/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/141007.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, October 7, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 199 Headlines 99 MILES: "Sanchez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ABM INDUSTRIES: Appeal in "Augustus" Case Remains Pending ABM INDUSTRIES: No Schedule on Oral Argument in "Bucio" Appeal AFRICAN BANK: May Face Class Action Over Lending Practices AJD-NYC INC: "Avendano" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ALTAIR NANOTECHNOLOGIES: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports APPLE INC: Nov. 17 Trial Scheduled for iPod Antitrust Suit ATP OIL: Dist. Court Tosses Claims in Securities Suit vs. D&Os B&G FOODS: Falsely Marketed Food Products, "Alduey" Suit Claims BANK OF QUEENSLAND: Accord Ends Legal Action v. Storm Founders BBQ CHICKEN DON ALEX: Faces "Asfaw" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT BENSON & HEDGES: Balks at Plaintiffs' Bid to Ban Cigarette Sale BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Damages in Mesh Suit Slashed to $34.6 Million CAFE LALO: Faces "Soto" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages CANADA: Soldier Files Class Action Over Home Sale Losses COMPUTER EXPRESS: "Jimemez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime CONSUMER PORTFOLIO: Faces "Sifonte" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT CRITTENDEN HOSPITAL: Sued Over Failure to Pay Valid Health Claims CROWLEY PAINTING: Fails to Pay OT Hours, "Castellanos" Suit Says DOMINO'S PIZZA: Franchisees Sued for Withholding Service Charge DON PEPI: "Dorantes" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages EL NUEVO VALLE: Faces "Castillo" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ELI LILLY: Faces Suit in N.J. Over Testosterone Replacement Drug EXPRESS MEE: "Yang" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages FAIR ISAAC: Faces "Springer" Suit Over TCPA Violations FAIR ISAAC: Faces 2nd "Springer" Suit Over TCPA Violations FANNIE MAE: Sued Over Breach of Fair Credit Reporting Act FAST WATER: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Slavkov" Suit Says FEDERAL RESERVE: Class Cert. Bid Denied in "Artis" Race Bias Suit FERELLGAS LP: Faces Route 49 Suit Over Propane Gas Price-Fixing FIFTH GENERATION: Falsely Marketed Vodka Products, Suit Claims FINISAR CORPORATION: Appeal Pending on Class Action Dismissal FORGE GROUP: Shareholder Class Action Over Collapse Expanded GENERAL MOTORS: Ignition Switch Suits First Trial Likely in 2015 GULF COAST COLLECTION: 11th Cir. Reversed Ruling on "Mais" Suit H&R BLOCK: Court Stays RAL and RAC Litigation Pending Arbitration H&R BLOCK: Missouri Appeals Court Remanded "Lopez" Case H&R BLOCK: Appeal in "Perras" Case Remains Pending H&R BLOCK: Court Granted Arbitration Bid in Form 8863 Litigation H&R BLOCK: Awaits Final Order in McGladrey Class Action Deal HASBRO INC: Denial of "O'Brien" Class Certification Upheld IMO INDUSTRIES: Insurance Firms Must Pay $1.85MM Asbestos Claims INDIA: Prime Minister Modi Sued in NY Over Human Rights Violation INDIAN CREEK: Faces "Piner" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime J.CREW GROUP: Oct 15 Final Hearing on Class Action Settlement KARPATHOES INC: "Ports" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime LA BELLA MARKETPLACE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages LA DULCE: Faces "Peralta" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages LEIDOS INC: Faces "Fernandez" Suit in E.D. Cal. Over Data Breach LLOYD'S LONDON: Faces "Cooper" Suit Over Settlement Agreement MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Limited Discovery in Voss Litigation MENDOTA INSURANCE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Pro Rata Share MODEL SERVICE: Faces "Agerbrink" Over Failure to Pay Overtime NAVISTAR CANADA: Harrison Pensa Files MaxxForce Class Action NEW PENN FINANCIAL: Sued in Cal. Over Unlawful Business Practices NEW ZEALAND: Kiwifruit Growers File Class Suit Over Psa Outbreak NUTELLA: 3rd Cir. Upholds Settlement Order in Deceptive Mktg Suit NVIDIA CORP: 9th Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Shareholder Suit OIL STATES ENERGY: "Frost" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages PACIFIC SUNWEAR: "Pfeiffer" Class Action in Discovery Phase PACIFIC SUNWEAR: Nov. 4 Hearing on Cert. Bid in "Beeney" Case PELLA CORP: Clifford Named New Class Counsel in Windows Suit PHILIPPINE AIRLINES: US Ruling Limits Price-Fixing Suit Coverage RICHEY SHIPLEY: "Uscanga" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime RITE OF PASSAGE: "Keele" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages RODRIGUEZ PRODUCE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ROSEBUD RESTAURANTS: Faces "Aguilar" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT SEARS CANADA: Hometown Store Dealers' Class Action Can Proceed SKO BRENNER: Faces "Casagnap" Suit in Over Violation of FDCPA STARBUCKS CORPORATION: Faces "Heinzl" Suit Over Violation of ADA STATE FARM: Sued in C.D. Cal. Over Failure to Pay Legal Costs SUPERFRESH GROUP: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, Suit Claims THOMAS MANUFACTURING: Sued in D.N.J. Over Violation of FLSA TRS RECOVERY: Sued in Wis. Over Violation of Debt Collection Law UNITED ONLINE: Court Has Not Yet Ruled on Motion to Dismiss UNITED ONLINE: Court Has Not Yet Ruled on Consolidation Request VERIFONE SYSTEMS: 9th Cir. Drops Holdings Securities Case Appeal VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Hearing Held on Israel Class Suit Continuation VERIFONE SYSTEMS: April 2015 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss VERINT SYSTEMS: Says Class Suit Mediation Process "Unsuccessful" WORLD JOURNAL: Faces "Lin" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime XYZ CORPORATION: "Li" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime ZURICH NA: Sued Over Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act ********* 99 MILES: "Sanchez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Elias Perez Sanchez, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. 99 Miles to Philly, Inc., d/b/a 99 Miles to Philly, Brad Kranz, and Neil Barshy, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-07811 (S.D.N.Y., September 26, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant known as 99 Miles to Philly located at 94 Third Avenue, New York, New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter Hans Cooper, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER, P.L.L.C. 708 Third Avenue, 6th Flr New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 209-3933 Facsimile: (212) 209-7102 E-mail: pcooper@jcpclaw.com ABM INDUSTRIES: Appeal in "Augustus" Case Remains Pending --------------------------------------------------------- The appeals in the Augustus case remains pending, ABM Industries Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 4, 2014, for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2014. The Consolidated Cases of Augustus, Hall and Davis v. American Commercial Security Services, filed July 12, 2005, in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County (the "Augustus case"), is a certified class action involving allegations that we violated certain state laws relating to rest breaks. On February 8, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment on the rest break claim, which sought damages in the amount of $103.1 million, and we filed a motion for decertification of the class. On July 6, 2012, the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County (the "Superior Court"), heard plaintiffs' motion for damages on the rest break claim and the Company's motion to decertify the class. On July 31, 2012, the Superior Court denied the Company's motion and entered judgment in favor of plaintiffs in the amount of approximately $89.7 million. This $89.7 million is included in the range of loss for all reasonably possible losses. The $89.7 million amount did not include plaintiffs' attorneys' fees. The Company filed a notice of appeal with the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District (the "Appeals Court") on August 29, 2012. The plaintiffs filed three separate motions for attorneys' fees with the Superior Court. One motion sought attorneys' fees from the common fund. (The common fund refers to the approximately $89.7 million judgment entered in favor of the plaintiffs.) The other two motions sought attorneys' fees from the Company in an aggregate amount of approximately $12.4 million. The Company said, "On October 12, 2012, we filed oppositions to the two fee motions seeking attorneys' fees from us with the Superior Court. On January 14, 2013, the Superior Court heard all three fee motions and it granted plaintiffs' fee motion with respect to the common fund in full. The Superior Court denied one fee motion in its entirety and reduced the other fee motion to approximately $4.5 million. This $4.5 million is included in the range of loss for all reasonably possible losses. We have appealed the Superior Court's rulings to the Appeals Court, and on April 30, 2013, the Appeals Court agreed to consolidate the appeals." "We strongly disagree with the decisions of the Superior Court both with respect to the underlying case and with respect to the award of attorneys' fees and costs. We firmly believe that we have complied with the applicable law." ABM Industries Incorporated is a provider of end-to-end integrated facility solutions to thousands of commercial, industrial, institutional, retail, residential, and governmental facilities located primarily throughout the United States. ABM INDUSTRIES: No Schedule on Oral Argument in "Bucio" Appeal -------------------------------------------------------------- Oral argument relating to the appeal in the Bucio case has not been scheduled, ABM Industries Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 4, 2014, for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2014. The Consolidated Cases of Bucio and Martinez v. ABM Janitorial Services filed on April 7, 2006, in the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco (the "Bucio case") is a purported class action involving allegations that we failed to track work time and provide breaks. On April 19, 2011, the trial court held a hearing on plaintiffs' motion to certify the class. At the conclusion of that hearing, the trial court denied plaintiffs' motion to certify the class. On May 11, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a motion to reconsider, which was denied. The plaintiffs have appealed the class certification issues. The trial court stayed the underlying lawsuit pending the decision in the appeal. On August 30, 2012, the plaintiffs filed their appellate brief on the class certification issues. "We filed our responsive brief on November 15, 2012. Oral argument relating to the appeal has not been scheduled," the Company said. "We expect to prevail in these ongoing cases. However, as litigation is inherently unpredictable, there can be no assurance in this regard. If the plaintiffs in one or more of these cases, or other cases, do prevail, the results may have a material effect on our financial position or cash flows." ABM Industries Incorporated is a provider of end-to-end integrated facility solutions to thousands of commercial, industrial, institutional, retail, residential, and governmental facilities located primarily throughout the United States. AFRICAN BANK: May Face Class Action Over Lending Practices ---------------------------------------------------------- Lerato Zikalala, writing for BusinessDay, reports that in the wake of the unsuccessful bid to form a class action for affected consumers in the R699-car-scheme, and with murmurs of a class action being launched over African Bank's alleged reckless lending practices, it seems this mechanism is increasingly being considered to obtain recourse for aggrieved consumers. The class action, a procedure where a person can institute action on behalf of a similarly affected group