/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/140910.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, September 10, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 180 Headlines 7-ELEVEN INC: Refused to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Suit Claims ABBVIE INC: Defendant in Niaspan Antitrust Litigation ABBVIE INC: Court Dismisses RICO Claims in Sidney Hillman Suit ABBVIE INC: Private Plaintiffs' AndroGel Claims in Discovery ALLSTATE INSURANCE: 9th Cir. Upheld Class Cert in Overtime Case AMERISOURCEBERGEN CORPORATION: Recognized Gains From Class Action ATLANTIC POWER: Seeks Dismissal of U.S. Shareholder Class Suits ATLANTIC POWER: March 2015 Hearing in Ontario Class Action ATLANTIC POWER: Quebec Class Action Stayed Until March 2015 AUDIENCE INC: Faces IPO Class Action in California Superior Court AUXILIUM PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Class Actions Over QLT Merger AUXILIUM PHARMACEUTICALS: 37 Actions Filed Over TRT Products BANK OF AMERICA: Antitrust MDL Over Credit Default Swaps Advances BAYER AG: Siskinds LLP Launches Class Action Over Pesticides BCB BANCORP: Final Resolution Pursued in "Kube" Class Action BCB BANCORP: Sued Insurer for Indemnification in "Kube" Action BOULDER BRANDS: Settled "Fat Free Milk" Suits for $0.3 Million BOULDER BRANDS: Sued Over Butter & Canola Oil Blend Products BOUYGUES CIVIL: Removed "Bermudez" Class Suit to S.D. Florida BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Motion for Class Certification Due CARLYLE GROUP: Oral Arguments Held on Class Cert Bid CARLYLE GROUP: Appeals Court Affirmed Dismissal of Complaints CELERA CORP: Settles Shareholder Class Action for $25 Million DYNEGY INC: Plaintiff Appeals Dismissal of Stockholder Suit DYNEGY INC: Oral Arguments Not Yet Set in Supreme Court Appeal EB & JB CORP: Moved "Abreu" Suit to Southern District of Florida ENERGY TRANSFER: MOU Reached in Suits Over PVR Merger ENERGY TRANSFER: Suit Filed Over Acquisition of Eagle Rock Assets ENSIGN GROUP: Settlement Costs Projected to be $6.5 Million EQUAL ENERGY: Filed Motion to Dismiss Cooke et al. Class Suits EQUAL ENERGY: Filed Motion to Dismiss Weelden et al Class Suits FAIRWAY GROUP: Amended Securities Class Action Filed FAIRWAY GROUP: Faces Wage and Hour Class Action Lawsuit FOSTER WHEELER: Faces Class Actions Over AMEC Plc Acquisition GALECTIN THERAPEUTICS: Facing Securities Class Action GDF SUEZ: Fire Inquiry Raises Serious Questions Over Conduct GENERAL MOTORS: Lawyers to Get C$1.9MM Fees in Class Action GLOBAL TEL*LINK: Faces Class Suit in Western District of Arkansas GOLD RESOURCE: Dismissal of Securities Litigation on Appeal IGNITE RESTAURANT: Settled Suit Over Financial Statements JFK MEDICAL: Cohen Milstein Files Suit Over Exborbitant PIP Fees KKR & CO: Discovery Ongoing in Class Action Over Primedia Sale KKR & CO: Class Actions in Georgia State Courts Remain Stayed KKR & CO: P/E Firms Inked Definitive Agreement to Settle Claims KKR & CO: Chancery Court Heard Oral Arguments on Dismissal Bid KODIAK OIL: "Booth" Suit Removed to Colorado District Court KOPPERS HOLDINGS: 62 Cases Pending Over Coal Tar Pitch Exposure KOPPERS HOLDINGS: Nov. 21 Deadline to Complete Class Discovery LAS VEGAS SANDS: Consolidated Class Action in Preliminary Stage LHC GROUP: Approval of Class Action Settlement Pending LINN ENERGY: Settlement Fund Distribution Seen Later This Year LINN ENERGY: SDNY Court Dismissed Combined Actions in July LINN ENERGY: Briefing and Hearing on Class Cert. Not Yet Set MANHEIM TOWNSHIP, PA: Sued Over Excessive "Water-Tapping Fees" NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Wins Initial Approval of $60-Mil. Settlement NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Faces Class Action Over Duration of Scholarships NELNET INC: Class Not Yet Certified in Bais Yaakov Action NELNET INC: Class Not Yet Certified in "Zaw" Action NELNET INC: Class Not Yet Certified in "Keating" Action NINE WEST: Disciplined Ex-Worker on Spurious Charges, Suit Says OKLAHOMA CITY, OK: Removed "Coker" Class Suit to W.D. Oklahoma OSCAR O. REY: Removed "Pastrana" Class Suit to S.D. Florida PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Preliminary Approval of Settlement Granted PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: "Huffman" Class Action Remains Stayed PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Court Dismissed ADR-Related Complaint PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Class Sought in Sterling Heights Case QUORUM HEALTH: Trial Begins in Malpractice Case v. Schlicht REACHLOCAL INC: Former Client Files Class Action in Calif. ROBERT MCDONNELL: Convicted of Conspiracy and Public Corruption STEREOTAXIS INC: Plaintiffs Did Not Appeal Case Dismissal TENNESSEE: Class Certified in Suit Over TennCare Delays TRAVELLOOGA LLC: Removed "Wright" Suit to Florida District Court UNI-PIXEL INC: To Defend Against Texas Class Action UNI-PIXEL INC: Reported Decrease in Legal Expense UNILEVER US: Judge Trims Deceptive Labeling Class Action UNITED EGG: Faces Antitrust Suit Over Sale of Eggs & Egg Products US BANK: Sued for Duping Homebuyers by Giving High-Interest Loans US BANK: Unlawfully Charges Forced Placed Insurance, Suit Claims WARNER MUSIC: Suits Over Digital Music Downloads in Discovery WARNER MUSIC: Jan. 2015 Final Hearing on Royalties Suit Accord YELP INC: 9th Cir. Tosses Bid to Revive User Reviews Class Action * Surgical "Black Box" May Spur Wave of Malpractice Concerns ********* 7-ELEVEN INC: Refused to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Edwin Garcia v. 7-Eleven, Inc., Armando's Service Station, Incorporated, Sarah Brito, and Hassan Rahal, Case No. 1:14-cv- 23241-DPG (S.D. Fla., September 3, 2014) alleges that the Defendants willfully and intentionally refused to pay the Plaintiff wages at a rate of time and one-half times her regular rate of pay for each of the overtime hours she worked during the relevant time period. 7-Eleven, Inc., is a sui juris Texas for-profit business with multiple places of business in Miami-Dade County, Florida, that conducts its for-profit business in Florida. Armandos Service Station, Incorporated, is a sui juris Florida for-profit business with its principal place of business in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Sarah Brito is the owner and operator of Armandos. Hassan Rahal is the owner and operator of a 7-Eleven convenience store. The Defendants sell produce, foodstuffs, beverages, goods, supplies and products. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian H. Pollock, Esq. FAIRLAW FIRM 8603 S. Dixie Highway, Suite 408 Miami, FL 33143 Telephone: (305) 230-4884 Facsimile: (305) 230-4844 E-mail: brian@fairlawattorney.com ABBVIE INC: Defendant in Niaspan Antitrust Litigation ----------------------------------------------------- AbbVie Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that lawsuits have been filed against AbbVie and others generally alleging that the 2005 patent litigation settlement involving Niaspan(R) entered into between Kos Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (a company acquired by Abbott Laboratories in 2006 and presently a subsidiary of AbbVie) and a generic company violates federal and state antitrust laws and state unfair and deceptive trade practices and unjust enrichment laws. Plaintiffs generally seek monetary damages and/or injunctive relief and attorneys' fees. In September 2013, all of these pending putative class action lawsuits were centralized for consolidated or coordinated pre-trial proceedings in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under the Multi-District Litigation Rules as In re Niaspan Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2460. AbbVie is a global, research-based biopharmaceutical company. AbbVie develops and markets advanced therapies that address some of the world's most complex and serious diseases. AbbVie products are used to treat chronic autoimmune diseases, including rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, and Crohn's disease; HIV; endometriosis; thyroid disease; Parkinson's disease; and complications associated with chronic kidney disease and cystic fibrosis, among other health conditions such as low testosterone. AbbVie also has a pipeline of promising new medicines, including more than 20 compounds or indications in Phase II or Phase III development across such important medical specialties as immunology, virology/liver disease, oncology, renal disease, neurological diseases and women's health. ABBVIE INC: Court Dismisses RICO Claims in Sidney Hillman Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- AbbVie Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that a putative class action lawsuit, Sidney Hillman Health Center of Rochester, et al. v. AbbVie Inc., et al., was filed in August 2013 against AbbVie in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois by three healthcare benefit providers alleging violations of federal RICO statutes and state deceptive business practice and unjust enrichment laws in connection with reimbursements for certain uses of Depakote from 1998 to 2012. Plaintiffs seek monetary damages and/or equitable relief and attorneys' fees. On May 12, 2014, the court granted AbbVie's motion to dismiss the federal RICO claims. The court declined to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims and dismissed them on that basis. AbbVie's motion for reconsideration asking the court to exercise jurisdiction and dismiss the state law claims on the merits is pending. AbbVie is a global, research-based biopharmaceutical company. AbbVie develops and markets advanced therapies that address some of the world's most complex and serious diseases. AbbVie products are used to treat chronic autoimmune diseases, including rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, and Crohn's disease; HIV; endometriosis; thyroid disease; Parkinson's disease; and complications associated with chronic kidney disease and cystic fibrosis, among other health conditions such as low testosterone. AbbVie also has a pipeline of promising new medicines, including more than 20 compounds or indications in Phase II or Phase III development across such important medical specialties as immunology, virology/liver disease, oncology, renal disease, neurological diseases and women's health. ABBVIE INC: Private Plaintiffs' AndroGel Claims in Discovery ------------------------------------------------------------ AbbVie Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that several pending lawsuits filed against Unimed Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (a company Abbott acquired in February 2010 and now known as AbbVie Products LLC) and others were consolidated for pre-trial purposes in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia under the Multi District Litigation Rules as In re AndroGel Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2084. These cases, brought by private plaintiffs and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), generally allege Solvay's 2006 patent litigation involving AndroGel was sham litigation and the patent litigation settlement agreement and related agreements with three generic companies violate federal and state antitrust laws and state consumer protection and unjust enrichment laws. Plaintiffs generally seek monetary damages and/or injunctive relief and attorneys' fees. MDL 2084 includes: (a) three individual plaintiff lawsuits; (b) seven purported class actions; and (c) Federal Trade Commission v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. , filed in May 2009 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. Following the district court's dismissal of all plaintiffs' claims, the FTC's appeal led to its claim regarding the patent litigation settlement being reinstated. In February 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit remanded the private plaintiffs' claims regarding the patent litigation settlement, which are proceeding with the FTC's in discovery in the district court. AbbVie is a global, research-based biopharmaceutical company. AbbVie develops and markets advanced therapies that address some of the world's most complex and serious diseases. AbbVie products are used to treat chronic autoimmune diseases, including rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, and Crohn's disease; HIV; endometriosis; thyroid disease; Parkinson's disease; and complications associated with chronic kidney disease and cystic fibrosis, among other health conditions such as low testosterone. AbbVie also has a pipeline of promising new medicines, including more than 20 compounds or indications in Phase II or Phase III development across such important medical specialties as immunology, virology/liver disease, oncology, renal disease, neurological diseases and women's health. ALLSTATE INSURANCE: 9th Cir. Upheld Class Cert in Overtime Case --------------------------------------------------------------- The 9th Circuit refused on September 3, 2014, to decertify a class of workers who say that Allstate Insurance required California claim adjustors to work unpaid overtime, reports Elizabeth Warmerdam, writing for Courthouse News Service. Allstate shifted all of its California-based claims adjusters from salaried positions to hourly status in 2005. Instead of having the adjusters keep time records, however, Allstate empowers the manager of each of the 13 local offices "to file a timekeeping 'exception' or 'deviation' from the default expectation of 8 hours per day and 40 hours per week," lead plaintiff Jack Jimenez claimed. Each office has a non-negotiable compensation budget, however, so the amount of overtime a manager may approve is allegedly functionally limited. Jimenez wanted to represent a class alleging that Allstate did not pay overtime to current and former California-based claims adjusters, did not pay adjusters for missed meal breaks, and did not timely pay wages upon termination. He also alleged that Allstate committed acts of unfair competition. U.S. District Court Judge John Kronstadt certified the class with respect to the unpaid overtime, timely payment and unfair competition claims. He found that the question of whether Allstate had an "unofficial policy" of denying overtime while requiring overtime work was common among potential class members, and that the issue predominated over any individualized matters, such as damages a particular class member might be able to prove. Affirming on September 3, 2014, a three-judge panel with the 9th Circuit said the three common questions identified have the capacity to drive the resolution of the litigation. "First, the District Court found that the plaintiffs' arguments had raised the common question of whether the class had worked unpaid overtime as a result of 'defendant's unofficial policy of discouraging reporting of such overtime, defendant's failure to reduce class members' workload after the reclassification, and defendant's policy of treating their pay as salaries for which overtime was an 'exception," Judge Ronald Gould wrote for the court in Pasadena. Resolving whether Allstate knew that the class was working unpaid overtime could also show whether Allstate is liable, and the third common question is whether "defendants stood idly by." "The District Court did not abuse its discretion in determining that these three common questions contained the 'glue' necessary to say that 'examination of all the class members' claim for relief will produce a common answer to the crucial question[s]' raised by the plaintiffs' complaint," Gould wrote. Relying on statistical-sampling testimony to show classwide liability also does not contradict the U.S. Supreme Court's 2011 ruling in Wal-Mart Stores Inc. v. Duke, which entitles employers "to individualized determination of each employee's eligibility for backpay," the panel found. Since that decision, "circuit courts including this one have consistently held that statistical sampling and representative testimony are acceptable ways to determine liability so long as the use of these techniques is not expanded into the realm of damages," Gould wrote. In this case, "the District Court was careful to preserve Allstate's opportunity to raise any individualized defense it might have at the damages phase of the proceedings," he added. "It rejected the plaintiffs' motion to use representative testimony and sampling at the damages phase, and bifurcated the proceedings. This split preserved both Allstate's due process right to present individualized defenses to damages claims and the plaintiffs' ability to pursue class certification on liability issues based on the common questions of whether Allstate's practices or informal policies violated California labor law." The Plaintiff-Appellee is represented by: Alexander R. Wheeler R. Rex Parris Kitty Szeto Jacob L. Karczewski John M. Bickford R. REX PARRIS LAW FIRM 43364 10th Street West Lancaster, CA 93534 Telephone: (661) 465-4046 Facsimile: (661) 949-7524 E-mail: awheeler@rrexparris.com kszeto@rrexparris.com jacoblee333@yahoo.com jbickford@rrexparris.com The Defendant-Appellant is represented by: James M. Harris, Esq. Andrew M. Paley, Esq. Sheryl L. Skibbe, Esq. John R. Giovannone, Esq. Kiran Aftab Seldon, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP One Century Plaza, Suite 3500 2029 Century Park East Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021 Telephone: (310) 277-7200 Facsimile: (310) 201-5219 E-mail: jmharris@seyfarth.com apaley@seyfarth.com sskibbe@seyfarth.com jgiovannone@seyfarth.com kseldon@seyfarth.com Amici Curiae The Consumer Attorneys of California, California Employment Lawyers Association, and The Impact Fund are represented by: Gretchen M. Nelson, Esq. KREINDLER & KREINDLER LLP 707 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 622-6469 E-mail: gnelson@kreindler.com - and - David M. Arbogast, Esq. ARBOGAST BOWEN LLP 11400 W. Olympic Blvd., 2nd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90064 Telephone: (310) 477-7200 Facsimile: (310) 943-2309 E-mail: david@arbogastbowen.com The appellate case is Jack Jimenez, individually and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff- Appellee v. Allstate Insurance Company, an Illinois corporation, Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 12-56112, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The original case is Jack Jimenez v. Allstate Insurance Company, Case No. 2:10-cv-08486-JAK- FFM, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. AMERISOURCEBERGEN CORPORATION: Recognized Gains From Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Amerisourcebergen Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that numerous class action lawsuits have been filed against certain brand pharmaceutical manufacturers alleging that the manufacturer, by itself or in concert with others, took improper actions to delay or prevent generic drugs from entering the market. The Company has not been named a plaintiff in any of these class actions, but has been a member of the direct purchasers' class (i.e., those purchasers who purchase directly from these pharmaceutical manufacturers). None of the class actions have gone to trial, but some have settled in the past with the Company receiving proceeds from the settlement funds. During the three and nine months ended June 30, 2014, the Company recognized gains of $2.5 million and $24.4 million, respectively, relating to the class action lawsuits. During the three and nine months ended June 30, 2013, the Company recognized gains of $6.0 million and $21.7 million, respectively, relating to the class action lawsuits. These gains, which are net of attorney fees and estimated payments due to other parties, were recorded as reductions to cost of goods sold in the Company's consolidated statements of operations. The Company is one of the largest global pharmaceutical sourcing and distribution services companies, helping both healthcare providers and pharmaceutical and biotech manufacturers improve patient access to products and enhance patient care. ATLANTIC POWER: Seeks Dismissal of U.S. Shareholder Class Suits --------------------------------------------------------------- Atlantic Power Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that on March 8, 14, 15 and 25, 2013 and April 23, 2013, five purported securities fraud class action complaints were filed by alleged investors in Atlantic Power common shares in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (the "District Court") against Atlantic Power and Barry E. Welch, our President and Chief Executive Officer and a Director of Atlantic Power, in each of the actions, and, in addition to Mr. Welch, some or all of Patrick J. Welch, the Company's former Chief Financial Officer, Lisa Donahue, former interim Chief Financial Officer, and Terrence Ronan, current Chief Financial Officer, in certain of the actions (the "Proposed Individual Defendants," and together with Atlantic Power, the "Proposed Defendants") (the "U.S. Actions"). The District Court complaints differed in terms of the identities of the Proposed Individual Defendants they named, the named plaintiffs, and the purported class period they alleged (July 23, 2010 to March 4, 2013 in three of the District Court actions and August 8, 2012 to February 28, 2013 in the other two District Court actions), but in general each alleged, among other things, that in Atlantic Power's press releases, quarterly and year-end filings and conference calls with analysts and investors, Atlantic Power and the Proposed Individual Defendants made materially false and misleading statements and omissions regarding the sustainability of Atlantic Power's common share dividend that artificially inflated the price of Atlantic Power's common shares. The District Court complaints assert claims under Section 10(b) and, against the Proposed Individual Defendants, under Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The parties to each District Court action filed joint motions requesting that the District Court set a schedule in the District Court actions, including: (i) setting a deadline for the lead plaintiff to file a consolidated amended class action complaint (the "Amended Complaint"), after the appointment of lead plaintiff and counsel; (ii) setting a deadline for Proposed Defendants to answer, file a motion to dismiss or otherwise respond to the Amended Complaint (and for subsequent briefing regarding any such motion to dismiss); and (iii) confirming that the Proposed Defendants need not answer, move to dismiss or otherwise respond to any of the five District Court complaints prior to the filing of the Amended Complaint. On May 7, 2013, each of six groups of investors (the "U.S. Lead Plaintiff Applicants") filed a motion (collectively, the "U.S. Lead Plaintiff Motions") with the District Court seeking: (i) to consolidate the five U.S. Actions (the "Consolidated U.S. Action"); (ii) to be appointed lead plaintiff in the Consolidated U.S. Action; and (iii) to have its choice of lead counsel confirmed. On May 22, 2013, three of the U.S. Lead Plaintiff Applicants filed oppositions to the other U.S. Lead Plaintiff Motions, and on June 6, 2013, those three Lead Plaintiff Applicants filed replies in support of their respective motions. On August 19, 2013, the District Court held a status conference to address certain issues raised by the U.S. Lead Plaintiff Motions, entered an order consolidating the five U.S. Actions, and directed two of the six U.S. Lead Plaintiff Applicants to file supplemental submissions by September 9, 2013. Both of those U.S. Lead Plaintiff Applicants filed the requested supplemental submissions, and then sought leave to file additional briefing. The Court granted those requests for leave and additional submissions were filed on September 13 and September 18, 2013. On March 31, 2014, the Court entered an order consolidating the five individual U.S. Actions, appointing the Feldman, Shapero, Carter and Smith investor group (one of the six U.S. Lead Plaintiffs Applicants) as Lead Plaintiff and approving Lead Plaintiff's selection of counsel. The Court also granted the parties' joint motion regarding initial case scheduling and directed the parties to resubmit a proposed schedule that contains specific dates. In response to that directive, on April 7, 2014, Lead Plaintiff filed an application and proposed order, which sought an extension of the schedule contained in the joint motion. The application and proposed order requested that: (i) Lead Plaintiff be permitted to file an amended complaint on or before May 30, 2014, (ii) the Proposed Defendants be permitted to move to dismiss or otherwise respond to the amended complaint on or before July 29, 2014, (iii) Lead Plaintiff be permitted to file an opposition, if any, on or before September 24, 2014, and (iv) the Proposed Defendants be permitted to file a reply to Lead Plaintiff's opposition on or before November 13, 2014. Proposed Defendants did not object to the schedule proposed by Lead Plaintiff. On May 29, 2014, Lead Plaintiff filed a renewed application and proposed order, which sought another extension of the schedule, and on June 3, 2014, Lead Plaintiff and the Proposed Defendants jointly filed a stipulation and proposed order requesting the following revised schedule: (i) Lead Plaintiff be permitted to file an amended complaint on or before June 6, 2014, (ii) the Proposed Defendants be permitted to move to dismiss or otherwise respond to the amended complaint on or before August 5, 2014, (iii) Lead Plaintiff be permitted to file an opposition, if any, on or before October 6, 2014, and (iv) the Proposed Defendants be permitted to file a reply to Lead Plaintiff's opposition on or before November 20, 2014. On June 3, 2014, the Court entered an order setting this requested schedule. On June 6, 2014, Lead Plaintiff filed the amended complaint (the "Amended Complaint"). The Amended Complaint names as defendants Barry E. Welch and Terrence Ronan (the "Individual Defendants") and Atlantic Power (together with the Individual Defendants, the "Defendants") and alleges a class period of June 20, 2011 to March 4, 2013 (the "Class Period"). The Amended Complaint makes allegations that are substantially similar to those asserted in the five initial complaints. Specifically, the Amended Complaint alleges, among other things, that in Atlantic Power's press releases, quarterly and year-end filings and conference calls with analysts and investors, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements and omissions regarding the sustainability of Atlantic Power's common share dividend, which artificially inflated the price of Atlantic Power's common shares during the class period. The Amended Complaint continues to assert claims under Section 10(b) and, against the Individual Defendants, under Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. It also asserts a claim for unjust enrichment against the Individual Defendants. In accordance with the schedule, Defendants filed their motion to dismiss the consolidated U.S. Action on August 5, 2014. Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, all discovery is stayed in the U.S. Actions. Plaintiffs have not yet specified an amount of alleged damages in the U.S. Actions. Because the U.S. Actions are in their early stages, Atlantic Power is unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of losses, if any, arising from this litigation. Atlantic Power intends to defend vigorously against the actions. Atlantic Power owns and operates a diverse fleet of power generation assets in the United States and Canada. ATLANTIC POWER: March 2015 Hearing in Ontario Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Atlantic Power Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that on March 19, 2013, April 2, 2013 and May 10, 2013, three notices of action relating to Canadian securities class action claims against the Proposed Defendants were also issued by alleged investors in Atlantic Power common shares, and in one of the actions, holders of Atlantic Power convertible debentures, with the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in the Province of Ontario. On April 17, May 22, and June 7, 2013 statements of claim relating to the notices of action were filed with the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in the Province of Ontario. On August 30, 2013, the three Ontario actions were succeeded by one action with an amended claim being issued on behalf of Jacqeline Coffin and Sandra Lowry. As in the U.S. Action, this claim names the Company, Barry E. Welch and Terrence Ronan as Defendants. The Plaintiffs seeks leave to commence an action for statutory misrepresentation under the Ontario Securities Act and asserts common law claims for misrepresentation. The Plaintiffs' allegations focus on among other things, claims the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements and omissions in Atlantic Power's press releases, quarterly and year-end filings and conference calls with analysts and investors, regarding the sustainability of Atlantic Power's common share dividend that artificially inflated the price of Atlantic Power's common shares. The Plaintiffs seek to certify the statutory and common law claims under the Class Proceedings Act for security holders who purchased and held securities through a proposed class period of November 5, 2012 to February 28, 2013. On October 4, 2013, the Plaintiffs delivered materials supporting their request for leave to commence an action for statutory misrepresentations and for certification of the statutory and common claims as class proceedings. These materials estimate the damages claimed for statutory misrepresentation at $197.4 million. The Defendants are preparing materials to contest leave and certification. A schedule for the Plaintiffs' motions and the action is set that contemplates a hearing on leave and certification during the week of March 30, 2015. The plaintiffs in the Canadian Action have estimated their alleged statutory damages at $197.4 million. Because the Canadian Actions are in their early stages, Atlantic Power is unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of losses, if any, arising from this litigation. Atlantic Power intends to defend vigorously against each of the actions. Atlantic Power owns and operates a diverse fleet of power generation assets in the United States and Canada. ATLANTIC POWER: Quebec Class Action Stayed Until March 2015 ----------------------------------------------------------- Atlantic Power Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that on April 8, 2013, a similar claim issued by alleged investors in Atlantic Power common shares seeking to initiate a class action against the Proposed Defendants was filed with the Superior Court of Quebec in the Province of Quebec (the "Canadian Actions"). The proposed class action in Quebec is stayed until March 30, 2015 to follow the action in Ontario. Atlantic Power owns and operates a diverse fleet of power generation assets in the United States and Canada. AUDIENCE INC: Faces IPO Class Action in California Superior Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- Audience Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that a purported shareholder filed on September 13, 2012, a class action complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California for Santa Clara County against the Company, the members of its board of directors, two of its executive officers and the underwriters of its IPO. An amended complaint was filed on February 25, 2013, which purports to be brought on behalf of a class of purchasers of the Company's common stock issued in or traceable to the IPO. On April 3, 2013, the outside members of the board of directors and the underwriters were dismissed without prejudice. The amended complaint added additional shareholder plaintiffs and contains claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act. The complaint seeks, among other things, compensatory damages, rescission and attorney's fees and costs. On March 1, 2013, defendants responded to the amended complaint by filing a demurrer moving to dismiss the amended complaint on the grounds that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. The court overruled that demurrer. On March 27, 2013, defendants filed a demurrer moving to dismiss the amended complaint on other grounds. The Court denied the demurrer on September 4, 2013. The Company believes that the allegations in the complaint are without merit and intend to vigorously contest the action. However, there can be no assurance that the Company will be successful in its defense and it cannot currently estimate a range of any possible losses the Company may experience in connection with this case. Accordingly, the Company is unable at this time to estimate the effects of this complaint on its financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. Audience Inc. is a provider of intelligent voice and audio solutions that improve voice quality and the user experience in mobile devices. AUXILIUM PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Class Actions Over QLT Merger ------------------------------------------------------------- Auxilium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that on July 21, 2014, James Novak, an alleged shareholder of Auxilium, filed suit in the Court of Common Pleas, Chester County, Pennsylvania, against Auxilium's Board of Directors, seeking to enjoin the proposed merger between Auxilium and QLT Inc. on the grounds that the Board of Directors of Auxilium breached their fiduciary duties by approving a proposed transaction with QLT that purportedly does not reflect the true value of Auxilium. The complaint also names as defendants Auxilium, QLT, Holdco and Merger Sub for allegedly aiding and abetting the Board of Directors' purported breach of fiduciary duty. On July 25, 2014, Raymon Hall, an alleged shareholder of Auxilium, filed suit in the Court of Common Pleas, seeking to enjoin the proposed merger with QLT on the grounds that the Board of Directors of Auxilium breached their fiduciary duties by approving a proposed transaction that purportedly does not reflect the true value of Auxilium. Plaintiff has also brought suit against QLT, Holdco and Merger Sub for allegedly aiding and abetting the Auxilium directors' purported breach of fiduciary duty. On July 28, 2014, James Wernicke, an alleged shareholder of Auxilium, filed suit in the Court of Common Pleas against the Auxilium Board of Directors, seeking to enjoin the proposed merger between Auxilium and QLT on the grounds that the Auxilium Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties by approving a proposed transaction with QLT that purportedly does not reflect the true value of the Auxilium. The complaint also names as defendants Auxilium and QLT for allegedly aiding and abetting the Auxilium Board of Directors' purported breach of fiduciary duty. Auxilium and QLT intend to vigorously defend against these lawsuits. AUXILIUM PHARMACEUTICALS: 37 Actions Filed Over TRT Products ------------------------------------------------------------ Auxilium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that as of July 31, 2014, Auxilium was involved in 37 individual civil actions related to its testosterone therapy replacement ("TRT") products, Testim and TESTOPEL, wherein the plaintiffs allege, among other things, bodily injury and, in some cases, wrongful death, based on theories of strict liability, fraud and inadequacy of the product warning labels. The first complaint was served on Auxilium on February 27, 2014, shortly after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") announced that it had commenced a safety investigation into TRT products. These lawsuits have been filed in certain federal and state courts. In several of the complaints filed against Auxilium, Auxilium is named as a co-defendant with certain of its competitors who also sell TRT products such as AbbVie Inc., Eli Lilly and Company, Endo International Plc and Pfizer Inc. and, in one complaint, with its former co-promotion partner, GlaxoSmithKline LLC. In four of the lawsuits in which Auxilium is a co-defendant, DPT Laboratories, Inc. ("DPT") and Contract Pharmaceuticals Limited Canada ("CPL"), both contract manufacturers of Testim, have also been named as co- defendants. Pursuant to the terms of Auxilium's respective manufacturing agreements with DPT and CPL, Auxilium has acknowledged a duty to indemnify and defend DPT and CPL in these matters. Auxilium has timely notified the carriers of those of its insurance policies with coverage it believes is applicable to the liability of the litigation related to its TRT products. Auxilium's primary insurer has acknowledged that it has a duty to defend and indemnify Auxilium with respect to the allegations made in plaintiffs' complaints as originally filed with the relevant courts; it has, however, reserved its rights to deny coverage on the basis of certain allegations in the relevant complaints related to dishonest, fraudulent, malicious or intentionally wrongful acts. Additionally, similar lawsuits have been filed against other manufacturers of TRT products. In some of these lawsuits, certain parties have moved to request consolidation of various of the existing lawsuits into a multi-district litigation or MDL. On June 6, 2014, a Transfer Order was issued by the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation which created an industry-wide MDL in the Northern District of Illinois with Judge Kennelly presiding and captioned as In re: Testosterone Replacement Therapy Products Liability Litigation ("TRT MDL"). The Transfer Order further ordered that certain lawsuits be transferred to the TRT MDL, upon consent of the transferring court, for coordination or consolidation of pre-trial proceedings. Based upon the number of similar complaints served on other manufacturers of TRT products, Auxilium believes it is reasonable to expect that Auxilium will be named as a defendant and/or co- defendant in additional complaints. The TRT-related complaints against Auxilium have only been filed recently by the respective plaintiffs. None of the complaints alleges specific damage amounts. Auxilium is investigating the underlying causes of actions upon which the complaints are based. Auxilium filed a Motion to Dismiss in the first-filed case, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Subsequently, the plaintiff in that case voluntarily withdrew his lawsuit. Auxilium filed similar motions in other matters and are in the process of preparing responses to the additional suits. Auxilium intends to vigorously defend against the civil actions. These pending matters have not yet progressed sufficiently through discovery and/or development of important factual information and legal issues to enable Auxilium to determine a loss, if any, is probable. Auxilium is unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss for the legal proceedings described above. Litigation is unpredictable and, while it is not possible to accurately predict or determine the eventual outcomes of these items, an adverse determination in one or more of these items currently pending could have a material adverse effect on Auxilium's consolidated results of operations, financial position or cash flows. Auxilium has incurred and expects to continue to incur significant legal fees in the defense of these actions, which legal fees Auxilium currently expenses as incurred. BANK OF AMERICA: Antitrust MDL Over Credit Default Swaps Advances ----------------------------------------------------------------- Twelve of the world's biggest banks must face antitrust claims that they colluded to prevent an enterprise that would have brought transparency and competition to the credit default swap market, reports Adam Klasfeld at Courthouse News Service, citing a federal court ruling entered on September 4, 2014. Los Angeles retirement fund led more than 10 plaintiffs in a class action accusing about a dozen major banks, the International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA) and its data-service provider Markit of antitrust violations. The banks include Bank of America, Barclays, BNP Paribas, Citigroup, Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs, HSBC, JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, Royal Bank of Scotland and UBS. Filed in July 2013, the lawsuit landed in Federal Court weeks after the European Commission found that the banks colluded to bar exchanges from the risky credit default swap business. In 2008, nonparties Citadel LLC and CME Group created a joint venture known as the Credit Market Derivatives Exchange (CMDE), a credit default swap clearinghouse and exchange designed to promote transparency and competition. Through secret meetings, email exchanges and telephones, the banks conspired to shut it down before it hit the market, and they got Markit and the ISDA to withhold licensing information, according to the lawsuit. The banks refused to deal with CMDE or similar enterprises in favor of the one clearinghouse it could control: ICE Clear Credit, the plaintiffs say. In 2010, The New York Times blew the lid on the secret meetings, and the Department of Justice investigated. The European Commission's probe was announced the next year. The banks, Markit and ISDA tried to dismiss the lawsuit as untimely, unsupported and lacking standing. But U.S. District Judge Denise Cote allowed the claims to proceed, in a 49-page opinion. The defendants denied that they were in cahoots, calling the behavior described in the complaint as the "independent, self- interested conduct in reaction to the global financial crisis." A skeptical Cote wrote: "The financial crisis hardly explains the alleged secret meetings and coordinated actions. Nor does it explain why ISDA and Markit simultaneously reversed course." The class action "plausibly alleges an antitrust conspiracy in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act," Cote concluded. Cote dismissed a claim under Section 2 of the act, which prohibits attempting to form a monopoly. "Here, the complaint does not allege that the aim of defendants' conspiracy was to form a single entity to possess monopoly power," she wrote. The judge also limited damage claims to those after autumn 2008, when the anticompetitive behavior is alleged to have occurred. Claims for violations of the Clayton Act and Dodd-Frank and a count of unjust enrichment were also allowed to proceed. Lawyers for the plaintiffs and Markit did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel L. Brockett, Esq. Steig D. Olson, Esq. Justin T. Reinheimer, Esq. Nick T. Landsman-Roos, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor New York, NY 10010 Telephone: (212) 849-7000 Facsimile: (212) 849-7100 E-mail: danbrockett@quinnemanuel.com steigolson@quinnemanuel.com justinreinheimer@quinnemanuel.com nicklandsmanroos@quinnemanuel.com - and - Bruce L. Simon, Esq. George S. Trevor, Esq. Aaron M. Sheanin, Esq. PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 2450 San Francisco, CA 94104 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 2450 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 433-9000 Facsimile: (415) 433-9008 E-mail: bsimon@pswlaw.com gtrevor@pswlaw.com asheanin@pswlaw.com Defendants Bank of America Corporation and Bank of America N.A. are represented by: Robert F. Wise, Jr., Esq. Arthur J. Burke, Esq. Jeremy T. Adler, Esq. DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP 450 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 450-4000 Facsimile: (212) 701-5800 E-mail: robert.wise@davispolk.com arthur.burke@davispolk.com jeremy.adler@davispolk.com Defendant Barclays Bank PLC is represented by: Todd S. Fishman, Esq. Michael S. Feldberg, Esq. M. Elaine Johnston, Esq. ALLEN & OVERY LLP 1221 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 756-1130 E-mail: todd.fishman@allenovery.com michael.feldberg@allenovery.com elaine.johnston@allenovery.com Defendant BNP Paribas is represented by: David Esseks, Esq. Brian de Haan, Esq. ALLEN & OVERY LLP 1221 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 756-1130 E-mail: david.esseks@allenovery.com brian.dehaan@allenovery.com - and - John Terzaken, Esq. Molly Kelley, Esq. ALLEN & OVERY LLP 1101 New York Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 683-3877 E-mail: john.terzaken@allenovery.com molly.kelley@allenovery.com Defendants Citigroup Inc., Citibank, N.A., and Citigroup Global Markets Inc. are represented by: Benjamin R. Nagin, Esq. Eamon P. Joyce, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 787 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 839-5300 Facsimile: (212) 839-5599 E-mail: bnagin@sidley.com ejoyce@sidley.com - and - David F. Graham, Esq. David C. Giardina, Esq. Jennifer E. Novoselsky, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 1 S Dearborn St. Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 853-7000 Facsimile: (312) 853-7036 E-mail: dgraham@sidley.com dgiardina@sidley.com jnovoselsky@sidley.com Defendant Credit Suisse AG is represented by: J. Robert Robertson, Esq. Benjamin Holt, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP Columbia Square 555 Thirteenth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 637-5600 Facsimile: (202) 637-5910 E-mail: robby.robertson@hoganlovells.com benjamin.holt@hoganlovells.com Defendant Deutsche Bank AG is represented by: David P. Wales, Esq. JONES DAY 51 Louisiana Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 879-5451 E-mail: dpwales@jonesday.com - and - Tracy V. Schaffer, Esq. Eric P. Stephens, Esq. JONES DAY 222 East 41st Street New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 326-3427 E-mail: tschaffer@jonesday.com epstephens@jonesday.com - and - Paula W. Render, Esq. Alex P. Middleton, Esq. JONES DAY 77 West Wacker Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 269-4095 E-mail: prender@jonesday.com apmiddleton@jonesday.com Defendant Goldman, Sachs & Co. is represented by: Richard C. Pepperman II, Esq. Bradley P. Smith, Esq. Mark S. Geiger, Esq. SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP 125 Broad Street New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 558-4000 Facsimile: (212) 558-3588 E-mail: peppermanr@sullcrom.com smithbr@sullcrom.com geigerm@sullcrom.com - and - Robert Y. Sperling, Esq. WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 35 West Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 558-5600 E-mail: rsperling@winston.com - and - Seth Farber, Esq. WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166-4193 Telephone: (212) 294-6700 Facsimile: (212) 294-4700 E-mail: sfarber@winston.com - and - Elizabeth P. Papez, Esq. WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 1700 K Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 282-5000 Facsimile: (202) 282-5100 E-mail: epapez@winston.com Defendants HSBC Bank plc and HSBC Bank USA, N.A. are represented by: Richard A. Spehr, Esq. Michael O. Ware, Esq. MAYER BROWN LLP 1675 Broadway New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 506-2500 Facsimile: (212) 262-1910 E-mail: rspehr@mayerbrown.com mware@mayerbrown.com - and - Andrew S. Marovitz, Esq. Britt M. Miller, Esq. MAYER BROWN LLP 71 South Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 782-0600 Facsimile: (312) 701-7711 E-mail: amarovitz@mayerbrown.com bmiller@mayerbrown.com Defendants JPMorgan Chase & Co. and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. are represented by: Peter E. Greene, Esq. Peter S. Julian, Esq. Boris Bershteyn, Esq. SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP 4 Times Square New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 735-3000 Facsimile: (212) 735-2000 E-mail: peter.greene@skadden.com peter.julian@skadden.com boris.bershteyn@skadden.com - and - Patrick J. Fitzgerald, Esq. SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP 155 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 2700 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 407-0508 E-mail: patrick.fitzgerald@skadden.com Defendant Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC is represented by: Evan R. Chesler, Esq. Daniel Slifkin, Esq. Michael A. Paskin, Esq. Vanessa A. Lavely, Esq. CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP Worldwide Plaza 825 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10019-7475 Telephone: (212) 474-1000 Facsimile: (212) 474-3700 E-mail: echesler@cravath.com dslifkin@cravath.com mpaskin@cravath.com vlavely@cravath.com Defendants UBS AG and UBS Securities LLC are represented by: David C. Bohan, Esq. KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN, LLP 525 W. Monroe St. Chicago, IL 60661 Telephone: (312) 902-5200 Facsimile: (312) 902-1061 E-mail: david.bohan@kattenlaw.com - and - James J. Calder, Esq. KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN, LLP 575 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 940-8800 Facsimile: (212) 940-8776 E-mail: james.calder@kattenlaw.com Defendants Royal Bank of Scotland PL and Royal Bank of Scotland N.V. are represented by: Charles F. Rule, Esq. Joseph J. Bial, Esq. Amy W. Ray, Esq. CADWALADER, WICKERSHAM & TAFT LLP 700 6th Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 862-2200 Facsimile: (202) 862-2400 E-mail: rick.rule@cwt.com joseph.bial@cwt.com amy.ray@cwt.com Defendant International Swaps and Derivatives Association is represented by: Matthew J. Reilly, Esq. Abram J. Ellis, Esq. SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP 1155 F Street, NW Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 636-5500 Facsimile: (202) 636-5502 E-mail: matt.reilly@stblaw.com aellis@stblaw.com - and - Michael J. Garvey, Esq. SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP 425 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 455-2000 Facsimile: (212) 455-2502 E-mail: mgarvey@stblaw.com Defendant Markit Group Ltd. and Markit Group Holdings Limited are represented by: Colin R. Kass, Esq. Scott M. Abeles, Esq. PROSKAUER ROSE LLP 1001 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, D.C. 20004 Telephone: (202) 416-6800 Facsimile: (202) 416-6899 E-mail: ckass@proskauer.com sabeles@proskauer.com - and - Alan R. Kusinitz, Esq. PROSKAUER ROSE LLP Eleven Times Square Eighth Avenue & 41st Street New York, NY 10036-8299 Telephone: (212) 969-3000 Facsimile: (212) 969-2900 E-mail: akusinitz@proskauer.com The consolidated case is captioned In Re Credit Default Swaps Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 13md2476 (DLC), in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. BAYER AG: Siskinds LLP Launches Class Action Over Pesticides ------------------------------------------------------------ The law firm of Siskinds LLP on Sept. 3 disclosed that it has launched a class action regarding neonicotinoid pesticides, specifically those containing imidacloprid, clothianidin and thiomethoxam, designed, developed, marketed and produced by Bayer and Syngenta. The action seeks in excess of $400 million in damages. "Without a vibrant and healthy bee population, so many of the foods we enjoy will simply no longer grow. We cannot afford to take the bees' important work for granted, nor can we ignore threats to their survival as a species." Neonicotinoid