/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/140916.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, September 16, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 184 Headlines 1111 ROOF TOP: Does Not Pay Workers Properly, "Negron" Suit Says ACE BAYOU: Recalls Bean Bag Chairs Due to Suffocation Hazard ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Judge Upholds Class Certification in OT Suit ALTISOURCE PORTFOLIO: Illegally Inflate Stock Price, Action Says AMERICAN EXPRESS: Sued Over Illegal Payment Treatment Practices AMERICAN REALTY: Faces Suits Over Proposed Acquisition by Ventas ARAB BANK: Expert Testified on Groups' "Hamasification" ATOSSA GENETICS: Seeks to Dismiss Securities Suit in Washington AUSTRALIAN EXECUTOR: May Face Suit Over Provident Capital Collapse AVON PRODUCTS: No Ruling Yet on Motion to Junk N.Y. Stock Suit BANK OF AMERICA: Sued Over Alleged Manipulation of ISDAfix Rate BANK OF AMERICA: Judge Cuts Attorney Fees in Robocall Class Suit BARD PERIPHERAL: Recalls Dualok Breast Lesion Localization Wire BASS PRO: Dec. 15 Final Hearing on $6 Million Settlement BENNY'S PIZZERIA: Faces "Gonzalez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT BP PLC: UK Gov't Seeks Review of Oil Spill Class Action Rulings C & L REFRIGERATION: Sued Over Breach of Fair Labor Standards Act CARLYLE GROUP: Settles LBO Collusion Class Action for $115 Million CATO CORPORATION: "Prince" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime CHICAGO PIZZA: Faces "Garcia" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Hours CHINA XD: Faces Shareholder Litigations in New York Federal Court COVIDIEN LLC: Recalls Puritan Bennett 840 Ventilator System CROSSTOWN ALUMINUM: "Wilson" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT CYAN INC: Continues to Face Consolidated Securities Suit in Cal. DEN-MAT HOLDINGS: Sent Unsolicited Fax Messages, Suit Claims DENTSPLY INTERNATIONAL: Plaintiffs in Cavitron Suit Appeal Ruling DENTSPLY INTERNATIONAL: Seeks Judgment in Periodontists Lawsuit DONG LE CORPORATION: Fails to Pay OT Hours, "Chavez" Suit Says EXIDE TECHNOLOGIES: Discovery Stayed in "Loritz" Securities Suit EXIDE TECHNOLOGIES: Environmental Suit Over Plant Remains Stayed FAYETTE COUNTY, KY: Faces "Berry" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Sued Over Manipulation of Propane Gas Price FLO-PIE INC: "Elmquist" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime FLORIDA: Department of Corrections Accused of Torturing Inmates GAY LEA: Recalls Nordica Life Smart Cottage Cheese Products GENERAL MILLS: Toxic Vapors Class Action in Minn. Can Proceed GENERAL MOTORS: Challenges Dealers' Class Action in Canada HCSB FINANCIAL: Plaintiffs Appeal Summary Judgment in S.C. Suit HCSB FINANCIAL: Still Faces "Snyder" Securities Suit in S.C. HI-TECH PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued Over False Claims on "Fat Buster" HIEP THANH: Recalls Raw Pork Products Due to E. Coli HOME DEPOT: Faces "Solak" Suit in N.D. Georgia Over Data Breach IDEVICES LLC: Recalls Pro Ambient Temperature Probes IKEA CANADA: Advises to Check Crib Mattresses for Correct Fit IMPAC MORTGAGE: Dismissal of "Marentes" Securities Suit Reversed INUVO INC: Sept. Hearing to Approve Securities Suit v. Vertro JF VEHICLE: Faces "Goatacha" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages JPMORGAN CHASE: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Suit Claims LEE COUNTY, FL: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages MARRONE BIO: Faces "Suasman" Suit Over False Financial Reports MARTIN BROTHERS: Regina High Among Affected by Class Action MEDX MEDICAL: Faces "Velez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime MERCHANT SOLUTIONS: Faces "McNally" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT METROTAINMENT CAFES: Sued Over Failure to Pay Minimum & OT Wages MICROSOFT CORP: Settles Antitrust, Unfair Competition Claims in US MICROSOFT CORP: Still Faces Suit by Mobile Phone Users in Canada MONSANTO CO: Settles Class Actions Over GMO Wheat Contamination MORGAN STANLEY: Settlement Reached in Ge Dandong v. Pinnacle MORGAN STANLEY: Reaches Agreement to Settle New York Stock Suit NATIONAL IMPORTS: Sued in Tex. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages NEW YORK: OOIDA's Tax Suit Obtains Class-Action Status NIRU ENTERPRISES: Recalls Faluda and Sherbet Drink With Jelly NORTHLAND GROUP: Sued Over Violation of Debt Collection Law NU SKIN: Continues to Face Consolidated Securities Suit in Utah OTRUPONCOSO PROTECTION: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages OUTERWALL INC: Redbox to Argue Dismissal of Late Fees Suit OUTERWALL INC: Summary Judgment in Video Privacy Suit Appealed OUTERWALL INC: Appeals Court Affirms Nixing of Song-Beverly Suit PATISSERIE GAUDET: Recalls Apple Pies Due to Presence of Glass PENN WEST: Sued in S.D.N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Reports PETRUS FOOD: Faces "Duran" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime PRIORITY HEALTHCARE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages RAMIREZ & SON: Sued Over Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act SEACOR HOLDINGS: ORM, NRC Await Ruling in Deepwater-Related Suit SEACOR HOLDINGS: Medical Settlement by BP Entities Now Effective SEACOR HOLDINGS: Plans to File Motion to Decertify Prejean Class SEARS CANADA: Recalls One Direction Children's Sleepwear SEMPRIS LLC: RSUI Must Cover TCPA Class Action, Court Rules SHEUNG KEE: Recalls Soup Stock Due to Undeclared Sulphites SHINE RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, Suit Says SILVER SPRING: Agrees to Settle Suit Over Defective Smart Meters SKINMEDICA INC: Judge Allows "Nouricel" Class Action to Proceed SMART ONE: Sued Over Deceptive Bait-and-Switch Sales Practices SP BANCORP: Motion to Consolidate Merger Actions Filed SPECIALTY ENGINEERING: Doesn't Pay Workers Properly, Action Says STAMINA GRILL: "de los Santos" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT STEAK N SHAKE: Faces "Drakes" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime SUPER ASIA: Recalls EMB Biscuits Due to Undeclared Milk TRIQUINT SEMICONDUCTOR: No Expedited Proceedings for Stock Suit UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Accused of Discrimination Against Blind People UNITED PLASTICS: Faces "Maravillas" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT UNITED STATES: Faces "Steele" Suit Over Unlawful Fee Collection UNITED STATES: IRS Faces Class Action Over Tax Preparer User Fees URS CORP: La. Dismisses Claims in New Orleans Levee Failure Suit URS CORP: Faces Several Lawsuits in Delaware Over AECOM Merger V&T MEAT: Recalls Raw Pork Products Due to E. Coli VERTEX PHARMACEUTICALS: Mass. Court Dismissed Pension Fund's Suit VERTEX PHARMACEUTICALS: Suit by Retirement Plan & Trust Continues VINH FAT: Recalls Pork Spring Rolls, Pork Buns and Pork Wontons WALT DISNEY: Faces Class Action Over "Non-Poaching" Agreements WEST 54 DELI: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, Action Claims WHARTON COUNTY: Faces "Valle" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime WORLDWIDE PANTS: Former Intern Files Wage & Overtime Class Action XEROX CORP: 2nd Cir. Upholds Securities Class Action Dismissal ********* 1111 ROOF TOP: Does Not Pay Workers Properly, "Negron" Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Abraham Negron, Stephane Veillard, and Paul Henriquez, on their own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated v. 1111 Roof Top, LLC, a Florida for-profit corporation, and Jonas Millan, an individual, Case No. 1:14-cv-23315 (S.D. Fla., September 8, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wage compensation, reimbursement for tips illegally taken, liquidated damages, and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. 1111 Roof Top, LLC owns and operates the Juvia Restaurant in Miami Beach, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert William Brock II, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF LOWELL J. KUVIN 17 East Flagler Street, Suite 223 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 358-6800 Facsimile: (305) 358-6808 E-mail robert@kuvinlaw.com ACE BAYOU: Recalls Bean Bag Chairs Due to Suffocation Hazard ------------------------------------------------------------ Starting date: September 9, 2014 Posting date: September 9, 2014 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Household Items Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Product Safety Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-41291 Affected products: Bean Bag Chair by Ace Bayou Corporation The recalled bean bag chairs by Ace Bayou Corporation are round or L-shaped, vinyl or fabric, and filled with polystyrene foam beads. The round bean bag chairs were sold in three sizes (30, 32, and 40 inches in diameter). The L-shaped bean bag chairs measures 18 inches wide by 30 inches deep by 30 inches high. Recalled colors include purple, violet, blue, red, pink, yellow, Kelly green, black, port, navy, lime, royal blue, turquoise, tangerine and multi-color. "ACE BAYOU CORP" is printed on a tag sewn into the bean bag chair's cover seam. Bean bag chairs that are without a permanent zipper closure allow young children to unzip, ingest or inhale the small beads inside of the bean bag chair, posing a suffocation hazard. A 13-year old boy from Texas died and a 3-year-old girl from Kentucky died after suffocating from lack of air and inhaling the chair's foam beads. Both children were found inside the chairs. Ace Bayou has received 2 reports of consumer incidents related to the use of these chairs. Health Canada has not received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of these chairs. The affected bean bag chairs were manufactured in China and sold in Canada from January 2012 to July 2013. Bean bags chairs sold after July 2013 are not affected and are not included in this recall. There were approximately 3,500 affected bean bag chairs that were sold in Canada. Companies: Manufacturer Ace Bayou Co. New Orleans Louisiana United States Distributor The Home Depot Canada Mega Group Ontario Canada Distributor Big Lots Corporate Offices Columbus Ohio United States Consumers should immediately take the bean bag chair away from young children and inspect the bean bag chair to see if the exterior zipper can be opened. If the zipper on your chair can open, contact Ace Bayou Corporation to receive a free Safety ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Judge Upholds Class Certification in OT Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Amaris Elliott-Engel, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has upheld the certification of a class composed of an estimated 800 Allstate Insurance Co. adjusters who allege they were forced to forgo overtime pay. After Allstate shifted its claims adjusters from exempt positions to hourly status in 2005, the plaintiffs alleged that the insurance company never started paying them overtime for working more than 40 hours or for missing meal breaks. Circuit Judge Ronald M. Gould, writing for the court, upheld the certification of the class regarding unpaid overtime, for adjusters allegedly not being paid wages on time and for Allstate allegedly engaging in unfair competition. A plaintiff seeking to prove a claim for being forced to work of the clock must prove he or she did work for which he or she was not paid, the defendants knew or should have known that employees were working without getting paid and that the defendants "stood idly by," Judge Gould said. "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' claims for relief will produce a common answer to the crucial" questions raised by the plaintiffs, Gould said, citing the U.S. Supreme Court decision cited in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes. For example, the plaintiffs showed there is a common question on whether the class worked unpaid overtime as a result of an unofficial Allstate policy against overtime reporting, the panel said. And the plaintiffs also showed there is a common question on whether Allstate knew or should have known that the class was working unpaid overtime. Allstate argued that its liability cannot be resolved on a common, classwide basis and that statistical modeling of the class would violate its due process rights. The panel rejected the argument that statistical sampling violates due process during the liability stage in class actions. "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," Judge Gould said. ALTISOURCE PORTFOLIO: Illegally Inflate Stock Price, Action Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- West Palm Beach Firefighters Pension Fund individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Altisource Portfolio Solutions SA, William C. Erbey, William B. Shepro and Michelle Esterman, Case No. 9:14-cv-81156 (S.D. Fla., September 8, 2014), arises out of the Defendants' fraudulent scheme to artificially inflate the Company's stock price, specifically by disseminating materially false and misleading statements, and failing to disclose material information, concerning the Company's true financial condition and business prospects. The Defendants and their subsidiaries are a market place and transaction solution provider for the real estate, mortgage and consumer dent industries offering both distribution and content. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph E. White III, Esq. Lester Rene Hooker, Esq. SAXENA WHITE, P.A. Boca Center, 5200 Town Center Circle, Suite 601 Boca Raton, FL 33486 E-mail: jwhite@saxenawhite.com lhooker@saxenawhite.com AMERICAN EXPRESS: Sued Over Illegal Payment Treatment Practices --------------------------------------------------------------- Marcy Zevon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. American Express Bank, FSB, Case No. 1:14-cv-07112 (S.D.N.Y., September 4, 2014), seeks redress for the illegal practices of the Defendant for unlawfully treating certain payments from its credit card customers as late, in violation of the Truth in Lending Act. American Express Bank, FSB is doing business in the State of New York and throughout the United States, with a principal place of business in Utah. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian L. Bromberg, Esq. Jonathan R. Miller, Esq. BROMBERG LAW OFFICE, P.C. Standard Oil Building 26 Broadway, 21st Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 248-7906 - and - Harley J. Schnall, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF HARLEY J. SCHNALL 711 West End Avenue New York, NY 10025 Telephone: (212) 678-6546 AMERICAN REALTY: Faces Suits Over Proposed Acquisition by Ventas ---------------------------------------------------------------- American Realty Capital Healthcare Trust, Inc. disclosed at its Aug. 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014, that in connection with the proposed acquisition by Ventas, Inc. of all of the outstanding stock of the Company, purported shareholders of the Company have filed thirteen class action lawsuits in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland and the Supreme Court of the State of New York and federal district court in Maryland naming the Company and its board of directors, among others, as defendants. The filed actions are: Holzer v. American Realty Capital Healthcare Trust, Inc. et al., Case No. 24-C-14-003553 (Md. Cir. Ct.), filed June 6, 2014; Romano v. American Realty Capital Healthcare Trust, Inc. et al., Case No. 24-C-14-003534 (Md. Cir. Ct.) filed June 6, 2014; Brenner v. American Realty Capital Healthcare Trust, Inc. et al., Case No. 24-C-14-003540 (Md. Cir. Ct.) filed June 9, 2014; Schindler v. Burns, et al., Index No. 671761/2014 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), filed June 10, 2014; Frey v. American Realty Capital Healthcare Trust, Inc. et al., Index No. 651772/2014 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), filed June 10, 2014; Hamill v. American Realty Capital Healthcare Trust, Inc. et al., Case No. 24-C-14-003636, (Md. Cir. Ct.), filed June 11, 2014; Stanley v. American Realty Capital Healthcare Trust, Inc. et al., Case No. 24-C-14-003664 (Md. Cir. Ct.), filed June 12, 2014; Shine v. American Realty Capital Healthcare Trust, Inc. et al., Case No. 24-C-14-003707 (Md. Cir. Ct.), filed June 13, 2014; Uhl v. American Realty Capital Healthcare Trust, Inc. et al., Case No. 24-C-14-003710 (Md. Cir. Ct.), filed June 13, 2014; Kuo v. American Realty Capital Healthcare Trust, Inc. et al., Case No. 24-C-14-003765 (Md. Cir. Ct), filed June 17, 2014; Flor v. American Realty Capital Healthcare Trust, Inc. et al., Case No. 24-C-14-003817 (Md. Cir. Ct.), filed June 19, 2014, Rosenzweig v. Schorsch et al., Case No. 1:14-CV-02019-GLR (U.S.D.C. - Dist. Md.) (Russell, D.J.), filed June 23, 2014 and Abbassi, et al. v. American Realty Capital Healthcare Trust, Inc. et al., Case No. 24-C-14-004104 (Md. Cir. Ct.), filed July 9, 2014. The Stanley, Shine, Kuo, Rosenzweig and Abbassi complaints also assert derivative claims on behalf of the Company against the individual defendants. The filed actions allege, inter alia, breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract claims arising from the proposed acquisition of the Company by Ventas and seek (i) to enjoin the proposed acquisition and (ii) recover damages if the proposed acquisition is completed. There have been no other court filings in any of these matters. ARAB BANK: Expert Testified on Groups' "Hamasification" ------------------------------------------------------- Several Palestinian groups accused of funding suicide attacks in the West Bank during the Second Intifada focused on charitable efforts like helping orphans and supporting literacy programs for women before their ultimate "Hamasification," a Hamas expert testified on September 10, 2014, reports Nick Divito at Courthouse News Service. She described one such group's headquarters as an "oasis of calm and peace amidst the conflict, chaos and destruction," and said others worked to "give aid without discrimination to victims of the violence that was taking place." It was second day Hamas expert and professor Beverly Milton- Edwards from Belfast's Queens University testified on behalf of Arab Bank as it defends itself against a class action filed a decade ago on behalf of families of 300 victims killed or injured during 24 suicide attacks in the West Bank. The families' attorneys said during open arguments that the bank turned a "blind eye" and bankrolled the terrorist attacks by paying out families of suicide attackers and keeping accounts for known Hamas leaders. Milton-Edwards testified that she toured several of the charitable groups' headquarters in her research over the years, and said she had never seen any kind of Hamas propaganda in any of them between 2000 and 2004, adding that the only kind of "paraphernalia of martyrdom" she spotted was from a poster made by the Palestinian Authority in honor of soldiers who had been killed. Another organization, she said, focused on building children's libraries, while another provided literacy programs for women, helped women manage their household budget and taught courses on hygiene. And although they might have been later taken over by members of Hamas, she said such organizations "continue to run the same kinds of services" to address the "undiminishing needs of the poor and needy, the orphaned, health and education and support through the Gaza Strip." The bank has maintained that it did not know who it was paying out when it handed out the American cash given to it by the Saudi Committee and provided it to families of suicide attackers. The bank also said it never knowingly paid a suicide attacker's family, and that it had a policy of running customers' names through a database to determine if they might be linked to terrorism. Bank officials said that if there was a hint in the so-called "OFAC" system, it would not have made the transaction. But since the names of the terrorists families weren't in the list, it had no way of knowing who it was paying or why. Arab Bank's chairman Sabih al-Masri on September 8, 2014, testified that his bank did not provide funds to Hamas, and that his bank was "clean." The bank was sued in 2004 in Brooklyn Federal Court, and the lawsuit survived several challenges over the decade. It's thought to be the first civil lawsuit to reach trial in the United States accusing a financial institution of bankrolling terrorism. The families sued for violations of the U.S. Anti-Terrorism Act, a law signed by President Bill Clinton that allows American victims of terror attacks to seek damages. Hamas was named a terrorist organization by the United States in 1997. ATOSSA GENETICS: Seeks to Dismiss Securities Suit in Washington --------------------------------------------------------------- Atossa Genetics Inc. is seeking to dismiss a consolidated securities suit filed against it in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, according to the company's Aug. 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014. On October 10, 2013, a putative securities class action complaint, captioned Cook v. Atossa Genetics, Inc., et al., No. 2:13-cv- 01836-RSM, was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington against the company, certain of the Company's directors and officers and the underwriters of the Company November 2012 initial public offering. The complaint alleges that all defendants violated Sections 11 and 12(a)(2), and that the Company and certain of its directors and officers violated Section 15, of the Securities Act by making material false and misleading statements and omissions in the offering's registration statement, and that the company and certain of our directors and officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20A of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making false and misleading statements and omissions in the registration statement and in certain of our subsequent press releases and SEC filings with respect to our NAF specimen collection process, our ForeCYTE Breast Health Test and our MASCT device. This action seeks, on behalf of persons who purchased our common stock between November 8, 2012 and October 4, 2013, inclusive, damages of an unspecific amount. On February 14, 2014, the Court appointed plaintiffs Miko Levi, Bandar Almosa and Gregory Harrison (collectively, the "Levi Group") as lead plaintiffs, and approved their selection of co- lead counsel and liaison counsel. The Court also amended the caption of the case to read In re Atossa Genetics, Inc. Securities Litigation. No. 2:13-cv-01836-RSM. An amended complaint was filed on April 15, 2014. The Company and other defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint on May 30, 2014. The plaintiffs filed briefs in opposition to these motions on July 11, 2014. The Company replied to the opposition brief on August 11, 2014. AUSTRALIAN EXECUTOR: May Face Suit Over Provident Capital Collapse ------------------------------------------------------------------ Nicholas O'Donoghue, writing for Money Management, reports that Australians impacted by the collapse of debenture insurer, Provident Capital Limited are being invited to take part in a class action suit against the business' trustee. Compensation law firm, Slater & Gordon, announced its plan to bring a class action against Australian Executor Limited, the trustee of Provident, after being approached by "hundreds of people who lost their money investing" in the company. Slater & Gordon senior class action lawyer, Odette McDonald, said many retirees had lost their savings as a result of the collapse of Provident. "The trustee was obliged under the Corporations Act to protect the interests of debenture holders," she said. "In particular, the trustee was required to exercise reasonable diligence to ascertain whether Provident would have sufficient property available to repay debenture holders when their investment came due." Ms. McDonald said Australian Executor failed in its duties, and the class action will seek compensation for the losses suffered by investors as a result of the trustee's contraventions of the Corporations Act. The class action will be brought on behalf of investors who acquired new debentures issued by Provident on or after 22 December 2010 and who have not been repaid the amount that they invested in full. However, the class action may be extended to cover debentures issued by Provident after December 24, 2008. AVON PRODUCTS: No Ruling Yet on Motion to Junk N.Y. Stock Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Avon Products, Inc. still awaits a ruling on its motion to dismiss the shareholder suit City of Brockton Retirement System v. Avon Products, Inc., et al., No. 11-CIV-4665, according to the company's July 31, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014. On July 6, 2011, a purported shareholder's class action complaint (City of Brockton Retirement System v. Avon Products, Inc., et al., No. 11-CIV-4665) was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against certain present or former officers and/or directors of the Company. On September 29, 2011, the Court appointed LBBW Asset Management Investmentgesellschaft mbH and SGSS Deutschland Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH as lead plaintiffs and Motley Rice LLC as lead counsel. Lead plaintiffs have filed an amended complaint on behalf of a purported class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Avon's common stock from July 31, 2006 through and including October 26, 2011. The amended complaint names the Company and two individual defendants and asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act based on allegedly false or misleading statements and omissions with respect to, among other things, the Company's compliance with the FCPA, including the adequacy of the Company's internal controls. