all individuals who between June 1, 2003 and May 31, 2007 obtained an option ARM loan through HLC on their primary residence located in California, and seek rescission, damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief. The plaintiffs have not yet filed a motion for class certification, but have filed a total of eight complaints in connection with this lawsuit. Each of the first seven complaints has been dismissed by the federal and state courts. The plaintiffs filed the eighth complaint (a "Second Amended Complaint") in Orange County (California) Superior Court on March 4, 2010 alleging only the fraud and Unfair Competition Law claims. As with each of the seven previous versions of plaintiffs' complaint, the Second Amended Complaint was dismissed in April 2010. The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal and on August 10, 2011, the appellate court reversed the trial court's dismissal and directed the trial court to overrule the demurrer. The case was remanded to superior court. During 2013, the parties agreed to a $450,000 settlement, which was approved in 2013. A nominal payment into the settlement fund was made in late 2013. The Company expects administration of the settlement to be completed by the third quarter of 2014. A provision for the remaining $435,000 is included in current liabilities of discontinued operations at March 31, 2014. The impact of the settlement was not material. TREE.COM INC: No Trial Date Yet for Class Claims in "Dijkstra" -------------------------------------------------------------- The trial for the Class Claims in the suit Lijkel Dijkstra v. Harry Carenbauer, Home Loan Center, Inc. et al., No. 5:11-cv-152- JPB (U.S. Dist. Ct., N.D.WV) has not yet been scheduled, according to the Tree.com, Inc.'s May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. On November 7, 2008, the plaintiffs filed this putative class action in Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia against Harry Carenbauer, HLC, HLC Escrow, Inc. et al. The complaint alleges that HLC engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in West Virginia by permitting persons who were neither admitted to the practice of law in West Virginia nor under the direct supervision of a lawyer admitted to the practice of law in West Virginia to close mortgage loans. The plaintiffs assert claims for declaratory judgment, contempt, injunctive relief, conversion, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, intentional misrepresentation or fraud, negligent misrepresentation, violation of the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act ("CCPA"), violation of the West Virginia Lender, Broker & Services Act, civil conspiracy, outrage and negligence. The claims against all defendants other than Mr. Carenbauer, HLC and HLC Escrow, Inc. have been dismissed. The case was removed to federal court in October 2011. On January 3, 2013, the court granted a conditional class certification only with respect to the declaratory judgment, contempt, unjust enrichment and CCPA claims. The conditional class includes consumers with mortgage loans in effect any time after November 8, 2007 who obtained such loans through HLC, and whose loans were closed by persons not admitted to the practice of law in West Virginia or by persons not under the direct supervision of a lawyer admitted to the practice of law in West Virginia. On February 26, 2014, the court granted and denied certain of each party's motions for summary judgment. With respect to the Class Claims, the court granted plaintiff's motions for summary judgment with respect to declaratory judgment, unjust enrichment and violation of the CCPA. The court granted HLC's motion for summary judgment with respect to contempt. In addition, the court denied HLC's motion to decertify the class. With respect to the claims applicable to the named plaintiff only (the "Individual Claims"), HLC's motions for summary judgment were granted with respect to conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation and outrage. HLC and the plaintiff have reached a tentative settlement agreement with respect to the remaining Individual Claims. The trial for the Class Claims has not yet been scheduled by the court. The Company believes that the plaintiffs' allegations related to the Class Claims lack merit and intends to defend against this action vigorously. The range of possible loss is estimated to be between $0.6 million and $1.95 million, of which some or all may be covered by insurance. A reserve of $0.6 million and a corresponding insurance recoverable of $0.5 million have been established for this matter in the consolidated balance sheet as of March 31, 2014. TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY: Shareholders Expand Class Period of Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in a securities lawsuit against Twenty-First Century Fox, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York filed a second amended consolidated complaint that expands the class period to July 8, 2009 to July 18, 2011, according to the company's May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. On July 19, 2011, a purported class action lawsuit captioned Wilder v. News Corp., et al. ("Wilder Litigation"), was filed on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's common stock between March 3, 2011 and July 11, 2011, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiff brought claims under Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, alleging that false and misleading statements were issued regarding the NoW Matter. The suit names as defendants the Company, Rupert Murdoch, James Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks, and seeks compensatory damages, rescission for damages sustained, and costs. On June 5, 2012, the court issued an order appointing the Avon