pesticides are applied to corn, soybean and canola seeds, among others, planted in Canada. The pesticides are designed to travel throughout the plant and attack the nervous systems of insects that come into contact with the roots, stems, leaves, flowers, fruit, pollen and nectar of the plant. This class action relates to the impact of these pesticides on the bee population and, consequently, on beekeepers who produce honey, provide pollination services and raise Queen Bees essential to the continued production of fruits and vegetables. The Statement of Claim alleges, among other things, that the defendants were negligent in their design, manufacture, sale and distribution of neonicotinoids. The Statement of Claim alleges that as a result of neonicotinoid use: -- queens, breeding stock and colonies were damaged or died; -- beeswax, honeycombs and hives were contaminated; -- honey production decreased; and -- beekeepers lost profits, and incurred unrecoverable costs. Paula Lombardi, a partner at Siskinds LLP, remarked on the critical importance of the honeybee to the food chain: "Without a vibrant and healthy bee population, so many of the foods we enjoy will simply no longer grow. We cannot afford to take the bees' important work for granted, nor can we ignore threats to their survival as a species." All beekeepers, including those individuals and companies in the business of honey production, queen bee rearing and/or pollination services between 2006 and the present season, are encouraged to contact either Paula Lombardi at Siskinds LLP at 519-660-7878 or paula.lombardi@siskinds.com or Nicole Young at Siskinds LLP at 1- 877-672-2121 ext. 2380 or nicole.young@siskinds.com or to visit our website at www.siskinds.com About Siskinds LLP Siskinds LLP is a full-service law firm with offices in Toronto and London, and affiliate offices in Montreal and Quebec City. Siskinds LLP has earned worldwide recognition for its work in plaintiff-side class actions litigation. BCB BANCORP: Final Resolution Pursued in "Kube" Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ BCB Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that the Company, as the successor to Pamrapo Bancorp, Inc., and in its own corporate capacity, is a named defendant in a shareholder class action lawsuit, Kube v. Pamrapo Bancorp, Inc., et al., filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Hudson County, Chancery Division, General Equity. On May 9, 2012, the Company obtained partial summary judgment, dismissing three of the five Counts of the Complaint. On May 9, 2012, plaintiff's counsel was awarded interim legal fees of approximately $350,000. The Company's obligation to pay that amount has been stayed. By Order, dated December 10, 2013, the court denied the plaintiff's initial motion for class certification. The plaintiff thereafter filed a motion seeking certification for a substantially reduced class. That motion was granted on February 6, 2014. The Company filed a motion for summary judgment, seeking the dismissal of the remaining two Counts of the Complaint. That motion was denied, without prejudice, on February 19, 2014. The parties have conferenced in an effort to resolve this case. A final resolution is being pursued. The Company is vigorously defending its interests in this litigation. BCB BANCORP: Sued Insurer for Indemnification in "Kube" Action -------------------------------------------------------------- BCB Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that the Company has brought a lawsuit against Progressive Insurance Company ("Progressive"), the Directors' and Officers' Liability insurance carrier for Pamrapo Bancorp, Inc., at the time of its merger with the Company on July 6, 2010, and Colonial American Insurance Company ("Colonial"), the Directors' and Officers' Liability insurance carrier for the Company at the time of the merger. The lawsuit seeks, among other claims, indemnification, payment of and/or contribution toward the award of interim attorney's fees to the plaintiff class's counsel, and reimbursement of the attorney's fees and defense costs incurred by the Company in defending the Kube v. Pamrapo Bancorp, Inc., et al., case. This lawsuit is pending. Progressive has made a motion for summary judgment seeking the dismissal of the Company's lawsuit against it. That motion was returnable on August 18, 2014. The Company will vigorously oppose that motion. BOULDER BRANDS: Settled "Fat Free Milk" Suits for $0.3 Million -------------------------------------------------------------- Boulder Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that a putative class action lawsuit relating to the labeling of Smart Balance(R) Fat Free Milk products was filed on February 21, 2013, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging that the label and marketing was misleading because, although the labels says "Fat Free Milk" the product contains 1g of fat from the Omega-3 fatty acid oil blend in the products. "After our motion to dismiss was partially granted by the court, it answered the remaining allegations of the complaint, denying the substantive allegations. On July 8, 2014, without any admission of liability, we reached a settlement whereby we agreed to pay the two plaintiffs and their counsel $0.3 million in full and final settlement. The case was formally dismissed with prejudice on July 15, 2014," the Company said. Boulder Brands' product portfolio consists of a wide variety of food products marketed under the Udi's(R), Glutino(R), Gluten- Free Pantry(R), Earth Balance(R), Level Life(TM), EVOL and Smart Balance(R) brands. BOULDER BRANDS: Sued Over Butter & Canola Oil Blend Products ------------------------------------------------------------ Boulder Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that a putative class action lawsuit was filed on July 28, 2012, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California claiming that the labeling and marketing of Smart Balance(R) Butter & Canola Oil Blend products is false, misleading and deceptive (the "California Case"). The plaintiffs have moved to file a second amended complaint and to substitute a new class plaintiff. "We are opposing both motions. A substantially similar class action lawsuit related to the labeling and marketing of Smart Balance(R) Butter & Canola Oil Blend products was filed on August 9, 2012 in the Southern District of New York. In light of its similarity to the California Case, the Southern District of New York stayed all activity in the case pending a decision in the California Case on class certification. We believe the allegations contained in both of these complaints are without merit and we intend to vigorously defend ourselves against these allegations," the Company said. Boulder Brands' product portfolio consists of a wide variety of food products marketed under the Udi's(R), Glutino(R), Gluten- Free Pantry(R), Earth Balance(R), Level Life(TM), EVOL and Smart Balance(R) brands. BOUYGUES CIVIL: Removed "Bermudez" Class Suit to S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Bermudez, et al. v. Bouygues Civil Works Florida, Inc., Case No. 14-20795-CA 01, was removed from the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, in and for Miami- Dade County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-23248-RNS to the proceeding. The complaint alleges a cause of action under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Edilberto O. Marban, Esq. 1600 Ponce De Leon Boulevard, Suite 902 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 448-9292 Facsimile: (305) 448-9477 E-mail: marbanlaw@gmail.com The Defendant is represented by: Susan Potter Norton, Esq. ALLEN NORTON & BLUE 121 Majorca Avenue, Suite 300 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 445-7801 Facsimile: (305) 442-1578 E-mail: snorton@anblaw.com BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Motion for Class Certification Due --------------------------------------------------------- Bridgepoint Education, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that a securities class action complaint was filed on July 13, 2012, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California by Donald K. Franke naming the Company, Andrew Clark, Daniel Devine and Jane McAuliffe as defendants for allegedly making false and materially misleading statements regarding the Company's business and financial results, specifically the concealment of accreditation problems at Ashford University. The complaint asserts a putative class period stemming from May 3, 2011 to July 6, 2012. A substantially similar complaint was also filed in the same court by Luke Sacharczyk on July 17, 2012 making similar allegations against the Company, Andrew Clark and Daniel Devine. The Sacharczyk complaint asserts a putative class period stemming from May 3, 2011 to July 12, 2012. Finally, on July 26, 2012, another purported securities class action complaint was filed in the same court by David Stein against the same defendants based upon the same general set of allegations and class period. The complaints allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and seek unspecified monetary relief, interest, and attorneys' fees. On October 22, 2012, the Sacharczyk and Stein actions were consolidated with the Franke action and the Court appointed the City of Atlanta General Employees Pension Fund and the Teamsters Local 677 Health Services & Insurance Plan as lead plaintiffs. A consolidated complaint was filed on December 21, 2012 and the Company filed a motion to dismiss on February 19, 2013. On September 13, 2013, the Court granted the motion to dismiss with leave to amend for alleged misrepresentations relating to Ashford University's quality of education, the WASC Senior College and University Commission accreditation process, and the Company's financial forecasts. The Court denied the motion to dismiss for alleged misrepresentations concerning Ashford University's persistence rates. The plaintiff did not file an amended complaint by the October 31, 2013 deadline and therefore the case is now proceeding to discovery. The plaintiff's motion for class certification is due to be filed with the Court by August 6, 2014. The outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this point because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise. At present, the Company cannot reasonably estimate a range of loss for this action based on the information available to the Company. Accordingly, the Company has not accrued any liability associated with this action. Bridgepoint Education provides postsecondary education services. Its academic institutions are Ashford University(R) and University of the RockiesSM. CARLYLE GROUP: Oral Arguments Held on Class Cert Bid ---------------------------------------------------- On February 14, 2008, a private class-action lawsuit challenging "club" bids and other alleged anti-competitive business practices was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Police and Fire Retirement System of the City of Detroit v. Apollo Global Management, LLC). The complaint alleges, among other things, that certain global alternative asset firms, including The Carlyle Group L.P., violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by forming multi-sponsor consortiums for the purpose of bidding collectively in company buyout transactions in certain going private transactions, which the plaintiffs allege constitutes a "conspiracy in restraint of trade." Count One of the complaint alleges an overarching conspiracy relating to certain large buyout transactions. Count Two of the complaint alleges a conspiracy with regard to the buyout of Healthcare Corporation of America. The plaintiffs seek damages as provided for in Section 4 of the Clayton Act and an injunction against such conduct in restraint of trade in the future. The defendants moved for summary judgment on both counts. On March 13, 2013, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts ruled that plaintiffs could proceed on Count One solely on the basis of an alleged conspiracy to refrain from "jumping" announced proprietary (i.e., non-auction) deals. The Court stated that it would entertain further summary judgment motions by individual defendants as to their participation in the more narrowly defined alleged conspiracy. The Court also denied summary judgment as to Count Two. On April 16, 2013, Carlyle filed a consolidated motion, renewing its motion for summary judgment on Count One, and moving for reconsideration on Count Two. On April 22, 2013, Carlyle joined a motion seeking reconsideration on Count Two filed on behalf of all Count Two defendants. On June 20, 2013, the Court denied the motion for reconsideration on Count Two filed by the Count Two defendants. On July 18, 2013, the Court denied Carlyle's individual summary judgment motion regarding its participation in the conspiracy alleged in Count One. The plaintiffs moved to certify the class on October 21, 2013. The Court has scheduled oral arguments on class certification for September 4, 2014, The Carlyle Group L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014. The case management order calls for a jury trial to commence in November 2014, but this could be delayed in the event an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on the class certification issue should become necessary. "We understand that all of Carlyle's co-defendants have entered into settlement agreements with plaintiffs since the filing of the class certification," Carlyle said. Carlyle believes that reasonable litigation and settlement costs that are not covered by applicable insurance are indemnifiable by one or more of Carlyle's investment funds. CARLYLE GROUP: Appeals Court Affirmed Dismissal of Complaints ------------------------------------------------------------- On June 21, 2011, August 24, 2011 and September 1, 2011, respectively, three putative shareholder class actions were filed against The Carlyle Group L.P., certain of its affiliates and former directors of Carlyle Capital Corporation Limited ("CCC") alleging that the fund offering materials and various public disclosures were materially misleading or omitted material information. Two of the shareholder class actions (Phelps v. Stomber, et al. and Glaubach v. Carlyle Capital Corporation Limited, et al.) were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Phelps v. Stomber, et al. was also filed in the Supreme Court of New York, New York County and was subsequently removed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The two original D.C. cases were consolidated into one case under the caption of Phelps v. Stomber and the Phelps named plaintiffs were designated "lead plaintiffs" by the Court. The New York case was transferred to the D.C. federal court and the plaintiffs requested that it be consolidated with the other two D.C. actions. The plaintiffs were seeking compensatory damages sustained as a result of the alleged misrepresentations, costs and expenses, as well as reasonable attorney's fees. On August 13, 2012, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed both the D.C. and New York shareholder class actions. The plaintiffs moved for leave to amend their complaint and/or for amendment of the Court's decision, but the trial court denied that motion on June 4, 2013. The plaintiffs' previously filed notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit was then automatically reinstated and oral arguments on this appeal were held on February 19, 2014. On May 20, 2014, the Court of Appeals issued its decision affirming the District Court's rulings in full, dismissing plaintiffs' complaints and denying plaintiffs an opportunity to amend, The Carlyle Group L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014. CELERA CORP: Settles Shareholder Class Action for $25 Million ------------------------------------------------------------- Erica Teichert and Kurt Orzeck, writing for Law360, report that Celera Corp. and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP agreed on Aug. 30 to pay nearly $25 million to settle a shareholder class action in California federal court claiming Celera made overly optimistic revenue forecasts and covered up billing problems. Lead plaintiff Washtenaw County Employee Retirement System asked U.S. District Judge Edward J. Davila to preliminarily approve the $24.75 million settlement, saying the deal would end all litigation between the certified class and the medical diagnostics company over its and its officers' alleged financial misstatements when buying or selling stock. Consisting of an unspecified number of shareholders who bought Celera stock from April 24, 2008, through July 22, 2009, the class was harmed because Celera concealed that a significant portion of accounts receivable for its lab services subsidiary was uncollectable, according to Washtenaw. All in all, Celera will pay $23 million, and PwC will pay $1.75 million to end the case, which Washtenaw said represents about 17 percent of the plaintiffs' $143 million in estimated damages. That amount is much larger than the median recovery in securities litigation, according to the retirement system. "Although lead plaintiff and its counsel believe that the class' claims have substantial merit, they recognize the significant risk and expense necessary to prosecute the class' claims against defendants through trial, and subsequent appeals, as well as the inherent difficulties complex litigation like this entails," the motion for preliminary approval said. "While lead plaintiff believes that they would present sufficient evidence to establish the class' claims, lead plaintiff and its counsel are aware that defendants would present counterevidence and other substantial obstacles to obtaining a favorable judgment at trial." In June 2010, Washtenaw sued Celera and several of its officers, including CEO Kathy Ordonez, Chief Financial Officer Ugo DeBlasi and former CFO Joel Jung. The complaint was consolidated with several other similar cases later that year. The plaintiffs accused Celera of covering up problems with the billing practices of its lab services division, which accounted for more than 60 percent of Celera's revenue. In early 2008, Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, whose insureds were responsible for some 10 percent of Celera's total revenue, began remitting payment for Celera tests to its insureds rather than directly reimbursing Celera, and the patients often didn't forward the payments, leading to a mounting increase in Celera's unpaid receivables, the plaintiffs contended. Later that year, Celera retained consultancy Deloitte & Touche LLP to help collect payments owed and in January 2009 began billing patients directly, according to the plaintiffs. Patients upset over Celera's billing practices began complaining to their doctors, leading many of the physicians to stop ordering Celera tests and resulting in a significant sales drop, the plaintiffs asserted. After these billing problems and incorrect revenue statements were revealed, the company's stock price allegedly dropped by more than half. In the meantime, company officers had received substantial bonuses for purportedly hitting revenue targets. An amended version of the complaint, filed in October 2013, accused auditor PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP of issuing bad debt estimates that falsely certified that Celera's financial statements were fairly stated and free of material misstatement. The defendants have claimed that the plaintiffs hadn't proven that Celera's financial restatements caused their alleged losses or that its actions were deliberate. Washtenaw acknowledged on Aug. 29 that proving loss causation is a "major roadblock" in securities litigation, and that it's one factor that led to the settlement agreement. "During these negotiations, lead counsel zealously advanced lead plaintiffs' positions and were fully prepared to continue to litigate rather than accept a settlement that was not in the best interests of the class," the motion said. "Indeed, the strengths and weaknesses of the parties' respective positions were fully vetted during the mediation process." Washtenaw's class was certified without objection in February 2014. The plaintiffs are represented by Willow E. Radcliffe -- willowr@rgrdlaw.com -- Aelish M. Baig and Sunny S. Sarkis -- ssarkis@rgrdlaw.com -- of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP; Michael J. VanOverbeke and Thomas C. Michaud of VanOverbeke Michaud & Timmony PC; and Lionel Z. Glancy and Robert V. Prongay of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP. Celera and its officers are represented by Stephen D. Hibbard -- shibbard@shearman.com -- Mikael A. Abye -- mikael.abye@shearman.com -- and Sara A. Ricciardi of Shearman & Sterling LLP. PwC is represented by Timothy T. Scott, Geoffrey M. Ezgar, James J. Capra Jr. and Satyam N. Bee of King & Spalding LLP. The case is In re: Celera Corp. Securities Litigation, case number 5:10-cv-02604, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. DYNEGY INC: Plaintiff Appeals Dismissal of Stockholder Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Dynegy Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that in connection with the prepetition restructuring and corporate reorganization of the DH Debtor Entities and their non-debtor affiliates in 2011 (the "2011 Prepetition Restructuring"), and specifically the transfer of DMG, a putative class action stockholder lawsuit captioned Charles Silsby v. Carl C. Icahn, et al., Case No. 12CIV2307 (the "Securities Litigation"), was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The lawsuit challenged certain disclosures made in connection with the transfer of DMG. As a result of the filing of the voluntary petition for bankruptcy by Dynegy Inc., this lawsuit was stayed as against Dynegy Inc. and as a result of the confirmation of the Joint Chapter 11 Plan (the "Plan"), the claims against Dynegy Inc. in the Securities Litigation are permanently enjoined. On August 24, 2012, the lead plaintiff in the Securities Litigation filed an objection to the confirmation of the Plan asserting, among other things, that lead plaintiff should be permitted to opt-out of the non-debtor releases and injunctions (the "Non-Debtor Releases") in the Plan on behalf of all putative class members. Dynegy opposed that relief. On October 1, 2012, the Bankruptcy Court ruled that lead plaintiff did not have standing to object to the Plan and did not have authority to opt-out of the Non-Debtor Releases on behalf of any other party-in-interest. Accordingly, the Securities Litigation may only proceed against the non-debtor defendants with respect to members of the putative class who individually opted out of the Non-Debtor Releases. The lead plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on October 10, 2012. On June 4, 2013, the District Court dismissed the appeal. On July 3, 2013, the lead plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and filed a brief on November 4, 2013. On July 19, 2013, the defendants filed a substantive motion to dismiss the plaintiff's remaining claims. On April 30, 2014, the District Court granted the defendants' motion and dismissed the action. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of this decision. Dynegy Inc. is a holding company and conducts substantially all of its business operations through its subsidiaries. The Company's current business operations are focused primarily on the power generation sector of the energy industry. DYNEGY INC: Oral Arguments Not Yet Set in Supreme Court Appeal -------------------------------------------------------------- Dynegy Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that the Company, several of its affiliates, its former joint venture affiliate and other energy companies were named as defendants in numerous lawsuits in state and federal court claiming damages resulting from alleged price manipulation and false reporting of natural gas prices to various index publications in the 2000-2002 time frame. Many of the cases have been resolved. All of the remaining cases contain similar claims that the Company individually, and in conjunction with other energy companies, engaged in an illegal scheme to inflate natural gas prices in four states by providing false information to natural gas index publications. In July 2011, the court granted defendants' motions for summary judgment, thereby dismissing all of plaintiffs' claims. Plaintiffs appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit which reversed the summary judgment on April 10, 2013. On August 26, 2013, Dynegy and the other defendants filed a request for review with the U.S. Supreme Court. On July 1, 2014, the Supreme Court accepted review. Oral arguments have not yet been set. Dynegy Inc. is a holding company and conducts substantially all of its business operations through its subsidiaries. The Company's current business operations are focused primarily on the power generation sector of the energy industry. EB & JB CORP: Moved "Abreu" Suit to Southern District of Florida ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Abreu v. EB & JB Corporation, et al., was removed from the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-23266-JAL to the proceeding. In his complaint, Jose Luis Abreu seeks to recover money damages for unpaid overtime and minimum wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Edilberto O. Marban, Esq. 1600 Ponce De Leon Boulevard, Suite 902 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 448-9292 Facsimile: (305) 448-9477 E-mail: marbanlaw@gmail.com The Defendants are represented by: Leslie W. Langbein, Esq. LANGBEIN & LANGBEIN, P.A. 8181 NW 154 Street, Suite 105 Miami Lakes, FL 33016 Telephone: (305) 556-3663 Facsimile: (305) 556-3647 E-mail: langbeinpa@bellsouth.net ENERGY TRANSFER: MOU Reached in Suits Over PVR Merger ----------------------------------------------------- Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that five putative class action lawsuits challenging the merger with PVR Partners, L.P. have been filed and are currently pending. All of the cases name PVR, PVR GP and the current directors of PVR GP, as well as Regency Energy Partners LP and the General Partner of Regency (collectively, the "Regency Defendants"), as defendants. Each of the lawsuits has been brought by a purported unitholder of PVR, both individually and on behalf of a putative class consisting of public unitholders of PVR. The lawsuits generally allege, among other things, that the directors of PVR GP breached their fiduciary duties to unitholders of PVR, that PVR GP, PVR and the Regency Defendants aided and abetted the directors of PVR GP in the alleged breach of their fiduciary duties, and, as to the actions in federal court, that some or all of PVR, PVR GP, and the directors of PVR GP violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The lawsuits purport to seek, in general, (i) injunctive relief, (ii) disclosure of certain additional information concerning the transaction, (iii) in the event the merger is consummated, rescission or an award of rescissory damages, (iv) an award of plaintiffs' costs and (v) the accounting for damages allegedly caused by the defendants to these actions, and, (vi) such further relief as the court deems just and proper. The styles of the pending cases are as follows: David Naiditch v. PVR Partners, L.P., et al. (Case No. 9015-VCL) in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware); Charles Monatt v. PVR Partners, LP, et al. (Case No. 2013-10606) and Saul Srour v. PVR Partners, L.P., et al. (Case No. 2013-011015), each pending in the Court of Common Pleas for Delaware County, Pennsylvania; Stephen Bushansky v. PVR Partners, L.P., et al. (C.A. No. 2:13-cv-06829- HB); and Mark Hinnau v. PVR Partners, L.P., et al. (C.A. No. 2:13- cv-07496-HB), pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On January 28, 2014, the defendants entered into a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") with Monatt, Srour, Bushansky, Naiditch and Hinnau pursuant to which defendants and the referenced plaintiffs agreed in principle to a settlement of their lawsuits ("Settled Lawsuits"), which will be memorialized in a separate settlement agreement, subject to customary conditions, including consummation of the PVR Acquisition, which occurred on March 21, 2014, completion of certain confirmatory discovery, class certification and final approval by the Court of Common Pleas for Delaware County, Pennsylvania. If the Court approves the settlement, the Settled Lawsuits will be dismissed with prejudice and all defendants will be released from any and all claims relating to the Settled Lawsuits. The settlement will not affect any provisions of the merger agreement or the form or amount of consideration received by PVR unitholders in the PVR Acquisition. The defendants have denied and continue to deny any wrongdoing or liability with respect to the plaintiffs' claims in the aforementioned litigation and have entered into the settlement to eliminate the uncertainty, burden, risk, expense, and distraction of further litigation. Energy Transfer Equity, L.P owns equity interests in entities that are engaged in diversified energy-related services. ENERGY TRANSFER: Suit Filed Over Acquisition of Eagle Rock Assets ----------------------------------------------------------------- Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that three putative class action lawsuits challenging Regency Energy Partners LP's acquisition of the Eagle Rock Energy Partners, L.P. midstream assets are currently pending in federal district court in Houston, Texas. All cases name Eagle Rock and its current directors, as well as Regency and a subsidiary as defendants. One of the lawsuits also names additional Eagle Rock entities as defendants. Each of the lawsuits has been brought by a purported unitholder of Eagle Rock (collectively, the "Plaintiffs"), both individually and on behalf of a putative class consisting of public unitholders of Eagle Rock. The Plaintiffs in each case seek to rescind the transaction, claiming, among other things, that it yields inadequate consideration, was tainted by conflict and constitutes breaches of common law fiduciary duties or contractually imposed duties to the shareholders. Plaintiffs also seek monetary damages and attorneys' fees. Regency and its subsidiary are named as "aiders and abettors" of the allegedly wrongful actions of Eagle Rock and its board. Energy Transfer Equity, L.P owns equity interests in entities that are engaged in diversified energy-related services. ENSIGN GROUP: Settlement Costs Projected to be $6.5 Million ----------------------------------------------------------- The Ensign Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that a class action staffing suit was previously filed against the Company in the State of California, alleging, among other things, violations of certain Health and Safety Code provisions and a violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act at certain of the Company's California facilities. In 2007, the Company settled this class action suit, and the settlement was approved by the affected class and the Court. The Company also said, "We have been defending a second such staffing class-action claim filed in Los Angeles Superior Court; however, a settlement was reached with class counsel and has received Court approval. The total costs associated with the settlement, including attorney's fees, estimated class payout, and related costs and expenses, are projected to be approximately $6.5 million, of which, approximately $1.5 million of this amount was recorded in the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013, with the balance having been expensed in prior periods. We believe that the settlement will not have a material ongoing adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations." The Company said, "Other claims and suits, including class actions, continue to be filed against us and other companies in our industry. For example, there has been an increase in the number of wage and hour class action claims filed in several of the jurisdictions where we are present. Allegations typically include claimed failures to permit or properly compensate for meal and rest periods, or failure to pay for time worked. If there were a significant increase in the number of these claims or an increase in amounts owing should plaintiffs be successful in their prosecution of these claims, this could have a material adverse effect to our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows." Ensign Group is a provider of skilled nursing and rehabilitative care services through the operation of 125 facilities, ten home health and eight hospice operations, twelve urgent care centers and a mobile x-ray and diagnostic company as of June 30, 2014, located in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Iowa, Nebraska, Nevada, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin. EQUAL ENERGY: Filed Motion to Dismiss Cooke et al. Class Suits -------------------------------------------------------------- Equal Energy Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that Equal shareholder Andrew Cooke filed on December 12, 2013, a putative class action lawsuit in the District Court of Oklahoma County for the State of Oklahoma against Equal, its directors, Petroflow Energy Corporation and Petroflow Canada Acquisition Corp. (collectively, "Petroflow"): Cooke v. Equal Energy, et al., CJ-2013-6817. Subsequently, three additional putative class actions were also filed by shareholders in the same state court: Olsen v. Equal Energy, et al., CJ-2013-6873; Solak v. Equal Energy, et al., CJ- 2013-6959; and Grinberger v. Equal Energy, et al., CJ-2013-7055. These cases alleged that in connection with the proposed Arrangement Agreement ("Arrangement"), the members of the Board breached their fiduciary duties to Equal. The complaints further claimed that Equal and Petroflow aided and abetted those alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. The complaints generally alleged that the Arrangement involves an unfair price, unfair sales process, self-dealing and unfairly preclusive deal protection devices. The plaintiffs in the action sought injunctive relief, including to enjoin the Arrangement, and an award of attorneys' and other fees and costs. One of these four matters was voluntarily dismissed, while the other three were consolidated into one case: In re Equal Energy Shareholder Litigation, CJ-2013-6873. Equal and its directors filed a motion to dismiss the state actions on January 23, 2014. Petroflow subsequently filed a similar motion to dismiss. Both motions are fully briefed and remain pending. Contemporaneous with motion to dismiss briefing, lead counsel in both the state and federal actions and counsel for defendants engaged in arm's-length negotiations concerning the terms and conditions of a potential resolution of the state and federal actions in which Equal would disclose certain additional information to Equal's shareholders. On June 12, 2014, Equal filed a revised Definitive Proxy with the SEC containing, among other things, the additional disclosures agreed to in connection with the parties' agreement. On or around July 10, 2014, counsel for the parties reached an agreement in principle in the federal actions providing for the binding settlement of all claims that all shareholders might have regarding the actions of Equal or its Board while considering or entering into the Petroflow Arrangement Agreement, and while making any disclosures to the marketplace. In exchange Equal agreed to include additional disclosures in its proxy materials, and entered into a memorandum of understanding setting forth the material terms of the settlement. The parties are in the process of drafting the settlement agreement, which will then be submitted to the federal court for review during a final approval hearing. Equal Energy Ltd. is a Calgary, Alberta based company headquartered in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, engaged in the exploration, acquisition, development and production of petroleum and natural gas in Oklahoma. The Company also reviews new drilling opportunities and potential acquisitions in Oklahoma to supplement its exploration and development activities. EQUAL ENERGY: Filed Motion to Dismiss Weelden et al Class Suits --------------------------------------------------------------- Equal Energy Ltd. and its directors filed a motion to dismiss federal actions, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014. Equal shareholder Johan Van Weelden brought a separate lawsuit on January 14, 2014, in the U.S. District Court for Western District of Oklahoma against Equal, its directors and Petroflow Energy Corporation and Petroflow Canada Acquisition Corp.: Van Weelden v. Equal Energy Ltd., et al., No. 14-cv-0047-C. Subsequently three putative class actions were also filed by shareholders in the same federal court: Montemarano et al. v. Equal Energy Ltd., et al., No. 14-cv-0058-C; Cooke v. Equal Energy, Ltd., et al., No. 14-CV- 0087-C; Scripture v. Equal Energy Ltd., et al., No. 14-cv-0114-C. These cases allege that disclosures relevant to the proposed Arrangement Agreement with Petroflow violate Section 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, that the Equal directors breached their fiduciary duties to Equal shareholders, and that Equal and Petroflow aided and abetted those alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. On May 8, 2014, Judge Cauthron of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma ordered that the cases should be consolidated and appointed Cooke as lead plaintiff and Robbins Gellar Rudman & Dowd LLP as lead counsel. Equal and its directors filed a motion to dismiss the federal actions on May 15, 2014. Petroflow subsequently filed a similar motion to dismiss. Both motions are fully briefed and remain pending. Contemporaneous with motion to dismiss briefing, lead counsel in both the state and federal actions and counsel for defendants engaged in arm's-length negotiations concerning the terms and conditions of a potential resolution of the state and federal actions in which Equal would disclose certain additional information to Equal's shareholders. On June 12, 2014, Equal filed a revised Definitive Proxy with the SEC containing, among other things, the additional disclosures agreed to in connection with the parties' agreement. On or around July 10, 2014, counsel for the parties reached an agreement in principle in the federal actions providing for the binding settlement of all claims that all shareholders might have regarding the actions of Equal or its Board while considering or entering into the Petroflow Arrangement Agreement, and while making any disclosures to the marketplace. In exchange Equal agreed to include additional disclosures in its proxy materials, and entered into a memorandum of understanding setting forth the material terms of the settlement. The parties are in the process of drafting the settlement agreement, which will then be submitted to the federal court for review during a final approval hearing. Equal Energy Ltd. is a Calgary, Alberta based company headquartered in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, engaged in the exploration, acquisition, development and production of petroleum and natural gas in Oklahoma. The Company also reviews new drilling opportunities and potential acquisitions in Oklahoma to supplement its exploration and development activities. FAIRWAY GROUP: Amended Securities Class Action Filed ---------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in a securities class action lawsuit filed an amended complaint, adding affiliates of Sterling Investment Partners as defendants and asserting claims against them for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment, Fairway Group Holdings Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 29, 2014. In February and March 2014, three purported securities class action lawsuits alleging violation of the federal securities laws were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and certain of its current and former officers, certain of its directors and the underwriters for its initial public offering. The actions were consolidated on June 3, 2014 under the caption In re Fairway Group Holdings Corp. Securities Litigation, No. 14-cv-0950. On July 18, 2014, an amended class action complaint was filed, adding affiliates of Sterling Investment Partners as defendants. The complaint seeks unspecified damages and alleges misleading statements in the registration statement and prospectus for the Company's initial public offering and in subsequent communications regarding its business and financial results. In April 2014, a purported stockholder derivative action was filed against certain of the Company's directors in New York state court, asserting claims for breach of fiduciary duties and gross mismanagement based on substantially similar allegations as in the securities class action. In June 2014, the Company and defendants moved to dismiss the derivative complaint. On July 30, 2014, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, adding affiliates of Sterling Investment Partners as defendants and asserting claims against them for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment. While the Company believes the claims are without merit and intends to defend these lawsuits vigorously, the Company cannot predict the outcome of these lawsuits. Fairway Market is a growth-oriented food retailer offering customers a differentiated one-stop shopping experience "Like No Other Market". FAIRWAY GROUP: Faces Wage and Hour Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------- Fairway Group Holdings Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 29, 2014, that a purported wage and hour class action lawsuit was filed in May 2014 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and employees. This suit alleges, among other things, that certain of the Company's past and current employees were not properly compensated in accordance with the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. While the Company believes that these claims are without merit and intends to defend the matter vigorously, the Company cannot predict the outcome of this litigation. Fairway Market is a growth-oriented food retailer offering customers a differentiated one-stop shopping experience "Like No Other Market". FOSTER WHEELER: Faces Class Actions Over AMEC Plc Acquisition ------------------------------------------------------------- Foster Wheeler AG said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that four putative class action lawsuits have been filed on behalf of Foster Wheeler AG shareholders against the Company and its Board of Directors, seeking to enjoin the proposed acquisition of the Company by AMEC plc from proceeding. The first of such lawsuits was filed on March 4, 2014. Two of the lawsuits are pending in Texas state court and the other two lawsuits are pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. AMEC is named as a co-defendant in the two Texas state court lawsuits. The complaints contain similar, standardized allegations. Plaintiffs allege that the directors breached fiduciary duties owed to plaintiff and the Company's other shareholders in pursuing the plan to sell the Company, and that the Company aided and abetted the defendant directors in committing such breach. In particular, plaintiffs allege that AMEC's per share exchange offer to acquire all of the Company's shares does not adequately compensate the Company's shareholders for their investment and significantly undervalues the Company's prospects as a standalone entity, that the consideration fails to take into account the value expected to be realized by AMEC as a result of the proposed acquisition, that the Board permitted Company management to lead the negotiations with AMEC when management was improperly incentivized to pursue the proposed acquisition, and that the Implementation Agreement improperly contains a number of deal protection devices designed to preclude any competing bids from emerging during the period following the announcement of the proposed acquisition in the Company's Form 8-K filing. A stipulation has been entered into in the Texas state court actions consolidating the cases and permitting plaintiffs to serve a consolidated complaint following the issuance of the Company's Schedule 14D-9 Recommendation Statement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission regarding the Implementation Agreement. A similar stipulation has been entered into in the two actions pending before the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. No class has been constituted yet. The Company believes that the allegations are without merit and intends to vigorously oppose the lawsuits on behalf of itself and on behalf of its Board. Foster Wheeler operates through two business groups -- the Global Engineering & Construction Group, and the Global Power Group. GALECTIN THERAPEUTICS: Facing Securities Class Action ----------------------------------------------------- Galectin Therapeutics Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that on July 30, 2014, the Company became aware that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Galectin Therapeutics and certain officers of the Company alleging violations of United States federal securities laws. The Company disputes the allegations in the complaint and intends to vigorously defend this lawsuit. The Company is a clinical stage biopharmaceutical company engaged in drug research and development to create new therapies for fibrotic disease and cancer. GDF SUEZ: Fire Inquiry Raises Serious Questions Over Conduct ------------------------------------------------------------ Gay Alcorn, writing for The Guardian, reports that the legal firm considering a class action against the Hazelwood coal mine operator GDF Suez has said the inquiry into the 45-day fire indicated the company had a case to answer. Ronald Koo, the associate of class actions at Maurice Blackburn, said the inquiry's report released on Sept. 2 "raises serious questions about GDF Suez's conduct". "Our preliminary view is that they have a case to answer," he said. The Hazelwood mine fire inquiry criticized GDF Suez's risk preparation for a fire in disused parts of the open-cut brown coal mine. It said the risks were foreseeable and that the company had taken a "minimal compliance" attitude towards its regulatory obligations. In particular, it found that the company did not conduct a risk assessment of the worked-out areas of the mine, despite a recommendation to do so after a fire in 2008. It had concentrated on the working parts of the mine, neglecting the remediation of disused areas. The company had characterized the fire as a "perfect storm" of events and not foreseeable, a suggestion rejected by the inquiry. On February 9, ember attacks ignited fires in disused parts of the Hazelwood mine, 150km east of Melbourne. The fire burnt for six weeks, blanketing the nearby town of Morwell with ash, smoke and toxic fumes. The inquiry estimated the cost of the fire to the state government, the company and the community exceeded AUD100 million. Maurice Blackburn specializes in class action lawsuits, which are usually conducted on a no-win, no-fee basis. In July, survivors of Victoria's 2009 Black Saturday bushfires secured a AUD500 million payout in what was described as a the biggest class action lawsuit in Australian history. The firm has recently invited residents and businesses affected by the fire to register their interest in pursuing a class action. A community meeting will be held in Morwell on September 14 to discuss the inquiry's report and whether a lawsuit is feasible. Questioned on ABC radio about whether GDF Suez would accept liability for the fire to avoid a protracted lawsuit, its spokesman, Jim Kouts, insisted the fire was an "unprecedented event" and the company would not accept fault and negotiate damages. "We've accepted that [the report]. We've moved on, the board has affirmed the initiatives we're taking, we're working on the recommendations and that's our responsibility," he said. "We were not in breach of regulation," Mr. Kouts said. "The impression that people have is that somehow we were ticking the box . . . I don't agree with that. We take these responsibilities seriously." GENERAL MOTORS: Lawyers to Get C$1.9MM Fees in Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Jennifer Brown, writing for Canadian Lawyer, reports that fees will amount to C$1.9 million including an C$804,000 premium to lawyers acting on behalf of plaintiffs in a class action against General Motors Canada over cuts to employee benefits In early August, a group of about 3,200 non-union retirees reached a settlement with General Motors Canada Ltd. after the company cut their benefits as part of restructuring during 2008. GM Canada will pay C$9 million to the retirees to pay for life insurance claims and health benefits lost. GENMO is a group of non-unionized salaried employees and executives who retired between Jan 1, 1995 and Oct. 20, 2011. In May 2010, they filed a class action lawsuit against General Motors of Canada. Leading the action in O'Neill v. General Motors of Canada was Joseph O'Neill, who worked at GMCL for more than 40 years. Several years into his retirement, GM reduced his health care benefits and cut his life insurance benefit from just under $100,000 to $20,000. O'Neill commenced the class action on behalf of the salaried and executive retirees. Mr. O'Neill passed away in 2012 and Lynn McCullough replaced Mr. O'Neill as the representative plaintiff. In the summary judgment decision released in July 2013 Justice Edward Belobaba found for the class members on most of the issues. GMCL appealed the decision and the plaintiff cross-appealed on the issues on which he was not successful. Shortly after the parties served their appeal factums, they began to explore the possibility of resolving the action in its entirety. They agreed to adjourn the appeal for three months to see if the matter could be settled. The parties obtained actuarial valuations of the class members' claims, tried mediation without success and then, just days before the appeals were to be heard, reached agreement. The proposed settlement establishes a C$9-million fund for past life and health claims to cover the period up to Aug. 31, 2014, and restores most of the class members' health and life insurance benefits effective Sept. 1, 2014. In his Aug. 27 comments in the settlement approval, Justice Belobaba praised the settlement and approved a premium of $804,746 proposed in the legal fees for class counsel. "This was a very big win and it deserved a good fee for class counsel," says Kirk Baert, a partner with Koskie Minsky LLP, adding that "overall it's a positive decision for class counsel." "The judge said the fees were very, very reasonable for the work undertaken, the risk taken and the success achieved. Also, his view was that he tends to give a large amount of weight to the agreement signed at the outset. This has not been