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages as well as injunctive relief. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on June 14, 2012. BANK OF AMERICA: Sued Over Alleged Manipulation of ISDAfix Rate --------------------------------------------------------------- Alaska Electrical Pension Fund, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Bank of America Corporation, Barclays Bank PLC, BNP Paribas SA, Citigroup Inc., Credit Suisse AG, Deutsche Bank AG, Goldman, Sachs & Co., HSBC Bank Plc, Icap Plc, J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., Nomura Holdings Inc., Royal Bank of Scotland Plc, UBS AG, and Wells Fargo & Co., Case No. 1:14-cv-07126 (S.D.N.Y., September 4, 2014), alleges that the Defendants entered into a secret conspiracy to fix the International Swaps and Derivatives Association fix rate at artificial levels to avoid paying the true amounts owed when investors' ISDAfix-linked investments were in-the-money by jointly manipulating the ISDAfix rates used to determine the amounts due to investors. The Defendants are financial institutions, doing business throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel L. Brockett, Esq. Daniel Cunningham, Esq. Steig D. Olson, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor New York, NY 10010-1601 Telephone: (212) 849-7000 Facsimile: (212) 849-7100 E-mail: danbrockett@quinnemanuel.com danielcunningham@quinnemanuel.com steigolson@quinnemanuel.com - and - Patrick Coughlin, Esq. David Mitchell, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 Facsimile: (619)231-7423 E-mail: patc@rgrdlaw.com davidm@rgrdlaw.com - and - Christopher M. Burke, Esq. Sylvia M. Sokol, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP The Chrysler Building, 405 Lexington Ave, 40th Floor New York, NY 10174-4099 Telephone: (800) 404-7770 Facsimile: (212)223-6334 E-mail: cburke@scott-scott.com ssokol@scott-scott.com - and - Stanley D. Bernstein, Esq. Ronald J. Aronoff, Esq. BERNSTEIN LIEBHARD LLP 10 East 40th Street, 22nd Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 779-1414 Facsimile: (212)779-3218 E-mail: bernstein@bernlieb.com Aranoff@bernlieb.com BANK OF AMERICA: Judge Cuts Attorney Fees in Robocall Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lisa Hoffman, writing for Law.com, reports that plaintiffs attorneys who wrangled a recent $32 million class-action settlement from Bank of America Corp. are entitled to a whopping 70 percent less than the $8 million compensation they sought, a federal judge has decided. U.S. District Judge Edward Davila of the Northern District of California was unsparing in his dissection of the fees requested by 10 law firms that took on Bank of America on behalf of plaintiffs alleging they were harassed by the bank's debt- collection robocalls. In the end, using the lodestar method, Judge Davila found just $2.4 million in fees to be justified. Judge Davila devoted about half of his 22-page order granting final approval to the deal to the matter of legal fees. His Aug. 29 order in Rose v. Bank of America also found fault with the non-monetary "prospective relief" to which the bank agreed in order to prevent future violations of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act that prohibits automated calls or texts to consumers without their prior consent. The judge's criticism of the fees was wide-ranging. He questioned the participation of so many firms, along with the total of 18 attorneys and eight paralegals. While not quibbling about the hourly fees charged, he found the number of hours billed to be bloated and duplicative. One example he highlighted: The "particularly excessive" 800 total hours in settlement negotiations and mediation spent by representatives for all firms. "In the Court's experience, there is little reason why so many attorneys would need to be present," Judge Davila wrote, and reduced the hours billed to 400. The judge also criticized the distribution of hours worked; of the 2,560 hours reported, 1,670 were billed by attorneys with rates of more than $500 an hour, while only 890 hours were billed by those with lower rates. "Few clients would stand for such an inefficient allocation of time," Judge Davila wrote. He also found little to like in the "nominal" changes the bank agreed to in order to prevent future TCPA violations. Because the bank will continue to use the definition of "prior express consent" that got it in trouble to begin with, "it would appear that most, perhaps all, Class Members will continue receiving automated calls," Judge Davila wrote. "Because the primary goal of this litigation, as described by Class Counsel, was to put an end to these phone calls, the touted relief falls short and is of particular concern," he wrote. According to the judge's order and other court documents, the firms from which attorneys served as plaintiffs' counsel are Meyer Wilson Co., LPA; Terrell Marshall Daudt & Willie, PLLC; Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP; Saeed & Little, LLP; Law Offices of Douglas J. Campion; Trepel Greenfield Sullivan & Draa, LLP; Kazerouni Law Group, APC; Hyde & Swigart; Trepel Mcgrane Greenfield, LLP; Ankcorn Law Firm. Bank of America's counsel are attorneys at Reed Smith and Yu/Mohandesi. BARD PERIPHERAL: Recalls Dualok Breast Lesion Localization Wire --------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: September 3, 2014 Posting date: September 9, 2014 Type of communication: Medical Device Recall Subcategory: Medical Device Hazard classification: Type II Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Medical Devices Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals Identification number: RA-41303 Recalled Products: Dualok Breast Lesion Localization Wire Specific product code / lot number combinations of bard Dualok breast lesion localization wires may be at risk of having portions of the wire protruding from the packaging, thus representing a reach of the sterile barrier and potential sharps hazard. Companies: Manufacturer Bard Peripheral Vascular Inc. 1625 West 3rd Street Tempe 85281 Arizona United States BASS PRO: Dec. 15 Final Hearing on $6 Million Settlement -------------------------------------------------------- Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit against Bass Pro Outdoor World that alleged it recorded certain telephone calls received from or placed to California, which violated state law. "The proposed settlement agreement applies to class members defined as '[a]ll natural persons who, while present in California and using a telephone with a California area code, participated in at least one recorded telephone call to Bass Pro between March 14, 2012 and March 27, 2013 or at least one recorded telephone call from Bass Pro between March 14, 2012 and April 3, 2013'," the Aug. 5 order granting joint motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement states. The monetary consideration consists of $6 million in cash, plus accrued interest. No later than 15 court days following the preliminary approval date, the defendants are to transfer the $6 million settlement amount into an interest-bearing escrow account administered by the claims administrator. The proposed settlement also reflects a change in the defendants' business practices in which they will not record any inbound telephone calls from California area codes without first giving notification at the outset of the call that the call may be recorded, according to the document. The defendants have not recorded outbound calls to California since April 4. "Furthermore, defendants have no intention to change these practices, but reserve the right to change these procedures in the event that there is a change in the law requiring two-party consent, or there is a finding by the California Legislature or California Supreme Court that defendants' telephone calls do not fall within the scope of the California Invasion of Privacy Act in whole or in part," the document states. The proposed settlement also requires the claims administrator to provide notice by mail and by publication, providing, among other things, a description of the terms of the settlement, instructions for submitting a claim, and directions to accessing the settlement website. Following final court approval and occurrence of the "effective date," each participating class member will be entitled to receive a pro-rata portion of the net settlement amount -- the amount available for distribution after payment of settlement costs, including attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, a class- representative-enhancement award and administration expenses. "Each participating class member will receive a settlement payment equal to the net settlement amount divided by the number of participating class members," the order states. "Any portion of the settlement amount not distributed to participating class members at the end of 120 days will be paid to a court-approved cy pres recipient." On March 14, 2013, Geoffrey McDonald filed the class action lawsuit in the San Diego Superior Court, alleging that Bass Pro recorded telephone calls made to or received from California residents without their consent in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act The defendants had the lawsuit removed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. "After more than a year of litigation, the parties have reached a settlement which, upon final court approval, will resolve the claims of plaintiff and all putative class members," the settlement document states. The settlement amount equates to approximately $197.49 for each potential class member for whom name and address information is reflected in the defendants' records. "That calculation is apparently a result of dividing the full $6,000,000 settlement by the approximate 30,400 identifiable individual customers who make up the class," the settlement document states. "However, the full $6,000,000 amount will almost certainly not be available for distribution because of the attorneys' fees, litigation-costs, and service-payment deductions." These values could amount to, respectively, $1.8 million, $150,000, and $20,000. "Taking into account these deductions, the amount available for distribution to the class members could be as low as $4,030,000, which turns out to produce a $132.57 payment to each potential class member," the document states. Bass Pro denies the allegations but has agreed to settle the lawsuit to avoid the expense and uncertainty of ongoing litigation. A final hearing is scheduled for Dec. 15. The plaintiffs are being represented by James F. Clapp -- jclapp@sdlaw.com -- James T. Hannink -- Jim.Hannink@sdlaw.com -- and Zach P. Dostart -- zdostart@sdlaw.com -- of Dostart Clapp & Coveney LLP. The defendants are being represented by Richard M. Segal -- richard.segal@pillsburylaw.com -- and Nathaniel R. Smith -- nathaniel.smith@pillsburylaw.com -- of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP. The case is assigned to District Judge Cynthia Bashant. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California case number: 3:13-cv-00889 BENNY'S PIZZERIA: Faces "Gonzalez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT -------------------------------------------------------------- Walter Gonzalez, Jaime Gonzalez, and Carmen Gonzalez, individually and on behalf of other employees similarly situated v. Benny's Pizzeria, Inc., d/b/a Prohibition 2138 Pub & Grill, and Joseph Dituri, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-06951 (N.D. Ill., September 8, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week. Benny's Pizzeria, Inc. owns and operates a restaurant known as Prohibition 2138 Pub & Grill. The Plaintiff is represented by: Raisa Alicea, Esq. CONSUMER LAW GROUP 6232 N Pulaski Rd, Ste. 200 Chicago, IL 60646 Telephone: (312) 878-1263 E-mail: ralicea@yourclg.com BP PLC: UK Gov't Seeks Review of Oil Spill Class Action Rulings --------------------------------------------------------------- Petro Global News reports that the British government is urging the U.S. Supreme Court to review lower court class action rulings against BP for the Deepwater Horizon spill, calling the rulings unfair and damaging to international commerce. BP is challenging lower court decisions that require it to compensate claimants who showed no injury from the 2010 spill. In a friend of the court brief, the British government said those rulings raise concerns about the "vigorous and fair resolution of disputes." The British government said the lower court rulings could threaten the fairness and cooperation required for international trade, Reuters said. In a separate statement, BP said companies could shy away from investing in the United States because they would be "exposed to liability for losses they did not cause." BP said it is also concerned that the rulings could fundamentally change class action law and discourage companies from settling complex cases. Britain and the United States carry out more than $200 billion in trade every year. According to the government's brief, British businesses account for 17 percent of all foreign direct investment in the United States. In 2010, BP established the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Trust Fund, a $20 billion trust to cover damages related to the spill. Last week, a federal court judge found BP guilty of gross negligence and willful misconduct in its operation of the Deepwater Horizon rig. In April 2010, the Deepwater Horizon rig exploded and sank in the Gulf of Mexico after a well blowout, killing 11 workers and causing an oil spill. BP is facing fines and penalties of up to $18 billion on top of the $42 billion in current penalties and fines. BP said it will also appeal that ruling. The British government's brief is not related to last week's decision. C & L REFRIGERATION: Sued Over Breach of Fair Labor Standards Act ----------------------------------------------------------------- Giovanni Espinoza, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. C & L Refrigeration Corporation, and DOES 1 to 100, Inclusive, Case No. 8:14-cv-01431 (C.D. Cal., September 8, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. C & L Refrigeration Corporation is a service provider of refrigeration and HVAC systems for various customers throughout Southern California. The Plaintiff is represented by: John Ksajikian, Esq. KSAJIKIAN LAW FIRM 100 North Brand Blvd Suite 600 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 924-4222 Facsimile: (818) 924-4261 E-mail: john@ksajikianlaw.com CARLYLE GROUP: Settles LBO Collusion Class Action for $115 Million ------------------------------------------------------------------ David Bario, writing for The Litigation Daily, reports that after seven years of litigation, the white flags are waving in a once massive antitrust class action accusing top private equity firms of scheming to drive down the value of leveraged buyout deals. Holdout defendant Carlyle Group LP and its lawyers at Latham & Watkins inked a $115 million deal to exit the case on Sept. 5, two months before a jury was scheduled to hear the plaintiffs' claims. The proposed settlement with Carlyle follows similar deals with Bain Capital Partners LLC, Blackstone Group LP, Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co., Silver Lake Technology Management LLC and TPG Capital LP. The combined settlements total $590.5 million. Defendants JPMorgan Chase & Co., Apollo Global Management, Providence Equity Partners and Thomas H. Lee Partners LP won dismissal from the case in July 2013. The plaintiffs firms spearheading the case -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi and Scott + Scott -- represent investors who claim the defendants colluded to divvy up promising takeover targets and to refrain from outbidding each other in a series of multibillion-dollar deals. The case at one point involved 27 leveraged buyouts, but a judge limited the suit to allegations covering eight deals in March 2013. As recently as early last month, Carlyle and its lead lawyer, Latham's Margaret "Peggy" Zwisler -- margaret.zwisler@lw.com -- appeared to be digging in for a continuing fight. Latham argued in a summary judgment motion that the plaintiffs couldn't prove that collusion drove instances of the LBO firms avoiding topping each other's bids. And Carlyle and the other defendants long argued that many of the plaintiffs are subject to releases in connection with past M&A litigation that made the case unsuitable for class treatment. The lawyers leading the case include Patrick Coughin -- patc@rgrdlaw.com -- of Robbins Geller, K. Craig Wildfang -- kcwildfang@rkmc.com -- of Robins Kaplan and David Scott -- david.scott@scott-scott.com -- of Scott + Scott. The firms have yet to submit requests for attorney fees. All of the settlements still require approval from U.S. District Judge William G. Young in Boston. CATO CORPORATION: "Prince" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Virginia Prince, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. The Cato Corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-01708 (N.D. Ala., September 4, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, an equal amount of liquidated damages, attorneys= fees and costs, pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act. The Cato Corporation owns and operates multiple Cato stores in Alabama. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory O. Wiggins, Esq. Kevin W. Jent, Esq. Robert J. Camp, Esq. Rocco Calamusa Jr, Esq. WIGGINS CHILDS PANTAZIS FISHER & GOLDFARB The Kress Building, 301 19th Street, North Birmingham, AL 35203-3204 Telephone: (205) 314-0542 Facsimile: (205) 254-1500 E-mail: gwiggins@wigginschilds.com kjent@wigginschilds.com rcamp@wigginschilds.com Rcalamusa@wcqp.com CHICAGO PIZZA: Faces "Garcia" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Hours --------------------------------------------------------------- Roberto Garcia, individually and on behalf of other employees similarly situated v. Chicago Pizza Connection, Inc., and Ayed Al Farah, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-06954 (N.D. Ill., September 8, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week. Chicago Pizza Connection, Inc. owns and operates a pizzeria within the State of Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: Raisa Alicea, Esq. CONSUMER LAW GROUP 6232 N Pulaski Rd, Ste. 200 Chicago, IL 60646 Telephone: (312) 878-1263 E-mail: ralicea@yourclg.com CHINA XD: Faces Shareholder Litigations in New York Federal Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- China XD Plastics Company Limited and certain of its officers were named as defendants in two putative securities class action lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, according to the company's Aug. 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014. These actions, which allege violations of the United States securities laws, were filed on July 15, 2014 and July 16, 2014 and are captioned Yang v. Han, et al., No. 14-cv-5308 (GBD) and Tompkins v. China XD Plastics Company Ltd., et al., No. 14-cv-5359 (GBD), respectively. The plaintiffs in both actions seek to represent a class of all persons, other than defendants and their affiliates, who purchased the common stock of China XD Plastics Company Limited between August 12, 2009 and July 10, 2014, inclusive. The plaintiffs assert claims for violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. Specifically, the plaintiffs allege the defendants made false or misleading statements and/or omitted material facts in the Company's Form 10-Q for the second quarter ended June 30, 2009 and the Company's Form 10-K for the years ended December 31, 2009, December 31, 2010, December 31, 2011, December 31, 2012, and December 31, 2013. The plaintiffs also assert claims under Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the individual defendants as persons who allegedly controlled the Company during the time the allegedly false and misleading statements and omissions were made. The complaints seek damages in unspecified amounts. COVIDIEN LLC: Recalls Puritan Bennett 840 Ventilator System ----------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: September 3, 2014 Posting date: September 9, 2014 Type of communication: Medical Device Recall Subcategory: Medical Device Hazard classification: Type II Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Medical Devices Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals Identification number: RA-41307 Recalled Products: Puritan Bennett 840 Ventilator System - Main Unit Covidien is issuing a field safety corrective action (FSCA) to its Puritan Bennett 840 Ventilator customers to provide new information for the Puritan Bennett 840 Ventilator operator's manual. These new pages provide additional instruction and information for interacting with loss of display events. Companies: Manufacturer Covidien LLC 15 Hampshire Street Mansfield 02048 Massachusetts United States CROSSTOWN ALUMINUM: "Wilson" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT ------------------------------------------------------------ Sheldon Wilson v. Crosstown Storefront #1, Corp., d/b/a Crosstown Aluminum & Glass, Corp., and Abe Sabel, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-05234 (E.D.N.Y., September 8, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, attorneys' fees, costs and other compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Crosstown Storefront #1, Corp. is in the commercial window installation business with an address for service of process located at 406 Willoughby Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11205. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jodi Jill Jaffe, Esq. JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A. Building 2, Suite 220 168 Franklin Corner Road Lawrenceville, NJ 08648 Telephone: (201) 687-9977 Facsimile: (201) 595-0308 E-mail: jjaffe@jaffeglenn.com CYAN INC: Continues to Face Consolidated Securities Suit in Cal. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Cyan, Inc. faces a consolidated securities lawsuit in the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, according to the company's Aug. 