Pension Fund ("Avon") as lead plaintiff and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd as lead counsel. Thereafter, on July 3, 2012, the court issued an order providing that an amended consolidated complaint shall be filed by July 31, 2012. Avon filed an amended consolidated complaint on July 31, 2012, which among other things, added as defendants NI Group Limited (now known as News Corp UK & Ireland Limited) and Les Hinton, and expanded the class period to include February 15, 2011 to July 18, 2011. The defendants filed motions to dismiss the litigation, which were granted by the court on March 31, 2014. Plaintiffs were given until April 30, 2014 to amend their complaint. On April 30, 2014, plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated complaint, which generally repeats the allegations of the amended consolidated complaint and also expands the class period to July 8, 2009 to July 18, 2011. The Company's management believes the claims in the Wilder Litigation are entirely without merit, and intends to vigorously defend those claims. UNITED PARCEL: Feb 2015 Trial Set in Franchisees' Suit ------------------------------------------------------ A trial is scheduled for February 2015 in a suit by a certified class of all United Parcel Service, Inc. Store franchisees who did rebrand, according to the company's May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. UPS and the company's subsidiary Mail Boxes Etc., Inc. are defendants in a lawsuit in California Superior Court about the rebranding of The UPS Store franchises. In the Morgate case, the plaintiffs are (1) 125 individual franchisees who did not rebrand to The UPS Store and (2) a certified class of all franchisees who did rebrand. With respect to the 125 individual franchisees described in (1) above, the trial court entered judgment against a bellwether individual plaintiff, which was affirmed in January 2012. In March 2013, the company reached a settlement with the remaining individual plaintiffs who did not rebrand; this settlement did not have a material adverse effect on the company's financial condition, results of operations or liquidity. The trial court granted the company's motion for summary judgment against the certified class described in (2) above, which was reversed in January 2012. The company has not reached a settlement with this class of franchisees, and the claims of the class remain pending. The trial is scheduled for February 2015. UNITED PARCEL: Suit in Quebec Over Brokerage Services Dismissed --------------------------------------------------------------- The 2013 Quebec litigation over alleged inadequate disclosure of United Parcel Service, Inc. concerning the existence and cost of brokerage services, has been dismissed, according to the company's May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. In Canada, four purported class-action cases were filed against the company in British Columbia (2006); Ontario (2007) and Quebec (2006 and 2013). The cases each allege inadequate disclosure concerning the existence and cost of brokerage services provided by the company under applicable provincial consumer protection legislation and infringement of interest restriction provisions under the Criminal Code of Canada. The British Columbia class action was declared inappropriate for certification and dismissed by the trial judge. That decision was upheld by the British Columbia Court of Appeal in March 2010, which ended the case in the company's favor. The Ontario class action was certified in September 2011. Partial summary judgment was granted to the company and the plaintiffs by the Ontario motions court. The complaint under the Criminal Code was dismissed. No appeal is being taken from that decision. The allegations of inadequate disclosure were granted and the company is appealing that decision. The motion to authorize the 2006 Quebec litigation as a class action was dismissed by the motions judge in October 2012; there was no appeal, which ended that case in the company's favor. The 2013 Quebec litigation also has been dismissed. UNITED PARCEL: Suit Over Freight Forwarding Services in Discovery ----------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery process is underway to determine whether it is appropriate to dismiss a suit alleging United Parcel Service, Inc. engaged in price-fixing activities relating to the provision of freight forwarding services, according to the company's May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. In January 2008, a class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York alleging price-fixing activities relating to the provision of freight forwarding services. UPS was not named in this case. In July 2009, the plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint naming numerous global freight forwarders as defendants. UPS and UPS Supply Chain Solutions are among the 60 defendants named in the amended complaint. The plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint in October 2010, which the company moved to dismiss. In August 2012, the Court granted the company's motion to dismiss all claims relevant to UPS in the Second Amended Complaint, with leave to amend. The plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint in November 2012. The company filed another motion to dismiss. In January 2014, the Court dismissed UPS from one of the claims in the Third Amended Complaint with prejudice, but denied UPS's motion to dismiss with respect to the other claims asserted against UPS. The discovery process is underway. UNITED STATES: Veterans File Lawsuit Over Agent Orange ------------------------------------------------------ Marcia Coyle, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that lingering health and legal fallout from the spraying of Agent Orange during the late 1960s in Korea is