of people, aggregates the small claims of many into one significant claim. In countries where this legal procedure is more developed, companies have bemoaned the potentially oppressive nature of class actions, which use the threat of mass-scale litigation to induce settlements. In South African law, use of class actions is not only a new development, it also significantly changes the bargaining positions of parties in liability litigation that companies cannot rely only on their ability to out-lawyer an opponent. In the past, companies were relatively immune from litigation in which many people had claims, particularly relatively small claims, because the risk of incurring legal costs often outweighed the potential benefit for individual litigants. However, following the Supreme Court of Appeal's judgment in a matter involving the Children's Resource Trust, which established the procedure needed for instituting a class action in South African law, the likelihood of any company in the throes of a massive consumer debacle actually being visited with mass litigation moved from a legal improbability to a factual possibility. In the past few years we have heard about class actions in the miners' silicosis case against mining companies, the bread price- fixing case against bread manufacturers, the Transnet pensioners' case, and class actions instituted by rights groups against the Department of Education in the Eastern Cape, to name a few. There are many benefits to this development. Class actions can spur social and economic reform, particularly in rights cases. Most importantly, they enable people who do not ordinarily have the means to take legal action to do so. And because companies are likely to be defending class actions rather than instituting them, the litigation risk matrix is significantly changed. When dealing with class actions, it is not simply a case of "we'll fight it out in court". In countries where class action is well developed, it is generally understood that the matter will probably not proceed to court to decide the actual merit of the case. Instead, the eventual success of the claim will be dictated by the size of the affected group and the size of the claim, sometimes irrespective of whether the claim is defendable. So companies should not lackadaisically approach the formation of a class, or dismiss as a mere technicality the certification process just because they believe they have a good case on the merits of the matter. These initial procedural steps set the parameters for the "fight" on the road to a settlement. Another issue that companies should bear in mind is that class action in South Africa is new, with the rules being made up as we go along. While the thought of a test case is thrilling for lawyers and academic writers, it is the type of litigation that companies should be wary of engaging in. In other jurisdictions, safeguards have been developed to guard against the potential abuse of this procedure by enterprising lawyers eager to win a big settlement. In fairness, our courts are mindful of the potential for abuse, having announced that safeguards will be developed following a period of trial and error. But which company wants to be on the receiving end of that exercise? Our law makes specific room for use of the class action procedure in giving recourse to people and affected parties in various circumstances, so the development of the procedure is inevitable. Class actions remain high-stakes litigation, involving big numbers, an often high profile and a likely effect on the bottom line. That said, the fact that the recent attempt to establish a class action in the R699-car-scheme failed, is evidence that these procedures are not easy to initiate. In addition, the launching of a mass claim offers companies a unique opportunity to deal with their litigation risk exposure in one go, which may eventually improve their future prospects. A company should approach this type of litigation by first understanding the ambit of the potential class, whether proceeding using this mechanism is indeed the only option, and whether there are alternative dispute mechanisms that it can pursue. AJD-NYC INC: "Avendano" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- Oscar Avendano, Edwin Baizan, Mario Pretel and Antonio Perez, on behalf of themselves, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class v. AJD-NYC Inc. d/b/a De Santos, Alejandro Gonzalez, Luis Miguel Amutio, Jose Manuel Amutio and Juan Pedro Lambert, Case No. 1:14- cv-07835 (S.D.N.Y., September 26, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant under the trade name De Santos located at 139 W. 10th Street, New York, NY 10014. The Plaintiff is represented by: Anne Melissa Seelig, Esq. C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 465-1124 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 E-mail: anne@leelitigation.com cklee@leelitigation.com ALTAIR NANOTECHNOLOGIES: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports --------------------------------------------------------------- David Helfenbein, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Altair Nanotechnologies, Inc., Alexander Lee, Richard W. Lee, Guohua Sun, James T. Zhan, Stephen B. Huang, Paula Conroy, and Karen Warner, Case No. 1:14-cv-07828 (S.D.N.Y., September 26, 2014), alleged that throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies, and internal controls over financial reporting. The Defendants design, manufacture and deliver energy storage systems for clean, efficient power and energy management. The Plaintiff is represented by: Francis Paul McConville, Esq. Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Esq. Patrick Vincent Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: fmcconville@pomlaw.com jalieberman@pomlaw.com pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com APPLE INC: Nov. 17 Trial Scheduled for iPod Antitrust Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that a federal judge has hit the play button on antitrust allegations targeting Apple Inc. iPods, sending the case toward trial after nearly 10 years of litigation. Plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence to show certain iPod models only played music downloaded from the Apple iTunes store, creating a monopoly that allowed the company to overcharge customers, U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the Northern District of California ruled on Sept. 26. The judge denied Apple's motion for summary judgment, and the case now proceeds toward a Nov. 17 trial date. Plaintiffs estimate damages at about $350 million. In response, Apple has beefed up its defense team with a slew of Boies, Schiller & Flexner attorneys who entered appearances on Sept. 29. The team includes partner John Cove Jr. in the firm's Oakland office, as well as partners William Isaacson and Karen Dunn from Washington, D.C. They join Robert Mittelstaedt -- ramittelstaedt@jonesday.com -- of Jones Day, who argued Apple's motion for summary judgment in Oakland federal court in August. Apple had tried to throw out the case by attacking the plaintiffs' damages expert, arguing he presented no admissible evidence that Apple's practices had an effect on the market. "The linchpin, and Achilles' heel, of Apple's argument is the word 'admissible.'" Judge Gonzalez Rogers wrote. There's no reason why the testimony of Roger Noll, a Stanford University economics professor, is not admissible, she continued. Apple had introduced two experts of its own to poke holes in Noll's theories. The University of Chicago professors argued Noll failed to account for certain variables affecting iPod prices and used the wrong model to calculate damages. But Judge Gonzalez Rogers said "the battle between the economists" should play out before a jury, and denied Apple's Daubert motion to exclude Noll's testimony. The iPod/iTunes litigation, led by plaintiffs lawyers with Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, began in 2005. U.S. District Judge James Ware, who retired in 2012, threw out two of the plaintiffs' antitrust claims before Judge Gonzalez Rogers took over. The one surviving claim alleges a 2006 Apple upgrade illegally shut out competitor RealNetworks Inc. from the MP3 market. RealNetworks had used its Harmony software to make its music compatible with iPods, but after the 2006 upgrade, the company's music no longer played on Apple devices. The upgrade locked customers with large music libraries into Apple products, plaintiffs argued, as customers who wanted new players had to continue buying iPods or lose their music. Plaintiffs lawyers represent a certified class of customers who bought certain iPod models between 2006 and 2009. Robbins Geller partner Bonny Sweeney -- bonnys@rgrdlaw.com -- said she has every reason to believe the case will go to trial in November. "We're delighted that we're finally able to present the case to a jury," she said. Apple did not respond to an email seeking comment. Judge Gonzalez Rogers expressed concern during the August hearing that plaintiffs provided no testimony from customers who bought songs from RealNetworks and couldn't play them on their iPods. But she changed her tune on Sept. 26. "The lack of direct evidence of named individuals who used Harmony does not disprove their existence," Judge Gonzalez Rogers wrote. "The court finds nothing unreasonable about an assumption that, among the millions of persons who used iPods during the class period, some may have purchased songs from Real." ATP OIL: Dist. Court Tosses Claims in Securities Suit vs. D&Os -------------------------------------------------------------- FIREFIGHTERS PENSION & RELIEF FUND OF THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. T. PAUL BULMAHN, ET AL., CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-3935, C/W NO. 13-6083, NO. 13-6084., 13-6233, (E.D. La.) is a securities class action brought on behalf of all persons who acquired ATP Oil and Gas Corporation (ATP) 11.875% Senior Second Lien Exchange Notes traceable to an allegedly false and misleading Form S-4 registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with ATP's December 16, 2010 exchange offer (the Exchange). ATP filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy on August 17, 2012 and is not named as a defendant in this action. Instead, plaintiffs sued ATP's senior executives and board of directors, alleging violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. Defendants T. Paul Buhlman, Albert L. Reese, Jr., and Keith R. Godwin (the Officer Defendants) have filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim. Defendants Chris A. Brisack, Arthur H. Dilly, Gerard J. Swonke, Brent M. Longnecker, Walter Wendlandt, Burt A. Adams, George R. Edwards, and Robert J. Karow (the Director Defendants) have likewise filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint. Chief District Judge Sarah S. Vance granted the defendants' motion and dismissed the plaintiff's claims in an order and reasons dated September 26, 2014, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/Vt5PAZfrom Leagle.com. Specifically, these Section 11 claims are dismissed with prejudice: (1) that the defendants violated Item 303 by failing to disclose the alleged problems at the Atwater well; (2) that the proved oil and gas reserves as reported by ATP were false and misleading; (3) that ATP's forecast of "a substantial increase in production over the next year as development wells are brought to production" was false or misleading because defendants failed to disclose the alleged problems at Atwater; (4) that defendants failed to disclose that ATP was in violation of its credit and debt agreements due to "disguised financings" with various entities; (5) that defendants failed to disclose that ATP was operating in violation of U.S. environmental laws; and (6) that the boilerplate "risk disclosures" utilized in the Registration Statement were themselves misleading. The Court dismissed plaintiff's Section 12 claim with prejudice. These claims are