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014. On April 1, 2014 a purported stockholder class action lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, against the Company, the members of the Company's Board of Directors, the Company's former Chief Financial Officer and the underwriters of the Company's IPO. On April 30, 2014, a substantially similar lawsuit was filed in the same court against the same defendants. The two cases have been consolidated. The consolidated complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws on behalf of a purported class consisting of purchasers of the Company's common stock pursuant or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus for the Company's IPO, and seek unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. DEN-MAT HOLDINGS: Sent Unsolicited Fax Messages, Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ Alan L. Laub, DDS, Inc., an Ohio corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Den-Mat Holdings, LLC and John Does 1-10, Case No. 2:14-cv-07004 (C.D. Cal., September 8, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for sending unsolicited facsimiles in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Den-Mat Holdings, LLC provides patient-focused, comprehensive, minimally invasive solutions through technology and innovation in aesthetic dentistry and oral care. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark John Geragos, Esq. Benjamin Jared Meiselas, Esq. GERAGOS AND GERAGOS APC 644 South Figeuroa Street Los Angeles, CA 90017-3411 Telephone: (213) 625-3900 Facsimile: (213) 625-1600 E-mail: mark@geragos.com meiselas@geragos.com DENTSPLY INTERNATIONAL: Plaintiffs in Cavitron Suit Appeal Ruling ----------------------------------------------------------------- Marvin Weinstat, DDS and Richard Nathan, DDS are appealing the rejection by the San Francisco Superior Court of their claims against DENTSPLY International Inc.'s Cavitron ultrasonic scalers, according to the company's July 31, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014. On June 18, 2004, Marvin Weinstat, DDS and Richard Nathan, DDS filed a class action suit in San Francisco County, California alleging that the Company misrepresented that its Cavitron ultrasonic scalers are suitable for use in oral surgical procedures. The Complaint seeks a recall of the product and refund of its purchase price to dentists who have purchased it for use in oral surgery. The Court certified the case as a class action in June 2006 with respect to the breach of warranty and unfair business practices claims. The class that was certified is defined as California dental professionals who, at any time during the period beginning June 18, 2000 through September 14, 2012, purchased and used one or more Cavitron ultrasonic scalers for the performance of oral surgical procedures on their patients, which Cavitrons were accompanied by Directions for Use that "Indicated" Cavitron use for "periodontal debridement for all types of periodontal disease." The case went to trial in September 2013, and on January 22, 2014, the San Francisco Superior Court issued its decision in the Company's favor, rejecting all of the plaintiffs' claims. The plaintiffs have appealed the Superior Court's decision, and the appeal is now pending. The Company intends to defend against this appeal. DENTSPLY INTERNATIONAL: Seeks Judgment in Periodontists Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- DENTSPLY International Inc. filed a Motion for Summary Judgment for a breach of express warranty claim in the "Center City Periodontists" lawsuit over Cavitron ultrasonic scaler, according to the company's July 31, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014. On December 12, 2006, a Complaint was filed by Carole Hildebrand, DDS and Robert Jaffin, DDS in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (the Plaintiffs subsequently added Dr. Mitchell Goldman as a named class representative). The case was filed by the same law firm that filed the Weinstat case in California. The Complaint asserts putative class action claims on behalf of dentists located in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. The Complaint seeks damages and asserts that the Company's Cavitron ultrasonic scaler was negligently designed and sold in breach of contract and warranty arising from misrepresentations about the potential uses of the product because it cannot assure the delivery of potable or sterile water. Following grant of a Company Motion and dismissal of the case for lack of jurisdiction, the plaintiffs filed a second complaint under the name of Dr. Hildebrand's corporate practice, Center City Periodontists, asserting the same allegations (this case is now proceeding under the name "Center City Periodontists"). The plaintiffs moved to have the case certified as a class action, to which the Company has objected and filed its brief. The Court has not yet ruled on class certification. The Court subsequently granted a Motion filed by the Company and dismissed plaintiffs' New Jersey Consumer Fraud and negligent design claims, leaving only a breach of express warranty claim, in response to which the Company has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. DONG LE CORPORATION: Fails to Pay OT Hours, "Chavez" Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------------- Angel Gabriel Reynoso Chavez and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. Dong Le Corporation d/b/a Shinju Japanese Buffet Sushi Seafood Hibachi Grill, Case No. 0:14-cv- 62034 (S.D. Fla., September 4, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly. Dong Le Corporation owns and operates Shinju Japanese Buffet Sushi Seafood Hibachi Grill located in Broward County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jamie H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL PC 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Telephone: (305) 865-6766 Facsimile: 865-7167 E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM EXIDE TECHNOLOGIES: Discovery Stayed in "Loritz" Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery is currently stayed in the case Loritz v. Exide Technologies, Inc., lead docket number 2:13-02607-SVW-E, according to the company's July 31, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2014. On April 15, 2013, David M. Loritz filed a purported class action lawsuit against the Company, James R. Bolch, Phillip A. Damaska, R. Paul Hirt, Jr., and Michael Ostermann alleging violations of certain federal securities laws. On May 3, 2013, Trevor Knopf filed a nearly identical complaint against the same named defendants in the same court. These cases were filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California purportedly on behalf of purchasers of the Company's stock between February 9, 2012 and April 3, 2013. On June 4, 2013, James Cassella and Sandra Weitsman filed a substantially similar action in the same court, purportedly on behalf of those who purchased the Company's stock between June 1, 2011 and April 24, 2013, against the Company, Messrs. Bolch, Damaska, Hirt, and Louis E. Martinez. On July 9, 2013, Judge Stephen V. Wilson consolidated these cases under the Loritz v. Exide Technologies, Inc. caption, lead docket number 2:13-02607-SVW-E, and appointed Sandra Weitsman and James Cassella Lead Plaintiffs of the putative class of former Exide stockholders. Judge Wilson ordered Lead Plaintiffs to file their consolidated amended complaint on or before August 23, 2013. On July 17, 2013, Lead Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their claims against the Company, without prejudice, to re-file at a future date. Lead Plaintiffs have indicated that they intend to pursue their claims against the individual defendants during the pendency of Exide's bankruptcy and may seek to reinstate their claims against the Company when it emerges from bankruptcy. On September 6, 2013, pursuant to an order extending the previous deadline, Lead Plaintiffs filed their Consolidated Amended Complaint, naming as defendants Messrs. James R. Bolch, Phillip A. Damaska, R. Paul Hirt, Jr., Louis E. Martinez, John P. Reilly, Herbert F. Aspbury, Michael R. D'Appolonia, David S. Ferguson, John O'Higgins, and Dominic J. Pilleggi. Lead Plaintiffs did not name Mr. Ostermann as a defendant in the Consolidated Amended Complaint. In the Consolidated Amended Complaint Lead Plaintiffs purport to state claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of purchasers of the Company's stock during the period June 1, 2011 and May 24, 2013. In addition, Lead Plaintiffs purport to state claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of purchasers of the Company's Senior Secured Notes during the period August 8, 2011 through May 24, 2013. Lead Plaintiffs allege that certain public statements made by the Company and its officers during these periods were materially false and misleading. The Consolidated Amended Complaint does not specify an amount of damages sought. Defendants deny all allegations against them and intend to vigorously pursue their defense. Defendants moved to dismiss all claims against them and, on December 19, 2013, Judge Wilson granted defendants' motion to dismiss in its entirety, without prejudice. Judge Wilson gave Lead Plaintiffs leave to file their Consolidated Second Amended Complaint on or before January 30, 2014. On January 30, 2014, Lead Plaintiffs filed their Consolidated Second Amended Complaint, which is nearly identical in every material respect to the Consolidated Amended Complaint. The Consolidated Second Amended Complaint does not specify an amount of damages sought. Defendants deny all allegations against them and intend to vigorously pursue their defense. On February 13, 2014, Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Second Amended Complaint. On March 31, 2014 Judge Wilson heard oral argument on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and took the motion under advisement. Discovery is currently stayed pursuant to the discovery-stay provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. EXIDE TECHNOLOGIES: Environmental Suit Over Plant Remains Stayed ---------------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit filed over alleged injury caused by hazardous waste or chemicals from Exide Technologies' facility located in Vernon, California remains stayed, according to the company's July 31, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2014. On April 25, 2013, Zach Hernandez filed a purported class action lawsuit in the California Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles against the Company and Does 1-100 seeking damages and medical monitoring for an alleged class consisting of all Los Angeles County residents who allegedly have sustained physical or neurological injury or toxic exposure allegedly as the result of the release of allegedly hazardous waste or chemicals from the Company's facility located in Vernon, California. On June 10, 2013, the Company filed a voluntary petition for reorganization pursuant to Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in the District of Delaware, and the case is stayed. FAYETTE COUNTY, KY: Faces "Berry" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------- Van Berry and Joshua Bedson, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v. Office of the Fayette County Sheriff, Case No. 5:14-cv-00356 (E.D. Ky., September 4, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, unjust enrichment, declaratory relief, and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Office of the Fayette County Sheriff is a Kentucky public agency that provides law enforcement activities in Fayette County, Kentucky. The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Frisch, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN PA 600 N. Pine Island Road, Suite 400 Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (954) 318-0268 Facsimile: (954) 333-3515 - and - C. Ryan Morgan, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN 20 N. Orange Avenue 14th Floor, P.O. Box 4979 Orlando, FL 32802-4979 Telephone: (407) 418-2069 Facsimile: (407) 245-3401 E-mail: rmorgan@forthepeople.com - and - Jonathan A. Rabinowitz, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 333 W. Vine Street, Suite 1200 Lexington, KY 40507 Telephone: (859) 219-4529 E-mail: jrabinowitz@forthepeople.com FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Sued Over Manipulation of Propane Gas Price ---------------------------------------------------------------- Yocum Oil Company, Inc., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Ferrellgas Partners, L.P., Ferrellgas L.P., AmeriGas Partners, L.P., AmeriGas Propane, L.P., AmeriGas, Inc., and UGI Corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-02453 (D. Kan., September 8, 2014), alleges that the Defendants conspired to reduce the amount of propane gas contained in portable steel tanks from 17 pounds to 15 pounds without a corresponding price decrease. The Defendants operate a national propane distribution business, and owns or has access to distribution locations nationwide. Its business includes the filling, refilling, refurbishing, sale and distribution of propane exchange tanks. The Plaintiff is represented by: Isaac L. Diel, Esq. SHARP MCQUEEN PA 6900 College Blvd., Suite #285 Overland Park, KS 66211 Telephone: (913) 661-9931 Facsimile: (913) 661-9935 E-mail: idiel@sharpmcqueen.com FLO-PIE INC: "Elmquist" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- Christopher Elmquist, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Flo-Pie, Inc. d/b/a Mellow Mushroom, D- Shroom, Inc. d/b/a Mellow Mushroom, John Doe, individually; and Matt Duke, individually, Case No. 4:14-cv-03548 (D.S.C., September 4, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime compensation, as well as other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant, which has 3 separate locations, within the Florence-Horry County area. The Plaintiff is represented by: Bruce E. Miller, Esq. BRUCE E. MILLER LAW OFFICE 147 Wappoo Creek Drive, Suite 603 Charleston, SC 29412 Telephone: (843) 579-7373 E-mail: bmiller@brucemillerlaw.com FLORIDA: Department of Corrections Accused of Torturing Inmates --------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that the Florida Department of Corrections tortures mentally ill inmates at the Dade Correctional Institution, including locking them "in a scalding hot shower for hours at a time," and beating and killing them, a class action claims in Florida Federal Court. GAY LEA: Recalls Nordica Life Smart Cottage Cheese Products ----------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: August 29, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Notification Subcategory: Microbiological - Non harmful (Quality/Spoilage) Hazard classification: Class 3 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Gay Lea Foods Co-Operative Limited Distribution: National Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 9165 GENERAL MILLS: Toxic Vapors Class Action in Minn. Can Proceed ------------------------------------------------------------- Lisa Hoffman, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that a neighborhood of Minnesota homeowners has staved off an attempt by General Mills Inc. to derail their proposed federal class action against the company for allegedly failing to prevent toxic vapors from seeping from a Superfund site into their residences. U.S. District Judge Donovan Frank of the District of Minnesota denied General Mills' motion to dismiss Ebert v. General Mills, ruling that the residents had standing and presented sufficient facts to support claims of negligence, nuisance and willful and wanton conduct, as well as for injunctive relief. The litigation centers on the Como neighborhood in Minneapolis, near a defunct General Mills research facility that, from 1947 to 1962, disposed of thousands of gallons of hazardous substances each year by putting them in perforated drums and burying them, according to court documents. Among the toxins dumped at what was declared a Superfund site in 1984 was the chemical and human carcinogen trichloroethylene, or TCE, used as an industrial solvent and degreaser. Plaintiffs Karl Ebert, Carol Krauze and Jackie Milbrandt allege at least 200 properties have been affected by the TCE contamination, which fouled the groundwater and later took the form of vapors that allegedly have also poisoned soil near the houses. General Mills acknowledges the TCE was dumped at its facility, and from 1985 to 2010 treated two underground layers of water to clean them. The company is paying to inspect houses for evidence of contamination and install vapor ventilation systems. According to their complaint, filed on Dec. 5, the plaintiffs ask the judge to award them compensatory and other damages, and to impose an injunction barring General Mills from allowing any more vapor intrusion and to compel the company to abate the contamination that already has occurred. General Mills contends that the federal court lacks jurisdiction to consider the case, and that the plaintiffs lack standing and did not allege facts establishing facially plausible claims for relief. Plaintiffs are represented by the law firms Varga Berger Ledsky Hayes & Casey; The Collins Law Firm; Siegel Brill; and Zimmerman Reed. General Mills is represented by O'Melveny & Myers; Blackwell Burke; Carpenter Law Firm; and Carlisle Law. GENERAL MOTORS: Challenges Dealers' Class Action in Canada ---------------------------------------------------------- David Paddon, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that GM Canada denied in court on Sept. 9 accusations that it deliberately ambushed and misled dozens of its dealers in 2009 when it gave them six days to decide whether to shut down within months and receive whatever compensation the automaker would offer, or risk pushing the automaker into bankruptcy protection and ending up with nothing. The dealers were experienced and sophisticated business people who made their choice "with their eyes wide open" and those who signed the deals had decided it was better to get something than "roll the dice" and risk everything, GM lawyer Kent Thomson told Ontario Superior Court on the opening day of the trial. The class action lawsuit launched by 181 of the dealers is seeking up to $750 million in compensation, claiming they could have received a better deal if they'd had more time and better legal representation than they received in 2009. In the opening remarks for what's expected to be a six-week trial, David Sterns, lawyer for the dealers, said that GM Canada broke provincial laws in Ontario, Prince Edward Island and Alberta that state dealers, as franchisees, must get 14 days notice and complete disclosure if asked to sign any contract by their franchisor -- in this case General Motors of Canada. But GM chose to wait, giving the dealers less time to negotiate a better deal, said Mr. Sterns. "The evidence will show that General Motors achieved this result by ambush, deception and divide and conquer tactics," Mr. Sterns said. Thomson said that Sterns mischaracterized the franchise laws and that the dealers were advised repeatedly that they had virtually no chance of getting anything for their business if GM Canada sought bankruptcy protection -- a definite possibility at the time when the wind-down offers were made, amid an industrywide downturn. In another element of the trial, the automaker is suing the dealers covered by the class action for the return of the $123 million it paid them for shutting down by the end of 2009. GM argues that the dealers waived the right to launch legal action against GM Canada when they signed the wind-down agreements. The dealers are also suing Toronto law firm Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP, alleging the firm, retained to advise them, was in a conflict of interest because it also represented the federal government on the auto industry bailout. Cassels Brock denies the allegation. The case was originally filed by a former Toronto GM dealership, now called Trillium Motor World, on behalf of dealerships in Ontario, Alberta and P.E.I. that were told in May 2009 that their dealer agreements would be terminated before their normal expiration date. General Motors automaker slashed its operations to qualify for billions of dollars of government bailout money following the financial crisis. Both Ottawa and the Ontario government acquired GM shares in 2009 after providing some $10.6 billion in aid to the automaker. The trial was set to resume on Wednesday, Sept. 10 HCSB FINANCIAL: Plaintiffs Appeal Summary Judgment in S.C. Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The parties are awaiting notice of a hearing on a pending motion by plaintiffs to reconsider the grant of summary judgment to HCSB Financial Corporation in a lawsuit pending against it in the Court of Common Pleas for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, State of South Carolina, County of Horry, Case, according to the company's Aug. 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014. On July 19, 2012, Robert Shelley, in his individual capacity and on behalf of a proposed class of other similarly situated persons, filed a lawsuit in the Court of Common Pleas for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, State of South Carolina, County of Horry, Case No. 2012-CP-26-5546. The Complaint named the Company and the Bank as Defendants. However, the Complaint was never served on the Company or Bank. On September 27, 2012, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. The Amended Complaint alleges that Plaintiff and other similarly situated persons were contacted by employees of the Bank, who then solicited a sale of Bank stock. The Amended Complaint further alleges that Bank employees did not disclose material information about the Bank's financial condition to the Plaintiff and others prior to their respective purchases of stock. The Amended Complaint seeks the certification of a class action to include all those purchasers of Bank stock who were solicited to purchase such stock between July 1, 2009 and December 31, 2011. Plaintiff has asserted causes of action for violation of the South Carolina Uniform Securities Act, negligence and civil conspiracy, and seeks actual, punitive and treble damages and attorneys' fees and costs. The Company and the Bank made a motion for summary judgment in March 2014, and the court granted the motion for summary judgment on April 8, 2014. Mr. Shelley's attorney subsequently filed a Motion to Reconsider. The parties are awaiting notice of a hearing on the pending Motion. HCSB FINANCIAL: Still Faces "Snyder" Securities Suit in S.C. ------------------------------------------------------------ HCSB Financial Corporation is facing a lawsuit filed by Jan W. Snyder in the Court of Common Pleas for the Fifteenth Judicial District, State of South Carolina, County of Horry, Case No. 2014- CP-26-0204, according to the company's Aug. 