the practice to date as many judges have used hindsight to assess the risk." Of the C$3 million allocated to fees by the defendant, C$1,033,334.06 was remitted to the Class Proceedings Fund; and C$903,200.06 went to GENMO (the organization made up primarily of class members who had funded the litigation) to reimburse them for their legal fees. The balance (over and above the premium) was for disbursements incurred after settlement, and costs of administering the settlement, which Sack Goldblatt Mitchell LLP and Sotos LLP will be handling. With the premium of C$804,746 the total in legal fees paid to class counsel will be about C$1.9 million. "I find that this is completely reasonable," Justice Belobaba said in his remarks. "Given that the actuarial value of the overall settlement is in the range of C$130 million, a payment to class counsel of legal fees in the amount of C$1.9 million is only about 1.5 percent of the overall recovery -- well under the 10 or 20 per cent that, in my view, would have been readily approved had the retainer been on a contingency basis." Class counsel initially agreed to work on a straight hourly basis. The retainer agreement with GENMO provided that class counsel would render monthly accounts and be paid on the basis of their hourly rates and incurred disbursements. Class counsel advised they have been paid just over $903,000 on the basis of this retainer. The initial retainer agreement was formally revised in July 2014. GENMO agreed to pay a "premium" if the result achieved justified such a premium and if the payment of the premium did not come from the members of the class. Justice Belobaba noted: "I pause here to note that normally I would view payment of 'premium' requests with suspicion. I take initial retainer agreements seriously and, as a general rule, would only approve an additional premium if I was satisfied that the premium was agreed to not just by the representative plaintiff but by a significant majority of class members, and that the premium would not come from funds that belong to the class. Here, I am satisfied on both points. The premium was agreed to by GENMO, an organization that funded the litigation and de facto represented the class; and the premium would not come from class members but was included in a separate payment from GMCL." GLOBAL TEL*LINK: Faces Class Suit in Western District of Arkansas ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kaylan Stuart, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Global Tel*Link Corporation, Case No. 5:14-cv-05275- TLB (W.D. Ark., September 4, 2014) seeks relief under the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The Plaintiff is represented by: Amy C. Martin, Esq. EVERETT, WALES & COMSTOCK 1944 East Joyce Blvd. P.O. Box 8370 Fayetteville, AR 72703 Telephone: (479) 443-0292 Facsimile: (479) 443-0564 E-mail: amy@everettfirm.com GOLD RESOURCE: Dismissal of Securities Litigation on Appeal ----------------------------------------------------------- Gold Resource Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that a securities class action lawsuit subsequently captioned In re Gold Resource Corp. Securities Litigation, No.1:12-cv-02832 was filed on October 25, 2012 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado naming the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors as defendants. The complaint alleged violations of federal securities laws by the Company and certain of its officers and directors. On July 15, 2013, the federal district court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice. The plaintiff has appealed the District Court's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Gold Resource is a mining company which pursues gold and silver projects that are expected to have low operating costs and high returns on capital. IGNITE RESTAURANT: Settled Suit Over Financial Statements --------------------------------------------------------- Ignite Restaurant Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that a putative class action complaint was filed on July 20, 2012, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas against the Company following its announced intention to restate its financial statements for the fiscal years ended December 28, 2009, January 3, 2011 and January 2, 2012 and the related interim periods. The Company said, "The complaint lodged against us, certain of our current directors and officers and the underwriters in the initial public offering ("IPO") was based on allegations related to the Company's disclosures in its registration statement and prospectus for its IPO. On July 4, 2014, we reached a confidential agreement in principle to settle all pending claims, subject to submission and approval by the court." Ignite Restaurant Group owned and operated three full service, casual dining restaurant brands under the names Joe's Crab Shack ("Joe's"), Brick House Tavern + Tap ("Brick House") and Romano's Macaroni Grill ("Macaroni Grill"). JFK MEDICAL: Cohen Milstein Files Suit Over Exborbitant PIP Fees ---------------------------------------------------------------- Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC on Sept. 3 disclosed that charging that JFK Medical Center and parent company HCA, Inc., are in violation of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Practices Act, two Florida women recently filed a class action lawsuit in Florida state court challenging they and others like them were billed exorbitant and unreasonable fees for emergency radiological services covered in part by their Florida Personal Injury Protection (PIP) insurance. The lawsuit was filed by Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC. Under Florida's No Fault Car Insurance Law, drivers are required to have $10,000 in PIP insurance, which has a 20 percent out-of- pocket deductible. The complaint, filed in the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit Hillsborough County, charges JFK Medical Center, of Atlantis, Fla., and other Florida HCA facilities with billing PIP patients' rates for radiological services that are 20 to 65 times higher than the rates charged for similar services to non- PIP patients. "Patients who show up at the emergency room following a motor vehicle accident not only have to pay their 20 percent deductible, but then are billed far, far more for their tests, which clearly violates the PIP law that requires 'customary and reasonable' pricing," said plaintiffs' lead attorney Theodore J. Leopold of Cohen Milstein's Florida office. The lawsuit was brought by Marisela Herrera and Luz Sanchez, both of whom were PIP-covered patients who were treated through JFK Medical Center's emergency department after their automobile accidents in April 2013 and May 2013, respectively. Ms. Herrera and Ms. Sanchez each received a CT of the brain for $6,404, a CT scan of the spine for $5,900, and a thoracic spine X-ray for $2,222. Herrera also received a lumbar spine X-ray for $3,359. According to the South Florida Medicare rate -- a standard used for customary and reasonable medical service rates -- the brain CT scan provided is $163.96; the cervical spine CT scan, $213.14; and the thoracic spine x-ray, with three views, $38. The complaint charges that because of the exorbitant rates, both Ms. Herrera's and Ms. Sanchez's $10,000 PIP coverage were prematurely exhausted and both were billed thousands of dollars by JFK Medical Center for radiological services not paid for by their PIP insurers. The complaint also charges breach of contract since both women entered into a "Condition of Admission" contract that provides that patients must pay their accounts at the rates stated in the hospital's price list. Neither woman was provided a price list at the time of medical treatment. In addition to Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC -- http://www.cohenmilstein.com-- the plaintiffs are represented by Boldt Law Firm, of Hollywood, Fla. -- http://www.boldtlawfirm.com -- and Gonzalez & Cartwright, P.A., of Lake Worth, Fla. http://www.gonzalezcartwright.com For more information about the lawsuit, visit Herrera and Sanchez et al v. JFK Medical Center Limited Partnership and HCA, Inc., http://www.cohenmilstein.com/cases/350/hca KKR & CO: Discovery Ongoing in Class Action Over Primedia Sale -------------------------------------------------------------- KKR & Co. L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that on May 23, 2011, KKR & Co. L.P., certain KKR affiliates and the board of directors of Primedia Inc. (a former KKR portfolio company whose directors at that time included certain KKR personnel) were named as defendants, along with others, in two shareholder class action complaints filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware challenging the sale of Primedia in a merger transaction that was completed on July 13, 2011. These actions allege, among other things, that Primedia board members, KKR, and certain KKR affiliates, breached their fiduciary duties by entering into the merger agreement at an unfair price and failing to disclose all material information about the merger. Plaintiffs also allege that the merger price was unfair in light of the value of certain shareholder derivative claims, which were dismissed on August 8, 2011, based on a stipulation by the parties that the derivative plaintiffs and any other former Primedia shareholders lost standing to prosecute the derivative claims on behalf of Primedia when the Primedia merger was completed. The dismissed shareholder derivative claims included allegations concerning open market purchases of certain shares of Primedia's preferred stock by KKR affiliates in 2002 and allegations concerning Primedia's redemption of certain shares of Primedia's preferred stock in 2004 and 2005, some of which were owned by KKR affiliates. With respect to the pending shareholder class actions challenging the Primedia merger, on June 7, 2011, the Court of Chancery denied a motion to preliminarily enjoin the merger. On July 18, 2011, the Court of Chancery consolidated the two pending shareholder class actions and appointed lead counsel for plaintiffs. On October 7, 2011, defendants moved to dismiss the operative complaint in the consolidated shareholder class action. The operative complaint seeks, in relevant part, unspecified monetary damages and rescission of the merger. On December 2, 2011, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, which similarly alleges that the Primedia board members, KKR, and certain KKR affiliates breached their respective fiduciary duties by entering into the merger agreement at an unfair price in light of the value of the dismissed shareholder derivative claims. That amended complaint seeks an unspecified amount of monetary damages. On January 31, 2012, defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. On May 10, 2013, the Court of Chancery denied the motion to dismiss the complaint as it relates to the Primedia board members, KKR and certain KKR affiliates. On July 1, 2013, KKR and other defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings on the grounds that plaintiff's claims were barred by the statute of limitations. On December 20, 2013, the Court of Chancery granted the motion in part and denied the motion in part. Discovery is ongoing. KKR is a global investment firm that manages investments across multiple asset classes including private equity, energy, infrastructure, real estate, credit and hedge funds. KKR & CO: Class Actions in Georgia State Courts Remain Stayed ------------------------------------------------------------- KKR & Co. L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that in May 2011, two shareholder class actions challenging the Primedia merger were filed in Georgia state courts, asserting similar allegations and seeking similar relief as initially sought by the Delaware shareholder class actions above. Both Georgia actions have been stayed in favor of the Delaware action. KKR is a global investment firm that manages investments across multiple asset classes including private equity, energy, infrastructure, real estate, credit and hedge funds. KKR & CO: P/E Firms Inked Definitive Agreement to Settle Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- In December 2007, KKR & Co. L.P., along with 15 other private equity firms and investment banks, were named as defendants in a purported class action complaint filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts by shareholders in certain public companies acquired by private equity firms since 2003. In August 2008, KKR, along with 16 other private equity firms and investment banks, were named as defendants in a purported consolidated amended class action complaint. The suit alleges that from mid 2003 defendants have violated antitrust laws by allegedly conspiring to rig bids, restrict the supply of private equity financing, fix the prices for target companies at artificially low levels, and divide up an alleged market for private equity services for leveraged buyouts. The amended complaint seeks injunctive relief on behalf of all persons who sold securities to any of the defendants in leveraged buyout transactions and specifically challenges nine transactions. The first stage of discovery concluded on or about April 15, 2010. On August 18, 2010, the court granted plaintiffs' motion to proceed to a second stage of discovery in part and denied it in part. Specifically, the court granted a second stage of discovery as to eight additional transactions but denied a second stage of discovery as to any transactions beyond the additional eight specified transactions. On October 7, 2010, the plaintiffs filed under seal a fourth amended complaint that includes new factual allegations concerning the additional eight transactions and the original nine transactions. The fourth amended complaint also includes eight purported sub classes of plaintiffs seeking unspecified monetary damages and/or restitution with respect to eight of the original nine challenged transactions and new separate claims against two of the original nine challenged transactions. On January 13, 2011, the court granted a motion filed by KKR and certain other defendants to dismiss all claims alleged by a putative damages sub class in connection with the acquisition of PanAmSat Corp. and separate claims for relief related to the PanAmSat transaction. The second phase of discovery permitted by the court is completed. On July 11, 2011, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking leave to file a proposed fifth amended complaint that seeks to challenge ten additional transactions in addition to the transactions identified in the previous complaints. Defendants opposed plaintiffs' motion. On September 7, 2011, the court granted plaintiffs' motion in part and denied it in part. Specifically, the court granted a third stage of limited discovery as to the ten additional transactions identified in plaintiffs' proposed fifth amended complaint but denied plaintiffs' motion seeking leave to file a proposed fifth amended complaint. On June 14, 2012, following the completion of the third phase of discovery, plaintiffs filed a fifth amended complaint which, like their proposed fifth amended complaint, seeks to challenge ten additional transactions in addition to the transactions identified in the previous complaints. On June 22, 2012, defendants filed a motion to dismiss certain claims asserted in the fifth amended complaint. On July 18, 2012, the court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss, dismissing certain previously released claims against certain defendants. On March 13, 2013, the United States District Court denied defendants' motion for summary judgment on the count involving KKR. However, the court narrowed plaintiffs' claim to an alleged overarching agreement to refrain from jumping other defendants' announced proprietary transactions, thereby limiting the case to a smaller number of transactions subject to plaintiffs' claim. KKR filed a renewed motion for summary judgment on April 16, 2013, which the court denied on July 18, 2013. Plaintiffs moved for class certification on October 21, 2013. Defendants filed their opposition to the motion on January 24, 2014, KKR & Co. L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014. The court has not yet decided plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On July 28, 2014, KKR entered into a definitive agreement to settle all claims without the admission of wrongdoing, which is subject to approval by the court. The amount to be paid by KKR pursuant to the settlement is not expected to have a material effect on KKR's financial results. KKR is a global investment firm that manages investments across multiple asset classes including private equity, energy, infrastructure, real estate, credit and hedge funds. KKR & CO: Chancery Court Heard Oral Arguments on Dismissal Bid -------------------------------------------------------------- KKR & Co. L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that from December 19, 2013 to January 31, 2014, multiple putative class action lawsuits have been filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, the United States District Court of the District of Northern California, and the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware by KFN shareholders against KFN, individual members of KFN's board of directors, KKR, and certain of KKR's affiliates in connection with KFN's entry into a merger agreement pursuant to which it would become a subsidiary of KKR. The merger transaction was completed on April 30, 2014. The actions filed in California state court have been consolidated but an operative complaint has not been filed or designated. The complaint filed in the California federal court action, which was never served on the defendants, was voluntarily dismissed on May 6, 2014. Two of the Delaware actions were voluntarily dismissed, and the remaining Delaware actions were consolidated. On February 21, 2014, a consolidated complaint was filed in the consolidated Delaware action which all defendants moved to dismiss on March 7, 2014. On July 29, 2014, the Delaware Court of Chancery heard oral arguments on defendants' motion to dismiss. KKR is a global investment firm that manages investments across multiple asset classes including private equity, energy, infrastructure, real estate, credit and hedge funds. KODIAK OIL: "Booth" Suit Removed to Colorado District Court ----------------------------------------------------------- Defendants 1007695 B.C. Ltd. and Whiting Petroleum Corporation removed the class action lawsuit styled The Booth Family Trust v. Kodiak Oil & Gas Corp., et al., Case No. 2014CV32947, was removed from the Denver District Court to the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado (Denver). The Colorado District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-02457 to the proceeding. Defendants Whiting Petroleum Corporation and 1007695 B.C. Ltd. are represented by: Samuel Sage Bacon, Esq. Keith D. Tooley, Esq. WELBORN SULLIVAN MECK & TOOLEY, P.C. 1125 17th Street, Suite 2200 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 830-2500 Facsimile: (303) 832-2366 E-mail: sbacon@wsmtlaw.com ktooley@wsmtlaw.com KOPPERS HOLDINGS: 62 Cases Pending Over Coal Tar Pitch Exposure --------------------------------------------------------------- Koppers Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that Koppers Inc., along with other defendants, is currently a defendant in lawsuits filed in three states in which the plaintiffs claim they suffered a variety of illnesses (including cancer) as a result of exposure to coal tar pitch sold by the defendants. There are approximately 113 plaintiffs in 62 cases pending as of June 30, 2014 as compared to 111 plaintiffs in 61 cases pending as of December 31, 2013. As of June 30, 2014, there are a total of 58 cases pending in state court in Pennsylvania, three in Arkansas, and one case pending in state court in Tennessee. The plaintiffs in all 62 pending cases seek to recover compensatory damages, while plaintiffs in 57 cases also seek to recover punitive damages. The plaintiffs in the 58 cases filed in Pennsylvania state court seek unspecified damages in excess of the court's minimum jurisdictional limit. The plaintiffs in the Arkansas state court cases each seek compensatory damages in excess of $50,000 in addition to punitive damages. The plaintiffs in the Tennessee state court case each seek damages of $15.0 million. The other defendants in these lawsuits vary from case to case and include companies such as Beazer East, Inc., United States Steel Corporation, Honeywell International Inc., Vertellus Specialties Inc., Dow Chemical Company, UCAR Carbon Company, Inc., Exxon Mobil Corporation, SGL Carbon Corporation and Alcoa, Inc. Discovery is proceeding in these cases. No trial dates have been set in any of these cases. KOPPERS HOLDINGS: Nov. 21 Deadline to Complete Class Discovery -------------------------------------------------------------- Koppers Inc. operated a utility pole treatment plant in Gainesville from December 29, 1988 until its closure in 2009. The property upon which the utility pole treatment plant was located was sold by Koppers Inc. to Beazer East, Inc. in 2010. In November 2010, a class action complaint was filed in the Circuit Court of the Eighth Judicial Circuit located in Alachua County, Florida by residential real property owners located in a neighborhood west of and immediately adjacent to the former utility pole treatment plant in Gainesville. The complaint named Koppers Holdings Inc., Koppers Inc., Beazer East and several other parties as defendants. In a second amended complaint, plaintiffs define the putative class as consisting of all persons who are present record owners of residential real properties located in an area within a two- mile radius of the former Gainesville wood treating plant. Plaintiffs further allege that chemicals and contaminants from the Gainesville plant have contaminated real properties within the two mile geographical area, have caused property damage (diminution in value) and have placed residents and owners of the putative class properties at an elevated risk of exposure to and injury from the chemicals at issue. The second amended complaint seeks damages for diminution in property values, the establishment of a medical monitoring fund and punitive damages. The case was removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida in December 2010. The district court dismissed Koppers Holdings Inc. in September 2013 on the ground that there was no personal jurisdiction. Plaintiffs' appeal of the dismissal of Koppers Holdings Inc. was dismissed in December 2013. Koppers Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that in May 2014, the Court entered an amended scheduling order for class certification, which sets a deadline of November 21, 2014 for completion of class discovery. Discovery on the merits is stayed until further order of the court. LAS VEGAS SANDS: Consolidated Class Action in Preliminary Stage --------------------------------------------------------------- Las Vegas Sands Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that Frank J. Fosbre, Jr. filed on May 24, 2010, a purported class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada (the "U.S. District Court"), against LVSC, Sheldon G. Adelson, and William P. Weidner. The complaint alleged that LVSC, through the individual defendants, disseminated or approved materially false information, or failed to disclose material facts, through press releases, investor conference calls and other means from August 1, 2007 through November 6, 2008. The complaint sought, among other relief, class certification, compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs. On July 21, 2010, Wendell and Shirley Combs filed a purported class action complaint in the U.S. District Court, against LVSC, Sheldon G. Adelson, and William P. Weidner. The complaint alleged that LVSC, through the individual defendants, disseminated or approved materially false information, or failed to disclose material facts, through press releases, investor conference calls and other means from June 13, 2007 through November 11, 2008. The complaint, which was substantially similar to the Fosbre complaint, discussed above, sought, among other relief, class certification, compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs. On August 31, 2010, the U.S. District Court entered an order consolidating the Fosbre and Combs cases, and appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel. As such, the Fosbre and Combs cases are reported as one consolidated matter. On November 1, 2010, a purported class action amended complaint was filed in the consolidated action against LVSC, Sheldon G. Adelson and William P. Weidner. The amended complaint alleges that LVSC, through the individual defendants, disseminated or approved materially false and misleading information, or failed to disclose material facts, through press releases, investor conference calls and other means from August 2, 2007 through November 6, 2008. The amended complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification, compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs. On January 10, 2011, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which, on August 24, 2011, was granted in part, and denied in part, with the dismissal of certain allegations. On November 7, 2011, the defendants filed their answer to the allegations remaining in the amended complaint. On July 11, 2012, the U.S. District Court issued an order allowing