dismissed without prejudice: (1) that the defendants violated Item 303 by failing to disclose that ATP did not have the liquidity and revenue to survive the moratoria; and (2) that ATP's forecast of "a substantial increase in production over the next year as development wells are brought to production" was false or misleading because defendants knew that ATP lacked the liquidity and revenues to survive the moratoria. The Court also dismissed plaintiff's Section 15 claim without prejudice saying although the plaintiff adequately pleaded control person status, the claim is entirely derivative of plaintiff's Section 11 claim. Accordingly, dismissal is required, but plaintiff may revive the claim if it chooses to amend, ruled the Court. "To the extent the Court has granted leave to amend, the amended complaint must be filed within 21 days of the entry of this order," Judge Vance added. Thomas J Mansfield, 13-6083, 13-6084, Consol Movant, represented by Thomas J. McKenna -- tjmckenna@gme-law.com -- Gainey & McKenna. B&G FOODS: Falsely Marketed Food Products, "Alduey" Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Carolina Alduey, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. B&G Foods, Inc., B&G Foods North America, Inc., and B&G Foods Snacks, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-07839 (S.D.N.Y., September 26, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for the deceptive practice of marketing their Polaner All Fruit with Fiber spreadable fruit products as All Natural when they contain non-natural, highly processed ingredients such as Maltodextrin. The Defendants develop, market and sell food products throughout the world under various brand names. The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com BANK OF QUEENSLAND: Accord Ends Legal Action v. Storm Founders -------------------------------------------------------------- Daryl Passmore, writing for Courier Mail, reports that many Storm Financial victims feel a keen sense of injustice that key players in the collapse will never have their day in court. While a deal by the Bank of Queensland to pay almost AU$20 million in compensation -- while denying any wrongdoing -- provides some relief, Storm Investors Consumer Action Group co-chairman Mark Weir said there was "a very sour taste" in people's mouths. "The interpretation by investors is that there are certain people getting a free ticket in not facing court," Mr. Weir said. Storm collapsed when the global financial crisis hit in 2008, and 3000 investors lost a combined $800 million. Six years on, the only civil proceedings brought by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission against any individuals -- alleging Storm founders Emmanuel and Julie Cassimatis breached their directors' duties -- has yet to come to trial. They both deny any wrongdoing. And ASIC confirms that the settlement brings to an end any action in relation to BOQ, its associated entities and any officer, employee and agent. That includes Matthew Buchanan and Declan Carnes, who were, and continue to be, the owner-operators of the bank's North Ward franchise in Townsville. According to documents tendered in court and to Parliament, this one small office approved hundreds of the loan applications prepared by Storm for its clients. The deal resulted from a class action brought by Levitt Robinson Solicitors. The agreement prevents them and their clients from commenting but the legal firm was critical of the corporate watchdog in a submission to a Senate inquiry into ASIC. "No ASIC civil prosecution has been initiated against Matthew Buchanan or Declan Carnes, who, through Senrac Pty Limited, owned the North Ward (Townsville) franchise and have been responsible for 267 out of 319 of the Storm home loans," it said. "Carnes and Buchanan continue to operate the North Ward franchise of BOQ to this day with impunity -- thanks to ASIC." Documents filed by Levitt Robinson in court as part of the class action allege that Messrs. Buchanan and Carnes were familiar with Storm's risky "double-geared" model of using equity and margin loans to fund new indexed share investments. They allege the bank knew there was a risk that Storm would not give independent or adequate advice. As a result, the action alleged, BOQ had engaged in unconscionable conduct and breached the Banking Code. A BOQ spokesman said the settlement included acknowledgment by all parties that BOQ denied any wrongdoing. "The decision to settle was a commercial one that will help provide certainty," he said. He would not comment on what, if any, action the bank had, or would, take against Messrs. Buchanan and Carnes. BBQ CHICKEN DON ALEX: Faces "Asfaw" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT --------------------------------------------------------------- Paola Asfaw, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BBQ Chicken Don Alex No. 1 Corp., Diavi Orores, Osvaldo Yallico, and John Does #1-10, Case No. 1:14-cv-05665 (E.D.N.Y., September 26, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week. The Defendants own and operate Don Alex Restaurants in New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brent E. Pelton, Esq. PELTON & ASSOCIATES, PC 111 Broadway, Suite 1503 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 385-9700 Facsimile: (212) 385-0800 E-mail: pelton@peltonlaw.com BENSON & HEDGES: Balks at Plaintiffs' Bid to Ban Cigarette Sale --------------------------------------------------------------- Les Perreaux, writing for The Globe and Mail, reports that Canada's big tobacco companies are accusing the plaintiffs in a landmark class-action lawsuit of attempting to use the courts to do what Parliament doesn't dare: ban the sale of cigarettes. In closing arguments that was set to be heard last week as a Quebec court case spanning 16 years nears an end, plaintiffs in the C$17.8-billion lawsuit will argue the damage caused by tobacco vastly outweighs the utility of cigarettes. "The mischievous, useless product [is] designed to trap users in a toxic and often deadly addiction" and companies should be held at fault and pay for the consequences, the plaintiffs say in written arguments. The big three tobacco companies counter that cigarettes have at least one use -- to give smokers pleasure -- and Quebec Superior Court cannot be asked to effectively ban a product Canadian lawmakers have chosen to regulate instead. The class-action lawsuit pitting tobacco companies against a million Quebec plaintiffs, including addicts who cannot quit and smokers who have suffered illness, is the first litigation of its kind in Canada to approach judgment. Every province is at some stage of passing laws to open the door to litigation against tobacco companies or preparing lawsuits to recover health-care costs. The Quebec case is years ahead of any other in the court process. The plaintiffs in the Quebec case want Justice Brian Riordan to find manufacturers are at fault for their dangerous product and to award damages so prohibitive they would ruin the business. The companies say if they were forced out of the tobacco business, illegal alternative sources would simply fill the void. Bruce Johnston, one of the lead lawyers for the plaintiffs, avoided using the word "ban," but conceded the consequences of a full courtroom victory would probably end the legal sale of cigarettes. "If tobacco companies paid for the consequences of putting their product on the market, if they sold cigarettes for $50 a pack, they could compensate people who get addicted," Mr. Johnston said in an interview. "It's not a ban we seek, but undoubtedly our success would have consequences. Bad products get litigated out of the market. That's one of the purposes civil litigation serves for society." The tobacco companies, however, were in concert declaring the plaintiffs want the courts to ban cigarettes when legislatures have refused. "Now, after more than two-and-a-half years of trial, tens of thousands of exhibits, millions of pages of productions, 76 witnesses and 31 expert reports, the plaintiffs have finally described what they are complaining about," lawyers for Imperial Tobacco prepared in a written response to the plaintiffs. "Their entire case is based on the concept that somehow the product should be banned and should not have been put on the market at all, at any point. Indeed, their stated intention is to put the industry out of business." The other tobacco companies being sued, Rothmans, Benson & Hedges and JTI-Macdonald, offered similar interpretations of the stakes of the lawsuit in their legal filings. Rothmans pointed out the courts have "repeatedly confirmed federal and provincial policy that selling cigarettes, despite their known dangers, should be lawful." "Both the federal and Quebec governments, like governments throughout the world, chose quite deliberately to let adult consumers make their own choices about smoking," Rothmans says in its legal response. JTI-Macdonald says Quebec's Superior Court has no jurisdiction to rescind government decisions "to regulate, rather than ban, the sale of cigarettes." A judgment in the lawsuit is expected some time next year. BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Damages in Mesh Suit Slashed to $34.6 Million ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jessica Dye, writing for Reuters, reports that a jury award of $73.4 million to a woman who said she was injured by a Boston Scientific Corp. transvaginal mesh device has been cut to $34.6 million, thanks to a Texas law that caps how much companies must pay in punitive damages. Last month, jurors in Dallas found Boston Scientific liable for selling a defective Obtryx sling that was implanted in plaintiff Martha Salazar to treat urinary leakage. The jury awarded Ms. Salazar approximately $23 million in compensatory damages for actual suffering and $50 million in punitive damages after finding that Boston Scientific had been grossly negligent. On Oct. 2, Dallas County Judge Ken Molberg ordered the punitive damages to be slashed to just over $11 million, citing a Texas law that limits damages designed to punish companies to no more than two times a plaintiff's economic losses, plus up to $750,000 in non-economic losses. A lawyer for Ms. Salazar, David Matthews, said he had anticipated the reduction under state law. "It's still a very significant finding for a single case," he said. Boston Scientific did not immediately return a request for comment. Following the jury verdict last month, the company had said it planned to appeal. The company has faced three trials so far over its transvaginal mesh products, which are used to treat stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse. The first two trials, which were heard in Massachusetts, resulted in wins for Boston Scientific. The third, Ms. Salazar's case, was the first loss for the medical device manufacturer, which is facing more than 23,000 claims from women in federal and state courts across the country over the devices. Women allege that Boston Scientific sold the device knowing it was defective, causing a variety of injuries, including pain, bleeding and infection. Thousands of federal lawsuits have been consolidated before a single judge in West Virginia, and additional trials in those cases are scheduled to begin in November. Boston Scientific is among seven device makers that have faced a wave of claims over similar products. Other defendants include C.R. Bard Inc and Johnson & Johnson's Ethicon Inc unit. Endo International's American Medical Systems subsidiary became the first major company to largely bow out of mesh litigation. It announced this week that it has set aside $1.6 billion to settle tens of thousands of cases, ending "substantially all" U.S. mesh cases against it. The case is Salazar v. Lopez, District Court for Dallas County, No. DC-12-14349. CAFE LALO: Faces "Soto" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Sierra Soto, et al., v. Cafe Lalo, Inc., Haim Lalo, and Daniel Reyes, Case No. 1:14-cv-07833 (S.D.N.Y., September 26, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation. Cafe Lalo, Inc. owns and operates a restaurant located at 201 West83rdStreet New York, New York 10024. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jesse Strauss, Esq. KURZON STRAUSS LLP 305 Broadway 9th Floor New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 822-1496 Facsimile: (917) 332-1407 E-mail: jesse@strausslawpllc.com - and - Maurice Samuel Pianko, Esq. PIANKO LAW GROUP PLLC 55 Broad Street, Suite #13F New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (646) 801-9675 Facsimile: (973) 689-8874 E-mail: aycrigglda@gmail.com CANADA: Soldier Files Class Action Over Home Sale Losses -------------------------------------------------------- Richard Cuthbertson, writing for CBC News, reports that a Canadian soldier who lost more than C$72,000 selling his home has launched a proposed class action lawsuit accusing the federal government of denying full compensation to dozens of military personnel who suffered large financial hits when ordered to move. Master Warrant Officer Neil Dodsworth has spent 33 years in the Canadian Forces and has served in Somalia, Afghanistan and earthquake-ravaged Haiti. He's currently stationed at CFB Gagetown in New Brunswick. In 2007, Mr. Dodsworth was posted to CFB Edmonton. Unable to find a spot in military housing or afford Edmonton's soaring home prices, he and his family bought a condo row house in Morinville, a town about 35 kilometers outside the city. A year later he was moved again, but by that time the housing market had crashed in Morinville. Mr. Dodsworth finally sold the home at a large loss, but thought he'd be fully compensated under a federal program called Home Equity Assistance. He learned otherwise -- on the day the family was moving. "The movers were taking my furniture out the front door. I was on a cellphone in the back of the house and told, 'Your compensation is denied,'" Mr. Dodsworth told CBC News. "If there's one time I wanted to curl up and cry, [it] was then." The Home Equity Assistance program is supposed to protect Canadian Forces members against large financial losses when they are forced to sell their homes in so-called "depressed markets." The Treasury Board has defined those markets as communities where real estate values drop by 20 per cent or more. Mr. Dodsworth said he battled for four years for compensation beyond an initial C$15,000 offered by the military, submitting documentation showing the Morinville housing market had collapsed by up to 30 per cent. He went through adjudication, the military grievance board, an ombudsman and appealed directly to the minister of defense. Many were sympathetic, Mr. Dodsworth said, but the Treasury Board remained unmoved. "It was a kick every time. Just turning around and getting that denial stuffed in your face," he said. "But you have to stay within the military process. That's why you wear the uniform. If you don't like something, take it up your chain of command. It's always been the way we deal with things." Earlier this month, Mr. Dodsworth's lawyer quietly filed a class action lawsuit at the Halifax office of the Federal Court of Canada. The statement of claim alleges that between July 2008 and January 2013 there were 118 applications to the Home Equity Assistance program for losses greater than C$15,000. Just two were successful in getting full compensation. Dan Wallace, a Halifax-based lawyer, said he suspects there are roughly 150 members of the Canadian Forces who may have been unfairly denied compensation by the Treasury Board. Unlike most Canadians, members of the military have little choice but to accept postings ordered by superiors, he said, and the Home Equity Assistance program is supposed to protect them financially. Defense not yet filed "This protection that was there for them and that they thought they had with them their entire career, really wasn't worth anything," Mr. Wallace said in an interview with CBC News. "That's one of the most unfair things about this -- is they're told in recruitment documents that 'Your expenses are covered, don't worry about moving, we know it can be tough on your family, but the financial aspects are covered.' "Unfortunately, that was not the case when Neil did suffer loss, through no fault of his own, simply by following orders." None of the allegations have been tested in court. The federal government has not yet filed a defence and the class action has not yet been certified. The statement of claim said the Treasury Board has denied there are any depressed markets in Canada. Mr. Dodsworth said his family not only lost all equity in the home, the sale price didn't even cover the mortgage and he was forced to take out an emergency C$21,000 bank loan. The situation created so many financial headaches that even though he was approaching retirement, Mr. Dodsworth said he volunteered in 2011 for a tour of Afghanistan so he could earn extra pay. "At the end of the tunnel you want to see that retirement," he said. "I'm still here in uniform because of this issue. I could have retired last year at age 55." Similar case Mr. Dodsworth's case is similar to that of Maj. Marcus Brauer, a soldier at CFB Halifax. He lost C$88,000 when he moved from Bon Accord, Alta., and was compensated just C$15,000 even though the real estate market in the town had sunk by 23 per cent. In his case the federal government claimed that Bon Accord, a community with its own mayor and council, should nonetheless be considered part of Edmonton where housing prices had not slumped by nearly as much. In May, a federal court judge ruled in favor of Mr. Brauer, saying the denial of compensation had been "devastating" for the soldier and his family and the Treasury Board was being "unreasonable." The judge ordered the Treasury Board to re-examine its decision and said it must consider Bon Accord a standalone community. The federal government has now paid Mr. Brauer's legal fees, but four months after the ruling he's still not seen a penny of compensation from the Treasury Board. Treasury Board president Tony Clement told the House of Commons the federal government would obey the court ruling in the Brauer case. "The review is underway, I am informed, and will be completed soon," he said. "Then, of course, government will consider the review and act accordingly." COMPUTER EXPRESS: "Jimemez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- Antonio Jimenez, on behalf of himself FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class v. Computer Express International Ltd., Icomp.Com Inc., Nathan Kraiem and Rebecca Kraiem, Case No. 1:14-cv-05657 (E.D.N.Y., September 26, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate a computer repair and reseller business under the trade names Computer Express International and iComp NY. The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, 2nd floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com CONSUMER PORTFOLIO: Faces "Sifonte" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT --------------------------------------------------------------- Frank Sifonte, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v. Consumer Portfolio Services, Inc., a Foreign For Profit Corporation, Case No. 6:14-cv-01558 (M.D. Fla., September 25, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation. Consumer Portfolio Services, Inc. is an independent specialty finance company that provides indirect automobile financing to individuals with credit problems, low incomes, or limited credit histories. The Plaintiff is represented by: Carlos V. Leach, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, PA 20 N Orange Ave-Ste 1600 PO Box 4979 Orlando, FL 32801 Telephone: (407) 420-1414 Facsimile: (407) 425-8171 E-mail: cleach@forthepeople.com CRITTENDEN HOSPITAL: Sued Over Failure to Pay Valid Health Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Rhonda Michelle Goodfellow, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated v. Eugene K. Cashman, Jr., Jamie R. Carter, Jr., David G. Baytos, David Raines, Jr, W. Brad Mccormick, Jason W. Collard, Herschel F. Owens, Andrew Luttrell, Donna B. Lanier, Carol C. McCormack, Keith M. Ingram, Randall Catt, David Ford, Thomas F. Donaldson, Jr., William Johnson, Lannie L. Lancaste & Julio P. Ruiz, Sherry L. London, Ness S. Sechrest, Randy R. Sullivan, Leven Williams, Simplifi Health Benefit Management, LLC, and Cigna Health and Life Insurance Company, Case No. 3:14-cv-00226 (E.D. Ark., September 25, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to fund the Crittenden Hospital Association Plan while simultaneously deducting premiums from CHA's employees and, consequently, failure to pay valid health claims on the Plan participants' behalves. Crittenden Hospital Association owns and operates Crittenden Regional Hospital and Crittenden Memorial Hospital, located in West Memphis as well as operated various outpatient clinics in Marion and West Memphis. The Individual Defendants are officers and directors of Crittenden Regional Hospital and Crittenden Memorial Hospital. The Corporate Defendants are insurance companies doing business within the State of Arkansas. The Plaintiff is represented by: John Timothy Edwards, Esq. BALLIN BALLIN& FISHMAN, PC Suite 1250, 200 Jefferson Ave. Memphis, TN 38103 Telephone: (901) 525-6278 Facsimile: (901) 525-6294 Email: tedwards@bbfpc.com - and - Frank L. Watson III, Esq. William F. Burns, Esq. WATSON BURNS PLLC 253 Adams Avenue Memphis, TN 38103 Telephone: (901) 529-7996 Facsimile: (901) 529-7998 Email: fivatson@watsonburns.com bburns@watsonburns.com CROWLEY PAINTING: Fails to Pay OT Hours, "Castellanos" Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Roberto Castellanos, individually and on behalf of other employees similarly situated v. Crowley Painting, Inc., and John Crowley, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-07537 (N.D. Ill., September 27, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week. Crowley Painting, Inc. is a painting and paper hanging company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Valentin Tito Narvaez, Esq. CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC 6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200 Chicago, IL 60646 Telephone: (877) 509-6422 Facsimile: (888) 270-8983 E-mail: consumerlawgroupllc@gmail.com DOMINO'S PIZZA: Franchisees Sued for Withholding Service Charge --------------------------------------------------------------- Alexander Mooney and Kevin Bartlett, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Domino's Pizza, Inc., Domino's Pizza, LLC, G.D.S. Enterprises, Inc., Geoffrey D. Schembechler, and Amy Schembechler, Case No. 1:14-cv-13723 (D. Mass., September 28, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for unlawfully taking a tip credit against the wages of the delivery drivers while withholding service charges that properly belonged to the delivery drivers. The Defendants are Domino's franchisees that operate multiple Domino's-franchised restaurants in Massachusetts. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alan D. Meyerson, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ALAN DAVID MEYERSON 9th Floor, 100 State Street Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 444-9525 Facsimile: (617) 934-7715 E-mail: alan@alandavidmeyerson.com DON PEPI: "Dorantes" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Juan Carlos Dorantes, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Don Pepi Deli, Inc., d/b/a Don Pepi's, Nicholas Fazio, and Thomas Michos, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-07813 (S.D.N.Y., September 26, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post judgment interest and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Don Pepi Deli, Inc. owns and operates a deli and pizzeria in Pennsylvania Station, New York City, New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter Hans Cooper, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER, P.L.L.C. 708 Third Avenue, 6th Flr New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 209-3933 Facsimile: (212) 209-7102 E-mail: pcooper@jcpclaw.com EL NUEVO VALLE: Faces "Castillo" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------ Fernando Castillo v. El Nuevo Valle Restaurant, Corp., and Delvy Castio, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-05666 (E.D.N.Y., September 26, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages. El Nuevo Valle Restaurant, Corp. owns and operates a restaurant located at 1846 Jerome Avenue, Bronx, NY 10453. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jodi Jill Jaffe, Esq. JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A. Lawrence Office Park, Building 2, Suite 220, 168 Franklin Corner Road Lawrenceville, NJ 08648 Telephone: (201) 687-9977 Facsimile: (201) 595-0308 E-mail: jjaffe@jaffeglenn.com ELI LILLY: Faces Suit in N.J. Over Testosterone Replacement Drug ---------------------------------------------------------------- Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that a suit filed in federal court in Newark claims Eli Lilly put users at risk by aggressively marketing testosterone replacement drug Axiron while failing to adequately warn about the risk of heart attack and stroke. Lilly markets Axiron to men by describing "symptoms" of "Low T," such as decreased sexual desire, erectile dysfunction, fatigue and loss of energy, depressed mood, decreased need to shave, decreased strength and osteoporosis, that are caused by a "non-existent and unrecognized medical condition called Low T," the suit claims. Those symptoms are often merely the result of increasing age or weight gain, the suit said. The plaintiff, Patrick Miller of Hopatcong, N.J., began taking Axiron at age 54 in September 2012, and suffered a heart attack on Oct. 3, 2012. The suit says Miller's doctor would not have prescribed Axiron if he had been warned of the increased risks of heart problems caused by using the drug. While Axiron was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for treatment of an endocrine disorder called hypogonadism, a study showed that only 6 percent of men prescribed testosterone have that condition, the suit says. Lilly engaged in an aggressive "disease awareness campaign" to alert men that they might be suffering from "Low T" but the FDA has not approved any drug for the treatment of such a condition, the suit said. Furthermore, "low testosterone is not a disease recognized by the medical community. Instead, it is a normal result of the aging process," the suit says. Lilly promoted Axiron for "off-label" uses, but a manufacturer may not introduce a drug into interstate commerce with an intent that it be used for such a purpose, according to the suit. Lilly "manufactured, sold and promoted these drugs to treat a non- existent medical condition that the company calls 'Low T,' a name created for the constellation of symptoms experienced by men as a result of the normal aging process, the suit alleges. "In essence, the defendant marketed and sold testosterone as a lifestyle drug meant to make men feel younger and increase libido," the suit says. The company "successfully created a robust and previously nonexistent market for their drugs," the suit alleges. Miller's suit brings counts for failure to warn, defective design, defective manufacturing, negligence, breach of implied warranty, breach of express warranty, fraud and negligent misrepresentation. The suit seeks compensatory and punitive damages, restitution, disgorgement of profits, injunctive relief and attorney fees. Sales of Axiron were $178 million in 2013, and Lilly spent $122 million promoting the drug that year, with 70 percent of that spent on direct-to-consumer advertising, the suit says. In January, the FDA announced it is investigating the risk of stroke, heart attack and death for men who take testosterone products. In June, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered the industry-wide consolidation of all federal litigation over testosterone replacement therapies in the Northern District of Illinois. Lilly is a defendant in the multidistrict litigation over testosterone, along with AbbVie, Abbott Laboratories, Actavis and Auxilium Pharmaceuticals, Endo Pharmaceuticals and Pfizer. Michael London of Douglas & London in New York, who filed the New Jersey suit on behalf of Miller, did not return a call. Lilly did not respond to requests for comment about the suit. EXPRESS MEE: "Yang" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Qi Bin Yang, on behalf of himself others similarly situated v. Harry Sim, Mee Noodle Shop and Express Mee Noodle, INC. d/b/a Mee Noodle Shop, Case No. 1:14-cv-07837 (S.D.N.Y., September 26, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs. The Defendants own and operate Mee Noodle Shop restaurant located at 795 9 Avenue, New York, New York 10019. The Plaintiff is represented by: David Yan, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF DAVID YAN 136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 11E Flushing, NY 11354 Telephone: (718) 888-7788 Facsimile: (718) 888-0870 E-mail: davidyanlawfirm@yahoo.com FAIR ISAAC: Faces "Springer" Suit Over TCPA Violations ------------------------------------------------------ Richard Springer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Fair Isaac Corporation, Case No. 2:14-at- 01200 (E.D. Cal., September 25, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for negligently, knowingly, and willfully contacting the Plaintiff on the cellular telephones, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Fair Isaac Corporation provides automated contact services to several companies throughout the United States including auto- resolution services such as two-way voice and alerting solutions. The Plaintiff is represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1 Costa Mesa, California 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: Ak@kazlg.com - and - Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. HYDE & SWIGART 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 233-7770 Facsimile: (619) 297-1022 E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com - and - Todd M. Friedman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 324 S. Beverly Dr., #725 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com FAIR ISAAC: Faces 2nd "Springer" Suit Over TCPA Violations ---------------------------------------------------------- Richard Springer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Fair Isaac Corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv- 02238 (E.D. Cal., September 25, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for negligently, knowingly, and willfully contacting the Plaintiff on the cellular telephones, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Fair Isaac Corporation provides automated contact services to several companies throughout the United States including auto- resolution services such as two-way voice and alerting solutions. The Plaintiff is represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1 Costa Mesa, California 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: Ak@kazlg.com - and - Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. HYDE & SWIGART 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 233-7770 Facsimile: (619) 297-1022 E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com - and - Todd M. Friedman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 324 S. Beverly Dr., #725 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com FANNIE MAE: Sued Over Breach of Fair Credit Reporting Act --------------------------------------------------------- Cheryl Whalen, on her behalf and all others similarly situated v. Federal National Mortgage Association a/k/a Fannie Mae, a federally chartered corporation, Case No. 3:14-cv-00650 (W.D. Wis., September 25, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Federal National Mortgage Association engaged in the business of providing information to and getting information from credit reporting agencies concerning consumer's credit history often in the form of a credit report. The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas J. Lyons, Jr., Esq. CONSUMER JUSTICE CENTER P.A. 367 Commerce Court Vadnais Heights, MN 55127 Telephone: 651-770-9707 E-mail: tommycjc@aol.com - and - Thomas J. Lyons, Sr., Esq. LYONS LAW FIRM, P.A. 367 Commerce Court Vadnais Heights, MN 55127 Telephone: 651-770-9707 E-mail: tlyons@lyonslawfirm.com - and - Eric L. Crandall, Esq. CRANDALL LAW OFFICES, SC 1237 Knowles Avenue North PO Box 27, New Richmond, WI 54017 Telephone: (715) 246-1010 E-mail: consumerlaw@frontiernet.net FAST WATER: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Slavkov" Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mihail Slavkov, Nikola Vlaovic and Martin Arnaudov, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated v. Fast Water Heater Partners I, LP d/b/a Fast Water Heater Company, a Delaware Limited Partnership, FWH Acquisition Company, LLC d/b/a Fast Water Heater Company, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Jeffrey David Jordan, An Individual, and Jason Sparks Hanleybrown, an Individual, Case No. 3:14-cv-04324 (N.D. Cal., September 25, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants perform installation and repair of water heaters in various states including, but not limited to, California, Oregon and Washington. The Plaintiff is represented by: John H. Douglas, Esq. DOUGLAS LAW OFFICES 580 California Street, 12th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 635-3640 Facsimile: (415) 635-3641 E-mail: jdouglas@douglaslegal.com - and - Kevin Francis Woodall, Esq. WOODALL LAW OFFICES 580 California Street, 16th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 413-4629 E-mail: kevin@kwoodalllaw.com FEDERAL RESERVE: Class Cert. Bid Denied in "Artis" Race Bias Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the putative class action CYNTHIA ARTIS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JANET L. YELLEN, Defendant, Civil Action No. 01-400 (D.D.C.), District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification and denied the plaintiffs' motion to supplement the record. The Plaintiffs brought the lawsuit on behalf of a putative class of African-American and Native-American secretaries and clerical employees currently or formerly employed by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Federal Reserve Board) who allege that they have suffered racial discrimination. A copy of the District Court's Sept. 29, 2014 Memorandum Opinion is available at http://is.gd/g7nuedfrom Leagle.com. Defendants Ben S. Bernanke, as chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System is represented by John L. Kuray, Esq. The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System is represented by Joshua P. Chadwick, Esq., as well as Kenneth M. Willner, Esq. -- kenwillner@paulhastings.com -- of Paul Hastings LLP. FERELLGAS LP: Faces Route 49 Suit Over Propane Gas Price-Fixing --------------------------------------------------------------- Route 49 Gas & Go, Inc. and Surinder Kaur, Inc., individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Amerigas Propane, L.P. a/k/a Amerigas Cylinder Exchange, Amerigas Partners, L.P., Amerigas Propane, Inc., Ferellgas, L.P. a/k/a Blue Rhino, Ferellgas Partners, L.P.; and UGI Corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv- 04265 (W.D. Mo., September 26, 2014), alleges that the Defendants entered in a conspiracy to restraint the trade of exchangeable portable steel tanks containing propane gas, commonly referred to as propane exchange tanks. The Defendants sell propane, stored in propane exchange tanks, directly to retailers across the United States, including grocery stores, convenience stores, and gas stations. The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas V. Bender, Esq. WALTERS BENDER STROHBEHN & VAUGHN, P.C. 2500 City Square, 1100 Main Kansas City, MO 64105 Telephone: (816) 274-9728 Facsimile: (816) 421-4747 Email: tbender@wbvslaw.com - and - Robert G. Eisler, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A. 123 Justison Street Wilmington, DE 19081 Telephone: (302) 622-7000 Facsimile: (302) 622-7100 Email: reisler@gelaw.com - and - Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq. Peter A. Barile III, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A. 485 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (646) 722-8500 Facsimile: (646) 722-8501 Email: lnussbaum@gelaw.com pbarile@gelaw.com - and - Michael D. Shaffer, Esq. SHAFFER & GAIER LLC 8 Penn Center, Suite 400, 1628 JFK Boulevard Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 751-0100 Email: mshaffer@shaffergaier.com FIFTH GENERATION: Falsely Marketed Vodka Products, Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Shalinus Pye and Raisha Licht individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Fifth Generation, Inc., a Texas Corporation, Mockingbird Distillery Corp., a Texas Corporation, and Bert Butler Beveridge II, an individual, Case No. 4:14-cv- 00493 (N.D. Fla., September 25, 2014), unlawful, deceptive and unfair trade practices, and false advertising and marketing of its home made vodka. Fifth Generation, Inc. and Mockingbird Distillery Corp. produce vodka sold under the brand name Tito's Handmade Vodka. The Plaintiff is represented by: Phillip Timothy Howard 2120 Killarney Way, Ste 125 Tallahassee, FL 32309 Telephone: (850) 298-4455 Facsimile: (850) 216-2537 E-mail: tim@howardjustice.com FINISAR CORPORATION: Appeal Pending on Class Action Dismissal ------------------------------------------------------------- Finisar Corporation said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 4, 2014, for the quarterly period ended July 27, 2014, that several securities class action lawsuits related to the Company's March 8, 2011 earnings announcement alleging claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 have been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of a purported class of persons who purchased stock between December 1 or 2, 2010 through March 8, 2011. The named defendants are the Company and its Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer. To date, no specific amount of damages have been alleged. The cases were consolidated, lead plaintiffs were appointed and a consolidated complaint was filed. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the case. On January 16, 2013, the District Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss and granted the lead plaintiffs leave to amend the consolidated complaint. An amended consolidated complaint was filed on February 6, 2013. Thereafter, the Company filed a renewed motion to dismiss the case. On September 30, 2013, the District Court granted the Company's motion and dismissed the case with prejudice. On October 25, 2013, the lead plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the District Court's dismissal ruling, and the appeal is pending. The Company is a provider of optical subsystems and components that are used in data communication and telecommunication applications. FORGE GROUP: Shareholder Class Action Over Collapse Expanded ------------------------------------------------------------ Peter Williams, writing for The West Australian, reports that a class action against Forge Group potentially involving thousands of shareholders has been broadened to include those who bought stock nearly two years before the engineering company's AU$800 million collapse. Litigation firm Bentham IMF has written to parties interested in joining the class action over alleged failure to meet disclosure obligations that the claim period has been revised to between March 2012 and November 2013. The change takes the case back to a time before Forge's founding executives handed over the reins to David Simpson, managing director during the company's final 18 months. When the legal move was first announced, the claim period fell between January 2013 and Forge's collapse on Feb. 11. The litigation firm said the change followed recent advice from law firm Slater & Gordon. The November 1, 2013 cut-off date means those who bought Forge stock after the company resumed trading on Nov. 28 after a near four-week suspension are no longer eligible. The amendment is understood to strengthen the prospects of success for eligible Forge shareholders, who were told by liquidators in March to expect a zero return on their investment. The new March 7, 2012 start date for the legal action is when Forge published an investor presentation on the acquisition of power station builder CTEC. CTEC, later known as Forge Group Power, became instrumental in the parent company's collapse because of massive budget blowouts on two projects. Forge bought CTEC in January 2012. The presentation two months later said CTEC was a contractor which lowered risk where possible by sub-contracting work and procuring items guaranteed by renowned international supplier such as Siemens and GE. "In acquiring the shares in CTEC and being able to subcontract some or all of the engineering and construction services we believe we have structured the transaction to better mitigate financial risk for the Forge Group," the document said. Blowouts which ultimately topped AU$150 million on the Diamantina and West Angelas power station projects led Forge to suspend trading on Nov. 4 when the share price was AU$4.18. Shareholders have been given until October 24 to join the class action. The litigators are targeting Forge's liability insurance for directors and company officers for a possible payout. GENERAL MOTORS: Ignition Switch Suits First Trial Likely in 2015 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that General Motors Co. could face its first trial next year over injuries or deaths blamed on an ignition-switch defect that prompted recalls of 2.6 million cars and trucks worldwide. In letters filed on Sept. 29, lead plaintiffs attorneys put forth the first proposed bellwether trial plan in preparation for a hearing on Sept. 25 before U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman in the Southern District of New York. The hearing would focus on discovery in more than 115 cases against GM. In the letters, the plaintiffs attorneys suggested that discovery begin in a pool of injury or death complaints, possibly 15, from which both sides would select bellwether cases. GM's attorneys have resisted the plan. Robert Hilliard, a partner at Hilliard Munoz Gonzales in Corpus Christi, Texas, who is lead counsel in the injury and death cases, in an interview expressed optimism that a jury could be selected by November 2015. "I'm going to just be sure the court understands we believe there is no impediment to doing that, and we can proceed on a fair and aggressive pace and get it done," he said. "The value of a bellwether case is to determine the value of the entire [multidistrict litigation] docket." GM spokesman James Cain did not respond to a request for comment. GM has acknowledged that 13 people died because of the defect, and that there could be more. On Sept. 29, attorney Kenneth Feinberg, administering GM's victim-compensation fund, increased the number of death claims eligible for payment to 23. In court, plaintiffs lawyers are pushing for discovery relating to additional recalls over other ignition issues. "We're hearing reports that may not be accurate that people are still having stalls or issues with ignition switches after they've had the so-called repair, and so we want to find out if that's happening," said Steve Berman of Seattle's Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, co-lead counsel for economic class actions against GM. "We also want to find out why it's taking so long." GM has opposed that demand, citing in part the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's oversight of automotive recalls. Mr. Berman has said the consolidated class complaint, which is due by Oct. 14, would address dozens of additional defects for which GM has recalled nearly 30 million cars and trucks worldwide this year. In an interview, he said there actually would be two complaints under the laws of all 50 states -- one involving vehicles that consumers purchased before GM's Chapter 11 reorganization, which are subject to a motion GM has brought in U.S. bankruptcy court, and one for those bought afterward. "We can argue there's not a single claim that involves an old GM vehicle in here that was sold while old GM was in existence," Mr. Berman said of the latter case. In court, Judge Furman has approved a "reasonable, but aggressive schedule" of limited discovery of documents in cases that fall outside of GM's motion. But he held off allowing depositions to go forward. Judge Furman also rejected GM's attempt to halt depositions of up to 15 people, including a former senior attorney, in a case in Georgia's state court. GULF COAST COLLECTION: 11th Cir. Reversed Ruling on "Mais" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action MARK S. MAIS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GULF COAST COLLECTION BUREAU, INC., Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 13-14008, the Plaintiff filed a claim in federal district court against a hospital-based radiology provider and its debt collection agent for making autodialed or prerecorded calls in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA). The Defendant argued that the calls fell within a statutory exception for "prior express consent," as interpreted in a 2008 declaratory ruling from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The district court granted Mais partial summary judgment against Gulf Coast for alternative reasons: the FCC's interpretation was inconsistent with the language of the TCPA and, regardless, the 2008 FCC Ruling did not apply on the facts of the case. Accordingly, in a Sept. 29, 2014 order available at http://is.gd/o5VhNqfrom Leagle.com, the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court's grant of partial summary judgment to Mr. Mais and remanded with instructions to enter final summary judgment for Gulf Coast. H&R BLOCK: Court Stays RAL and RAC Litigation Pending Arbitration ----------------------------------------------------------------- A multi-district litigation court granted H&R Block, Inc.'s motion to compel arbitration of the claims of the named plaintiffs in the RAL and RAC Litigation and stayed the cases pending arbitration, the Company said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 4, 2014, for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2014. The Company said, "A series of putative class action lawsuits were filed against us in various federal courts beginning on November 17, 2011 concerning the refund anticipation loan (RAL) and refund anticipation check (RAC) products. The plaintiffs generally allege we engaged in unfair, deceptive or fraudulent acts in violation of various state consumer protection laws by facilitating RALs that were accompanied by allegedly inaccurate TILA disclosures, and by offering RACs without any TILA disclosures. Certain plaintiffs also allege violation of disclosure requirements of various state statutes expressly governing RALs and provisions of those statutes prohibiting tax preparers from charging or retaining certain fees. Collectively, the plaintiffs seek to represent clients who purchased RAL or RAC products in up to forty-two states and the District of Columbia during timeframes ranging from 2007 to the present. The plaintiffs seek equitable relief, disgorgement of profits, compensatory and statutory damages, restitution, civil penalties, attorneys' fees and costs." "These cases were consolidated by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation into a single proceeding in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois for coordinated pretrial proceedings, styled IN RE: H&R Block Refund Anticipation Loan Litigation (MDL No. 2373/No: 1:12-CV-02973-JBG). "On July 23, 2014, the MDL court granted our motion to compel arbitration of the claims of the named plaintiffs and