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014. Plaintiff Jan W. Snyder purchased $25,000 in subordinated debt notes in or around March 2010. After making three semi-annual interest payments, the Company was precluded from making further payments by the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond. On January 14, 2014 Mr. Snyder sued the Company, the Bank, and several current and former officers, directors and employees in the Court of Common Pleas for the Fifteenth Judicial District, State of South Carolina, County of Horry, Case No. 2014-CP-26-0204. He is alleging that he and a similarly situated class of subordinated debt purchasers have suffered an unspecified amount of damages resulting from the Defendants' wrongful conduct leading up to their respective purchases of subordinated debt notes. There are several causes of action alleged, including fraud, violation of state securities statutes, negligence and others. Mr. Snyder has brought this case on his behalf and as a representative of a class of similarly situated purchasers of subordinated debt notes. The Company and the Bank have engaged legal counsel and intend to vigorously defend against this lawsuit. The Complaint has been filed and the Company has filed its Answer, in which it denies any and all liability. Counsel for the Plaintiff recently advised the company that he has been retained by a second subordinated debt purchaser and would like to amend the Complaint to reflect this new Plaintiff. HI-TECH PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued Over False Claims on "Fat Buster" --------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Hi-Tech Pharmaceuticals falsely advertises its Garcinia Cambogia Extract as "a revolutionary fat buster" on the (nonparty) "Dr. Oz Show," a class action claims in Florida Federal Court. HIEP THANH: Recalls Raw Pork Products Due to E. Coli ---------------------------------------------------- Starting date: September 4, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning Subcategory: Microbiological - E. coli O157:H7 Hazard classification: Class 1 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Hiep Thanh Trading, V&T Meat and Food Distribution: Alberta Extent of the product distribution: Retail V&T Meat and Food, Calgary, Alberta and Hiep Thanh Trading, Edmonton, Alberta, are recalling certain raw pork products from the marketplace due to possible E. coli O157:H7 contamination. Consumers, food service establishments, retailers, distributors and manufacturers in Alberta, should not consume, serve, use, or sell certain raw pork products sold by these two retailers/distributors because the raw pork products may be contaminated with E. coli O157:H7. All raw pork products sold from these locations, during the identified time periods, are affected by the recall. Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalled products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they were purchased. Food contaminated with E. coli O157:H7 may not look or smell spoiled but can still make you sick. Symptoms can include nausea, vomiting, mild to severe abdominal cramps and watery to bloody diarrhea. In severe cases of illness, some people may have seizures or strokes, need blood transfusions and kidney dialysis or live with permanent kidney damage. In severe cases of illness, people may die. Further analysis is underway to determine if these affected products are linked to some of the E. coli O157:H7 illnesses in Alberta. HOME DEPOT: Faces "Solak" Suit in N.D. Georgia Over Data Breach --------------------------------------------------------------- John Solak and Dennis O'Rourke, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Home Depot, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-02856 (N.D. Ga., September 4, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to secure the Plaintiffs and class members' personal and financial information such as name, address, credit card number, credit card expiration dates. The Home Depot, Inc. is the world's largest home improvement retailer, which headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. The Plaintiff is represented by: Amy Wellington, Esq. DAY EDWARDS PROPESTER & CHRISTENSEN, P.C. 29th Floor, 210 Park Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 239-2121 E-mail awellington@dayedwards.com - and - Darren W. Penn, Esq. James M. Evangelista, Esq. Jeffrey R. Harris, Esq. HARRIS PENN LOWRY LLP 400 Colony Square 1201 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 900 Atlanta, GA 30361 Telephone: (404) 961-7650 E-mail: darren@hpllegal.com jim@hpllegal.com jeff@hpllegal.com - and - William B. Federman, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 N. Pennsylvania Avenue Oklahoma, OK 73120 Telephone: (405) 235-1560 Facsimile: (405) 239-2112 E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com IDEVICES LLC: Recalls Pro Ambient Temperature Probes ---------------------------------------------------- Starting date: September 3, 2014 Posting date: September 3, 2014 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Tools and Electrical Products Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Product Safety Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-41279 Affected products: Cooking thermometer probes The recall involves all Pro Ambient Temperature Probes and Pro Meat Probes manufactured from May 2014 through June 2014. The probe measures ambient air and meat temperature. The probes were sold separately as an accessory for the iGrill, iGrill2 grilling thermometers and the Kitchen Thermometer cooking thermometers. The meat probe was also sold as a component of the iGrill2 set. The probes consist of a curved stainless steel rod attached to a mini connector by a steel braided cable. The iDevices logo is stamped into the top of the cord holder. Recalled probes have only two indentations, or crimps, in the base of the probe tube where is attached to the braided cable. The plastic insulator located inside the stainless steel probe is not heat resistant and can melt and fall into food, posing an ingestion hazard. iDevices has received 11 reports of the probe overheating and the plastic insulator melting during normal use in the United States (none in Canada). No injuries were reported. Health Canada has not received any reports of consumer incidents or complaints related to the use of this device. Approximately 510 units of the recalled products were distributed in Canada, with an unknown number sold to consumers, and approximately 48,500 units were distributed in the United States. The affected product was manufactured in China and sold from May 2014 through July 2014 by various retailers in Canada and the United States. Companies: Importer: iDevices LLC Avon Connecticut United States Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled temperature probes and contact iDevices for a free replacement. IKEA CANADA: Advises to Check Crib Mattresses for Correct Fit ------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: September 4, 2014 Posting date: September 4, 2014 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Children's Products Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Product Safety Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-41257 Affected products: IKEA VYSSA crib mattresses IKEA VYSSA crib mattress from supplier 21905 with date stamp 1418 (YYWW) or earlier. The product name, supplier number and date stamp are found on a label sewn onto the mattress. IKEA VYSSA crib mattresses are designed to be used with IKEA cribs to ensure a snug fit and safe sleeping environment for your baby. If you notice there is a gap greater than 3 cm between your VYSSA mattress and the crib's side or end, please contact IKEA for an exchange or refund. A gap between the mattress and the side or end of the crib that is greater than 3 cm poses an entrapment hazard for an infant. Health Canada has received one consumer incident report related to this advisory for a VYSSA VACKERT crib mattress. IKEA Canada has received five reports in Canada of a potential gap created between the VYSSA VACKERT mattress and the end of the crib that appears to be greater than 3 cm, posing a safety hazard for infants. No injuries have been reported to Health Canada nor IKEA Canada related to this advisory. 60,472 VYSSA crib mattress of which 6,417 are VYSSA VACKERT crib mattresses sold at IKEA stores across Canada and online. The VYSSA crib mattresses were manufactured in Mexico and have been sold at IKEA since 2010. Companies: Manufacturer IKEA Canada Limited Partnership Burlington Ontario Canada Consumers should check the gap between the IKEA VYSSA crib mattress and the side and end of the crib. If the gap is greater than 3 cm, the mattress may be returned to any IKEA store for an exchange or full refund. For further information, consumers may contact IKEA Canada toll-free at 1-800-661-9807 or visit IKEA's website. IMPAC MORTGAGE: Dismissal of "Marentes" Securities Suit Reversed ---------------------------------------------------------------- The court of appeals reversed the dismissal of Marentes v. Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. litigation, according to the company's Aug. 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014. On April 30, 2012 a purported class action was filed entitled Marentes v. Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc., alleging that certain loan modification activities of the Company constitute an unfair business practice, false advertising and marketing, and that the fees charged are improper. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, restitution, injunctive relief, attorney's fees and prejudgment interest. On August 22, 2012, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint adding Impac Funding Corporation as a defendant and on October 2, 2012, the plaintiff dismissed Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc., without prejudice. On December 27, 2012, the court granted IFC's motion to dismiss and on May 23, 2014, the court of appeals reversed the dismissal and the Company will file an appropriate response. INUVO INC: Sept. Hearing to Approve Securities Suit v. Vertro ------------------------------------------------------------- A hearing to determine whether the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida should issue an order finally approving a proposed settlement in a securities suit against Vertro, has been scheduled for September 15, 2014, according to Inuvo, Inc.'s July 31, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter year ended June 30, 2014. In 2005, five putative securities fraud class action lawsuits were filed against Vertro and certain of its former officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, which were subsequently consolidated. The consolidated complaint alleged that Vertro and the individual defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and that the individual defendants also violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act as "control persons." Plaintiffs sought unspecified damages and other relief alleging that, during the putative class period, Vertro made certain misleading statements and omitted material information. The court granted Defendants' motion for summary judgment on November 16, 2009, and the court entered final judgment in favor of all Defendants on December 7, 2009. Plaintiffs appealed the summary judgment ruling and the court's prior orders dismissing certain claims. On September 30, 2011, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of 9 of the 11 alleged misstatements and reversed the court's prior order on summary judgment and the case has been remanded to the District Court. In October 2012 the District Court entered an order maintaining the existing stay on discovery pending a ruling on the defendants' motion for summary judgment. On March 28, 2014, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle this matter. This proposed settlement is subject to review and approval by the District Court. As part of the proposed settlement, the insurance carrier is expected to pay $2.4 million to stockholders in the class. The settlement is not expected to require any direct payment by the company. On May 14, 2014, the parties entered a Stipulation of Settlement. On May 22, 2014, the District Court issued an order granting preliminary approval of the settlement. A hearing to determine whether the District Court should issue an order finally approving the proposed settlement has been scheduled for September 15, 2014. As part of the settlement, the insurance carrier will pay $2.4 million to stockholders in the class. The settlement requires no direct payment by the Company. JF VEHICLE: Faces "Goatacha" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Jesus A. Goatache, Juan M. Correa-Betancourt, Huberth Cano, Marlene P. Novoa, and Ruben D. Rojas, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. JF Vehicle Transporters, Inc., Juan M. Ferret, Avis Budget Group, Inc., and Hertz Global Holdings, Inc., Case No. 6:14-cv-01437 (M.D. Fla., September 4, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime and minimum wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate a vehicle transportation company doing business within the State of Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: N. Ryan LaBar, Esq. Scott C. Adams, Esq. LABAR & ADAMS, PA 2300 E Concord St Orlando, FL 32803 Telephone: (407) 835-8968 Facsimile: (407) 835-8969 E-mail: rlabar@labaradams.com sadams@labaradams.com JPMORGAN CHASE: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Ron Henry, Individually and on Behalf of AH Others Similarly Situated v. JPMorgan Chase & Co. and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Case No. 1:14-cv-07176-AJN (S.D.N.Y., September 5, 2014) alleges that the Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours in a work week without being paid overtime compensation or minimum wages. Mr. Henry previously worked as a non-exempt employee at bank branches owned and operated by the Defendants, and was given the job title of "teller," among others. New York-based JPMorgan Chase & Co. is a Delaware corporation conduction business in the state of New York. JPMorgan Chase & Co. is one of the oldest financial institutions in the United States, and is a leading global financial services firm with assets of $2.4 trillion, and operations in more than 60 countries, including the United States. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., is a national bank and financial services company that operates thousands of bank branches throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael DiChiara, Esq. KRAKOWER DICHIARA, LLC One Depot Square 77 Market Street, Suite 2 Park Ridge, NJ 07656 Telephone: (201) 746-0303 Facsimile: (866) 417-2333 E-mail: md@kdlawllc.com - and - Rhonda H. Wills, Esq. WILLS LAW FIRM, PLLC 1776 Yorktown, Suite 570 Houston, TX 77056 Telephone: (713) 528-4455 Facsimile: (713) 528-2047 LEE COUNTY, FL: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Kevin Calderone, an individual, George Schwing, an individual, Michael Zaleski, an individual, and Selena Lee, an individual, and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals v. Michael Scott, as the duly elected Sheriff of Lee County, Florida, Case No. 2:14-cv-00519 (M.D. Fla., September 4, 2014). seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Michael Scott, as the duly elected Sheriff of Lee County, has the sole authority to hire, fire, and discipline his deputies, supervise and control the deputies' work schedule and conditions of employment, determine the rate and method of payment for the deputies, and maintain employment records of the deputies. The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin H. Yormak, Esq. YORMAK DISABILITY LAW GROUP Suite 206, 9990 Coconut Rd Bonita Springs, FL 34135 Telephone: (239) 985-9691 Facsimile: (239) 288-2534 E-mail: byormak@yormaklaw.com MARRONE BIO: Faces "Suasman" Suit Over False Financial Reports -------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Sausman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Marrone Bio Innovations, Inc., Pamela G. Marrone, Donald J. Glide Well and James B. Boyd, Case No. 2:14-cv-02072 (E.D. Cal., September 8, 2014), alleges that the Defendants' made false and misleading statements about the Company's past, present and future financial results during the annual Securities and Exchange Commission filing. Marrone Bio Innovations, Inc. is a provider of bio-based pest management and plant health products for the agriculture, turf and ornamental and water treatment markets. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of Marrone Bio Innovations, Inc. The Plaintiff is represented by: Willow E. Radcliffe, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP Post Montgomery Center One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 288-4545 Facsimile: (415) 288-4534 E-mail: willowr@rgrdlaw.com - and - Darren J. Robbins, Esq. David C. Walton ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 Facsimile: (619) 231-7423 E-mail: darrenr@rgrdlaw.com davew@rgrdlaw.com - and - Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. Mary K. Blasy, Esq. 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 12 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 367-7100 Facsimile: (631) 367-1173 E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com mblasy@rgrdlaw.com MARTIN BROTHERS: Regina High Among Affected by Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Kaitlin Dewulf, writing for The Daily Iowan, reports that a local high school has been included in the multimillion-dollar class- action lawsuit involving a distributing company's alleged attempt to monopolize food sales in Iowa schools. Regina Catholic High was one of 894 Iowa schools that received food service from Martin Brothers Distributing Co. Inc., whose operations are based in Cedar Falls. The lawsuit claimed the distributing company conspired with the Iowa Educators Consortium and its successor, the Iowa Association for Educational Purchasing, to restrain competition in the market for retail sales of food at Iowa schools. Regina used the company through its membership in the Iowa Educators Consortium. Alan Opheim, the director of finance and operations at the Regina Education Center, said the school was a member of the Iowa Educators Consortium for eight years -- from 2002 to 2003 and 2007 to 2014. Mr. Opheim said the high school was given a number of vendors as options to use for its food service, and it used Martin Brothers because the company was inexpensive. Martin Brothers was also accused of violating Iowa antitrust laws by attempting to monopolize the market. Students who paid for food at listed Iowa-based pre-kindergarten, elementary, middle, or high schools between Jan. 1, 2000, and Aug. 1, 2014, may be affected by the lawsuit and owed a settlement, according to a press release issued by the law firm involved in the case, Gilardi & Co. LLC. Settlement members include those who purchased food at any of the listed high schools, and these individuals could receive up to $3.50 per year they attended, up to a maximum of $50 per student. Mr. Opheim said the school was never officially notified of the class-action suit. "We've received nothing from the court system," he said. "It is our due diligence to get something out to our parents letting them know. We want that release out there immediately so they still have a couple weeks to file a claim." President of Regina Education Center Lee Iben said when he and his staff were made aware of the situation they decided their next course of action was to notify the parents of the students. "[The lawsuit] affects everyone who was on the school-lunch program," Mr. Iben said. "Now it's up to the parents to decide if they want to pursue the collection of the funds due to them." Mr. Iben said he has had no complaints from settlement class members since the release of the settlement, and he doesn't think it represents Regina poorly. Martin Brothers has agreed to pay a settlement of $1.9 million in order to settle the claims to cover attorneys' fees and costs. The Iowa Educators Consortium and the Iowa Association for Educational Purchasing will also make payments totaling $150,000 through their insurers to cover certain costs. University of Iowa sophomore Peter Rhomberg was awarded $28 after attending Regina schools since kindergarten. However, like Regina officials, Mr. Rhomberg wasn't initially aware of the court case. "There should be more awareness for students who attended these schools," Mr. Rhomberg said. "Because if affected students or parents aren't filing claims, that's money Martin Brothers won't have to pay as part of its settlement." MEDX MEDICAL: Faces "Velez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- Andres Velez, Carlos Suarez, Anthony Maximillien Georges-Pierre, Diego Medina Torres, Anthony Maximillien Georges-Pierre, Michell Farias, and other similarly-situated individuals v. MEDX Medical Management & Technologies, LLC a Florida Limited Liability Company, Joseph Castanova III, William Zulueta and Maikel Mitchell, Individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-23312 (S.D. Fla., September 8, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime and minimum wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly. MEDX Medical Management & Technologies, LLC is a South Florida based medical billing, coding, credentialing, EHR and practice management company, The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony Maximillien Georges-Pierre, 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: agp@rgpattorneys.com MERCHANT SOLUTIONS: Faces "McNally" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT --------------------------------------------------------------- Charles McNally, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Merchant Solutions Group, Corp., Liberty Merchant Group, LLC, William Morrissey, and Steven Desiderio, Case No. 1:14-cv-07116 (S.D.N.Y., September 4, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for all hours worked over 40 in a given workweek. The Defendants provide merchant services, including but not limited to, cash advances to small and medium-sized businesses and credit card processing. The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Q. Davis, Esq. Rachel M. Haskell, Esq. The Law Office of Christopher Q. Davis, PLLP 18 West 18th Street, 11th Floor New York, NY 10011 METROTAINMENT CAFES: Sued Over Failure to Pay Minimum & OT Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ryan Washington, Ian Ingram, and Tatyana Brown, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. Metrotainment Cafes, LLC, Political Concepts, LLC, Jeffrey Landau, and Amy Landau, Case No. 1:14-cv-02888 (N.D. Ga., September 8, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay all hours worked at the required minimum and overtime premium wage rates. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 1049 Juniper Street NE, Atlanta, Georgia 30309. The Plaintiff is represented by: John Lawrence Mays, Esq. Michael P. Walker, Esq. Thomas Jefferson Kerr, Esq. MAYS & KERR, LLC Suite 202, North Tower 235 Peachtree Street N.E. Atlanta, GA 30303 Telephone: (404) 410-7998 Facsimile: (404) 855-4066 E-mail: john@maysandkerr.com mike@maysandkerr.com jeff@maysandkerr.com MICROSOFT CORP: Settles Antitrust, Unfair Competition Claims in US ------------------------------------------------------------------ Microsoft Corporation obtained dismissals or reached settlements of all antitrust, unfair competition, and overcharge claims made in the United States, according to the company's July 31, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014. A large number of antitrust and unfair competition class action lawsuits were filed against the company in various state, federal, and Canadian courts on behalf of various classes of direct and indirect purchasers of the company's PC operating system and certain other software products between 1999 and 2005. The company obtained dismissals or reached settlements of all claims made in the United States. Under the settlements, generally class members can obtain vouchers that entitle them to be reimbursed for purchases of a wide variety of platform-neutral computer hardware and software. The total value of vouchers that the company may issue varies by state. The company will make available to certain schools a percentage of those vouchers that are not issued or claimed (one-half to two-thirds depending on the state). The total value of vouchers the company ultimately issues will depend on the number of class members who make claims and are issued vouchers. The company estimates the total remaining cost of the settlements is approximately $400 million, all of which had been accrued as of June 30, 2014. Three similar cases pending in British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec, Canada have not been settled. In March 2010, the court in the British Columbia case certified it as a class action. The plaintiffs successfully appealed a British Columbia Court of Appeal decision reversing class certification and dismissing the case. In October 2013, the Canadian Supreme Court reversed the appellate court and reinstated part of the British Columbia case, which is now scheduled for trial in September 2015. The other two cases were inactive pending action by the Supreme Court on the British Columbia case. MICROSOFT CORP: Still Faces Suit by Mobile Phone Users in Canada ---------------------------------------------------------------- Microsoft Corp. continues to face the "Canadian cell phone class action" filed in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, according to the company's July 31, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014. Nokia, along with other handset manufacturers and network operators, is a defendant in a 2013 class action lawsuit filed in the Supreme Court of British Columbia by a purported class of Canadians who have used cellular phones for at least 1600 hours, including a subclass of users with brain tumors. Microsoft was served with the complaint in June 2014. The litigation is not yet active as several defendants remain to be served. MONSANTO CO: Settles Class Actions Over GMO Wheat Contamination --------------------------------------------------------------- Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that Monsanto Co. has agreed to settle lawsuits by U.S. farmers who alleged they lost money after the company contaminated their wheat fields when a genetically modified strand was discovered in Oregon. More than a dozen class actions resulted after a farmer made the discovery last year, prompting Japan and South Korea to immediately suspend imports of soft-white wheat from the United States. Grain futures prices also fell. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has not approved genetically modified wheat for commercial use. On Sept. 5, lawyers for the soft-white wheat farmers, who sued for economic losses, told a federal judge in Kansas that they had reached a settlement, the terms of which they didn't disclose. James Pizzirusso -- jpizzirusso@hausfeldllp.com -- a partner at Washington, D.C.'s Hausfeld, chairman of the interim colead counsel team for the soft-white wheat farmers, declined to comment, saying the settlement wasn't final. In March, U.S. District Judge Kathryn Vratil ordered both sides to mediation. Lawyers for additional farmers, who sued for losses to the overall wheat market, were scheduled to appear in court on Sept. 9. Patrick Pendley, senior partner at Plaquemine, La.'s Pendley Baudin & Coffin, who represents those farmers, said he hoped Monsanto would address their cases soon now that a settlement has been reached with soft-white wheat farmers. "We have not been in any mediations or discussion with Monsanto since April," said Mr. Pendley, who added he planned to meet with Monsanto attorneys in advance of the Sept. 9 hearing. "Obviously, to talk about what's to be done with our cases," he said. Monsanto spokesman Tom Helscher did not respond to a request for comment. Monsanto attorney Edward Duckers -- ecduckers@stoel.com -- head of the litigation practice at Stoel Rives in San Francisco, declined to comment. Monsanto, which field-tested genetically modified wheat about a decade ago, has denied wrongdoing and called the Oregon strand an isolated incident. MORGAN STANLEY: Settlement Reached in Ge Dandong v. Pinnacle ------------------------------------------------------------ The parties in Ge Dandong, et al. v. Pinnacle Performance Ltd., et al. reached an agreement in principle to settle the litigation, according to Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Charter Campbell L.P.'s Aug. 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014. On October 25, 2010, MS&Co., certain affiliates and Pinnacle Performance Limited, a special purpose vehicle, were named as defendants in a purported class action related to securities issued by the special purpose vehicle in Singapore, commonly referred to as Pinnacle Notes. The case is styled Ge Dandong, et al. v. Pinnacle Performance Ltd., et al. and is pending in the SDNY. An amended complaint was filed on October 22, 2012. The court denied defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint on August 22, 2013 and granted class certification on October 17, 2013. On October 30, 2013, defendants filed a petition for permission to appeal the court's decision granting class certification. On January 31, 2014, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. The second amended complaint alleges that the defendants engaged in a fraudulent scheme to defraud investors by structuring the Pinnacle Notes to fail and benefited subsequently from the securities' failure. In addition, the second amended complaint alleges that the securities' offering materials contained material misstatements or omissions regarding the securities' underlying assets and the alleged conflicts of interest between the defendants and the investors. The second amended complaint asserts common law claims of fraud, aiding and abetting fraud, fraudulent inducement, aiding and abetting fraudulent inducement, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. On July 17, 2014, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the litigation. The settlement is subject to court approval. MORGAN STANLEY: Reaches Agreement to Settle New York Stock Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- A settlement agreement was reached in In re Morgan Stanley Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Litigation, pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, according to Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Charter Campbell L.P.'s Aug. 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014. On May 7, 2009, MS&Co. was named as a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit brought under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, which is now styled In re Morgan Stanley Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Litigation and is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ("SDNY"). The third amended complaint, filed on September 30, 2011, alleges, among other things, that the registration statements and offering documents related to the offerings of certain mortgage pass-through certificates in 2006 contained false and misleading information concerning the pools of residential loans that backed these securitizations. The plaintiffs seek, among other relief, class certification, unspecified compensatory and rescissionary damages, costs, interest and fees. On July 22, 2014, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the litigation. The settlement is subject to court approval. NATIONAL IMPORTS: Sued in Tex. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Enrique Camacho-Monsivais and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(B) v. National Imports, LLC d/b/a Smoke & Vapor King a/k/a Star Smoke & Vapor and Adnan Dossani, Case No. 3:14-cv-03171 (N.D. Tex., September 4, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly. National Imports, LLC The Plaintiff is represented by: Jamie Harrison Zidell, Esq. J H ZIDELL PC 6310 LBJ Freeway, Suite 112 Dallas, TX 75240 Telephone: (972) 233-2264 Facsimile: (972) 386-7610 E-mail: zabogado@aol.com NEW YORK: OOIDA's Tax Suit Obtains Class-Action Status ------------------------------------------------------ Land Line Magazine reports that OOIDA's lawsuit against the state of New York's Department of Taxation and Finance was certified Sept. 1 as a class action by the state's Supreme Court, which is the state's trial court. The lawsuit challenges certain highway taxes as unconstitutional and discriminatory against out-of-state truckers who have paid the taxes in order to do business in New York. The court found that a class action was appropriate due to the potential number of trucking businesses affected. OOIDA's attorneys filed the complaint nearly a year ago in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Albany. The action names the defendants as the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance, Thomas H. Mattox (individually and in his official capacity as commissioner), along with the State of New York; and Andrew Cuomo (individually and in his official capacity as governor of the State of New York). Named plaintiffs in the case are OOIDA and OOIDA Members Bryan Spoon dba Spoon Trucking, Steve Bixler, Jack McComb and William "Lewie" Pugh. The class action lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of taxes that impose $15 for a certificate of registration and a $4 decal charge on all trucks using New York state highways. The taxes are imposed not only on New York-based trucks, which are driven proportionately higher miles in New York, but also on trucks based outside of New York, which are driven mostly in states other than New York. OOIDA President Jim Johnston says that trucks owned and/or operated outside of New York travel fewer miles on New York highways than trucks owned and/or operated in New York. The imposition of the challenged taxes results in a higher per mile tax rate being imposed on out-of-state trucks. OOIDA charges that constitutes an undue burden on interstate commerce in violation of the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Johnston says that OOIDA's action asks the court to declare those taxes unconstitutional and therefore invalid and not enforceable. The complaint also asks for injunctive relief, refunds and other appropriate relief on behalf of the plaintiffs. OOIDA's legal action will represent a class of all interstate motor carriers who reside and operate trucking equipment primarily outside New York who have paid or will pay the taxes. Johnston called the certification of the class action a "very positive development." NIRU ENTERPRISES: Recalls Faluda and Sherbet Drink With Jelly ------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: September 3, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Milk Hazard classification: Class 1 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Niru Enterprises Inc. Distribution: Ontario Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 9199 Niru Enterprises Inc. is recalling Niru brand Faluda and Sherbet Drink with Jelly from the marketplace because they contain milk which is not declared on the label. People with an allergy to milk should not consume the recalled products described below. Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalled products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they were purchased. If you have an allergy to milk, do not consume the recalled products as they may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction. There have been no reported reactions associated with the consumption of these products. The recall was triggered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's (CFIA) inspection activities. The CFIA is conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings. The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product from the marketplace. NORTHLAND GROUP: Sued Over Violation of Debt Collection Law ----------------------------------------------------------- Jeffrey J. Gallego on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Northland Group, Inc. and John Does 1-25, Case No. 1:14-cv-07115 (S.D.N.Y., September 4, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Northland Group, Inc. is a foreign corporation located at 7831 Glenroy Road, Suite 250, Edina, MN 55439, that engages in business of collecting debts alleged to be due another. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph K. Jones, Esq. Benjamin J. Wolf, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH K. JONES, LLC 555 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700 New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (646) 459-4971 Facsimile: (646) 459-7973 E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com bwolf@legaljones.com NU SKIN: Continues to Face Consolidated Securities Suit in Utah --------------------------------------------------------------- Nu Skin Enterprises, Inc. is facing a consolidated securities lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Utah, according to the company's Aug. 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014. Beginning in January 2014, six purported class action complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Utah. On April 10, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a stipulated motion requesting that the court consolidate the various purported class actions, appoint State-Boston Retirement System as lead plaintiff in the consolidated action, and appoint the law firm Labaton Sucharow as lead counsel for the purported class in the consolidated action. On May 1, 2014, that stipulated motion was granted. On June 30, 2014, a consolidated class action complaint was filed. The company has not yet filed a response. The consolidated class action complaint purports to assert claims on behalf of certain of our stockholders under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder against Nu Skin Enterprises, Ritch N. Wood, and M. Truman Hunt and to assert claims under Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Messrs. Wood and Hunt. The consolidated class action complaint alleges that, inter alia, the company made materially false and misleading statements regarding our sales operations in and financial results derived from Mainland China, including purportedly operating a pyramid scheme based on illegal multi-level marketing activities. OTRUPONCOSO PROTECTION: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Arturo Gonzalez Perez and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. Otruponcoso Protection Services, Corp. and Alexis Fuentes, Case No. 1:14-cv-23308 (S.D. Fla., September 8, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime and minimum wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly. Otruponcoso Protection Services, Corp. is a Florida based company that is engaged in the business of providing security guards. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jamie H. Zidell, Esq. J. H. ZIDELL, PA 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Telephone: (305) 865-6766 Facsimile: 865-7167 E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM OUTERWALL INC: Redbox to Argue Dismissal of Late Fees Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- The parties in a lawsuit over late fees charged by Outerwall Inc. subsidiary Redbox are waiting a schedule for argument of a motion to dismiss the case, according to Outerwall's July 31, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014. In October 2009, an Illinois resident, Laurie Piechur, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a putative class action complaint against the company's Redbox subsidiary in the Circuit Court for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois. The plaintiff alleged that, among other things, Redbox charges consumers illegal and excessive late fees in violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, and that Redbox's rental terms violate the Illinois Rental Purchase Agreement Act or the Illinois Automatic Contract Renewal Act and the plaintiff is seeking monetary damages and other relief. In November 2009, Redbox removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. In February 2010, the District Court remanded the case to the Circuit Court for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois. In May 2010, the court denied Redbox's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint. In November 2011, the plaintiff moved for class certification, and Redbox moved for summary judgment. The court denied Redbox's motion for summary judgment in February 2012. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on April 19, 2012, and an amended motion for class certification on June 5, 2012. The court denied Redbox's motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The amended class certification motion was briefed and argued. At the hearing on plaintiff's amended motion for class certification, the plaintiff dismissed all claims but two and is pursuing only her claims under the Illinois Rental Purchase Agreement Act and the Illinois Automatic Contract Renewal Act. On May 21, 2013, the court denied plaintiff's amended class action motion. On January 29, 2014, the Illinois Supreme Court denied plaintiff's petition for leave to appeal the trial court's denial of class certification. Redbox has moved to dismiss all remaining claims on mootness grounds. The motion is fully briefed. The parties are waiting for the court to schedule a date for argument of the motion. OUTERWALL INC: Summary Judgment in Video Privacy Suit Appealed -------------------------------------------------------------- The appellate court has not scheduled a date for argument of an appeal against the grant of summary judgment to Redbox, a subsidiary of Outerwall Inc., in a suit alleging it violated the Video Privacy Protection Act, according to Outerwall's July 31, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014. In March 2011, a California resident, Blake Boesky, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a putative class action complaint against the company's Redbox subsidiary in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The plaintiff alleges that Redbox retains personally identifiable information of consumers for a time period in excess of that allowed under the Video Privacy Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections 2710, et seq. A substantially similar complaint was filed in the same court in March 2011 by an Illinois resident, Kevin Sterk. Since the filing of the complaint, Blake Boesky has been replaced by a different named plaintiff, Jiah Chung, and an amended complaint has been filed alleging disclosures of personally identifiable information, in addition to plaintiffs' claims of retention of such information. Plaintiffs are seeking statutory damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, costs of suit, and interest. The court has consolidated the cases. The court denied Redbox's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims upon interlocutory appeal. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed the district court's denial of Redbox's motion to dismiss plaintiff's claims involving retention of information, holding that the plaintiffs could not maintain a suit for damages under this theory. On April 25, 2012, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to add claims under the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2707, and for breach of contract. On May 9, 2012, Redbox moved to dismiss the amended complaint. On July 23, 2012, the court dismissed the added retention claims, except to the extent that plaintiffs seek injunctive, non-monetary relief. On August 16, 2013, the court granted summary judgment in Redbox's favor on all remaining claims, and entered a final judgment for Redbox. On September 16, 2013, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. The appeal was fully briefed as of July 1, 2014. The appellate court has not scheduled a date for argument. OUTERWALL INC: Appeals Court Affirms Nixing of Song-Beverly Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- An appellate court affirmed the dismissal of a case that alleges violation of California's Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971 by Redbox, a subsidiary of Outerwall Inc., according to Outerwall's July 31, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014. In February 2011, a California resident, Michael Mehrens, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a putative class action complaint against the company's Redbox subsidiary in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles. The plaintiff alleges that, among other things, Redbox violated California's Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971 ("Song-Beverly") with respect to the collection and recording of consumer personal identification information, and violated the California Business and Professions Code Section 17200 based on the alleged violation of Song-Beverly. A similar complaint alleging violations of Song-Beverly and the right to privacy generally was filed in March 2011 in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda, by a California resident, John Sinibaldi. A third similar complaint alleging only a violation of Song-Beverly, was filed in March 2011 in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego, by a California resident, Richard Schiff. Plaintiffs are seeking compensatory damages and civil penalties, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, costs of suit, and interest. Redbox removed the Mehrens case to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, the Sinibaldi case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, and the Schiff case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. The Sinibaldi case was subsequently transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, where the Mehrens case is pending, and these two cases have been consolidated. At the same time, the plaintiffs substituted Nicolle DiSimone as the named plaintiff in the Mehrens case. After Redbox filed a motion to dismiss, stay, or transfer, the Schiff case was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. On January 4, 2013, the Court dismissed with prejudice the Schiff case for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court rules and orders. Redbox moved to dismiss the DiSimone/Sinibaldi case, and DiSimone/Sinibaldi moved for class certification. In January 2012, the Court granted Redbox's motion to dismiss with prejudice and denied DiSimone/Sinibaldi's motion for class certification as moot. On February 2, 2012, Plaintiffs filed their notice of appeal. On June 6, 2014, the appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the case against Redbox. The deadline for filing a petition for certiorari is September 4, 2014. PATISSERIE GAUDET: Recalls Apple Pies Due to Presence of Glass -------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: August 29, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Notification Subcategory: Extraneous Material Hazard classification: Class 2 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Patisserie Gaudet Inc. Distribution: Ontario, Quebec Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 9193 Affected products: 500 g. Gaudet Apple with Cinnamon Pie with 0 56639 21890 3 UPC PENN WEST: Sued in S.D.N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Reports ------------------------------------------------------------- Edwin M. McKean, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Penn West Petroleum Ltd., Murray R. Nunns, David E. Roberts, and Todd H. Takeyasu, Case No. 1:14-cv-07187 (S.D.N.Y., September 8, 2014), alleges that the Defendants filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission materially false and misleading financial statements regarding the Company's operating expenses, specifically by understating operating costs and overstating capital expenditures and royalty expenses. Penn West Petroleum Ltd. is one of the largest conventional oil and natural gas producers in Canada. The Plaintiff is represented by: Fei-Lu Qian, Esq. Patricia I. Avery, Esq. Robert Craig Finkel, Esq. WOLF POPPER LLP 845 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 759-4600 Facsimile: (212) 486-2093 E-mail: fqian@wolfpopper.com pavery@wolfpopper.com rfinkel@wolfpopper.com PETRUS FOOD: Faces "Duran" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------ Henry Rodrgiuez Duran and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. Petrus Food Brickell, L.L.C. d/b/a Pizza Rustica Brickell and Pedro Hernandez Sucre, Case No. 1:14-cv-23277 (S.D. Fla., September 4, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly. Petrus Food Brickell, L.L.C. owns and operates a pizzeria known as Pizza Rustica Brickell, located in Dade County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jamie H. Zidell J.H. ZIDELL PC 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Telephone: (305) 865-6766 Facsimile: 865-7167 E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM PRIORITY HEALTHCARE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Valerie V. Sullivan and Anita K. Williams, on and in behalf of themselves and other similarly situated employees v. Priority Healthcare, Inc. and