the background of a lawsuit filed on June 3 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit by national veterans organizations against the Department of Veterans Affairs. The lawsuit, McKinney v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs, contends that hundreds, perhaps even thousands, of veterans who served along Korea's demilitarized zone (DMZ) and who were exposed to the toxic chemical are being wrongfully denied disability benefits. The veterans groups turned to litigation after receiving no response to a Jan. 28 letter to former VA secretary Eric Shinseki outlining the problem, according to Bart Stichman, co-executive director of the National Veterans Legal Services Program. The law firm Paul Hastings represents Mr. Stichman's organization as well as the American Legion, the Military Order of the Purple Heart and the Vietnam Veterans of America. The lawsuit focuses on a seven-year period between 2004 and 2011 in which, the groups contend, the VA denied disability benefits that it should have paid. During the Vietnam War, from April 1968 to July 1969, Agent Orange was sprayed along the southern border of the Korean DMZ. Some troops stationed there during that period subsequently developed illnesses linked to Agent Orange exposure, according to the suit. Congress addressed the problem in 2003 with legislation making veterans' children with birth defects eligible for benefits if the veterans served along the Korean DMZ either during the 16 months of herbicide spraying or during the 25 months after spraying ceased -- that is, from Aug. 1, 1969 to Aug. 31, 1971. However, in 2004, the suit says, the VA adopted a rule that divided this 41-month period into two time blocks, and imposed different benefit levels: Those who served near the Korean DMZ from April 1968 to July 1969 were entitled to the presumption that they had been exposed to herbicides, but those who served from Aug. 1, 1969, to Aug. 31, 1971, were not entitled to the same presumption. Instead, that second group had to establish decades after the fact that they were actually exposed to herbicides on a factual, case-by-case basis. Seven years later, in 2011, the VA, acting on objections filed by veterans service organizations, changed the rule and extended the presumption of Agent Orange exposure to veterans who served along the Korean DMZ from August 1969 to August 1971. But the VA refused to make the corrected rule retroactive to claims filed between 2004 and 2011. The net result is that those who filed claims before 2011 and are presumed exposed to Agent Orange between April 1968 and July 1969 are entitled to benefits retroactive to the date of their claims. But those presumed exposed to Agent Orange between August 1969 and August 1971 cannot receive benefits retroactive to the date of their claims if they filed their claims before 2011. One of the veterans denied retroactive benefits is Michael McKinney. In 2010, he filed a claim for several diseases to which VA regulations accord presumptive service-connected status due to Agent Orange exposure. His claim was based on exposure to Agent Orange during his service along the DMZ, which began in August 1969. In 2011, while McKinney's claim was pending, the VA finalized the 2011 regulation, but the department denied him benefits for the period between the date of his claim and 2011. "We made the VA aware of this problem in January 2014," Mr. Stichman said. "We have yet to receive even an acknowledgement of our letter. We do not file lawsuits lightly. We would prefer to work with the VA to correct a systemic problem immediately when it is identified, so we don't have to pursue litigation to right a wrong." A VA spokesperson said the department does not comment on pending litigation. The veterans groups plan to file a motion for a stay on June 5 that would require the department to identify veterans affected by retroactivity issue and to adjust their benefits, according to Mr. Stichman. The Veterans Judicial Review Act created a right to challenge a VA rule by filing an action directly in the Federal Circuit. WARNER MUSIC: Reply to Cert. Motion in Price Fixing Suit Due June ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in a suit against Warner Music Group Corp. in relation to the pricing of digital music downloads, filed a Class Certification brief on March 14, 2014, to which the company should reply by June 20, 2014, according to the company's May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. On December 20, 2005 and February 3, 2006, the Attorney General of the State of New York served the Company with requests for information in connection with an industry-wide investigation as to the pricing of digital music downloads. On February 28, 2006, the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice served the company with a Civil Investigative Demand, also seeking information relating to the pricing of digitally downloaded music. Both investigations were ultimately closed, but subsequent to the announcements of the investigations, more than thirty putative class action lawsuits were filed concerning the pricing of digital music downloads. The lawsuits were consolidated in the Southern District of New York. The consolidated amended complaint, filed on April 13, 2007, alleges conspiracy among record companies to delay the release of their content for digital distribution, inflate their pricing of CDs and fix prices for digital downloads. The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory, statutory and treble damages. On October 9, 2008, the District Court issued an order dismissing the case as to all defendants, including the company. However, on January 12, 2010, the Second Circuit vacated the judgment of the District Court and remanded the case for further proceedings and on January 10, 2011, the Supreme Court denied