stayed the cases pending arbitration. We have not concluded that a loss related to this matter is probable, nor have we accrued a loss contingency related to this matter." H&R Block's subsidiaries provide tax preparation, retail banking services and other services. H&R BLOCK: Missouri Appeals Court Remanded "Lopez" Case ------------------------------------------------------- The Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, reversed the ruling of the trial court and remanded the "Lopez" case, H&R Block, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 4, 2014, for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2014. The Company said, "On April 16, 2012, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against us in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri styled Manuel H. Lopez III v. H&R Block, Inc., et al. (Case # 1216CV12290) concerning a compliance fee charged to retail tax clients in the 2011 and 2012 tax seasons. The plaintiff seeks to represent all Missouri citizens who were charged the compliance fee, and asserts claims of violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, money had and received, and unjust enrichment. We filed a motion to compel arbitration of the 2011 claims. The court denied the motion. We filed an appeal. On May 6, 2014, the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, reversed the ruling of the trial court and remanded the case for further consideration of the motion. We have not concluded that a loss related to this matter is probable, nor have we accrued a loss contingency related to this matter." H&R Block's subsidiaries provide tax preparation, retail banking services and other services. H&R BLOCK: Appeal in "Perras" Case Remains Pending -------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff in the "Perras" case filed an appeal of the denial of class certification to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, which remains pending, H&R Block, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 4, 2014, for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2014. The Company said, "On April 19, 2012, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against us in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri styled Ronald Perras v. H&R Block, Inc., et al. (Case No. 4:12-cv-00450-DGK) concerning a compliance fee charged to retail tax clients in the 2011 and 2012 tax seasons. The plaintiff seeks to represent all persons nationwide (excluding citizens of Missouri) who were charged the compliance fee, and asserts claims of violation of various state consumer laws, money had and received, and unjust enrichment. In November 2013, the court compelled arbitration of the 2011 claims and stayed all proceedings with respect to those claims. On June 20, 2014, the court denied class certification of the remaining 2012 claims. Plaintiff filed an appeal of the denial of class certification to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, which remains pending. We have not concluded that a loss related to this matter is probable, nor have we accrued a loss contingency related to this matter." H&R Block's subsidiaries provide tax preparation, retail banking services and other services. H&R BLOCK: Court Granted Arbitration Bid in Form 8863 Litigation ---------------------------------------------------------------- A multi-district litigation court granted the motion to compel arbitration for those named plaintiffs who agreed to arbitrate and denied the motion to strike as premature prior to the filing of a consolidated complaint in the Form 8863 Litigation, H&R Block, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 4, 2014, for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2014. The Company said, "A series of putative class action lawsuits were filed against us in various federal courts and one state court beginning on March 13, 2013. Taken together, the plaintiffs in these lawsuits purport to represent certain clients nationwide who filed Form 8863 during tax season 2013 through an H&R Block office or using H&R Block At Home(R) online tax services or tax preparation software, and allege breach of contract, negligence and violation of state consumer laws in connection with transmission of the form. The plaintiffs seek damages, pre- judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs. In August 2013, the plaintiff in the state court action voluntarily dismissed her case without prejudice. On October 10, 2013, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation granted our petition to consolidate the remaining federal lawsuits for coordinated pretrial proceedings in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri in a proceeding styled IN RE: H&R BLOCK IRS FORM 8863 LITIGATION (MDL No. 2474/Case No. 4:13-MD-02474-FJG)." "We filed a motion to compel arbitration and to strike class allegations relating to clients who agreed to arbitrate their claims. On July 11, 2014, the MDL court granted the motion to compel arbitration for those named plaintiffs who agreed to arbitrate and denied the motion to strike as premature prior to the filing of a consolidated complaint. We have not concluded that a loss related to this matter is probable, nor have we accrued a liability related to this matter." H&R Block's subsidiaries provide tax preparation, retail banking services and other services. H&R BLOCK: Awaits Final Order in McGladrey Class Action Deal ------------------------------------------------------------ A final approval hearing of a class action settlement occurred on June 26, 2014, and the parties are awaiting entry of a final order and judgment, H&R Block, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 4, 2014, for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2014. On April 17, 2009, a shareholder derivative complaint was filed by Brian Menezes, derivatively and on behalf of nominal defendant International Textile Group, Inc. against McGladrey Capital Markets LLC (MCM) and others in the Court of Common Pleas, Greenville County, South Carolina (C.A. No. 2009-CP-23-3346) styled Brian P. Menezes, Derivatively on Behalf of Nominal Defendant, International Textile Group, Inc. (f/k/a Safety Components International, Inc.) v. McGladrey Capital Markets, LLC (f/k/a RSM EquiCo Capital Markets, LLC), et al. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in October 2011 styled In re International Textile Group Merger Litigation, adding a putative class action claim. The plaintiffs allege claims of aiding and abetting, civil conspiracy, gross negligence and breach of fiduciary duty against MCM in connection with a fairness opinion MCM provided to the Special Committee of Safety Components International, Inc. (SCI) in 2006 regarding the merger between International Textile Group, Inc. and SCI. The plaintiffs seek actual and punitive damages, pre-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs. On February 8, 2012, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' civil conspiracy claim against all defendants. A class was certified on the remaining claims on November 20, 2012. The court granted summary judgment in favor of MCM on June 3, 2013 on the breach of fiduciary duty claim. To avoid the cost and inherent risk associated with litigation, the parties signed a memorandum of understanding to resolve the case, which is subject to approval by the court. The court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on February 19, 2014. A final approval hearing occurred on June 26, 2014; the parties are awaiting entry of a final order and judgment. "A portion of our loss contingency accrual is related to this lawsuit for the amount of loss that we consider probable and reasonably estimable," the Company said. H&R Block's subsidiaries provide tax preparation, retail banking services and other services. HASBRO INC: Denial of "O'Brien" Class Certification Upheld ---------------------------------------------------------- In re O'BRIEN, Plaintiff and Appellant v. HASBRO, INC., Defendant and Respondent, Case No. B247434, sought to represent a class of purchasers of a particular Tinkertoy construction set (the Set) manufactured by Hasbro. Christine O'Brien alleged that the Set's packaging falsely indicated that the Set contained certain items (a particular connector piece and a "design guide"), and she sought to hold Hasbro liable for unfair competition and false advertising. The superior court denied her motion for class certification, and Ms. O'Brien timely appealed. The Court of Appeals of California for the Second District affirmed the lower court's denial order in a Sept. 20, 2014 ruling available at http://is.gd/Kt7nIzfrom Leagle.com. Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton's Emil W. Herich, Esq. -- EHerich@kilpatricktownsend.com -- and Dennis L. Wilson, Esq. -- DWilson@kilpatricktownsend.com -- serve as counsel to Hasbro Inc. IMO INDUSTRIES: Insurance Firms Must Pay $1.85MM Asbestos Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mary Pat Gallagher, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that long-running litigation between a company that sued more than 50 of its insurance carriers over $1.85 billion in coverage for asbestos claims culminated Sept. 30 in a precedential decision by a New Jersey appeals court. At issue in IMO Industries v. Transamerica was not only the amount of coverage available to plaintiff IMO Industries Corp., but also how that coverage was to be allocated between its primary and excess carriers. Calling it a matter of first impression, the court addressed how long primary policies that provide for the payment of defense costs outside the policy limits must keep paying those costs before the policies are deemed exhausted. It upheld a lower court decision that the primary had kept paying beyond when it should have stopped and should thus be reimbursed. But insureds got good news, too: The court ruled that they need not prove each and every claim on which they seek coverage under an excess policy. It was already established under New Jersey law that insureds need not do so regarding primary coverage, a principle that has now been extended to excess insurance. The panel also found that where underlying asbestos claims are dismissed, carriers are still on the hook for the cost of defending them. IMO Industries, based in Lawrenceville, N.J., originated in 1901 as Delaval Steam Turbine Co., which manufactured turbines, pumps, gears and other machinery for industrial and military use, according to the opinion. Some products made from the 1940s to the 1980s contained asbestos, and the company was hit with tens of thousands of personal injury claims as a result. IMO had a combined $1.85 billion in coverage from the insurers it sued, a sum the appeals court said was sufficient to pay for its anticipated liabilities and defense costs. By the time IMO sued its primary carriers in 2003, they had paid out tens of millions of dollars, according to the opinion. IMO added the excess carriers later as asbestos claims continued to mount. Originally filed in Mercer County Superior Court, the suit was moved to Morris County, N.J., where it was handled by two retired judges on recall, first by Judge Robert Muir Jr. and then by Judge Donald Coburn. Primary carriers New Jersey Manufacturers and Aetna settled prelitigation, leaving TIG Insurance Co. as the sole primary in the case. Many excess insurers also settled, leaving fewer than 20 by the time of the appeal, including ACE Property & Casualty Insurance Co., Century Indemnity Co., Pacific Employers Insurance Co. and several Lloyd's of London syndicates. The exhaustion issue arose because IMO was settling many cases for small amounts. As a result, it would take years to reach the primary policy limits, during which time the insurer's obligation to pay defense costs would continue, the opinion said. Judge Muir rejected what he referred to as IMO's "limitless defense costs" or "running spigot" theory. Based on Judge Muir's ruling, Mr. Coburn determined that TIG had no