/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/140715.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, July 15, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 139 Headlines ACE CASH: Settles Consumer Debt Collection Claims for $10 Million AFFYMAX INC: Settles Omontys Class Action for $6.5 Million AMAZON.COM: FTC Files Suit Over Kids' Mobile App Charges AMERICAN ECONOMY: 1st Cir. Remands CE Design's Case for Dismissal AMERICAN HOME: Court Awards Atty. Fees for 2013 Work AMERICAN GENERAL: Faces "Ulti-Mate" Suit Alleging RICO Violations AMERICAN SUPERCONDUCTOR: Complies With Terms of Stock Suit Accord AMY MURPHY NEWBY: Circuit Court Ruling in "Asset" Suit Upheld APOTHAKER & ASSOCIATES: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Suit Claims AU OPTRONICS: 9th Cir. Upholds Price-Fixing Convictions v. Execs BANK OF AMERICA: "Hall" Suit Settlement Get Initial Court Okay BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Rigs Gold Market for Own Benefit, Suit Says BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Sued for Fixing Trade of Gold & Derivatives BIOMET ORTHOPEDICS: Faces Suit Over M2A Magnum Hip Replacement BP PLC: British Pension Funds Join Oil Spill Class Action BUMBLE BEE: "Bennett" Suit Moved to Western District of Arkansas CAMPBELL SOUP: "McCrary" Suit Remanded to Calif. Super. Court CARMAX AUTO: Judge Grants Motion to Dismiss Wage Class Action CHELSEA INVESTMENT: Faces "Whitby" Suit Alleging FHA Violations CHINA AGRITECH: Faces Securities Class Action in California CHINA NATURAL: Court Certifies Class in "Skeway" Action CHOBANI: Fungus in Recalled Yogurt Poses Health Risk to Consumers DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Automatic Tips ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION: "Hall" Suit Returns to Circuit Court ENVIVIO INC: Faces Shareholder Litigations in Calif. Over IPO ETHICON INC: Wants to Block Discovery of Expert's Pay in Mesh MDL FIDELITY NATIONAL: Bid for Class Cert. on "Henson" Suit Denied FINANCIAL CREDIT: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act FRITO-LAY: Obtains Final Approval of "Elliot" Suit Deal GENERAL MOTORS: Beasley Allen Files Ignition Switch Defect Suit GENERAL MOTORS: Removed "Kandziora" Suit to E.D. Wisconsin GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: PIP Class Action Removed to Florida Court HALLIBURTON CO: Recent Ruling Partial Victory for Directors IDAHO: EPA Settles Inmate Asbestos Exposure Suit for $56,000 ISLE OF CAPRI: High Court Won't Review Nixing of Silver Land Suit ISLE OF CAPRI: Settles Suit Over Unsolicited Fax Advertisements IXIA: Faces Amended Securities Complaint in California Court LIME ENERGY: Court Okays $2.5MM Settlement in "Satterfield" Suit LINDSEY MANAGEMENT: Removed "Courtois" Suit to E.D. Arkansas LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Dismissal of Securities Lawsuit Under Appeal MANHATTAN CLUB: S.C. Appellate Division Dismisses "Bisk" Suit MICHAELS STORES: Defends Bid to Dismiss Data Breach Class Action MICHIGAN: Day Care Providers May Get Refund of Union Dues NAVISTAR INT'L: Sued Over Defect in Maxxforce Engines' Emission MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC: No Schedule Yet for Mortgage Suit Trial NEW YORK, NY: 2nd Circuit Revives Building Cleaners' WTC Claims NEW YORK: Students File Class Action Over Poor Basic Education NUCARE SERVICES: Accused of Wrongful Discharge in N.D. Illinois NYC HOUSING AUTHORITY: Accused of Discrimination by 9/11 Victim OCEAN POWER: Faces Class Actions Over Inflated Share Price OCEAN POWER: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in New Jersey PENNSYLVANIA: Shenandoah Valley School Board to Join Class Action PLX TECHNOLOGY: Faces "Varghese" Merger-Related Suit in Delaware PLX TECHNOLOGY: Shareholder Suit Seeks to Enjoin Avago Merger POWERSECURE INT'L: "Higgins" Suit Moved to E.D. North Carolina POWERSECURE INT'L: Faces Suit Over Securities Act Violations RADY CHILDREN'S: Accused of Disclosing Confidential Medical Info REGIONAL ACCEPTANCE: Removed "Mascari" Suit to M.D. Florida REMINGTON ARMS: Settles Class Action Over Defective Rifle Trigger RESEARCH IN MOTION: 2nd Cir. Upholds Dismissal of "Shemian" Suit RESTORATION HARDWARE: To Compensate Claimants in Credit Card Suit REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Smoking Suit Plateau May Aid Lorillard Deal ROLF HARRIS: May Face Class Action Over Lenient Sentence SHOE CARNIVAL: Dismissal of FACTA "Violations" Suit Appealed SYMANTEC CORP: Faces Investigation by DC Gov't Over Contract TIFFANY'S CABARET: Exotic Dancers File FLSA Class Action TOWN OF HAVERSTRAW: Faces Suit Alleging Sexual Harassment Claims UNIFIRST CORP: Removed "Mosqueda" Class Suit to C.D. California UNITED PARCEL: Removed "Simoni" Suit to New Jersey District Court UNITED STATES: Faces Class Action Over Delayed Asylum Applications US BANK: 6th Cir. Upholds Dismisal of Asset Management's Case WENDY'S INT'L: Removed "Hernandez" Class Suit to S.D. Florida WHIRLPOOL CORP: Seeks Settlement of Deceptive Trade Class Action WHITEWAVE FOODS: Plaintiffs Appeal Exclusion of Sole Expert WORLD ACCEPTANCE: Still Faces "Epstein" Shareholder Suit in S.C. ********* ACE CASH: Settles Consumer Debt Collection Claims for $10 Million ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that Ace Cash Express Inc. has agreed to pay $10 million in a settlement with federal regulators who accused the payday lender of illegally harassing borrowers to collect debts and get them to take out additional loans. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau announced the agreement with Ace, one of the biggest payday lenders in the U.S. The company will pay a $5 million fine and return $5 million to affected customers. The CFPB said on July 10 it was its first action against a payday lender for pressuring consumers into a cycle of debt. The agency said that ACE used illegal tactics such as harassing customers and making threats of lawsuits or criminal prosecution against them. The government said ACE collectors also threatened to charge customers extra fees and report them to the consumer credit reporting agencies -- in violation of company policy. Ace, based in Irving, Texas, didn't admit wrongdoing in the settlement. The company said in a statement it has cut ties with the outside collection agency which the regulators had expressed concerns about. The company also said it hired an outside expert to review its data, and found that more than 96 percent of its phone calls from March 2011 through February 2012 complied with proper standards for collecting debts from customers. ACE said it has policies that prevent overdue borrowers from taking out new loans, so that a customer with a delinquent account isn't allowed to take out another loan until the earlier one is paid off. AFFYMAX INC: Settles Omontys Class Action for $6.5 Million ---------------------------------------------------------- Tom Zanki, writing for Law360, reports that biopharmaceutical company Affymax Inc. has agreed to pay $6.5 million to settle a class action alleging it knowingly misled investors about the dangers of its drug Omontys, which was recalled in 2013 after being linked to potentially deadly allergic reactions, according to documents filed on July 3 in California federal court. The plaintiffs, led by shareholder Tommy Jay Carter, said the risk of further protracted litigation prompted the action, according to settlement proposed on July 3. "Without a settlement, lead plaintiff and the class face a very real risk in this case that they could recover far less than the settlement amount -- or even nothing -- without the settlement," the proposal states. Affymax, which last month announced plans to liquidate subject to shareholder approval, has steadfastly denied misleading investors and sought to dismiss the suit in January. The agreement, reached after mediation presided by retired U.S. District Judge Layn R. Phillips, would cover shareholders who bought stock between Aug. 8, 2012, and Feb. 22, 2013. If all participate, the settlement would amount to $1.95 per share, minus fees, according to court documents. The plaintiffs filed suit in March 2013, alleging the failure of Affymax executives to disclose that their anti-anemia drug Omontys was linked to anaphylaxis and death caused a $500 million devaluation of its shares. The suit claimed the company's false and misleading statements caused Affymax stock to trade artificially high until Feb. 23, 2013, when Affymax voluntarily recalled the drug after revealing that some patients on it experienced anaphylaxis, a severe and potentially life-threatening allergic reaction. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration supported the recall. Shares fell about 85 percent, totaling more than $500 million in market capitalization, on the day of the announcement. The suit alleged the company had withheld damaging information about the drug so as not to jeopardize its relationship with Fresenius Medical Care, the company's largest customer at the time and largest dialysis provider in the United States. But on Feb. 13, 2013, FMC said it would pause its pilot program with Affymax to investigate the drug's safety and efficacy after learning of Omontys patients suffering serious allergic reactions. The drug was used to treat anemia in adult patients on dialysis with chronic kidney failure. A California federal judge in January trimmed the class action, ruling the plaintiffs hadn't shown most of the company's statements on the drug were misleading. The suit also listed four Affymax executives as defendants, including CEO John Orwin, Chief Financial Officer Herbert Cross, Chief Medical Officer Anne-Marie Duliege and Chief Operating Officer Jeffrey Knapp. The Cupertino, California-based company's fortunes have further tumbled since the recall as it mulled bankruptcy and laid off 75 percent of its workforce last year. Plus, Affymax last month said it would dissolve the company pending shareholder approval. Its shares traded over the counter on July 3 at 10 cents. The settlement amount of $6.5 million represents the median amount for all settlements approved in 2013, according to court documents. About one-quarter of the settlement money, or $1.625 million, would be set aside for attorneys' fees. A hearing has on the settlement is scheduled Aug. 27 before U.S. District Judge William H. Orrick. The plaintiffs are represented by Leigh Handelman Smollar, Patrick V. Dahlstrom and others of Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom Gross LLP. Affymax is represented by Jeffrey M. Kaban -- jkaban@cooley.com -- John C. Dwyer and Ritesh Kumar Srivastava of Cooley LLP. The case is Bartelt et al. v. Affymax Inc. et al., case number 13- cv-01025, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. AMAZON.COM: FTC Files Suit Over Kids' Mobile App Charges -------------------------------------------------------- Jenna Greene, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that Amazon.com wrongly billed parents for unauthorized app purchases made by children, the Federal Trade Commission alleged in a suit filed on July 10 in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. The suit "highlights a central tenet of consumer protection: Companies need to get consumers' consent before placing charges on their bills, " said Jessica Rich, director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection, in a conference call with reporters. According to the FTC, Amazon made "many millions" by allowing children -- playing games on Kindle or mobile devices using the Android system -- to make in-app purchases of virtual items such as acorns or stars for use in the games. "With just a click or two, kids could place charges on their parents' accounts without approval. Moms and dads were shocked to find out that every click added a charge of between 99 cents and $99 to their credit cards," according to FTC senior attorney Lesley Fair writing in the FTC's Business Center blog. The suit is similar to one that the FTC brought against Apple Inc. in January. Apple agreed then to pay at least $32.5 million in consumer refunds to settle allegations of billing parents for unauthorized charges incurred by their children in kids' mobile apps. Both Apple and Amazon were hit with the same charge: unfair billing practices in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act. Recently, the FTC also sued T-Mobile USA Inc. for unfair billing practices, alleging that the company added bogus charges to consumers' phone bills. "We are very concerned about the issue of unauthorized charges," Ms. Rich said. The FTC wants Amazon to issue refunds to consumers for unauthorized charges, disgorge ill-gotten profits, permanently refrain from billing parents and other account holders for in-app charges without consent and pay the FTC's legal costs. According to the FTC, Amazon pockets 30 percent of all in-app charges. Amazon associate general counsel Andrew DeVore in a July 1 letter to FTC Chairwoman Edith Ramirez wrote that the company's policies were "responsible, customer focused and lawful, including prominent notice of in-app purchasing, effective parental controls, real-time notice of every in-app purchase and world- class customer service." Mr. DeVore continued, "Pursuing litigation against a company whose practices were lawful from the outset and that already meet or exceed the requirements of the Apple consent order makes no sense." The FTC in its complaint cites comments by Amazon's in-app charge project manager, who reportedly said that "[W]e believe that parents are excluded from the buying process for these apps." The FTC also said Amazon in March 2012 began requiring password entry to confirm in-app charges exceeding $20. According to the FTC, Amazon's Appstore manager noted "it's much easier to get upset about Amazon letting your child purchase a $99 product without any password protection than a $20 product." FTC Commissioner Joshua Wright voted against bringing the case against Amazon, and he also opposed the action against Apple. In the Apple case, Mr. Wright wrote that "although Apple's allegedly unfair act or practice has harmed some consumers, I do not believe the commission has demonstrated the injury is substantial." Senator Deb Fischer, R-Neb., on July 9 wrote to the FTC, noting that the app marketplace is new and to "pursue enforcement against these companies for specific policies in place at the market's nascent stage would constitutes a de facto tax on innovation that threatens future growth and opportunity." AMERICAN ECONOMY: 1st Cir. Remands CE Design's Case for Dismissal ----------------------------------------------------------------- CE DESIGN LTD., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AMERICAN ECONOMY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee, and ERNIDA, LLC, Defendant, NO. 13-1080, is an appeal from a dismissal of an action for declaratory judgment. The United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit, issued an opinion on June 19, 2014, vacating the district court's order dismissing the case for lack of standing and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Costs are awarded to the appellee. A copy of the First Circuit's Opinion is available at http://is.gd/eop6ghfrom Leagle.com. David M. Oppenheim -- DOppenheim@andersonwanca.com -- with whom Brian J. Wanca -- buslit@andersonwanca.com -- Jeffrey A. Berman -- JBerman@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson + Wanca, Alan L. Cantor -- acantor@swartzlaw.com -- and Swartz & Swartz, P.C. were on brief, for the appellant. Myles W. McDonough -- mmcdonough@sloanewalsh.com -- with whom Christopher M. Reilly -- creilly@sloanewalsh.com -- Ryan B. MacDonald -- rmacdonald@sloanewalsh.com -- and SLOANE AND WALSH, LLP were on brief, for the appellee. AMERICAN HOME: Court Awards Atty. Fees for 2013 Work ---------------------------------------------------- Before the court in IN RE: DIET DRUGS (PHENTERMINE/ FENFLURAMINE/DEXFENFLURAMINE) PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION is a joint petition of the 2013 Joint Class Fee Applicants and the 2013 MDL Fee Applicant (collectively the 2013 Joint Fee Applicant") for an award of attorneys' fees and expense reimbursements relating to work performed from January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2013. The 2013 Joint Class Fee Applicants are Cummings, Cummings, and Dudenhefer and Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman. The 2013 MDL Fee Applicant is Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman. Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman performed work on behalf of the Plaintiffs' Liaison Counsel (PLC) in 2013. This court has previously awarded fees in Pretrial Order ("PTO") Nos. 7763A, 8516, 8646, 8869, and 9102. "[W]e will award attorneys' fees and expenses for work performed in 2013," wrote District Judge Harvey Bartle, III, in a memorandum dated June 17, 2014, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/FF6NKOfrom Leagle.com. "[W]e will enter an order directing that the Settlement Fund reimburse the MDL 1203 Fee and Cost Account in the amount of $24,730.86, which represents 50% of the expenses paid from the MDL 1203 Fee and Cost Account during 2013," he added. "We will also order that 50% of the out-of-pocket costs advanced by the 2013 Joint Fee Applicants be reimbursed to them from the MDL 1203 Fee and Cost Account and the remaining 50% be reimbursed from the Settlement Fund." The ruling relates to SHEILA BROWN, et al. v. AMERICAN HOME PRODUCTS CORP., MDL NO. 1203, NO. 99-20593, (E.D. Penn.) IN RE: DIET DRUGS (PHENTERMINE, FENFLURAMINE, DEXFENFLURAMINE) PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, IN RE:, represented by ANDREW A. CHIRLS, FINEMAN KREKSTEIN & HARRIS PC, ARNOLD LEVIN, LEVIN FISHBEIN SEDRAN & BERMAN, GERALD COOPER KELL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, JOHN FITZPATRICK, HARNES DICKET PIERCE PLC, JULES S. HENSHELL, SEMANOFF ORMSKY GREENBERG & TORCHIA LLC, ROBB W. PATRYK, HUGHES HUBBARD AND REED, ROBERT A. LIMBACHER, Goodell, DeVries, Leech & Dann LLP, ROBERT N. SPINELLI, KELLEY JASONS MCGOWAN SPINELLI & HANNA, LLP, THEODORE V. MAYER, HUGHES HUBBARD AND REED & RAND NOLEN, FLEMING, NOLEN & JEZ LLP. GREGORY P. MILLER, Special Master, represented by GREGORY P. MILLER, DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP. AMERICAN GENERAL: Faces "Ulti-Mate" Suit Alleging RICO Violations ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ulti-Mate Connectors, Inc., Bruce L. Billington, Thierry Pombart and Stephen R. Brockman, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. American General Life Insurance Company, Sea Nine Associates Inc., Innovative Private Strategies and Insurance Services, Inc., I.P.S. Private Advisors, Lalat Pattanaik, Laban Pattanaik, Kenneth A Elliott, individually and d.b.a. Kae, Kae Consulting and Vista Barranca, Peter Mordin and Does 1-50, Case No. 8:14-cv-01051 (C.D. Cal., July 9, 2014), is brought under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Tyler R. Meade, Esq. MEADE AND SCHRAG LLP 1816 Fifth Street Berkeley, CA 94710 Telephone: (510) 843-3670 Facsimile: (510) 843-3679 E-mail: tyler@meadeschrag.com AMERICAN SUPERCONDUCTOR: Complies With Terms of Stock Suit Accord ----------------------------------------------------------------- American Superconductor Corporation made a cash payment of $477,165.20 for and issued shares in relation to the settlement of a securities suit in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, according to the company's June 23, 2014, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. As described in American Superconductor Corporation's Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 20, 2013, the Company entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement on November 19, 2013, to settle the private securities class action litigation pending against it in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, which resolves the claims asserted against the Company, certain of its current and former officers and directors, and the underwriters in the previously disclosed putative securities class action consolidated complaint, Lenartz v. American Superconductor Corporation, et al., Docket No. 1:11-cv- 10582-WGY. The terms of the Stipulation provide, among other things, a settlement payment by the Company of $10 million, $8.2 million of which already has been funded by the Company's insurers and $1.8 million of which is to be paid through the issuance of 944,882 shares of its common stock. By Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice entered on May 5, 2014, the Court approved the terms of the Stipulation and dismissed this private securities class action litigation. In addition, the Court found that (i) the terms and conditions of the proposed issuance of the Settlement Shares are fair to those who receive these securities, and (ii) the terms and conditions of, and the procedures for, the proposed issuance of the Settlement Shares are fair. The effective date of the Stipulation was June 5, 2014 (the "Effective Date"). Pursuant to the terms of the Stipulation, (i) on June 11, 2014, the Company made a cash payment of $477,165.20 for the decrease in value of the Settlement Shares (as calculated under the Stipulation) as of the Effective Date, and (ii) on June 18, 2014, the Company issued the Settlement Shares. The issuance of the Settlement Shares was exempt from registration pursuant to Section 3(a)(10) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. The aforementioned payments by the Company represented the final amounts to be paid to the plaintiffs under the Stipulation. AMY MURPHY NEWBY: Circuit Court Ruling in "Asset" Suit Upheld ------------------------------------------------------------- In ASSET ACCEPTANCE, LLC, APPELLANT, v. AMY MURPHY NEWBY, APPELLEE, Supreme Court of Arkansas, NO. CV-13-319. 