Tiffany Johnson, Case No. 3:14-cv-00689 (S.D. Miss., September 4, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, reasonable attorney's fees, costs, and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Priority Healthcare, Inc. is a full service home health care agency located in Flowood, Rankin County, Mississippi. The Plaintiff is represented by: E. Carlos Tanner III, Esq. TANNER & ASSOCIATES, LLC 263 East Pearl Street Jackson, MS 39201 Telephone: (601) 460-1745 Facsimile: (662) 796-3509 E-mail: carlos.tanner@gmail.com RAMIREZ & SON: Sued Over Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act -------------------------------------------------------------- Jaqueline "Jackie" Quintanilla, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. Ramirez & Son Construction, LLC, Juan J. Ramirez, and Pedro Ramirez, Case No. 4:14-cv-02554 (S.D. Tex., September 4, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Ramirez & Son Construction Company is a construction company that provides construction services within the state of Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy Daniel Saenz, Esq WAGNER SAENZ DORITY, LLP 3700 Buffalo Speedway, Ste 610 Houston, TX 77098 Telephone: (713) 554-8450 E-mail: jsaenz@wsdllp.com SEACOR HOLDINGS: ORM, NRC Await Ruling in Deepwater-Related Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- O'Brien's Response Management, LLC, a subsidiary of SEACOR Holdings Inc. and National Response Corporation awaits a court decision on their motion for summary judgment re-asserting their derivative immunity and implied preemption arguments in the multi- district litigation related to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill response and clean-up, according to SEACOR Holdings Inc.'s July 31, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014. On July 20, 2010, two individuals purporting to represent a class commenced a civil action in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans in the State of Louisiana. The suit John Wunstell, Jr. and Kelly Blanchard v. BP, et al., No. 2010-7437 (Division K) (the "Wunstell Action"), assert, among other theories, that Mr. Wunstell suffered injuries as a result of his exposure to certain noxious fumes and chemicals in connection with the provision of remediation, containment and response services by ORM, a subsidiary of the Company prior to the ORM Transaction, during the Deepwater Horizon oil spill response and clean-up in the U.S Gulf of Mexico. The action now is part of the overall multi-district litigation, In re Oil Spill by the Oil Rig "Deepwater Horizon", MDL No. 2179 filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana ("MDL"). The complaint also seeks to establish a "class-wide court-supervised medical monitoring program" for all individuals "participating in BP's Deepwater Horizon Vessels of Opportunity Program and/or Horizon Response Program" who allegedly experienced injuries similar to those of Mr. Wunstell. On December 15, 2010, ORM and NRC, subsidiaries of the Company prior to the ORM Transaction and SES Business Transaction, respectively, were named as defendants in one of the several consolidated "master complaints" that have been filed in the overall MDL. The master complaint naming ORM and NRC asserts various claims on behalf of a putative class against multiple defendants concerning the clean-up activities generally, and the use of dispersants specifically. By court order, the Wunstell Action has been stayed as a result of the filing of the referenced master complaint. The Company believes that the claims asserted against ORM and NRC in the master complaint have no merit and on February 28, 2011, ORM and NRC moved to dismiss all claims against them in the master complaint on legal grounds. On September 30, 2011, the Court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss that ORM and NRC had filed (an amended decision was issued on October 4, 2011 that corrected several grammatical errors and non-substantive oversights in the original order). Although the Court refused to dismiss the referenced master complaint in its entirety at that time, the Court did recognize the validity of the "derivative immunity" and "implied preemption" arguments that ORM and NRC advanced and directed ORM and NRC to (i) conduct limited discovery to develop evidence to support those arguments and (ii) then re-assert the arguments. The Court did, however, dismiss all state-law claims and certain other claims that had been asserted in the referenced master complaint, and dismissed the claims of all plaintiffs that have failed to allege a legally-sufficient injury. A schedule for limited discovery and motion practice was established by the Court and, in accordance with that schedule, ORM and NRC filed for summary judgment re-asserting their derivative immunity and implied preemption arguments on May 18, 2012. Those motions were argued on July 13, 2012 and are still pending decision. In addition to the indemnity provided to ORM, pursuant to contractual agreements with the responsible party, the responsible party has agreed, subject to certain potential limitations, to indemnify and defend ORM and NRC in connection with these claims in the MDL. SEACOR HOLDINGS: Medical Settlement by BP Entities Now Effective ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Medical Settlement entered by BP Exploration and BP America Production Company is now effective after an appeal against the deal was voluntarily dismissed, according to SEACOR Holdings Inc.'s July 31, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014. Separately, on March 2, 2012, the Court announced that BP Exploration and BP America Production Company ("BP America") (collectively "BP") and the plaintiffs had reached an agreement on the terms of two proposed class action settlements that will resolve, among other things, plaintiffs' economic loss claims and clean-up related claims against BP. The parties filed their proposed settlement agreements on April 18, 2012 along with motions seeking preliminary approval of the settlements. The Court held a hearing on April 25, 2012 to consider those motions and preliminarily approved both settlements on May 2, 2012. A final fairness hearing took place on November 8, 2012. The Court granted final approval to the Economic and Property Damages Class Action Settlement ("E&P Settlement") on December 21, 2012, and granted final approval to the Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement ("Medical Settlement") on January 11, 2013. Both class action settlements were appealed to the Fifth Circuit. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the MDL Court's decision concerning the E&P Settlement on January 10, 2014, and also affirmed the MDL Court's decision concerning the interpretation of the E&P Settlement with respect to business economic loss claims on March 3, 2014. The appeal of the Medical Settlement, on the other hand, was voluntarily dismissed and the Medical Settlement became effective on February 12, 2014. The deadline for bringing a claim to the Medical Benefits Claims Administrator is one year from the effective date of the Settlement. SEACOR HOLDINGS: Plans to File Motion to Decertify Prejean Class ---------------------------------------------------------------- SEACOR Holdings Inc. intends to vigorously defend its position that a class should not be certified in Dennis Prejean v. O'Brien's Response Management Inc. (E.D. La., Case No.: 2:12-cv- 01045, and intends on filing a motion to decertify the Prejean class, according to SEACOR's July 31, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014. ORM is defending against two collective action lawsuits, each asserting failure to pay overtime with respect to individuals who provided service on the Deepwater Horizon oil spill response (the "DPH FLSA Actions") under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). These cases, Dennis Prejean v. O'Brien's Response Management Inc. (E.D. La., Case No.: 2:12-cv-01045) (the "Prejean Action") and Himmerite et al. v. O'Brien's Response Management Inc. et al. (E.D. La., Case No.: 2:12-cv-01533) (the "Himmerite Action"), were each brought on behalf of certain individuals who worked on the Deepwater Horizon oil spill response and who were classified as independent contractors. The Prejean and Himmerite Actions were each filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana and then subsequently consolidated with the overall MDL, in which the Himmerite Action was stayed pursuant to procedures of the MDL. However, both the Prejean and Himmerite Actions were severed from the MDL on September 19, 2013, and referred to a Magistrate Judge for pretrial case management, including issuing a scheduling order, overseeing discovery, and any other preliminary matters. On October 31, 2013, ORM filed an answer in the Himmerite Action. In the Himmerite Action, pursuant to an earlier tolling order entered by the Court, the limitations periods for potential plaintiffs to opt-in to the action has been tolled pending further action by the Court. In the Prejean Action, ORM has answered the complaint and a scheduling order has been issued. On November 6, 2013, the Court conditionally certified a collective class in the Prejean Action. On December 9, 2013 the Court approved a jointly-submitted form notice and authorized the issuance of notice to all members of the conditionally certified class in the Prejean Action. On December 20, 2013, ORM served plaintiffs' counsel with a list containing information for approximately 330 potential class members in the Prejean Action. The deadline for plaintiffs to file executed consent forms with the Court has expired. As of February 28, 2014 the Court-ordered deadline for potential class members to opt into the class, 142 individuals have opted in. Although the Court has conditionally certified the Prejean class, the Court has not made a final ruling on whether a class exists. The Company intends to vigorously defend its position that a class should not be certified, and intends on filing a motion to decertify the Prejean class. The Court has also not yet ruled on any of the merits of Plaintiffs' claims. SEARS CANADA: Recalls One Direction Children's Sleepwear -------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: September 9, 2014 Posting date: September 9, 2014 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Children's Products, Clothing and Accessories Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Flammability Hazard Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-41297 Affected products: One Direction Children's Sleepwear The recall involves One Direction children's sleepwear sold as a 2-piece pjyama set and as a sleep tee. The affected sleepwear includes various One Direction image prints and was sold in red, purple and black. Testing by Sears Canada has determined that these products do not meet the flammability requirements for children's sleepwear under Canadian law. Neither Health Canada nor Sears Canada has received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of this sleepwear. Approximately 1,500 units of the recalled products sold in Canada, exclusively at Sears. The recalled products were manufactured in Bangladesh and sold from Jan. 2014 to July 2014. Companies: Retailer Sears Canada Inc. Toronto Ontario Canada Importer Splendid Hosiery Mills Montreal Quebec Canada Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled sleepwear and return them to the nearest Sears Department Store for a full refund. SEMPRIS LLC: RSUI Must Cover TCPA Class Action, Court Rules ----------------------------------------------------------- Kira Lerner, writing for Law360, reports that a Delaware judge has refused to release RSUI Indemnity Co. from covering Sempris LLC in an underlying class action alleging it violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by making unsolicited telemarketing calls, ruling the insurer cannot escape coverage based on the filing of previous suits against Sempris. Delaware Suprerior Court Judge Mary M. Johnston on Sept. 3 rejected RSUI's argument that the underlying suit, Toney et al. v. Quality Resources Inc., is related to a series of suits filed before it against Sempris. As a result, RSUI cannot avoid its obligation to indemnify and defend Sempris in the TCPA suit, the order said. "The facts alleged in Toney are different from those in the prior lawsuits," the order said. "In Toney, an outbound call was made from an autodialer to Ms. Toney's cellular telephone, which was listed on the National Do Not Call Registry. The underlying facts in the prior lawsuits, as alleged at the time the Toney lawsuit was filed, would not give rise to a cause of action under the TCPA." In the underlying class action, filed in October 2013, Sarah Toney alleges she received several calls on her cellular phone from Quality Resources, a third-party telemarketer, after placing an online order for children's slippers, despite the fact that she was on the national Do Not Call Registry, according to the order. RSUI also filed the declaratory judgment action in October 2013, seeking an order that it has no duty to defend Sempris in the underlying class action. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment in February. The parties agreed that the lawsuit meets the definition of a claim under Sempris' policy with RSUI. However, the insurer argued the suit is related to prior fraud suits against Sempris and therefore is barred by a provision of the policy that says all claims arising out of the same situation should be considered a single claim and should be considered to be made when the first claim was filed. However, the court disagreed with that argument and found the suit was unrelated to the fraud suits filed before it by members of Sempris' membership program. "The court finds that the prior lawsuits are not related to the Toney lawsuit," the order said. "The prior lawsuits all arise out of a plaintiff contacting a third-party product vendor, and in that same transaction, the third party enrolls the plaintiff in, and initiates billing for, membership in a Sempris membership program. In contrast, Ms. Toney placed an online order. She subsequently was contacted by Quality Resources, a third-party telemarketer." As a result, the date the Toney lawsuit was filed does not exclude it from coverage, the court said. RSUI also failed to show that the prior notice exclusion bars coverage, in addition to the unfair trade practices exclusion and the professional services exclusion, according to the order. RSUI is represented by Brian L. Kasprzak -- bkasprzak@moodklaw.com -- of Marks O'Neill O'Brien Doherty & Kelly PC. Sempris is represented by Jennifer C. Wasson -- jwasson@potteranderson.com -- Richard L. Horwitz -- rhorwitz@potteranderson.com -- and Michael Brendan Rush -- mrush@potteranderson.com -- of Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP. The case is RSUI Indemnity Co. v. Sempris LLC, case number N13C- 10-096, in the Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County. SHEUNG KEE: Recalls Soup Stock Due to Undeclared Sulphites ---------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: September 5, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Sulphites Hazard classification: Class 3 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Sheung Kee Trading Co. Inc. Distribution: Ontario Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 9219 Affected products: 40 g. N/A (Chinese Characters Only) Soup Stock SHINE RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------ Oscar M. Ramirez, individually and on behalf of other employees similarly situated v. Shine Restaurant Corp., and Jia Gong Zhang, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-06849 (N.D. Ill., September 4, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages for all hours worked in a workweek and overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week. Shine Restaurant Corp. is a restaurant owned by Jia Gong Zhang. The Plaintiff is represented by: Raisa Alicea, Esq. CONSUMER LAW GROUP 6232 N Pulaski Rd, Ste. 200 Chicago, IL 60646 Telephone: (312) 878-1263 E-mail: ralicea@yourclg.com SILVER SPRING: Agrees to Settle Suit Over Defective Smart Meters ---------------------------------------------------------------- Silver Spring Networks, Inc. entered into a general release and individual settlement agreement in a lawsuit filed by California consumers who allege that the company's smart meters are defective and generate incorrect bills, according to the company's Aug. 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014. The company was named in a lawsuit filed in September 2010 in the Superior Court of the State of California, San Mateo County (Edwards v. Silver Spring Networks). The lawsuit claims to be a "class action" on behalf of California consumers, and alleges that smart meters are defective and generate incorrect bills. The company filed a motion to dismiss this case and, in September 2011, the San Mateo Superior Court granted our motion without leave to amend as to two of the plaintiffs' causes of action and with leave to amend as to a third claim. In February 2012, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, to which the company filed an answer denying the plaintiffs' allegations in May 2012. In August 2012, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, and in September 2012, the company filed a demurrer to one of the two claims asserted in the second amended complaint, which was overruled by the court. In November 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. In April 2013, the court denied the class certification motion without prejudice, but allowed the plaintiffs to file a revised class certification motion, which the plaintiffs filed in June 2013. The court denied the revised class certification motion in December 2013. In June 2014, the company entered into a general release and individual settlement agreement with the plaintiffs to dismiss the lawsuit against the company. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the company agreed to pay an immaterial one-time settlement payment in exchange for the dismissal with prejudice of the pending claims against the company and a general release of claims. SKINMEDICA INC: Judge Allows "Nouricel" Class Action to Proceed --------------------------------------------------------------- David Siegel, writing for Law360, reports that a California federal judge on Feb. 5 refused to throw out a proposed class action claiming an Allergan Inc. subsidiary concealed from consumers that its anti-aging creams derived from human foreskin cells pose a cancer risk, finding the products could be considered drugs that haven't received government approval. In an order mostly denying the defendants' motion to dismiss, U.S. District Judge David O. Carter ruled plaintiff Josette Ruhnke's complaint sufficiently alleged that the sale of SkinMedica Inc.'s line of "Tissue Nutrient Solution" products containing the compound "NouriCel" is illegal, because the products haven't received approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The judge, however, also found that SkinMedica didn't act as Allergan's agent but allowed all other claims to continue. TNS products are marketed for "skin rejuvenation" purposes, according to Ms. Ruhnke's complaint. They contain a proprietary mix of human growth factors -- derived from human foreskin tissue and trademarked as NouriCel -- that have the ability to initiate cell division. According to the complaint, human growth factors are believed to contribute to the growth of tumor cells or other abnormalities. Ms. Ruhnke filed suit in 2013, claiming potential safety concerns associated with TNS products were not disclosed to consumers and that, in addition to lacking FDA approval, SkinMedica had not performed required controlled safety studies before marketing TNS products. Judge Carter rejected arguments from SkinMedica that TNS products aren't drugs under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act because the growth factors they contain are "naturally occurring." "SkinMedica promotes TNS Products as 'cosmeceuticals' containing a mix of endogenous 'growth factors' for skin rejuvenation. The term 'cosmeceutical' conveys that a product is both a cosmetic and pharmaceutical," Judge Carter wrote. "A product which occurs naturally or is derived from natural ingredients is capable of regulation as a drug." Judge Carter also accepted the plaintiff's argument that by selling TNS Products, the defendants implicitly represented to consumers that the required safety testing for FDA-approved drugs had been performed, when it allegedly has not. In finding the complaint sufficiently stated allegations related to the potential health risks associated with TNS Products, Judge Carter noted a report from the creator of NouriCel saying that more double-blind and controlled studies are needed to confirm the preliminary clinical effects of growth factor products. Judge Carter also cited the fact that the complaint stated that the two FDA-approved products on the market containing human growth factors provide prominent safety warnings the TNS products lack. "The thrust of defendants' argument is essentially that the evidence does not support plaintiff's claim," Judge Carter wrote. "Plaintiff's allegations, taken as true, suggest that there are serious safety concerns associated with TNS Products." Allergan and SkinMedica argued that the complaint had failed to sufficiently differentiate the companies to survive a motion to dismiss, but according to Judge Carter, the allegations of failing to disclose material facts about TNS products "unambiguously apply to SkinMedica," and allegations of Allergan marketing SkinMedica products as safe after acquiring the company in 2012 were adequately stated by the plaintiff. However, Judge Carter did find the plaintiff failed to sufficiently plead a principal-agent relationship between the companies, saying the complaint failed to allege any facts indicating that Allergan's control of SkinMedica "purposely disregarded SkinMedica's corporate existence." Claims for punitive damages were also allowed to remain in the suit. Steve Berman of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, who represents the plaintiffs, told Law360 he welcomed the court's ruling. "It basically green lights our case," Mr. Berman said. Ms. Ruhnke is represented by Lee M. Gordon -- lee@hbsslaw.com -- and Steve W. Berman of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. SkinMedica Inc. and Allergan Inc. are represented by John C. Hueston -- jhueston@irell.com -- Steven N. Feldman -- sfeldman@irell.com -- and Andra Barmash Greene -- agreene@irell.com -- of Irell and Manella LLP, and by Alycia Degen -- adegen@sidley.com -- of Sidley Austin LLP. The case is Josette Ruhnke v. SkinMedica Inc., et al, case number 8:2014-cv-00420, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. SMART ONE: Sued Over Deceptive Bait-and-Switch Sales Practices -------------------------------------------------------------- Ayodapo Oladapo, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Smart One Energy, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-07117 (S.D.N.Y., September 4, 2014), arises from the Defendant's fraudulent and deceptive bait-and-switch sales model with their variable rate customers. The Defendant represents to potential customers that, if they switch to Smart One from their local utilities or other energy suppliers, they will receive a low introductory rate on their energy bill, followed by competitive market-based rates and savings on their energy bills. Unfortunately for its customers, following the low introductory rate, Defendant's gas rates increase, causing Smart One customers' gas bills to rise substantially. Smart One Energy, LLC is a gas and energy supplier and distributor, which maintains a principal place of business in Monsey, New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Taylor Asern, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 16 Court Street, Suite 1012 Brooklyn, NY 11241 Telephone: (202) 789-3960 E-mail: tasen@cuneolaw.com - and - Charles J. LaDuca, Esq. Beatrice Yakubu, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 8120 Woodmont Avenue, Suite 810 Bethesda, MD 20814 Telephone: (202) 789-3960 Facsimile: (202) 789-1813 E-mail: charles@cuneolaw.com byakubu@cuneolaw.com - and - Richard Greenfield, Esq. GREENFIELD AND GOODMAN LLC 250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10013 Telephone: (917) 495-4446 E-mail: whitehatrdg@earthlink.net SP BANCORP: Motion to Consolidate Merger Actions Filed ------------------------------------------------------ The plaintiffs in two cases filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City against SP Bancorp, Inc. over a merger with Green Bancorp, Inc. have filed a motion to consolidate the lawsuits, according to the company's Aug. 