the defendants' petition for Certiorari. Upon remand to the District Court, all defendants, including the Company, filed a renewed motion to dismiss challenging, among other things, plaintiffs' state law claims and standing to bring certain claims. The renewed motion was based mainly on arguments made in defendants' original motion to dismiss, but not addressed by the District Court. On July 18, 2011, the District Court granted defendants' motion in part, and denied it in part. Notably, all claims on behalf of the CD-purchaser class were dismissed with prejudice. However, a wide variety of state and federal claims remain, for the class of internet download purchasers. Plaintiffs filed an operative consolidated amended complaint on August 31, 2011. Pursuant to the terms of an August 15, 2011 stipulation and order, the case is currently in discovery. Disputes regarding the scope of discovery are ongoing. Plaintiffs filed a Class Certification brief on March 14, 2014. The Company's reply is due June 20, 2014. WARNER MUSIC: Final Hearing on $11.5MM Accord Set for Oct. ---------------------------------------------------------- The hearing on final approval of the $11.5 million settlement reached by Warner Music Group Corp. with recording artists in a suit over royalties for certain digital music sales is scheduled for October 2, 2014, according to the company's May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. Five putative class action lawsuits have been filed against the Company in Federal Court in the Northern District of California between February 2, 2012 and March 10, 2012. The lawsuits, which were brought by various recording artists, all allege that the Company has improperly calculated the royalties due to them for certain digital music sales under the terms of their recording contracts. The named plaintiffs purport to raise these claims on their own behalf and, as a putative class action, on behalf of other similarly situated artists. Plaintiffs base their claims on a previous ruling that held another recorded music company had breached the specific recording contracts at issue in that case through its payment of royalties for music downloads and ringtones. In the wake of that ruling, a number of recording artists have initiated suits seeking similar relief against all of the major record companies, including the company. Plaintiffs seek to have the interpretation of the contracts in that prior case applied to their different and separate contracts. On April 10, 2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss various claims in one of the lawsuits, with the intention of filing similar motions in the remaining suits, on the various applicable response dates. Meanwhile, certain plaintiffs' counsel moved to be appointed as interim lead counsel, and other plaintiffs' counsel moved to consolidate the various actions. In a June 1, 2012 order, the court consolidated the cases and appointed interim co-lead class counsel. Plaintiffs filed a consolidated, master complaint on August 21, 2012. On December 31, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. As part of the settlement, the Company will make available $11.5 million (less attorneys' fees, costs, and costs of claims administration and class notice) to compensate class members for past sales of downloads and ringtones. On January 23, 2014, the Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement. The hearing on final approval of the settlement is scheduled for October 2, 2014. WHOLE FOODS: Accused of Violating Fair Credit Reporting Act ----------------------------------------------------------- Shane Lee, on Behalf of Himself and All Other Persons Similarly Situated v. Whole Foods Market California, Inc., a California Corporation, and Does 1 through 100, Case No. 2:14-cv-03794 (C.D. Cal., May 16, 2014), arises from the alleged violation the Fair Credit Reporting Act specifically for routinely obtaining and using information in consumer background reports to conduct background checks on prospective employees and existing employees. Whole Foods Market California, Inc., is a subsidiary of Whole Foods Market, Inc., a corporation with its headquarters and principal place of business located at 550 Bowie Street, Austin, Texas 78703. The Defendant is a California corporation. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kara M. Wolke, Esq. Marc L. Godino, Esq. Lionel Zevi Glancy, Esq. GLANCY BINKOW AND GOLDBERG LLP 1925 Century Park East Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 E-mail: kwolke@glancylaw.com mgodino@glancylaw.com lglancy@glancylaw.com ZILLOW INC: Motion to Dismiss Stock Suit Pending in Wash. Court --------------------------------------------------------------- A motion by Zillow, Inc. to dismiss a securities suit filed against it has been fully briefed and is pending before the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, according to the company's May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. In November 2012, a securities class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington at Seattle against the company and certain of its executive officers seeking unspecified damages. A consolidated amended complaint was filed in June 2013. The complaint purports to state claims for violations of federal securities laws on behalf of a class of those who purchased the company's common stock between February 15, 2012 and November 6, 2012. The complaint generally alleges, among other things, that during the period between February 15, 2012 and November 6, 2012, the company issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the company's business practices and financial results. In August 2013, the company moved to dismiss the lawsuit. That motion to dismiss has been fully briefed and is pending before the Court. The company denied the allegations of wrongdoing, and the company will continue to vigorously defend the claims in the lawsuit. It has not recorded an accrual related to this lawsuit as of March 31, 2014 or December 31, 2013, as it does not believe a material loss is probable. ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Discovery Ongoing in "Meridian Funds" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery has been completed in the case Reyes v. Zions First National Bank, et al. and is in process in the suit In re Consolidated Meridian Funds a/k/a Meridian Investors Trust, Mark Calvert as Liquidating Trustee, et al. vs. Zions Bancorporation and The Commerce Bank of Washington, N.A., according to Zions Bancorporation's May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. The company is subject to litigation in court and arbitral proceedings, as well as proceedings, investigations, examinations and other actions brought or considered by governmental and self- regulatory agencies. At any given time, litigation may relate to lending, deposit and other customer relationships, vendor and contractual issues, employee matters, intellectual property matters, personal injuries and torts, regulatory and legal compliance, and other matters. While most matters relate to individual claims, the company is also subject to putative class action claims and similar broader claims. Current putative class actions and similar claims include: (i) a complaint relating to the company's banking relationships with customers that allegedly engaged in wrongful telemarketing practices in which the plaintiff seeks a trebled monetary award under the federal RICO Act, Reyes v. Zions First National Bank, et al., brought in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; and (ii) a complaint arising from the company's banking relationships with Frederick Berg and a number of investment funds controlled by him using the "Meridian" brand name, in which the liquidating trustee for the funds seeks an award from the company, on the basis of aiding and abetting and other claims, for monetary damages suffered by victims of a fraud allegedly perpetrated by Berg, In re Consolidated Meridian Funds a/k/a Meridian Investors Trust, Mark Calvert as Liquidating Trustee, et al. vs. Zions Bancorporation and The Commerce Bank of Washington, N.A., pending in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Washington. In the third quarter of 2013, the District Court denied the plaintiff's motion for class certification in the Reyes case. In the first quarter of 2014, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals approved the plaintiff's motion to appeal the District Court decision. Discovery has been completed in the Reyes case and is in process in the Meridian Funds case. ZIONS BANCORPORATION: "Barlow" Overdraft Fees Suit Accord Okayed ---------------------------------------------------------------- The settlement agreements reached in Barlow, et al. v. Zions First National Bank and Zions Bancorporation were approved by the court and paid into escrow in the first quarter of 2014, according to the company's May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. The company is subject to litigation in court and arbitral proceedings, as well as proceedings, investigations, examinations and other actions brought or considered by governmental and self- regulatory agencies. At any given time, litigation may relate to lending, deposit and other customer relationships, vendor and contractual issues, employee matters, intellectual property matters, personal injuries and torts, regulatory and legal compliance, and other matters. While most matters relate to individual claims, the company is also subject to putative class action claims and similar broader claims. Current putative class actions and similar claims include: In the third quarter of 2013, the company entered into definitive settlement agreements with respect to complaints relating to allegedly wrongful acts in the company's processing of overdraft fees on debit card transactions, Barlow, et al. v. Zions First National Bank and Zions Bancorporation. The settlement agreements, which cover all of the company's affiliates alleged to have engaged in wrongful processing, were approved by the court and paid into escrow in the first quarter of 2014. At any given time, proceedings, investigations, examinations and other actions brought or considered by governmental and self- regulatory agencies may relate to the company's banking, investment advisory, trust, securities, and other products and services; the company's customers' involvement in money- laundering, fraud, securities violations and other illicit activities or the company's policies and practices relating to such customer activities; and the company's compliance with the broad range of banking, securities and other laws and regulations applicable to the company. At any given time, the company may be in the process of responding to subpoenas, requests for documents, data and testimony relating to such matters and engaging in discussions to resolve the matters. Significant investigations and similar inquiries to which the company is currently subject relate to: (i) possible money laundering activities of a customer of one of the company's subsidiary banks and the anti-money laundering practices of that bank (conducted by the United States Attorneys Office for the Southern District of New York); and (ii) the practices of the company's subsidiary, Zions Bank; the company's former subsidiary, NetDeposit, LLC; and possibly other of the company's affiliates relating primarily to payment processing for allegedly fraudulent telemarketers and other customer types (conducted by the Department of Justice). These two matters appear to be ongoing. ********* 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 * * *