2014 Ark. 280, Asset Acceptance, LLC (Asset), appealed an order of the Pulaski County Circuit Court denying its motion to compel arbitration of a suit filed by Asset against appellee Amy Murphy Newby and a counterclaim filed by Newby individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons (Newby). For reversal, Asset contends that the circuit court erred in concluding that Asset had waived its right to arbitration by filing its complaint in circuit court. Asset also asserts that it presented enough specific evidence to show that its claim against Newby, as well as her counterclaim, were subject to an arbitration agreement. Newby has filed a cross-appeal of the circuit court's decision denying sanctions against Asset pursuant to Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 11. In an opinion delivered June 19, 2014, Associate Justice Courtney Hudson Goodson affirmed on direct appeal and dismissed the cross- appeal. A copy of the ruling is available at http://is.gd/6lyWIF from Leagle.com. Dover Dixon Horne PLLC, by: Michael G. Smith -- msmith@ddh-ar.com -- for appellant. Emerson Poynter LLP, by: Scott E. Poynter -- scott@emersonpoynter.com -- and Corey D. McGaha -- cmcgaha@emersonpoynter.com -- The Cruz Law Firm, by: Kathy A. Cruz -- kcruz@thecruzlawfirm.com -- Arnold, Batson, Turner & Turner, by: Todd M. Turner -- todd@turnerforcouncil.org -- and Joel Hargis, for appellee. APOTHAKER & ASSOCIATES: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Lisa Mohrmann v. Apothaker & Associates, P.C., Apothaker Scian, P.C., David Apothaker and Kimberly Scian, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-04295-JBS-JS (D.N.J., July 9, 2014), alleges that the Defendants knowingly and willfully failed to pay the Plaintiff and others similarly situated to her at time and one half of her regular rate of pay for her overtime hours. Ms. Mohrmann performed non-exempt duties for the Defendants in Burlington County, New Jersey. The Defendants were organized as a professional corporation engaged in the practice of law. Apothaker & Associates, P.C., and Apothaker Scian, P.C., are New Jersey corporations practicing law, specifically debt collection practice, throughout New Jersey. The Plaintiff is represented by: Keith J. Gentes, Esq. Adam S. Malamut, Esq. Robert C. Wolf, Esq. LIEBLING MALAMUT LLC 1939 Route 90 East, Suite 220 Cherry Hill, NJ 08003 Telephone: (856) 424-1808 E-mail: keith@lmlawnj.com adam@lmlawnj.com robert@lmlawnj.com AU OPTRONICS: 9th Cir. Upholds Price-Fixing Convictions v. Execs ---------------------------------------------------------------- David Ruiz, writing for The Recorder, reports that a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit panel upheld price-fixing convictions against Taiwanese electronics manufacturing company AU Optronics of America and two of its executives on July 10 after signaling last year that it might upend the case. The panel upheld the verdicts against Hsuan Bin Chen, the company's president and COO, and Hui Hsiung, its executive vice president, for meeting and conspiring with five other Asian manufacturers to fix the prices on LCD panels imported and sold in the U.S. and Asia. Messrs. Chen and Hsiung were each sentenced to three years in prison. The panel also affirmed a $500 million fine against AU Optronics. San Francisco-based Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein partner Eric Fastiff called the opinion a "brilliant" victory for the U.S. Department of Justice. "It reaffirmed the standard by which foreign price fixers will be held accountable in the United States," Mr. Fastiff said. "In particular, the analysis of the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act reaffirms that foreign companies that seek to fix prices to the detriment of U.S. consumers will continue to be held accountable in U.S. courts." The affirmation comes several months after Judges Sidney Thomas, M. Margaret McKeown and Virginia Kendall ordered Chen and Hsiung released on bail because of "substantial questions" raised following oral arguments. During arguments, Judges McKeown and Thomas suggested they were uncertain as to whether price-fixing cases that occurred overseas are still a per se violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The company's appellate lawyers pressed on that doubt, and argued that the low volume of LCD panels that reached U.S. consumers did not have "intended and substantial effect" on U.S. commerce demanded under the 1982 FTAIA. Without that, the defense argued that the price-fixing could not fall under the Sherman Act. But the judges disagreed, concluding in an opinion written by Judge McKeown that a "substantial volume of goods" sold in the U.S. allowed for application of the act. "We need not reach the alternate theory under the FTAIA relating to the domestic effects on the transactions," Judge McKeown wrote. "The magic words 'domestic effects' were not necessary to make clear that the overseas sale of panels for incorporation into products destined for sale in the United States was a key focus of the indictment," the ruling states. DOJ Antitrust Appeals Chief Kristen Limarzi argued on behalf of the government, while San Diego-based Cooley partner Mike Attanasio -- mattanasio@cooley.com -- argued for AU Optronics' Chen. Mr. Attanasio could not be reached for comment. Hogan Lovells' Neal Katyal -- neal.katyal@hoganlovells.com -- argued for Mr. Hsiung. Dennis Riordan, the Riordan & Horgan partner representing AU Optronics, declined comment. The conspiracy began in October 2001 and ran until January 2006, when the Federal Bureau of Investigation raided the Houston-based offices of AU Optronics. Following an eight-week jury trial before U.S. District Judge Susan Illston, AU Optronics, Chen and Hsiung were all found guilty of conspiring to fix prices. Siding with the DOJ on two issues of first impression, the panel upheld the $500 million penalty imposed against AU Optronics. The company's lawyers said Judge Illston erred by basing the fine on the monetary gains the jury found were shared by all conspirators and by failing to follow principles of joint and several liability, which would have reduced the fine by any amount already paid by the other companies involved. Judge McKeown brushed aside the arguments. "The unambiguous language of the statute permitted the district court to impose the $500 million fine based on the gross gains to all coconspirators," she stated. BANK OF AMERICA: "Hall" Suit Settlement Get Initial Court Okay -------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Federico A. Moreno granted a renewed motion for preliminary approval of a class action settlement in CHERYL HALL, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., individually and as successor by merger to BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 1:12-CV-22700-FAM, (S.D. Fla.). A copy of the June 18, 2014 ruling is available at http://is.gd/YsuE9Fv from Leagle.com. The Settlement Class consists of: All borrowers who had mortgage loans, home equity loans, or home equity lines of credit serviced by Bank of America, N.A. or BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, (formerly known as Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, L.P.) who were charged a premium for lender-placed hazard insurance1 coverage issued by Balboa Insurance Company, Meritplan Insurance Company, Newport Insurance Company, QBE Insurance Corporation, QBE Specialty Insurance Company, Praetorian Insurance Company, or one of their affiliates within the Class Period. Class Members will have the right to opt out of the Settlement Agreement consistent with the terms of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). Plaintiffs Marla Lugo, John and Jacquelyn Totura, Renata Circeo, and John Loudon were designated as representatives of the Settlement Class for the sole purpose of seeking a settlement of the Hall Litigation. The law firms of Kozyak, Tropin, & Throckmorton, P.A., Podhurst Orseck, P.A., and Harke Clasby & Bushman LLP were designated as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class. A hearing regarding final approval of the Settlement will be held at 2:00 P.M. on Wednesday, October 29, 2014 at the Wilkie D. Ferguson U.S. Courthouse, Courtroom 13-3, 400 North Miami Avenue, Miami, Florida before the Honorable Federico A. Moreno, to determine, among other things, hether the Settlement of the Hall Litigation should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate. Cheryl Hall, Plaintiff, represented by Adam M. Moskowitz, Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, Catherine E. Anderson, Giskan, Solotaroff Anderson & Stewart, LLP, Harley Shepard Tropin, Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, Jack Wagoner, III, Wagoner Law Firm, P.A., Jason Kyle Whittemore, Wagner, Vaughan & McLaughlin, P.A., Oren Giskan, Giskan, Solotaroff Anderson & LLP, Rachel Sullivan, Robert J. Axelrod, Pomerantz LLP, Robert J Neary, Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, P.A., Steven A. Owings, Owings Law Firm, T. Brent Walker, Walker Law, PLC, Thomas A. Tucker Ronzetti, Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, Alexander Phillip Owings, Owings Law Firm, Lance August Harke, Harke Clasby & Bushman LLP, Peter Prieto, Podhurst Orseck, P.A., Tal J Lifshitz, Kozyak Tropin Throckmorton & Kevin Michael McLaughlin, Wagner Vaughan & McLaughlin PA. John Totura, Plaintiff, represented by Angela Mann, Wagoner Law Firm, Catherine E. Anderson, Giskan, Solotaroff Anderson & Stewart, LLP, Harley Shepard Tropin, Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, Jack Wagoner, III, Wagoner Law Firm, P.A., Oren Giskan, Giskan, Solotaroff Anderson & LLP, Rachel Sullivan, Robert J. Axelrod, Pomerantz LLP, Steven A. Owings, Owings Law Firm, T. Brent Walker, Walker Law, PLC, Thomas A. Tucker Ronzetti, Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, Alexander Phillip Owings, Owings Law Firm, Lance August Harke, Harke Clasby & Bushman LLP, Mary Kestenbaum Fortson, The Merlin Law Group, Peter Prieto, Podhurst Orseck, P.A., Robert J Neary, Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, P.A., Tal J Lifshitz, Kozyak Tropin Throckmorton, William F. Merlin, Jr., Merlin Law Group PA & Adam M. Moskowitz, Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton. John Vidrine, Plaintiff, represented by Angela Mann, Wagoner Law Firm, Catherine E. Anderson, Giskan, Solotaroff Anderson & Stewart, LLP, Harley Shepard Tropin, Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, Jack Wagoner, III, Wagoner Law Firm, P.A., Oren Giskan, Giskan, Solotaroff Anderson & LLP, Rachel Sullivan, Robert J. Axelrod, Pomerantz LLP, Steven A. Owings, Owings Law Firm, T. Brent Walker, Walker Law, PLC, Thomas A. Tucker Ronzetti, Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, Alexander Phillip Owings, Owings Law Firm, Lance August Harke, Harke Clasby & Bushman LLP, Mary Kestenbaum Fortson, The Merlin Law Group, Peter Prieto, Podhurst Orseck, P.A., Robert J Neary, Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, P.A., Sean Michael Shaw, Merlin Law Group, Tal J Lifshitz, Kozyak Tropin Throckmorton, William F. Merlin, Jr., Merlin Law Group PA & Adam M. Moskowitz, Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton. Catherine Soileau, Plaintiff, represented by Angela Mann, Wagoner Law Firm, Catherine E. Anderson, Giskan, Solotaroff Anderson & Stewart, LLP, Harley Shepard Tropin, Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, Jack Wagoner, III, Wagoner Law Firm, P.A., Oren Giskan, Giskan, Solotaroff Anderson & LLP, Rachel Sullivan, Robert J. Axelrod, Pomerantz LLP, Steven A. Owings, Owings Law Firm, T. Brent Walker, Walker Law, PLC, Thomas A. Tucker Ronzetti, Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, Alexander Phillip Owings, Owings Law Firm, Lance August Harke, Harke Clasby & Bushman LLP, Mary Kestenbaum Fortson, The Merlin Law Group, Peter Prieto, Podhurst Orseck, P.A., Robert J Neary, Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, P.A., Sean Michael Shaw, Merlin Law Group, Tal J Lifshitz, Kozyak Tropin Throckmorton, William F. Merlin, Jr., Merlin Law Group PA & Adam M. Moskowitz, Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton. Jacquelyn Totura, Plaintiff, represented by Angela Mann, Wagoner Law Firm, Catherine E. Anderson, Giskan, Solotaroff Anderson & Stewart, LLP, Harley Shepard Tropin, Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, Jack Wagoner, III, Wagoner Law Firm, P.A., Oren Giskan, Giskan, Solotaroff Anderson & LLP, Rachel Sullivan, Robert J. Axelrod, Pomerantz LLP, Steven A. Owings, Owings Law Firm, T. Brent Walker, Walker Law, PLC, Thomas A. Tucker Ronzetti, Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, Alexander Phillip Owings, Owings Law Firm, Lance August Harke, Harke Clasby & Bushman LLP, Mary Kestenbaum Fortson, The Merlin Law Group, Peter Prieto, Podhurst Orseck, P.A., Robert J Neary, Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, P.A., Sean Michael Shaw, Merlin Law Group, Tal J Lifshitz, Kozyak Tropin Throckmorton, William F. Merlin, Jr., Merlin Law Group PA & Adam M. Moskowitz, Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton. Marla Lugo, Plaintiff, represented by Angela Mann, Wagoner Law Firm, Catherine E. Anderson, Giskan, Solotaroff Anderson & Stewart, LLP, Harley Shepard Tropin, Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, Jack Wagoner, III, Wagoner Law Firm, P.A., Oren Giskan, Giskan, Solotaroff Anderson & LLP, Rachel Sullivan, Robert J. Axelrod, Pomerantz LLP, Steven A. Owings, Owings Law Firm, T. Brent Walker, Walker Law, PLC, Thomas A. Tucker Ronzetti, Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, Alexander Phillip Owings, Owings Law Firm, Lance August Harke, Harke Clasby & Bushman LLP, Mary Kestenbaum Fortson, The Merlin Law Group, Peter Prieto, Podhurst Orseck, P.A., Robert J Neary, Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, P.A., Sean Michael Shaw, Merlin Law Group, Tal J Lifshitz, Kozyak Tropin Throckmorton, William F. Merlin, Jr., Merlin Law Group PA & Adam M. Moskowitz, Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton. Renata Circeo, Plaintiff, represented by Aaron Samuel Podhurst, Podhurst Orseck, P.A., Adam M. Moskowitz, Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, Albert L. Frevola, Jr., Conrad & Scherer, LLP, Alexander Phillip Owings, Owings Law Firm, Angela Mann, Wagoner Law Firm, Brian Joseph Stack, Stack Fernandez Anderson & Harris, P.A., Cadio Zirpoli, Saveri & Saveri, Inc., Catherine E. Anderson, Giskan, Solotaroff Anderson & Stewart, LLP, Harley Shepard Tropin, Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, Howard Mitchell Bushman, Harke Clasby & Bushman LLP & Ivan John Kopas, Conrad & Scherer, LLP. Renata Circeo, c/o Law Offices of Michael Riley 601 S. Federal Highway Suite 202 Boca Raton, FL 33432 5616727580, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey N. Golant. Renata Circeo, Plaintiff, represented by John Raymond Bevis, Barnes Law Group LLC, John Gravante, III, Podhurst Orseck, P.A., Lance August Harke, Harke Clasby & Bushman LLP, Mary Kestenbaum Fortson, The Merlin Law Group, Matthew S. Sarelson, Conrad & Scherer, LLP, Matthew Weinshall, Podhurst Orseck, Michael Leland Addicott, Addicott & Addicott, Peter Prieto, Podhurst Orseck, P.A., Rachel Sullivan, Robert J. Axelrod, Pomerantz LLP, Robert J Neary, Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, P.A., Roy E. Barnes, Barnes Law Group, LLC, Sarah Clasby Engel, Harke Clasby & Bushman LLP, Sean Michael Shaw, Merlin Law Group, Stephen Frederick Rosenthal, Podhurst Orseck Josefsberg et al, Thomas A. Tucker Ronzetti, Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton & Tal J Lifshitz, Kozyak Tropin Throckmorton. John Loudon, Plaintiff, represented by Aaron Samuel Podhurst, Podhurst Orseck, P.A., Adam M. Moskowitz, Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, Albert L. Frevola, Jr., Conrad & Scherer, LLP, Alexander Phillip Owings, Owings Law Firm, Angela Mann, Wagoner Law Firm, Brian Joseph Stack, Stack Fernandez Anderson & Harris, P.A., Cadio Zirpoli, Saveri & Saveri, Inc., Catherine E. Anderson, Giskan, Solotaroff Anderson & Stewart, LLP, Harley Shepard Tropin, Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, Howard Mitchell Bushman, Harke Clasby & Bushman LLP, Ivan John Kopas, Conrad & Scherer, LLP, Jeffrey N. Golant, John Raymond Bevis, Barnes Law Group LLC, John Gravante, III, Podhurst Orseck, P.A., Lance August Harke, Harke Clasby & Bushman LLP, Mary Kestenbaum Fortson, The Merlin Law Group, Matthew S. Sarelson, Conrad & Scherer, LLP, Matthew Weinshall, Podhurst Orseck, Michael Leland Addicott, Addicott & Addicott, Peter Prieto, Podhurst Orseck, P.A., Rachel Sullivan, Robert J. Axelrod, Pomerantz LLP, Robert J Neary, Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, P.A., Roy E. Barnes, Barnes Law Group, LLC, Sarah Clasby Engel, Harke Clasby & Bushman LLP, Sean Michael Shaw, Merlin Law Group, Stephen Frederick Rosenthal, Podhurst Orseck Josefsberg et al, Thomas A. Tucker Ronzetti, Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton & Tal J Lifshitz, Kozyak Tropin Throckmorton. Bank of America, N.A., individually and as successor by merger to BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, Defendant, represented by Brian M. LaMacchia, Goodwin Procter, LLP, David S. Kantrowitz, Goodwin Procter, LLP, David Scott Mandel, Mandel & Mandel LLP, David L. Permut, Goodwin Procter, LLP, John C. Englander, Goodwin Procter & Hoar, Joshua M. Daniels, Goodwin Procter, LLP, Katherine A. Aldrich, Goodwin Procter, LLP, Katherine J. Shinners, Goodwin Procter, LLP, Matthew G. Lindenbaum, Goodwin Procter, LLP, Michael F. Perry, Goddwin Procter, LLP, Camellia Noriega, Mandel, Mandel LLP & Nina Stillman Mandel, Mandel & Mandel LLP. Balboa Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Amanda M. Raines, Buckley Sandler, LLP, Katherine L. Halliday, BuckleySandler, LLP, Robyn C. Quattrone, Buckley Sandler, LLP, Stephen M. LeBlanc, BuckleySandler, LLP, William Newton Shepherd, Holland & Knight LLP & Brian W. Toth, Holland & Knight. Banc of America Insurance Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by David S. Kantrowitz, Goodwin Procter, LLP, David Scott Mandel, Mandel & Mandel LLP, Katherine A. Aldrich, Goodwin Procter, LLP, Katherine J. Shinners, Goodwin Procter, LLP, Michael F. Perry, Goddwin Procter, LLP, Camellia Noriega, Mandel, Mandel LLP & Nina Stillman Mandel, Mandel & Mandel LLP. BAC Home Loans Servicing LP, Defendant, represented by David S. Kantrowitz, Goodwin Procter, LLP, Katherine A. Aldrich, Goodwin Procter, LLP, Katherine J. Shinners, Goodwin Procter, LLP, Michael F. Perry, Goddwin Procter, LLP, Nina Stillman Mandel, Mandel & Mandel LLP & Camellia Noriega, Mandel, Mandel LLP. QBE Insurance Corp., Defendant, represented by Brian W. Toth, Holland & Knight. QBE First Insurance Agency, Defendant, represented by Brian W. Toth, Holland & Knight. BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Rigs Gold Market for Own Benefit, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- John Murphy, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated Bank of Nova Scotia, Barclays Bank PLC, Deutsche Bank AG, HSBC Holdings PLC, and Societe Generale, and London Gold Market Fixing Ltd., Case No. 1:14-cv-05135 (S.D.N.Y., July 9, 2014), concerns naked price fixing by five of the largest bullion banks in the world, who have for years jointly worked together on a daily basis, to allegedly rig the gold market for their collective benefit. The Bank of Nova Scotia is a Canadian corporation headquartered in Toronto, Canada, with branches and offices in New York City. Scotia Mocatta executes client trades in the physical gold market and in gold derivatives. BNS operates a system called ScotiaiTRADE for commodities trading. BNS clients can trade gold derivatives and purchase gold certificates and gold bars on the iTRADE system. BNS conducts proprietary trading in the gold market. ScotiaMocatta maintains a COMEX licensed gold vault in New York. During the Class Period, BNS was a member and owner of the London Gold Market Fixing Ltd., and entered directly into gold spot and futures transactions with members of the Class. Barclays Bank plc is a United Kingdom corporation headquartered in London, England. Barclays executes client trades in the physical gold market and in gold derivatives, and also operates a system called BARX for commodities trading. Barclays' clients can make orders at the London Gold Fixing price or trade gold derivatives on the BARX system. Deutsche Bank AG is a German corporation headquartered in Frankfurt, Germany. Deutsche Bank executes client trades in the physical gold market and in gold derivatives. HSBC Bank plc is a United Kingdom company headquartered in London, England. HSBC executes client trades in the physical gold market and in gold derivatives. Societe Generale SA is a French corporation headquartered in Paris, France. Societe Generale executes client trades in the physical gold market and in gold derivatives. London Gold Market Fixing Limited is a United Kingdom private company headquartered in London, England. LGMF is owned and controlled by Barclays, Deutsche Bank, HSBC, BNS and Societe Generale and these five banks are also the only members of LGMF. The Plaintiff is represented by: Roger J. Bernstein, Esq. 535 Fifth Avenue, 35th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 748-4800 Facsimile: (646) 964-6633 E-mail: rbernstein@rjblaw.com - and - Elizabeth C. Pritzker, Esq. Bethany L. Caracuzzo, Esq. Shiho Yamamoto, Esq. PRITZKER LAW 633 Battery Street, Suite 110 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 692-0772 Facsimile: (415) 366-6110 Email: ecp@pritzker-law.com bc@pritzker-law.com sy@pritzker-law.com BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Sued for Fixing Trade of Gold & Derivatives ---------------------------------------------------------------- Edward R. Derksen, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Bank of Nova Scotia, Barclays Bank PLC, Deutsche Bank AG, HSBC Holdings PLC, and Societe Generale, Case No. 1:14-cv- 05153 (S.D.N.Y., July 9, 2014), is a federal class action brought on behalf of all persons and entities (other than Defendants or their subsidiaries or affiliates) who, between January 1, 2004, and the present, held or transacted in physical gold or gold derivatives that settled or were marked-to-market at the London Fix, or held or transacted in COMEX gold futures or options contracts. The Defendants combined, conspired, or agreed with one another to restrain trade through the collusive manipulation of prices of gold and gold derivative contracts, including COMEX gold futures contracts and options on futures contracts, according to the complaint. Bank of Nova Scotia, doing business as Scotiabank, is a Canadian public company with headquarters in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Barclays Bank plc is a British public limited company with headquarters in London, England. Deutsche Bank AG is a German financial services company headquartered in Frankfurt, Germany. HSBC Holdings plc is a British public limited company headquartered in London. Societe Generale is a public banking and financial services company headquartered in Paris, France. The Defendants, through their broker-dealer affiliates, actively traded COMEX gold futures and options contracts during the Class Period. The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Lovell, Esq. Fred T. Isquith Jr., Esq. Amanda N. Miller, Esq. LOVELL STEWART HALEBIAN JACOBSON LLP 61 Broadway, Suite 501 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 608-1900 Facsimile: (212) 719-4677 E-mail: clovell@lshllp.com fisquith@lshllp.com - and - David E. Kovel, Esq. Daniel Hume, Esq. KIRBY McINERNEY LLP 825 Third Avenue, 16th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 371-6600 Facsimile: (212) 751-2540 E-mail: dkovel@kmllp.com dhume@kmllp.com - and - Seth R. Gassman, Esq. Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq. William P. Butterfield, Esq. Timothy S. Kearns, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 1700 K Street, NW; Suite 650 Washington, D.C. 20006 Telephone: (202) 540-7200 Facsimile: (202) 540-7201 E-mail: sgassman@hausfeldllp.com mhausfeld@hausfeldllp.com wbutterfield@hausfeldllp.com tkearns@hausfeldllp.com BIOMET ORTHOPEDICS: Faces Suit Over M2A Magnum Hip Replacement -------------------------------------------------------------- Johnny Lucas v. Biomet Orthopedics, LLC, Biomet, Inc., and Biomet Manufacturing LLC, f/k/a Biomet Manufacturing Corp., Case No. 3:14-cv-01722 (N.D. Ind., July 10, 2014), alleges that the Defendants failed to disclose material facts regarding the defects and failures of its device, Biomet M2A Magnum. The Biomet device was developed by Biomet in order to reconstruct human hip joints due to conditions like osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, avascular necrosis, functional deformity or femoral fracture. Mr. Lucas tells the Court that he underwent a total replacement of his left hip on November 15, 2007, and a Biomet M2A Magnum System ("Biomet M2A Magnum, Taperloc and Mallory device") was implanted. As a result of the implantation of the Biomet M2A Magnum, the Plaintiff alleges that he has suffered permanent injuries and damages, including medical expenses, physical pain and mental anguish, physical impairment, and disfigurement. Biomet Orthopedics, LLC is a limited liability corporation, and its sole member is Biomet, Inc. Biomet, Inc. is an Indiana corporation headquartered in Warsaw, Indiana. Biomet Manufacturing, LLC, formerly known as Biomet Manufacturing Corp., is a limited liability corporation. Biomet designed, manufactured, marketed, promoted, and sold the device that is the subject of the lawsuit. Biomet marketed, promoted, and sold the device in Arkansas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Shezad Malik, MD JD, Esq. DR. SHEZAD MALIK LAW OFFICE PC 4925 Greenville Ave., Suite 320 Dallas, TX 75206 Telephone: (888) 210-9693 E-mail: DrMalik@ShezadMalik.com BP PLC: British Pension Funds Join Oil Spill Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Scott Campbell, writing for The Telegraph, reports that British pension funds have joined a group of claimants suing BP in a Texas court over the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, after a series of recent rulings mean the case can be tried there under English law. The funds have reportedly joined a class-action lawsuit against BP over the collapse of its share price following the Deepwater Horizon disaster. US law firm Pomerantz Law is representing 32 major shareholders from across the globe. They are demanding compensation for their losses on shares bought before the 2010 incident, in which 11 people were killed. Litigants include the City of Westminster Council, Lincolnshire County Council and Cumbria County Council, according to court filings. The Pension Trust of rival firm Shell is also a plaintiff. Previously, only investors who bought their BP shares on US markets were allowed to sue. However, following multiple rulings, cases can now be prosecuted in Texan courts under English law. While the British pension funds could have sued in the UK, courts in the US offer greater compensation. The case, which is being fought by Pomerantz on a no-win-no-fee basis, could also be expanded to include European shareholders. BP originally estimated it would have to pay out around $7.8 billion to compensate victims of the disaster, but this has so far been pushed up to $9.2 billion (GBP4.5 billion). Analysts expect the total to rise even further. BUMBLE BEE: "Bennett" Suit Moved to Western District of Arkansas ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Bennett v. Bumble Bee Foods, LLC, Case No. 14-930-6, was removed from the Circuit Court of Washington County to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas (Fayetteville). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:14-cv-05218-JLH to the proceeding. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth R. Shemin, Esq. SHEMIN LAW FIRM, PLLC 3333 Pinnacle Hills Parkway, Suite 603 Rogers, AR 72758 Telephone: (479) 845-3305 Facsimile: (479) 845-2198 E-mail: ken@sheminlaw.com - and - Marcus Neil Bozeman, Esq. CAULEY BOWMAN CARNEY WILLIAMS PLLC 11311 Arcade Drive, Suite 200 P.O. Box 25438 Little Rock, AR 72221 Telephone: (501) 312-8500 Facsimile: (501) 312-8505 E-mail: mbozeman@cauleybowman.com - and - Thomas P. Thrash, Esq. THRASH LAW FIRM 1101 Garland Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 374-1058 Facsimile: (501) 374-2222 E-mail: tomthrash@sbcglobal.net The Defendant is represented by: Amy Lee Stewart, Esq. ROSE LAW FIRM 120 East Fourth Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 377-0334 Facsimile: (501) 375-1309 E-mail: astewart@roselawfirm.com CAMPBELL SOUP: "McCrary" Suit Remanded to Calif. Super. Court ------------------------------------------------------------- Senior District Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr., signed an order on June 18, 2014, approving a stipulation remanding to state court the case captioned DANNY McCRARY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, Plaintiffs, v. CAMPBELL SOUP SUPPLY COMPANY L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, CASE NO. 2:13-CV-01332-GEB-KJN, (E.D. Cal.). A copy of the court-approved stipulation is available at http://is.gd/KgL8Hvfrom Leagle.com. The stipulation provides that the Plaintiff and Defendant, by and through their attorneys of record, agree that at this time there is less than $75,000 in controversy between Plaintiff individually and Defendant, and less than $5,000,000 in controversy between the proposed class and Defendant and, as a result, traditional diversity jurisdiction and Class Aaction Fairness Act jurisdiction by the District Court at this time are not appropriate. The parties, hence, further stipulate that the action will immediately be remanded to the Superior Court for the State of California, County of San Joaquin. KENNETH S. GAINES ESQ. -- -- ken@gaineslawfirm.com -- DANIEL F. GAINES, ESQ. -- daniel@gaineslawfirm.com -- ALEX P. KATOFSKY, ESQ. -- alex@gaineslawfirm.com -- GAINES & GAINES, APLC, Woodland Hills, CA, Attorneys for Plaintiff DANNY McCRARY. RONALD W. BROWN, ESQ. -- rbrown@cookbrown.com -- BARBARA A. COTTER, ESQ. -- bcotter@cookbrown.com -- CARRIE E. BUSHMAN, ESQ. -- cbushman@cookbrown.com -- MEG E. WILSON, ESQ. -- mwilson@cookbrown.com -- COOK BROWN, LLP, Attorneys for Defendant CAMBELL SOUP SUPPLY COMPANY, L.L.C. CARMAX AUTO: Judge Grants Motion to Dismiss Wage Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Lisa Ryan, Jeff Sistrunk and Kurt Orzeck, writing for Law360, report that CarMax Auto Superstores California LLC on July 2 dodged a putative class action seeking allegedly unpaid wages for its mechanics, detailers and other employees, with a California federal judge saying the company could enforce arbitration agreements the workers had signed in their employment applications. U.S. District Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald granted CarMax's motion to dismiss and compel arbitration of a suit alleging the nation's largest used-car retailer didn't compensate its nonexempt piece- rate employees for work between repair orders and for attendance in mandatory meetings. The judge said the company can enforce the agreements, even though he agreed with the lead plaintiffs that the contract is to some degree unconscionable because the workers had no choice whether to sign them since they were a non-negotiable condition of employment. "The court finds that the agreements are valid and binding on plaintiffs. The court finds further that while the agreements involve a small amount of procedural unconscionability because they are adhesive contracts, they are not substantively unconscionable," the order said. The suit was filed in March in state court by lead plaintiffs Trinidad Herrera, Taroob Simani and Luis Berregan, who used to work for the retailer as nonexempt piece-rate employees. The plaintiffs alleged that while the workers were paid a piece rate, there were times when they had to be at work but weren't working on piece-rate projects, so they couldn't earn piece-rate pay. The lead plaintiffs claim they should have been paid at least twice the minimum wage for these nonproduction hours, according to court documents. They asked the judge to certify a class of all current and former painters, detailers, mechanics and other piece-rate employees who worked for the company in California for four years before the initiation of the suit. The suit was removed to federal court in April by CarMax, and earlier this month, the judge denied the putative class's bid to remand the suit, agreeing with CarMax's contention that the amount in issue nears $8 million, much more than required for removal from state court. But on July 2, the judge said CarMax showed that each of the lead plaintiffs signed dispute resolution agreements in their employment applications, which provide that such claims must be arbitrated. The agreement asked each of the applicants to familiarize themselves with the dispute resolution stipulation before signing. Two of the plaintiffs alleged the agreements were invalid because they signed the arbitration agreements with the now-defunct Circuit City, which was CarMax's former parent company, instead of with the retailer, according to the order. CarMax argued that during the corporate restructuring, it transferred the agreements to the company. "The court agrees with CarMax that, notwithstanding corporate restructuring, it has the legal right to enforce the Agreements," the judge said. The plaintiffs are represented by Neal J. Fialkow of the Law Office of Neal J. Fialkow and Aaron C. Gundzik -- agundzik@gghslaw.com -- and Rebecca G. Gundzik -- rgundzik@gghslaw.com -- of Gartenberg Gelfand Hayton & Selden LLP. CarMax is represented by Jack S. Sholkoff -- jack.sholkoff@ogletreedeakins.com -- and Patricia M. Jeng -- patricia.jeng@ogletreedeakins.com -- of Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart PC. The case is Trinidad Herrera et al. v. CarMax Auto Superstores California LLC et al., case number 5:14-cv-00776, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. CHELSEA INVESTMENT: Faces "Whitby" Suit Alleging FHA Violations --------------------------------------------------------------- Landon Whitby, Carolina Whitby, Ioulia Kouprina, William Jhandi, Teresa Jhandi, Brett Jenson, Miranda Jenson, Jeannette McGhee, Adrian Whittenburg, Consuelo Guerrero, Victoria Nayak, Tammy Cole Oleksandra Martynshyn, individuals, and Others similarly situated v. Chelsea Investment Corporation, a California Corporation; CIC PHR, LP, a California Limited Partnership; PHR Inclusionary, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company; Pacific Southwest Community Development Corporation, a California Corporation; MMA PHR CIC, L.P., a limited partnership; SLP, Inc., a California Corporation; CIC Management Inc., a California Corporation; Conam Management Corporation, a California Corporation; The Schmid Family Trust, a California Trust; James J. Schmid, an individual; Lynn Harrington Schmid, an individual; Rosie Terriquez, an individual; Kye Smith, an individual; Joe Sosa, an individual; and Does 1-500, Case No. 3:14-cv-01633-MMA-BLM (S.D. Cal., July 9, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair Housing Act. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Melody A. Kramer, Esq. KRAMER LAW OFFICE 9710 Scranton Road, Suite 160 San Diego, CA 92121 Telephone: (855) 835-5520 E-mail: mak@kramerlawip.com CHINA AGRITECH: Faces Securities Class Action in California ----------------------------------------------------------- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP on July 5 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court, Central District of California, on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired common stock of China Agritech, Inc. between November 12, 2009 through March 11, 2011, inclusive, against the Company and certain of the Company's officers and directors, alleging securities fraud pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The litigation is styled Resh v. China Agritech, Inc., C.A. No. 14-cv-05083. A copy of the Complaint filed in this action is available from the Court, or can be viewed on the Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP website at whafh.com. The Complaint alleges that China Agritech issued materially false and misleading financial statements and created separate financial records for the Securities and Exchange Commission and investors which drastically differed from those filed with Chinese authorities, grossly overstating its revenues and income in reports issued to shareholders. The truth regarding China Agritech's financial statements slowly entered the market despite Defendants' attempts to deny the truth. Particularly, on February 3, 2011, analyst firm LM Research issued a report alleging, among other things, that the Company's statement of revenue and earnings for the fiscal year 2009 were materially false and misleading and referred to the Company as a "scam" with empty, idle factory plants, no necessary licenses and "no value." The Report claimed that China Agritech's U.S. financial statements were materially different than the financial statements filed with Chinese authorities by a number of the Company's subsidiaries and that the revenue reported in the Company's SEC filings for 2009 was ten times larger than what the Chinese regulatory reports had shown. The Report also noted a number of potential incidents of fraud and related party transactions within the Company. When these disclosures of fraud concerning China Agritech were revealed to the market, the price of China Agritech stock dropped dramatically, damaging investors. China Agritech vigorously denied such allegations publicly, yet the stock did not recover, and analysts continued to downgrade CAGC. After the close of trading on March 11, 2011, NASDAQ announced that it was halting trading due to pending release of news. On March 14, 2011, the Company issued a release announcing the resignation of its independent outside auditor, Ernst & Young Hua Ming. The Company announced that it formed a Special Committee to investigate accounting irregularities and delayed the filing of it 10-K report to the SEC. On October 17, 2012 the SEC issued an enforcement order revoking the registration of CAGC's stock. Thus, CAGC's stock is no longer publicly traded, effectively rendering it worthless. If you purchased CAGC common stock during the Class Period, you may request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff by September 3, 2014. A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Under certain circumstances, one or more class members may together serve as "lead plaintiff." Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. You may retain Wolf Haldenstein, or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in this action. Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and federal trial and appellate courts across the country. The firm has over 70 attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in Chicago, New York City, and San Diego. The reputation and expertise of this firm in shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated litigation. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions, please contact Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz by telephone at (800) 575-0735, via e-mail at classmember@whafh.com or visit our website at www.whafh.com All e-mail correspondence should make reference to "China Agritech litigation." Contact: Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP Gregory M. Nespole, Esq. or Email: Nespole@whafh.com Gregory Stone gstone@whafh.com or classmember@whafh.com Tel: (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774 CHINA NATURAL: Court Certifies Class in "Skeway" Action ------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Richard G. Andrews granted a motion for class certification and appointment of class representatives and class counsel in the case captioned ROBERT SKEWAY and RAIMUNDO JO-FUNG, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. CHINA NATURAL GAS, INC., QINAN JI, and DAVID SHE, Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-728-RGA, (D. Del.). Plaintiffs Robert Skeway and Raimundo Jo-Fung brought this action against China Natural Gas, Inc. (CHNG), Qinan Ji (Ji), and David She (She) asserting a claim for damages for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On December 23, 2013, the Plaintiffs moved for their appointment as class representatives, the appointment of class counsel, and class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 "on behalf of those persons or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired the public traded common stock of China Natural Gas, Inc. between March 10, 2010 and September 21, 2011, inclusive." A copy of the District Court's June 18, 2014 memorandum opinion is available at http://is.gd/RmkKjffrom Leagle.com. Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq. -- sdr@rl-legal.com -- Rigrodsky & Long. P.A., Wilmington, DE. Brian D. Long, Esq. -- bdl@rl-legal.com -- Rigrodsky & Long. P.A., Wilmington, DE. Gina M. Serra, Esq. -- gms@rl-legal.com -- Rigrodsky & Long. P.A., Wilmington, DE, Liaison Counsel for Plaintiffs. Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. -- lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., New York, NY. Phillip Kim, Esq. -- pkim@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., New York, NY, Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs. CHOBANI: Fungus in Recalled Yogurt Poses Health Risk to Consumers ----------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Preidt, writing for CBS News, reports that a fungus that triggered a yogurt recall last year poses a health risk to all consumers, according to a new study. In September 2013, there were reports of illness among people who ate Chobani brand Greek yogurt, and the company issued a recall. The yogurt was found to be contaminated with a fungus called Mucor circinelloides. "When people think about food-borne pathogens [germs], normally they list bacteria, viruses, and maybe parasites. Fungal pathogens are not considered as food-borne pathogens," Soo Chan Lee, of Duke University, said in a news release from the American Society for Microbiology. "However, this incidence indicates that we need to pay more attention to fungi. Fungal pathogens can threaten our health systems as food-borne pathogens," Mr. Lee added. At the time, it was believed that the fungus was only a health threat to people with weakened immune systems. However, there were many complaints about gastrointestinal illness from otherwise healthy people, prompting researchers to take a closer look at the fungus in the yogurt. The investigators found that the strain of M. circinelloides that caused the outbreak of illness was one commonly associated with infections in people. The researchers tested the strain on mice and found that it could cause deadly infections in the rodents. The findings were recently published in the online journal mBio. Chobani disputed the study's claims, and said company tests found no presence of "pathogens," or germs. "Chobani conducted an aggressive, statistically significant series of tests of the products voluntarily recalled in September 2013 with third-party experts confirming the absence of food-borne pathogens. Chobani stands by these findings, which are consistent with regulatory agency findings and the FDA's [U.S. Food and Drug Administration] Class II classification of the recall on October 30, 2013," Dr. Alejandro Mazzotta, Chobani vice president of Global Quality, Food Safety, and Regulatory Affairs, said in a news release. "In regards to this specific study, we were just made aware of it and want to take more time to review its methodology and assertions," Dr. Mazzotta added. "To our knowledge, there is no evidence, including the assertions presented in this publication, that the strain in the recalled products causes illness in consumers when ingested. Food quality and safety has always been and always will be paramount to Chobani." Since the 2013 recall, Chobani has "implemented additional state- of-the-art equipment for microbiological testing, and the company routinely conducts more than 500 microbiological tests daily from crafting and finished product samples, in excess of the regulatory requirements," he said. DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Automatic Tips ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that Darden Restaurants Inc., the parent of Olive Garden and Red Lobster, won the dismissal of a New York lawsuit accusing it of illegally adding an automatic 18% tip to diners' bills and failing to list beverage prices on its menus. In a decision made public on July 10, U.S. District Judge Katherine Polk Failla in Manhattan rejected claims by plaintiff Ted Dimond, who sought to represent diners in a class-action, that Darden's practices violated state consumer protection laws. Mr. Dimond claimed it was deceptive for Darden to refer to the mandatory tip it imposed in some restaurants as a "gratuity," which he called a "voluntary act." But the judge said Darden "conspicuously" showed the tip on its menus before diners placed their orders, and that diners were free to leave if they disapproved. She also said New Yorkers often leave tips of 18 percent to 20 percent, undercutting the argument they might feel "tricked" into having to fork over tips at the low end of that range. While New York City has its own laws on menu surcharges, private diners cannot use them as a basis to sue, Ms. Failla said. The judge also said failing to list beer and soft drink prices by itself caused no harm, and was not misleading because reasonable customers could get those prices by asking. Ms. Failla's 34-page decision is dated July 9. Jeffrey Smith, a lawyer for Mr. Dimond, said he was disappointed with the decision, and that his client would review his options. The case is Dimond v. Darden Restaurants Inc et al, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 13-05244. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION: "Hall" Suit Returns to Circuit Court -------------------------------------------------------------- Mary Hall, the personal representative of the estate of Adolphus Hall, Sr., and Anaya McKinnon, the personal representative of the estate of Wanzy Lee Bowman, appealed from the Jefferson Circuit Court's order dismissing their complaint filed against Environmental Litigation Group, P.C., a law firm (ELG). The plaintiffs filed their complaint on March 19, 2013, in the Jefferson Circuit Court against ELG, requesting a declaratory judgment and alleging one count of unjust enrichment and one count of breach of contract. The plaintiffs asserted those claims on behalf of the estates they represented and on behalf of "others similarly situated as a class action pursuant to Rule 23," Ala. R. Civ. P. ELG filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' appeal, arguing that the Court does not have subject-matter jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' appeal because "[o]nly the Alabama State Bar has jurisdiction to resolve the dispute between the parties." In an opinion dated June 20, 2014, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/SgCVepfrom Leagle.com, Justice Bryan of The Supreme Court of Alabama ruled that the claims brought by the plaintiffs fall within the subject-matter jurisdiction of the circuit court. Accordingly, the circuit court's judgment dismissing the plaintiffs' complaint with prejudice is reversed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings. "In light of our conclusion in this case, we deny ELG's motion to dismiss," Justice Bryan added. The case is Mary Hall, personal representative of the Estate of Adolphus Hall, Sr., and Anaya McKinnon, personal representative of the Estate of Wanzy Lee Bowman, v. Environmental Litigation Group, P.C., NO. 1130301. ENVIVIO INC: Faces Shareholder Litigations in Calif. Over IPO ------------------------------------------------------------- Envivio, Inc. faces several securities suit in relation to its initial public offering, according to the company's June 12, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2014. On October 5, 2012 a complaint captioned Wiley v. Envivio, Inc., et al. CIV-517185 was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo, naming as defendants the Company, each of its directors, its chief executive officer, its chief financial officer, and certain underwriters of its IPO. The lawsuit purports to be a class action on behalf of purchasers of shares issued in the IPO and generally alleges that the registration statement for the IPO contained materially false or misleading statements. The complaint purports to assert claims under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and seeks unspecified damages and other relief. On October 19, 2012 a similar complaint captioned Toth v. Envivio, Inc. et al. CIV-517481 was filed in the same court. On November 2, 2012 defendants removed the cases to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California where they were assigned case numbers 12-cv-05637-CRB and 12-cv- 05636-CW. A similar complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on December 20, 2012 entitled Thomas v. Envivio, Inc., et al. C 12- 06464. The Wiley and Toth actions were subsequently remanded to the San Mateo Superior Court, where they are now pending, and the Thomas case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. On February 28, 2014, a complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California entitled Gary Silverberg v. Envivio, Inc. et al., Civil No. 14-cv-00933- PJH. The complaint purports to be on behalf of a class of purchasers of the Company's securities between April 25, 2012 and September 7, 2012. It names as defendants the Company and the Company's chief executive officer and chief financial officer, and seeks unspecified damages and other relief for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. ETHICON INC: Wants to Block Discovery of Expert's Pay in Mesh MDL ----------------------------------------------------------------- Amaris Elliott-Engel, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that Ethicon Inc., a Johnson & Johnson subsidiary facing 18,000 cases involving its pelvic mesh in federal multidistrict litigation, wants to block discovery of the compensation it paid to a non-retained expert who works as a medical-affairs director at the company. The compensation to Dr. Piet Hinoul should not be discoverable just because he is employed by Ethicon, the manufacturer said in a recent court filing. His pay would only be discoverable if he were paid specifically for his expert testimony, to let the plaintiffs expose any personal interest he might have in arriving at his opinion, Ethicon said. Dr. Hinoul's status as a full-time employee is enough to demonstrate his possible bias without exposing his specific compensation arrangement, the company argued. "The fact of Dr. Hinoul's employment and other related responsibilities, such as sitting on the board for Ethicon Women's Health and Urology, is sufficient for plaintiffs to argue any supposed bias," Ethicon said. Furthermore, Dr. Hinoul has a legitimate privacy interest in his compensation, his employer argued. "Dr. Hinoul's compensation information is not discoverable because his employment, alone, is sufficient to allow plaintiffs to argue any purported bias," Ethicon said. "Additionally, Dr. Hinoul's personal privacy interest in maintaining the confidentiality of his compensation information precludes its discovery here." The plaintiffs argue that Dr. Hinoul's compensation is relevant because he is testifying in litigation that could result in "substantial monetary liability" against Ethicon; affect his ownership interest in the company; and affect his continued employment with the firm. The defendants are seeking a protective order for Dr. Hinoul. The MDL, pending in West Virginia, involves the claims of women who allege injuries from pelvic mesh that was implanted in their bodies to treat urinary incontinence and pelvic prolapse. FIDELITY NATIONAL: Bid for Class Cert. on "Henson" Suit Denied -------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Otis D. Wright, II denied a motion for class certification in the case captioned MELISSA HENSON and KEITH TURNER on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. FIDELITY NATIONAL FINANCIAL INC., Defendant, CASE NO. 2:14-CV-01240-ODW(RZX), (C.D. Cal.). A copy of the June 18, 2014 ruling is available at http://is.gd/GR87NBfrom Leagle.com. According to Judge Wright, throughout Plaintiff Keith Turner's relatively green litigation, the Court has had to blaze a trail through the often-perplexing Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), interpreting several unsettled issues. Motion practice has since trimmed this litigation down to one svelte issue: whether Defendant Fidelity National Financial Inc. violated 12 U.S.C. Section 2607(a) by receiving kickbacks in exchange for referring overnight-delivery business to Federal Express, UPS, or California Overnight (now OnTrac). Now -- nearly eight months after he served Fidelity -- Mr. Turner moves to certify a class of all "persons nationwide who -- in connection with a transaction involving a federally related mortgage loan in which the real estate settlement was handled by a [Fidelity] subsidiary" were charged an overnight-delivery fee during the time when Fidelity had an agreement with FedEx, UPS, or OnTrac. But while Fidelity's potential Section 2607(a) liability satisfies Rule 23(a)'s commonality element, class-member-specific questions will inevitably overwhelm any classwide inquiries. "The Court therefore denied Turner's Motion for Class Certification and Alternative Motion to Continue Hearing and Decision," he said. "[T]he Court finds that Turner has failed to established Rule 23(b)(3)'s predominance and superiority elements and that the untimeliness of the Motion provides an independent and alternative basis for denying it," he added. Melissia Henson, Plaintiff, represented by Bruce R MacLeod -- bmacleod@mckoolsmithhennigan.com -- McKool Smith Hennigan PC, Elizabeth Susan Lachman -- elachman@mckoolsmithhennigan.com -- McKool Smith Hennigan PC, Gerald James Strenio -- james@kicklawfirm.com -- Kick Law Firm, J Michael Hennigan -- hennigan@mckoolsmithhennigan.com -- McKool Smith Hennigan PC, Taras Peter Kihiczak -- taras@kicklawfirm.com -- The Kick Law Offices & Thomas Alistair Segal -- thomas@kicklawfirm.com -- Kick Law Firm. Keith Turner, Plaintiff, represented by Bruce R MacLeod, McKool Smith Hennigan PC, Elizabeth Susan Lachman, McKool Smith Hennigan PC, Gerald James Strenio, Kick Law Firm, J Michael Hennigan, McKool Smith Hennigan PC, Taras Peter Kihiczak, The Kick Law Offices & Thomas Alistair Segal, Kick Law Firm. Fidelity National Financial Inc, Defendant, represented by Michael J Gleason -- mgleason@hahnlaw.com -- Hahn Loeser and Parks LLP. FINANCIAL CREDIT: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act --------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Cruddas, an individual on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Financial Credit Services, Inc., d/b/a ARA, Inc., d/ba Asset Recovery Associates, Case No. 6:14-cv-01101-RBD- GJK (M.D. Fla., July 9, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick Christopher Crotty, Esq. Scott David Owens, Esq. SCOTT D. OWENS, P.A. 664 E. Hallendale Beach Blvd. Hallandale, FL 33009 Telephone: (954) 589-0588 Facsimile: (954) 337-0666 E-mail: pccrotty@gmail.com scott@scottdowens.com FRITO-LAY: Obtains Final Approval of "Elliot" Suit Deal ------------------------------------------------------- District Judge David O. Carter entered final judgment and order of dismissal with prejudice in the case captioned SIDNEY ELLIOTT, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ROLLING FRITO-LAY SALES, LP, FRITO LAY, INC., FRITO- LAY SALES, INC., and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, CASE NO. SA CV11-1730 DOC (ANX), (C.D. Cal.). Judge Carter has granted final approval of the class settlement in the case. The Court appointed Sidney Elliott as class representative, certified the designated class and subclasses, and appointed Spiro Law Corp. and Gigliotti & Gigliotti as class counsel. The Court also granted the motion for attorneys' fees and costs, and awarded class counsel $480,000 of the settlement fund, reimbursement of costs totaling $20,000, and payment of the Claims Administrator in the amount of $36,500. The Court approved a payment of $5,000 to the LWDA, with 25% returning to the class members. The Court approved an incentive award of $10,000 for the lead plaintiff in the case. The Court likewise dismissed the Action on the merits and with prejudice against the Named Plaintiff and all Class Members in favor of Frito-Lay and without costs or attorneys' fees to any of the Parties as against any other settling party, except as provided for in the Stipulation. A copy of the order granting final approval of the class action settlement and motion for attorneys' fees and costs is available at http://is.gd/uXCeAqfrom Leagle.com. A copy of the June 12, 2014 final judgment and order of dismissal is available at http://is.gd/uXCeAqfrom Leagle.com. Sidney Elliott, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Linh Hua -- linh@spiromoore.com -- Moore & Leviant LLP, Ira R Spiro -- Ira@spirolawcorp.com -- Spiro Law Corp, Jennifer L Connor -- Jennifer@spirolawcorp.com -- Spiro Law Corp & Joseph J Gigliotti -- Gigliottilaw@msn.com -- Gigliotti and Gigliotti. Rolling Frito Lay Sales LP, Defendant, represented by Samantha D Hardy -- shardy@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton, Ashley Teiko Hirano -- ahirano@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter Hampton & Guy Nels Halgren -- ghalgren@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter and Hampton. Frito Lay Inc, Defendant, represented by Samantha D Hardy, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton, Ashley Teiko Hirano, Sheppard Mullin Richter Hampton & Guy Nels Halgren, Sheppard Mullin Richter and Hampton. Frito Lay Sales Inc., Defendant, represented by Samantha D Hardy, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton, Ashley Teiko Hirano, Sheppard Mullin Richter Hampton & Guy Nels Halgren, Sheppard Mullin Richter and Hampton. Does, 1 through 10, Defendant, represented by Samantha D Hardy, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton. GENERAL MOTORS: Beasley Allen Files Ignition Switch Defect Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that a plaintiffs firm that has sued General Motors Co. over accidents related to an ignition switch defect is continuing to file lawsuits even as its clients prepare to make claims against a victim compensation fund. Montgomery, Ala.'s Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles, which claims to be investigating more than 250 crashes that could be linked to ignition switch problems, filed suit on July 9 on behalf of Daniel Hollaert, 23, who died on Dec. 17, 2013, when his 2006 Chevy Cobalt crashed into a school bus in Orleans County, N.Y. The suit, filed in Monroe County, N.Y., Supreme Court, a trial venue, blames the crash on the defect, which GM has acknowledged can shut down engines, disabling airbags, power steering and other functions. The suit came the same day that a lawyer for Mr. Hollaert's family, Beasley Allen founding shareholder Jere Beasley, met with Kenneth Feinberg, who is administering a fund to compensate people who died or were injured as a result of GM's defect. Mr. Beasley said that making claims against the fund doesn't bar his clients from filing lawsuits against GM. "We're going to file suit in every case, and then submit claims to the fund, and then do an evaluation," he said. "I still believe they will be punished by a jury at some point." GM, which has recalled 2.6 million cars and trucks over the defect, including the 2006 Cobalt, announced the compensation program on June 30. The fund, which will begin accepting claims on Aug. 1, would provide at least $1 million to each deceased victim and millions more for people injured. Beasley Allen, which unsuccessfully pushed for the victim compensation fund to pay punitive damages, pursues punitive claims in the July 9 lawsuit. GM spokesman Kevin Kelly declined to comment. Beasley is one of the harshest critics of the fund, which limits compensation to the cars and trucks that were recalled in three batches beginning in February. GM has issued additional recalls of more than 12 million vehicles since then for ignition problems. On July 9, Beasley and Beasley Allen shareholder J. Cole Portis -- cole.portis@beasleyallen.com -- along with Lance Cooper, founder of The Cooper Firm in Marietta, Ga., met with Feinberg in Atlanta. Mr. Beasley said the details of the conversation were confidential. "I can't say much more about the meeting itself except to say we're willing to put cases into the plan to see if in fact it will work." GENERAL MOTORS: Removed "Kandziora" Suit to E.D. Wisconsin ---------------------------------------------------------- Defendants General Motors LLC and Heiser Chevrolet, Inc., removed the lawsuit captioned Erin E. Kandziora v. General Motors LLC, et al., Case No. 14-cv-004836, from the Circuit Court of Milwaukee County, state of Wisconsin, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Milwaukee Division. The Action involves claims related to the design, manufacture, sale, and subsequent recall of the Plaintiff's 2010 Chevrolet Cobalt, which the Plaintiff alleges may contain a "defective Ignition & Start Switch," a part manufactured by General Motors Corporation before it filed for bankruptcy on June 1, 2009. The Plaintiff is represented by: Vincent P. Megna, Esq. Susan M. Grzeskowiak, Esq. AIKEN & SCOPTUR, S.C. 2600 N. Mayfair Road, Suite 1030 Milwaukee, WI 53226-1308 Telephone: (414) 225-0260 Facsimile: (414) 225-9666 The Defendants are represented by: Jennifer L. Bullard, Esq. BOWMAN AND BROOKE LLP Roshan N. Rajkumar, Esq. 150 South Fifth Street, Suite 3000 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 339-8682 Facsimile: (612) 672-3200 E-mail: Jennifer.Bullard@bowmanandbrooke.com Roshan.Rajkumar@bowmanandbrooke.com GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: PIP Class Action Removed to Florida Court --------------------------------------------------------------- Kelly Knaub, writing for Law360, reports that the Government Employees Insurance Co. on July 2 removed to Florida federal court a putative class action accusing it of illegally charging retired individuals for personal injury protection wage loss coverage included in its automobile insurance policies. Named plaintiffs Jose and Ramona Aviles contend in the May complaint that they and other putative class members paid for illusory wage loss coverage and are entitled to compensatory damages or restitution of those premium amounts. The case was transferred to the Southern District of Florida from Miami-Dade County's Circuit Court for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, according to the notice of removal. "According to plaintiffs, Geico has not complied with obligations imposed by Florida law in charging 'retired' individuals for personal injury protection wage loss coverage included in its automobile insurance policies," the notice said. According to the notice, each of the putative class members are Florida citizens while Geico is based in Maryland, there are more than 100 members in the putative class and the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million, thereby fulfilling all the requirements to grant the court subject matter jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act. Geico also says that the notice of removal is timely, since it has been filed within 30 days of the company's receipt of the initial complaint on June 5. A verification statement is attached to the notice by Geico pricing and product manager Diana Hoagland, who has been employed with the company since 2003. Ms. Hoagland says she has been able to confirm that the company issued automobile policies to more than 100 individuals residing in Florida who are 65 years or older that included personal injury protection wage loss coverage during the five-year period preceding the filing of the action. According to the manager, there were more than 35,000 Geico automobile insurance policies in force issued to Florida senior citizens that included personal injury protection wage loss coverage as of May 31. She also said she has confirmed that the company earned more than $5 million from the personal injury protection wage loss coverage premiums charged to Florida senior citizens, noting that Geico earned more than $10 million from the premiums during the 12-month period ending on May 31. The complaint brings counts of declaratory judgment, breach of contract and assumpsit, which is a claim to recover damages from a breach of contract. The plaintiffs are represented by John Yanchunis and Tamra Givens of Morgan & Morgan Complex Litigation Group and Bruce Steckler and Mazin Sbaiti of The Steckler Law Firm. Geico is represented by Frank A. Zacherl -- fzacherl@shutts.com -- and Arturo Martinez -- arturomartinez@shutts.com -- of Shutts & Bowen LLP. The case is Aviles et al v. Government Employees Insurance Co., case number 1:14-cv-22464, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. HALLIBURTON CO: Recent Ruling Partial Victory for Directors ----------------------------------------------------------- Judy Greenwald, writing for Business Insurance, reports that the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling making it easier to get securities litigation dismissed at an earlier stage is only a partial victory for directors and officers and is likely to increase legal costs in the initial defense of such lawsuits. In Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund Inc., the nation's highest court decided in a 9-0 vote that corporate defendants must be given the opportunity to show their actions did not affect the stock price of a publicly traded company before a class is certified, rather than have to wait until later at the merits stage of the litigation. While the decision last month sided with Halliburton in overturning an April 2013 ruling by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, it failed to overturn a 26-year-old Supreme Court decision in Basic Inc. et al. v. Max L. Levinson et al. that spurred an increase in securities class actions. Halliburton "had the potential to completely reshape the securities class action landscape," but it "only went halfway to where it could have gone," said Allison Barrett, senior vice president and FINEX Financial Services industry leader at Willis North America Inc. in New York. As a result, legal experts recommend that companies make sure their directors and officers liability insurance covers expert fees and event studies, which assess how an event has or has not affected a company's stock price. "There's going to be a bit of a wait-and-see attitude by both the plaintiff and defense bar to see how courts are going to take this decision and interpret it and apply it," said Edward M. Larkin, a partner at law firm Edwards Wildman Palmer L.L.P. in New York. In Halliburton, plaintiffs alleged that the Dallas-based oil field services company understated its asbestos liabilities. The case centered on the Supreme Court's 1988 ruling in Basic, in which the court endorsed the fraud-on-the-market presumption theory. Under that theory, plaintiffs do not have to demonstrate that each member of a class action relied on a company's alleged misrepresentation of information. It is based on the presumption that in an efficient marketplace, a company's share price reacts to all publicly available information about the company. Experts have said Basic made it much easier for plaintiffs to file class action lawsuits. Basic still stands While companies had hoped the Supreme Court would overturn Basic, which it left intact, the high court did give defendants a partial victory. "Defendants must be afforded an opportunity before class certification to defeat the presumption through evidence that an alleged misrepresentation did not actually affect the market price of the stock," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court. Permitting defendants to challenge the effect of alleged fraudulent misstatements at the class certification stage will enable defendants to "shorten the litigation considerably," although "discovery will get more complicated" to produce evidence that misstatements had no effect on stock prices, Mr. Larkin said. "Once plaintiffs get past certification, more often than not the case is settled, so I think what you're going to see is (plaintiff attorneys) working harder at the class certification stage in order to get the class certified," he said. That will be more difficult "because now defendants can offer evidence to rebut the presumption." While two-thirds to three-quarters of securities suits never get to the class certification stage, Halliburton means at least some class certifications "that might have been granted" previously now will be denied, said Kevin LaCroix., an