defendants' Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the court's order dated August 24, 2011, striking additional portions of the plaintiff's complaint and reducing the class period to a period of February 4 to November 6, 2008. On August 7, 2012, the plaintiff filed a purported class action second amended complaint (the "Second Amended Complaint") seeking to expand their allegations back to a time period of 2007 (having previously been cut back to 2008 by the U.S. District Court) essentially alleging very similar matters that had been previously stricken by the U.S. District Court. On October 16, 2012, the defendants filed a new motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. The plaintiffs responded to the motion to dismiss on November 1, 2012, and defendants filed their reply on November 12, 2012. On November 20, 2012, the U.S. District Court granted a stay of discovery under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act pending a decision on the new motion to dismiss and therefore, the discovery process has been suspended. On April 16, 2013, the case was reassigned to a new judge. On July 30, 2013, the U.S. District Court heard the motion to dismiss and took the matter under advisement. On November 7, 2013, the judge granted in part and denied in part defendants' motions to dismiss. On December 13, 2013, the defendants filed their answer to the Second Amended Complaint. Discovery in the matter has re-started. On January 8, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion to expand the certified class period. On February 3, 2014, the judge agreed to the parties' stipulation to defer briefing on the issue of expanding the class period until the U.S. Supreme Court issues a decision in the case of Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc. This consolidated action is in a preliminary stage and management has determined that based on proceedings to date, it is currently unable to determine the probability of the outcome of this matter or the range of reasonably possible loss, if any. The Company intends to defend this matter vigorously. LHC GROUP: Approval of Class Action Settlement Pending ------------------------------------------------------ LHC Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that a putative shareholder securities class action was filed on June 13, 2012, against the Company and its Chairman and Chief Executive Officer in the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, styled City of Omaha Police & Fire Retirement System v. LHC Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 6:12-cv-01609-JTT-CMH. The action was filed on behalf of LHC shareholders who purchased shares of the Company's common stock between July 30, 2008 and October 26, 2011. Plaintiff generally alleges that the defendants caused false and misleading statements to be issued in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended ("the Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and that the Company's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer is a control person under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. On November 2, 2012, Lead Plaintiff City of Omaha Police & Fire Retirement System filed an Amended Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws ("the Amended Complaint") on behalf of the same putative class of LHC shareholders as the original Complaint. In addition to claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, the Amended Complaint added a claim against the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer for violation of Section 20A of the Exchange Act. The Company believes these claims are without merit. On December 17, 2012, the Company and the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint, which was denied by Order dated March 15, 2013. On June 16, 2014, following mediation, the parties entered into a Stipulation of Settlement. On June 17, 2014, Lead Plaintiff filed an Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, which is presently pending. If approved, as part of the settlement, the Company's insurance carrier will fund the entire $7.9 million settlement amount. LHC Group, Inc. provides quality cost-effective post-acute health care services to patients. LINN ENERGY: Settlement Fund Distribution Seen Later This Year -------------------------------------------------------------- LINN Energy LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that prior to the Company's acquisition of Berry Petroleum Company, Berry became, and continues to be, a defendant in a certain statewide royalty class action case, in which the parties have entered into a settlement agreement to settle past claims for approximately $2.4 million. Subject to approval of the settlement agreement by the court, Berry and the Company anticipate distribution of settlement funds to begin late in the third quarter or early fourth quarter of 2014. LINN Energy is an independent oil and natural gas company. LINN ENERGY: SDNY Court Dismissed Combined Actions in July ---------------------------------------------------------- LINN Energy LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that in the summer of 2013, several class action complaints were filed in the United States District Court, Southern District of Texas and the United States District Court, Southern District of New York (the "SDNY") against LINN Energy, LinnCo LLC, certain of their officers and directors and the various underwriters for LinnCo's initial public offering (these cases were subsequently consolidated in the SDNY (the "Combined Actions")). These cases collectively asserted claims based on allegations that LINN Energy made false or misleading statements relating to its hedging strategy, the cash flow available for distribution to unitholders, and LINN Energy's energy production in its Exchange Act filings and additional claims based on alleged misstatements relating to these issues in the prospectus and registration statement for LinnCo's initial public offering. In November 2013, LINN Energy and the other defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Combined Actions. On July 8, 2014, the Court dismissed the plaintiff's claims with prejudice concluding that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate any material misstatement or omission by LINN Energy or LinnCo. LINN Energy is an independent oil and natural gas company. LINN ENERGY: Briefing and Hearing on Class Cert. Not Yet Set ------------------------------------------------------------ LINN Energy LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that the Company has been named as a defendant in a number of lawsuits, including claims from royalty owners related to disputed royalty payments and royalty valuations. With respect to a certain statewide class action case, the parties in this case are currently engaged in settlement negotiations and based on the current status of those negotiations, the Company estimates a range of possible loss of $1 million to $4.5 million for which an appropriate reserve has been established. For a certain statewide class action royalty payment dispute where a reserve has not yet been established, the Company has denied that it has any liability on the claims and has raised arguments and defenses that, if accepted by the court, will result in no loss to the Company. Based on the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals' decision to reverse class certification orders in two unrelated certification cases, the court has permitted additional limited discovery prior to the briefing and hearing on class certification. Briefing and the hearing on class certification have not yet been set by the court. As a result, the Company is unable to estimate a possible loss, or range of possible loss, if any. LINN Energy is an independent oil and natural gas company. MANHEIM TOWNSHIP, PA: Sued Over Excessive "Water-Tapping Fees" -------------------------------------------------------------- Dan Packel, writing for Law360, reports that a group of Pennsylvania developers have hit Manheim Township and its municipal authority with a class action in state court, alleging that the Lancaster County municipality imposed excessive "water- tapping fees" for connections to its municipal water system. In the lawsuit filed in the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas in Aug. 22, five developers said the township and the municipal authority had violated the state's Pennsylvania Municipality Authorities Act, which prohibits the collection of water-tapping fees by any entity other than the one that owns the corresponding distribution facilities. "Pennsylvania law allows the authority to charge tapping fees to property owners who connect to the water distribution system only if the authority owns the water distribution system," the complaint said. According to the builders, while the facilities were previously owned by the township, they passed them to the city of Lancaster under two agreements from the 1980s that served to expand water distribution in the township. When Manheim sought to expand its water system in the early 1980s, its water lines were owned and operated by the city of Lancaster. But since the city was unwilling to bear the cost of expanding the lines but was willing to supply and sell water to township residents connected to the expanded system, the township and the city reached agreements in which the township would pay for the expansion, and the city would provide water, according to the complaint. The new system would also be leased to the city. According to the complaint, under the lease agreements, the township would pay for the expansion with the tapping fees, and once the cost of the expansion was recovered, the lease would come to an end, and the ownership of the system would be transferred to the city. The builders say that both agreements came to an end in 2004, resulting in the transfer of the ownership of the distribution system from the township to the city. However, they, along with the other members of the proposed class, continue to pay the tapping fees, in violation of the act, along with the state and federal constitutions, according to the complaint. The developers also say that the fees violate the state constitution because rather than being used to pay for specific improvements, they serve as a general tax that was imposed by nonelected officials. Along the same lines, they say the fees violate their due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The builders seek to represent a class of all individuals who have paid tapping fees in the last two years. They say that the issue over the fees came to light in a separate, still-ongoing lawsuit launched by a single developer against the township and the authority in 2011. The builders are represented by Edward S. Robson -- erobson@robsonlaw.com -- of Robson & Robson LLC and Bart D. Cohen of the Law Office of Bart D. Cohen. The case is Your Towne Builders Inc. et al. v. Manheim Township et al, case number 14-07663, in the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County. NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Wins Initial Approval of $60-Mil. Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- Maria Dinzeo at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal judge has preliminarily approved a $60 million settlement with the NCAA over the use of student-athletes' likenesses in video games. The settlement, which U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken approved on September 3, 2014, will apply to all NCAA Division I football and men's basketball players belonging to teams that appeared in an NCAA branded video game from May 4, 2003, through Sept. 3, 2014, and whose image or jersey number appears in the game. Attorneys for the players estimate that more than 100,000 college players have potential claims. Lead plaintiff Sam Keller, a former quarterback for Nebraska and Arizona State, sued the NCAA and Electronic Arts in 2009, claiming the video game company and the governing body for college athletics conspired to make money off of student-athletes' identities. EA has stopped making NCAA video games since the lawsuit's filing. The class reached a $40 million settlement with EA in June, marking the first time student athletes would get paid for their likenesses in video games. Wilken preliminarily approved that settlement as well on September 3. Wilken scheduled a fairness hearing for final court approval of both agreements for May 15, 2015. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steve W. Berman, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com - and - Robert B. Carey, Esq. Leonard W. Aragon, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 11 West Jefferson, Suite 1000 Phoenix, AZ 85003 Telephone: (602) 840-5900 Facsimile: (602) 840-3012 E-mail: rob@hbsslaw.com leonard@hbsslaw.com The case is Samuel Michael Keller, et al., v. Electronic Arts, Inc.; National Collegiate Athletics Association; and Collegiate Licensing Company, Case No. 4:09-cv-1967 CW, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Oakland Division. NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Faces Class Action Over Duration of Scholarships ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jon Solomon, writing for CBSSports.com, reports that already flooded with litigation, the NCAA faces another antitrust lawsuit that in part tries to use the Ed O'Bannon ruling to challenge the number and duration of scholarships for Division I football players. Former Colorado State kicker Durrell Chamorro filed a class-action suit last week in Indianapolis federal court seeking damages for Division I football players who were impacted by the since- abandoned rule banning multiyear scholarships. In 2012, the NCAA passed a rule allowing schools to offer multiyear scholarships to all athletes for the first time since 1973. Some schools are taking advantage of the option. Also, the lawsuit challenges the yearly cap on football scholarships by school. The NCAA permits Football Bowl Subdivision schools to offer 85 football scholarships and Football Championship Subdivision schools to provide 63. The class attempts to represent all current and former Division I football players whose scholarship was reduced or not renewed for reasons other than what's allowed in the NCAA bylaws. One of Mr. Chamorro's attorneys is Steve Berman, who is trying to consolidate the Chamorro lawsuit with a similar one he brought in Indiana two years ago. The difference is now there's a plaintiff affiliated with an FBS conference as opposed to only an FCS plaintiff. Mr. Berman filed a motion to consolidate the Chamorro case in Indiana with the active John Rock lawsuit. Mr. Rock was a former Gardner-Webb quarterback whose 2012 lawsuit alleged the NCAA's ban of multiyear scholarships and limits on scholarship numbers were illegal. In August 2013, a federal judge in Indiana ruled against the NCAA's motion to dismiss the Rock case, which is now nearing the class-certification process. U.S. District Judge Jane Magnus- Stinson wrote that the standard of proof would be high for Rock at trial and whether he "can gather enough evidence to prove that the relevant market he pleads is correct is a question for another day." U.S. Magistrate Judge Denise LaRue has approved a joint request by the NCAA and Rock's lawyers to reset a due date for the plaintiffs' statement of special damages and settlement demand until Nov. 24. A status conference was scheduled for Sept. 3. Mr. Berman's latest lawsuit cites seven times a California federal judge's Aug. 8 ruling from the O'Bannon case, which found the NCAA violates antitrust law by prohibiting players from being paid for use of their names, images and likenesses. The O'Bannon references are largely an attempt to show that a relevant market exists that has been harmed under antitrust law. For instance, Berman cites the O'Bannon judge's ruling that "FBS football . . . [is] the only supplier of the unique bundles of goods and services" provided to recruits. 'Thousands' of football players were harmed The Chamorro lawsuit alleges the NCAA's old ban on multiyear scholarships injured "thousands" of athletes by causing them to pay "millions" more in tuition when their scholarships were reduced or not renewed. Players who are non-renewed either pay tuition out of pocket, uproot themselves by transferring to another school for a scholarship, uproot themselves to a new school while having to pay for tuition, or drop out of school, the suit says. The complaint argues that the NCAA cannot use amateurism or competitive balance as procompetitive justifications for limiting the number of football scholarships. If competitive balance is determined to be a legitimate justification, Chamorro's lawsuit offered five less-restrictive alternatives: * The NCAA could require revenue sharing among schools. * The NCAA could replace its current roster restrictions with new ones that actually increase competitive balance. * The NCAA could impose limits on facility spending, instead of permitting major schools to spend "tens of millions of dollars on facilities that lesser schools cannot hope to imitate." * The NCAA could impose limits on recruiting budgets. * The NCAA could impose restrictions on alumni donations to the athletics department. In 2012, the NCAA barely passed a rule giving schools the option to provide multiyear scholarships. The arrangement was nearly scrapped when 62.12 percent of the 330 schools voting opposed the legislation -- just shy of the 62.5 percent needed to overturn the new rule. Mr. Chamorros's lawsuit notes that Indiana, USC, Purdue, Fresno State, Michigan State, North Carolina State, North Carolina, Ohio State and Iowa have recently chosen to award multiyear scholarships. "This expanding list of schools demonstrates the market forces that will eventually force all Division I schools to offer multiyear scholarships to football players," the suit states. The complaint cites comments several years ago from some schools that opposed making multiyear scholarships an option. For instance, Indiana State wrote that multiyear scholarships would create "nightmares" because a new coach and school "may be 'stuck' with a student-athlete they no longer want . . . or the new coach may have a completely different style of offense/defense that the student athlete no longer fits into." According to the lawsuit, Mr. Chamorro had his scholarship non- renewed in 2007 despite maintaining a 3.5 grade-point average and following all NCAA and university rules. Before Chamorro signed with Colorado State in 2005, Colorado State special teams coach Dave Arnold had told the kicker his scholarship would be for five years and that players "with four or five year scholarships had it better than coaches whose were reviewed every year," the lawsuit says. While Chamorro was in college, Colorado State coach Sonny Lubick had warned that "he could take his scholarship if he did not become the starter," the lawsuit states. According to a 2011 USA Today article, Mr. Lubick told the Associated Press that Mr. Chamorro was put on notice after his first year and was told, "You've got to be better. We'll give you one more year." Mr. Lubick informed Mr. Chamorro's parents in January 2007 their son could compete for the starting position but his scholarship would not be renewed since it would go to a new player, according to the lawsuit. At a university appeals hearing, Mr. Lubick said the NCAA's scholarship cap prevented him from renewing Mr. Chamorro's scholarship and providing aid to some other players, according to the suit. Mr. Chamorro's appeal was denied and he left Colorado State because he could not afford the cost of out-of-state tuition, the lawsuit states. He graduated from another school in 2010 with "substantial debt," according to the suit. The lawsuit cites a passage from an NCAA Presidential Taskforce document that in part says, "Under the current structure of athletics scholarships, athletes may be legitimately concerned that their continued access to education depends on sports success. This can create a conflict of incentives that may lead to an emphasis on athletics at the cost of academics." The NCAA could have some legal precedent on its side. Four years ago, Mr. Berman brought a case against the NCAA by former Rice football player Joseph Agnew, who lost his scholarship as a senior and alleged the one-year limit amounted to price-fixing. In 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled against Mr. Agnew after the NCAA successfully argued that the lawsuit could not establish a harmed antitrust market for losing an athletic scholarship. NELNET INC: Class Not Yet Certified in Bais Yaakov Action --------------------------------------------------------- Nelnet Inc. in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that a complaint against Peterson's Nelnet, LLC ("Peterson's"), a subsidiary of Nelnet, Inc. ("Nelnet"), was filed on January 4, 2011, in the U.S. Federal District Court for the District of New Jersey (the "New Jersey District Court"). The case is Bais Yaakov of Spring Valley v. Peterson's Nelnet, LLC. The complaint alleges that Peterson's sent six advertising faxes to the named plaintiff in 2008-2009 that were not the result of express invitation or permission granted by the plaintiff and did not include certain opt out language. The complaint also alleges that such faxes violated the Federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (the "TCPA"), purportedly entitling the plaintiff to $500 per violation, trebled for willful violations for each of the six faxes. The complaint further alleges that Peterson's had sent putative class members more than 10,000 faxes that violated the TCPA, amounting to more than $5 million in statutory penalty damages and more than $15 million if trebled for willful violations. The complaint seeks to establish a class action. On September 13, 2013, the named plaintiff filed a motion for class certification, and on October 7, 2013, Peterson's filed a motion to dismiss the named plaintiff's motion for class certification. As of the filing date of the Form 10-Q report, the New Jersey District Court has not established, recognized, or certified a class. On January 23, 2014, Peterson's and the named plaintiff reached an agreement in principle whereby Peterson's would, without admitting any wrongdoing or liability, settle all claims in the lawsuit, including potential class action claims, for payment of an immaterial amount. The settlement agreement in principle is subject to finalization and court approval. Nelnet is an education services company focused primarily on providing fee-based processing services and quality education- related products and services in four core areas: asset management and finance, loan servicing, payment processing, and enrollment services (education planning). These products and services help students and families plan, prepare, and pay for their education and make the administrative and financial processes more efficient for schools and financial organizations. In addition, the Company earns net interest income on a portfolio of federally insured student loans. NELNET INC: Class Not Yet Certified in "Zaw" Action --------------------------------------------------- Nelnet Inc. in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that a Third Amended Complaint was served on January 18, 2013, on Nelnet in connection with a lawsuit by Than Zaw against Nelnet (erroneously referred to in the lawsuit as Nelnet Business Solutions, Inc.) in the Superior Court of the State of California, Contra Costa County. The case has since been moved to the U.S. Federal District Court for the Northern District of California (the "California District Court"). The lawsuit was originally instituted on December 30, 2010, and alleges that Nelnet violated the California Fair Debt Collection Practices Act in its interactions with the plaintiff, a California resident. The plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint added additional allegations claiming that Nelnet violated Section 632 of the California Penal Code by allegedly recording one or more telephone calls to the plaintiff without the plaintiff's consent, and sought $5,000 in statutory damages per alleged violation. The Third Amended Complaint further alleged that Nelnet improperly recorded telephone calls to other California residents without such persons' consent, and sought to establish a class action with respect to the California Section 632 claim. As of the filing date of the Form 10-Q report, the California District Court has not established, recognized, or certified a class. On October 16, 2013, Nelnet and the named plaintiff reached an agreement in principle whereby Nelnet would, without admitting any wrongdoing or liability, settle all claims in the lawsuit, including potential class action claims, for payment of an immaterial amount. The settlement agreement in principle is subject to finalization and court approval. Nelnet is an education services company focused primarily on providing fee-based processing services and quality education- related products and services in four core areas: asset management and finance, loan servicing, payment processing, and enrollment services (education planning). These products and services help students and families plan, prepare, and pay for their education and make the administrative and financial processes more efficient for schools and financial organizations. In addition, the Company earns net interest income on a portfolio of federally insured student loans. NELNET INC: Class Not Yet Certified in "Keating" Action ------------------------------------------------------- Nelnet Inc. in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that an Amended Complaint was served on August 6, 2012, on Peterson's, CUnet, LLC ("CUnet"), a subsidiary of Nelnet, and on Nelnet (collectively, the "Keating Defendants"), in connection with a lawsuit by Grant Keating in the U.S. Federal District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (the "Ohio District Court"). The lawsuit was originally instituted on August 24, 2011, and alleges that the Keating Defendants sent an advertising text message to the named plaintiff in June 2011 using an automatic telephone dialing system, and without the plaintiff's express consent. The complaint also alleges that this text message violated the TCPA, purportedly entitling the plaintiff to $500, trebled for a willful violation. The complaint further alleges that the Keating Defendants sent putative class members similar text messages using an automatic telephone dialing system, without such purported class members' consent. The complaint seeks to establish a class action. On August 29, 2013, the Keating Defendants filed motions for summary judgment, and the named plaintiff filed a motion for class certification. On May 12, 2014, the Ohio District Court granted the Keating Defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the case. On June 12, 2014, the named plaintiff filed a Notice of Intent to Appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals. As of the filing date of the Form 10-Q report, the Ohio District Court has not established, recognized, or certified a class. The Keating Defendants intend to continue to defend themselves vigorously in this lawsuit. Nelnet is an education services company focused primarily on providing fee-based processing services and quality education- related products and services in four core areas: asset management and finance, loan servicing, payment processing, and enrollment services (education planning). These products and services help students and families plan, prepare, and pay for their education and make the administrative and financial processes more efficient for schools and financial organizations. In addition, the Company earns net interest income on a portfolio of federally insured student loans. NINE WEST: Disciplined Ex-Worker on Spurious Charges, Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Jermaine Gilyard v. Nine West Group Inc., Jag Footwear Accessories and Retail Corp., and John Does "1-10," Case No. 1:14-cv-07096 (S.D.N.Y., September 3, 2014) alleges that the Plaintiff was subjected to a hostile work environment on the basis of race, racial discrimination, was disciplined several times on spurious charges, and was finally fired on September 5, 2013, in retaliation for his attempts to rectify his hostile working conditions. Mr. Gilyard is an African-American male. Nine West Group Inc. is a Delaware domestic for-profit corporation. Jag Footwear Accessories and Retail Corporation is a Pennsylvania domestic for-profit corporation. The Corporate Defendants conduct business in New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael J. Romano, Esq. ROMANO & ASSOCIATES 220 Old Country Road Mineola, NY 11501 Telephone: (516) 248-8880 OKLAHOMA CITY, OK: Removed "Coker" Class Suit to W.D. Oklahoma -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Coker v. Oklahoma City, Case No. CJ-2014-2424, was removed from the Oklahoma County District Court to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma (Oklahoma City). The Western District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:14-cv-00933-F to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought under the Civil Rights Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey J. Box, Esq. JEFFREY J. BOX PC 2621 S Western Oklahoma City, OK 73109 Telephone: (405) 600-9918 Facsimile: (405) 632-8828 E-mail: jeffreybox@coxinet.net - and - Marvel E. Lewis, Esq. WHITE & WEDDLE PC 5532 N Western Ave. Oklahoma City, OK 73118 Telephone: (405) 858-8899 Facsimile: (405) 858-8844 E-mail: marvel@whiteandweddle.com The Defendant is represented by: Richard C. Smith, Esq. Tina A. Hughes, Esq. MUNICIPAL COUNSELOR'S OFFICE-OKC 200 N Walker Ave., Suite 400 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 297-2451 Facsimile: (405) 297-3851 E-mail: rick.smith@okc.gov tina.hughes@okc.gov OSCAR O. REY: Removed "Pastrana" Class Suit to S.D. Florida ----------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Yoshuan Pastrana v. Oscar O. Rey, CPA, PA, et al., Case No. 14-020584CA01, was removed from the 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-23257-CMA to the proceeding. The Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason Saul Remer, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC Court House Tower 44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416-5000 Facsimile: (305) 416-5005 E-mail: jremer@rgpattorneys.com The Defendants are represented by: Michael Lewis Elkins, Esq. BRYANT, MILLER, OLIVE P.A. 1 SE 3rd Avenue, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 455-2653 Facsimile: (305) 374-0895 E-mail: melkins@bmolaw.com PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Preliminary Approval of Settlement Granted ---------------------------------------------------------------- Prudential Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that from July 2010 to December 2010, four purported nationwide class actions were filed challenging the use of retained asset accounts to settle death benefit claims of beneficiaries of a group life insurance contract owned by the United States Department of Veterans Affairs that covers the lives of members and veterans of the U.S. armed forces. In 2011, the cases were consolidated in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts by the Judicial Panel for Multi-District Litigation as In re Prudential Insurance Company of America SGLI/VGLI Contract Litigation. The consolidated complaint alleges that the use of the retained assets accounts that earn interest and are available to be withdrawn by the beneficiary, in whole or in part, at any time, to settle death benefit claims is in violation of federal law, and asserts claims of breach of contract, breaches of fiduciary duty and the duty of good faith and fair dealing, fraud and unjust enrichment and seeks compensatory and punitive damages, disgorgement of profits, equitable relief and pre and post-judgment interest. In March 2011, the motion to dismiss was denied. In January 2012, plaintiffs filed a motion to certify the class. In August 2012, the court denied plaintiffs' class certification motion without prejudice pending the filing of summary judgment motions on the issue of whether plaintiffs sustained an actual injury. In October 2012, the parties filed motions for summary judgment. In November 2013, the Court issued a Memorandum and Order stating that the named plaintiffs: (1) did not suffer a cognizable legal injury; (2) are not entitled to any damages based on allegations of delay in payment of benefits; and (3) are not entitled to disgorgement of profits as a remedy. The Court ordered further briefing on whether nominal damages should be awarded and whether any equitable relief should be granted. In February 2014, the parties filed briefs on the issues addressed in the Court's order. In August 2014, the Court granted preliminary approval of a proposed settlement of this matter as a class action settlement. If final approval is obtained from the Court, the anticipated class action settlement will be within the amount reserved for this matter. PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: "Huffman" Class Action Remains Stayed ----------------------------------------------------------- Prudential Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that Huffman v. The Prudential Insurance Company, a purported nationwide class action brought on behalf of beneficiaries of group life insurance contracts owned by ERISA-governed employee welfare benefit plans was filed in September 2010 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, challenging the use of retained asset accounts in employee welfare benefit plans to settle death benefit claims as a violation of ERISA and seeking injunctive relief and disgorgement of profits. In July 2011, the Company's motion for judgment on the pleadings was denied. In February 2012, plaintiffs filed a motion to certify the class. In April 2012, the Court stayed the case pending the outcome of a case involving another insurer that is before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Court Dismissed ADR-Related Complaint ----------------------------------------------------------- Prudential Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that from November 2002 to March 2005, eleven separate complaints were filed against the Company and the law firm of Leeds Morelli & Brown in New Jersey state court and in the New Jersey Superior Court, Essex County as Lederman v. Prudential Financial, Inc., et al. The complaints allege that an alternative dispute resolution agreement entered into among Prudential Insurance, over 235 claimants who are current and former Prudential Insurance employees, and Leeds Morelli & Brown (the law firm representing the claimants) was illegal and that Prudential Insurance conspired with Leeds Morelli & Brown to commit fraud, malpractice, breach of contract, and violate racketeering laws by advancing legal fees to the law firm with the purpose of limiting Prudential's liability to the claimants. In February 2010, the New Jersey Supreme Court assigned the cases for centralized case management to the Superior Court, Bergen County. The Company participated in a court-ordered mediation that resulted in a settlement involving 193 of the remaining 235 plaintiffs. The amounts paid to the 193 plaintiffs were within existing reserves for this matter. In December 2013, the Company participated in court-ordered mediation that resulted in a December 2013 settlement involving 40 of the remaining 42 plaintiffs with litigation against the Company, including plaintiffs who had not yet appealed the dismissal of their claims. The amounts paid to the 40 plaintiffs were within existing reserves for this matter. In July 2014, the Court granted the Company's summary judgment motion dismissing with prejudice the complaint of one of the two remaining plaintiffs asserting claims against the Company. PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Class Sought in Sterling Heights Case ----------------------------------------------------------- Prudential Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that a purported class action lawsuit, City of Sterling Heights General Employees' Retirement System v. Prudential Financial, Inc., et al., was filed in August 2012 in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging violations of federal securities law. The complaint names as defendants the Company's Chief Executive Officer, the Chief Financial Officer, the Principal Accounting Officer and certain members of the Company's Board of Directors. The complaint alleges that knowingly false and misleading statements were made regarding the Company's current and future financial condition based on, among other things, the alleged failure to disclose: (i) potential liability for benefits that should either have been paid to policyholders or their beneficiaries, or escheated to applicable states; and (ii) the extent of the Company's exposure for alleged state and federal law violations concerning the settlement of claims and the escheatment of unclaimed property. The complaint seeks an undetermined amount of damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. In May 2013, the complaint was amended to add three additional putative institutional investors as lead plaintiffs: National Shopmen Pension Fund, The Heavy & General Laborers' Locals 472 & 172 Pension & Annuity Funds, and Roofers Local No. 149 Pension Fund. In June 2013, the Company moved to dismiss the amended complaint. In February 2014, the Court denied the Company's motion to dismiss. In July 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a class comprised of investors who purchased shares of the Company's Common Stock between May 5, 2010 and November 4, 2011. QUORUM HEALTH: Trial Begins in Malpractice Case v. Schlicht ----------------------------------------------------------- Colleen Heild, writing for Albuquerque Journal, reports that years after Dr. Christian Schlicht left New Mexico, and the Gerald Champion Regional Medical Center filed bankruptcy under the weight of the ensuing medical malpractice claims involving him, a trial began on Sept. 1 in Albuquerque that could determine whether corporate negligence was to blame. Just how did Dr. Schlicht get hired at an Alamogordo hospital in 2006, where he performed alleged experimental back surgery on dozens of patients who have since suffered life-altering complications? And who allowed him to continue working there for two years despite red-flag warnings of his actions? Attorneys for 71 plaintiffs contend the national hospital administration company, Quorum Health Resources, which provided top executives to run Gerald Champion, was negligent in hiring and supervising Dr. Schlicht and by allowing him to perform a non-FDA- approved spine procedure using bone cement. "These surgeries can never be done anywhere safely in the world," Albuquerque attorney Lisa Curtis said in opening arguments on Sept. 1. "This is absolute human experimentation." Ms. Curtis alleged Quorum allowed the practice "for financial gain. There can be no other explanation." The plaintiffs contend Quorum also permitted Dr. Schlicht to perform other complicated surgeries that he was neither qualified nor trained to perform. His last botched surgery in New Mexico occurred just before he quit his job at the hospital, the plaintiffs contend. He performed an elaborate spine surgery involving rods, screws and plates at the nonprofit Gerald Champion hospital with no surgical assistant. Quorum attorneys deny the claims, contending the hospital's board of directors, who were selected from the southern New Mexico community served by the hospital, were ultimately responsible for all hospital liability. Attorney John Klecan, who represents Quorum, told U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Robert H. Jacobvitz that it was the hospital's medical staff that by law is to supervise the actions of its physicians -- not hospital administrators. He also said top Quorum-hired managers weren't aware of the experimental procedure being used at the hospital, where Dr. Schlicht worked at a base annual salary of $450,000. "The hole in their case is they can't show anybody knew that procedure was being done," Mr. Klecan said. Plaintiffs' attorney Greig Coates argued that hospital officials were alerted to the problems by another physician assigned to monitor him and by Molina Healthcare, which for a time wouldn't pay for surgeries Judge Schlicht performed. Mr. Coates said the board was never told of the red flags. "They were not and should not be held responsible," Mr. Coates said of board members. Ms. Curtis said Dr. Schlicht was never fired or removed by hospital officials because of the experimental surgeries. She said he resigned only after learning his spine procedures weren't making enough money for the hospital and that he wasn't going to be awarded bonuses. Other settlements In 2012, the plaintiffs entered a partial settlement of about $33 million with several parties. That amount included $13.5 million from Quorum and another insurance company, $7.5 million from Gerald Champion hospital and $11.5 million from another physician who teamed up with Dr. Schlicht to perform some of the bone cement procedures. Even though Gerald Champion emerged from bankruptcy protection after the settlement, the case remained pending in Bankruptcy Court in New Mexico because of other legal action involving Quorum in Tennessee. Quorum, a subsidiary of Community Health Systems, filed suit against two insurance companies for refusing to cover the claims by the New Mexico plaintiffs. That case is still pending. REACHLOCAL INC: Former Client Files Class Action in Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------- ReachLocal Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that a lawsuit, purporting to be a class action, was filed on May 2, 2014, by one of the Company's former clients in the United States District Court in Los Angeles. The complaint alleges breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and violation of California's unfair competition law. The complaint seeks monetary damages, restitution and attorneys' fees. While the case is at an early stage, the Company believes that the case is substantively and procedurally without merit. ReachLocal's mission is to help local small- to medium-sized businesses (SMBs) around the world acquire, transact with, and retain customers online. ROBERT MCDONNELL: Convicted of Conspiracy and Public Corruption --------------------------------------------------------------- A jury on September 4, 2014, convicted former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell and his wife Maureen of multiple counts of conspiracy and public corruption related to their endorsement of nutritional supplements that could supposedly treat Alzheimer's and multiple sclerosis. Federal prosecutors had accused the couple of accepting about $165,000 in loans and luxury gifts from Jonnie Williams Sr., the CEO of pharmaceutical company Star Scientific. Jurors found the former governor guilty of 11 federal charges, and convicted his wife of nine. The couple faces sentencing on Jan. 6, 2015. USA Today reported that family members wept as the verdicts were read. The jury reportedly spent 18 hours over three days after beginning deliberations on September 1, 2014. According to the 14-count indictment, McDonnell used Williams' private jet while campaigning for governor. After he was elected on Nov. 3, 2009, his wife allegedly asked Williams to help pay for a dress for her husband's upcoming inauguration and grew angry when a senior staffer expressed concerns about the idea. Over the next few years, Williams loaned the couple his Ferrari and jet, and took Maureen on a $19,000 shopping spree, according to the indictment. The McDonnells also accepted a Rolex watch engraved "71st Governor of Virginia," golf clubs, designer clothing and iPhones, among other gifts, prosecutors said. Prosecutors also accused the McDonnells of accepting tens of thousands of dollars from Williams to pay for the weddings of their two daughters. In July 2011, Williams allowed the family to stay at his multimillion-dollar vacation home on Smith Mountain Lake, according to the indictment. McDonnell traded such gifts for his promotion of Star Scientific's products, including the dietary supplement Anatabloc. An ongoing federal class action in Chicago accuses Star Scientific of pushing Anatabloc with false claims that it can treat Alzheimer's and multiple sclerosis. Williams reportedly received immunity to testify against the McDonnells. The McDonnells had separate legal defense teams and "tried to portray their marriage as so broken that they could not have conspired to take bribes as federal prosecutors charged," USA Today reported. Though McDonnell fought the charges, he reportedly repaid Williams more than $120,000, with interest, last year and apologized for bringing "embarrassment" to the state of Virginia. STEREOTAXIS INC: Plaintiffs Did Not Appeal Case Dismissal --------------------------------------------------------- Stereotaxis Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that a purported securities class action was filed on October 7, 2011, against the Company and two of the Company's past executive officers in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri by Kevin Pound, a purported shareholder of the Company. On December 29, 2011, the court granted an unopposed motion appointing Local 522 Pension Fund as Lead Plaintiff in the action and granting Lead Plaintiff leave to file an Amended Complaint, which Lead Plaintiff filed on March 19, 2012. The Amended Complaint alleged that, during the period from February 28, 2011 through August 9, 2011, the Company and certain of its officers made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's financial condition and future business prospects, in violation of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The Amended Complaint sought unspecified damages, costs, attorneys' fees and such other relief as the Court may deem appropriate. On May 18, 2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint. On July 24, 2012, Lead Plaintiff filed its response to the motion to dismiss, and on August 30, 2012, the Company filed its reply brief in support of the motion to dismiss. On March 18, 2014, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss and entered judgment in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs did not file a notice of appeal prior to the deadline of April 17, 2014. Stereotaxis Inc. designs, manufactures and markets the Epoch Solution, which is an advanced remote robotic navigation system for use in a hospital's interventional surgical suite, or "interventional lab", that the Company believes revolutionizes the treatment of arrhythmias and coronary artery disease by enabling enhanced safety, efficiency and efficacy for catheter-based, or interventional, procedures. The Epoch Solution is comprised of the Niobe ES Robotic Magnetic Navigation System ("Niobe ES system"), Odyssey Information Management Solution ("Odyssey Solution"), and the Vdrive Robotic Navigation System ("Vdrive system"). TENNESSEE: Class Certified in Suit Over TennCare Delays ------------------------------------------------------- Kevin Lessmiller, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that a federal judge granted class action status to a lawsuit related to alleged delays in Tennessee's Medicaid program. Eleven plaintiffs sued state officials for what they say are inexcusable delays associated with TennCare's application and hearing process. In addition to granting class certification, U.S. District Judge Todd Campbell also issued a preliminary injunction on Sept. 2, 2014, concluding that the plaintiffs have shown a strong likelihood of success in the lawsuit. Tennessee cannot use the Obama Administration's healthcare reforms, popularly known as "Obamacare" or the "federal exchange" as an excuse for the delays, Campbell held. "If a state decides to participate in the Medicaid program, it is required to ensure that applications are adjudicated reasonably promptly and that hearings on delayed adjudications are held reasonably promptly," he wrote. "Despite the state's argument to the contrary, this principal is longstanding and was not altered by the Affordable Care Act." The Tennessee district court certified the class in the lawsuit as all people who applied for TennCare on or after Oct. 1, 2013, who have not received a decision in 45 days, or 90 days for disability applicants, and who have not been given a "fair hearing" after those time periods. "The court finds that, given the large number of persons applying for Medicaid in Tennessee, the geographic scope of the potential class, and the likely inability of the economically-disadvantaged potential class members to bring individual lawsuits, the element of numerosity is met in this case," Campbell wrote. "The alleged problem is systematic and operational, so it potentially affects all Medicaid applicants." The plaintiff class is represented by attorneys from the Tennessee Justice Center, the Southern Poverty Law Center and the National Health Law Program. The case is Melissa Wilson v. Darin Gordon, et al., Case No. 3-14- 1492, in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division. TRAVELLOOGA LLC: Removed "Wright" Suit to Florida District Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit entitled Wright, et al. v. Travellooga LLC, et al., Case No. CACE-14-016014 21, was removed from the 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Ft. Lauderdale). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:14-cv-62024-WJZ to the proceeding. The Plaintiffs alleges that they were not paid at the proper overtime rate for hours worked in excess of 40 per week. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jason Saul Remer, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC Court House Tower 44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416-5000 Facsimile: (305) 416-5005 E-mail: jremer@rgpattorneys.com The Defendants are represented by: Joshua Michael Entin, Esq. ENTIN & DELLA FERA, P.A. 