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014. Related to the Merger, two putative class action lawsuits have been filed in Maryland, Gary W. Stisser v. SP Bancorp, Inc., et al., in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Case No. 24C14003610 (the "Stisser Suit") and Fundamental Partners v. Jeffrey L. Weaver, et. al., in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Case No. 24C14003651 (the "Fundamental Partners Suit"). Both lawsuits name as defendants SP Bancorp, the members of our board of directors, Merger Sub and Green. The Fundamental Partners Suit alleges that the per share merger consideration is inadequate, and that the members of our board of directors were operating under a conflict of interest because of the benefits to be received by them from the merger, resulting in a breach of their fiduciary duties of good faith, loyalty, fair dealing and due care to our stockholders. The Fundamental Partners Suit also alleges that the company and our board of directors breached a fiduciary duty by not disclosing certain allegedly material facts in the initial preliminary proxy statement on subjects which include alleged conflicts of interest, our financial projections, additional information about actions of the strategic review committee (formed for the purpose of overseeing the strategic review process, including the evaluation and negotiation of a potential strategic transaction), and additional information about the analysis performed by our financial advisor, Mercer Capital Management Inc. ("Mercer Capital"). Finally, the Fundamental Partners Suit alleges that Green aided and abetted the breach of fiduciary duty. The relief sought includes class certification, a declaration that there has been a breach of fiduciary duty, damages, and interest and fees, including attorney's fees. The Stisser Suit alleges a breach of fiduciary duty by the failure to disclose material facts in the initial preliminary proxy statement on subjects which include our financial projections, the process leading to the proposed transaction, potential conflicts of interest, and additional information about the analysis performed by Mercer Capital. The Stisser Suit also alleges that Green aided and abetted the breach of fiduciary duty. The relief sought includes class certification, an injunction against the merger until all alleged breaches have been cured, damages if the merger has been completed prior to the entry of final judgment, costs and attorney's fees. The plaintiffs have filed a motion to consolidate the two cases. A demand for jury trial has been made in each case, and a motion for preliminary injunction to enjoin the merger pending a trial of the case and requesting expedited discovery has been filed in each case. SPECIALTY ENGINEERING: Doesn't Pay Workers Properly, Action Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Joshua Pardue, on his own behalf and others similarly situated v. Specialty Engineering Consultants, Inc., a Florida Profit Corporation, and Kurt Johnson and Dewey Adam Leblanc, individuals, Case No. 9:14-cv-81143 (S.D. Fla., September 4, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, unjust enrichment, and breach of employment agreement and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Specialty Engineering Consultants, Inc. is a Florida Profit Corporation, that is in the business of performing engineering services, including but not limited to design, inspection, and testing services related to the construction and renovation of commercial and residential structures. The Plaintiff is represented by: Maguene Dieudonne Cadet Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DIEUDONNE CADET, P.A. 2500 Quantum Lakes Drive, Suite 203 Boynton Beach, FL 33426 Telephone: (561) 853-2212 Facsimile: (561) 853-2213 E-mail: Maguene@DieudonneLaw.com STAMINA GRILL: "de los Santos" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT -------------------------------------------------------------- Rodrigo de los Santos and Ernesto Licona Perez , individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Stamina Grill & Juice Bar Inc. (d/b/a Stamina Grill & Juice Bar) and Chris Pizzimenti, Case No. 1:14-cv-06761 (S.D.N.Y., August 20, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages, and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Stamina Grill & Juice Bar Inc. and Chris Pizzimenti own, operate, or control a Juice shop and health food restaurant located at 80 Nassau Street, New York, New York 10038 under the name Stamina Grill & Juice Bar. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C 60 East 42nd Street, suite 2020 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 STEAK N SHAKE: Faces "Drakes" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Sandra Drake and Randy Smith, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. Steak N Shake Operations, Inc., Case No. 4:14-cv-01535 (E.D. Mo., September 8, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime liquidated damages, costs, and attorneys' fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Steak N Shake Operations, Inc. owns and operates a restaurant located in 221 Bolivar, Jefferson City, Missouri 65101. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brendan J. Donelon, Esq. DONELON, P.C. 802 Broadway, Seventh Floor Kansas City, MO 64105 Telephone: (816) 221-7100 Facsimile: (816) 709-1044 E-mail: brendan@donelonpc.com SUPER ASIA: Recalls EMB Biscuits Due to Undeclared Milk ------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: September 5, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Milk Hazard classification: Class 2 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Super Asia Foods & Spices Ltd. Distribution: Ontario Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 9196 TRIQUINT SEMICONDUCTOR: No Expedited Proceedings for Stock Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The Delaware Court of Chancery denied a motion for expedited proceedings in In re TriQuint Semiconductor, Inc. Stockholders Litigation, C.A. No. 9415-VCN, according to the company's July 31, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 28, 2014. The Company is from time to time involved in litigation, certain other claims and arbitration matters arising in the ordinary course of its business. In addition, since the public announcement of the proposed business combination with RF Micro Devices, Inc. ("RFMD") on February 24, 2014, five putative stockholder class action lawsuits have been filed against the Company, its directors, RFMD, and others in connection with the proposed mergers. Two of the five actions were filed in the Multnomah County Circuit Court in the State of Oregon: (1) Roberts vs. TriQuint Semiconductor, Inc. et al., Case No. 1402-02441, filed on February 28, 2014; and (2) Lam v. Steven J. Sharp et al., Case No. 1403-02757, filed on March 6, 2014. The other three actions were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware: (1) Philemon v. TriQuint Semiconductor, Inc. et al., Case No. 9415- VCN, filed on March 5, 2014; (2) Schmitz v. TriQuint Semiconductor, Inc. et al., Case No. 9427-VCN, filed on March 7, 2014; and (3) Wallace v. TriQuint Semiconductor, Inc. et al., Case No. 9429-VCN, filed on March 10, 2014. Each of these lawsuits was filed on behalf of a putative class of the Company's stockholders against the Company, the individual members of the Company's board of directors, RFMD, Rocky Holding, Inc., and/or the to-be-formed subsidiaries of Rocky Holding, Inc. that will be used to effect the mergers. The plaintiffs in each of these lawsuits generally seek, among other things, declaratory and injunctive relief concerning alleged breaches of fiduciary duties, injunctive relief prohibiting completion of the mergers, rescission of the mergers if they are completed, an accounting by defendants, rescissionary damages, attorney's fees and costs, and other relief. TriQuint moved to dismiss the Roberts and Lam actions filed in Oregon. Those motions to dismiss have been fully briefed and argued and are under advisement with the court. On April 29, 2014, the court orally granted the plaintiffs' motions to consolidate the Oregon actions. On April 29, 2014, the Delaware Court of Chancery consolidated the actions filed in Delaware under the caption In re TriQuint Semiconductor, Inc. Stockholders Litigation, C.A. No. 9415-VCN. On May 1, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action complaint in the consolidated action and on May 12, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a motion for expedited proceedings and a motion for preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin defendants from taking any action to complete the proposed mergers. TriQuint opposed the motion for expedited proceedings, and the court denied the motion for expedited proceedings on June 13, 2014. UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Accused of Discrimination Against Blind People ----------------------------------------------------------------- Uber drivers refuse service to and harass blind customers and their guide dogs -- in one case even forcing a dog into a car trunk before giving a woman a ride, the National Federation of the Blind claims in court, reports Arvin Temkar, writing for Courthouse News Service. On at least 30 occasions, Uber drivers agreed to transport customers, but then refused after learning they were blind and had guide animals, according to the September 9, 2014 lawsuit in Federal Court, which refers to Uber and the UberX taxi service. The National Federation of the Blind of California and Michael Hingson, a blind man, sued Uber Technologies. They are the only parties to the complaint. Some customers who were denied service were charged with cancellation fees, the federation says. "These blind riders are also often placed in the uncomfortable position of explaining to uninformed UberX drivers that service animals are protected by law and that blind people have the right to bring service animals into vehicles providing taxi services," the complaint states. The company insists that it's not a transportation provider and does not have to follow laws protecting blind people, the plaintiffs say. In light of what Uber offers, the plaintiffs say, that's a ridiculous argument. Many customers have complained, but Uber hasn't given any indication whether it is investigating or if it has taken steps to fix the situation, the federation says. It claims that Uber drivers have "abandoned blind travelers in extreme weather, all because of guide dogs." The 25-page lawsuit is replete with examples. "For example, Leena Dawes is blind and uses a guide dog. An UberX driver forced Ms. Dawes' guide dog into the closed trunk of the UberX sedan before transporting Ms. Dawes. When Ms. Dawes realized where the driver had placed her dog, she pleaded with the driver to pull over so that she could retrieve her dog from the trunk, but the driver refused her request. Other blind customers with guide dogs have been yelled at by Uber drivers who are hostile toward their guide dogs," the complaint states. In another case, an Uber driver cursed federation member Jamey Gump, because he has a guide dog, then "quickly accelerated the vehicle forward, nearly injuring Mr. Gump's guide dog and causing an open passenger door to strike Mr. Gump's friend. The UberX driver then sped away and canceled the ride request," according to the complaint. Gump called the police. The federation claims it wrote to Uber in June, notifying it of the discrimination, and proposed in July to resolve the issue through structured negotiations. Uber rejected the proposal for negotiations, the federation says. Uber and other ridesharing companies are facing legal challenges from cab drivers across the country, who claim the Internet-based companies compete unfairly by ducking the regulations by which traditional taxi companies must abide. Cabbies have filed class action in Philadelphia, Houston and elsewhere. The latest complaint was filed on September 10, 2014, in Atlanta. Uber has been accused of discrimination before. In June, two Houston women sued Uber and Lyft in Federal Court, saying the companies must provide accommodation for people in wheel chairs. The plaintiffs want Uber ordered to implement policies to prevent discrimination against the blind, including mandatory training to drivers about legal access requirements. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael Nunez, Esq. DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 Center St., 4th Floor Berkeley, CA 94704-1204 Telephone: (510) 665-8644 Facsimile: (510) 665-8511 E-mail: mnunez@dralegal.org UNITED PLASTICS: Faces "Maravillas" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT --------------------------------------------------------------- Jose Maravillas, on behalf of himself and other Plaintiffs similarly situated v. United Plastics, Inc. and Anil Aggarwal, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-06948 (N.D. Ill., September 8, 2014) is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation. United Plastics, Inc. is a supplier of plastics raw materials to the plastics manufacturing industry worldwide. The Plaintiff is represented by: Marty Denis, Esq. Bethany Hilbert, Esq. BARLOW, KOBATA & DENIS LLP 525 West Monroe, Suite 2360 Chicago, Illinois 60661 Telephone: (312) 648-5570 UNITED STATES: Faces "Steele" Suit Over Unlawful Fee Collection --------------------------------------------------------------- Adam Steele, Brittany Montrois, and a class of more than 700,000 similarly situated individuals and businesses v. United States of America, Case No. 1:14-cv-01523 (D.D.C., September 8, 2014), seeks refunds of all user fees paid, plus interest, with respect to those who have already paid such fees. The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to issue an injunction prohibiting the Defendant and any agency of the Defendant from charging user fees in order to receive an initial PTIN or annually renew a PTIN. Finally, the Plaintiffs ask the Court to issue an injunction prohibiting Treasury from asking more information than is necessary to issue a PTIN, and requiring Treasury to ask for such necessary information only once. The Defendant has, through the Department of Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service, charged the class representatives and others who prepare tax returns, annual user fees for issuance and annual renewal of a PTIN. It has also required filing of Form W-12 with respect to initial issuance and annual renewal of PTINs. The Plaintiff is represented by: Stuart J. Bassin, Esq. THE BASSIN LAW FIRM PLLC Suite 300, 1629 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 895-0969 E-mail: sjb@bassinlawfirm.com UNITED STATES: IRS Faces Class Action Over Tax Preparer User Fees ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kelly Phillips Erb, writing for Forbes, reports that the suit, Adam Steele, Brittany Montrois et al versus United States of America (complaint opens in Scribd), challenges the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) attempts to regulate tax preparers. The number of potential plaintiffs in the class action suit filed on Sept. 8 in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia is 700,000. The two plaintiffs who are named in the suit are Adam Steele and Brittany Montrois. Mr. Steele is a certified public accountant (CPA) licensed by the State of Minnesota. Ms. Montrois is also a CPA, though she is licensed by the State of Georgia. Both Mr. Steele and Ms. Montrois are in good standing as CPAs in their respective states. The remaining plaintiffs, as part of the class, are paid tax preparers who have paid the initial preparer tax identification number ("PTIN") issuance user fee or have paid the initial PTIN issuance user fee and one or more PTIN renewal user fees. Those fees are the result of final regulations issued by the IRS in 2010 requiring paid tax return preparers to register with the IRS and pay a user fee to obtain a PTIN. To keep the PTIN, preparers must re-register each year and pay an additional fee; failure to pay the fee results in a loss of the PTIN. Paid preparers may not prepare federal income tax returns without a valid PTIN. In 2012, a group of tax preparers (Sabina Loving of Chicago, Illinois; John Gambino of Hoboken, N.J.; and Elmer Kilian of Eagle, Wisconsin) filed suit against the government, challenging those initial regulations. In the case, Loving v. Commissioner, the plaintiffs accused the IRS, among other things, of lacking the authority to license tax preparers. The courts ultimately sided with the plaintiffs, ruling in 2012 that the IRS could not regulate tax preparers according to the proposed scheme. An appellate court affirmed that ruling in 2014. The maneuverings in Loving did not, however, exempt tax preparers from the requirement to obtain a PTIN and pay the user fee. Fees range from $63.25 for a PTIN renewal to $64 for a first time PTIN registration. The IRS has indicated that the actual cost of the user fees to the agency is $13 for a PTIN renewal and $14.25 for first time PTIN registration. Those are costs paid by IRS to a third party vendor. According to the final regulations, the Department of the Treasury anticipated that between 800,000 to 1,200,000 PTINs would be issued or renewed each year, bringing in between $51 million to $77 million. Anticipated expenses "to administer the PTIN application and renewal process" were pegged at between $11 million and $17 million. The remaining funds were to be retained by IRS for: -- costs of administering registration cards or certificates for each registered preparer; -- costs associated with prescribing forms, instructions, or other guidance with respect to registered preparers; and tax compliance and suitability checks. Only, er, there are no registration cards or certificates: your PTIN is issued via letter or email. And according to the complaint, "historically, the IRS has never charged for issuing tax instructions, issuing guidance to taxpayers or tax return preparers, or for creation (or dissemination) of tax forms." That's because -- let's face it -- IRS loves forms. And those tax compliance and suitability checks? They haven't happened. In fact, after Ms. Loving, a great deal of what IRS anticipated would happen when it issued those regulations in 2010 didn't happen at all. And yet, the fees keep rolling in. The IRS has admitted collection of more than $105 million in PTIN and competency testing user fees through 2012. To date, fees paid out by tax preparers are estimated to be more $150 million. Tax preparers say that's not fair. And they want their money back. By statute, certain user fees have to be "fair and based on: (a) costs to the government; (b) the value of the service or thing to the recipient; (c) public policy or interest served; and (d) other relevant facts." The plaintiffs claim that's not what's happening here. Further, the plaintiffs claim that the under 31 U.S.C. Sec. 9701, user fees may not "be charged with respect to fulfillment of a requirement that is subject to a penalty enforcement scheme because no special benefit is granted and the thing that is done is done involuntarily." That, the plaintiffs assert, means that the user fees are unlawful from the start. Lawyers being lawyers, there is also a backup plan: if the courts find that charging a user fee for the issuance or renewal of a PTIN is allowable, they argue that the overage (the $50 which exceeds the actual cost of the fee) is not allowable. The plaintiffs ultimately want a refund of what they claim are improperly collected user fees. And they want to put a stop to further collections. They also want IRS to scale back the information requested on the form W-12, claiming that additional information beyond basic identification is not necessary. The suit was filed on behalf of the plaintiffs by Allen Buckley of Allen Buckley Law in Atlanta, GA, and Stuart Bassin of The Bassin Law Firm in Washington, D.C. The lawsuit is the second high-profile challenge to IRS attempts to regulate the tax preparer industry filed this year. In July, the American Institute of CPAs (AICPA) filed suit to stop the new Annual Filing Season program (AFS), a voluntary program to regulate tax return preparers. That suit is currently pending. URS CORP: La. Dismisses Claims in New Orleans Levee Failure Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana dismissed the majority of the claims in the New Orleans Levee Failure Class Action Litigation and the remainder of the outstanding claims is being transferred to the District Court for final judgment of dismissal, according to URS Corporation's Aug. 