attorney and executive vice president at RT ProExec, a division of R-T Specialty L.L.C. in Beachwood, Ohio. Heidi A. Lawson, a member of Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky & Popeo P.C. in Boston, recommended that buyers examine their D&O policies to be sure they cover expert fees and event studies, since some provide only narrow coverage of "legal costs incurred." "They really should double-check their definitions and make sure that they do have coverage for expert fees and the kind of fees that would be involved to do an event study, and it's broad enough to cover these kinds of defense costs," Ms. Lawson said. In anticipation of Halliburton, American International Group Inc. last month introduced a D&O policy endorsement that will provide funds immediately to clients named as defendants in securities litigation to prepare event studies. As for the ruling's effect on the D&O liability market, Mark Weintraub, insurance and claims counsel at Lockton Cos. L.L.C. in Atlanta, said it's unlikely to be significant. While defense costs could go up marginally, spending a few hundred thousand dollars to defeat class certification could avoid an even larger settlement, he said. IDAHO: EPA Settles Inmate Asbestos Exposure Suit for $56,000 ------------------------------------------------------------ Rebecca Boone, writing for The Associated Press, reports that the Environmental Protection Agency says Idaho inmates were exposed to asbestos when they were sent to work at an Idaho Transportation Department maintenance shop without proper training or equipment. The federal agency announced on July 8 the Idaho Transportation Department has paid nearly $56,000 to settle the allegations. The state agency didn't admit or deny the allegations. The EPA says the transportation department hired inmates from the St. Anthony Work Camp last year to remove old flooring from a building in Rigby. But the EPA says the department didn't test for asbestos first, and instead relied on a 25-year-old test of a single sample from the maintenance shop that showed no asbestos. Tests done after an inmate complained showed the flooring contained asbestos. Asbestos can cause cancer and other health problems. ISLE OF CAPRI: High Court Won't Review Nixing of Silver Land Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Mississippi Supreme Court issued a decision that effectively dismissed a lawsuit filed by Silver Land, Inc. against Isle of Capri Casinos, Inc. over the sale of casino operations in Vicksburg, Mississippi, according to of Capri's June 23, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended April 27, 2014. The company and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Riverboat Corporation of Mississippi-Vicksburg, were defendants in a lawsuit filed in the Circuit Court of Adams County, Mississippi by Silver Land, Inc., alleging breach of contract in connection with the company's 2006 sale of casino operations in Vicksburg, Mississippi. The court originally ruled in favor of Silver Land and awarded damages of $2.0 million, which the company accrued. The company appealed the decision and in June 2013 the court of appeals reversed the trial court and ruled in the company's favor. Silver Land filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari in November 2013 requesting review by the Mississippi Supreme Court. On February 20, 2014, the Mississippi Supreme Court denied Silver Land's request, which effectively disposed of this matter in its entirety. As a result, during fiscal 2014, the company reversed a litigation accrual of $2.2 million, of which $2.0 million was recorded as a reduction to operating expenses and $0.2 million was recorded as a reduction to interest expense. ISLE OF CAPRI: Settles Suit Over Unsolicited Fax Advertisements --------------------------------------------------------------- Isle of Capri Casinos, Inc. reached a settlement in a suit alleging violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, according to the company's June 23, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended April 27, 2014. The company was named as a defendant in a complaint filed in the Circuit Court for Broward County, Florida. The complaint alleged the company sent unsolicited fax advertisements in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005 (the "TCPA"), and sought to certify a class action. The complaint sought statutory damages for alleged negligent and willful violations of the TCPA, attorneys' fees, costs and injunction relief. In fiscal 2014 the company reached a settlement of this matter and the resulting payments were within the company's reserves for this lawsuit. IXIA: Faces Amended Securities Complaint in California Court ------------------------------------------------------------ The "Oklahoma Group" filed an amended complaint in a shareholder lawsuit originally filed by Felix Santore in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, according to the company's June 23, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2013. On November 14, 2013, a purported securities class action complaint captioned Felix Santore v. Ixia, Victor Alston, Atul Bhatnagar, Thomas B. Miller, and Errol Ginsberg was filed against the company and certain of the company's current and former officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The lawsuit purports to be a class action brought on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities during the period from April 10, 2010 through October 14, 2013. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), by making materially false and misleading statements concerning the Company's recognition of revenues related to its warranty and software maintenance contracts and the academic credentials and employment history of the Company's former President and Chief Executive Officer. The complaint also alleges that the defendants made false and misleading statements, and failed to make certain disclosures, regarding the Company's business, operations and prospects, including regarding the financial statements and internal financial controls that were the subject of the April 2013 restatement of certain of the company's prior period financial statements and regarding the academic credentials and employment history of the company's former President and Chief Executive Officer. The complaint alleges that the Company lacked adequate internal financial controls and issued materially false and misleading financial statements for fiscal years ended December 31, 2010 and 2011, and the fiscal quarters ended March 31, 2011, June 30, 2011, September 30, 2011, March 31, 2012, June 30, 2012 and September 30, 2012. The complaint, which purports to assert claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, seeks, on behalf of the purported class, an unspecified amount of monetary damages, interest, fees and expenses of attorneys and experts, and other relief. On January 14, 2014, four sets of plaintiffs filed motions for appointment of counsel and appointment of lead plaintiff. Those sets of plaintiffs were: (i) Shawn McGrory, (ii) Rob Giampietro and Sunandra Krishna, (iii) Oklahoma Firefighters Pension & Retirement System and Oklahoma Law Enforcement Retirement System, and (iv) District No. 9, I.A. of M.&A.W. Pension Trust. On March 24, 2014, the court issued a minute order appointing the Oklahoma Group as lead Plaintiff and appointing the Oklahoma Group's selection of Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. as lead counsel. On April 11, 2014, the Company, along with the other named defendants and the Oklahoma Group, stipulated that the Oklahoma Group could have 30 days to file an amended complaint and that the defendants would have 30 days to move, answer or otherwise respond to the amended complaint after its filing. On May 5, 2014, the Court issued an order approving the stipulation. That order required that the Oklahoma Group's first amended complaint be filed on or before June 11, 2014, and that the Company's and the other defendants' responsive motion or pleading be filed within 30 days thereafter. On June 11, 2014, the Oklahoma Group filed an amended complaint, asserting claims against the same defendants under the same legal theories as were set forth in the initial complaint. The amended complaint also contains allegations that certain of the individual defendants increased their trading in the Company's stock during February, March and May of 2011 and during February and March of 2013, and that the defendants sought to inflate the Company's reported deferred revenues during the relevant period. The amended complaint purports to be brought on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities from February 4, 2011 through April 3, 2014. LIME ENERGY: Court Okays $2.5MM Settlement in "Satterfield" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Sara Ellis on June 4, 2014, entered an order granting final approval of a class action settlement and notice to the settlement class in the matter Satterfield v. Lime Energy Co. et al., Case No. 12-cv-05704, according to the company's June 13, 2014, Form 8- K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. As part of the settlement, Defendants agreed to pay $2.5 million into a settlement fund, the entire amount of which they anticipate will be covered by insurance. Further details of the settlement may be obtained from the Stipulation of Settlement filed with the Court, which is available online through the Court's Public Access to Court Electronic Records system ("PACER"), accessible at http://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/ LINDSEY MANAGEMENT: Removed "Courtois" Suit to E.D. Arkansas ------------------------------------------------------------ The lawsuit titled Courtois, et al. v. Lindsey Management Company Inc., et al., Case No. 60CV-2014, was removed from the Pulaski County Circuit Court to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas (Little Rock). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:14-cv-00400-SWW to the proceeding. The Plaintiffs bring the action under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act, for declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, civil penalties and costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees, as a result of the Defendants' alleged failure to pay the Plaintiffs overtime compensation for the hours in excess of 40 hours in a single week that they were made to work. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Delena C. Hurst, Esq. Joshua Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM One Financial Center 650 South Shackleford, Suite 110 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: delena@sanfordlawfirm.com josh@sanfordlawfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Andrew Joseph Laird, Esq. Jeremy W. Hawpe, Esq. Kimberly Rives Miers, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 2001 Ross Avenue Suite 1500, Lock Box 116 Dallas, TX 75201-2931 Telephone: (214) 880-8180 E-mail: alaird@littler.com jhawpe@littler.com kmiers@littler.com - and - Eva C. Madison, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 217 East Dickson Street, Suite 204 Fayetteville, AR 72701 Telephone: (479) 582-6102 Facsimile: (479) 582-6111 E-mail: emadison@littler.com LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Dismissal of Securities Lawsuit Under Appeal ----------------------------------------------------------------- Lead Plaintiff in a consolidated securities suit against Lululemon Athletica Inc. filed a notice of appeal against a dismissal of the suit to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, according to the company's June 12, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 4, 2014. On July 2, 2013, plaintiff Houssam Alkhoury filed a putative shareholder class action entitled Alkhoury v. lululemon athletica inc., et al., No. 13-CV-4596 (S.D.N.Y.) against lululemon, a certain director and a certain officer of the Company (collectively, "Defendants"). On October 1, 2013, the Court appointed Louisiana Sheriffs' Pension & Relief Fund as Lead Plaintiff and on November 1, 2013, Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated class action complaint on behalf of a proposed class of purchasers of lululemon stock between September 7, 2012 through June 11, 2013 (the "Complaint"). In its Complaint, Lead Plaintiff asserted causes of action under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Defendants based on certain public disclosures made by the Company relating to lululemon's product quality and the March 2013 sheer Luon issue. On January 15, 2014, Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated amended class action complaint (the "Amended Complaint") on behalf of a proposed class of purchasers of lululemon stock between September 7, 2012 through January 10, 2014. In its Amended Complaint, Lead Plaintiff added new claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on certain of lululemon's public disclosures related to the Company's ongoing quality control improvements and the impact of those improvements on the Company's financial results. On April 18, 2014, the Court dismissed all of Lead Plaintiff's claims for failure to state a claim. On May 16, 2014, Lead Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The Company believes there is no merit to the appeal. MANHATTAN CLUB: S.C. Appellate Division Dismisses "Bisk" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In a putative class action lawsuit alleging deceptive practices by defendants that prevented plaintiffs from being able to use their timeshare units for their stated purpose, a vacation accommodation experience, the IAS court denied defendants' motion to dismiss, and credited plaintiffs' allegation that defendants rented up to 96% of the available units to the general public, thus preventing plaintiff owners from reserving accommodations. The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department, on June 19, 2014, held that this was error, as plaintiffs made this contention not in their complaint or in an affidavit opposing the motion to dismiss, but in their memorandum of law opposing the motion to dismiss. Moreover, the allegation is based on an apparent misreading of the documents submitted by defendants in support of their motion to dismiss. The Appellate Division further found that plaintiffs' other claims are similarly deficient, as they are conclusory and speculative at best. Moreover, the key deceptive practice alleged, that defendants would rent a portion of the unused accommodations to the general public, was plainly disclosed to plaintiffs in the offering documents, it concluded. Accordingly, the disimissal of the motion to dismiss is unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the complaint dismissed, held the Appellate Division. The case is LEONARD BISK, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. THE MANHATTAN CLUB TIMESHARE ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL., Defendants- Appellants, 12826, 652662/13. 2014 NY Slip Op 04574. A copy of the ruling is available at http://is.gd/ZjutBJfrom Leagle.com. Katsky Korins LLP, New York (Joel S. Weiss -- jweiss@katskykorins.com -- of counsel), for appellants. Blau Leonard Law Group, LLC, Huntington (Steven Bennett Blau -- sbblaw@msn.com -- of counsel), for respondents. MICHAELS STORES: Defends Bid to Dismiss Data Breach Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Randles, writing for Law360, reports that Michaels Stores Inc. on July 2 renewed its call to dismiss an Illinois class action stemming from a data breach the retailer disclosed earlier this year, doubling down on its claim that customers suing the craft store have failed to show that the incident has caused them financial harm. In a brief responding to challenges raised by the plaintiffs, Michaels defended its bid to have the complaint dismissed. Michaels said the complaint is void of claims alleging customers purportedly affected by the breach have had to incur out-of-pocket expenses, a defect the company argues should prevent the lawsuit from proceeding. "Nowhere in plaintiffs' response can they point to any facts alleging that any named plaintiff has incurred specific withdrawals, bank fees, or similar out-of-pocket losses, let alone that any charges remain unreimbursed," Michaels said. The company responded specifically to allegations raised by named plaintiff Mary Jane Whalen, a Michaels customer who claims that fraudsters have attempted to use her credit card information since she used the card at a New York store in December. According to Ms. Whalen, individuals have attempted to use a payment card with her name on it for a membership at a gym in Ecuador and concert tickets. All of the plaintiffs say they are now at a heightened risk for identify theft and say they face potential harm in the future as a result of the breach. Michaels said in its response on July 2 that although Ms. Whalen said her card has been compromised, she "does not (and apparently cannot) allege that the transaction went through or that she was forced to pay anything for that transaction." The distinction is crucial, Michaels argues, to establish that Whalen has standing to pursue her legal claims under U.S. Supreme Court precedent. Several individuals began filing class action complaints days after Michaels announced in January that it had suffered a cyberattack. The lawsuits, which claim the customers' credit and debit card information was put at risk as a result of the incident, seek damages arising from the data breach. The company said it became aware of the breach early this year after learning of fraudulent activity occurring on some of their customers' payment cards. Michaels says it has been working with law enforcement and security firms to investigate the attack. In April, Michaels said the breach was carried out through the use of malware that the security firms the company hired say they have never encountered. The named plaintiffs claim they visited Michaels stores in Illinois and New York and made purchases on their credit or debit cards between November 2013 and January 2014. The plaintiffs are represented by Joseph J. Siprut of Siprut PC, by Mark T. Lavery of Hyslip & Taylor, and by Katrina Carroll -- kcarroll@litedepalma.com -- and Kyle Alan Shamberg -- kshamberg@litedepalma.com -- of Lite DePalma Greenberg LLC. Michaels is represented by Scott Lassar -- slassar@sidley.com -- Theodore R. Scarborough and Edward Robert McNicholas -- emcnicholas@sidley.com -- of Sidley Austin LLP. The case is Christina Moyer et al. v. Michaels Stores Inc., case numbers 14-CV-00561; 14-CV-00648; 14-CV-1229 and 14-CV-1827, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. MICHIGAN: Day Care Providers May Get Refund of Union Dues --------------------------------------------------------- Christopher Behnan, writing for Lansing State Journal, reports that nearly 40,000 private Michigan day care providers could see part of the $4 million in union dues collected in controversial union arrangement with the state refunded. The U.S. Supreme Court ordered a lower court to reconsider denial of a class-action case seeking reimbursement of the union dues collected under the program before it was discontinued. Under the agreement begun in 2006 and shut down in 2011, dues were deducted from state subsidy checks to day care providers who charged reduced fees to low-income families. The deal withheld funds that were paid to the United Auto Workers union and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. The stated purpose was to provide union representation and professional training to providers. The high court's decision means a class-action lawsuit of nearly 40,000 Michigan day care providers would be created if the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati reverses its 2011 denial of the proposed plaintiff grouping. The class action would result from Schlaud v. Snyder, a federal lawsuit by five western Michigan day care providers. Settlements were paid to those providers but rejection of the class-action meant other providers were not refunded. "Their chances of getting their damages have increased greatly," said Patrick Wright, vice president for legal affairs for the Midland-based Mackinac Center for Public Policy. The Mackinac Center filed a state lawsuit challenging the legality of the union program. "It's not remote at this point but certainty it isn't imminent, either," Mr. Wright said. The center's 2009 lawsuit was filed on behalf of caregivers in the state Court of Appeals, claiming the state illegally took money that basically forced providers into a government employees union. The center's lawsuit was dismissed in December 2009. The state Supreme Court did not take up the center's appeal. In the Schlaud case, a federal judge in Grand Rapids in 2011 determined that there were too many conflicts to justify a class- action. For example, there might have been providers who didn't object to paying union dues, the judge said. The Cincinnati federal appellate court upheld the U.S. District Court ruling. NAVISTAR INT'L: Sued Over Defect in Maxxforce Engines' Emission --------------------------------------------------------------- Denis Gray Trucking, Inc., Carmichael Leasing Co., Inc. d/b/a Carmichael NationaLease, and GTL ENTERPRISES INC., on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated persons and entities v. Navistar International Corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-05249 (N.D. Ill., July 9, 2014), arises from Navistar's alleged failure to disclose to, and active concealment from, the Plaintiffs and all Class members that the emissions system designed into the Maxxforce Engines is defective and leads to repeated failures. Navistar International Corporation is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Lisle, Illinois. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Adam J. Levitt, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A. 30 N. LaSalle St. Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 214-0000 E-mail: alevitt@gelaw.com - and - Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq. Jeremy M. Glapion, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN 250 Hudson St., 8th Floor New York, NY 10013 Telephone: (212) 355-9500 E-mail: jselbin@LCHB.com jglapion@LCHB.com - and - Mark P. Chalos, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN 150 Fourth Avenue North, Suite 1650 Nashville, TN 37219 Telephone: (615) 313-9000 E-mail: mchalos@LCHB.com - and - Kim D. Stephens, Esq. Jason T. Dennett, Esq. TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC 1700 Seventh Avenue, Suite 2200 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 682-5600 E-mail: kstephens@tousley.com jdennett@tousley.com - and - Cory S. Fein, Esq. CADDELL & CHAPMAN 1331 Lamar St., Suite 1070 Houston, TX 77010 Telephone: (713) 751-0400 E-mail: csf@caddellchapman.com MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC: No Schedule Yet for Mortgage Suit Trial ------------------------------------------------------------ Dan Clark, writing for Montgomery News, reports that a federal district judge in Philadelphia ruled June 30 that Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc. and MERSCORP Holdings Inc., together referred to as MERS, violated a Pennsylvania statute by not recording mortgage assignments with the Montgomery County Recorder of Deeds, according to a press release distributed July 3 at the county commissioners meeting. Nancy Becker, the county's recorder of deeds, who is the lead plaintiff in the class action lawsuit, said the ruling gives the county the momentum to go forward with the lawsuit in trial, which is not scheduled yet. "The next steps are to send an official court notice to the other recorders in the commonwealth explaining the lawsuit and then a trial," Ms. Becker said. Ms. Becker said the recorder of deeds' office has been able to work on the lawsuit without spending any taxpayer money. The accountants, attorneys, consultants and researchers involved in the case are working on a contingency, she said. Bill Beckmann, president and CEO of MERSCORP, based in Reston, Va., issued a statement July 2 after hearing of the ruling. The statement was emailed to The Times Herald, Montgomery Media's sister publication, after a request for comment July 3. "MERSCORP Holdings Inc. disagrees with the District Court's interpretation of the Pennsylvania Recording Statute as well as how it applies to Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc.," the statement said. "We believe strongly that it is the wrong interpretation of Pennsylvania law and are currently pursuing all options available to us in the legal process. Similar legal actions have been brought in multiple states and MERS has consistently prevailed in these cases." Ms. Becker said, however, the county has Pennsylvania law on its side, and recording of deeds is a nationwide problem. "Not every state has so defined that these things have to be recorded," she said. MERSCORP Holdings Inc. runs the national mortgage electronic registry system that banks have filed with rather than with the recorder of deeds' offices in the commonwealth. Ms. Becker said not only has the county not been able to collect the registration fee because of this, but residents of Montgomery County are not aware when their mortgages are sold to another bank. Historically, she said, after a mortgage was filed, it stayed with the bank that issued it. Beginning in the late 1990s, the mortgages have been sold repeatedly to other financial institutions, she said. After a mortgage is sold, the new owner of the mortgage may begin the process of foreclosing on a home if they are not being paid, even though the resident of the home may have never been notified that the mortgage was sold and may be making payments to the bank where they took out the mortgage. "It's the integrity of the public record that we really want to protect," Ms. Becker said. "To make sure that at any given time, that a person can look at a property and find out not only who owns it but who is holding the paper on it. If they have paid their mortgage or have attempted to pay their mortgage they should not be foreclosed on. It's about preserving our residents' right to maintain their homes." If the bank that issues the mortgage does not file it with the recorder of deeds' office, there is no way of knowing a mortgage has been sold. Rather than filing with the county, many banks have been filing with MERSCORP Holdings Inc., Ms. Becker said. Ms. Becker estimated that her office is missing out in about $15 million in unpaid fees. Mortgages are often sold up to six times on average, she said, and banks are supposed to be file the sale with the recorder of deeds' office every time a mortgage is sold to a new institution. "We are going to do everything we possibly can to get every one of those dollars back into Montgomery County," Ms. Becker said. Ms. Becker said she met with one of the principals of MERS who tried to find his own home in the system, and it took him five minutes to find his own mortgage. "It was not an easy process for folks, where in the county office, it is a very easy process," she said. After a notice is put out to the recorders of deeds in other counties in Pennsylvania, the suit will go to trial in Federal District Court in Philadelphia. A trial has not yet been scheduled. NEW YORK, NY: 2nd Circuit Revives Building Cleaners' WTC Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Hamblett, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that more than 200 workers who say they suffered respiratory and other injuries after cleaning up buildings around the World Trade Center in the aftermath of 9/11 will get a second chance in their litigation against building owners and tenants following a decision by a federal appeals court on July 10. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit said 211 plaintiffs who lost on summary judgment before Southern District Judge Alvin Hellerstein can now continue to litigate claims that their safety was jeopardized by hazardous conditions in the buildings. The workers' claims are separate from those made by first responders to the Sept. 11. 2001 attacks in New York and cleanup workers who removed debris from Ground Zero -- some 10,000 people who accepted a settlement with New York City and its contractors covered by insurance funded by Congress. The 211 workers had checked a box marked "none" on questionnaires asking them to identify "diagnosed" conditions, injuries and diseases tied to their work in the surrounding buildings. They were among a group of plaintiffs who claimed that building owners and tenant businesses "failed to provide for [their] safe, protection and well-being" by not monitoring working conditions nor providing equipment to protect them from airborne contaminants. The defendants moved for summary judgment in 2012 based on the checking of the "none" box. But plaintiffs's lawyers said their clients checked the box to help assemble a database used to structure the cases and move them forward, and that checking the box was not dispositive of injury or illness. The attorneys submitted over 400 exhibits, including affidavits claiming injuries and symptoms tied to cleanup work. Among those claims were medical monitoring and fear of cancer. More than half of the plaintiffs amended their responses to the diagnosis interrogatory and included an affidavit from a doctor who said "WTC exposed populations . . . have experienced increased risks [of] 'WTC cough,' new or worsening upper and lower respiratory symptoms, [and] asthma." Judge Hellerstein would not consider affidavits that contradicted the prior sworn answers of the plaintiffs and granted summary judgment. The judge also held that claims for medical monitoring and fear of cancer could not proceed on a standalone basis under New York law. The plaintiffs appealed to the Second Circuit, where Judges Gerard Lynch, Denny Chin and Christopher Droney heard oral argument on October 9, 2013 in In Re: World Trade Center Disaster Site Litigation, 12-3403-cv. Writing for the circuit on July 10, Judge Chin said the district court erred in "granting summary judgment based solely on plaintiffs' response of 'none' to the interrogatory." "While we appreciate that the sheer number of cases before the district court made its task of managing this mass tort litigation extraordinarily difficult, the district court was obliged to individually consider each plaintiff's answer of 'none' in the context of any other evidence of injury," Judge Chin said. Judge Chin said the use of the word "diagnosed" created an ambiguity. "It was possible that a plaintiff manifested symptoms of a condition, illness or disease that had not yet been diagnosed when he answered the interrogatory," he said. "Indeed, claims arising from exposure to toxic or harmful substances often present nuanced and fact-specific questions as to whether and when a legally cognizable injury exists." Under N.Y.C.P.L.R. Sec. 214-c(2), a cause of action for a toxic tort accrues either when a plaintiff discovers an injury or should have discovered it through reasonable diligence, whichever is earlier. "New York Courts have not established a bright-line rule for when symptoms or manifestations of a physical condition are sufficient to trigger CPLR Sec. 214-c," Judge Chin said. "Courts have instead tailored their inquiries as to when a legally cognizable injury exists in toxic tort cases to the particular facts before them, focusing on factors such as the extent of the plaintiff's exposure to a toxic substance, her medical history, the onset of symptoms and the manifestation of a particular disease." For one category of plaintiffs who failed to submit "any evidence," Judge Chin said summary judgment was proper, but it was not for a second category of "those who offered core discovery responses" before summary judgment that provided evidence of injuries or illnesses from air contaminants. As for a third category, those who offered late affidavits or amended interrogatory responses, Judge Chin said Judge Hellerstein was correct that plaintiffs generally "may not create material issues of facts by submitting affidavits that dispute their own prior testimony." But Judge Chin said it was unclear that the late affidavits or amended answers "necessarily contradicted plaintiffs' answers to the diagnosis interrogatory," and some "may have had reasonable explanations" for doing so. So for the last two categories, Judge Hellerstein was instructed to make an individual assessment before deciding whether summary judgment should be granted. The circuit went on to agree with Judge Hellerstein's decision dismissing 31 plaintiffs for failure to prosecute and his decision that independent causes of action for fear of cancer and medical monitoring could not stand. Plaintiffs lawyer Marc Bern -- MJBern@NapoliBern.com -- of Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik said on July 10 he "always felt that Judge Hellerstein's ruling with respect to these 211 people was inappropriate and didn't follow the law and was really unfair. We're very gratified that the Second Circuit looked at this in the light it should have been looked at to begin with." Denise Rubin of Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik argued for the plaintiffs. Lee Ann Stevenson -- lstevenson@zuckerman.com -- from Kirkland & Ellis, now with Zuckerman Spaeder, argued for the defendants, with Richard Leff -- rleff@mklaw.us.com -- of McGivney & Kluger on the brief. NEW YORK: Students File Class Action Over Poor Basic Education -------------------------------------------------------------- Nick Fugallo, writing for SILive.com, reports that 11 students have filed a class-action lawsuit in Staten Island state Supreme Court demanding the downfall in tenure laws for New York teachers. The lawsuit, dubbed Davids vs. State of New York, et al., aims to compel the State of New York, the New York State Board of Regents, the New York State Education Department, the City of New York and the New York City Department of Education, "to protect our children's rights and to fulfill their Constitutional mandate to offer all children the opportunity to receive a sound basic education." The plaintiffs in the suit are children of members of the New York City Parents Union. The suit was spurred on by a recent anti- tenure ruling in California, where a Los Angeles judge denied California's tenure and seniority laws, stating that they were unjust to poor and minority students when it came to a sound basic education. Staten Islander Sam Pirozzolo, who is both a parent plaintiff and vice president of the NYC Parents Union, said he wants to see poor, disinterested teachers be held accountable. "I have been told of teachers who were happy their school was being closed and that they were being placed in the Absent Teacher Reserve, where they get paid, but no longer have to prepare lesson plans, tests, check homework. They don't have to teach," he said. "These are the teachers that parents want removed from the system." The Parents Unions cites data the following data: with 75,000 active teachers in NYC working each year between 1997 and 2007, up to 12 teachers could have been removed on any one of those years, said Mr. Pirozzolo. It can take up to 830 days and over $330,000 to replace a poorly performing teacher, according to data cited by the NYC Parents Union. The group claims that they are not out for teachers nor the schools in general, but are simply looking to strike tenure from New York state and rid the schools of poorly performing teachers. According to the New York Post, the United Federation of Teachers responded to the suit by saying that tenure is not "lifetime employment" but rather "'due process' to help ensure that teachers are not disciplined or fired for purely political reasons . . . or their supervisors' animosity." NUCARE SERVICES: Accused of Wrongful Discharge in N.D. Illinois --------------------------------------------------------------- Barbara Kuebler and Jeannette Jordan v. NuCare Services Corp., an Illinois Corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-05265 (N.D. Ill., July 10, 2014), alleges wrongful discharge pursuant to the United States Constitution and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. NuCare Services Corp. is an Illinois corporation. NuCare is a company in the business of, among other things, providing for rehab for patients in need of it on behalf of various nursing homes that other sister companies own or which have an interest. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Edward M. Fox, Esq. ED FOX & ASSOCIATES 300 West Adams, Suite 330 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 345-8877 E-mail: efox@efox-law.com NYC HOUSING AUTHORITY: Accused of Discrimination by 9/11 Victim --------------------------------------------------------------- Brian Dudley v. New York City Housing Authority, Bob Marano, Irene Shapiro, Jonathan Wasserman, Peter Quercia, (in their individual and official capacities), Case No. 1:14-cv-05116 (S.D.N.Y., July 9, 2014), alleges that the Defendants violating the Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Executive Law, the Human Rights Law, the New York City Administrative Code and the Family and Medical Leave Act. The Plaintiff alleges that he has been subjected to a hostile work environment, and adverse employment actions, as well as an atmosphere of adverse employment actions based on his disabilities, requests for accommodations, and in retaliation for his opposition to discriminatory practices. He contends that he suffers from various disabilities, including rotator cuff/shoulder injuries, injuries to his right knee (meniscus tear), as well as respiratory issues, stemming from his falling victim to the events of 9/11. The New York City Housing Authority is a public employer, doing business in New York City. The Individual Defendants are officers and employees of NYCHA. The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas Ricotta, Esq. WHITE RICOTTA & MARKS, P.C. 86-12 37th Avenue, Second Floor Jackson Heights, NY 11372 Telephone: (347) 464-8694 Facsimile: (800) 483-4508 E-mail: tricotta@wrmattorney.com OCEAN POWER: Faces Class Actions Over Inflated Share Price ---------------------------------------------------------- Sean McComish, writing for The Standard, reports that the world's largest wave energy project in Portland is at the centre of a class action lawsuit in the United States over claims the company's share price has been artificially inflated. Two investor class actions in the United States allege company statements about the Portland project have artificially inflated share prices in Ocean Power Technologies (OPT). The company comments have allegedly come out of OPT's deal with Victorian Wave Partners and the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) which has awarded the companies $66.4 million over three years to complete the south-west project. The board of OPT has appointed a special committee to investigate the agreement between Victorian Wave Partners and ARENA. In a shareholder alert -- American law firm Levi and Korsinsky announced it had filed a class action lawsuit in the District Court of New Jersey on behalf of OPT investors. It's claimed between June 9 and June 16, shares in the company fell from $2.47 per share to $1.70 per share. OCEAN POWER: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in New Jersey ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP on July 6 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit against Ocean Power Technologies, Inc. and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, District of New Jersey, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Ocean Power securities between January 14, 2014 and June 9, 2014, both dates inclusive. This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. If you are a shareholder who purchased Ocean Power securities during the Class Period, you have until August 12, 2014 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, x237. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. Ocean Power Technologies, Inc. engages in the development and commercialization of proprietary systems that generate electricity by harnessing the renewable energy of ocean waves primarily in the United States, Europe, Asia, and Australia. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants may have misstated the nature and/or circumstances of an agreement between the Australian Renewable Energy Agency and Victorian Wave Partners Pty Ltd -- a project-specific operating entity wholly- owned by the Company's subsidiary -- related to a planned wave power station project off the coast of Australia. As a result, defendants' statements concerning the Victorian Wave Partners project, and positive statements about Ocean Power's business, operations and prospects, were materially false and misleading or lacked a reasonable basis On June 10, 2014, the Company announced in a Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) form 8-K filing that Charles F. Dunleavy was terminated as the chief executive officer of Ocean Power. The Company also disclosed that the board of directors appointed a Special Committee, composed of outside directors and the interim chief executive officer, which will retain outside counsel to assist in an investigation into the agreement between Victorian Wave Partners and the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, and related public statements concerning the project. On this news, shares of Ocean Power fell $0.84 per share to $1.63, or more than 34%, in intraday trading on June 10, 2014. With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and San Diego, The Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 70 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. PENNSYLVANIA: Shenandoah Valley School Board to Join Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- John E. Usalis, writing for The Republican-Herald, reports that the Shenandoah Valley school board voted to have the district involved in a school funding class action lawsuit to force the state to adequately fund low-income schools. The board's vote at its June 25 meeting was 6-0. Called the "Equity Lawsuit," the legal move is being promoted by the Pennsylvania Association of Rural and Small Schools, whose self-described mission is to promote equal opportunity for quality education for all students in every school and community in Pennsylvania. After the school board meeting, district Superintendent Stanley G. Rakowsky said he supports the initiative. "We're basically suing the state for adequate funding," Mr. Rakowsky said. "We're going to be part of a class action lawsuit. There is an attorney, Michael Churchill of the Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia, who is proceeding with litigation intent on compelling the (Pennsylvania) General Assembly to act consistent with its obligations to the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. It's saying that law says they have to do it and here are the schools that are being affected by it." Mr. Rakowsky added, "You have to do what the law says. You have to provide for adequate funding as the constitution provides for. You can't fudge it. It eliminates administrative discretion, and you need schools to be part of it." Mr. Rakowsky provided The Republican-Herald with background information provided to the school board in a weekly update. Mr. Rakowsky explained in his update: "The media is replete with news stories and opinion- and research-based articles concerning the funding of public education in the Pennsylvania. At the core is the fact that the General Assembly has failed its duty to provide for the maintenance of support of a thorough and efficient system of public education to serve the needs of the commonwealth. By the legislature's negligence to uphold its constitutionally- mandated responsibilities, school districts such as Shenandoah Valley School District find it progressively more difficult to continue with educating the district's students on par with other students throughout the commonwealth. "To make matters even more untenable, there have been a myriad of state-imposed standards requiring substantial increase in local effort to implement (e.g., PSSA, Keystone Exams, etc.), but absent of GA adequate financial support to implement and sustain these edicts. For example, in 2007 the Pennsylvania State Board of Education directed a Costing Out Study be undertaken. The purpose of this COS was to determine what the average cost of educating students throughout the commonwealth. Despite the COS findings that a substantial increase in state funding would be necessary, the GA continued to stall. Indeed, instead of being proactive in implementing the PSB recommendations, 'the GA reduced funding to local school districts rather than create a viable system to enable districts to meet those standards. "However, it's plainly evident the GA has little inclination to abandon its almost wanton underfunding of public schools. That's why, spurred on by proactive public school lobbying organizations such as PARRS, remedy is being sought is through the courts. Specifically, the Education Law Center-PA, the Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia, and a national law firm (O'Melveny and Myers) are proceeding with litigation intent on compelling the GA to act consistent with its obligations to the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania." Mr. Rakowsky continued, "Some time ago I was contacted by PARSS Executive Director Joe Bard. Prior to his present position, JB was Pennsylvania's Commissioner for Basic Education. In that conversation, JB stated that SVSD had been identified as one of the schools adversely affected by the funding disparity and requested the district consider being a plaintiff in the above lawsuit. Specifically noted was the district's low-ranking PARSS scores as being indicative of the morass confronting SVSD in its efforts to provide suitable education for our students without adequate state funding. That's why the district was asked to be a plaintiff in the pending suit." Mr. Rakowsky said the costs are minimal in being a lawsuit participant. "It's not going to cost us anything other than some in-kind costs, such as those to put reports together in the school district," Mr. Rakowsky said. PLX TECHNOLOGY: Faces "Varghese" Merger-Related Suit in Delaware ---------------------------------------------------------------- Boby Varghese, Individually And On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated v. PLX Technology, Inc., Michael J. Salameh, Martin Colombatto, Stephen Domenik, John H. Hart, David Raun, Ralph Schmitt, Eric Singer, Patrick Verderico, Avago Technologies Wireless (U.S.A.) Manufacturing Inc., and Pluto Merger Sub, Inc., Case No. 9837-VCL (Del. Ch. Ct., June 27, 2014), arises from the Defendants' alleged breaches of their fiduciary duties in connection with Avago's proposed acquisition of all of the outstanding stock of PLX, which is the result of an unfair sales process. PLX is a Delaware corporation with principal executive offices located in Sunnyvale, California. PLX is the industry-leading global provider of semiconductor-based PCI Express connectivity solutions primarily targeting enterprise data center markets. The Company develops innovative software-enriched silicon that enables product differentiation, reliable interoperability and superior performance. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company. Avago Technologies Ltd. is a Delaware corporation with principal executive offices located in Yishun Avenue, Singapore. Avago Wireless is a Delaware corporation and operates as a wholly-owned as a subsidiary of Avago Technologies Ltd. Pluto is a Delaware corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Avago Wireless. Upon completion of the Proposed Transaction, Pluto will merge with and into PLX and cease its separate corporate existence. The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq. Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120 Wilmington, DE 19803 Telephone: (302) 295-5310 E-mail: sdr@rigrodskylong.com BDL@rigrodskylong.com gs@rigrodskylong.com - and - Kent A. Bronson, Esq. Todd Kammerman, Esq. Christopher Schuyler, Esq. MILBERG LLP One Pennsylvania Plaza New York, NY 10119 Telephone: (212) 594-5300 E-mail: kbronson@milberg.com tkammerman@milberg.com cschuyler@milberg.com PLX TECHNOLOGY: Shareholder Suit Seeks to Enjoin Avago Merger ------------------------------------------------------------- Roberta Feinstein, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. PLX Technology, Inc., David Raun, Michael Salameh, Ralph Schmitt, Martin Colombatto, Stephen Domenik, John Hart, Eric Singer, Patrick Verderico, Avago Technologies Ltd., Avago Technologies Wireless (U.S.A.) Manufacturing Inc., and Pluto Merger Sub, Inc., Case No. 9839-VCL (Del. Ch. Ct., June 27, 2014) seeks to enjoin a proposed transaction pursuant to which Avago will acquire the outstanding shares of PLX in a deal valued at approximately $309 million. PLX is a Delaware corporation with principal executive offices located in Sunnyvale, California. PLX is the industry-leading global provider of semiconductor-based PCI Express connectivity solutions primarily targeting enterprise data center markets. The Company develops innovative software-enriched silicon that enables product differentiation, reliable interoperability and superior performance. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company. Avago Technologies Ltd. is a Delaware corporation with principal executive offices located in Yishun Avenue, Singapore. Avago Wireless is a Delaware corporation and operates as a wholly-owned as a subsidiary of Avago Technologies Ltd. Pluto is a Delaware corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Avago Wireless. Upon completion of the Proposed Transaction, Pluto will merge with and into PLX and cease its separate corporate existence. The Plaintiff is represented by: James Banko, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI LLP 20 Montchanin Rd., Suite 145 Wilmington, DE 19807 Telephone: (302) 482-3182 E-mail: jbanko@faruqilaw.com - and - Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. Innessa S. Melamed, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 983-9330 Facsimile: (212) 983-9331 E-mail: jmonteverde@faruqilaw.com imelamed@faruqilaw.com POWERSECURE INT'L: "Higgins" Suit Moved to E.D. North Carolina -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Higgins v. Powersecure International, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-00271, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. The Eastern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:14-cv-00388-F to the proceeding. The lawsuit alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: H. Forest Horne, Jr., Esq. MARTIN & JONES 410 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 200 Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (919) 821-0005 Facsimile: (919) 863-6084 E-mail: hfh@m-j.com POWERSECURE INT'L: Faces Suit Over Securities Act Violations ------------------------------------------------------------ PowerSecure International, Inc. (NYSE: POWR) announced that it intends to vigorously defend against the claims made in securities class action lawsuits filed last month against the company and two of its officers. PowerSecure has reviewed the complaints and views the allegations as meritless. Barry Kaplan of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati will serve as lead defense counsel for PowerSecure and its officers. Michael Smith of King & Spalding will also advise PowerSecure in connection with its defense of the class actions. PowerSecure International, Inc. is a leading provider of utility and energy technologies to electric utilities, and their industrial, institutional and commercial customers. PowerSecure provides products and services in the areas of Interactive Distributed Generation (IDG), energy efficiency and utility infrastructure. The company is a pioneer in developing IDG power systems with sophisticated smart grid capabilities, including the ability to 1) forecast electricity demand and electronically deploy the systems to deliver more efficient, and environmentally friendly, power at peak power times, 2) provide utilities with dedicated electric power generation capacity to utilize for demand response purpose RADY CHILDREN'S: Accused of Disclosing Confidential Medical Info ---------------------------------------------------------------- Reni Anguelova at Courthouse News Service reports that Rady Children's Hospital disclosed confidential medical information about more than 20,000 patients, a class action claims in San Diego Superior Court. Lead plaintiff Sami Shamon claims that a Rady employee on June 6 sent an e-mail to four undisclosed people who have nothing to do with the hospital. The mails contained an attachment with medical records on 14,121 patients, according to the lawsuit. "Furthermore, one or more of these four individuals proceeded to forward the email with the attached private medical information to other undisclosed parties who were again neither employed with nor related to defendant business," the complaint states. When the hospital investigated, it found that another data breach had exposed medical records of another 6,307 patients, Shamon claims. REGIONAL ACCEPTANCE: Removed "Mascari" Suit to M.D. Florida ----------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit entitled Mascari v. Regional Acceptance Corporation, et al., Case No. 14-887-CA, was removed from the 5th Judicial Circuit Court Hernando County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Tampa). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:14-cv-01667-SDM-EAJ to the proceeding. The case is brought pursuant to the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Defendants Regional Acceptance Corporation and BB&T Dealer Financial Services, Inc. are represented by: Alissa M. Ellison, Esq. Christopher B. Deem, Esq. David Stockton Hendrix, Esq. GRAYROBINSON, PA 401 E Jackson St., Suite 2700 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 273-5068 Facsimile: (813) 273-5145 E-mail: alissa.ellison@gray-robinson.com christopher.deem@gray-robinson.com dhendrix@gray-robinson.com Defendant Ultimate Image Auto, Inc., is represented by: Claire A. Duchemin, Esq. CLAIRE A. DUCHEMIN, PA 1615 Village Square Blvd., Suite 7 Tallahassee, FL 32309 Telephone: (850) 270-9870 Facsimile: (850) 270-9873 E-mail: caduchemin@live.com REMINGTON ARMS: Settles Class Action Over Defective Rifle Trigger ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jim Salter, writing for The Associated Press, reports that the gun manufacturer Remington Arms Co. will replace trigger mechanisms on Model 700 bolt-action hunting rifles, or provide some compensation to buyers, as part of a settlement of class-action lawsuits, the company said on July 10. Suits filed in Missouri and Washington state claimed the rifle has a defective trigger mechanism that can cause injury and death. They claimed that Model 700 rifles sometimes fire unexpectedly, without a trigger pull. The settlements announced on July 10 still must be finalized in court. Remington Arms agreed to the settlements even though it denied allegations of any economic loss, the company said in a joint statement with the plaintiffs. The company declined to comment further and did not provide details of how the trigger mechanisms will be replaced. Timothy Monsees, the Kansas City, Missouri, attorney for plaintiffs in both cases, did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment. Remington has sold more than 5 million of the rifles since 1948. Dozens of suits have been filed against Remington over the past three decades, several by people who claimed injury and death from guns that misfired. In a 1994 case in Texas, a jury awarded $17 million to a man who lost his foot. Remington has blamed users of the guns, rather than a defective trigger mechanism, and won some of the cases. The company issued a statement in 2010, saying its Model 700 had been "free of defect" since it was first produced. But in April, Remington issued a nationwide recall of both the Model 700 and Model Seven rifles. The recall applies to the models equipped with the X-Mark Pro trigger that was manufactured between May 2006 and April 9, 2014. Some rifles may have excess bonding agent that could cause them to accidently fire, the company said at the time. RESEARCH IN MOTION: 2nd Cir. Upholds Dismissal of "Shemian" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit affirmed a district court judgment entered in ROBERT SHEMIAN, Plaintiff- Appellant, LAURA PREFONTAINE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff, v. RESEARCH IN MOTION LIMITED, n/k/a BLACKBERRY LIMITED, BRIAN BIDULKA, JAMES L. BALSILLIE, MIHALIS MICHAEL LAZARIDIS,* Defendants-Appellees, NO. 13-1602-CV. The Second Circtui concluded that "the Appellant has not pleaded facts sufficient to give rise to an inference of scienter that is "at least as compelling as any opposing inference of nonfraudulent intent," . . . and we therefore affirm the district court's dismissal of Appellant's complaint." A copy of the June 19, 2014 opinion is available at http://is.gd/xLg7S0from Leagle.com. RESTORATION HARDWARE: To Compensate Claimants in Credit Card Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The parties in a lawsuit filed by Mike Hernandez against Restoration Hardware, Inc. alleging violation of California's Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971 filed a joint statement as to the parties' agreed-upon claims process for the class members, according to Restoration Hardware Holdings, Inc.'s June 12, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 3, 2014. In the three month period ended May 3, 2014, material developments occurred in an ongoing legal proceeding involving the Company. On October 21, 2008, Mike Hernandez, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, filed a class action in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego against Restoration Hardware, Inc. alleging principally that the Company violated California's Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971 by requesting and recording ZIP codes from customers paying with credit cards. On May 23, 2014, in response to a directive from the Court, the parties filed a joint statement as to the parties' agreed-upon claims process for the class members as well as to other matters related to this proceeding, all of which remain subject to Court approval. As a result of these developments, the Company recorded a $9.2 million charge related to this matter during the three months ended May 3, 2014. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Smoking Suit Plateau May Aid Lorillard Deal -------------------------------------------------------------- David Ingram, Jessica Dye and Martinne Geller, writing for Reuters, report that smoking-related lawsuits against U.S. tobacco giants are leveling off, making it more likely that a merger between rivals Reynolds American Inc. and Lorillard Inc. will go through, analysts who follow the industry said. The two cigarette makers, which are in talks for a multi-billion- dollar deal, face thousands of suits, but the impact has not been as dramatic as was expected a decade ago, and trials have given investors an idea of what the companies will pay. Antismoking campaigns have also made it more difficult for smokers and government enforcers to argue that companies were deceitful. Supporting the Lorillard-Reynolds deal is "a new mood of optimism within U.S. Big Tobacco on the litigation landscape," UK-based analysts at the investment firm Jefferies Group said in a note on June 30, adding that the situation still looked risky. Lawsuits complicate what a company is worth, increasing chances an acquiring company will overpay in a deal. Tobacco companies that have an idea what they are apt to pay smokers who have sued may be seen as better investments. A deal between Reynolds and Lorillard, the No. 2 and No. 3 U.S. players, would reshape one of the world's biggest and most profitable tobacco markets. Lorillard makes Newport, the top U.S. menthol cigarette, and leading e-cigarette blu. The brighter legal picture dates to 2006, when the Florida Supreme Court set aside an eye-popping $145 billion verdict against the biggest tobacco companies. The ruling in Engle v. Liggett Group left smokers to pursue cases one at a time, alleging that companies concealed the dangers of smoking. Since 2011, Reynolds has won roughly half the 100 cases that went to trial as part of what has become known as the Engle litigation and other smoking-related cases, the company said in a securities filing in April. Lorillard said it has won about a quarter of its Engle-related trials. No new Engle-related cases were permitted in Florida after January 2008, and few class action suits have been brought in other states. 'COMFORTABLE' WITH LIABILITY Based on Reynolds' securities filings, Jefferies Group estimated aggregate liabilities from the Engle cases at $25 billion or less for the whole U.S. tobacco industry, and called it a "small number" relative to the industry's worth. "If you're a U.S. tobacco investor, you're probably comfortable with this, and it's in the stock price to some extent," said Jefferies equity analyst Martin Deboo. RBC Capital Markets said in a note in May that the U.S. tobacco industry was ripe for consolidation based in part on a "stable litigation environment." Neither Reynolds nor Lorillard has offered a public estimate of its future liability. The companies did not respond to requests on Friday to elaborate on that and its impact on a merger. The majority of U.S. lawsuits against tobacco companies are in Florida, where a jury in 2000 awarded smokers the $145 billion in punitive damages. The state's high court later said the smokers could not sue as a group but could use findings from the Engle class action about the dangers of smoking. Through the first quarter of 2014, Reynolds said in a securities filing that it faced 5,000 Engle suits, down from 7,700 in December 2009. The ones that did not go to trial were settled or dismissed. Lorillard said it faced 4,000 as of this year. Some suits target multiple companies. DECLINE OF THE DECEPTION DEFENSE When juries find against the tobacco defendants, the awards to smokers can be substantial. Lorillard paid $79 million last year to resolve one suit from the family of a longtime smoker who died of lung cancer. Liggett Group, a unit of Vector Group Ltd, said last year it would pay $110 million to settle 4,900 suits. The Florida cases may represent the "last big chunk" of smoking cases, said Sergio Campos, a professor at the University of Miami School of Law. But the mix of courtroom wins and losses has eased fears that litigation could force the companies out of business. Tobacco education has improved since litigation started decades ago, making it difficult for plaintiffs to claim they could not have known about cigarettes' addictive and disease-causing properties, he said. "At some point, you get your hands around (the litigation), you know it won't metastasize or grow anymore, and it frees you up to explore this kind of deal," Mr. Campos said. ROLF HARRIS: May Face Class Action Over Lenient Sentence -------------------------------------------------------- Nick Miller, writing for The Age, reports that lawyers are investigating whether a class action can be brought by women claiming they were abused by disgraced entertainer Rolf Harris. Barrie Woollacott, a Melbourne based lawyer with Slater & Gordon, said they were exploring the possibilities of the class action being brought by Australian, New Zealand and British women in the United Kingdom. He said this strategy had been ruled out in Australia but they were hopeful the British legal system was flexible enough to accommodate such an action. "There is plenty of precedence where an action is brought by foreigners to a country where the perpetrator now lives," he said. In further bad news for 84-year-old Mr. Harris, the jail term of five years and nine months for the indecent assault of four girls aged eight to 19 could be increased if Britain's attorney-general sends the case to the Court of Appeal. Attorney-General Dominic Grieve has 28 days to decide whether the sentence, which could mean the Australian entertainer walks free in less than three years, should be appealed as too lenient. Sexual abuse support groups in Britain and Australia were quick to call for a longer sentence. Mr. Harris displayed no emotion when he heard his fate during a dramatic sentence hearing in London on July 4 Australian time. In a sensational climax to the trial, he received a blistering rebuke from Justice Nigel Sweeney, who told him he had shown "no remorse". "You have done many good and charitable works . . . but the verdicts of the jury show that in the period of 1969 to 1986 you were also a sex offender," Justice Sweeney said. "You took advantage of the trust placed in you because of your celebrity status to commit the offences against three of your victims. [In another] you committed [the offense] in breach of the trust her parents placed in you. "You clearly got a thrill from committing the offenses while others were present or nearby. Your reputation now is in tatters . . . you have been stripped of your honors and you have no one to blame but yourself." While the judge sentenced Harris to terms ranging from six months to 15 months on the 12 counts, many of them were to be served concurrently. Justice Sweeney said he would have imposed a higher sentence but was constrained by the law as it was at the time of the offences. He said there were factors to be considered in mitigating the term, including his wife Alwen's ill health, and the ability to spend the twilight years of his life with his family. Earlier, the court was read victim impact statements from all four of Mr. Harris' victims in the case. The main complainant, a childhood friend of his daughter, Bindi, said that as a young girl she "had aspirations to have a career, settle down and have a family". "However, as a direct result of his actions, this has never materialized . . . Rolf Harris had a hold over me that made me a quivering wreck." The four women also made clear the abuse was much harder to deal with because Harris was so loved by the public. Australian woman Tonya Lee said Mr. Harris' assaults on her in 1986, when she was 15, were a "turning point" in her life from which she never recovered. "What Mr. Harris took from me was my very essence," the 43-year-old said. Mr. Harris' youngest victim was seven or eight when he groped her after she had asked for his autograph in the late 1960s. "I have carried what Rolf Harris did to me for most of my life," she said in her statement. "It took away most of my childhood." Prosecutor Sasha Wass, QC, said in light of the unanimous guilty verdicts, police would not continue to press four child pornography charges against Mr. Harris, relating to images found on his computer when his house was raided in 2012. Mr. Harris' counsel Sonia Woodley, QC, said the court had heard of the entertainer's "dark side", but "it would be unfair to ignore the good he has done in his life". Apart from the main complainant, the assaults he had been found guilty of were "brief and opportunistic rather than predatory", she said. The court had been provided with a medical report that Ms. Woodley said showed a prison term would shorten his life. "He is already on borrowed time," she said. The sentence would have a bigger impact on him than it would on a younger, healthier man. She asked the court to impose a sentence that "will give him some hope of a future, so he will be able to spend the remaining twilight years of his life with his family". After being sentenced, Mr. Harris was escorted from the dock by two officers and transported in a van to Wandsworth prison in south-west London. Mr. Harris may also face a raft of damages claims in the civil courts. Justice Sweeney said he would not consider compensation because assessing the psychological harm done to the victims was a complex process. But the judge said Mr. Harris would have to pay the prosecution's legal costs. The Survivors Trust -- an umbrella organization in Britain for rape, sexual violence and childhood sexual abuse