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1970 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 761-7201 Facsimile: (954) 764-2443 Telephone: joshentin@comcast.net UNI-PIXEL INC: To Defend Against Texas Class Action --------------------------------------------------- Uni-Pixel, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that two purported class action complaints were filed in June 2013 in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York and the United States District Court, Southern District of Texas against the Company and its CEO, CFO, and Chairman. The Southern District of New York complaint was voluntarily dismissed by plaintiff on July 2, 2013. The Company said, "The surviving complaint alleges that we and our officers and directors violated the federal securities laws, specifically Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, by making purportedly false and misleading statements concerning our licensing agreements and product development. The complaint seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of our common stock during the period from December 7, 2012 to May 31, 2013." "We will vigorously defend against this lawsuit. The Company has directors' and officers' and corporate liability insurance to cover risks associated with securities claims filed against the Company or its directors and officers and has notified its insurers of these actions. Based on the very early stage of the litigation, it is not possible to estimate the amount or range of possible loss that might result from an adverse judgment or a settlement of this matter." Uni-Pixel makes transparent conductive films and flexible electronic films based on its proprietary Copperhead(TM) manufacturing process for high volume, roll to roll printing of flexible thin-film conductor patterns. UNI-PIXEL INC: Reported Decrease in Legal Expense ------------------------------------------------- Uni-Pixel, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that legal expense decreased by approximately $633,000 to $551,000 for the six months ended June 30, 2014 compared to $1,184,000 for the six months ended June 30, 2013 primarily due to a decrease in legal fees incurred related to the UK Action, the Texas Action, the class action lawsuit and patent related legal work. Uni-Pixel makes transparent conductive films and flexible electronic films based on its proprietary Copperhead(TM) manufacturing process for high volume, roll to roll printing of flexible thin-film conductor patterns. UNILEVER US: Judge Trims Deceptive Labeling Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- David McAfee, writing for Law360, reports that a California federal judge has trimmed a putative class action brought by a consumer who claims Unilever United States Inc., PepsiCo. Inc. and a Pepsi and Lipton Tea partnership misbranded their products through deceptive labeling practices, tossing all claims against products that the plaintiff did not purchase. U.S. District Judge Edward J. DaVila on Aug. 28 partially granted the defendants' separate motions to dismiss, which called for an end to the suit brought in 2012. Named plaintiff Amy Maxwell alleges that a number of the defendants' products, including Lipton Sweet Tea and Lipton Brisk Lemon Tea, are "misbranded" and cannot be legally manufactured, advertised, distributed or sold. The judge said last week that the court isn't able to identify which of the plaintiff's eight purchased products are substantially similar to the 83 nonpurchased items in the suit. "Plaintiff alleges that all of the 91 products are 'physically substantially similar' and share identical labeling claims, yet Defendants showed in their motion numerous examples where the products had considerable differences among the labels," Judge DaVila wrote in the 15-page order. "Plaintiff leaves the Court analyzing which of the 83 nonpurchased products resemble the eight purchased products, an arduous task the Court is not inclined [to] undertake." The judge dismissed all of Maxwell's claims brought against nonpurchased products, as well as a cause of action brought under the unlawful prong of California's Unfair Competition Law. The court did, however, find that the claims for nutrient content, antioxidant content, nutritional value and natural claims are properly pled, may deceive a reasonable consumer and are "inappropriate to resolve at the motion to dismiss stage." Maxwell brought the suit in 2012 and filed a second amended complaint in April. The plaintiff said that the sale, purchase or possession of the misbranded goods is a criminal act in California and that she would not have purchased the products if she had known it was misbranded. Maxwell, who seeks to represent all people in the U.S. or California who purchased one of the products in dispute, also accused the companies of making illegal statements on the labels of the items. The statements are misleading, deceptive, unfair and fraudulent, according to the second amended complaint. "Plaintiff did not know, and had no reason to know, that the Defendants' Purchased Products were misbranded under the Sherman Law and bore food labeling claims that failed to meet the requirements to make those food labeling claims," the complaint says. "Similarly, Plaintiff did not know, had no reason to know, that Defendants' Purchased Products were false and misleading." But Judge DaVila on Aug. 28 granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motions for dismissal. Maxwell has 15 days to further amend the complaint, according to court documents. "[T]he Court is not persuaded by Plaintiff's argument that the 91 products are substantially similar simply because they share an alleged Sherman Law violation," the judge wrote. The plaintiff is represented by Ben F. Pierce Gore of Pratt & Associates and J. Price Coleman of Coleman Law Firm. PepsiCo is represented by Daniel W. Nelson -- dnelson@gibsondunn.com -- and Timothy W. Loose -- tloose@gibsondunn.com -- of Gibson Dunn. Unilever and Pepsi-Lipton Tea are represented by William L. Stern -- wstern@mofo.com -- Claudia M. Vetesi -- cvetesi@mofo.com -- and Lisa A. Wongchenko -- lwongchenko@mofo.com -- of Morrison & Foerster LLP. The case is Amy Maxwell v. Unilever United States Inc. et al., case number 5:12-cv-01736, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division. UNITED EGG: Faces Antitrust Suit Over Sale of Eggs & Egg Products ----------------------------------------------------------------- Marsh Supermarkets, LLC v. United Egg Producers, Inc., United Egg Association, United States Egg Marketers, Inc., Hillandale Farms of Pa., Inc., Hillandale-Gettysburg, L.P., Hillandale Farms East, Inc., Hillandale Farms, Inc., Ohio Fresh Eggs, LLC, Michael Foods, Inc., Rose Acre Farms, Inc., National Food Corporation, Cal-Maine Foods, Inc., Daybreak Foods, Inc., Midwest Poultry Services, L.P., NuCal Foods, Inc., R.W. Sauder, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-05074-GP (E.D. Pa., September 4, 2014) alleges a conspiracy among the Defendants and certain unnamed co-conspirators where they agreed to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the prices at which shell eggs and egg products were sold in the United States, including by controlling the aggregate supply of domestic eggs. Marsh Supermarkets, LLC is an Indiana corporation with its principal offices located in Indianapolis, Indiana. Marsh is engaged in the retail grocery supermarket business and, by itself and through its subsidiaries, owns, operates, and licenses over 79 supermarkets in Indiana and Ohio. Marsh sells shell eggs and egg products to its retail customers. United Egg Producers, Inc. is a Maine cooperative corporation with its office and principal place of business in Alpharetta, Georgia. UEP and the other Defendants are producers, marketers, or sellers of shell and egg products and their trade groups. The Plaintiff is represented by: Bernard D. Marcus, Esq. Moira Cain-Mannix, Esq. Brian C. Hill, Esq. MARCUS & SHAPIRA LLP One Oxford Center, 35th Floor 301 Grant Street Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (412) 471-3490 Facsimile: (412) 391-8758 E-mail: cain-mannix@marcus-shapira.com jmarcus@marcus-shapira.com hill@marcus-shapira.com US BANK: Sued for Duping Homebuyers by Giving High-Interest Loans ----------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that US Bank defrauded homebuyers by offering to modify their high-interest loans, then dragging it out to keep collecting the high interest, sometimes causing them to lose their homes to foreclosure, a class action claims in Contra Costa County Court. US BANK: Unlawfully Charges Forced Placed Insurance, Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Novice M. Collins, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated U.S. Bank, National Association, and Does 1 through 25, Inclusive, Case No. BC555984 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., August 27, 2014) is based on the Defendants' alleged business pattern and practice of unfairly, unlawfully and deceptively charging the Plaintiff and every other class member for forced placed insurance, more than what was "necessary" to insure the class members' properties. Ms. Collins owned real property in Bakersfield, California, encumbered by a mortgage loan serviced by U.S. Bank (# 045- 6020316-703 1421) on a form Deed of Trust. U.S. Bank was chartered on July 13, 1863, under the laws of the United States and is a loan servicing company, with its principal place of business located in Cincinnati, Ohio. The Plaintiff is unaware of the true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants. The Plaintiff is represented by: David R. Markham, Esq. Peggy Reali, Esq. Janine Menhennet, Esq. Maggie Realin, Esq. THE MARKHAM LAW FIRM 750 B Street, Suite 1950 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 399-3995 Facsimile: (619) 615-2067 E-mail: dmarkham@markham-law.com preali@markham-law.com jmenhennet@markham-law.com mrealin@markham-law.com - and - Francisco J. Aldana, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF FRANCISCO J. ALDANA 205 West Date Street San Diego, CA 92101-2914 Telephone: (619) 236-8355 Facsimile: (619) 374-7056 - and - Barron E. Ramos, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF BARRON E. RAMOS 27201 Puerta Real, Suite 300 Mission Viejo, CA 92692 Telephone: (949) 420-4590 Facsimile: (760) 994-4590 E-mail: ramosesq@yahoo.om WARNER MUSIC: Suits Over Digital Music Downloads in Discovery ------------------------------------------------------------- On December 20, 2005 and February 3, 2006, the Attorney General of the State of New York served Warner Music Group Corp. with requests for information in connection with an industry-wide investigation as to the pricing of digital music downloads. On February 28, 2006, the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice served us with a Civil Investigative Demand, also seeking information relating to the pricing of digitally downloaded music. Both investigations were ultimately closed, but subsequent to the announcements of the investigations, more than thirty putative class action lawsuits were filed concerning the pricing of digital music downloads. The lawsuits were consolidated in the Southern District of New York. The consolidated amended complaint, filed on April 13, 2007, alleges conspiracy among record companies to delay the release of their content for digital distribution, inflate their pricing of CDs and fix prices for digital downloads. The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory, statutory and treble damages. On October 9, 2008, the District Court issued an order dismissing the case as to all defendants, including us. However, on January 12, 2010, the Second Circuit vacated the judgment of the District Court and remanded the case for further proceedings and on January 10, 2011, the Supreme Court denied the defendants' petition for Certiorari. Upon remand to the District Court, all defendants, including the Company, filed a renewed motion to dismiss challenging, among other things, plaintiffs' state law claims and standing to bring certain claims. The renewed motion was based mainly on arguments made in defendants' original motion to dismiss, but not addressed by the District Court. On July 18, 2011, the District Court granted defendants' motion in part, and denied it in part. Notably, all claims on behalf of the CD-purchaser class were dismissed with prejudice. However, a wide variety of state and federal claims remain, for the class of internet download purchasers. Plaintiffs filed an operative consolidated amended complaint on August 31, 2011. Pursuant to the terms of an August 15, 2011 stipulation and order, the case is currently in discovery, Warner Music Group Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014. Disputes regarding the scope of discovery are ongoing. Plaintiffs filed a Class Certification brief on March 14, 2014. The Company's reply date has not yet been set. The Company intends to defend against these lawsuits vigorously, but is unable to predict the outcome of these suits. Regardless of the merits of the claims, this and any related litigation could continue to be costly, and divert the time and resources of management. The potential outcomes of these claims that are reasonably possible cannot be determined at this time and an estimate of the reasonably possible loss or range of loss cannot presently be made, the Company said. Warner Music Group Corp. is the direct parent of WMG Holdings Corp. ("Holdings"), which is the direct parent of WMG Acquisition Corp. ("Acquisition Corp."). Acquisition Corp. is one of the world's major music-based content companies. WARNER MUSIC: Jan. 2015 Final Hearing on Royalties Suit Accord -------------------------------------------------------------- Warner Music Group Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that five putative class action lawsuits have been filed against the Company in Federal Court in the Northern District of California between February 2, 2012 and March 10, 2012. The lawsuits, which were brought by various recording artists, all allege that the Company has improperly calculated the royalties due to them for certain digital music sales under the terms of their recording contracts. The named plaintiffs purport to raise these claims on their own behalf and, as a putative class action, on behalf of other 17 similarly situated artists. Plaintiffs base their claims on a previous ruling that held another recorded music company had breached the specific recording contracts at issue in that case through its payment of royalties for music downloads and ringtones. In the wake of that ruling, a number of recording artists have initiated suits seeking similar relief against all of the major record companies, including us. Plaintiffs seek to have the interpretation of the contracts in that prior case applied to their different and separate contracts. On April 10, 2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss various claims in one of the lawsuits, with the intention of filing similar motions in the remaining suits, on the various applicable response dates. Meanwhile, certain plaintiffs' counsel moved to be appointed as interim lead counsel, and other plaintiffs' counsel moved to consolidate the various actions. In a June 1, 2012 order, the court consolidated the cases and appointed interim co-lead class counsel. Plaintiffs filed a consolidated, master complaint on August 21, 2012. On December 31, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. On January 23, 2014, the Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement. As part of the settlement, the Company will make available $11.5 million (less attorneys' fees, costs, and costs of claims administration and class notice) to compensate class members for past sales of downloads and ringtones. Plaintiffs will file their motion for final approval of the Settlement Agreement on or before November 26, 2014. The hearing on final approval of the settlement is scheduled for January 8, 2015. Based on an evaluation of potential outcomes of these claims that are reasonably possible and an estimate of the reasonably possible loss or range of loss possible, the Company has recorded what it believes is an appropriate reserve related to these cases, which amount is not material. Warner Music Group Corp. is the direct parent of WMG Holdings Corp. ("Holdings"), which is the direct parent of WMG Acquisition Corp. ("Acquisition Corp."). Acquisition Corp. is one of the world's major music-based content companies. YELP INC: 9th Cir. Tosses Bid to Revive User Reviews Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Lipkin and Sindhu Sundar, writing for Law360, report that the Ninth Circuit on Sept. 2 rejected attempts to revive a proposed class action accusing Yelp Inc. of extorting advertising money from small businesses by manipulating and fabricating reviews, ruling Yelp was allowed to remove or rearrange positive reviews. The appeals panel found that the plaintiffs failed to allege Yelp had wrongfully threatened economic loss by manipulating user reviews. There was no contractual or statutory right barring Yelp from rearranging reviews, meaning even if Yelp did threaten to repost negative reviews, it did not qualify as extortion, the panel held. "The business owners may deem the posting or order of user reviews as a threat of economic harm, but it is not unlawful for Yelp to post and sequence the reviews," the opinion said. "As Yelp has the right to charge for legitimate advertising services, the threat of economic harm that Yelp leveraged is, at most, hard bargaining." The decision affirms U.S. District Judge Edward M. Chen's 2011 ruling dismissing the suit with prejudice, finding the plaintiffs failed to state enough facts to prove their "entirely speculative" claims that Yelp had enlisted its employees to write negative reviews on their businesses. The panel agreed with Judge Chen that there was nothing to connect general allegations of Yelp hiring reviewers to the plaintiffs' individual negative reviews. The plaintiffs, four California-based small businesses, claimed that 200 Yelp employees and individuals acting on behalf of the company had written negative reviews, citing a May 2008 New York Times blog post in which Yelp CEO Jeremy Stoppelman allegedly admitted to paying users to write reviews. The plaintiffs claimed that Yelp had controlled user reviews by removing positive reviews of businesses that did not advertise on Yelp and promoted the negative reviews. The panel further found that any implicit threat to remove positive Yelp reviews absent advertising business was not wrongful under extortion statutes. The business had no pre-existing right, either through contracts or statutes, to have positive reviews appear on their Yelp pages, according to the opinion. "We emphasize that we are not holding that no cause of action exists that would cover conduct such as that alleged, if adequately pled," the opinion said. "[But] extortion is an exceedingly narrow concept as applied to fundamentally economic behavior." Aaron Schur, Yelp's senior director of litigation, praised the ruling in a blog post on Sept. 2, writing most allegations of extortion come from businesses or online marketers with an "axe to grind." "We are obviously happy that the court reached the right result, and saw through these thin attempts by a few businesses and their lawyers to disparage Yelp and draw attention away from their own occasional negative review," Mr. Schur wrote. Circuit Judges Richard A. Paez, Marsha S. Berzon and Richard C. Tallman sat on the panel that reached the Sept. 2 decision. The plaintiffs are represented by Lawrence Dale Murray, John Henning II and Robert C. Strickland of Murray & Associates. Yelp is represented by S. Ashlie Beringer, Molly Cutler and Gail Ellen Lees -- glees@gibsondunn.com -- of Gibson Dunn and in-house counsel Aaron Schur. The case is Boris Y. Levitt et al. v. Yelp! Inc., case number 11- 17676, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. * Surgical "Black Box" May Spur Wave of Malpractice Concerns ------------------------------------------------------------ Dr. Chethan Sathya, writing for CNN, reports that researchers in Canada are working on a surgical tracking box -- like the ones placed in airplanes -- that records surgeons' movements and identifies errors during an operation. By pinpointing mistakes and telling surgeons when they're veering "off course," a black box could prevent future slip-ups, says Dr. Teodor Grantcharov, a minimally invasive surgeon at St Michael's Hospital in Toronto. Unlike the so-called black boxes in aviation, which are used after disasters occur, the surgical black box Grantcharov is creating will be used proactively to prevent major patient complications. A number of hospitals have already expressed interest in using the device, Dr. Grantcharov says. But the litigious medical environment may make its implementation problematic. If the recordings were used in court, they could open the floodgates to a new wave of malpractice concerns, which would be counterproductive to surgeons and patients, Dr. Grantcharov says. "We have to ensure the black box is used as an educational tool to help surgeons evaluate their performance and improve," he says. A work in progress Dr. Grantcharov's black box is a multifaceted system. In addition to the actual box, it includes operating room microphones and cameras that record the surgery, the surgeon's movements and details about team dynamics. It will allow surgeons to hone in on exactly what went wrong and why. The black box will eventually assess everything from how surgeons stitch to how delicately they handle organs and communicate with nurses during high-stress situations. Error-analysis software within the black box will help surgeons identify when they are "deviating" from the norm or using techniques linked to higher rates of complications. So far, Dr. Grantcharov's black box has been tested on about 40 patients undergoing laparoscopic weight-loss surgery. "At this initial stage, we are analyzing surgeries to determine how many errors occur and which ones actually lead to bad results for patients," Dr. Grantcharov says. Not every error will result in a patient complication. Dr. Grantcharov's initial research has shown that surgeons recognize few of their mistakes, and, on average, make about 20 errors per surgery -- regardless of experience level. Once Dr. Grantcharov's team determines which errors affect patient safety, it hopes to be able to provide this information to surgeons in real time. The team has also developed software that can synthesize the recorded data into user-friendly and interpretable information for surgeons. The concept of using a black box in surgery isn't new. But until now, the technology never made it out of the laboratory because it lacked comprehensiveness, Dr. Grantcharov says. Earlier surgical black boxes didn't record all the important elements of the operating room, he says, leaving pieces of the puzzle missing. "To truly understand what causes an error, you need to know all the factors that may come into play." Recording mistakes Dr. Grantcharov was inspired to develop the surgical black box after years of witnessing how patient complications affected surgeons. "The feeling of not knowing what causes a complication, whether it's surgical technique, communication in the operating room or the patient's condition itself, is tormenting," Dr. Grantcharov says. Many surgeons, however, may be uncomfortable with using a black box in the operating room, says Dr. Teodoro Forcht Dagi with the American College of Surgeons Perioperative Care Committee. "If there was a legal requirement to record every operation, then many surgeons would be resistant," Dr. Forcht Dagi says. He says he believes doing so would create a sense of nervousness that would paralyze a surgeon's ability to operate and end up ultimately harming patients. "The black box needs to be used solely by surgeons for their own education, in which case I think it's a great idea," Dr. Forcht Dagi says. Errors during surgery have generally been dealt with after the fact, and only once a complication during the patient's recovery occurs. Weeks after surgery, cases with complications are presented to a panel of experts, who weigh in on what may have gone wrong during the operation. Yet in many cases nothing is recorded apart from an audio transcript of the operation, making it tough to identify what caused each complication. The black box would add much needed context. "I would rush (a black box) into service immediately," says Richard Epstein, professor of law at New York University's School of Law. Since most medical lawsuits end up being "he said, she said" arguments, not knowing exactly what happened in the operating room just adds to the level of distrust, Epstein says. In the United States, the Healthcare Quality Improvement Act prevents courts from using data that doctors and hospitals use for peer review, a self-regulation process in which experts or "peers" evaluate one another. The law allows doctors to assess each other openly and identify areas for improvement without fear of litigation. But there are exceptions to this rule, says William McMurry, president of the American Board of Professional Liability Attorneys. For instance, cases where surgeries are recorded but don't receive any peer review can be used in court. While Mr. McMurry says that "keeping patients in the dark about the details of their surgery is never OK," he points out that litigation concerns should not derail use of the black box. It will be an asset to the health care system regardless of whether it can be used in court, he says. "We care about better health care, and the black box will provide surgeons with the information they need to avoid mistakes," Mr. McMurry says. "It's a win-win situation." The surgical black box will be tested in hospitals in Canada, Denmark and parts of South America in the next few months. Talks are also under way with a number of American hospitals. If doctors accept it, implementation in U.S. hospitals could happen quickly since the surgical black box isn't considered a medical device and doesn't require approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Bottom line, Dr. Grantcharova says, is that even after years of practicing medicine, the black box "made me a safer surgeon and a better teacher." ********* 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 * * *