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 4, 2014. From July 1999 through May 2005, Washington Group International, Inc., an Ohio company ("WGI Ohio"), a wholly owned subsidiary acquired by the company on November 15, 2007, performed demolition, site preparation, and environmental remediation services for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on the east bank of the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal (the "Industrial Canal") in New Orleans, Louisiana. On August 29, 2005, Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans. The storm surge created by the hurricane overtopped the Industrial Canal levee and floodwall, flooding the Lower Ninth Ward and other parts of the city. Fifty-nine personal injury and property damage class action lawsuits were filed in Louisiana State and federal court against several defendants, including WGI Ohio, seeking $200 billion in damages plus attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiffs are residents and property owners who claim to have incurred damages from the breach and failure of the hurricane protection levees and floodwalls in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. All 59 lawsuits were pleaded as class actions but none have yet been certified as class actions. Along with WGI Ohio, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Board for the Orleans Levee District, and its insurer, St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company were also named as defendants. At this time WGI Ohio and the Army Corps of Engineers are the remaining defendants. These 59 lawsuits, along with other hurricane-related cases not involving WGI Ohio, were consolidated in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana ("District Court"). Plaintiffs allege that defendants were negligent in their design, construction and/or maintenance of the New Orleans levees. Specifically, as to WGI Ohio, plaintiffs allege that work WGI Ohio performed adjacent to the Industrial Canal damaged the levee and floodwall, causing or contributing to breaches and flooding. WGI Ohio did not design, construct, repair or maintain any of the levees or the floodwalls that failed during or after Hurricane Katrina. Rather, WGI Ohio performed work adjacent to the Industrial Canal as a contractor for the federal government. WGI Ohio filed a motion for summary judgment, seeking dismissal on grounds that government contractors are immune from liability. On December 15, 2008, the District Court granted WGI Ohio's motion for summary judgment, but several plaintiffs appealed that decision to the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals on April 27, 2009. On September 14, 2010, the Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's summary judgment decision and WGI Ohio's dismissal, and remanded the case back to the District Court for further litigation. On August 1, 2011, the District Court decided that the government contractor immunity defense would not be available to WGI Ohio at trial, but would be an issue for appeal. Five of the cases were tried in District Court from September 12, 2012 through October 3, 2012. On April 12, 2013, the District Court ruled in favor of WGI Ohio and the Army Corps of Engineers, finding that the five plaintiffs failed to prove that WGI Ohio's or the Army Corps of Engineers' actions caused the failure of the Industrial Canal floodwall during Hurricane Katrina. On July 1, 2013, WGI Ohio filed a motion for summary judgment in District Court to dismiss all other related cases as a result of the District Court's April 2013 decision. On December 20, 2013, the District Court dismissed the majority of the lawsuits and the remainder of the outstanding claims is being transferred to the District Court for final judgment of dismissal. URS CORP: Faces Several Lawsuits in Delaware Over AECOM Merger -------------------------------------------------------------- In connection with the AECOM Merger, beginning on July 21, 2014, multiple putative class action lawsuits were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware by purported URS stockholders against URS Corporation, according to URS's Aug. 8, 2014, Form 10- Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014. The suits are Falato v. URS Corp., et al., City of Atlanta Firefighters' Pension Fund v. Creel, et al., Petroutson v. URS Corp., et al., Miller v. URS Corp., et al., Oklahoma Police Pension & Retirement System v. Creel, et al., Cambridge Retirement System v. Creel, et al. and Sheet Metal Workers Local No. 33 Cleveland District Pension Plan v. URS Corp., et al. The actions named as defendants URS Corporation, the members of the URS Board of Directors, AECOM Technology and its affiliates. A number of the actions also named as a defendant JANA Partners LLC. The complaints allege, among other things, that some or all members of the URS Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties by approving the Merger, and that the other defendants aided and abetted those alleged breaches. The complaints seek, among other relief, class certification, preliminary and permanent. V&T MEAT: Recalls Raw Pork Products Due to E. Coli -------------------------------------------------- Starting date: September 6, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning Subcategory: Microbiological - E. coli O157:H7 Hazard classification: Class 1 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: V&T Meat Wholesale Distribution: Alberta Extent of the product distribution: Retail V&T Meat Wholesale, Chestermere, Alberta is recalling certain raw pork products from the marketplace due to possible E. coli O157:H7 contamination. Consumers, food service establishments, retailers, distributors and manufacturers in Alberta, should not consume, serve, use, or sell certain raw pork products sold by the retailers, listed, because the raw pork products may be contaminated with E. coli O157:H7. The affected raw pork products have only been distributed in Alberta. All raw pork products sold from these locations, during the identified time periods, are affected by the recall. Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalled products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they were purchased. Food contaminated with E. coli O157:H7 may not look or smell spoiled but can still make you sick. Symptoms can include nausea, vomiting, mild to severe abdominal cramps and watery to bloody diarrhea. In severe cases of illness, some people may have seizures or strokes, need blood transfusions and kidney dialysis or live with permanent kidney damage. In severe cases of illness, people may die. There has been one reported illness associated with the consumption of these products. The recall was triggered by the E. coli O157:H7 foodborne outbreak investigation led by Alberta Health Services and supported by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA). As the investigation proceeds, if other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings. Alberta Health Services and the CFIA are verifying that industry is removing recalled product from the marketplace. VERTEX PHARMACEUTICALS: Mass. Court Dismissed Pension Fund's Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts denied plaintiffs' motion to file a second amended complaint in City of Bristol Pension Fund v. Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated, et al. and dismissed the complaint with prejudice, according to the company's July 31, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014. On September 6, 2012, a purported shareholder class action, City of Bristol Pension Fund v. Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated, et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, naming the Company and certain of the Company's current and former officers and directors as defendants. The lawsuit alleged that the Company made material misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact in the Company's disclosures during the period from May 7, 2012 through June 28, 2012, all in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. By order dated December 12, 2012, the court appointed the City of Bristol lead plaintiff and appointed the City of Bristol's attorneys lead counsel. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on February 11, 2013. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on April 12, 2013. On May 28, 2013, the plaintiffs filed an opposition to the Company's motion to dismiss the complaint. On June 27, 2013, the Company filed a reply in further support of the Company's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint. The court conducted a hearing on the Company's motion to dismiss on November 25, 2013, and the court dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint on March 31, 2014. The plaintiffs filed a motion (i) for reconsideration and (ii) to file a second amended complaint on April 28, 2014. On May 23, 2014, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. VERTEX PHARMACEUTICALS: Suit by Retirement Plan & Trust Continues ----------------------------------------------------------------- Local No. 8 IBEW Retirement Plan & Trust v. Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated, et al. remains pending in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, according to the company's July 31, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014. On May 28, 2014, a purported shareholder class action Local No. 8 IBEW Retirement Plan & Trust v. Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated, et al. was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, naming the Company and certain of the Company's current and former officers and directors as defendants. The lawsuit alleged that the Company made material misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact in the Company's disclosures during the period from May 7, 2012 through May 29, 2012, all in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The purported class consists of all persons (excluding defendants) who purchased the Company's common stock between May 7, 2012 and May 29, 2012. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages, costs and attorneys' fees as well as disgorgement of the proceeds from certain individual defendants' sales of the Company's stock. The Company believes the claims to be without merit and intends to vigorously defend the litigation. As of June 30, 2014, the Company has not recorded any reserves for this purported class action. VINH FAT: Recalls Pork Spring Rolls, Pork Buns and Pork Wontons --------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: September 5, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning Subcategory: Microbiological - E. coli O157:H7 Hazard classification: Class 1 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Vinh Fat Food Products Distribution: Alberta Extent of the product distribution: Retail Vinh Fat Food Products is recalling frozen pork spring rolls, pork buns and pork wontons from the marketplace due to possible E. coli O157:H7 contamination. Consumers should not consume the recalled products described. These frozen pork products have been sold exclusively from Vinh Fat Food Products, 10630-97th Street, Edmonton, Alberta. Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalled products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they were purchased. Food contaminated with E. coli O157:H7 may not look or smell spoiled but can still make you sick. Symptoms can include nausea, vomiting, mild to severe abdominal cramps and watery to bloody diarrhea. In severe cases of illness, some people may have seizures or strokes, need blood transfusions and kidney dialysis or live with permanent kidney damage. In severe cases of illness, people may die. There have been no reported illnesses associated with the consumption of these products. The recall was triggered by the E. coli O157:H7 foodborne outbreak investigation led by Alberta Health Services and supported by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA). As the investigation proceeds, if other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings. Alberta Health Services and the CFIA are verifying that industry is removing recalled product from the marketplace. WALT DISNEY: Faces Class Action Over "Non-Poaching" Agreements -------------------------------------------------------------- Ted Johnson, writing for Variety, reports that The Walt Disney Co., DreamWorks Animation and Sony Pictures Animation are among the defendants in a new class-action suit, contending that the studios and other visual effects and animation companies conspired to suppress wages via "non-poaching" agreements between the companies. Also named in the lawsuit, filed on Sept. 8 in federal court in San Jose, are Pixar, Lucasfilm and its division Industrial Light and Magic, Digital Domain, and ImageMovers Digital. Also named was Sony Pictures Imageworks. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Robert Nitsch, who was a senior character effects artist at DreamWorks Animation from 2007 to 2011. "The conspiracy deprived Plaintiff and other class members of millions of dollars which Defendants instead put to their bottom lines," the lawsuit stated. "It did so at the same time that the films produced by these workers achieved world renown and generated billions of dollars in revenues in the United States and abroad." Lucasfilm and Pixar already were targets of a Justice Department antitrust lawsuit in 2010, along with Apple, Google, Adobe Systems, Intel Corp. and Intuit, in which the government contended that their "no solicitation" agreements prevented highly skilled employees from commanding better wages and job opportunities. The companies settled the litigation by agreeing to end such practices for a period of five years. But a class-action civil suit was filed in 2011, and during the litigation emails were disclosed which appeared to link other companies to the "no poaching" agreements, including Disney and DreamWorks Animation, who were not named defendants in either that lawsuit or the Justice Department action. In a settlement approved by U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in May, Lucasfilm and Pixar agreed to pay $9 million, and Intuit agreed to pay $11 million. But Judge Koh refused to approve a $325 million settlement with a class action group and other companies including Apple and Google. The latest class action lawsuit was filed by Cohen, Milstein, Sellers & Toll in Washington. A spokeswoman for DreamWorks Animation and spokesman for Sony had no immediate comment. A spokesman for the Walt Disney Disney Co., which now owns Pixar, Lucasfilm and ILM, said, "We believe this complaint is utterly without merit and intend to defend against it vigorously." The lawsuit lays out an elaborate conspiracy to establish non- solicitation agreements, "carried out by some of the most recognizable names in the American entertainment and technology industries," including Steve Jobs, the late founder of Apple; Pixar President Ed Catmull; and filmmaker George Lucas. It also contends that Jobs and DreamWorks Animation CEO Jeffrey Katzenberg also "personally discussed and formed similar 'no raid' agreements between their companies." The suit cites an email from Mr. Catmull in which he stated that they "have an agreement with DreamWorks not to actively pursue each others employees." "Catmull acknowledged under oath that Jobs and Katzenberg discussed the subject and that the two companies weren't 'going after each other,'" the suit stated. The suit contends that when Disney bought Pixar in 2006, the non- solicitation agreements spread to Walt Disney Feature Animation, which Mr. Catmull headed, as well as to ImageMovers, the company founded by director Robert Zemeckis. "Catmull and other leaders of the conspiracy policed any violation of the conspiracy, even when it did not directly involve efforts to recruit their own employees," the lawsuit claims. "Whenever a studio threatened to disturb the conspiracy's goals of suppressing wages and salaries by recruiting employees and offering better compensation, the leaders of the conspiracy took steps to stop them for the anti-competitive benefit of all conspirators. For example, when ImageMovers began recruiting workers for its digital wing, ImageMovers Digital, in 2007, Catmull intervened to stop them from targeting other conspirators, even though he knew they would not target his company Pixar. His express purpose in doing so was to keep solicitation efforts from 'mess[ing] up the pay structure. At Catmull's request, a Disney senior executive advised ImageMovers to comply with the broad conspiracy." The litigation also alleges that senior human resources and recruiting personnel met annually to discuss job titles to be included in an industry compensation survey, and, in other meetings and events, exchanged information that allowed them to "fix the salaries and wages of their workers within narrow ranges for the ensuing year." The suit contends that in late 2006, the head of human resources at Pixar sent an email to the heads of H.R. at DreamWorks, Sony Pictures Imageworks, Lucasfilm/ILM, Disney Animation and others "to provide Pixar's budget for salary increases in the following year, 2007, and to ask for other studios' salary increase budgets in return." The lawsuit also quotes Lucas as saying that they "cannot get into a bidding war with other companies because we don't have the margins for that sort of thing." "All of the Defendants kept the agreements secret from their employees. Only their top executives and human resources and recruiting personnel involved in the conspiracy communicated about the agreements orally or in emails among themselves, and they almost always insisted that the agreements not be committed to writing," the suit stated. WEST 54 DELI: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, Action Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ Elia Guerra-Alonso, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. West 54 Deli, Corp d/b/a 54 Gourmet, Three Brothers NY Deli, Inc. d/b/a Cascade Cafe, Garden City Deli Corp. d/b/a Garden City Deli, and Mansoor Saleh, Case No. 1:14-cv-07247 (S.D.N.Y., September 8, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate an American delicatessen restaurants with three locations within the State of New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian S. Schaffer, Esq. Arsenio D. Rodriguez, Esq. FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP 475 Park Avenue South, 12th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 300-0375 WHARTON COUNTY: Faces "Valle" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Marlon Valle, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. Wharton County Foods, LLC and Cal-Maine Foods, Inc., Case No. 4:14-cv-02556 (S.D. Tex., September 4, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked over forty during the work week. Wharton County Foods, LLC is a licensed carrier, hauling grain, feed, and hay. Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. is a producer and marketer of shell eggs. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy Daniel Saenz, Esq. WAGNER SAENZ DORITY 3700 Buffalo Speedway, Ste 610 Houston, TX 77098 Telephone: (713) 554-8450 E-mail: jsaenz@wsdllp.com WORLDWIDE PANTS: Former Intern Files Wage & Overtime Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Kenneally, writing for The Wrap, reports that CBS and Worldwide Pants, the production company behind the "Late Show With David Letterman," have been slapped with a class-action lawsuit by a woman who claims that she worked as an intern on the show, and was wrongfully denied wages and overtime pay. In the suit, filed in the Supreme Court in New York on Sept. 4, Mallory Musallam says she was employed as a "Late Show" intern from September to December 2008. During her time at the show, the suit says Ms. Musallam "typically worked in excess of forty (40) hours per week." During her time there, the suit adds, Ms. Musallam performed various tasks, including but not limited to doing research for interview material, delivering film clips from libraries, running errands, faxing, scanning, operating the switchboard, and other similar duties. Unfortunately, the suit claims, "Defendants have maintained a policy and practice of wrongfully classifying Named Plaintiffs and others similarly situated that worked on 'The Late Show With David Letterman' as exempt from minimum wages and overtime compensation." CBS says it plans to "vigorously defend against the claims" in the lawsuit. "This lawsuit is part of a nationwide trend of class action lawyers attacking internship opportunities provided by companies in the media and entertainment industry," the network told TheWrap in a statement on Sept. 8. "We pride ourselves on providing valuable internship experiences, and we take seriously all of our obligations under relevant labor and employment laws. We intend to vigorously defend against the claims." The suit seeks "to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime compensation owed to Named Plaintiff and all similarly situated persons," a group that the lawsuit claims "is believed to be in excess of 100 individuals." XEROX CORP: 2nd Cir. Upholds Securities Class Action Dismissal -------------------------------------------------------------- Jeff Sistrunk, writing for Law360, reports that the Second Circuit on Sept. 8 upheld Xerox Corp.'s win in a long-running securities fraud class action alleging it misrepresented the financial benefits of a global restructuring program in the late 1990s, finding that Xerox made sufficient disclosures about the initiative and one of its major components. In a unanimous ruling, a three-judge panel affirmed U.S. District Judge Alvin W. Thompson's grant of summary judgment to Xerox and three of its executives, agreeing with the lower court judge that the plaintiffs failed to show the defendants made any actionable misstatement or omission. The plaintiffs sued Xerox and the executives in 1999, claiming they violated federal securities law by materially misrepresenting that Xerox's worldwide restructuring initiative was a financial boon to the company when a component of the initiative called the Customer Business Organization Reorganization was "causing significant and ongoing economic distress to the company," according to court documents. "Because we conclude that there is no genuine dispute of material fact with respect to the sufficiency of Xerox's disclosures about the successes and failures of this component of its worldwide restructuring, we affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants," Judge Rosemary S. Pooler wrote for the appellate panel. Xerox's lead counsel, Sandra C. Goldstein -- sgoldstein@cravath.com -- of Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP, praised the panel's ruling. "Certainly, the victory is a very satisfying one -- it confirms that Xerox told the truth, that there were benefits from the restructuring and that Xerox disclosed the issues with the reorganization," Ms. Goldstein told Law360, noting that the case involved the collection of millions of documents worldwide and dozens of fact and expert depositions. "We're very happy that the client had the grit and determination to see the case through to victory. "We were preparing for trial and ready to go, and I think that level of preparedness allowed us to move successfully for summary judgment," Ms. Goldstein continued. "This case shows that, in complex matters, even when they survive motions to dismiss, that is not a sign that you should take out your checkbook and settle. It requires developing a very clean factual record and showing that the undisputed facts disprove the plaintiffs' legal theory, but it can be done." Xerox undertook several initiatives in 1998 and 1999 geared toward lowering costs and making itself more competitive in the global market, according to court documents. Those initiatives include a worldwide restructuring that included 150 specific projects, including the CBO Reorganization, which focused on improving and centralizing support to the company's U.S.-based sales force, court documents said. According to the plaintiffs, the defendants failed to sufficiently disclose to the market problems that arose from the CBO Reorganization. In his March 2013 ruling, Judge Thompson found that Xerox's statements about the overall cost savings realized by Xerox's worldwide restructuring initiative "didn't preclude the entry of summary judgment in Xerox's favor," concluding there was "no genuine dispute" that Xerox had made sufficient disclosures concerning the challenges it experienced with the CBO Reorganization, according to the appellate opinion. In addition, Judge Thompson said the plaintiffs failed to establish loss causation because two alleged corrective disclosures they cited "did not add any new information to the market," the opinion said. The Second Circuit panel rejected all the plaintiffs' challenges to Judge Thompson's decision. "In light of Xerox's public statements about its restructuring and realignment initiatives, we conclude that there is no genuine dispute as to whether a reasonable investor would have viewed the undisclosed facts about the CBO Reorganization as having significantly altered the total mix of information that was already disclosed by Xerox or otherwise available," Judge Pooler wrote. The district court determined that Xerox realized a net cost savings of $254.5 million from the worldwide restructuring, the panel noted in the opinion. "On this record, it would be conjecture to conclude that Xerox's statements about the cost-savings of the [worldwide restructuring] -- without a subsequent reference to the costs incurred as a result of the CBO Reorganization -- were misleading," Judge Pooler wrote. Circuit Judges Dennis G. Jacobs and Rosemary S. Pooler and District Judge Christina Reiss sat on the Second Circuit panel. The plaintiffs are represented by Brad N. Friedman -- bfriedman@milberg.com -- of Millberg LLP, Stanley D. Bernstein of Bernstein Leibhard LLP and Mark Levine -- mlevine@ssbny.com -- of Stull Stull & Brody. Xerox is represented by Sandra C. Goldstein and J. Wesley Earnhardt -- wearnhardt@cravath.com -- of Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP. The individual defendants are represented by Thomas D. Goldberg -- tgoldberg@daypitney.com -- of Day Pitney LLP, John A. Valentine -- john.valentine@wilmerhale.com -- of WilmerHale and Alfred U. Pavlis -- apavlis@fdh.com -- of Finn Dixon & Herling LLP. The case is Thomas Dalberth et al. v. Xerox Corp. et al., case number 13-1658, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. ********* 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 * * *