support organizations -- welcomed Mr. Harris' conviction but said his sentences should not be served concurrently. "Without concurrent sentences, Harris would be facing 11 years and nine months -- a sentence that we feel better reflects the lifelong suffering his victims have felt and are still battling," the trust said. SHOE CARNIVAL: Dismissal of FACTA "Violations" Suit Appealed ------------------------------------------------------------ The plaintiff in a suit alleging violation of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 by Shoe Carnival, Inc. is appealing the dismissal of the suit to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, according to the company's June 12, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 3, 2014. On October 31, 2013, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the company in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois captioned Nicaj v. Shoe Carnival, Inc. The complaint alleged that the company violated certain provisions of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 (FACTA), which amended the Fair Credit Reporting Act, by printing the month of the expiration date of the company's customers' credit cards on transaction receipts. The plaintiff sought, among other things, the designation of this action as a class action, an award of monetary damages of between $100 and $1,000 per violation, counsel fees and costs, and such other relief as the court deemed appropriate. On January 16, 2014, the District Court granted the company's motion and dismissed the plaintiff's action with prejudice and denied his motion to certify a class as moot, finding that the company's actions did not violate FACTA and that the company's conduct, even if it did violate FACTA, was not willful. On February 12, 2014, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of the District Court's order with the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals set a briefing schedule, under which the plaintiff filed his opening brief on May 7, 2014. The company filed the company's response on June 6, 2014. SYMANTEC CORP: Faces Investigation by DC Gov't Over Contract ------------------------------------------------------------ Symantec Corporation is under investigation by the District of Columbia in relation to its compliance with certain provisions of the U.S. General Services Administration Multiple Award Schedule Contract No. GS-35F-0240T, according to the company's May 16, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended March 28, 2014. The company has been named as a party to class action lawsuits, and the company may be named in additional litigation. For example, during the first quarter of fiscal 2013, the company was advised by the Commercial Litigation Branch of the Department of Justice's Civil Division and the Civil Division of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia that the government is investigating the company's compliance with certain provisions of the company's U.S. General Services Administration Multiple Award Schedule Contract No. GS-35F-0240T effective January 24, 2007, including provisions relating to pricing, country of origin, accessibility, and the disclosure of commercial sales practices. TIFFANY'S CABARET: Exotic Dancers File FLSA Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Miriam Rozen, writing for Texas Lawyer, reports that 15 exotic dancers who perform lap dances filed a proposed class action complaint in San Antonio federal court, alleging their employer violated the Fair Labor Standards Act. Tiffany's Cabaret failed to pay the dancers "whatsoever" for regular and overtime hours, according to the complaint. The dancers, represented by Houston's Shellist Lazarz Slobin, filed the complaint in Marez v. KHG of San Antonio on July 1 and named as defendants seven individuals and three companies that together allegedly operate and own Tiffany's. None of the named individual defendants returned a call to Tiffany's seeking comment for this report. None of the defendants have yet to file answers with the court or identified their counsel, according to the federal courts' online document filing system. But Scott Schulten -- wss@swtlaw.com -- a partner at Schulten Ward & Turner in Atlanta, said he represents defendant KHG of San Antonio in Marez -- as well as in a related case filed previously by the same plaintiffs counsel, based on the same facts and allegations but with fewer (and not all of the same) plaintiffs. "We will defend against these allegations vigorously," Mr. Schulten said. According to the July 1 complaint in Marez: "Plaintiffs were permitted to keep table dance fees generated while performing" for "club patrons." But those fees were "tips" as defined by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and therefore do not satisfy the defendants' obligations to pay wages. The cabaret allowed dancers to keep dance fees ($5 to $10 per table dance) but the employer did not track time worked with the software it used, known as "Table Dance Manager." The dancers allege that "Tiffany's had previously tracked the hours worked by its dancers, however that time-keeping system broke down and rather than repair or replace it, Tiffany's chose not to, in order to save money intentionally disregarding its obligation to comply with the FLSA." Ricardo Prieto, an associate with Shellist Lazarz who represents the plaintiffs in both cases, said his firm has filed a third case for exotic dancers against a different club. The employer in that case has classified the dancers as independent contractors, so additional issues -- specifically the dancers' status as employees versus independent contractors -- will be raised before the plaintiffs get the court to address underlying FSLA concerns, Mr. Prieto said. TOWN OF HAVERSTRAW: Faces Suit Alleging Sexual Harassment Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Cheryl Croci v. Town of Haverstraw, George Wargo, individually, and Howard Phillips, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-05138 (S.D.N.Y., July 9, 2014) asserts employment discrimination claims on the basis of the Plaintiff's sex, alleging sexual harassment, gender discrimination and retaliation. Ms. Croci is a resident of Rockland, New York. She was employed as a secretary with the Town's Department of Transportation. The Town of Haverstraw's main office and place of business is located in Garnerville, New York. George Wargo served as the Superintendent of the Highway Department of the Town. Howard Phillips served as the Supervisor for the Town. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ambrose W. Wotorson, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF AMBROSE WOTORSON 30 Vesey Street, Suite 1803 New York, NY Telephone: (646) 242-3227 E-mail: Loaww1650@aol.com UNIFIRST CORP: Removed "Mosqueda" Class Suit to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Mosqueda v. Unifirst Corporation, et al., Case No. BC 544734, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Los Angeles). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-05324 to the proceeding. The Defendant is represented by: Steven R. Feldstein, Esq. GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 135 Commonwealth Drive Menlo Park, CA 94025-1105 Telephone: (650) 752-3100 Facsimile: (650) 853-1038 E-mail: sfeldstein@goodwinprocter.com UNITED PARCEL: Removed "Simoni" Suit to New Jersey District Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit entitled Simoni v. United Parcel Service, Inc., et al., Case No. MON-L1966-14, was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Monmouth County, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Trenton). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:14-cv-04374-PGS-DEA to the proceeding. The Plaintiff represented himself: Stephen John Simoni, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF STEPHEN J. SIMONI 55 Ocean Avenue Monmouth Beach, NJ 07750 Telephone: (917) 621-5795 E-mail: stephensimoni@yahoo.com The Defendants are represented by: David John Fioccola, Esq. MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 250 West 55th Street New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 468-8000 E-mail: dfioccola@mofo.com UNITED STATES: Faces Class Action Over Delayed Asylum Applications ------------------------------------------------------------------ John Marzulli, writing for New York Daily News, reports that more than 40,000 immigrants who are seeking asylum in the U.S. are stuck in a federal limbo waiting up to two years to be interviewed about their applications, a bombshell lawsuit charges. The class-action suit filed in Brooklyn Federal Court accuses top officials of Homeland Security and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services of unlawfully delaying the processing and resolution of asylum applications. Under federal statue, applicants are supposed to be interviewed within 45 days of filing and a decision reached within 180 days "absent extraordinary circumstances," according to the suit. What's causing the backlog appears to be the database used by USCIS to schedule asylum interviews. The suit says that a computer creates a monthly calendar of "slots" for interviews based on the availability of officers at eight regional offices throughout the nation. But not every new applicant ends up getting called for an interview and they end up dumped in a backlog category. The computer selects the next batch of interviews from the newest filings so "the longer a case is pending the less likely it is to be scheduled for an interview," lawyer Paul O'Dwyer -- dwyerjc@cooley.com -- said in the suit filed last month. Mr. O'Dwyer is representing 17 plaintiffs who are identified in the complaint only by their initials and hail from a wide range of countries, including Peru, Lebanon and Jamaica. Among them is L.M. She is a transsexual from Nicaragua who filed for asylum in August 2012 citing threats because of her gender and sexual orientation and is still waiting to be scheduled for an interview. The plaintiffs all reside in the U.S. and none is currently detained, Mr. O'Dwyer told The Daily News. While the number of asylum applications over the past two years has been fairly stable, the backlogged cases have ballooned from 12,450 in January 2012 to 45,193 in March 2014, the suit says, citing USCIS statistics. The suit is demanding that Federal Judge Nicholas Garaufis oversee the process of reducing the backlog. Once granted asylum an immigrant can remain in the U.S. indefinitely and their family members may also be eligible for asylum. US BANK: 6th Cir. Upholds Dismisal of Asset Management's Case ------------------------------------------------------------- In ASSET MANAGEMENT ONE LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Defendant-Appellee, NO. 13-4210, Plaintiff- Appellant appeals the district court's judgment dismissing its complaint alleging a class-action claim for breach of the implied duty of good faith in contract against Defendant-Appellee. The Defendant is a national bank that conducts business in Ohio. The Defendant made three commercial construction loans to non-party Stonehenge -- two in 2003 and one in 2006 -- that were memorialized in three separate Notes. In 2012, Stonehenge assigned all of its claims relating to the Notes to Plaintiff. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirms the judgment of the district court saying the district court did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed the Complaint with prejudice. The Sixth Circuit finds that the Plaintiff could prove no set of facts in support of its allegations that would entitle it to relief. Therefore, any attempt Plaintiff could make to amend the Complaint would be futile. The Court cannot say that the district court relied on clearly erroneous findings of fact, improperly applied the law, or employed an erroneous legal standard when it dismissed the complaint with prejudice, the Sixth Circuit adds. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court dismissing the complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted is affirmed. A copy of the June 19, 2014 ruling is available at http://is.gd/1oZjDWfrom Leagle.com. DAVID A.P. BROWER -- brower@browerpiven.com -- Brower Piven, New York, NY, for Plaintiff-Appellant. SCOTT MUSOFF -- scott.musoff@skadden.com -- (Jay B. Kasner -- jay.kasner@skadden.com -- on the brief), Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, New York, NY, for Defendants-Appellees. WENDY'S INT'L: Removed "Hernandez" Class Suit to S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Hernandez v. Wendy's International, LLC, Case No. 14-012993 (CA), was removed from the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Miami-Dade County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14- cv-22566-JLK to the proceeding. The case seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage and overtime compensation. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason S. Remer, Esq. Brody Max Shulman, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC 44 W. Flagler St., Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416-5000 Facsimile: (305) 416-5005 E-mail: jremer@rgpattorneys.com bshulman@rgpattorneys.com The Defendant is represented by: Angelique Groza Lyons, Esq. Doris Del Castillo, Esq. CONSTANGY, BROOKS & SMITH, LLP 100 North Tampa Street, Suite 3350 Post Office Box 1840 Tampa, FL 33601-1840 Telephone: (813) 223-7166 Facsimile: (813) 223-2515 E-mail: alyons@constangy.com ddelcastillo@constangy.com WHIRLPOOL CORP: Seeks Settlement of Deceptive Trade Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jeff Arnold and Chad Hunter, writing for Times Record, report that a joint motion seeking settlement of a class-action lawsuit against Whirlpool was filed on July 3 in U.S. District Court in Fort Smith, while another lawsuit against the corporation remains set for trial next year. The class-action complaint originally was filed May 20, 2013, in Sebastian County Circuit Court, but Whirlpool filed notice June 25, 2013, removing the case to federal court in Fort Smith. The complaint sought unspecified damages for nuisance, trespass, violations of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, accuses Whirlpool of fraudulent concealment and sought punitive damages. According to Whirlpool, which closed its Fort Smith plant in June 2012, a plume of trichloroethylene, or TCE, a known carcinogen, leaked into groundwater at the plant site, then later into a neighborhood to the north. TCE was used at Whirlpool as a degreasing solvent between the late 1960s and early 1980s, according to the company. Concerns of the contamination emerged after Whirlpool requested a ban on new wells around the site earlier in 2013. The lawsuits sought damages for "the reasonable expense of necessary repairs and restoration of the property which was damaged, plus the difference in the value of the property before contamination and the value after restoration," damages for the loss of enjoyment and use of their properties, and punitive damages. Last summer, Sebastian County Assessor Becky Yandell reduced the value of properties in and around the contaminated area 25 percent to 75 percent. The contaminated area includes a total of 55 parcels, Ms. Yandell said. Three are commercial properties, while 17 are homes in which the owners live. More than 30 are rental properties. The proposed settlement calls for: * Property owners inside the area bounded by Ingersoll Avenue, Brazil Avenue, Jenny Lind Road and Ferguson Street will receive compensation in an amount equal to devaluation of those properties estimated by the county assessor's office or determined by an agree-upon independent property appraiser. * Class members outside the bounded area whose property value was diminished by the contamination will receive $5,000, and possibly more in the future, if TCE is detected above threshold levels in groundwater beneath their property. In return, Whirlpool wants a well-drilling ban and access agreements on the properties. "What we're offering is to make the payment based on what the assessor says was the impact on the property value, even though I don't agree with that," Whirlpool representative Jeff Noel said on July 3. "But it is a public figure that's available. For us, we're offering this as a resolution in exchange for a well- drilling ban to be put onto the property and access agreements to the property for the ability to do the monitoring wells or whatever things we would need to do." U.S. District Court Judge P.K. Holmes III will make a preliminary finding on whether the settlement is fair. If Judge Holmes determines it is, class members will be notified of a formal "fairness hearing," to provide an opportunity for argument and evidence to be presented in favor of and in opposition to the proposed settlement. "I believe this is an extremely fair resolution because not only are we proposing to make the resolution based upon the value established by the assessor, but we're also going to cover all the legal costs so that the property owners get the full value of what the assessor has established," Mr. Noel said. A proposed schedule of events -- assuming Judge Holmes issues a favorable ruling -- is also included in the motion, that details deadlines for: notification of class members, filing for attorney fees, opting out of the settlement, completion of appraisals, scheduling a fairness hearing and final approval. The joint motion for settlement came a day after the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which added the accusation Whirlpool violated the Arkansas Solid Waste Management Act. Until action is taken by the court, the case remains scheduled for trial June 29, 2015. The plaintiff's attorney Kenneth Shemin of Rogers couldn't immediately be reached for comment on July 3. Two additional lawsuits were filed May 23, 2013, in Sebastian County Circuit Court by Taylor Law Partners LLP of Fayetteville and McMath Woods P.A. of Little Rock -- one on behalf of 10 homeowners, and the other, on behalf of landlords who own 36 properties in an area affected by the Whirlpool leak. Those lawsuits were also transferred to federal court, consolidated into a single lawsuit Feb. 19 by Judge Holmes and seeks damages similar to those sought in the class-action complaint. A trial in that case remains set for July 6, 2015. WHITEWAVE FOODS: Plaintiffs Appeal Exclusion of Sole Expert ----------------------------------------------------------- Amaris Elliott-Engel, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that plaintiffs lawyers in consumer-protection class actions challenging nutritional claims made for a brand of milk are appealing a federal magistrate judge's exclusion of their sole expert. The magistrate rejected expert on the ground that he could not extrapolate his opinion to all consumers in the United States, but the plaintiffs maintain that he needed no such extrapolation to render his opinion admissible. U.S. Magistrate Judge John O'Sullivan of the Southern District of Florida excluded nutritional scientist Richard Bazinet's testimony on the ground that he did not explain how five randomized clinical trials could support claims that WhiteWave Foods Co.'s Horizon, milk enriched with an algal-based form of the omega 3 fatty acid DHA, would not support the brain health of all purchasers. The plaintiffs appealed to U.S. District Judge Joan Lenard, presiding over the seven class actions consolidated in the federal multidistrict litigation. The label for Horizon milk says that DHA algal oil "supports brain health" and "supports a healthy brain," according to court papers. The plaintiffs argue that these statements are deceptive and unfair. There is not a single reported case excluding an expert on extrapolation grounds in the situation present here: The expert relied upon RCTs performed on humans, using the exact substance at issue, and studying the same specific anatomy," Lance Harke, Sarah Clasby Engel and Howard Bushman of Harke Clasby & Bushman in Miami Shores, Fla, co-lead class counsel and liaison counsel for plaintiffs, said in court papers. Co-lead class counsel Frank Piscitelli Jr. of the Piscitelli Law Firm in Highland Heights, Ohio, and Elaine A. Ryan, Lindsey Gomez- Gray -- lgomez@bffb.com -- and Patricia Syverson of Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint in Phoenix, joined the motion. The randomized control trials studied the same algal oil DHA used in WhiteWave's products, the plaintiffs said. Mr. Bazinet also said that the sample sizes in the five randomized trials were typical of the studies relied upon in the scientific community to generate their opinions. Mr. Bazinet's opinion that the amount of DHA in WhiteWave's milk products is incapable of supporting brain health also rested upon evidence other than the randomized clinical trials, the plaintiffs said. For example, Mr. Bazient said that the human brain can take up only a small amount of DHA in food consumed, which is "basic chemistry and biology . . . applicable to all Americans and no further extrapolation is needed," according to the plaintiffs' court papers. Moreover, the plaintiffs have new evidence: a final rule issued by the Food and Drug Administration that DHA is not an essential nutrient and that there is no recommended daily allowance for it. The new FDA ruling supports Mr. Bazinet's opinion and constitutes new evidence requiring reconsideration, they said. Mr. Bazinet should be allowed to testify even if he is not allowed to rely upon the randomized control trials, the plaintiffs said. WORLD ACCEPTANCE: Still Faces "Epstein" Shareholder Suit in S.C. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The suit Edna Selan Epstein v. World Acceptance Corporation et al., continues in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina (case number 6:14-cv-01606), according to the company's June 12, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2014. On April 22, 2014, a shareholder filed a putative class action complaint, Edna Selan Epstein v. World Acceptance Corporation et al., in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina (case number 6:14-cv-01606), against the Company and certain of its current and former officers on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between April 25, 2013 and March 12, 2014. The complaint alleges that the Company made false and misleading statements in various SEC reports and other public statements in violation of federal securities laws preceding the Company's disclosure in a Form 8-K filed March 13, 2014 that it had received a Civil Investigative Demand from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau on March 12, 2014. The complaint seeks class certification, unspecified monetary damages, costs and attorneys' fees. ********* 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 * * *