/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/140808.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, August 8, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 157 Headlines AETNA INC: Terminated $120MM Settlement in MDL 2020 AM-PM TRUCKING: Faces "Seeling" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime AMAZON.COM INC: Sued Over Illegal Sale of Weight Loss Products APPLE INC: Faces E-Book Price-Fixing Class Actions in Canada APPLE INC: Suit Over Unpaid Back Wages Obtains Class Action Status AVX CORP: Has Fixed Prices for Capacitors, eIQ Energy Suit Says ASTRAZENECA LP: Court Remands "Heller" Suit to LA Superior Court BABALU LLC: "Martes" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages BAR NONE: Court Declines to Impose Sanctions in "Ross" Suit BARCLAYS PLC: Sued Over Misleading Dark Pool Operation Statements BARCLAYS PLC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in New York BEST BUY: Says Recalled Products Being Sold After Recall Date CAPITAL ONE: Sued in New York by VentureOne Card Accountholder CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: 10th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Securities Case CHRYSLER GROUP: MLG Files Ignition Switch Class Action in Calif. COPS MONITORING: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss TCPA Case DIBRE AUTO: Trial Court Ruling in "Rontondi" Suit Upheld DREAM ON ME: Recalls High Chairs Due to Strangulation Hazard DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Sued Over Untimely Write-Down for Turbo DYNACRAFT BSC: Recalls Avigo Youth Bicycles Due to Fall Hazard EAST COAST CYCLE: Recalls Mountain Bikes Due to Crash Hazard EBAY INC: Faces "Green" Consumer Privacy Class Action EMCOR GROUP: Unit Faces Employee Class Action FAR EAST BROKERS: Recalls Glass Beverage Dispensers FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Sued Over Conspiracy to Fix Propane Price FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Sued Over Conspiracy to Fix Propane Levels FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Sued Over Conspiracy to Fix Propane Price FLAGSTAR BANCORP: Dismissal of RESPA Case on Appeal FOOT LOCKER: Asks for and Records Costumer's Info, Suit Claims FRESH DEL MONTE: Ore. Supreme Court Denies Petition for Review FRESH DEL MONTE: Summary Judgment Bid in Del. Case Still Pending GENERAL MOTORS: Sued in Florida for Concealing Engine Defects GOLDMAN SACHS: Responds to Female Employees' Discrimination Suit GRAY GLASS: Recalls Lightolier Glass Lenses Over Laceration Risk GUTHY-RENKER LLC: Products Make Hair Fall Out, Suit Claims HARRIS PRODUCTS: Recalls Welding Torch Handles Due to Fire Hazard HOOTERS OF AMERICA: Faces Class Action Over Spam Text Messages INVESTORS BANCORP: October 23 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set JOHNSON OUTDOORS: Recalls Dive Computers Due to Injury Hazard KAWASAKI MOTORS: Recalls Teryx4 Recreational Off-Highway Vehicles LEBO AUTOMOTIVE: Arbitrator to Decide on Class Arbitration LENNOX INTERNATIONAL INC: Defendant in Evaporator Coil Lawsuit LOBB LAW FIRM: "Lafata" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime LOWE'S HIW: Accused of Failing to Provide Full Meal Periods MACY'S CORPORATE: Sued for Illegally Recording Costumer's Info MAYBORN USA: Recalls Baby Monitors Due to Strangulation Risk MCKINNEY'S PUB: Faces "Hernandez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT METABO CORP: Recalls Electric Angle Grinders Due to Injury Risk MICHAELS STORES: Judge Tosses Data Breach Class Action MICHOLDINGS INC: Faces "Aleobua" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT MIDLAND CREDIT: Sued Over Unfair Debt Collection Conduct NAVIKA CAPITAL: "Chappell" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime NEBRASKA: Faces Class Suit Over Processing of Food Stamps NEW YORK, NY: AG Seeks Dismissal of Property Tax Class Action OEUF LLC: Recalls Sparrow Cribs Due to Entrapment Hazard PANDORA MEDIA: Lawsuit Over Phone App. Partialy Dismissed PANDORA MEDIA: Appeal in Privacy Lawsuit Still Pending PANERA LLC: Faces Class Action Over FCRA Violations PARAMOUNT FOODS: "Armenta" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages PETSMART INC: Recalls Top Fin Plastic Aquarium Heaters POTTERY BARN: Recalls Bar Stools Due to Fall Hazard PRIME TRUST: Faces Class Action Over Corporate Law Breach RITE AID: Suit Over LexisNexis Background Check May Be Amended SAMSON INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Bar Stool Due to Fall Hazard SIFY TECHNOLOGIES: IPO Lawsuit Exposure Settled by Insurer SMITH & WESSON: Federal Court Reinstates Product Liability Suit SUBARU OF AMERICA: Recalls About 5,000 Car Over Air Bag Defect TAISHAN ENTITIES: Faces Drywall Class Action in Louisiana TILLY'S INC: Trial Court Ruling in "Rebolledo" Suit Upheld TRANS-NATIONAL INC: Faces "Pichl" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT UNITED STATES: Space & Rocket Center Faces Class Action UNITIL CORP: Court Has Yet to Decide on Class Action VISHAY INTERTECHNOLOGY: Faces Chip-Tech and DCS Class Suits WORLEYPARSONS: Faces Investor Class Action Over Profit Downgrade XO HOLDINGS: September 29 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set YARD MEN LAWN: Faces "Gigg" Suit Over Failure to Pay Workers OT ZAMORA AUTOMOTIVE: Oct. 6 Final Fairness Hearing Set Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ameren Corp. Has 71 Pending Fibro Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harbinger Group Continues to Defend PI Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Re Records $372.8-Mil. Fibro Reserve ASBESTOS UPDATE: Noble Corp. Had 37 Pending Fibro-related Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Intricon Corp. Continues to Defend Fibro Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carey Watermark's Fibro Removal ARO Was $0.5MM ASBESTOS UPDATE: Magnetek Inc. Continues to Defend Fibro Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Locker Continues to Defend PI Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Andrea Gets Summary Judgment in "Jones" Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Andrea Continues to Defend "Edwards" Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Metropolitan Life Has 1,366 Fibro Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Budd Co. Claimants Defer Filing Claim Form ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garlock Estimation Trial Shouldn't Be Sealed ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Corp. Estimates $36M Fibro Liability ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbus McKinnon Estimates $8MM Fibro Liability ASBESTOS UPDATE: Precision Castparts Has 94 PI Suits at March 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Upholds Ruling v. Garlock Sealing ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 Cos. Obtain Summary Judgment in Take-Home Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lorillard's Bid to Strike Allegations Denied ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hawaii Court Affirms Order Denying Atty Fees ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court Allows Inmate to Amend Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. Court Junks Duplicative Suit v. Arrowood ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Affirms Judgments for CalPortland, Kaiser ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Fisher" Suit Remanded to State Court ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court Upholds Ruling in FEHA Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Diversified Directed to Pay Workers' Benefits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ariz. Court Allows Inmate to Amend Suit ********* AETNA INC: Terminated $120MM Settlement in MDL 2020 --------------------------------------------------- Aetna Inc., said in its Form 10-Q filed on July 29, 2014, with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that the company was named as a defendant in several purported class actions and individual lawsuits arising out of its practices related to the payment of claims for services rendered to its members by health care providers with whom we do not have a contract. Among other things, these lawsuits allege that "we paid too little to our health plan members and/or providers for these services, among other reasons, because of our use of data provided by Ingenix, Inc., a subsidiary of one of our competitors ("Ingenix"). Other major health insurers are the subject of similar litigation or have settled similar litigation," the company said. "Various plaintiffs who are health care providers or medical associations seek to represent nationwide classes of out-of- network providers who provided services to our members during the period from 2001 to the present. Various plaintiffs who are members in our health plans seek to represent nationwide classes of our members who received services from out-of-network providers during the period from 2001 to the present. Taken together, these lawsuits allege that we violated state law, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended ("ERISA"), the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and federal antitrust laws, either acting alone or in concert with our competitors. The purported classes seek reimbursement of all unpaid benefits, recalculation and repayment of deductible and coinsurance amounts, unspecified damages and treble damages, statutory penalties, injunctive and declaratory relief, plus interest, costs and attorneys' fees, and seek to disqualify us from acting as a fiduciary of any benefit plan that is subject to ERISA. Individual lawsuits that generally contain similar allegations and seek similar relief have been brought by health plan members and out-of-network providers. "The first class action case was commenced on July 30, 2007. The federal Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation (the "MDL Panel") has consolidated these class action cases in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (the "New Jersey District Court") under the caption In re: Aetna UCR Litigation, MDL No. 2020 ("MDL 2020"). In addition, the MDL Panel has transferred the individual lawsuits to MDL 2020. On May 9, 2011, the New Jersey District Court dismissed the physician plaintiffs from MDL 2020 without prejudice. The New Jersey District Court's action followed a ruling by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (the "Florida District Court") that the physician plaintiffs were enjoined from participating in MDL 2020 due to a prior settlement and release. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has dismissed the physician plaintiffs' appeal of the Florida District Court's ruling. "On December 6, 2012, we entered into an agreement to settle MDL 2020. Under the terms of the proposed nationwide settlement, we would have been released from claims relating to our out-of- network reimbursement practices from the beginning of the applicable settlement class period through August 30, 2013. The settlement agreement did not contain an admission of wrongdoing. The medical associations were not parties to the settlement agreement. "Under the settlement agreement, we would have paid up to $120 million to fund claims submitted by health plan members and health care providers who were members of the settlement classes. These payments also would have funded the legal fees of plaintiffs' counsel and the costs of administering the settlement. In connection with the proposed settlement, the Company recorded an after-tax charge to net income attributable to Aetna of approximately $78 million in the fourth quarter of 2012. "The settlement agreement provided us the right to terminate the agreement under certain conditions related to settlement class members who opted out of the settlement. Based on a report provided to the parties by the settlement administrator, the conditions permitting us to terminate the settlement agreement were satisfied. On March 13, 2014, we notified the New Jersey District Court and plaintiffs' counsel that we were terminating the settlement agreement. Various legal and factual developments since the date of the settlement agreement led us to believe terminating the settlement agreement was in our best interests. We intend to vigorously defend ourselves against the claims brought by the plaintiffs. As a result of this termination, we released the reserve established in connection with the settlement agreement, net of amounts due to the settlement administrator, which reduced first quarter 2014 other general and administrative expenses by $67.0 million ($103.0 million pretax)." Aetna also has received subpoenas and/or requests for documents and other information from, and been investigated by, attorneys general and other state and/or federal regulators, legislators and agencies relating to its out-of-network benefit payment and administration practices. According to Aetna, it is reasonably possible that others could initiate additional litigation or additional regulatory action against the Company with respect to its out-of-network benefit payment and/or administration practices. Aetna Inc., diversified health care benefits companies, serving an estimated 45 million people with information and resources to help them in consultation with their health care professionals make better informed decisions about their health care. AM-PM TRUCKING: Faces "Seeling" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- Devon Seeling on behalf of himself and similarly situated employees v. AM-PM Trucking, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-00084 (D.N.D., July 28, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act. AM-PM Trucking, LLC, owns and operates a trucking business that services the North Dakota oil industry. The Plaintiff is represented by: Dean J. Haas, Esq. LARSON LATHAM HUETTL, LLP PO Box 2056 Bismarck, ND 58502-2056 Telephone: (701) 223-5300 E-mail: dhaas@bismarcklaw.com - and - Jerry E. MArtin, Esq. BARRET JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC 217 Second Avenue North Nashville, TN 37201 Telephone: (615) 244-2202 E-mail: jmartin@barrettjohnston.com - and - Peter D. Winebrake, Esq. WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC 715 Twining Road, Suite 211 Dresher, PA 19025 Telephone: (215) 884-2491 E-mail: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com AMAZON.COM INC: Sued Over Illegal Sale of Weight Loss Products -------------------------------------------------------------- Dean Nicosia, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Amazon.com, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-04513 (E.D.N.Y., July 28, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to take adequate measures to prevent the sale of weight loss products containing sibutramine. Products containing sibutramine have never been permitted for sale without a prescription from a licensed physician. On October 8, 2010, the lone FDA-approved weight loss product containing sibutramine was withdrawn from the United States market because it was associated with a serious risk of cardiovascular events and strokes. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph S. Tusa, Esq. TUSA, P.C. POB 566, 53345 Main Rd, Ste 10-1 Southhold, NY 11971 Telephone: (631) 407-5100 E-mail: joseph.tusapc@gmail.com - and - Peter D. St. Phillip Jr., Esq. Scott Vincent Papp, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG, ET. AL. One North Broadway White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 997-0500 Facsimile: (914) 997-0035 E-mail: pstphillip@lowey.com spapp@lowey.com - and - Gregory Duncan, Esq. GREGORY S. DUNCAN, ESQ. 412 East Jefferson Street Charlottesville, VA 22902 Telephone: (434) 979-8556 E-mail: gregdun@ntelos.net - and - Timothy G. Blood, Esq. Paula M. Roach, Esq. BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP 701 B Street, Ste. 1700 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619)338-1100 E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com proach@bholaw.com APPLE INC: Faces E-Book Price-Fixing Class Actions in Canada ------------------------------------------------------------ Crawford & Company (Canada) Inc. on July 29 disclosed that class action lawsuits covering all of Canada were commenced in Ontario, British Columbia and Quebec against Apple Inc. and various Publishers of E-Books, alleging that they conspired to fix, maintain, increase or control the price of E-Books sold by them in Canada from April 1, 2010 to September 22, 2014. A proposed settlement was reached with the Publishers -- Hachette Book Group Canada Ltd, Hachette Book Group Inc., HarperCollins Canada Limited, HarperCollins Publishers LLC, Macmillan Publishers, Inc., Penguin Group (USA) LLC (formerly Penguin Group (USA), INC.), Penguin Canada Books, Inc. and Simon & Schuster Canada, a division of CBS Canada Holdings Co. -- but must still be approved by the Ontario and Quebec Courts to be effective. The class actions have been certified by the Courts for settlement purposes in relation to the Publishers only. APPLE INC: Suit Over Unpaid Back Wages Obtains Class Action Status ------------------------------------------------------------------ Heidi Turner, writing for LawyersandSettlements.com, reports that a California labor lawsuit filed against Apple by former employees has been certified a class-action lawsuit. The lawsuit alleges Apple violated federal and California labor laws by denying timely payment of last paychecks and by not providing meal and rest breaks. According to RE/CODE, the lawsuit was filed in 2011 by Brandon Felczer and other employees, who alleged Apple owed its retail and corporate employees back wages. As many as 20,000 workers could be included in the class. In allowing the class-action certification, San Diego Superior Court Judge Ronald S. Prager broke the class into six subclasses: a meal break class for retail employees, a meal break class for corporate employees, a rest break class for retail employees, a rest break class for corporate employees, a waiting time penalty subclass and a wage statement subclass. Brandon Felczer alleged in his lawsuit that he was forced to work five hours or more at a time without a meal break, a violation of California labor law. Furthermore, he alleges that when he quit his job he gave 72-hours notice but did not receive his final paycheck until two days later and did not receive sufficient waiting fees. According to the judge's ruling, Apple argued that plaintiffs were provided timely rest breaks. The judge, however, found that under Apple's meal period policy, non-exempt non-manager employees were not told they were permitted to take their meal break within the first five hours of every shift. The policy reportedly stated that non-exempt employees who work more than five hours at any time during a work shift must take at least a 30-minute meal period, and that meal periods cannot be taken at the end of a shift to allow the employee to leave work early. "Thus, as stated, it can be argued that Defendant's meal break policy never authorized, permitted or made its non-exempt employees aware that they had the right to take a meal period within (italics in original) the first five hours prior to August 1, 2012," the judge noted in his ruling. The lawsuit is Felczer et al vs Apple Inc., case number 37-2011- 00102593-CU-OE-CTL, in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego. In 2013, Apple employees in California filed a lawsuit against the company alleging they were wrongly denied overtime wages because they were not paid for time they spent off-the-clock waiting for security checks prior to leaving stores. AVX CORP: Has Fixed Prices for Capacitors, eIQ Energy Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- eIQ Energy Inc., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AVX Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv- 04826-ES-MAH (D.N.J., August 1, 2014) arises from a conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize prices for tantalum capacitors, aluminum electrolytic capacitors and film capacitors sold in the United States. Capacitors are passive electronic components that are used to store electricity and release it when required. Capacitors are incorporated into almost every electronic device, including audio/video equipment, telecommunication equipment, computers and automobiles. The Defendants are AVX Corporation, Elna Co., Ltd., Elna America Inc., Hitachi Chemical Company, Ltd., Hitachi AIC Incorporated, Hitachi Chemical Co. America, Ltd., Kemet Corporation, Kemet Electronics Corporation, Matsuo Electric Co., Ltd., Matsuo Electronics of America, Inc., NEC Tokin Corporation, NEC Tokin America Inc., Nichicon Corporation, Nichicon (America) Corporation, Nippon Chemi-Con Corporation, United Chemi-Con, Inc., Panasonic Corporation, Panasonic Corporation of North America, Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd., Sanyo Electric Device (U.S.A.) Corporation, Rohm Company Limited, Rohm Semiconductor U.S.A., LLC, Rubycon Corporation, Rubycon America Inc., TDK Corporation, TDK- EPC Corporation, TDK U.S.A. Corporation, and Vishay Interchnology, Inc. AVX Corporation is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Fountain Inn, South Carolina. The Defendants manufactured, sold and shipped Capacitor Products in a continuous and uninterrupted flow of interstate commerce. The Plaintiff is represented by: Dennis J. Drasco, Esq. Arthur M. Owens, Esq. LUM, DRASCO & POSITAN, LLC 103 Eisenhower Parkway Roseland, NJ 07068-1049 Telephone: (973) 403-9000 E-mail: ddrasco@lumlaw.com AOwens@lumlaw.com - and - Howard J. Sedran, Esq. Austin B. Cohen, Esq. Keith J. Verrier, Esq. LEVIN, FISHBEIN, SEDRAN & BERMAN 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 592-1500 Facsimile: (215) 592-4663 E-mail: hsedran@lfsblaw.com acohen@lfsblaw.com kverrier@lfsblaw.com - and - Roberta D. Liebenberg, Esq. Donald L. Perelman, Esq. Gerard A. Dever, Esq. Paul Costa, Esq. Ria Momblanco, Esq. FINE, KAPLAN AND BLACK, R.P.C. One South Broad Street, 23rd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19107 Telephone: (215) 567-6565 E-mail: rliebenberg@finekaplan.com dperelman@finekaplan.com gdever@finekaplan.com pcosta@finekaplan.com rmomblanco@finekaplan.com - and - W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq. BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C. 218 Commerce Street Post Office Box 4160 (36103) Montgomery, AL 36104 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 Facsimile: (334) 954-7555 E-mail: Dee.Miles@BeasleyAllen.com ASTRAZENECA LP: Court Remands "Heller" Suit to LA Superior Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge John A. Kronstadt remanded the action captioned Melvin V. Heller, et al. v. AstraZeneca LP, et al., CASE NO. LA CV14-04170 JAK (SHX), (C.D. Cal.) to the Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. BC501979, at the Central Civil West Courthouse. Plaintiffs filed this tort action on February 28, 2013, in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, in which they named these defendants: Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP; Astrazeneca, LP; McKesson Corp.; and Does 1-50. Plaintiffs are 39 individuals for whom Crestor was prescribed; it is a pharmaceutical drug that lowers cholesterol levels in patients. Crestor is manufactured, marketed, and distributed by Defendants. Plaintiffs allege that, as a result of taking Crestor, each suffered various injuries, including: myocardial infarction, cardiomyopathy, sudden cardiac arrest, type II diabetes, and kidney and liver damage. Prior to the time that Plaintiffs filed this action, 13 other separate, but similar, lawsuits against defendants had been coordinated by the California courts through Judicial Council Coordinated Proceeding No. 4713 (JCCP 4713), pursuant to Cal. Civ. Proc. Code Section 404, et seq. and Rules of Court 3.500, et seq. See Declaration of Lowell W. Finson. On April 30, 2013, the California courts added this case and four others to JCCP 4713. On April 30, 2014, in another similar state court action, Gilbert, et al. v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, et al., Case No. BC536980, Plaintiffs' counsel moved for its coordination with the JCCP 4713 (the Add-On Request). On May 30, 2014, Defendants removed the action. They assert that there is subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(11), a provision of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA). In Judge Kronstadt July 2, 2014 ruling, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/7XDqGQ from Leagle.com, he wrote that the District Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over this dispute. Melvin V. Heller, Plaintiff, represented by Lowell W Finson, Philips Law Firm, Marc D Grossman, Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP, Randi A Kassan, Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP & Robert A Mosier, Sanders Viener Grossman LLP. Neida Osoria Pizarro, Plaintiff, represented by Lowell W Finson, Philips Law Firm, Marc D Grossman, Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP, Randi A Kassan, Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP & Robert A Mosier, Sanders Viener Grossman LLP. Hilton Perez Garcia, Plaintiff, represented by Lowell W Finson, Philips Law Firm, Marc D Grossman, Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP, Randi A Kassan, Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP & Robert A Mosier, Sanders Viener Grossman LLP. Charlene Perry, Plaintiff, represented by Lowell W Finson, Philips Law Firm, Marc D Grossman, Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP, Randi A Kassan, Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP & Robert A Mosier, Sanders Viener Grossman LLP. Tomas Ponton, Plaintiff, represented by Lowell W Finson, Philips Law Firm, Marc D Grossman, Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP, Randi A Kassan, Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP & Robert A Mosier, Sanders Viener Grossman LLP. Carmen Quinones Lacourt, Plaintiff, represented by Lowell W Finson, Philips Law Firm, Marc D Grossman, Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP, Randi A Kassan, Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP & Robert A Mosier, Sanders Viener Grossman LLP. Miriam Vega Cruz, Plaintiff, represented by Lowell W Finson, Philips Law Firm, Marc D Grossman, Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP, Randi A Kassan, Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP & Robert A Mosier, Sanders Viener Grossman LLP. Angel Ramirez-Vasquez, Plaintiff, represented by Lowell W Finson, Philips Law Firm, Marc D Grossman, Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP, Randi A Kassan, Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP & Robert A Mosier, Sanders Viener Grossman LLP. Marlin Reaves, Plaintiff, represented by Lowell W Finson, Philips Law Firm, Marc D Grossman, Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP, Randi A Kassan, Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP & Robert A Mosier, Sanders Viener Grossman LLP. Oscar Rios Ramos, Plaintiff, represented by Lowell W Finson, Philips Law Firm, Marc D Grossman, Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP, Randi A Kassan, Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP & Robert A Mosier, Sanders Viener Grossman LLP. Hector Rivera Negron, Plaintiff, represented by Lowell W Finson, Philips Law Firm, Marc D Grossman, Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP, Randi A Kassan, Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP & Robert A Mosier, Sanders Viener Grossman LLP. Ramona Rivera Ramos, Plaintiff, represented by Lowell W Finson, Philips Law Firm, Marc D Grossman, Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP, Randi A Kassan, Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP & Robert A Mosier, Sanders Viener Grossman LLP. Jaime Rivera, Plaintiff, represented by Lowell W Finson, Philips Law Firm, Marc D Grossman, Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP, Randi A Kassan, Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP & Robert A Mosier, Sanders Viener Grossman LLP. Norma Rodriguez Bachier, Plaintiff, represented by Lowell W Finson, Philips Law Firm, Marc D Grossman, Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP, Randi A Kassan, Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP & Robert A Mosier, Sanders Viener Grossman LLP. Gilberto Rodriguez Mercado, Plaintiff, represented by Lowell W Finson, Philips Law Firm, Marc D Grossman, Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP, Randi A Kassan, Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP & Robert A Mosier, Sanders Viener Grossman LLP. Jose Rodriguez Planas, Plaintiff, represented by Lowell W Finson, Philips Law Firm, Marc D Grossman, Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP, Randi A Kassan, Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP & Robert A Mosier, Sanders Viener Grossman LLP. Marta Rojas Torres, Plaintiff, represented by Lowell W Finson, Philips Law Firm, Marc D Grossman, Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP, Randi A Kassan, Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP & Robert A Mosier, Sanders Viener Grossman LLP. Leticia Romero Borges, Plaintiff, represented by Lowell W Finson, Philips Law Firm, Marc D Grossman, Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP, Randi A Kassan, Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP & Robert A Mosier, Sanders Viener Grossman LLP. Luis Romero Morales, Plaintiff, represented by Lowell W Finson, Philips Law Firm, Marc D Grossman, Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP, Randi A Kassan, Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP & Robert A Mosier, Sanders Viener Grossman LLP. Clayton Sampy, Plaintiff, represented by Lowell W Finson, Philips Law Firm, Marc D Grossman, Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP, Randi A Kassan, Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP & Robert A Mosier, Sanders Viener Grossman LLP. Antonio Santiago Nieves, Plaintiff, represented by Lowell W Finson, Philips Law Firm, Marc D Grossman, Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP, Randi A Kassan, Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP & Robert A Mosier, Sanders Viener Grossman LLP. Larry Sinkhorn, Plaintiff, represented by Lowell W Finson, Philips Law Firm, Marc D Grossman, Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP, Randi A Kassan, Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP & Robert A Mosier, Sanders Viener Grossman LLP. Will Sledge, Plaintiff, represented by Lowell W Finson, Philips Law Firm, Marc D Grossman, Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP, Randi A Kassan, Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP & Robert A Mosier, Sanders Viener Grossman LLP. Alberto Stolle Carrasquillo, Plaintiff, represented by Lowell W Finson, Philips Law Firm, Marc D Grossman, Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP, Randi A Kassan, Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP & Robert A Mosier, Sanders Viener Grossman LLP. Chericia Thomas, Plaintiff, represented by Lowell W Finson, Philips Law Firm, Marc D Grossman, Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP, Randi A Kassan, Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP & Robert A Mosier, Sanders Viener Grossman LLP. Edga Torres Perez, Plaintiff, represented by Lowell W Finson, Philips Law Firm, Marc D Grossman, Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP, Randi A Kassan, Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP & Robert A Mosier, Sanders Viener Grossman LLP. Hector Trujillo Miranda, Plaintiff, represented by Lowell W Finson, Philips Law Firm, Marc D Grossman, Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP, Randi A Kassan, Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP & Robert A Mosier, Sanders Viener Grossman LLP. Elinora Vaughn Williams, Plaintiff, represented by Lowell W Finson, Philips Law Firm, Marc D Grossman, Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP, Randi A Kassan, Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP & Robert A Mosier, Sanders Viener Grossman LLP. Frankie Vazquez-Oronch, Plaintiff, represented by Lowell W Finson, Philips Law Firm, Marc D Grossman, Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP, Randi A Kassan, Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP & Robert A Mosier, Sanders Viener Grossman LLP. Anaminta Velasquez, Plaintiff, represented by Lowell W Finson, Philips Law Firm, Marc D Grossman, Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP, Randi A Kassan, Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP & Robert A Mosier, Sanders Viener Grossman LLP. Jose Viera Rodriguez, Plaintiff, represented by Lowell W Finson, Philips Law Firm, Marc D Grossman, Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP, Randi A Kassan, Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP & Robert A Mosier, Sanders Viener Grossman LLP. Zaida Villaznueva Collazo, Plaintiff, represented by Lowell W Finson, Philips Law Firm, Marc D Grossman, Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP, Randi A Kassan, Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP & Robert A Mosier, Sanders Viener Grossman LLP. Luis Vinas Serrano, Plaintiff, represented by Lowell W Finson, Philips Law Firm, Marc D Grossman, Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP, Randi A Kassan, Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP & Robert A Mosier, Sanders Viener Grossman LLP. Eugene Webber, Plaintiff, represented by Lowell W Finson, Philips Law Firm, Marc D Grossman, Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP, Randi A Kassan, Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP & Robert A Mosier, Sanders Viener Grossman LLP. Caroline White, Plaintiff, represented by Lowell W Finson, Philips Law Firm, Marc D Grossman, Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP, Randi A Kassan, Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP & Robert A Mosier, Sanders Viener Grossman LLP. Aida De La Cruz Ramon, Plaintiff, represented by Lowell W Finson, Philips Law Firm, Marc D Grossman, Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP, Randi A Kassan, Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP & Robert A Mosier, Sanders Viener Grossman LLP. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, Defendant, represented by Kristine W Hanson, King and Spalding LLP, Peter A Strotz, King and Spalding LLP, Steven D Park, King and Spalding LLP, William Edward Steimle, King and Spalding LLP & Donald F Zimmer, Jr, King and Spalding LLP. AstraZeneca LP, Defendant, represented by Kristine W Hanson, King and Spalding LLP, Peter A Strotz, King and Spalding LLP, Steven D Park, King and Spalding LLP, William Edward Steimle, King and Spalding LLP & Donald F Zimmer, Jr, King and Spalding LLP. McKesson Corporation, Defendant, represented by Kristine W Hanson, King and Spalding LLP, Peter A Strotz, King and Spalding LLP, Steven D Park, King and Spalding LLP, William Edward Steimle, King and Spalding LLP & Donald F Zimmer, Jr, King and Spalding LLP. BABALU LLC: "Martes" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Leonel Martes v. Babalu, LLC, and Joseph Rivera, Individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-05773 (S.D.N.Y., July 28, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Babalu, LLC, owns and operates a restaurant located in Bronx County, New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jodi Jill Jaffe, Esq. JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A. Building 2, Suite 220 168 Franklin Corner Road Lawrenceville, NJ 08648 Telephone: (201) 687-9977 Facsimile: (201) 595-0308 E-mail: jjaffe@jaffeglenn.com BAR NONE: Court Declines to Impose Sanctions in "Ross" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In ROBERT ROSS, Plaintiff, v. BAR NONE ENTERPRISES, INC., Defendant, NO. 2:13-CV-00234-KJM-KJN, (E.D. Cal.), the court issued an order on June 30, 2014, directing counsel for plaintiff to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for their failure to comply with the court's June 20, 2014 minute order requiring the plaintiff to submit a corrected settlement agreement within one week. On July 3, 2014, counsel for plaintiff filed a declaration attaching a corrected stipulation of class action settlement. The corrected settlement agreement is now on record and plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval is submitted. The court will issue an order on the matter in due course. With regard to the court's order to show cause, the plaintiff's counsel's declaration does not explain his failure to timely file a corrected settlement agreement. Given counsel's prompt filing of the corrected agreement once reminded by the court, District Judge Kimberly J. Muller declined to impose sanctions. "Counsel is cautioned however that future failures to comply with court orders are unlikely to be met with such restraint," she said in an order dated July 8, 2014, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/1NtEvqfrom Leagle.com. Robert Ross, Plaintiff, represented by Mark Christian Thomas -- mark@brownsteinthomas.com -- Brownstein Thomas, LLP & Frank Scott Moore, Law Offices Of Frank S. Moore, APC. Bar None Enterprises, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jeremy Seth Millstone -- jmillstone@mpwlaw.net -- Millstone Peterson & Watts, LLP. BARCLAYS PLC: Sued Over Misleading Dark Pool Operation Statements ----------------------------------------------------------------- Barbara Strougo, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Barclays PLC, Bob Diamond, Antony Jenkins, Chris Lucas and Tushar Morzaria, Case No. 1:14-cv-05797 (S.D.N.Y., July 28, 2014), alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements, and failed to disclose material adverse facts regarding the Company's operation of its dark pool. Barclays PLC is a global financial services provider engaged in retail banking, credit cards, whole sale banking, investment banking, wealth management and investment management services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Francis Paul McConville, Esq. Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Esq. Patrick Vincent Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: fmcconville@pomlaw.com jalieberman@pomlaw.com pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com BARCLAYS PLC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in New York --------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP on July 28 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit against Barclays PLC and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Southern District of New York, and docketed under 14-cv-5797, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased Barclays securities between August 2, 2011 and June 25, 2014, inclusive. This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you are a shareholder who purchased Barclays securities during the Class Period, you have until September 26, 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. Barclays provides various financial products and services worldwide. The company primarily operates in UK Retail and Business Banking; Europe Retail and Business Banking; Africa Retail and Business Banking; Barclaycard; Investment Bank; Corporate Banking; and Wealth and Investment Management segments. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements, and failed to disclose material adverse facts regarding the Company's operation of its dark pool. Specifically, during the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Barclays engaged in a "systematic pattern of fraud and deceit" by using its dark pool to favor high-frequency traders over its other clients; (ii) the pools were promoted as offering investors protection from predatory traders, while Barclays instead courted HFT firms by charging them lower rates; (iii) Barclays falsely understated the percentage of aggressive HFT activity in its dark pool; (iv) Barclays failed to provide monitoring services it promised to investors which would protect the dark pool from aggressive, predatory HFTs; (v) Barclays routed a disproportionately high percentage of client orders to its own dark pool while falsely representing that it routed client orders in a manner that did not favor Barclays LX; (vi) Barclays secretly gave HFT firms informational and other advantages over other clients trading in the dark pool; (vii) Barclays' practices subjected it to regulatory scrutiny and significant reputational harm; (viii) and as a result of the above, the Company's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On June 25, 2014, the New York State office of the Attorney General ("NY AG") issued a press release announcing a lawsuit against Barclays, arising from the operation of Barclays' dark pool and other aspects of its electronic trading division. The press release stated, in part, that "[T]he complaint alleges Barclays has dramatically increased the market share of its dark pool through a series of false statements to clients and investors about how, and for whose benefit, Barclays operates its dark pool. Contrary to Barclays' representations that it has implemented special safeguards to protect clients from "aggressive" or predatory high-frequency traders, Barclays is accused of operating its dark pool to favor high-frequency traders." On this news, Barclays' securities fell $1.16, or 7.38%, on extraordinarily heavy volume, to close at $14.55 on June 26, 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. BEST BUY: Says Recalled Products Being Sold After Recall Date ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) and Best Buy are warning consumers that 10 different recalled products continued to be sold or were resold by Best Buy, Magnolia stores and liquidators Best Buy Private Auction, CowBoom and TechLiquidators nationwide, and online, after they were recalled in 2012 and 2013. This involves about 200 units of the recalled products and an undetermined number of recalled Canon cameras. The recalling firms listed below fully complied with the negotiated terms of their original recall. Consumers should stop using the recalled products immediately and contact the recalling firms listed to receive the remedies listed in the recall, which is either a refund, replacement or repair. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. Canon EOS Rebel T4i Digital Cameras Recall Date: August 14, 2012 Original Sale Dates: June 2012 through July 2012 Press Release #: 12-246 Hazard: A chemical used in the camera's rubber grips can result in a reaction that changes the grips from black to white and poses a risk of skin irritation to the consumer. Remedy: Free replacement grips Contact: Canon toll-free at (855) 902-3277 between 8 a.m. to midnight ET Monday through Friday, 10 a.m. to 8 p.m. ET Saturday, or visit the firm's website for more information. Coby Televisions Recall Date: December 12, 2013 Original Sale Dates: August 2011 through November 2013 Press Release #: 14-054 Hazard: An electronic component can fail, catch fire and ignite nearby items, posing fire and burn hazards. Remedy: Gift card for a replacement item Contact: Best Buy at (800) 566-7498 BestBuy.com and click on Product Recalls at the bottom of the page for more information. Definitive Technology SuperCube 2000 Subwoofers Recall Date: March 28, 2013 Original Sale Dates: November 2012 through Jan. 2013 Press Release #: 13-158 Hazard: An internal failure with the subwoofer' level input jack (RCA jack) results in a shock hazard to consumers. Remedy: Free replacement Contact: Definitive Technology at (800) 228-7148 from 9:30 a.m. to 6 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or online for more information. GE Dishwashers Recall Date: August 9, 2012 Original Sale Dates: March 2006 through Aug. 2009 Press Release #: 12-244 Hazard: An electrical failure in the dishwasher's heating element can pose a fire hazard. Remedy: Free repair Contact: GE toll-free at (866) 918-8760 from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday or visit the firm's website. Gree Dehumidifiers Recall Date: September 12, 2013 Original Sale Dates: Jan. 2005 through Aug. 2013 Press Release #: 13-283 Hazard: The dehumidifiers can overheat, smoke and catch fire, posing fire and burn hazards to consumers. Remedy: Refund Contact: Gree toll-free at (866) 853-2802 from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. ET Monday through Friday or online for more information. iSi North America Twist'n Sparkle Beverage Carbonation Systems Recall Date: July 5, 2012 Original Sale Dates: June 2010 through March 2012 Press Release #: 12-217 Hazard: The plastic bottles can explode under pressure, expelling plastic parts, resulting in an injury hazard to anyone nearby. Remedy: Refund or store credit Contact: iSi at (800) 645-3595 anytime or visit the firm's website for more information. LG Electronics Electric Ranges Recall Date: November 8, 2012 Original Sale Dates: January 2006 through June 2010 Press Release #: 13-031 Hazard: Burners on the electric ranges can fail to turn off after being switched off and the temperature setting can increase unexpectedly during use, posing burn and fire hazards to consumers. Remedy: Free Repair Contact: LG toll-free at (855) 400-4638 from 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. CT Monday through Friday, and from 8 a.m. to 2 p.m. Sat for more information. LG Electronics Gas Dryers Recall Date: Aug. 21, 2012 Original Sale Dates: Nov. 2009 through Aug. 2010 Press Release #: 12-251 Hazard: The gas valve in the recalled dryers can fail to shut off properly, continuing to heat the dryer and its contents after the drying cycle is complete. High temperatures inside and on the exterior surface of the dryers can scorch the drum, as well as burn or damage the dryer contents, posing a risk of burn, fire and smoke inhalation. Remedy: Free repair Contact: LG toll free at (866) 223-5355 from 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. CT Monday through Friday, and from 8 a.m. to 2 p.m. CT on Sat., or visit the firm's website. Samsonite Dual-Wattage Travel Converters Recall Date: February 12, 2013 Original Sale Dates: Jan. 2011 through Dec. 2012 Press Release #: 13-119 Hazard: The converter can overheat if a load in excess of 50 watts is applied to the converter while in the 50-watt setting. This poses a fire and burn hazard to consumers. Remedy: Full Refund Contact: Samsonite at (800) 382-7259 from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, by email or online. Sauder Woodworking Company Gruga Office Chairs Recall Date: Nov. 7, 2012 Original Sale Dates: Aug. 2009 through Sept. 2012 Press Release #: 13-030 Hazard: The seat plate can break, posing a fall hazard to consumers. Remedy: Free replacement seat plate Contact: Sauder Woodworking Company toll-free at (888) 800-4590 from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday for more information. CAPITAL ONE: Sued in New York by VentureOne Card Accountholder -------------------------------------------------------------- Abigail Strubel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., Case No. 1:14- cv-05998-AJN (S.D.N.Y., July 31, 2014) seeks redress for the alleged illegal practices of Capital One Bank for providing to customers of its VentureOne card accounts disclosures that violated the Truth in Lending Act. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., is doing business in the state of New York and throughout the United States, with a principal place of business in Virginia. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian L. Bromberg, Esq. Jonathan R. Miller, Esq. BROMBERG LAW OFFICE, P.C. 26 Broadway, 21st Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 248-7906 Facsimile: (212) 248-7908 E-mail: brian@bromberglawoffice.com jonathan@bromberglawoffice.com - and - Harley J. Schnall, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF HARLEY J. SCHNALL 711 West End Avenue New York, NY 10025 Telephone: (212) 678-6546 Facsimile: (212) 678-0322 E-mail: schnall_law@hotmail.com CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: 10th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Securities Case ----------------------------------------------------------------- In a consolidated class action securities case, plaintiffs allege that various corporate officers of Chesapeake Energy Corporation materially misled the public about Chesapeake's real financial condition in violation of federal securities laws. The district court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint, holding that Plaintiffs had failed to plead with particularity facts giving rise to a strong inference of scienter as required by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. An appeal followed. The United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the case in an opinion dated July 8, 2014, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/PV12WJfrom Leagle.com. The Tenth Circuit found that Plaintiffs have not shown anything more than alleged knowledge of arguably material facts. It added that wiewing all of the allegations in the complaint collectively, it simply is not persuaded these allegations give rise to a cogent and compelling inference of scienter. The case is DVORA WEINSTEIN; STEVEN WEINSTEIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. AUBREY K. McCLENDON; CHESAPEAKE ENERGY CORPORATION; DOMENIC J. DELL'OSSO; MARCUS ROWLAND; MICHAEL A. JOHNSON; JEFFREY L. MOBLEY; HENRY J. HOOD, Defendants-Appellees, and ONTARIO TEACHERS' PENSION PLAN BOARD, Movant-Appellant, and IBI AMBAN INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT, LTD; CLAL PENSION & PROVIDENT FUND, LTD; ARKANSAS PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM; STATE UNIVERSITIES RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF ILLINOIS; STATE OF OREGON, by and through the Oregon State Treasurer and the Oregon Public Employee Retirement Board on behalf of the Oregon Public Employee Retirement Fund; SHI YAN, Movants, NO. 13-6121. Joseph Alberto Fonti -- jfonti@labaton.com -- of Labaton Sucharow LLP, New York, New York (Sean Connelly -- sconnelly@rplaw.com -- of Reilly Pozner LLP, Denver, Colorado, and Jonathan M. Plasse -- jplasse@labaton.com -- Javier Bleichmar -- jbleichmar@labaton.com -- Serena P. Hallowell -- shallowell@labaton.com -- and Jeffrey R. Alexander -- jalexander@labaton.com -- of Labaton Sucharow LLP, New York, New York, with him on the briefs) for Movant-Appellant. Robert P. Varian -- rvarian@orrick.com -- of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, San Francisco, California (Spencer F. Smith -- spencer.smith@mcafeetaft.com -- of McAfee & Taft, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, and M. Todd Scott -- tscott@orrick.com -- and Alexander K. Talarides -- atalarides@orrick.com -- of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, San Francisco, California, with him on the briefs) for Defendants-Appellees. CHRYSLER GROUP: MLG Files Ignition Switch Class Action in Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------------- MLG Automotive Law, APLC on July 28, 2014, filed a class action lawsuit against Chrysler Group LLC for defective ignition switches in the company's Jeep Grand Cherokee and Commander vehicles. The lawsuit, entitled Latoya Lumpkin v. Chrysler Group LLC, was filed in U.S. District Court, Central District of California. On July 22, 2014, Chrysler admitted that it had received over 100 complaints that its ignition switches were unexpectedly shutting off, leaving consumers stranded in vehicles they could not control. When the ignition switch shuts off, it leaves the driver without power, and cuts off the vehicle's power steering, power brakes and airbags. Chrysler has indicated that it will be recalling 792,000 vehicles. The affected vehicles are 2005-07 Jeep Grand Cherokees and 2006-07 Jeep Commanders. Under National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regulations, a manufacturer has five days to report a safety defect, or face a fine of up to $35 million. Congress is considering legislation that will significantly increase this fine, and possibly add criminal liability. Despite the NHTSA requirement that the automaker notify regulators within five days of learning of the defect, Chrysler waited years to come clean. It is unknown how many people have died or been seriously injured because of the defect. In March, MLG Automotive Law filed a similar class action lawsuit against GM for fraudulently concealing an ignition switch defect in 1.4 million vehicles. The GM class action alleges that GM had known about the defect for years, but also failed to inform regulators. GM has admitted that its actions killed consumers. "No one should be surprised," said Jonathan Michaels, founding member of MLG Automotive Law. "These manufacturers have no interest in protecting the public, or doing what is morally right. They are unconcerned that people will die and families will be crushed. They only care about financial gain. We saw it with GM, and we are now seeing it with Chrysler." The class action lawsuit seeks damages for all owners of the impacted vehicles for loss of use, repairs and diminished value. MLG Automotive Law will also be asking the court to order that Chrysler notify its customers that they should not drive the vehicles until they are repaired. About MLG Automotive Law Located in Newport Beach, California, MLG Automotive Law is a full service business law firm, focusing on the automotive industry. MLG Automotive Law has litigated cases against nearly every major manufacturer, and is counsel on the GM ignition switch class action. MLG Automotive Law also represents several terminated Chrysler dealers against the U.S. for the 2009 taking of their dealerships, in violation of the Fifth Amendment. COPS MONITORING: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss TCPA Case --------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Christina A. Snyder denied a motion to dismiss the case captioned FLORENCIO PACLEB v. COPS MONITORING, ET AL., NO. 2:14-CV-01366-CAS(JCX), (C.D. Cal.). Plaintiff Florencio Pacleb filed this putative class action against defendants Cops Monitoring and Does 1 through 10 on February 24, 2014. The operative first amended complaint (FAC) asserts claims for: (1) negligent violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. Section 227; (2) knowing and/or willful violations of the TCPA; and (3) violations of California Penal Code Section 632.7. In brief, plaintiff alleged that he received numerous automated telephone calls to his cellular telephone on December 19, 2013, from defendant, who was "looking for [an individual named] Frank Arnold." Plaintiff contended that defendant's acts represent negligent and/or knowing and/or willful violations of the TCPA. On May 13, 2014, defendant filed a motion to dismiss the FAC's TCPA claims pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). A copy of Judge Snyder's July 7, 2014 ruling is available at http://is.gd/S9XRcBfrom Leagle.com. Florencio Pacleb, Plaintiff, represented by Lee Paul Mankin, IV, Law Offices of L Paul Mankin IV, Nicholas J Bontrager -- nbontrager@attorneysforconsumers.com -- Law Offices of Todd M Friedman PC & Todd M Friedman -- tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com -- Law Offices of Todd M Friedman PC. Cops Monitoring, Defendant, represented by Michael Lee Cypers -- mcypers@glaserweil.com -- Glaser Weil Fink Jacobs Avchen & Shapiro LLP. DIBRE AUTO: Trial Court Ruling in "Rontondi" Suit Upheld -------------------------------------------------------- The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division affirmed a trial court ruling in FIORELLA ROTONDI, on her own behalf and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff- Respondent, v. DIBRE AUTO GROUP, L.L.C., d/b/a NORTH PLAINFIELD NISSAN, Defendant-Appellant, and TD AUTO FINANCE, L.L.C., Defendant, NO. A-1051-13T1. Dibre Auto Group, which owns and operates the car dealership named North Plainfield Nissan, appealed from an order of the Law Division denying without prejudice its motion to dismiss the plaintiff's class action complaint and to compel arbitration of her individual claims. A copy of the Appellate Court's opinion dated July 9, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/Z7YRdQfrom Leagle.com. According to the ruling, since the plaintiff did not file a cross- appeal, the Appellate Court has no occasion to address whether the trial court's denial of defendant's motion to compel arbitration should have been with or without prejudice. The parties and the trial court are free to address that issue in further proceedings consistent with this decision, the Appellate Court said. Thomas G. Russomano -- tgr@sp-lawyers.com -- argued the cause for appellant (Schiller & Pittenger, P.C., attorneys; Jay B. Bohn -- bohn@sp-lawyers.com -- on the brief). Leslie Hill argued the cause for respondent. DREAM ON ME: Recalls High Chairs Due to Strangulation Hazard ------------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Dream On Me, of South Plainfield, N.J., announced a voluntary recall of about 2,800 Dream On Me Dinah High Chairs. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The leg or side opening of the chair can allow a child's body to pass through and become entrapped at the neck or fall from the chair. This poses a strangulation and fall hazard to young children. There were no incidents that were reported. The recall includes Dream On Me Dinah high chairs made with a steel, powder coated tubing open-framed base with white plastic foot grips and black with white trim or red with white trim fabric seats. The chair has a white plastic tray, plastic footrest and a white fabric five point adjustable safety strap. "Dream On Me" is printed on a label attached to the front of the tray. There is a color-coordinated black and white or red and white fabric storage bin attached to the bottom of the chair legs. The high chair can be folded for storage. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/z6f7Gn The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold exclusively online by Walmart.com and Amazon.com from Nov. 2012 to Nov. 2013 for about $60. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled high chairs and contact Dream On Me to receive a free repair kit. DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Sued Over Untimely Write-Down for Turbo ------------------------------------------------------------- Charles Paddock, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Dreamworks Animation SKG, Inc., Jeffrey Katzenberg, and Lewis W. Coleman, Case No. 2:14-cv-06053-SJO-E (C.D. Cal., August 1, 2014) alleges that during the Class Period, the Defendants made false and misleading statements or failed to disclose that: (1) DreamWorks failed to take a write-down for its Turbo movie in a timely fashion; (2) as a result, the Company's net income for the fiscal year of 2013 was materially overstated; (3) the Company lacked adequate internal and control over financial reporting; and (4) as a result, the Company's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. DreamWorks Animation SKG, Inc. is a Delaware corporation engaged in the development, production, and exploitation of animated films and their associated characters worldwide. The Company was founded in 1985 and is headquartered in Glendale, California. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. Michael Goldberg, Esq. Robert V. Prongay, Esq. GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 E-mail: lglancy@glancylaw.com mmgoldberg@glancylaw.com rprongay@glancylaw.com - and - Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Esq. Francis P. McConville, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com fmcconville@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com DYNACRAFT BSC: Recalls Avigo Youth Bicycles Due to Fall Hazard -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Dynacraft BSC Inc., of American Canyon, Calif., announced a voluntary recall of about 3,100 Avigo 20 Inch Turn N' Burn Youth Bicycles. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The front wheel on the bicycle can detach, posing a fall hazard. Dynacraft has received one report of a consumer who fell and sustained scrapes and abrasions when the front wheel detached. The recall involves 20 inch Avigo Turn N Burn youth bicycles with model number 8107-62. The model number and date of manufacture, "08202013," are printed on a data label on the frame's seat tube. The bicycles have a silver frame, blue handlebars and black front fork with blue accents, hand brakes and a kickstand. The serial number can be found etched on the frame on the underside of the bottom bracket shell. Serial numbers included in the recall have: letters "DJFH" followed by a six-digit number between 026588 and 027104, and between 089533 through 090562; or the letters "DJFI" followed by a six digit number between 015107 and 015552, and between 100093 and 101193. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/TcCOlA The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold exclusively at Toys "R" Us stores nationwide and online at ToysRUs.com between Sept. 2013 and June 2014 for $130. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled bicycle and contact Dynacraft to arrange for a free repair. EAST COAST CYCLE: Recalls Mountain Bikes Due to Crash Hazard ------------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with East Coast Cycle Supply LLC, of Farmingdale, N.Y., announced a voluntary recall of about 1,800 Mountain bikes. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The brakes can fail to stop riders within the distances required by federal regulation, posing a crash hazard. East Coast Cycle Supply has received one report of the braking system taking longer to stop than allowed by federal regulation. No injuries have been reported. The recall involves all Trayl TRN 29-inch hardtail mountain bikes. The bike has a black and green frame with a white front fork. The word Trayl is in white on the underside of the down tube and in green on the top side of the down tube. The Trayl logo appears as the "Y" in the word. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/B9meTL The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold exclusively at Sports Authority between November 2013 and May 2014 for $650. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled bicycles and return them to Sports Authority for a free repair. East Coast Cycle Supply is contacting consumers directly. EBAY INC: Faces "Green" Consumer Privacy Class Action ----------------------------------------------------- SC Magazine reports that eBay faces a class action lawsuit after a high-profile data breach forced customers to reset their passwords and the company attracted criticism for its tardiness in alerting customers. US citizen Collin Green has filed a consumer privacy class action suit in US District Court accusing the e-commerce company of failing to secure private information. The suit noted that eBay "holds personal information of more than 120 million active customers in electronic files," and because the company didn't protect the data properly it "has caused, and is continuing to cause, damage to its customers." The claim also provided a litany of information that eBay collects and stores -- from credit card, shipping and location data to statistics on page views, mobile phone numbers and community discussions -- that could be used for identity theft. It also chided eBay for informing customers only after the breach had been widely reported noting that the company was well aware of reporting requirements and that it not only failed to protect data but withheld notifying customers in an attempt to avoid negative market perception. "eBay's profit-driven decision to withhold its security lapse further damaged the class members who were prevented from immediately mitigating the damages from the theft," the suit claims. The combined claims of the proposed class members exceed US$5 million (A$5.32 million) exclusive of interest and costs. In May, eBay reported that hackers had accessed a database containing customer names, emails and physical addresses but advised that there was no evidence that financial or credit card information had leaked. It asked customers to reset their passwords. EMCOR GROUP: Unit Faces Employee Class Action --------------------------------------------- Emcor Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filed on July 29, 2014, with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that one of the company's subsidiaries, USM, Inc. ("USM") -- which does business in California and provides, among other things, janitorial services to its customers by having those services performed by independent janitorial companies -- and one of its customers, which owns retail stores, are co-defendants in a federal class action lawsuit brought by employees of two of USM's California local janitorial contractors. The action was commenced on September 5, 2013 in a Superior Court of California and was removed by USM on November 22, 2013 to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The employees allege in their complaint, among other things, that USM and the Customer violated a California statute that prohibits USM from entering into a contract with a janitorial contractor when it knows or should know that the contract does not include funds sufficient to allow the janitorial contractor to comply with all local, state and federal laws or regulations governing the labor or services to be provided. The employees have asserted that the amounts USM pays to its janitorial contractors are insufficient to allow those janitorial contractors to meet their obligations regarding, among other things, wages due for all hours their employees worked, minimum wages, overtime pay and meal and rest breaks. These employees seek to represent not only themselves, but also all other individuals who provided janitorial services at the Customer's stores in California during the relevant four year time period. "We do not believe USM or the Customer has violated the California statute or that the employees may bring the action as a class action on behalf of other employees of janitorial companies with whom USM contracted for the provision of janitorial services to the Customer. However, if the pending lawsuit is certified as a class action and USM is found to have violated the California statute, USM might have to pay significant damages and might be subject to similar lawsuits regarding the provision of janitorial services to its other customers in California. The plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that USM has violated the California statute, monetary damages, including all unpaid wages and interest thereon, restitution for unpaid wages, and an award of attorney fees and costs," the company said. Emcor Group, Inc., is one of the largest electrical and mechanical construction and facilities services firms in the United States. FAR EAST BROKERS: Recalls Glass Beverage Dispensers --------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Far East Brokers and Consultants Inc., Jacksonville, Fla., announced a voluntary recall of about 4,000 Glass Beverage Dispenser. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The metal stand supporting the glass dispenser can break, posing an injury hazard to consumers. The firm has received one report of a metal stand breaking. The consumer injured her shoulder attempting to catch the falling dispenser. The recall involves glass beverage dispenser set including, a clear glass ovoid-like shaped container with a clear glass lid, a silver spigot and a wire three-legged metal stand. The glass container holds up to 1.7 gallons of beverage and measures 13.5 inches high. The item number 962826 FEB44496-01-113 and barcode number 11546-34437 are both included on the packaging. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/L0QYXc The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold exclusively at Publix Super Markets stores nationwide from April 2014 through June 2014 for about $25. Consumers should immediately stop using the glass beverage dispenser and metal support stand and return the set to a Publix Super Markets store for a full refund. FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Sued Over Conspiracy to Fix Propane Price -------------------------------------------------------------- CCLAS, Inc., doing business as Lake Liberty, individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated v. Ferrellgas Partners, L.P., a limited partnership; Ferrellgas, L.P., a limited partnership, also doing business as Blue Rhino; Amerigas Partners, L.P., a limited partnership, also doing business as Amerigas Cylinder Exchange; and UGI Corporation, a corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-04198 (W.D. Mo., July 28, 2014), alleges that the Defendants conspired to fix the price of propane sold in exchangeable portable steel tanks commonly referred to as "propane exchange tanks." The Defendants operate a national propane distribution business, and owns or has access to distribution locations nationwide. Its business includes the filling, refilling, refurbishing, sale and distribution of propane exchange tanks. The Plaintiff is represented by: Tim J. Riemann, Esq. BERKOWITZ, OLIVER, WILLIAMS, SHAW & EISENBRANDT, LLP 2600 Grand Boulevard, Suite 1200 Kansas City, MO 64108 Telephone: (816) 627-0232 Facsimile: (816) 561-1888 E-mail: triemann@berkowitzoliver.com FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Sued Over Conspiracy to Fix Propane Levels --------------------------------------------------------------- Thomas R. Clark and Bryce Mander, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Ferrellgas Partners, L.P., Ferrellgas, L.P. d/b/a Blue Rhino, Amerigas Partners, L.P., d/b/a AmeriGas Cylinder Exchange, and UGI Corporation, Case No. 3:14-cv- 01775 (S.D. Cal., July 28, 2014), arises out of a conspiracy to fix fill levels of exchangeable portable cylinder tanks containing propane gas commonly referred to as "propane exchange tanks." The Defendants operate a national propane distribution business, and owns or has access to distribution locations nationwide. Its business includes the filling, refilling, refurbishing, sale and distribution of propane exchange tanks. The Plaintiff is represented by: Betsy Carol Manifold, Esq. Francis M. Gregorek, Esq. Rachele R. Rickert, Esq. Marisa C. Livesay, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN AND HERZ 750 B Street, Symphony Towers Suite 2770 San Diego, CA 92101-5050 Telephone: (619) 239-4599 Facsimile: (619) 234-4599 E-mail: manifold@whafh.com gregorek@whafh.com rickert@whafh.com livesay@whafh.com - and - Fred T. Isquith, Esq. Thomas H. Burt Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP 270 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 545-4600 Facsimile: (212) 686-0114 - and - Theodore R. Bell, Esq. Carl V. Malstrom, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC 55 W. Monroe St., Suite 1111 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 984-0000 Facsimile: (312) 984-0001 FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Sued Over Conspiracy to Fix Propane Price -------------------------------------------------------------- OM Commercial Neenah Oil, Inc., Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Ferrellgas Partners, L.P., a limited partnership; Ferrellgas, L.P., a limited partnership, also doing business as Blue Rhino; Amerigas Partners, L.P., a limited partnership, also doing business as Amerigas Cylinder Exchange; and UGI Corporation, a corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-04197 (W.D. Mo., July 28, 2014), alleges that the Defendants conspire to fix the price of propane sold in exchangeable portable steel tanks commonly referred to as "propane exchange tanks." The Defendants operates a national propane distribution business. The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric L. Dirks, Esq. Matthew Lee Dameron, Esq. WILLIAMS DIRKS DAMERON LLC 1100 Main Street, Suite 2600 Kansas City, MO 64105 Telephone: (816) 876-2600 E-mail: dirks@williamsdirks.com matt@williamsdirks.com - and - Brian P. Murray, Esq. Lee Albert, Esq. GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP 122 East 42nd Street, Suite 2920 New York, NY 10168 Telephone: (212) 682-5340 E-mail: bmurray@glancylaw.com lalbert@glancylaw.com - and - Michael M. Goldberg, Esq. GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 E-mail: mgoldberg@glancylaw.com FLAGSTAR BANCORP: Dismissal of RESPA Case on Appeal --------------------------------------------------- FlagStar Bancorp said in its Form 10-Q filed on July 29, 2014, with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that in May 2012, Flagstar Bank, FSB and its subsidiary, Flagstar Reinsurance Company, were named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging a violation of Section 2607 of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"). Section 2607(a) of RESPA generally prohibits anyone from "accept[ing] any fee, kickback or thing of value pursuant to any agreement or understanding, oral or otherwise, that business related incident to or part of a real estate settlement service involving a federally related mortgage loan shall be referred to any person." Section 2607(b) of RESPA also prohibits anyone from "accept[ing] any portion, split, or percentage of any charge made or received for the rendering of a real estate settlement service in connection with a federally related mortgage loan other than for services actually performed." The lawsuit specifically alleges that the Bank and Flagstar Reinsurance Company violated Section 2607 of RESPA through a captive reinsurance arrangement involving (i) allegedly illegal payments to Flagstar Reinsurance Company for the referral of private mortgage insurance business from the Bank to private mortgage insurers to Flagstar Reinsurance Company and (ii) Flagstar Reinsurance Company's purported receipt of an unlawful split of private mortgage insurance premiums. On January 13, 2014, the company and Flagstar Reinsurance filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint based upon the statute of limitations and equitable tolling. The Court granted summary judgment on June 26, 2014, and dismissed the case, but plaintiffs have since filed an appeal in the Circuit Court. Flagstar Bancorp, Inc. the holding company for Flagstar Bank, FSB (the "Bank") is a Michigan-based savings and loan holding company founded in 1993. FOOT LOCKER: Asks for and Records Costumer's Info, Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Joubin Mortezapour, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Foot Locker Retail, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv- 05868 (C.D. Cal., July 28, 2014), is brought for violation of the California Civil Code, specifically by requesting the cardholder to provide personal identification information during credit card transactions and recording the personal identification information of the cardholder. Foot Locker Retail, Inc. operates retail stores throughout the United States, including in the State of California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. HYDE AND SWIGART 2221 Camino Del Rio South Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108-3609 Telephone: (619) 233-7770 Facsimile: (619) 297-1022 E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com - and - Seyed Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC 245 Fischer Avenue Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com - and - Sina Rezvanpour, Esq. RKR LEGAL 245 Fischer Avenue Suite D-1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (866) 502-0787 Facsimile: (866) 502-5065 E-mail: sr@rkrlegal.com FRESH DEL MONTE: Ore. Supreme Court Denies Petition for Review -------------------------------------------------------------- Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc., according to its Form 10-Q filed on July 29, 2014, with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 27, 2014, that a class action complaint was filed on December 2007, against one of its subsidiaries for unpaid wages in an action styled Maria Delgado and Abdia Liberio, et al. v. Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc. in the Circuit Court of Multnomah County, Oregon. "On October 5, 2009, a jury verdict was entered against our subsidiary. The court entered judgments in favor of plaintiffs consistent with the jury verdict. On January 2, 2014, the Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed the judgments," the company said. "Our subsidiary appealed the Court of Appeals decision to the Oregon Supreme Court. On May 8, 2014, the Oregon Supreme Court denied our subsidiary's petition for review. Our subsidiary appealed the Court of Appeals decision to the Oregon Supreme Court. On May 8, 2014, the Oregon Supreme Court denied our subsidiary's petition for review. Our subsidiary will satisfy the judgments in accordance with the final order of the court, which remains pending." The company is a producer, marketer and distributor of high- quality fresh and fresh-cut fruit and vegetables, as well as a producer and marketer of prepared fruit and vegetables, juices, beverages and snacks in Europe, Africa, the Middle East and countries formerly part of the Soviet Union. FRESH DEL MONTE: Summary Judgment Bid in Del. Case Still Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc., according to its Form 10-Q filed on July 29, 2014, with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 27, 2014, said that eight actions were filed against one of the company's subsidiaries on May 31 and June 1, 2012 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware on behalf of approximately 3,000 plaintiffs alleging exposure to DBCP on or near banana farms in Costa Rica, Ecuador, Panama, and Guatemala. The Company and its subsidiaries have never owned, managed or otherwise been involved with any banana growing operations in Panama and were not involved with any banana growing operations in Ecuador during the period when DBCP was in use. The plaintiffs include claimants who had cases pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana which were dismissed on September 17, 2012. "On August 30, 2012, our subsidiary joined a motion to dismiss the claims of those plaintiffs on the grounds that they have first- filed claims pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana", company said. "The motion was granted on March 29, 2013. On September 21, 2012, company's subsidiary filed an answer with respect to the claims of those plaintiffs who had not already filed in Louisiana. On May 27, 2014, the court granted a motion made by a co-defendant and entered summary judgment against all plaintiffs based on the September 19, 2013 affirmance by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit of the dismissal of related cases by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. On July 7, 2014, our subsidiary joined in a motion for summary judgment as to all plaintiffs on the basis of the court's May 27, 2014 ruling. That motion remains pending." The company is a producer, marketer and distributor of high- quality fresh and fresh-cut fruit and vegetables, as well as a producer and marketer of prepared fruit and vegetables, juices, beverages and snacks in Europe, Africa, the Middle East and countries formerly part of the Soviet Union. GENERAL MOTORS: Sued in Florida for Concealing Engine Defects ------------------------------------------------------------- Wendy Kosovec, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. General Motors, LLC; General Motors Holdings, LLC, Case No. 3:14-cv-00354 (N.D. Fla., July 28, 2014), arises form concealing a defect that caused its vehicles to have a sudden engine and electrical system power loss. General Motors, LLC and General Motors Holdings, LLC are engaged in the business of designing, manufacturing, constructing, assembling, marketing, warranting, distributing, selling, leasing, and servicing automobiles. The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter J. Mougey Esq. LEVIN, PAPANTONIO, THOMAS, MITCHELL, RAFFERTY & PROCTOR, P.A. 316 South Baylen Street, Suite 600 Pensacola, FL 32502 Telephone: (850) 435-7068 Facsimile: (850) 436-6068 GOLDMAN SACHS: Responds to Female Employees' Discrimination Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Steinberg, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that Goldman Sachs Group Inc. denied claims it has discriminated against women in pay and promotion practices and questioned the methodology two alleged victims used to back up the claims, according to court documents filed on July 25. "Far from being indifferent to women, the Firm has developed programs and networks to help its women professionals succeed and advance at every stage of their careers," lawyers for Goldman wrote in a filing. Goldman was responding to a motion filed earlier in July by two former female employees seeking class-action status for a lawsuit. In that motion, plaintiffs claimed Goldman promoted 23% fewer women than men to the role of vice president between 2004 and 2008 and pays its female vice presidents an average of 21% less than their male counterparts. The two former employees in 2010 brought the suit against Goldman in federal court in Manhattan, alleging gender discrimination, unfair pay and promotion policies, and a sexualized work environment that inhibited their careers. The plaintiffs and their lawyers have spent the past four years gathering internal Goldman records and documents, as part of the legal process known as discovery. Those materials formed the basis for the allegations in the filing earlier in July, a lawyer for the plaintiffs has said. "We are confident in our position," said Cara Greene, a lawyer representing the plaintiffs, adding that her team will file a response to Goldman on July 22. In one of the July 25 filings, Goldman took issue with the plaintiffs' claims that Goldman employees attended strip clubs as a way to entertain clients. The plaintiffs' "emphasis on supposed 'strip club activity' is flatly contradicted by numerous accounts from women who have worked" at the bank for years, lawyers wrote. Goldman said the anecdotes offered by the plaintiffs in their motion are "too weak" to prove discrimination. "This case is a textbook example of why class certification requires proof, not a broad brush and a bucket of mud," lawyers wrote. One of Goldman's main arguments rests on what it believes is the plaintiffs' failure to establish the so-called commonality required to get certified as a class-action lawsuit. Lawyers for Goldman say there are 140 business units represented in the plaintiffs' purported class but that plaintiffs haven't proved a "general policy of discrimination" across all of those units. Goldman also objected to the methodology a plaintiffs' expert used to determine the rate of promotions, arguing that he picked specific data that would appear favorable to the plaintiffs' cause. The bank said the plaintiffs' expert didn't account for different business units and their respective compensation processes in his analysis and that his models are "incomplete." A spokesman for Goldman declined to comment beyond the filing. A lawyer representing the plaintiffs has previously said he expects the judge to rule by the end of the year on whether the case can go forward as a class-action lawsuit. GRAY GLASS: Recalls Lightolier Glass Lenses Over Laceration Risk ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Gray Glass Company, of Queens Village, NY, announced a voluntary recall of about 7,500 Philips "Lightolier" brand AF4SY Decorative Glass Lens. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The decorative glass lens can shatter and result in falling pieces of glass, posing a risk of laceration to the consumer. Philips has received one report of the glass lens breaking. No injuries have been reported. The recall involves Philips "Lightolier" brand AF4SY decorative glass lenses used on various types of light fixtures. The clear glass lens, used to "soften" light with an additional lens layer, is 4 3/4 inches in diameter and 1/8 inch thick. The lenses were manufactured between Jan. 2007 and Dec. 2013. There are no markings on the product. The product number is on the packaging. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/41HT9b The recalled products were manufactured in USA and distributed by electrical wholesale distributors nationwide from Feb. 2007 through Dec. 2013 for between $25 and $50. Consumers should immediately remove the recalled glass lens and contact Philips Lighting for a free replacement unit. GUTHY-RENKER LLC: Products Make Hair Fall Out, Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------- Amy Friedman, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Guthy-Renker LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-06009-MRP-AGR (C.D. Cal., July 31, 2014) is brought pursuant to the Truth in Lending Act. Courthouse News Service reported that a federal class action claims that Guthy-Renker's Wen Cleaning Conditioner hair care products (Sweet Almond Mint, Lavender, Pomegranate and Summer Honey Peach) make one's hair fall out. Plaintiff Amy Friedman is represented by: Michael J. Flannery, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT AND LADUCA LLP 300 North Tucker Boulevard, Suite 801 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (202) 789-3960 Facsimile: (202) 789-3960 E-mail: mflannery@cuneolaw.com HARRIS PRODUCTS: Recalls Welding Torch Handles Due to Fire Hazard ----------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Harris Products Group, of Gainesville, Ga., announced a voluntary recall of about 13,000 in the U.S. and 350 in Canada Welding torch handles. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The torch handles can leak oxygen or fuel, posing a fire hazard. There were no incidents that were reported. The recall involves two models of torch handles that were sold under the Lincoln Electric and Harris Products Group brand names. The torch handles are used in welding. They are gold in color and made out of brass. Welding torch model numbers include 18-5 and 85. Manufacture date codes include FM, GA, GB and GC. The model number and date code are stamped on the torch handle at the end closest to the flame. The torch handles were sold individually and also as part of the following kits. Units with "0" above the word "Harris" and to the right of the rivet head are not included in this recall. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/1qECoh The recalled products were manufactured in Poland and sold at Home Depot and Lowes stores, industrial gas distributors including Airgas, Praxair and Matheson and other retailers nationwide, and online from Dec. 2013 through May 2014 for between $125 and $450 when sold individually and for between $250 and $1,230 when sold as part of a kit. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled torch handles and contact Harris Products Group to receive a free replacement. HOOTERS OF AMERICA: Faces Class Action Over Spam Text Messages -------------------------------------------------------------- Lance Duroni, writing for Law360, reports that Hooters of America LLC was hit on July 28 with a proposed class action in California federal court accusing the restaurant chain of peppering consumers with spam text messages in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Plaintiff Peyman Zandifaez alleges the Atlanta-based company invaded his privacy this summer with two unsolicited texts promoting events at the restaurant, despite the fact that he has never eaten at Hooters or otherwise consented to be contacted by the chain. "The TCPA was designed to prevent calls like the ones described within this complaint and to protect the privacy of citizens like plaintiff," Mr. Zandifaez said, noting that Congress passed the law in response to "voluminous complaints" from consumers about abuses of telephone technology. Hooters, best known for its chicken wings and the revealing attire of its waitresses, allegedly first contacted the plaintiff on his cellphone June 13, imploring him to "Celebrate Fathers Day at Hooters" with a special deal on wings. Less than a month later, on July 5, Mr. Zandifaez received a second text advertising an Ultimate Fighting Championship fight showing at Hooters restaurants, according to the complaint. Mr. Zandifaez alleges both messages were from texts sent en masse to consumers, suggesting the chain used an automatic telephone dialing system, a requirement for establishing a violation under the TCPA. He also claims he never provided his cellphone number to Hooters, nor did he ever sign up for or use any of the restaurant chain's products or services. Mr. Zandifaez wants to represent all consumers in the U.S. who received text messages within the last four years from Hooters that are identical or substantially similar to the ones he received, with the group divided into two subclasses based on the two different texts. His attorneys estimate tens of thousands of consumers received such messages, if not more, according to the complaint. The suit alleges both negligent and willful violations of the TCPA, seeking $500 and $1,500 in damages, respectively, for each violation. It also seeks injunctive relief barring the restaurant chain from sending such texts in the future. Hooters, which boasts 430 locations in 28 countries, did not immediately respond to a request for comment on July 28. Mr. Zandifaez is represented by Abbas Kazerounian and Mona Amini of Kazerouni Law Group APC; Joshua B. Swigart of Hyde & Swigart; and the Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman PC. Counsel information for Hooters was not immediately available. The case is Zandifaez v. Hooters of America, case number 8:14-cv- 01187, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. INVESTORS BANCORP: October 23 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ------------------------------------------------------------- Investors Bancorp, Inc., the holding company for Investors Bank, notifies all public record and beneficial holders of common stock of Brooklyn Federal Bancorp, Inc. at any time from August 17, 2011 (the date its merger into the Company was publicly announced) to and including January 6, 2012 (the effective date of consummation of the merger), but excluding all defendants in the consolidated action pending in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Kings, captioned Joseph Underwood and Russ Bastin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Daniel O. Reich, Angelo J. Di Lorenzo, Gregg J. Wagner, Arthur R. Williams, Rebecca Northey, Mark Hughes, Richard A. Kielty, Brooklyn Federal Bancorp, Inc., BFS Bancorp, MHC, Brooklyn Federal Savings Bank, Investors Bancorp, Inc., Investors Bancorp, MHC, and Investors Savings Bank, Index No. 500690/2011 and any person, trust, corporation or other entity related to or affiliated with any of them and their successors in interest. The purpose of this notice is to inform you of the pendency of the Action, which was brought by Brooklyn Federal Bancorp stockholders for themselves and on behalf of the Class against Brooklyn Federal Bancorp, the members of the Board of Directors of Brooklyn Federal Bancorp, BFS Bancorp, MHC, Brooklyn Federal Savings Bank, Investors Bancorp, Inc., Investors Bancorp, MHC, and Investors Savings Bank. The Action has now been settled pursuant to a Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise, Settlement and Release dated March 6, 2013, and is subject to the approval of the Court. IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS, THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT WILL AFFECT YOUR RIGHTS. Your interests are being represented in the Action by counsel for the Plaintiffs who are Brian Kerr, Esq., Brower Piven, a Professional Corporation, 475 Park Avenue South, 33rd Floor, New York, New York 10016 and Evan J. Smith, Brodsky & Smith, LLC, 240 Mineola Boulevard, Mineola, New York 11501. This notice is only a summary of the Notice of Pendency of Class Action, Proposed Settlement and Settlement Hearing being provided to members of the Class with respect to the Action. If you are a member of the Class and have not received the Notice, you may obtain one by contacting Registrar and Transfer Company, 10 Commerce Drive, Cranford, New Jersey 07016, Telephone No. (908) 497-2300. Please note that the deadline for any objections to the settlement, class certification, or Plaintiffs' counsel's application for fees and expenses is September 23, 2014, and the hearing by the Court to consider the fairness of the settlement will be held on October 23, 2014 at the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Kings, located at 360 Adams Street, Brooklyn, New York 11201. Any individual or entity that is a non- New York resident falling with the definition of the Class that does not want to participate in the settlement may be excluded, solely for the purpose of pursuing potential claims for monetary damages, in the manner set forth in the Notice, no later than September 23, 2014. JOHNSON OUTDOORS: Recalls Dive Computers Due to Injury Hazard ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Johnson Outdoors Diving Inc., of El Cajon, Calif., announced a voluntary recall of about 350 and about 40 in Canada Scubapro Aladin2 dive computers, commonly referred to as Aladin Square dive computers. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The dive computer can leak and stop working, posing a risk of injury due to decompression sickness. The firm has received four reports that the dive computers leaked and stopped working. No injuries have been reported. The recall involves the Aladin2 wrist dive computer that monitors depth, dive time, decompression status and temperature. The computer is 3 inches by 3 inches, rectangular, black, and mounted on a black wristband. SCUBAPRO is stamped on the top of the face frame and Aladin2 is printed in white on the bottom of the face frame. The serial number is stamped in white on the back of the unit and ends with 003. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/C3xYOj The recalled products were manufactured in Indonesia and sold at authorized Scubapro dealers nationwide from March 2014 through June 2014 for about $450. Consumers should immediately stop using the dive computers and return them to an authorized SCUBAPRO dealer or contact Johnson Outdoors Diving for a free replacement. KAWASAKI MOTORS: Recalls Teryx4 Recreational Off-Highway Vehicles ----------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Kawasaki Motors Corp. USA, of Irvine, Calif., announced a voluntary recall of about 11,000 recreational off-highway vehicles. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The vehicle's floor boards can allow a stick or other debris to break through and protrude into the foot rest area, posing an injury hazard to the operator and front passenger. Kawasaki has received four reports of debris breaking through floor boards of the vehicles, including two injuries to riders' toes and thighs. The recalled vehicles are 2012 and 2013 Kawasaki Teryx4 750 4x4 recreational off-highway vehicles. The four-wheel drive vehicles have automobile-style controls, side-by-side seating for four people, four doors, a roll bar with hand holds and a cargo bed. The 2012 and 2013 models come in three different styles: non-EPS, EPS and EPS LE. The LE style has a roof and aluminum wheels. The 2012 models were sold in the colors blue, camouflage, green, red and yellow. The 2013 models were sold in the colors black, camouflage, green, red, white and yellow. The model name "Teryx4" is on the driver's side of the hood. For all colors of the EPS model except camouflage, "EPS" appears on the driver and passenger side cowling near the top front corner of the doors. On the EPS LE, "EPS" appears on the driver and passenger side cowling near top front corner of the doors and "LE" appears on the hood on the driver's side. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/4BQPOC The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold at Kawasaki dealers nationwide from October 2011 through July 2014 for about $13,400. [Sold at] Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled vehicles and contact and authorized Kawasaki dealer to schedule a free repair, consisting of the installation of floor board guards. LEBO AUTOMOTIVE: Arbitrator to Decide on Class Arbitration ---------------------------------------------------------- Corrie Erickson, Esq., Laura Izon Powell, Esq., Kristianne Seargeant Kronick, Esq., of Moskovitz, Tiedemann & Girard, in an article for JD Supra, report that a majority of the United States Supreme Court has never reached agreement on whether the court or an arbitrator should decide the issue of whether an agreement allows or precludes class arbitration. In Sandquist v. Lebo Automotive, Inc., B244412, 2014 WL 3590152 (Cal. Ct. App. June 25, 2014), the California Court of Appeal followed the reasoning of a Supreme Court plurality opinion to rule that the arbitrator, not the court, should decide the issue. Facts In 2000, Timothy Sandquist began working in sales for Manhattan Beach Toyota. On his first day, Mr. Sandquist was told to fill out the new employee paperwork quickly so that he could get out on the sales floor. Due to this rush, Mr. Sandquist did not review the paperwork consisting of approximately 100 pages. Within the 100 pages of paperwork were three separate arbitration agreements, all of which Mr. Sandquist signed. All three contained provisions providing that any claim, dispute, or controversy arising from, related to, or having any relationship or connection whatsoever with his employment with the company would be submitted and determined exclusively by binding arbitration. The agreements were silent regarding class action suits. In 2011, Mr. Sandquist resigned from his position. A year later, he filed a suit asserting individual and class action claims for hostile work environment and discrimination against his former employer. On August 14, 2012, the trial court compelled individual arbitration, but dismissed the class action claims finding no contractual basis to compel arbitration. Mr. Sandquist appealed. On appeal, Mr. Sandquist argued that the trial court erred by deciding the issue of whether the agreement provided for class arbitration. According to Mr. Sandquist, the issue should have been left to an arbitrator. Mr. Sandquist also argued that the trial court incorrectly interpreted the agreement to include a class action waiver. Decision In 2003, the United States Supreme Court decided Green Tree Fin. Corp. v. Bazzle, 539 U.S. 444 (2003) in a plurality opinion. In that opinion, the plurality held that an arbitrator is the appropriate decision-maker of whether an agreement allows or precludes class arbitration. Subsequent decisions called Bazzle into doubt because the court spoke with only four votes, however. For example, in Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int'l Corp., 559 U.S. 662 (2010), the court emphasized that the holding in Bazzle is not binding authority. The California Court of Appeal relied upon Bazzle as persuasive authority to conclude that the arbitrator, not the court, appropriately decides whether an arbitration agreement allows or precludes class arbitration. The court explained that a class action is a procedural device, and it noted that procedural questions arising out of the dispute are presumptively for an arbitrator to decide. On this basis, the court concluded that the trial court improperly decided a procedural question and reversed its decision. The court of appeal did not decide the correct interpretation of the agreement, leaving the interpretation to an arbitrator. LENNOX INTERNATIONAL INC: Defendant in Evaporator Coil Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Lennox International Inc., is a defendant in an evaporator coil class action lawsuit, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on July 21, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014. The Company states, "We are the defendant in an attempted class action lawsuit which alleges that evaporator coils in certain of our residential air conditioning products are susceptible to a type of corrosion that can result in coil leaks, and asserts claims for relief. We dispute the allegations in the lawsuit. The outcome related to this action is uncertain and we therefore cannot reasonably estimate the amount of any potential impact." Lennox International Inc. (LII) is a provider of climate control solutions. The Company designs, manufactures and markets a range of products for the heating, ventilation, air conditioning and refrigeration (HVACR) markets. Its products and services are sold through multiple distribution channels under brand names, including Lennox, Armstrong Air, Ducane, Bohn, Larkin, Advanced Distributor Products, Service Experts and others. The Company operates in four segments: Residential Heating & Cooling, Commercial Heating & Cooling, Service Experts, and Refrigeration. On January 14, 2011, the Company acquired Kysor/Warren business from The Manitowoc Company. Kysor/Warren is a manufacturer of refrigerated systems and display cases for supermarkets throughout North America and is included in its Refrigeration Segment. In April 2012, it sold its Lennox Hearth Products business to Comvest Investment Partners IV. LOBB LAW FIRM: "Lafata" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- Phyllis Lafata and Julie Baaki, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Joseph R. Lobb, P.C., d/b/a/ "The Lobb Law Firm," Joseph Lobb, and Cherie Lobb, Case No. 2:14- cv-12945 (E.D. Mich., July 28, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation. Joseph R. Lobb, P.C. is a law firm specializing in personal injury law. The Plaintiff is represented by: Caitlin E. Malhiot, Esq. David A. Hardesty, Esq. Armin Halilovic, Esq. GOLD STAR LAW, PC 2701 Troy Center Dr, Suite 400 Troy, MI 48084 Telephone: (248) 275-5200 Facsimile: (248) 817-2765 E-mail: cmalhiot@goldstarlaw.com dhardesty@goldstarlaw.com ahalilovic@goldstarlaw.com LOWE'S HIW: Accused of Failing to Provide Full Meal Periods ----------------------------------------------------------- Pramodh Dutt, an individual, appearing on behalf of himself and all other aggrieved employees v. Lowe's HIW, Inc., a Washington corporation; and Does 1-25, Case No. BC553191 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., July 31, 2014) alleges that the Defendants failed to provide full meal periods to the Plaintiff and other similarly situated aggrieved employees on a timely basis in compliance with the Labor Code and applicable wage orders. Lowe's HIW, Inc., is a Washington corporation with its principal place of business located in North Carolina. The Company is in the business of selling home improvement supplies and products. The Plaintiff does not know the true names or capacities of the Doe Defendants. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregg A. Farley, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF GREGG A. FARLEY 880 Apollo Street, Suite 222 El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (310) 445-4024 Facsimile: (310) 445-4109 E-mail: gfarley@farleyfirm.com - and - Sahag Majarian II, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN 18250 Ventura Blvd. Tarzana, CA 91356 Telephone: (818) 609-0807 Facsimile: (818) 609-0892 E-mail: sahagii@aol.com MACY'S CORPORATE: Sued for Illegally Recording Costumer's Info -------------------------------------------------------------- Justin Maghen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Macy's Corporate Services, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv- 05874 (C.D. Cal., July 28, 2014), alleges that the Defendants request and record credit card numbers and personal identification information from customers using credit cards. Macy's Corporate Services, Inc. operates retail stores throughout the United States, including in the State of California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew M. Loker, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC 245 Fishcer Avenue Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ml@kazlg.com MAYBORN USA: Recalls Baby Monitors Due to Strangulation Risk ------------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Mayborn USA, Inc., announced a voluntary recall of about 25,000 in the U.S. and 3,500 in Canada Tommee Tippee Monitor with Movement Sensor Pad. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. Child can pull sensor pad cord into crib and wrap around the neck, posing a strangulation hazard. There were no injuries that have been reported. The recall involves two models of the Tommee Tippee Movement and Sound Baby Monitors with Sensor Pads. The product comes in three parts; the baby unit, parent unit and the movement sensor pad. The pad is white with a 10 foot cord that runs from the pad to the baby monitor unit. Both models come with a sensor pad that fits under the baby's crib mattress and sounds an alarm if no movement is detected for 20 seconds. There is a keypad and small screen above the keypad on both the baby unit and the parent unit. The recalled products include models 1082S and 1094S. Model 1094S includes a night-vision video camera. Model numbers are located on the bottom of the base of the recharger and also on the bottom of the camera. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/78Xjeb The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Toys "R" Us/Babies "R" Us stores and Amazon.com, since September 2011 for approximately $150. Consumers should immediately make sure all monitor cords are out of reach of the child and contact Mayborn USA for a free cord cover kit that includes rigid protective cord covers through which the sensor pad cords can be threaded, a new, permanent electric cord warning label about the strangulation risk, and revised instructions. MCKINNEY'S PUB: Faces "Hernandez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------- Luis Hernandez, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated persons, known and unknown v. McKinney's Pub, Ltd d/b/a Chief O'Neill's Pub and Restaurant and Brendan McKinney, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-05769 (N.D. Ill., July 28, 2014), is brought for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week. McKinney's Pub is doing business as Chief O'Neill's Pub and Restaurant, located at 3471 N. Elston Ave., Chicago, Illinois 60618. The Plaintiff is represented by: Raisa Alicea, Esq. CONSUMER LAW GROUP 6232 N Pulaski Rd, Ste. 200 Chicago, IL 60646 Telephone: (312) 878-1263 E-mail: ralicea@yourclg.com METABO CORP: Recalls Electric Angle Grinders Due to Injury Risk --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Metabo Corp., of West Chester, Pa., announced a voluntary recall of about 4,300 Metabo Ergo series 6-inch angle grinders. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The on/off switch can stick in the "On" position, posing a laceration hazard. Metabo has received two reports of the angle grinder switches sticking in the "On" position. No injuries have been reported. The recall involves Metabo W14-150 Ergo series 6-inch medium angle grinders. The angle grinders have a green body, a black and red handle, and a silver head and wheel guard. The grinders measure about 16 inches long by 4 inches wide by 5 inches deep, have a 6-inch wheel capacity and weigh about eight pounds. Metabo is printed on the handle and Metabo 14-150 Ergo is printed on the side of the grinder. The grinders are used for grinding and cutting metal. Model numbers include 06251421 and 06251441 and serial numbers include 3010000001 through 4020031488 for both models. The model and serial numbers are located on the rating plate on the right side of the tool. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/OyFky9 The recalled products were manufactured in Germany and sold through industrial, construction and welding distributors to consumers from March 2013 through April 2014 for about $220. Consumers should immediately stop using the angle grinders and should contact Metabo to receive a free repair or replacement. MICHAELS STORES: Judge Tosses Data Breach Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ Teri Robinson, writing for SC Magazine, reports that Michaels Stores has ducked a putative class-action lawsuit after a federal judge ruled that the plaintiffs could demonstrate any kind of "economic damage" from a breach that compromised the hobby retailer's customer data between May 8, 2013 and Jan. 27, 2014. Plaintiffs in Moyer v. Michaels had accused Michaels of breaking Illinois's breach of contract and consumer fraud laws, claiming that the breach exposing credit and debit card data for 2.6 million customers, left them vulnerable to identity theft and other cyber crime. But Judge Elaine Bucklo of the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of Illinois tossed the suit, noting that they couldn't show they suffered financial damage as those laws require. Judge Bucklo did rule there are grounds to sue, saying the increased risk of identity theft in the breach's aftermath "is sufficiently imminent to give Plaintiffs standing." MICHOLDINGS INC: Faces "Aleobua" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------ Stacy Aleobua and Amber Brown v. Micholdings, Inc, United Wellness Community, LLC, Ikechukwu Odum, Sr., Ikechukwu Odum, JR., Nneka Odum and Naly Odum, Case No. 2:14-cv-12932 (E.D. Mich., July 28, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants operate adult foster care residences and the conduct all business necessary or incidental to that purpose. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer Lossia McManus, Esq. DIB AND FAGAN, P.C. 25892 Woodward Ave. Royal Oak, MI 48067-0910 Telephone: (248) 542-6300 Facsimile: (248) 542-6301 E-mail: jmcmanus@dibandfagan.com MIDLAND CREDIT: Sued Over Unfair Debt Collection Conduct -------------------------------------------------------- Denise Willemsen on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. and John Does 1-25, Case No. 3:14-cv-04706 (D.N.J., July 28, 2014), seeks to redress for Defendant's actions of using unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. Midland Credit Management, Inc. is a company that uses the mail, telephone, and facsimile and regularly engages in business the principal purpose of which to attempt to collect debts. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq. MARCUS LAW LLC 1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101 Ocean, NJ 07712 Telephone: (732) 660-8169 E-mail: ari@marcuslawyer.com NAVIKA CAPITAL: "Chappell" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Deborah Chappell, Tyshella Harvey, Glynna Kyle, Latoya Maxwell, Adriane Mcferrim, and Ashley Welch v. Navika Capital Group, LLC, Premier Hotel Groups II, LLC, and Naveen C. Shah, Case No. 2:14- cv-04199 (W.D. Mo., July 28, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation and related penalties and damages. The Defendants own and operate numerous hotels within the State of Missouri. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Hodgson, Esq. THE HODGSON LAW FIRM, L.L.C. 6 NW Main St Lee's Summit, MO 64063 Telephone: (913) 890-3529 E-mail: mike@thehodgsonlawfirm.com - and - Howard L. Steele Jr., Esq. Tyrone L. Haynes, Esq. STEELE LAW GROUP, PLLC Bank of America Center, 700 Louisiana, Suite 3950 Houston, Texas 77002 Telephone: (713) 659-2600 Facsimile: (713) 659-260 E-mail: hsteele@steel-law-group.com NEBRASKA: Faces Class Suit Over Processing of Food Stamps --------------------------------------------------------- Nebraska provides such insufficient resources to process food stamp applications and renewals that it misses its legal deadline to do so 31% of the time, a class action claims in Nebraska Federal Court, according to Courthouse News Service. NEW YORK, NY: AG Seeks Dismissal of Property Tax Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Dana Rubinstein, writing for Capital New York, reports that New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman on July 28 moved to dismiss a class action suit seeking to overturn existing city and state property tax laws, which the plaintiffs contend is racially discriminatory. Mayor Bill de Blasio was expected to file a similar motion to dismiss on July 28, too, according to Lucas Ferrara, one of the attorneys representing the plaintiffs. The class action suit in question, filed in February, seeks to overturn a property tax system that is widely acknowledged to benefit single family homeowners in wealthy neighborhoods at the expense of homeowners in less wealthy ones. It also benefits homeowners as a class at the expense of condo and co-op owners and, more to the point of this lawsuit, at the expense of renters, a disproportionate number of whom are black and Hispanic. One of the plaintiffs in the suit is a Bronx renter named Ernest Robinson, who, at the time the suit was filed, paid $800 every month for his studio apartment. Assuming, as the Rent Guidelines Board does, that roughly a third of that went to pay his landlord's property taxes, then Mr. Robinson's annual tax levy was about $2,880. That's similar to what Mayor de Blasio pays in taxes on one of his million-dollar rowhouses in Park Slope. Last year, the Citizens Budget Commission concluded that in fiscal year 2014, the owners of one-, two- and three-family homes paid 15 percent of the city's property taxes, even though they comprised 46 percent of the city's real-estate value. Apartment buildings paid 37 percent of the levy, even though they comprised 24 percent of its value. When, in April, Mayor de Blasio appointed Jacques Jiha his finance commissioner, Jiha acknowledged the problem. "It's a major issue," he said. "We have a lot of unfairness and inequity. We're going to look into every aspect of . . . property taxes in New York to see what can be done." Nevertheless, the de Blasio administration's motion to dismiss is expected to be filed today and is expected to look a lot like Mr. Schneiderman's, who contended in his filing that the court lacks jurisdiction, that the plaintiffs have failed to state a cause of action, and that the "injunctive relief sought by Plaintiffs violates separation of powers principles." "Instead of addressing a dysfunctional tax structure head-on, the city and state have opted to play procedural games," said Ferrara. "That kind of maneuver needlessly delays getting to the merits of the lawsuit and, in effect, allows a discriminatory tax structure to thrive while the court gets bogged down with technicalities." OEUF LLC: Recalls Sparrow Cribs Due to Entrapment Hazard -------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Oeuf LLC, of Brooklyn, N.Y., announced a voluntary recall of about 14,000 Sparrow Cribs. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The slats/spindles and top rail can detach from the cribs and pose an entrapment hazard to a child. Oeuf received four reports of the slats/spindles and the top rail detaching from the crib. No injuries were reported. The recall includes four models of Oeuf Sparrow cribs. The cribs were sold in the colors birch, grey, walnut and white. The recalled cribs were manufactured between July 2007 and Jan. 2014 and have one of the following model numbers: 1SPCR, 2SPCR, 4SPCR or 5SPCR. The manufacture date, in the MM-YYYY format, and the model number are located on the warning label attached to the crib's mattress support. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/rEL3jY The recalled products were manufactured in Latvia and sold at Independent juvenile specialty stores nationwide and online for about $800. Consumers should immediately stop using the cribs and contact Oeuf to receive a free repair kit. PANDORA MEDIA: Lawsuit Over Phone App. Partialy Dismissed --------------------------------------------------------- Pandora Media, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q filed on July 29, 2014 with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that a putative class action lawsuit was filed against Pandora in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in June 2011, alleging that "our unlawfully accessed and transmitted personally identifiable information of the plaintiffs in connection with their use of our Android mobile application." In addition to civil liability, the amended complaint includes allegations of violations of statutes under which criminal penalties could be imposed if the company found liable. The motion to dismiss the first amended complaint was granted on March 26, 2013. The plaintiff filed a second amended complaint in May 2013, which contains allegations similar to those contained in the previous complaint. On March 10, 2014, the company's motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part. Pandora Media, Inc. provides an internet radio service offering a personalized experience for each listener wherever and whenever they want to listen to radio on a wide range of smartphones, tablets, traditional computers and car audio systems, as well as a range of other internet-connected devices. PANDORA MEDIA: Appeal in Privacy Lawsuit Still Pending ------------------------------------------------------ Pandora Media, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q filed on July 29, 2014 with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that a putative class action lawsuit was filed against Pandora in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging that it violated Michigan's video rental privacy law and consumer protection statute "by allowing our listeners' listening history to be visible to the public." "Our motion to dismiss the complaint was granted on September 28, 2012, judgment was entered on November 14, 2012. The plaintiff appealed the judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Briefing of the appeal was completed on August 2, 2013. No date has been set for oral argument," according to the company. Pandora Media, Inc. provides an internet radio service offering a personalized experience for each listener wherever and whenever they want to listen to radio on a wide range of smartphones, tablets, traditional computers and car audio systems, as well as a range of other internet-connected devices. PANERA LLC: Faces Class Action Over FCRA Violations --------------------------------------------------- Attorney Lester Rosen, Founder & CEO of Employment Screening Resources (ESR), on July 28 disclosed that a Florida law firm filed federal class action lawsuits in the same court against three separate national employers on the same day, with two of them naming the same consumer as the lead plaintiff, alleging violations of the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) by failure to obtain a valid background check consent on an online application process. The three complaints brought on behalf of individual plaintiffs as well a class of similarly situated individuals essentially allege the same type of violation -- that the employer failed to obtain a valid consent on a standalone form that did not contain extraneous information. The FCRA is the federal law that regulates background checks of job applicants by third party background screening firms on behalf of employers. In Mack vs. Panera, LLC, the lawsuit alleges that the defendant is a national bakery-cafe chain. The plaintiff applied using an online system and the online system did not have a background check consent authorization form specifically for a "consumer report," which is the legal name for an employment background check. According to the legal complaint filed, the closest language to a consent also discussed "at will" employment as well as additional matters unrelated to the background report. Mack vs. Panera, LLC is Case No. 0:14-cv-61672-WJZ in United States District Court Southern District of Florida Broward Division. In Mack vs. American Multi-Cinema, Inc. (AMC), the same plaintiff alleged that she applied online for employment at the company that has more than 300 locations nationwide. In a similar allegation, the class action alleges that the online application process did not contain standalone consent but had other language related to employment and the employment process. Mack vs. American Multi- Cinema, Inc. (AMC) is Case No. 0:14-cv-61676-DPG in United States District Court Southern District of Florida Broward Division. In a third case, Rumph, vs. Nine West Holdings, a complaint was filed against a national retail chain alleging consent language was part of a web page that contained a number of links to Nine West information on the website. Rumph, vs. Nine West Holdings is Case No. 0:14-cv-61673-UU in United States District Court Southern District of Florida Broward Division. The three class action lawsuits were all filed by Attorney Richard Celler in Davie, Florida. These three cases are just the latest in a series of class action lawsuits filed against employers alleging a failure to adhere to the basic requirements set forth in the FCRA. Employers are being sued in increasing numbers for violations such as failure to obtain consent, failure to utilize a legal form for consent, failure to engage in adverse action process, or utilizing outdated notice forms. Class action lawsuits typically seek damages on behalf of all consumers who were treated in the same fashion. Where the action that forms the basis of the lawsuit is alleged to be willful, a class action suit can seek from $100 to $1,000 per member of the class for each violation of the FCRA. Because large national employers may have thousands of applicants, the allegations of damages can quickly mount up. Such lawsuits also request attorney's fees and costs. In addition, class action lawsuits also nearly always include claims for punitive damages. The U.S. Supreme Court in Safeco vs. Burr 551 U.S. 47 (2007) ruled that an entity can face punitive damages if it acts willfully under the FCRA by either knowingly or recklessly disregarding its statutory duty. Even if a screening firm or employer believes it is acting lawfully that is NOT a protection from an allegation of willful violation of the FCRA and exposure to punitive damages if the defendant should have known it was acting out of compliance. PARAMOUNT FOODS: "Armenta" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Faustino Armenta, Francisco Romero Ponce, Consuelo Reyes Maldonado, Efrain Dionisio Rodriguez, Guillermo Fernandez Galindo and Cristian Reyes, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Paramount Foods Inc. (d/b/a Baluchi's) and Rakesh Aggarwal, Case No. 1:14-cv-05766 (S.D.N.Y., July 28, 2014), seeks to recover minimum wage, overtime, and liquidated damages pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act. Paramount Foods Inc. owns, operates, and controls an Indian restaurant located at 329 Third Avenue, New York, New York 10010 under the name Baluchi's. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2020 New York, NY10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 PETSMART INC: Recalls Top Fin Plastic Aquarium Heaters ------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with PetSmart Inc., of Phoenix, announced a voluntary recall of about 33,000 aquarium heaters. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The heaters are insufficiently grounded, posing a risk of electrical shock to the consumer. There were no incidents that were reported. The recall involves all 50-, 100-, 150-, 200- and 250-watt Top Fin brand plastic aquarium heaters. The heaters are black cylinders about 1 1/2 inches in diameter and about 13 inches tall2.5 in L x 1.9 in W x 13.5 in H. Recalled heaters have model number HT50, HT100, HT150, HT200 or HT250. Lot numbers for the recalled heaters are 1839, 1901, 1903, 1904, 1907, 1908 and 1910. "Top Fin," "Premium Aquarium Heater," the model number and the heater's wattage are printed on the side of the heater near the top. Below that, the lot number is printed beneath the words "Made in China." Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/KIgYwm The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold exclusively at PetSmart stores nationwide from March 2014 to April 2014 for between $27 and $37. Consumers should immediately stop using the heater, unplug it, remove it from the aquarium and return it to any PetSmart store for a full refund. POTTERY BARN: Recalls Bar Stools Due to Fall Hazard --------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Pottery Barn, a division of Williams-Sonoma Inc., of San Francisco, Calif., announced a voluntary recall of about 1,000 Donovan Bar Stools. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The bar stool footrest can break, posing a fall hazard to the user. Pottery Barn has received 26 reports of the footrest breaking. No injuries have been reported. The recall involves Donovan model bar stools made from mahogany wood and have a 15-inch round woven banana bark swivel seat that rotates 360 degrees. The stools were sold in five colors: red, mahogany, Tuscan chestnut, antique white and black. Each color was sold in two sizes: counter height at 24 inches tall and bar height at 30 inches tall. SKU numbers are printed on the box, as the item number on the shipping receipt and online in the customer's account history. SKU Number Size and Color ---------- -------------- 5419049 Bar Height: Red 5419056 Bar Height: Mahogany 5419577 Bar Height: Tuscan Chestnut 5419601 Bar Height: Antique White 5419692 Bar Height: Black 5419734 Counter Height: Red 5419825 Counter Height: Mahogany 5419882 Counter Height: Tuscan Chestnut 5419924 Counter Height: Antique White 5419973 Counter Height: Black Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/E0hKOO The recalled products were manufactured in Indonesia and sold at Pottery Barn Outlet stores nationwide, online at PotteryBarn.com and through the Pottery Barn catalog from March 2014 through June 2014 for between $230 and $250. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled bar stools and contact Pottery Barn for a replacement stool. Pottery Barn is notifying all known consumers. PRIME TRUST: Faces Class Action Over Corporate Law Breach --------------------------------------------------------- Adam Schwab, writing for Crikey.com.au, reports that as the Federal Court determines penalties for Bill Lewski and his fellow directors of the collapsed Prime Retirement and Aged Care Property Trust after they were found guilty of breaching corporate laws, the trust's liquidator is also taking aim, launching a $100 million-plus class action. The class action is backed by litigation funder LCM and directly targets Mr. Lewski, as well. RITE AID: Suit Over LexisNexis Background Check May Be Amended -------------------------------------------------------------- Rose Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service reports that a former CVS employee may amend a class action accusing Rite Aid of using an illegal LexisNexis background check on prospective employees, a federal judge ruled. Kyra Moore filed a class action against Rite Aid and LexisNexis Search Solutions Inc. on March 22, 2013, alleging the retailer refused to hire her based on a background check. Having worked for CVS for four years, during an interview with loss-prevention agents in July 2010, Moore said she'd never stolen from the store, but may have set aside some items for future purchase that were later put back on the shelves or taken by someone else. The CVS agent and Moore drafted a handwritten "voluntary admission statement," which was sent to LexisNexis for use in its "Esteem" database, thus classifying Moore as a thief. Moore was then sent home and fired, according to the complaint. She says that after applying for a supervisor position at Rite Aid about a year later, LexisNexis sent her a background check report scoring her "non- competitive." The attached initial notice letter, dated April 25, 2011, on Rite Aid stationery, said that if she responded within five days, the store would "consider whatever information you provide to us in making our final decision whether to employ/terminate you." Rite Aid then withdrew its offer of employment, and Moore's attorney sent two letters to LexisNexis, dated May 23 and July 28, disputing the accuracy of the Esteem report, she claims. Though LexisNexis sent Moore a revised report scoring her "eligible" over two years later, in October 2013, she was not offered a position at Rite Aid, the complaint states. Moore then voluntarily dismissed LexisNexis as a defendant on Oct. 28. She designated her case as related to a 2011 class action filed by former Forman Mills and Dollar General employees also accused of theft, Goode v. LexisNexis Risk & Information Analytics Group Inc., which alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). Having refused to dismiss the Goode case in Philadelphia in March 2012, U.S. District Judge Jan DuBois declined to assign Moore's complaint to another judge on Sept. 10, 2013. But DuBois granted Rite Aid's motion to dismiss Moore's suit on July 30, finding that she failed to allege that Rite Aid took an adverse action by using her LexisNexis classification. "Although plaintiff argues in her response to the motion that LexisNexis adjudications constitute adverse actions, plaintiff does not allege that Rite Aid relied on those adjudications as final employment decisions and that the five-day period provided for in the initial notice letter was not a 'real opportunity' for her 'to contest the adjudication,'" DuBois wrote. "The closest the complaint comes to such an allegation is the statement that 'LexisNexis and Rite Aid have designed this arrangement so that the pre-adverse action notice always gets sent after LexisNexis has scored the application and after LexisNexis has provided Rite Aid with the applicant's background report.' Such an allegation, standing alone, is not sufficient to state a claim upon which relief can be granted on this ground." (Emphases in original). Moore also failed to explain why she did not timely dispute the report, the ruling states. "Nowhere in the complaint does plaintiff allege that five days was an insufficient amount of time to respond or that the paucity of information in the Esteem report prevented her from making a meaningful response," DuBois wrote. "Therefore, the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted on this ground." Moore has 15 days to amend that claim, however, as well as her claims for statutory and punitive damages, the ruling states. Rite Aid, the country's third-largest retail drugstore chain, reported first quarter revenues of $6.5 billion as of May 31, 2014, having reaped $25.5 billion in annual revenue as of March 1. The case is Kyra Moore, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Rite Aid Hdqtrs Corp., doing business as "Rite Aid Corporation," Case No. 2:13-cv-01515-JD, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. SAMSON INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Bar Stool Due to Fall Hazard ---------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Samson International, High Point, N.C., announced a voluntary recall of about 800 Spencer Bar Stool. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The footrest can crack, compromising the strength of the bar stool, posing a fall hazard. There were no incidents that were reported. The recall involves bar stools with a dark brown walnut finish wood with a brown leather padded back and swivel seat cushion. The stools have four legs with a footrest connecting each leg and measure 21 inches wide, 48 inches high and 23 inches deep. The recall includes stools with Samson item number M3216604 and Customer item number 845275 found on the bottom of the seat cushion. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/A3Zlbb The recalled products were manufactured in Bangladesh and sold exclusively at Costco regionally in the Dallas and San Francisco areas from May 2014 through June 2014 for about $150. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled bar stools and return them to the Costco store where the item was purchased for a full refund. SIFY TECHNOLOGIES: IPO Lawsuit Exposure Settled by Insurer ---------------------------------------------------------- Sify Technologies Limited Company's exposure during the year ending March 31,2013, under the settlement with plaintiffs in a securities class action lawsuit, has been settled by the insurer as per the settlement agreement, according to the Company's Form 20-F filed on July 21, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2014. The Company and certain of its officers and directors are named as defendants in a securities class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. This action, which is captioned In re Satyam Infoway Ltd. Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, also names several of the underwriters involved in Company's initial public offering of American Depository Shares as defendants. This class action is brought on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of Company's ADSs from the time of Company's Initial Public Offering ("IPO") in October 1999 through December 2000. The central allegation in this action is that the underwriters in Company's IPO solicited and received undisclosed commissions from, and entered into undisclosed arrangements with, certain investors who purchased Company's ADSs in the IPO and the aftermarket. The complaint also alleges that Company violated the United States Federal Securities laws by failing to disclose in the IPO prospectus that the underwriters had engaged in these allegedly undisclosed arrangements. More than 300 issuers have been named in similar lawsuits. On April 2, 2009, the parties lodged with the Court a motion for preliminary approval of a proposed settlement between all parties, including the Company and its former officers and directors. The proposed settlement provides the plaintiffs with $586 million in recoveries from all defendants. Under the proposed settlement, the Issuer Defendants collectively would be responsible for $100 million, which would be paid by the Issuers' insurers, on behalf of the Issuer Defendants and their officers and directors. Accordingly, any direct financial impact of the proposed settlement is expected to be borne by the Company's insurers. On June 12, 2009, the Federal District Court granted preliminary approval of the proposed settlement. On October 6, 2009, the District Court issued an order granting final approval of the settlement. Subsequent to the final approval of Settlement agreement by the District court, there were several notices of appeal filed. Most were filed by the same parties that objected to the settlement in front of the District Court. These appeals were consolidated into a single appeal and briefing schedule was held. On January 9, 2012 the class counsel and objectors counsel entered into a settlement agreement, which includes an agreement to dismiss the above appeal. Thus the Appeal has been dismissed with prejudice confirming the Settlement agreement entered before the District Court. During the year ending March 31, 2013, the exposure under this settlement has been settled by the insurer as per the settlement agreement. Sify Technologies Limited (Sify) is an integrated Internet, network and electronic commerce services companies in India. The Company's services enable its business and consumers to communicate, transmit and share information, access online content and conduct business remotely using its private data network or the Internet. It operates in four segments: Corporate network/data services, which provides Internet, connectivity, security and consulting, hosting and managed service solutions; Internet access services, from homes and through cybercafes; Online portal services and content offerings, and Other services, such as development of e-learning software. The Company is a subsidiary of MF Global Holdings Limited. The Company's wholly owned subsidiaries include Sify Software Limited, Sify Technologies (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. and Sify International Inc. In August 2012, it sold MF Global Sify Securities India Pvt Ltd. SMITH & WESSON: Federal Court Reinstates Product Liability Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Judy Greenwald, writing for Business Insurance, reports that a federal court should have admitted a plaintiff expert's testimony, even though it contradicted the plaintiff's own testimony regarding the circumstances of his accident, says a federal appeals court, in reinstating a products liability lawsuit against gunmaker Smith & Wesson Corp. Mark Lee was injured in November 2006 while target shooting with a 460XVR revolver manufactured by Springfield, Massachusetts-based Smith & Wesson, according to the July 29 ruling by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati in Mark D. Lee v. Smith & Wesson Corp. After firing his gun twice, Mr. Lee took a third shot, and the gun discharged improperly, seriously injuring his right eye, face and nose. Mr. Lee filed suit against Smith & Wesson under the Ohio Product Liability Act in state court in Ohio. The case was subsequently moved to federal District Court in Cleveland. Mr. Lee's account of the accident differed from that of his own expert witness, mechanical engineer Roy Ruel, according to the ruling. Mr. Lee testified he had closed the guns' cylinder, locked it into place, cocked the hammer, pulled the trigger, and fired. Mr. Ruel's opinion was that the cylinder was open when the gun was fired, which caused hot high-pressure gas to be expelled from the revolver when it was fired, striking Mr. Lee in the face and causing his injures. He determined the revolver was defective in both design and manufacture in part became it could be cocked and fired with a pull of the trigger without its cylinder being closed and locked. Smith & Wesson moved to exclude Mr. Ruel's expert testimony because of the inconsistency with Mr. Lee's. The federal District Court agreed and dismissed the case. Mr. Lee agreed to the dismissal, preserving his right to appeal. "Ruel's expert testimony should have been admitted," said a three- judge appeals panel in a 2-1 opinion. "Ruel had the appropriate qualifications, he used reliable methods and his opinion was based on physical evidence from the accident," it said. Regarding the inconsistencies between Mr. Ruel's and Mr. Lee's testimony, under the law, a plaintiff is not precluded from proving his case by contradictory evidence, said the ruling. Mr. Lee may have been mistaken about the cylinder being open, it said. "In light of this possibility, a jury presented with no believable alternative explanation could believe that Lee's testimony was wrong," said the ruling. A fact finder "could conclude that Lee thought he had closed the chamber when in fact he did not, and instead overlooked the opening, which Mr. Ruel suggests was the case in Mr. Lee's accident, said the ruling, in noting that two witnesses supported this version of the event. "In this situation, the expert's evidence should have been admitted," said the appellate court, reversing the lower court's ruling and remanding the case for further proceedings. The dissenting opinion said the judge properly excluded Mr. Ruel's testimony on the basis it did not "fit" the facts of the case. SUBARU OF AMERICA: Recalls About 5,000 Car Over Air Bag Defect -------------------------------------------------------------- Bernie Woodall, writing for Reuters, reports that Subaru of America said it is recalling about 5,000 older model cars with passenger-side air bag inflators made by Takata Corp. that may rupture and break into metal fragments that could harm passengers, the automaker and U.S. safety regulators said on Aug. 5. Subaru, a unit of Fuji Heavy Industries, said it will recall model year 2003-2005 Legacy, Outback and Baja models as well as 2004-2005 Impreza that are or ever were registered in Florida, Hawaii, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. A Subaru of America spokesman said the company has not found defective air bag inflators in any of its vehicles in the area involved in the recall and is not aware of any injuries related to this issue. Subaru is conducting the recall "out of an abundance of caution" the spokesman said. The U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in June began asking automakers with Takata air bag inflators in their vehicles to recall cars for inspection in the limited region because high humidity may cause defective inflators to malfunction. A letter from NHTSA to Subaru dated on Aug. 4 shows that cars that are brought in for inspection will have air bag inflators replaced. Also, it said, engineers will gather the older inflators for analysis. TAISHAN ENTITIES: Faces Drywall Class Action in Louisiana --------------------------------------------------------- Herman, Herman & Katz on July 30 disclosed that a new class action brought by Eduardo and Carmen Amorin on behalf of over 3,000 active U.S. homeowner litigants against Chinese defendants who sold drywall to American consumers has been filed in a Louisiana federal court. Attorneys for the new action have taken steps to force the Chinese into court, following action on July 17, 2014 by a U.S. District Court that held Chinese companies in contempt for attempting to flee jurisdiction. Class representatives filed the new class action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. Each was an active litigant in prior Omnibus Class Action Complaints. That action consolidated different suits into one proceeding known as a multi-district litigation. The new suit adds SASAC, the Chinese State-Owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission in that litigation. Existing defendants include a group of companies that SASAC owns or controls known as the "Taishan Entities." The suit seeks compensatory, statutory and punitive damages allowed by law as well as other relief against SASAC and the Taishan Entities arising out of their sale of defective drywall to American consumers across the United States. "The suit has important implications as it will test whether Chinese government-owned companies who face adverse legal judgments will fire their attorneys and flee the jurisdiction of courts or respect the rule of law and judicial processes," said lead counsel Arnold Levin -- alevin@lfsblaw.com -- of the Philadelphia-based law firm of Levin Fishbein Sedran & Berman. He said also: "This historic case raises grave legal and moral issues. Can those who do business with Chinese companies or the Chinese government trust them to keep their word or to honor their legal duties and responsibilities?" Mr. Levin added: "This case has implications far beyond this controversy, in which a federal court has taken unprecedented action in holding Chinese companies in civil and criminal contempt for refusing to show up in court and banning them from doing business in the United States until they comply with their responsibilities. Chinese businesses claim the moral high ground when they do business. But who can afford the risk of doing business with people who disrespect judicial process?" Mr. Levin's co-counsel, Leonard Davis of the New Orleans-based law firm Herman, Herman & Katz, added: "The Chinese government itself owned these companies. A federal court has already found as fact that it calls the shots for them. China's behavior should alarm business people all over the world about the risk of doing business with its government-owned companies. If they will flee the jurisdiction in this case, they'll do it with any other case." A U.S. District Court entered a preliminary default judgment against Taishan Entities China National Building Materials Group Corporation (CNBM Group), and Beijing New Building Materials (Group) Co., Ltd. (BNBM Group), China National Building Material Co. Ltd (CNBM), Beijing New Building Materials Group Co., Ltd. (BNBM) after they declined to appear in court and defend a series of lawsuits filed over those claims. The District Court and the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal upheld a money judgment and made a finding that the Taishan Entities were subject to U.S. court jurisdiction. Ordered by U.S. District Court Judge Eldon Fallon to appear in court on July 17, 2014 for a Judgment Debtor Examination as to the default judgment, Taishan fired its attorneys and refused to show up. The new lawsuit adds SASAC as a new defendant to the existing multi-district litigation. The Court responded by holding Taishan Entities in civil and criminal contempt, declaring their behavior "a direct contemptuous act" that "harms both many other parties in this case and the decorum of the Court." The Court branded Taishan's misbehavior an "affront to the Court's dignity," required Taishan to pay $15,000 in attorney's fees to Plaintiff's counsel who had sued Taishan and slapped it with $40,000 as a penalty for contempt. It enjoined Taishan, its affiliates, or subsidiaries from "conducting any business in the United States until it participates in this judicial process." The Court stated that if Taishan violates the injunction, "it must pay a further penalty of 25% of the profits earned by the Company or its affiliates who violate the order, for the year of the order." TILLY'S INC: Trial Court Ruling in "Rebolledo" Suit Upheld ---------------------------------------------------------- Tilly's Inc. and World of Jeans & Tops, Inc. (the Employer) appealed from a trial court order denying its motion to compel arbitration of Maria Rebolledo's putative class action regarding statutory wage claims. The Employer filed a motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the class claims on March 20, 2013. It supplied the arbitration agreement Ms. Rebolledo signed in 2004 (the 2004 Agreement). Ms. Rebolledo opposed the motion arguing the agreement expressly excluded the claims made in her lawsuit and was invalid. In addition, Ms. Rebolledo argued the agreement was unconscionable for the following reasons: (1) due to language barriers, she did not understand the terms; (2) the agreement did not attach any rules of arbitration or specify which rules applied; (3) the agreement lacked mutuality and unfairly favored Employer; (4) it was an adhesion contract; and (5) it was substantively unconscionable. In its reply motion, the Employer refuted all the points raised by Ms. Rebolledo. In addition, the Employer provided evidence Rebolledo signed two additional arbitration agreements on June 28, 2001 (the 2001 Agreement), and on August 15, 2005 (the 2005 Agreement). The Employer noted Ms. Rebolledo also executed an employment application in July 2000 in which she agreed to sign an arbitration agreement if she were to be employed. The Employer asserted all the arbitration agreements contained in bold capital letters above the signature line a clear warning to Ms. Rebolledo that she was giving up her right to a jury trial and to appeal the arbitrator's decision. In an opinion dated July 8, 2014, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/KOEcHxfrom Leagle.com, the Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division Three affirmed the trial court ruling saying it agrees with the trial court's conclusion the parties' arbitration agreement expressly excluded statutory wage claims from the arbitration obligation. According to the Appeals Court, the 2001 Agreement describes in great detail the employment policy requiring the mediation and arbitration of disputes. Unlike the other employment policy provisions, there is no provision granting the Employer a similar unilateral modification right to modify the arbitration terms. The Appeals Court added that it agrees with the trial court's interpretation of the agreement holding arbitration would fall within the broad category of "employment policies" requiring the signature of three executives for any modification. And because the 2005 Agreement contains a material modification of the types of claims that must be arbitrated, it required the signature of three executives to be enforceable. The case is MARIA REBOLLEDO, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. TILLY'S, INC. et al., Defendants and Appellants, NO. G048625. Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, Ryan D. McCortney -- rmccortney@sheppardmullin.com -- and David Van Pelt -- dvanpelt@sheppardmullin.com -- for Defendants and Appellants. The Cooper Law Firm and Scott B. Cooper -- scott@cooper-firm.com -- The Carter Law Firm and Roger R. Carter -- rcarter@carterlawfirm.net -- The Phelps Law Group and Marc H. Phelps -- marc@phelpslawgroup.com -- for Plaintiff and Respondent. TRANS-NATIONAL INC: Faces "Pichl" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------- Rochelle Pichl, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Trans-National, Inc., and Mary Wojewoda, in her individual and professional capacities, Case No. 3:14-cv-04703 (D.N.J., July 28, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation and liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Trans-National, Inc. is owned by Mary Wojewoda with its principal place of business located at 12 Crown Plaza, Suite 205, Hazlet, New Jersey 07730. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael John Palitz, Esq. BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 1010 Northern Boulevard, Suite 328 Great Neck, NY 11021 Telephone: (516) 248-5550 E-mail: mjp@employmentlawyernewyork.com UNITED STATES: Space & Rocket Center Faces Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- WAFF reports that a class-action lawsuit has been filed against one of the state's busiest and most popular tourist attractions, the U.S. Space and Rocket Center in Huntsville. Some current and former employees have joined forces to sue the center for backed pay -- specifically for extra income they say they earned for working state holidays. Three employees are listed in the suit thus far, but attorneys said they expect more to join in. The lawsuit said the center has about 120 employees currently, but this could also impact past employees and even seasonal workers. Those who filed the suit want to make sure the employees of the U.S. Space & Rocket Center are paid according to state law. The suit claims that for decades, the center has disregarded the state's observed paid holidays. It includes dates such as Robert E. Lee's Birthday, Confederate Memorial Day, and George Washington's Birthday, among others. It goes on to state that the center is a state-run entity and should be following the law. On top of that, the employees claim the center has not been paying longevity pay. This is a pay increase for long-time workers. The suit claims what the center has been paying is not even close to the increase mandated by the state. Attorneys representing the employees who filed the suit said they expect a state audit's findings to lead to changes at the Space & Rocket Center. The audit contained eight findings of non- compliance, including the issues of longevity pay and state holidays. "Some of the holidays, certainly the Space & Rocket Center is going to be open," said Eric Artrip -- artrip@mastandoartrip.com -- of Mastando & Artrip, who is representing the workers. "It's their prerogative to make their employees work on these state holidays, but if they do that, they should be paying them holiday pay, and that would be fair." Representatives for the Space & Rocket Center said it is their policy not to comment on pending litigation. Mr. Atrip said they will ask the judge to make a decision on how far they will go back to collect if they win out. UNITIL CORP: Court Has Yet to Decide on Class Action ---------------------------------------------------- Katina Caraganis, writing for Sentinel & Enterprise, reports that a group of 12 people who wish to file suit against Unitil Corporation because of its response to the 2008 ice storm will have to wait a little longer to learn whether the Supreme Judicial Court will allow the group to proceed with a class-action lawsuit against the utility. In 2013, Worcester Superior Court Judge Douglas Wilkins ruled the residents of Unitil's service territory could not bring a class- action lawsuit in the case. The group, led by Lunenburg resident Cathy Clark who formed the group Get Rid of Unitil, appealed the decision all the way to the Supreme Judicial Court. The case was heard in March. According to Unitil spokesman Alec O'Meara, the court has 130 days from the time of the hearing to render a decision. However, that time period has been waived, and a decision on the case is yet to be made. During the hearing in March, attorneys for Unitil argued that the case should not win an appeal because while some residents were without power for weeks after the 2008 ice storm, others had electricity restored in hours. In their suit, the plaintiffs allege that Unitil was unprepared for the storm and subsequently fell short of obligations to restore power quickly and provide people with necessary information. The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 lays out the procedures for class-action lawsuits. According to the Fairness Act, a class- action lawsuit can be filed when claims exceed $5 million and involve plaintiffs or defendants from other states. The plaintiffs must all share a common complaint, and the defendants must possess a similar defense for all the plaintiffs, according to the act. Mr. O'Meara declined to comment on whether the waiving of the 130- day period is a good or bad thing for the utility company. "I always say in cases like this that the court documents must speak for themselves. It wouldn't be right to speculate," he said. VISHAY INTERTECHNOLOGY: Faces Chip-Tech and DCS Class Suits ----------------------------------------------------------- Vishay Intertechnology, Inc., according to its Form 10-Q filed on July 29, 2014, with the Securities and Exchange Commisition for the quarterly period ended June 28, 2014, has been named as a defendant in purported antitrust class action complaints by Chip- Tech, Ltd. on July 18, 2014, and by Dependable Component Supply Corp. on July 22, 2014, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaints allege restraint of trade in aluminum and tantalum electrolytic capacitors by the Company and 27 other manufacturers, and seek injunctive relief and unspecified joint and several treble damages. The Company intends to defend vigorously against the complaints. Vishay Intertechnology, Inc., is a global manufacturer and supplier of discrete semiconductors and passive components, including power MOSFETs, power integrated circuits, transistors, diodes, optoelectronic components, resistors, capacitors, and inductors. Discrete semiconductors and passive components manufactured by Vishay are used in virtually all types of electronic products, including those in the industrial, computing, automotive, consumer electronic products, telecommunications, power supplies, military/aerospace, and medical industries. WORLEYPARSONS: Faces Investor Class Action Over Profit Downgrade ---------------------------------------------------------------- Patrick Durkin, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports that engineering group WorleyParsons faces a fresh multimillion- dollar class action for misleading investors ahead of a profit downgrade that wiped $1.3 billion off the company's market value. The latest legal action comes despite the company successfully seeing off one class action in June after the Supreme Court of Victoria threw out the case on a technicality. Class action lawyers law firm ACA was set to announce on July 28 that it has secured litigation funding to sue the company for withholding market information ahead of a 26 per cent crash in its share price in November last year. In August last year, the company's annual report predicted increased growth and that optimism was reinforced at the October 2013 annual shareholder meeting. The case will claim that by August, the company was already aware that deteriorating market conditions and project delays would materially impact its profits. However it did not reveal the impact of those changes until November 20 when it cut annual net profits guidance to a range of $260 million to $300 million. The company had told investors it would deliver net profit of $322 million. XO HOLDINGS: September 29 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set ----------------------------------------------------------- Abbey Spanier, LLP on July 30 disclosed that the Supreme Court of the State of New York County of New York has approved the following announcement of a summary notice of class action on behalf of certain holders of common stock of XO Holdings, Inc.: Youlu Zheng et al. v. Carl C. Icahn et al., Index No. 650499/2010 SUMMARY NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION If you held XO Holdings, Inc. common stock on July 25, 2008 and/or on July 11, 2011, it is very important that you read this notice. You must decide whether you want to remain a member of a class action against Carl Icahn and other defendants. Your decision may affect your legal rights including the right to share in any possible future recovery in this action. This lawsuit affects: Class A: All persons that held XO common stock on July 25, 2008; and Class B: All persons that held XO common stock on July 11, 2011. What is this lawsuit about? Plaintiffs brought this case on behalf of XO minority stockholders to challenge (i) XO's July 25, 2008 $780 million private placement of XO Class B and Class C Preferred stock; and (ii) the July 11, 2011 Merger between XO and Icahn's affiliates. Plaintiffs allege that in effecting the 2008 Recapitalization and the 2011 Merger, defendant Icahn, XO's controlling shareholder, breached his fiduciary duties to XO's minority shareholders in order to take for his own use and benefit all of XO's assets including XO's net operating losses ("NOLs"). Plaintiffs allege that XO's minority shareholders were harmed by Defendants' unfair dealing and breach of fiduciary duties. Defendants deny all of plaintiffs' claims and allegations. Who represents you? The Court has appointed Abbey Spanier, LLP as Class Counsel. What are your options? Option #1: If you wish to remain a member of Class A and/or B, you do not need to do anything now. Option #2: You can exclude yourself from the Class. If you ask to be excluded from Class A and/or B, you will not share in any recovery that may be obtained in the future, and you will not be bound by any result obtained by the class(es). To exclude yourself from Class A and/or B, you must send a letter stating which class(es) you wish to be excluded from, your name, address, phone number, and the number of shares of XO stock you held at the close of business on July 25, 2008 and/or July 11, 2011. You must mail your exclusion request postmarked no later than September 29, 2014 to Abbey Spanier, LLP, 212 East 39th Street, New York, NY 10016. For more information about this action you can visit www.strategicclaims.net/xo or call Class Counsel toll free at 1-800-889-3701. YARD MEN LAWN: Faces "Gigg" Suit Over Failure to Pay Workers OT --------------------------------------------------------------- Adrian Gigg, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. The Yard Men Lawn And Snow Services, LLC, and Zachary Michael Matouka, Case No. 2:14-cv-12929 (E.D. Mich., July 28, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act. The Yard Men Lawn And Snow Services, LLC provides landscaping and similar services throughout Southeastern Michigan, including lawn care and snow removal. The Plaintiff is represented by: Caitlin E. Malhiot, Esq. GOLD STAR LAW, PC 2701 Troy Center Dr, Suite 400 Troy, MI 48084 Telephone: (248) 275-5200 Facsimile: (248) 817-2765 E-mail: cmalhiot@goldstarlaw.com ZAMORA AUTOMOTIVE: Oct. 6 Final Fairness Hearing Set ---------------------------------------------------- District Judge William B. Shubb granted preliminary approval of a settlement in JOSE ONTIVEROS, Plaintiff, v. ROBERT ZAMORA; ZAMORA AUTOMOTIVE GROUP; STOCKTON AUTO CARS, INC., dba Stockton Honda & Stockton Mazda; AUTO TOWN, INC., dba Toyota Town & Stockton Scion; HAMMER LANE VOLKSWAGEN, INC.; QUALITY MOTOR CARS OF STOCKTON, dba Acura of Stockton, Go Hyundai, & Kia of Stockton; SATURN OF STOCKTON, dba Saturn of Modesto; LODI MOTORS INC., dba Lodi Honda; MERCED AUTO CARS, INC., dba Merced Toyota & Merced Scion; CLOVIS AUTO CARS, INC., dba Clovis Volkswagen; and COUNTRY NISSAN, dba Nissan Kia Country, Defendants, CIV. NO. 2:08-567 WBS DAD, (E.D. Cal.). The Court provisionally certified the class defined as: all nonexempt automotive technicians who have been employed by one or more defendants at any time between March 12, 2004, and the date on which the Order is signed. Plaintiff Jose Ontiveros is appointed as the representative of the settlement class, and the law firm of Mallison & Martinez is provisionally found to be a fair and adequate representative of the settlement class and is appointed as class counsel for the purposes of representing the settlement class. Simpluris, Inc. is appointed as the settlement administrator. A final Fairness Hearing will be held before the court on October 6, 2014, at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 5 to determine whether the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate and should be approved by the court. The Settlement provides, among other things, that Defendants will pay a gross settlement amount of $2,000,000. That amount will be used to satisfy the claims of all participating settlement members, class counsel's litigation expenses, any award of attorney's fees to class counsel, an incentive award to plaintiff, a payment to the state of California in satisfaction of plaintiff's Private Attorney General Act claim, payroll taxes on the portion of the settlement fund designated as wages, and claims administration expenses. The total amount paid to class members will depend upon the number of class members who opt out and the amount of fees and expenses as determined by the court at the final Fairness Hearing. A copy of the District Court's July 7, 2014 memorandum and order is available at http://is.gd/TFGJ8ifrom Leagle.com. Jose Ontiveros, Plaintiff, represented by Hector Rodriguez Martinez -- hectorm@themmlawfirm.com -- Mallison & Martinez, Stanley S. Mallison -- stanm@themmlawfirm.com -- Mallison and Martinez, Joseph Donald Sutton -- jsutton@themmlawfirm.com -- Mallison & Martinez & Marco A. Palau -- mpalau@themmlawfirm.com -- Mallison & Martinez. Robert Zamora, Defendant, represented by John E. Lattin, IV -- jlattin@laborlawyers.com -- Fisher & Phillips, Llp & Linda J Gulledge -- lgulledge@laborlawyers.com -- Fisher & Phillips Llp. Zamora Automotive Group, Defendant, represented by John E. Lattin, IV, Fisher & Phillips, Llp & Linda J Gulledge, Fisher & Phillips Llp. Stockton Auto Cars, Inc., Defendant, represented by John E. Lattin, IV, Fisher & Phillips, Llp & Linda J Gulledge, Fisher & Phillips Llp. Auto Town, Inc., Defendant, represented by John E. Lattin, IV, Fisher & Phillips, Llp & Linda J Gulledge, Fisher & Phillips Llp. Hammer Lane Volkswagen, Inc., Defendant, represented by John E. Lattin, IV, Fisher & Phillips, Llp & Linda J Gulledge, Fisher & Phillips Llp. Quality Motor Cars of Stockton, Defendant, represented by John E. Lattin, IV, Fisher & Phillips, Llp & Linda J Gulledge, Fisher & Phillips Llp. Saturn of Stockton, Defendant, represented by John E. Lattin, IV, Fisher & Phillips, Llp & Linda J Gulledge, Fisher & Phillips Llp. Lodi Motors, Inc., Defendant, represented by John E. Lattin, IV, Fisher & Phillips, Llp & Linda J Gulledge, Fisher & Phillips Llp. Merced Auto Cars, Inc., Defendant, represented by John E. Lattin, IV, Fisher & Phillips, Llp & Linda J Gulledge, Fisher & Phillips Llp. Clovis Auto Cars, Inc., Defendant, represented by John E. Lattin, IV, Fisher & Phillips, Llp & Linda J Gulledge, Fisher & Phillips Llp. Country Nissan, Defendant, represented by John E. Lattin, IV, Fisher & Phillips, Llp & Linda J Gulledge, Fisher & Phillips Llp. Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ameren Corp. Has 71 Pending Fibro Suits -------------------------------------------------------- There were 71 asbestos-related lawsuits pending against Ameren Corporation and its subsidiaries, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014. Ameren, Ameren Missouri and Ameren Illinois have been named, along with numerous other parties, in a number of lawsuits filed by plaintiffs claiming varying degrees of injury from asbestos exposure at our present or former energy centers. Most have been filed in the Circuit Court of Madison County, Illinois. The total number of defendants named in each case varies, with the average number of parties being 85 as of March 31, 2014. Each lawsuit seeks unspecified damages that, if awarded at trial, typically would be shared among the various defendants. As of March 31, 2014, there were a total of 71 the pending asbestos-related lawsuits filed against the Ameren Companies. The Company notes however, that the total does not equal the sum of the subsidiary unit lawsuits because some of the lawsuits name multiple Ameren entities as defendants. At March 31, 2014, Ameren, Ameren Missouri and Ameren Illinois had liabilities of $12 million, $5 million, and $7 million, respectively, recorded to represent their best estimate of their obligations related to asbestos claims. Ameren Illinois has a tariff rider to recover the costs of IP asbestos-related litigation claims, subject to the following terms: 90% of cash expenditures in excess of the amount included in base electric rates are to be recovered from a trust fund that was established when Ameren acquired IP. At March 31, 2014, the trust fund balance was $23 million, including accumulated interest. If cash expenditures are less than the amount in base rates, Ameren Illinois will contribute 90% of the difference to the trust fund. Once the trust fund is depleted, 90% of allowed cash expenditures in excess of base rates will be recovered through charges assessed to customers under the tariff rider. The rider will permit recovery from customers within IP's historical service territory. Ameren Corporation (Ameren) is a utility holding company. The Company's principal subsidiaries are Union Electric Company (Ameren Missouri) and Ameren Illinois Company (Ameren Illinois). The Company's segments include Ameren Missouri and Ameren Illinois. Ameren Missouri operates a rate-regulated electric generation, transmission and distribution business, and a rate- regulated natural gas transmission and distribution business in Missouri. Ameren Illinois operates a rate-regulated electric and natural gas transmission and distribution business in Illinois. AER consists of non-rate-regulated operations, including Ameren Energy Generating Company (Genco), AmerenEnergy Resources Generating Company (AERG) and Ameren Energy Marketing Company (Marketing Company). In December 2013, the Company announced that it has completed the divestiture of its merchant generation business, formerly known as Ameren Energy Resources Company, LLC (AER). ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harbinger Group Continues to Defend PI Suits ------------------------------------------------------------- Harbinger Group Inc. continues to defend itself against lawsuits alleging injury from exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014. HGI is involved in other litigation and claims incidental to its current and prior businesses. These include workers compensation and environmental matters and pending cases in Mississippi and Louisiana state courts and in a Federal multi-district litigation alleging injury from exposure to asbestos on offshore drilling rigs and shipping vessels formerly owned or operated by its offshore drilling and bulk-shipping affiliates. Based on currently available information, including legal defenses available to it, and given its reserves and related insurance coverage, the Company does not believe that the outcome of these legal and environmental matters will have a material effect on its financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Harbinger Group Inc. (HGI) is a holding company. The Company's operations are conducted through Spectrum Brands, the Company's subsidiary, which provides branded consumer products, such as batteries, personal care products, small household appliances, pet supplies, and home and garden pest control products, and Fidelity & Guaranty Life Holdings, Inc. (FGL), its wholly owned indirect subsidiary, which provides life insurance and annuity products. In addition, Salus Capital Partners, LLC (Salus), the Company's wholly owned indirect subsidiary, is engaged in the business of providing secured asset-based loans across a range of industries, and Front Street Re Ltd (Front Street), its wholly owned indirect subsidiary provide reinsurance to the specialty insurance sector of fixed, deferred and payout annuities. The Company also own 97.9% of Zap.Com Corporation (Zap.Com). On November 8, 2012, Spectrum Brands completed acquisition of 56% interest in Shaser Biosciences, Inc. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Re Records $372.8-Mil. Fibro Reserve ------------------------------------------------------------- Everest Re Group, Ltd., recorded a $372.8 million gross asbestos loss reserves, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014. The Company states: "With respect to asbestos only, at March 31, 2014, we had gross asbestos loss reserves of $372.8 million, or 95.0%, of total A&E reserves, of which $298.3 million was for assumed business and $74.5 million was for direct business. "Ultimate loss projections for A&E liabilities cannot be accomplished using standard actuarial techniques. We believe that our A&E reserves represent our best estimate of the ultimate liability; however, there can be no assurance that ultimate loss payments will not exceed such reserves, perhaps by a significant amount. "Industry analysts use the "survival ratio" to compare the A&E reserves among companies with such liabilities. The survival ratio is typically calculated by dividing a company's current net reserves by the three year average of annual paid losses. Hence, the survival ratio equals the number of years that it would take to exhaust the current reserves if future loss payments were to continue at historical levels. Using this measurement, our net three year asbestos survival ratio was 8.3 years at March 31, 2014. These metrics can be skewed by individual large settlements occurring in the prior three years and therefore, may not be indicative of the timing of future payments." Everest Re Group, Ltd. through its subsidiaries, is principally engaged in the underwriting of reinsurance and insurance in the United States, Bermuda and international markets. The Company underwrites reinsurance both through brokers and directly with ceding companies. The Company operates in four segments: U.S. Reinsurance, International, Bermuda and Insurance. The Company underwrites insurance principally through general agent relationships, brokers and surplus lines brokers. The Company's principal operating subsidiaries include Bermuda Re, Everest International Reinsurance, Ltd., Ireland Re, Everest Re, Everest Insurance Company of Canada, Everest National Insurance Company, Everest Indemnity Insurance Company, Everest Security Insurance Company, Mt. McKinley and Heartland Crop Insurance, Inc. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Noble Corp. Had 37 Pending Fibro-related Suits --------------------------------------------------------------- There were 37 asbestos-related lawsuits pending against Noble Corporation plc, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014. The Company states: "We are from time to time a party to various lawsuits that are incidental to our operations in which the claimants seek an unspecified amount of monetary damages for personal injury, including injuries purportedly resulting from exposure to asbestos on drilling rigs and associated facilities. At March 31, 2014, there were 37 asbestos related lawsuits in which we are one of many defendants. These lawsuits have been filed in the United States in the states of Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas. We intend to vigorously defend against the litigation. We do not believe the ultimate resolution of these matters will have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows." Noble Corporation plc is an offshore drilling contractor for the oil and gas industry. The Company performs contract drilling services through its subsidiaries. As of January 30, 2014, the Company had a fleet of 77 offshore drilling units (including two ultra-deepwater drill ships and four high-specification jackup). Its offshore drilling services are located globally, including in the United States Gulf of Mexico and Alaska, Mexico, Brazil, the North Sea, the Mediterranean, West Africa, the Middle East, India, Malaysia and Australia. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Intricon Corp. Continues to Defend Fibro Suits --------------------------------------------------------------- IntriCon Corporation continues to defend itself against asbestos- related lawsuits related to its discontinued heat technologies segment, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014. The Company is a defendant along with a number of other parties in lawsuits alleging that plaintiffs have or may have contracted asbestos-related diseases as a result of exposure to asbestos products or equipment containing asbestos sold by one or more named defendants. These lawsuits relate to the discontinued heat technologies segment which was sold in March 2005. Due to the non- informative nature of the complaints, the Company does not know whether any of the complaints state valid claims against the Company. Certain insurance carriers have informed the Company that the primary policies for the period August 1, 1970-1978 have been exhausted and that the carriers will no longer provide defense and insurance coverage under those policies. However, the Company has other primary and excess insurance policies that the Company believes afford coverage for later years. Some of these other primary insurers have accepted defense and insurance coverage for these suits, and some of them have either ignored the Company's tender of defense of these cases, or have denied coverage, or have accepted the tenders but asserted a reservation of rights and/or advised the Company that they need to investigate further. Because settlement payments are applied to all years a litigant was deemed to have been exposed to asbestos, the Company believes that it will have funds available for defense and insurance coverage under the non-exhausted primary and excess insurance policies. However, unlike the older policies, the more recent policies have deductible amounts for defense and settlements costs that the Company will be required to pay; accordingly, the Company expects that its litigation costs will increase in the future. Further, many of the policies covering later years (approximately 1984 and thereafter) have exclusions for any asbestos products or operations, and thus do not provide insurance coverage for asbestos-related lawsuits. The Company does not believe that the asserted exhaustion of some of the primary insurance coverage for the 1970-1978 period will have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, liquidity, or results of operations. Management believes that the number of insurance carriers involved in the defense of the suits, and the significant number of policy years and policy limits under which these insurance carriers are insuring the Company, make the ultimate disposition of these lawsuits not material to the Company's consolidated financial position or results of operations." IntriCon Corporation (IntriCon) is an international company engaged in designing, developing, engineering and manufacturing body-worn devices. IntriCon serves the body-worn device market by designing, developing, engineering and manufacturing micro- miniature products, microelectronics, micro-mechanical assemblies and complete assemblies, primarily for bio-telemetry devices, hearing instruments and professional audio communication devices. The Company operates in one operating segment, the body-worn device segment. The Company's core technologies is focused on three main markets: medical, hearing health and professional audio communications. In October 2012, it sold its 50% ownership interest in Global Coils. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carey Watermark's Fibro Removal ARO Was $0.5MM --------------------------------------------------------------- Carey Watermark Investors Incorporated's asset retirement obligation for the removal of asbestos and environmental waste was $0.5 million, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014. The Company states: "We have recorded an asset retirement obligation for the removal of asbestos and environmental waste in connection with one of our hotels. We estimated the fair value of the asset retirement obligation based on the estimated economic life of the hotel and the estimated removal costs. The liability was discounted using the weighted-average interest rate on the associated fixed-rate mortgage loan at the time the liability was incurred. At March 31, 2014 and December 31, 2013, asset retirement obligation was $0.5 million and $0.4 million, respectively, and is included in Accounts payable, accrued expenses and other liabilities in the consolidated balance sheets." Carey Watermark Investors Incorporated, or CWI, and, together with its consolidated subsidiaries, is a publicly owned, non-listed real estate investment trust, or REIT, formed as a Maryland corporation in March 2008 for the purpose of acquiring, owning, disposing of and, through our advisor, managing and seeking to enhance the value of interests in lodging and lodging related properties primarily in the United States, or U.S. The Company conducts substantially all of its investment activities and own all of its assets through CWI OP, LP, or its Operating Partnership. The Company is a general partner and a limited partner and own a 99.985% capital interest in the Operating Partnership. Carey Watermark Holdings, LLC, or Carey Watermark Holdings, which is owned indirectly by both W. P. Carey Inc., or WPC, and Watermark Capital Partners, LLC, or Watermark Capital Partners, holds a special general partner interest in the Operating Partnership. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Magnetek Inc. Continues to Defend Fibro Suits -------------------------------------------------------------- Magnetek, Inc., continues to defend itself against asbestos- related lawsuits associated with its sold business operations, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014. The Company has been named, along with multiple other defendants, in asbestos-related lawsuits associated with business operations previously acquired by the Company, but which are no longer owned. During the Company's ownership, none of the businesses produced or sold asbestos-containing products. With respect to these claims, the Company believes that it has no such liability. For such claims, the Company is uninsured and either contractually indemnified against liability, or contractually obligated to defend and indemnify the purchaser of these former Magnetek business operations. The Company aggressively seeks dismissal from these proceedings. Management does not believe the asbestos proceedings, individually or in the aggregate, will have a material adverse effect on its financial position or results of operations. Given the nature of the above issues, uncertainty of the ultimate outcome, and inability to estimate the potential loss, no amounts have been reserved for these matters. Magnetek, Inc. (Magnetek) is a provider of digital power control systems that are used to control motion and power primarily in material handling, elevator, and mining applications. The Company's products are sold directly or through manufacturers' representatives to original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) for incorporation into their products, to system integrators and value-added resellers for assembly and incorporation into end-user systems, to distributors for resale to OEMs and contractors, and to end users for repair and replacement purposes. The Company is an independent supplier of digital drives, radio controls, software, and accessories for industrial cranes and hoists, and it is also the supplier of digital direct current (DC) motion control systems for elevators. The Company's products consist primarily of programmable motion control and power conditioning systems used in the overhead cranes and hoists; elevators; and coal mining equipment. ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Locker Continues to Defend PI Suits ------------------------------------------------------------- American Locker Group Incorporated continues to defend itself against numerous asbestos-related cases, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014. Beginning in September 1998 and continuing through March 31, 2014, the Company has been named as an additional defendant in approximately 239 cases pending in state court in Massachusetts and one in the state of Washington. The plaintiffs in each case assert that a division of the Company manufactured and furnished components containing asbestos to a shipyard during the period from 1948 to 1972 and that injury resulted from exposure to such products. The assets of this division were sold by the Company in 1973. During the process of discovery in certain of these actions, documents from sources outside the Company have been produced that indicate the Company appears to have been included in the chain of title for certain wall panels that contained asbestos and were delivered to the Massachusetts shipyards. Defense of these cases has been assumed by the Company's insurance carrier, subject to a reservation of rights. Settlement agreements have been entered in approximately 37 cases with funds authorized and provided by the Company's insurance carrier. Further, over 174 cases have been terminated as to the Company without liability to the Company under Massachusetts procedural rules. Therefore, the balance of unresolved cases against the Company as of December 31, 2013, the most recent date for which information is available, is approximately 28 cases. While the Company cannot estimate potential damages or predict what the ultimate resolution of these asbestos cases may be because the discovery proceedings on the cases are not complete, based upon the Company's experience to date with similar cases, as well as the assumption that insurance coverage will continue to be provided with respect to these cases, at the present time, the Company does not believe that the outcome of these cases will have a significant adverse impact on the Company's operations or financial condition. American Locker Group Incorporated is a manufacturer of lockers, locks and keys with a range of applications for use in numerous industries. The Company serves customers in a range of industries in all 50 states and in Canada, Mexico, Europe, Asia and South America. The Company's products can be categorized as either mailboxes or lockers. Mailboxes are used for the delivery of mail, packages and other parcels to multi-tenant facilities. Lockers are used for applications other than mail delivery, and its lockers are key-controlled checking lockers. The Company's products and services include recreation lockers, coin operated keys and locks, United States Postal Service (USPS) approved multi-tenant mailboxes, private mail delivery mailboxes, electronic distribution lockers, evidence lockers, laptop lockers and mini- check lockers. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Andrea Gets Summary Judgment in "Jones" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Andrea Electronics Corporation obtained approval of its motion for summary judgment in the asbestos-related lawsuit pending in a Rhode Island court, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014. In May 2013, Wayne F. Jones and Roberta Jones, filed a law suit in the Superior Court of Providence County, Rhode Island, against 84 Lumber Company and over 120 other defendants, including the Company, alleging that the Company processed, manufactured, designed, tested, packaged, distributed, marketed or sold asbestos containing products that contributed to their contraction of asbestos-related mesothelioma and other asbestos-related pathologies. The Company retained legal counsel and filed a response to the complaint. In February 2014, Andrea sought and was granted a Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion for Entry of Final Judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b). Andrea Electronics Corporation (Andrea) is engaged in designing, developing and manufacturing microphone technologies and products for improving speech-based applications software and communications that require clear voice signals. The Company operates in two segments: Andrea DSP Microphone and Audio Software Products, and Andrea Anti-Noise Products. The Company's Andrea Digital Signal Processing (DSP) Microphone and Audio Software Products and Andrea Anti-Noise Products have been designed for applications that are controlled by or depend on speech across a range of hardware and software platforms. These products incorporate its DSP, noise cancellation (NC), active noise reduction (ANR) and active noise cancellation (ANC) microphone technologies, and are designed to cancel background noise in a range of noisy environments, such as homes, offices, factories and automobiles. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Andrea Continues to Defend "Edwards" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Andrea Electronics Corporation continues to defend itself in an asbestos-related lawsuit filed by Audrey Edwards, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014. In December 2010, Audrey Edwards, Executrix of the Estate of Leon Leroy Edwards, filed a law suit in the Superior Court of Providence County, Rhode Island, against 3M Company and over 90 other defendants, including the Company, alleging that the Company processed, manufactured, designed, tested, packaged, distributed, marketed or sold asbestos containing products that contributed to the death of Leon Leroy Edwards. The Company received service of process in April 2011. The Company has retained legal counsel and has filed a response to the compliant. The Company believes the lawsuit is without merit and intends to file a Motion for Summary Judgment to that affect. Accordingly, the Company does not believe the lawsuit will have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position or results of operations. Andrea Electronics Corporation (Andrea) is engaged in designing, developing and manufacturing microphone technologies and products for improving speech-based applications software and communications that require clear voice signals. The Company operates in two segments: Andrea DSP Microphone and Audio Software Products, and Andrea Anti-Noise Products. The Company's Andrea Digital Signal Processing (DSP) Microphone and Audio Software Products and Andrea Anti-Noise Products have been designed for applications that are controlled by or depend on speech across a range of hardware and software platforms. These products incorporate its DSP, noise cancellation (NC), active noise reduction (ANR) and active noise cancellation (ANC) microphone technologies, and are designed to cancel background noise in a range of noisy environments, such as homes, offices, factories and automobiles. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Metropolitan Life Has 1,366 Fibro Claims --------------------------------------------------------- Metropolitan Life Insurance Company received approximately 1,366 new asbestos-related claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is and has been a defendant in a large number of asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state courts. These suits principally allege that the plaintiff or plaintiffs suffered personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos and seek both actual and punitive damages. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company has never engaged in the business of manufacturing, producing, distributing or selling asbestos or asbestos-containing products nor has Metropolitan Life Insurance Company issued liability or workers' compensation insurance to companies in the business of manufacturing, producing, distributing or selling asbestos or asbestos-containing products. The lawsuits principally have focused on allegations with respect to certain research, publication and other activities of one or more of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's employees during the period from the 1920's through approximately the 1950's and allege that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company learned or should have learned of certain health risks posed by asbestos and, among other things, improperly publicized or failed to disclose those health risks. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company believes that it should not have legal liability in these cases. The outcome of most asbestos litigation matters, however, is uncertain and can be impacted by numerous variables, including differences in legal rulings in various jurisdictions, the nature of the alleged injury and factors unrelated to the ultimate legal merit of the claims asserted against Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company employs a number of resolution strategies to manage its asbestos loss exposure, including seeking resolution of pending litigation by judicial rulings and settling individual or groups of claims or lawsuits under appropriate circumstances. Claims asserted against Metropolitan Life Insurance Company have included negligence, intentional tort and conspiracy concerning the health risks associated with asbestos. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's defenses (beyond denial of certain factual allegations) include that: (i) Metropolitan Life Insurance Company owed no duty to the plaintiffs -- it had no special relationship with the plaintiffs and did not manufacture, produce, distribute or sell the asbestos products that allegedly injured plaintiffs; (ii) plaintiffs did not rely on any actions of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company; (iii) Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's conduct was not the cause of the plaintiffs' injuries; (iv) plaintiffs' exposure occurred after the dangers of asbestos were known; and (v) the applicable time with respect to filing suit has expired. During the course of the litigation, certain trial courts have granted motions dismissing claims against Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, while other trial courts have denied Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's motions. There can be no assurance that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company will receive favorable decisions on motions in the future. While most cases brought to date have settled, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company intends to continue to defend aggressively against claims based on asbestos exposure, including defending claims at trials. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company received approximately 5,898 asbestos-related claims in 2013. During the three months ended March 31, 2014 and 2013, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company received approximately 1,366 and 1,435 new asbestos-related claims, respectively. The number of asbestos cases that may be brought, the aggregate amount of any liability that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company may incur, and the total amount paid in settlements in any given year are uncertain and may vary significantly from year to year. The ability of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company to estimate its ultimate asbestos exposure is subject to considerable uncertainty, and the conditions impacting its liability can be dynamic and subject to change. The availability of reliable data is limited and it is difficult to predict the numerous variables that can affect liability estimates, including the number of future claims, the cost to resolve claims, the disease mix and severity of disease in pending and future claims, the impact of the number of new claims filed in a particular jurisdiction and variations in the law in the jurisdictions in which claims are filed, the possible impact of tort reform efforts, the willingness of courts to allow plaintiffs to pursue claims against Metropolitan Life Insurance Company when exposure to asbestos took place after the dangers of asbestos exposure were well known, and the impact of any possible future adverse verdicts and their amounts. The ability to make estimates regarding ultimate asbestos exposure declines significantly as the estimates relate to years further in the future. In the Company's judgment, there is a future point after which losses cease to be probable and reasonably estimable. It is reasonably possible that the Company's total exposure to asbestos claims may be materially greater than the asbestos liability currently accrued and that future charges to income may be necessary. While the potential future charges could be material in the particular quarterly or annual periods in which they are recorded, based on information currently known by management, management does not believe any such charges are likely to have a material effect on the Company's financial position. The Company believes adequate provision has been made in its consolidated financial statements for all probable and reasonably estimable losses for asbestos-related claims. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's recorded asbestos liability is based on its estimation of the following elements, as informed by the facts presently known to it, its understanding of current law and its past experiences: (i) the probable and reasonably estimable liability for asbestos claims already asserted against Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, including claims settled but not yet paid; (ii) the probable and reasonably estimable liability for asbestos claims not yet asserted against Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, but which Metropolitan Life Insurance Company believes are reasonably probable of assertion; and (iii) the legal defense costs associated with the foregoing claims. Significant assumptions underlying Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's analysis of the adequacy of its recorded liability with respect to asbestos litigation include: (i) the number of future claims; (ii) the cost to resolve claims; and (iii) the cost to defend claims. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company reevaluates on a quarterly and annual basis its exposure from asbestos litigation, including studying its claims experience, reviewing external literature regarding asbestos claims experience in the United States, assessing relevant trends impacting asbestos liability and considering numerous variables that can affect its asbestos liability exposure on an overall or per claim basis. These variables include bankruptcies of other companies involved in asbestos litigation, legislative and judicial developments, the number of pending claims involving serious disease, the number of new claims filed against it and other defendants and the jurisdictions in which claims are pending. Based upon its reevaluation of its exposure from asbestos litigation, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company has updated its liability analysis for asbestos-related claims through March 31, 2014. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and its subsidiaries is a leading provider of insurance, annuities and employee benefit programs throughout the United States. The Company offers life insurance and annuities to individuals, as well as group insurance and retirement & savings products and services to corporations and other institutions. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is a wholly-owned subsidiary of MetLife, Inc. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Budd Co. Claimants Defer Filing Claim Form ----------------------------------------------------------- The Budd Company, Inc., sought to require some, but not all of its creditors to file proofs of claim by October 15, 2014. Reed Heiligman, Esq., at FrankGecker LLP, in Chicago, Illinois, tells the Bankruptcy Court that without filing a plan or giving any other indication of how it intends to treats its asbestos victims, Budd Company sought to approve a 22-page proof of claim form to be completed only by the unfortunate victims of asbestos. Mr. Heiligman contends that the asbestos claim form request is premature, as appointment of an official committee of asbestos personal injury claimants has been ordered by the Court, but has not yet occurred. The official asbestos creditors committee, when formed, should be given an opportunity to respond to the overreach, notes Mr. Heiligman. Accordingly, the ad hoc committee of asbestos personal injury claimants asks the Court that the asbestos claim form request should be continued for status with a briefing schedule to be determined after the formation of the official asbestos creditors committee. Mr. Heiligman points out that deficiencies in the asbestos claim form request could potentially be addressed by an official committee, including that: (a) The proposed asbestos proof of claim does not "conform substantially" with Official Form No. 10 as Rule 3001(a) of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure requires; (b) The proposed 22-page asbestos proof of claim form seeks information far beyond the requirements for a prima facie valid proof of claim under the Bankruptcy Rules; and (c) Budd Company refuses to give its asbestos victims the same consideration as its retirees. The ad hoc committee is represented by: Frances Gecker, Esq. Joseph D. Frank, Esq. Reed Heiligman, Esq. FRANKGECKER LLP 325 North LaSalle Street, Suite 625 Chicago, IL 60654 Tel: (312) 276-1400 Fax: (312) 276-0035 Email: fgecker@fgllp.com jfrank@fgllp.com rheiligman@fgllp.com ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garlock Estimation Trial Shouldn't Be Sealed ------------------------------------------------------------- Sindhu Sundar, writing for Law360, reported that a North Carolina federal judge reversed a bankruptcy court's decision to close proceedings last year to estimate the mesothelioma liability of bankrupt Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC, citing the public's fundamental right to view documents filed in public courts. According to the report, U.S. District Judge Max Cogburn sided with arguments by the legal journal Legal Newsline, saying that U.S. Bankruptcy Judge George Hodges should put the onus on Garlock to explain why estimation trial transcripts should be kept under seal. About Garlock Sealing Headquartered in Palmyra, New York, Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC is a unit of EnPro Industries, Inc. (NYSE: NPO). For more than a century, Garlock has been helping customers efficiently seal the toughest process fluids in the most demanding applications. On June 5, 2010, Garlock filed a voluntary Chapter 11 petition (Bankr. W.D.N.C. Case No. 10-31607) in Charlotte, North Carolina, to establish a trust to resolve all current and future asbestos claims against Garlock under Section 524(g) of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. The Debtor estimated $500 million to $1 billion in assets and up to $500 million in debts as of the Petition Date. Affiliates The Anchor Packing Company and Garrison Litigation Management Group, Ltd., also filed for bankruptcy. Albert F. Durham, Esq., at Rayburn Cooper & Durham, P.A., represents the Debtor in their Chapter 11 effort. Garland S. Cassada, Esq., at Robinson Bradshaw & Hinson, serves as counsel for asbestos matters. The Official Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants in the Chapter 11 cases is represented by Travis W. Moon, Esq., at Hamilton Moon Stephens Steele & Martin, PLLC, in Charlotte, NC, Elihu Inselbuch, Esq., at Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered, in New York, and Trevor W. Swett III, Esq., Leslie M. Kelleher, Esq., and Jeanna Rickards Koski, Esq., in Washington, D.C. 20005. Joseph W. Grier, III, the Court-appointed legal representative for future asbestos claimants, has retained A. Cotten Wright, Esq., at Grier Furr & Crisp, PA, and Richard H. Wyron, Esq., and Jonathan P. Guy, Esq., at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, as his co- counsel. Judge George Hodges of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina on Jan. 10, 2014, entered an order estimating the liability for present and future mesothelioma claims against EnPro Industries' Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC subsidiary at $125 million, consistent with the positions GST put forth at trial. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Corp. Estimates $36M Fibro Liability ------------------------------------------------------------- Rexnord Corporation estimates that its potential liability for the asbestos-related claims is approximately $36.0 million, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2013. Multiple lawsuits (with approximately 1,000 claimants) are pending in state or federal court in numerous jurisdictions relating to alleged personal injuries due to the alleged presence of asbestos in certain brakes and clutches previously manufactured by the Company's Stearns division and/or its predecessor owners. Invensys and FMC, prior owners of the Stearns business, have paid 100% of the costs to date related to the Stearns lawsuits. Similarly, the Company's Prager subsidiary is a defendant in two pending multi- defendant lawsuits relating to alleged personal injuries due to the alleged presence of asbestos in a product allegedly manufactured by Prager. Additionally, there are numerous individuals who have filed asbestos related claims against Prager; however, these claims are currently on the Texas Multi-district Litigation inactive docket. The ultimate outcome of these asbestos matters cannot presently be determined. To date, the Company's insurance providers have paid 100% of the costs related to the Prager asbestos matters. The Company believes that the combination of its insurance coverage and the Invensys indemnity obligations will cover any future costs of these matters. In connection with the acquisition of The Falk Corporation ("Falk"), Hamilton Sundstrand has provided the Company with indemnification against certain products-related asbestos exposure liabilities. The Company believes that, pursuant to such indemnity obligations, Hamilton Sundstrand is obligated to defend and indemnify the Company with respect to the asbestos claims, and that, with respect to these claims, such indemnity obligations are not subject to any time or dollar limitations. Falk, through its successor entity, is a defendant in multiple lawsuits pending in state or federal court in numerous jurisdictions relating to alleged personal injuries due to the alleged presence of asbestos in certain clutches and drives previously manufactured by Falk. There are approximately 100 claimants in these suits. The ultimate outcome of these lawsuits cannot presently be determined. Hamilton Sundstrand is defending the Company in these lawsuits pursuant to its indemnity obligations and has paid 100% of the costs to date. Certain Water Management subsidiaries are also subject to asbestos litigation. As of March 31, 2014, Zurn and numerous other unrelated companies were defendants in approximately 7,000 asbestos related lawsuits representing approximately 26,000 claims. Plaintiffs' claims allege personal injuries caused by exposure to asbestos used primarily in industrial boilers formerly manufactured by a segment of Zurn. Zurn did not manufacture asbestos or asbestos components. Instead, Zurn purchased them from suppliers. These claims are being handled pursuant to a defense strategy funded by insurers. As of March 31, 2014, the Company estimates the potential liability for the asbestos-related claims as well as the claims expected to be filed in the next ten years to be approximately $36.0 million of which Zurn expects its insurance carriers to pay approximately $29.0 million in the next ten years on such claims, with the balance of the estimated liability being paid in subsequent years. The $36.0 million was developed based on an actuarial study and represents the projected indemnity payout for claims filed in the next ten years. However, there are inherent uncertainties involved in estimating the number of future asbestos claims, future settlement costs, and the effectiveness of defense strategies and settlement initiatives. As a result, actual liability could differ from the estimate described herein. Further, while this current asbestos liability is based on an estimate of claims through the next ten years, such liability may continue beyond that time frame, and such liability could be substantial. Management estimates that its available insurance to cover this potential asbestos liability as of March 31, 2014, is approximately $251.2 million, and believes that all current claims are covered by insurance. However, principally as a result of the past insolvency of certain of the Company's insurance carriers, certain coverage gaps will exist if and after the Company's other carriers have paid the first $175.2 million of aggregate liabilities. As of March 31, 2014, the Company had a recorded receivable from its insurance carriers of $36.0 million, which corresponds to the amount of this potential asbestos liability that is covered by available insurance and is currently determined to be probable of recovery. However, there is no assurance that $251.2 million of insurance coverage will ultimately be available or that this asbestos liability will not ultimately exceed $251.2 million. Factors that could cause a decrease in the amount of available coverage include: changes in law governing the policies, potential disputes with the carriers regarding the scope of coverage, and insolvencies of one or more of the Company's carriers. Rexnord Corporation (Rexnord) is a multi-platform industrial company. The Company comprises of two platforms, Process & Motion Control and Water Management. Rexnord's Process & Motion Control product portfolio includes gears, couplings, industrial bearings, aerospace bearings and seals, FlatTop chain, engineered chain and conveying equipment, and are marketed and sold globally under brands, including Rexnord, Rex, Falk and Link-Belt. Its Water Management platform operates in the commercial construction market for water management products and the municipal water and wastewater treatment markets. Its Water Management product portfolio includes drainage products, flush valves and faucet products, backflow prevention pressure release valves, PEX piping and engineered valves and gates for the water and wastewater treatment markets. In April 2014, the Company acquired Green Turtle Technologies Ltd., Green Turtle Americas Ltd. and Filamat Composites Inc. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbus McKinnon Estimates $8MM Fibro Liability ----------------------------------------------------------------- Columbus McKinnon Corporation reported an approximate of $8,854,000 for its asbestos-related aggregate liability, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2014. Like many industrial manufacturers, the Company is involved in asbestos-related litigation. In continually evaluating costs relating to its estimated asbestos-related liability, the Company reviews, among other things, the incidence of past and recent claims, the historical case dismissal rate, the mix of the claimed illnesses and occupations of the plaintiffs, its recent and historical resolution of the cases, the number of cases pending against it, the status and results of broad-based settlement discussions, and the number of years such activity might continue. Based on this review, the Company has estimated its share of liability to defend and resolve probable asbestos-related personal injury claims. This estimate is highly uncertain due to the limitations of the available data and the difficulty of forecasting with any certainty the numerous variables that can affect the range of the liability. The Company will continue to study the variables in light of additional information in order to identify trends that may become evident and to assess their impact on the range of liability that is probable and estimable. Based on actuarial information, the Company has estimated its asbestos-related aggregate liability including related legal costs to range between $7,000,000 and $12,000,000 using actuarial parameters of continued claims for a period of 18 to 30 years from March 31, 2014. The Company's estimation of its asbestos-related aggregate liability that is probable and estimable, in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles approximates $8,854,000, which has been reflected as a liability in the consolidated financial statements as of March 31, 2014. The recorded liability does not consider the impact of any potential favorable federal legislation. This liability will fluctuate based on the uncertainty in the number of future claims that will be filed and the cost to resolve those claims, which may be influenced by a number of factors, including the outcome of the ongoing broad-based settlement negotiations, defensive strategies, and the cost to resolve claims outside the broad-based settlement program. Of this amount, management expects to incur asbestos liability payments of approximately $2,000,000 over the next 12 months. Because payment of the liability is likely to extend over many years, management believes that the potential additional costs for claims will not have a material effect on the financial condition of the Company or its liquidity, although the effect of any future liabilities recorded could be material to earnings in a future period. Columbus McKinnon Corporation is a global designer, manufacturer and marketer of hoists, rigging tools, cranes, actuators, and other material handling products serving a range of commercial and industrial end user markets. The products include a range of electric, lever, hand and air-powered hoists, hoist trolleys, winches, industrial crane systems such as bridge, gantry and jib cranes; alloy and carbon steel chain; closed-die forged attachments, such as hooks, shackles, textile slings, clamps, logging tools and load binders; industrial components, such as mechanical and electromechanical actuators and rotary unions; below-the-hook special purpose lifters; tire shredders; and light- rail systems. The Company is a manufacturer and marketer of hoists, alloy and high strength carbon steel chain and attachments, and actuators in North America. In March 2014, Columbus McKinnon Corp acquired privately-owned Unified Industries, Inc. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Precision Castparts Has 94 PI Suits at March 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Precision Castparts Corp. had 94 pending asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended March 30, 2014. As of March 30, 2014, there were approximately 94 lawsuits pending against the Company alleging personal injury as the result of exposure to particulates, including asbestos, integrated into our premises or processes or into certain historical products. It is frequently not possible at the outset of a case to determine which of the plaintiffs actually will pursue a claim against the Company. Typically, that can only be determined through discovery after a case has been filed. Thus, in a case involving multiple plaintiffs, unless otherwise expressed in the pleadings, the Company accounts for the lawsuit as one claim against it. As of March 30, 2014, the Company has 42 new claims, and disposed of 12 claims. The Company considers that all such claims are tort claims while noting that some claims, such as those filed in West Virginia, were historically common law "employer liability" cases and are now based on a statutory definition of requisite intent. The Company states, "The particulates in question are no longer incorporated into our products, and we have implemented safety protocols to reduce exposure to remaining particulates in the workplace. Based on the information available to us at the date of filing of this report, we believe, based on our review of the facts and law, that the potential exposure from the resolution of any or all of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations, cash flows or business." Various claims and lawsuits arising during the normal course of business are pending against us. In the opinion of management, the outcome of these lawsuits will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations, cash flows or business. Precision Castparts Corp. (PCC) is a manufacturer of metal components and products, provides investment castings, forgings and fasteners/fastener systems for critical aerospace and industrial gas turbine (IGT) applications. It also provides aero- structures for the aerospace industry; investment castings and forgings for general industrial, armament, medical and other applications; nickel alloys in all standard mill forms from ingots and billets to plate, sheet, strip, tubing, bar and wire, as well as cobalt alloys, for the aerospace, chemical processing, oil and gas, pollution control and other industries; seamless pipe for coal-fired, industrial gas turbine, and nuclear power plants, as well as oil and gas applications; revert management solutions among others. In January 2014, Precision Castparts Corp acquired SOS Metals Inc., a provider of metal recycling services. In January 2014, the Company acquired Trans World Alloys Inc. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Upholds Ruling v. Garlock Sealing -------------------------------------------------------- Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLC, appeals the Marshall Circuit Court's judgment in favor of Ava Nell Dexter and James M. Dexter, executor of the estate of James G. "Dayton" Dexter. Dayton worked as a pipefitter from 1946 until 1984. During the course of his employment, Dayton was exposed to various products and materials that contained asbestos. Dayton was ultimately diagnosed with lung cancer, which was attributed to a combination of his occupational exposure to asbestos and his long-term cigarette smoking. At the conclusion of a trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the estate on both products liability and negligence. The trial court entered judgment in accordance with the jury verdict, ordering Garlock to pay the estate $874,507. The Court of Appeals of Kentucky, in an opinion dated Aug. 1, 2014, concluded that Garlock was not entitled to a directed verdict and that punitive damages were properly awarded. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment. The cases are GARLOCK SEALING TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Appellant, v. AVA NELL DEXTER, INDIVIDUALLY; AND JAMES M. DEXTER, EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF JAMES G. DEXTER, DECEASED, Appellees, AND GARLOCK SEALING TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Cross-Appellant, v. AVA NELL DEXTER, INDIVIDUALLY; AND JAMES M. DEXTER, EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF JAMES G. DEXTER, DECEASED, Cross-Appellees, NOS. 2006-CA-000918-MR, 2006-CA-001025-MR (Ky. App.). A full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/UmtBMDfrom Leagle.com. Trevor W. Wells, Louisville, Kentucky BRIEF FOR APPELLANT/CROSS- APPELLANT. Kenneth L. Sales, Louisville, Kentucky, BRIEF FOR APPELLEES/CROSS-APPELLEES. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 Cos. Obtain Summary Judgment in Take-Home Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In a "take-home" or "secondary" asbestos exposure case styled styled NORMA BOOTENHOFF and EUGENE BOOTENHOFF, Plaintiffs, v. HORMEL FOODS CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. CIV-11- 1368-D (W.D. Okla.), defendants Meadwestvaco Corporation and MW Custom Papers, LLC, and International Paper Company, filed motions for summary judgment. Judge Timothy D. DeGiusti of the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, granted the Defendants' motions for summary judgment, ruling that lack of foreseeability and additional policy considerations dictate that the Mead Defendants and IPC did not owe a duty of care to Norma Bootenhoff. Consequently, the Plaintiffs' negligence claim fails as a matter of law, Judge DeGiusti ruled. Because the Plaintiffs allege no other claims against the Mead Defendants and IPC, they are entitled to judgment in their favor and against Plaintiffs, Judge DeGiusti further ruled. A full-text copy of Judge DeGiusti's July 30, 2014, Decision pertaining to IPC is available at http://is.gd/hF9F1ufrom Leagle.com. A full-text copy of Judge DeGiusti's Aug. 1, 2014, Decision pertaining to the Mead Defendants is available at http://is.gd/bwF7oVfrom Leagle.com. Norma Bootenhoff and Eugene Bootenhoff, Plaintiffs, represented by: Alex Barlow, Esq. John B. Black, Esq. HEARD ROBINS CLOUD & BLACK LLP 2000 West Loop South, Suite 2200 Houston, TX 77027 Tel: (713) 650-1200 Fax: (713) 650-1400 - and - R Lyle Clemens, Esq. CLEMENS PATE LEEBRON & WOLFE International Paper Company Inc, Defendant, represented by Brita H Cantrell, Esq. -- brita.cantrell@mcafeetaft.com -- and Thomas E Steichen, Esq. -- tom.steichen@mcafeetaft.com -- at McAfee & Taft; and Kyle Christopher Steele, Esq., at Forman Perry Watkins Krutz & Tardy LLP. Meadwestvaco Corporation, Defendant, represented by: John D Cowan, Esq. Murray E Abowitz, Esq. ABOWITZ, TIMBERLAKE & DAHNKE, P.C. The Hightower Building, Tenth Floor 105 North Hudson Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Tel: (405) 236-4645 Fax: (405) 239-2843 Weyerhaeuser Company, Defendant, Pro Se. Cleaver-Brooks Inc, Defendant, represented by Clay White, Esq., at White Shaver; and James B Buxton, II, Esq., at Buxton Carson PLLC. MW Custom Papers LLC, Defendant, represented by John D Cowan, Esq., and Murray E Abowitz, Esq., at Abowitz Timberlake & Dahnke PC; and Kayce L. Gisinger, Esq., at Goolsby Proctor Heefner & Gibbs PC. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lorillard's Bid to Strike Allegations Denied ------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Kenneth A. Marra of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, in an opinion and order dated Aug. 1, 2014, denied Lorillard Tobacco Company's Motion to Strike Certain Allegations from the First Amended Complaint in the asbestos-related case styled HERBERT ROTHCHILD and AUDREY ROTHCHILD, his wife, Plaintiffs, v. CRANE CO., FOSTER WHEELER ENERGY CORPORATION; LORILLARD TOBACCO COMPANY; OWENS-ILLINOIS, INC., f/k/a OWENS BOTTLE MACHINE CORP., f/k/a OWENS BOTTLE CO., f/k/a OWENS-ILLINOIS GLASS CO.; UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, Defendants, CASE NO. 14-80271-CIV-MARRA (S.D. Fla.). A full-text copy of Judge Marra's Decision is available at http://is.gd/iOcGSA from Leagle.com. Herbert Rothchild and Audrey Rothchild, Plaintiffs, represented by James L. Ferraro, Esq., Marc Phillip Kunen, Esq., and James Louis Ferraro, Jr., Esq., at The Ferraro Law Firm. Crane Co., Defendant, represented by Rebecca Carrie Kibbe, Esq., and Kaylin S Grey, Esq., at K&L Gates. Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Defendant, represented by Tanya Michelle Lawson, Esq., at Sedgwick LLP. Owens-Illinois, Inc., Defendant, represented by Tracy Edward Tomlin, Esq., at Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP. Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant, represented by Matthew John Conigliaro, Esq., Stephen J. Krigbaum, Esq., and Ryan Stephen Cobbs, Esq., at Carlton Fields PA. Lorillard Tobacco Company, Defendant, represented by Sabrina R. Ferris, Esq., at Greenberg Traurig. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hawaii Court Affirms Order Denying Atty Fees ------------------------------------------------------------- Walter Y. Arakaki appeals from the April 18, 2013 "Order Denying Walter Y. Arakaki, General Contractor, Inc.'s Renewed Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees Because of Abusive Litigation Practices" entered in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit. Arakaki contends the circuit court should have awarded attorneys' fees because SCD-Olanani Corporation engaged in abusive litigation practices. Arakaki contends that SCD counsel's error regarding SCD's expenditures on clean-up and remediation of asbestos on the Property and the contents of the Clayton Report were evidence of SCD's bad faith. Arakaki notes that the Clayton Report stated that its "assessment has revealed no evidence of recognized environmental conditions in connection with this property." However, the Clayton Report further stated that five tiles containing asbestos were observed and that a "limited asbestos survey" had been conducted, but that the "asbestos sampling was limited in nature, and cannot be considered a comprehensive asbestos inspection. The results of the analyses should not be interpreted to include all asbestos or all building materials." At the March 13, 2013 hearing, SCD's counsel agreed with the circuit court that the Clayton Report was inconclusive as to the extent of asbestos contamination. The Intermediate Court of Appeals of Hawai'I affirmed the ruling after holding that SCD's counsel disclosed his error to the circuit court at the March 13, 2013 hearing and the allegations of bad faith litigation practices did not extend to SCD's counsel. The case is WALTER Y. ARAKAKI, GENERAL CONTRACTOR, INC., A HAWAI'I CORPORATION, Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant/Appellant, v. SCD- OLANANI CORPORATION, A HAWAI'I CORPORATION, STANFORD S. CARR, Defendants/Cross-Claim Defendants/Appellees, and GE CAPITAL HAWAI'I, INC., A HAWAI'I CORPORATION, Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff/Cross-Claim Plaintiff/Appellee, and STEPHEN H. SWIFT, Defendant/Cross-Claim Defendant/Appellee, and JOHN DOES 1-10, JANE DOES 1-10, DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-10, DOE CORPORATIONS 1-10, DOE ENTITIES 11-10, AND DOE GOVERNMENTAL UNITS 1-10, Defendants, GE CAPITAL HAWAI'I, INC., A HAWAI'I CORPORATION, Defendant/Third- Party Plaintiff/Appellee, v. STANFORD CARR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, A HAWAI'I CORPORATION, Defendant/Third-Party Defendant/Appellee, NO. CAAP-13-0000809 (Haw. App.). A full-text copy of the Decision dated July 31, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/5bDqGIfrom Leagle.com. Melvin Y. Agena, and Brian K. Yomono, for Plaintiff/Counterclaim, Defendant/Appellant. Lyle S. Hosoda, Raina P.B. Gushiken, (Hosoda & Morikone), for Defendants/Cross-Claim, Defendants/Appellees. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court Allows Inmate to Amend Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Richard L. Arnold, an inmate at San Quentin State Prison, filed a pro se civil rights action, alleging, among other things, that he was required to work in an area containing asbestos without being provided proper training and proper protective gear to shield him against asbestos exposure. Judge Edward M. Chen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on July 28, 2014, issued an order of dismissal with leave to amend. The case is RICHARD L. ARNOLD, Plaintiff, v. BRAD SMITH; et al., Defendants, NO. C-13-4456 EMC (PR)(N.D. Calif.). A full-text copy of Judge Chen's Decision is available at http://is.gd/ktElPVfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. Court Junks Duplicative Suit v. Arrowood -------------------------------------------------------------- In 2010, a judgment was entered against The C.P. Hall Company in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, McLean County, Illinois, Case No. 10-L-38, in the amount of $3,000,000, in favor of Janet Shipley for injuries from her exposure to Hall's asbestos products. Arrowood Indemnity Company is the successor by merger to Security Insurance Company of Hartford and New Amsterdam Casualty Company, both of whom had extended Hall insurance coverage through certain general liability policies. As the successor to Security Insurance Company of Hartford and New Amsterdam Casualty Company, Arrowood assumed the companies' obligations to Hall arising under their general liability insurance policies, such as the obligation to indemnify Hall for certain types of judgments like the one obtained in the Shipley Action. Plaintiff, James Shipley, acting individually and as the independent executor of the estate of the now-deceased Janet Shipley, filed a garnishment summons in the Shipley Action in May 2011, seeking garnishment from Arrowood and another of Hall's insurers, Great American Insurance Company, pursuant to the judgment against Hall in the Shipley Action. Magistrate Judge Schanzle-Haskins issued a Report & Recommendation recommending dismissal of the action. Judge Joe Billy McDade of the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois, Peoria Division, adopted in part and dismissed in part the Magistrate Judge's Report & Recommendation because the matter is duplicative of Shipley v. Hall, et. al., No. 14-cv-1175. The case is ARROWOOD INDEMNITY COMPANY, Plaintiff/Garnishee, v. JAMES SHIPLEY, Individually and as Independent Executor of the Estate of Janet Shipley, Deceased, Defendant/Garnishor, and THE C.P. HALL COMPANY, Defendant, CASE NO. 11-CV-1220 (C.D. Ill.). A full-text copy of Judge McDade's Decision dated July 25, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/v8J4C6from Leagle.com. Arrowood Indemnity Company, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew Keith Moskowitz, Esq. -- keith.moskowitz@dentons.com -- and John I Grossbart, Esq. -- john.grossbart@dentons.com -- at Dentons US LLP. James Shipley, Defendant, represented by John A Slevin, Esq. -- jslevin@vltslaw.com -- and M Michael Waters, Esq., at Vonachen Lawless Trager & Slevin. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Affirms Judgments for CalPortland, Kaiser ---------------------------------------------------------------- After Loren A. Collin was diagnosed with mesothelioma, he and his wife Verna Lee Collin sued 22 entities for negligence, strict liability, false representation, intentional tort/failure to warn, alter ego, and loss of consortium, alleging Loren was exposed to asbestos from the defendants' products or activities when he worked in various construction trades. The Plaintiff now appeals from the grant of summary judgment in favor of four defendants: CalPortland Company, Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc., J-M Manufacturing Company, Inc., and Formosa Plastics Corporation USA, named as an alter ego of J-MM. The Court of Appeals of California, Third District, Sacramento, on July 1, 2014, affirmed the judgments in favor of CalPortland and Kaiser Gypsum. The Court of Appeals reversed the judgments in favor of J-MM and Formosa, holding that J-MM and Formosa failed to persuade the Court that they are entitled to summary adjudication as a matter of law based on the sophisticated user defense or because the lack of warnings was not a legal cause for Loren's injuries The cases are VERNA LEE COLLIN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CALPORTLAND COMPANY et al., Defendants and Respondents, VERNA LEE COLLIN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. J-M MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC., Defendant and Respondent, NOS. C063875, C065180 (Cal. App.). Paul B. Cook, Esq., and Michael B. Gurien, Esq., at Waters, Kraus & Paul, for Plaintiff and Appellant. Robert H. Berkes, Esq., Steven M. Crane, Esq., and Barbara S. Hodous, Esq., at Berkes Crane Robinson & Seal, for Defendant and Respondent CalPortland Company. Lisa Perrochet, Esq., and Dean A. Bochner, Esq., at Horvitz & Levy; and Jennifer Judin, Esq., at DeHay & Elliston, for Defendant and Respondent Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc. Helen M. Luetto, Esq., and Ingrid K. Campagne, Esq., at Walsworth Franklin Bevins & McCall, for Defendants and Respondents J-M Manufacturing Company, Inc. and Formosa Plastics Corporation USA. ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Fisher" Suit Remanded to State Court ------------------------------------------------------ Ralph Fisher filed an action for personal injury, allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos and asbestos-containing products, against more than two dozen corporate defendants and their alternate entities conducting business in the State of California. Although the case was initially filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court, the defendant, Crane Co. has removed the action to federal court. Fisher filed a motion to remand. Judge William G. Young of the United States District Court for the Central District of California granted Fisher's motion to remand the case to Los Angeles County Superior Court after determining that Fisher promptly has clarified that no claim exists against Crane that would warrant a federal defense. The case is RALPH FISHER, Plaintiff, v. ASBESTOS CORPORATION LIMITED, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 2:14-CV-02338-WGY- (FFMX)(C.D. Calif.). A full-text copy of the Decision dated July 30, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/ENH7gEfrom Leagle.com. Ralph Fisher, Plaintiff, represented by Alan R Brayton, Esq., David R Donadio, Esq., Kimberly J Chu, Esq., and Richard M Grant, Esq., at Brayton Purcell LLP. Trane US Inc, Defendant, represented by Carla Lynn Crochet, Esq., Jeremy David Milbrodt, Esq., and Arpi Galfayan, Esq., at Prindle Amaro Goetz Hillyard Barnes and Reinholtz LLP. Cleaver-Brooks Inc, Defendant, represented by Gary D Sharp, Esq., Melanie L Ameele, Esq., and Shaun E Swiger, Esq., at Foley and Mansfield PLLP. Crane Co, Defendant, represented by Geoffrey M Davis, Esq., Henley J Hansen, Esq., and Stephen P Farkas, Esq., at K&L Gates LLP. Foster Wheeler LLC, Defendant, represented by Charles S Park, Esq., and Thomas Jeffrey Moses, Esq., at Brydon Hugo and Parker. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Kirsten Hicks Spira, Esq., and Lisa Marie Dowling, Esq., at Steptoe and Johnson LLP. CBS Corporation, Defendant, represented by Erin N Empting, Esq., Kevin D Jamison, Esq., and Kimberly Lynn Rivera, Esq., at Pond North LLP. Bayer Cropscience Inc, Defendant, represented by Deanna Mayer Voziyan, Esq., at McKenna Long and Aldridge LLP; and Farah Sohaili Nicol, Esq., Lesa M Meyers, Esq., Ryan S Landis, Esq., and Stephen M Nichols, Esq., at Polsinelli LLP. Weil McLain Company, Defendant, represented by David M Glaspy, Esq., and Gary F Lundry, Esq., at Law Offices of Glaspy and Glaspy Inc. Oakfabco Inc, Defendant, represented by David M Uchida, Esq., Karen Lynn Finateri Silbiger, Esq., and Rod J Cappy, Esq., at Selman Breitman LLP. ITT Corporation, Defendant, represented by Arpi Galfayan, Esq., Carla Lynn Crochet, Esq., and Jeremy David Milbrodt, Esq., at Prindle Amaro Goetz Hillyard Barnes and Reinholtz LLP. Carrier Corporation, Defendant, represented by John K Son, Esq., at Tucker Ellis LLP. York International Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey W Deane, Esq., Jerry C Popovich, Esq., and Lara M Kruska, Esq., at Selman Breitman LLP. Avocet Enterprises Inc, Defendant, represented by Henry D Rome, Esq., and Ryan Kujawski, Esq., at Howard Rome Martin &and Ridley LLP. Duro Dyne Corporation, Defendant, represented by Karen Patricia Agelson, Esq., Jennifer A Cormier, Esq., and Sean Christopher McGah, Esq., at Walsworth Franklin Bevins and McCall LLP. SPX Colling Technologies Inc, Defendant, represented by Michael Joseph Estrada, Esq., and Roger P Downes, Esq., at Vasquez Estrada and Conway LLP. W. W. Grainger Inc, Defendant, represented by Peter Burton Logan, Esq., at Logan Law Group PC. AAF-McQuay Inc, Defendant, represented by Stephen Jude Kelley, Esq., Susan Victoria Vargas, Esq., and John Andrew Eberlein, Esq., at Bowman and Brooke LLP. J. T. Thorpe & Son Inc, Defendant, represented by Reshma A Bajaj, Esq., at Bassi Edlin Huie and Blum LLP. Fluor Corporation, Defendant, represented by Douglas G Wah, Esq., Thomas J Tarkoff, Esq., and Lauren C McLeod, Esq., at Foley and Mansfield PLLP. Syd Carpenter Marine Contractor Inc, Defendant, represented by Arpi Galfayan, Esq., Carla Lynn Crochet, Esq., and Jeremy David Milbrodt, Esq., at Prindle Amaro Goetz Hillyard Barnes and Reinholtz LLP. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court Upholds Ruling in FEHA Suit --------------------------------------------------------- George Gerber, Jr., appeals from the judgment after the court granted the summary judgment motions of defendants and respondents Sweetwater Union High School District and Gary Gauger, Henry "John" Allshouse, Todd Torgerson, Mike Kelley, Vincent Andrilli, Fred Ferguson, Jr., Rip Courter and Jesus Gandara, on Gerber's claims under the Fair Employment and Housing Act and related employment tort claims. Gerber contended that in January, February and March 2006, per District policy, he reported to his supervisors the presence of asbestos at several repair sites within the District. In early March 2006, Gerber sought medical treatment for exposure to asbestos while making a repair at a District school. According to Gerber, Allshouse was "furious" with him for seeking medical attention regarding his alleged exposure to asbestos. In mid- March 2006, Gerber filed a complaint with OSHA regarding the safety and asbestos issues he had encountered during his employment with the District. Gerber reported the District and its supervisors were retaliating against him for reporting these safety issues and as such, his work environment was becoming increasingly hostile. According to Gerber, the retaliation became worse as he continued to report ongoing safety violations within the District, including additional reports of asbestos, to supervisors Allshouse, Kelley and Courter. The Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division One, in a decision dated July 29, 2014, concluded that the lower court properly granted the motions for summary judgment in favor of the District and the individual defendants. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals affirmed. The case is GEORGE R. GERBER, JR., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SWEETWATER UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT et al., Defendants and Respondents, NO. D063576 (Cal. App.). A full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/JGFBJBfrom Leagle.com. Amelia A. McDermott, Esq., Donald R. Holben, Esq., and William Pabarcus, Esq., at Donald R. Holben & Associates, for Plaintiff and Appellant. Daniel R. Shinoff, Esq., Paul V. Carelli IV, Esq., and Lee T. Patajo IV, Esq., at Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz, for Defendants and Respondents. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Diversified Directed to Pay Workers' Benefits -------------------------------------------------------------- The lead case in the consolidated action was commenced by the Trustees of various employee benefit plans for Local 282 against defendant Diversified Carting, Inc., to recover delinquent fringe benefit contributions and union dues required to be paid pursuant to a series of Collective Bargaining Agreements between the parties. The CBAs expressly provide that the Employer is bound to the Trust Agreement as well. Under the terms of the Trust Agreement, if an Employer fails to remit required contributions, it is liable for payment of those contributions in addition to interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs. The Employer is further required to submit to periodic audits. Magistrate Judge William D. Wall of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York issued a memorandum and order dated July 31, 2014, ruling that the Plaintiffs have established unpaid contributions in the total amount of $122,144. The magistrate judge directed the Plaintiffs to submit additional documentation regarding interest, liquidated damages, costs and auditors' fees. In addition, magistrate judge directed the Plaintiffs to submit a request for reasonable attorneys' fees, including all documentation necessary to support a request. The case is THOMAS GESUALDI, ANTHONY D'AQUILA, LOUIS BISIGNANO, MICHAEL O'TOOLE, BENNY UMBRA, JOSEPH FERRARA, FRANK FINKEL, MARC HERBST, DENISE RICHARDSON and THOMAS CORBETT as Trustees and Fiduciaries of the Local 282 Welfare, Pension, Annuity, Job Training, and Vacation and Sick Leave Trust Funds, Plaintiffs, v. DIVERSIFIED CARTING, INC., Defendant, NO. CV 10-2561 (WDW)(E.D.N.Y.). Thomas Gesualdi, Frank Finkel, Trustees of Local 282 International Brotherhood of Teamsters Welfare, Pension, Annuity, Job Training and Vacation Sick Leave Trust Funds, Anthony D'Aquila, Louis Bisignano, Benny Umbra, Michael O'Toole, Joseph Ferrara, Marc Herbst, Denise Richardson, Thomas Corbett, as Trustees and Fiduciaries of the Local 282 Welfare, Pension, Annuity, Job Training, and Vacation and Sick Trust Funds, Consol Plaintiff, represented by James Robert Grisi, Esq., at Trivella & Forte LLP. Diversified Carting, Inc., Defendant, represented by Ira A. Sturm, Esq., at Raab Sturm & Goldman, LLP. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ariz. Court Allows Inmate to Amend Suit -------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Kevin Jason Groch, who is confined in the Maricopa County Durango Jail, filed a pro se civil rights complaint alleging, among other things, the presence of asbestos and black mold in vents and duct work in the facility. Judge David G. Campbell of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona granted the plaintiff's Application to Proceed and dismissed the Complaint with leave to amend. The case is Kevin Jason Groch, Plaintiff, v. Joseph M. Arpaio, Defendant, NO. CV 14-1469-PHX-DGC (MEA)(D. Ariz.). A full-text copy of Judge Campbell's Decision dated July 28, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/q0Mgzhfrom Leagle.com. ********* 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 * * *