further obligation under certain primary policies and had in fact overpaid by $15.2 million. Mr. Coburn entered a judgment in that amount plus $1.4 million in interest, of which the excess carriers were required to pay $8.5 million and IMO the rest. IMO challenged that ruling on appeal, joined by some of the excess carriers and an amicus, the Independent Energy Producers of New Jersey. They argued that many insureds bargain for limitless coverage of defense costs and that courts have uniformly recognized the enforceability of policies that pay litigation or defense costs far beyond the indemnification limits. In affirming, the appeals court said TIG made the payments in good faith against the backdrop of changes in the law regarding allocation among insurers: the New Jersey Supreme Court decisions in Owens-Illinois v. United Insurance from 1994 and Carter-Wallace v. Admiral Insurance from 1998. If the court were to decrease the liability of IMO and the excess carriers at TIG's expense, it would distort the relative share of liability assumed under the policies, the appeals court said. In addition, IMO's running-spigot theory would result in double recovery of defense costs already borne by its primary carriers. The court noted that its decision was closely tied to the facts of the case. "We reach no general conclusion that an insurer's obligations to cover defense costs and other litigation expenses through an 'outside the limits' policy is limited by the maximum amount of indemnification coverage provided in that policy," wrote Judge Victor Ashrafi, joined by Judges Joseph Yannotti and Jerome St. John. The appeals court agreed with Muir that IMO did not have to prove or relitigate each underlying asbestos claim in order to be paid under the excess policies. IMO had put the excess carriers on notice of the asbestos claims against it, and Owens-Illinois made it clear the carriers needed to participate in defending those claims in order to preserve the right to challenge the coverage determinations, the judges reasoned. The excess carriers also lost on their attempt to get out from under paying defense costs on asbestos claims that were dismissed or on which IMO had otherwise prevailed on the ground that those claims were not covered within the meaning of the policies. "The excess insurers' obligation to cover IMO's ultimate net losses, which include defense costs, was triggered when IMO manufactured and sold asbestos-containing products and claimants became injured by those products," wrote Judge Ashrafi. He pointed out that it would be impractical to have to separate out the defense cost for each individual claim, and that it would contravene the objectives -- reducing litigation costs and judicial inefficiencies -- of the pro rata methodology required by Owens-Illinois. The appeals court further ruled that the coverage limits set forth in multiyear policies applied separately to each year of the policy rather than to the entire term. Thus, for example, a three-year TIG policy with a $2.5 million aggregate limit for bodily injury liability provided $7.5 million in coverage. The panel also affirmed Judge Muir's denial of IMO's request for a jury trial on its bad-faith claims. It found no right to a jury trial because of "the predominance of equitable issues combined with the complexity of the subject matter." TIG lawyer Shawn Kelly -- skelly@riker.com -- of Riker Danzig Scherer Hyland & Perretti in Morristown, N.J., called the opinion significant regarding the jury issue and the question of how you exhaust policies and referred to it as "the next step" after Owens-Illinois and Carter-Wallace in how courts are going to decide allocation issues. IMO's attorney, Robin Cohen -- rcohen@kasowitz.com -- of Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman in New York, declined comment. Other attorneys in the case who were contacted about the decision declined comment or did not return calls. INDIA: Prime Minister Modi Sued in NY Over Human Rights Violation ----------------------------------------------------------------- "American Justice Center" (AJC), Inc., Asif; "Jane Doe" a female individual and "John Does" for themselves and their injured and deceased relatives, left presently unnamed v. Narendra Modi, a national and citizen of India Prime Minister of India and Former Chief Minister of the State of Gujarat, Case No. 1:14-cv-07780 (S.D.N.Y., September 25, 2014) is brought against the Defendant for violations of customary international law and treaty law prohibiting the commission of human rights violations and war crimes in connection with the 2002 Gujarat Massacre of Muslims that attacks, injuries, and brutal deaths of thousands of minority Muslim men, women, and children in the state of Gujarat. American Justice Center is a non-profit organization registered with the State of New York with the objective of seeking justice for human rights violations committed against the religious minorities of India by pursing legal actions against perpetrators found or present in the United States and by running advocacy and public awareness campaign. Narendra Modi served as the Chief Minister of the state of Gujarat from 2001 to 2014. The Plaintiff is represented by: Babak Pourtavoosi, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF BABAK POURTAVOOSI, P.C. 320 E Shore Road Great Neck, NY 11023 Telephone: (917) 597-4766 Facsimile: (718) 732-4514 E-mail: bpesq2@yahoo.com INDIAN CREEK: Faces "Piner" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- Larry Piner on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Indian Creek Logistics, Inc., Bridget Wardlaw, individually, and Mack Wardlaw, individually, Case No. 5:14-cv-00847 (W.D. Tex., September 25, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation. Indian Creek Logistics, Inc. transports freight throughout the State of Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Beatriz A. Sosa-Morris, Esq. Galvin B. Kennedy, Esq. KENNEDY HODGES LLP 711 West Alabama Street, Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 523-0001 Facsimile: (713) 523-1116 E-mail: bsosamorris@kennedyhodges.com gkennedy@kennedyhodges.com J.CREW GROUP: Oct 15 Final Hearing on Class Action Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- A hearing for final approval of a class action settlement agreement has been scheduled for October 15, 2014, J.Crew Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 4, 2014, for the quarterly period ended August 2, 2014. On June 20, 2013, a purported class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts by an individual claiming that the Company collected her ZIP code unlawfully in connection with a retail purchase she made at a Massachusetts store. That action, captioned Miller v. J.Crew Group, Inc., 13-cv-11487 (the "Miller Action"), purports to be brought on behalf of a class of customers whose ZIP codes were collected and recorded at Company stores in Massachusetts in connection with credit card purchases, and claims that the Company used the collected ZIP code data to obtain customers' addresses for purposes of mailing them unwanted advertising material. The Miller Action seeks money damages pursuant to a claim under Chapter 93A of the General Laws of Massachusetts and a claim for unjust enrichment. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the unjust enrichment claim, and on April 22, 2014, the Court denied that motion without prejudice to the Company's ability to re-file it later in the litigation. On May 15, 2014, the Company answered the plaintiff's complaint. On June 1, 2014, the parties to the Miller Action entered into a settlement agreement and release (the "Settlement Agreement"). The Court granted preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement on June 27, 2014. Notice of the settlement was sent to class members on July 25, 2014. A hearing for final approval of the Settlement Agreement has been scheduled for October 15, 2014. The Company does not believe the resolution of the Miller Action will have a significant impact on the Company's consolidated financial statements. J.Crew is an internationally recognized multi-brand apparel and accessories retailer that differentiates itself through high standards of quality, style, design and fabrics. KARPATHOES INC: "Ports" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- Keith D. Ports, Mara A. Rouse, Lauren Losiewski, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. Karpathoes, Inc., George Sakellis, and Roula Rigopoula Sakellis, Case No. 1:14-cv- 03044 (D. Md., September 26, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid wages, damages, and relief provided by the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate Fratelli's Italian Restaurant in Hampstead, Maryland. The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradford W. Warbasse, Esq. BRADFORD WARBASSE ATTORNEY AT LAW 401 Washington Avenue, Suite 200 Towson, MD 21204 Telephone: (410) 337-5411 Facsimile: (410) 938-8668 E-mail: warbasselaw@gmail.com - and - Howard Benjamin Hoffman, Esq. HOWARD B HOFFMAN ATTORNEY AT LAW 600 Jefferson Plz Ste 304 Rockville, MD 20852 Telephone: (301) 251-3752 Facsimile: (301) 251-3753 E-mail: HHoffman@hoholaw.com LA BELLA MARKETPLACE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Razzano, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated who were employed by La Bella Marketplace, Bella Mia Foods Inc., and Paul Pesce, Leonard Pesce, and Frank Pesce, individually v. La Bella Marketplace, Bella Mia Foods Inc., and Paul Pesce, Leonard Pesce, Frank Pesce, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-05639 (E.D.N.Y., September 25, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week. La Bella Marketplace owns and operates a supermarket at 99 Ellis Street, Staten Island, New York, 10307. Bella Mia Foods Inc. is engaged in food distribution business. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Lee Genova, Esq. VIRGINIA & AMBINDER LLP 40 Broad Street, 7th floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 943-9080 Facsimile: (212) 943-9082 E-mail: agenova@vandallp.com LA DULCE: Faces "Peralta" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Omar Peralta, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated v. La Dulce Bakery Inc., and Edwin Flores, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-07535 (N.D. Ill., September 27, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week. La Dulce Bakery Inc. owns and operates a bakery 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 LEIDOS INC: Faces "Fernandez" Suit in E.D. Cal. Over Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------------------- Martin Fernandez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Leidos, Inc. and Science Applications International, Inc., Case No. 2:14-at-01208 (E.D. Cal., September 26, 2014),is brought against the Defendants for failure to properly safeguard and protect customers' personally identifiable information and medical records and private health information, and publicly disclosing them without authorization. The Defendants are American defense companies that provide scientific, engineering, systems integration, and technical services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy G. Blood, Esq. Thomas J. O'Reardon II, Esq. BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP 701 B Street, Suite 1700 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 338-1100 Facsimile: (619) 338-1101 E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com toreardon@bholaw.com - and - Richard L. Coffman, Esq. THE COFFMAN LAW FIRM RICHARD L. COFFMAN First City Building, 505 Orleans St., Suite 505 Beaumont, TX 77701 Telephone: (409) 833-7700 Facsimile: (866) 835-8250 E-mail: rcoffman@coffmanlawfirm.com LLOYD'S LONDON: Faces "Cooper" Suit Over Settlement Agreement ------------------------------------------------------------- Ruth Ann Wunderman Cooper, and Marc Sobel, as assignees, and on behalf of the Members Of The Class Of Investor/Member Investors of QHL Holdings Fund Ten, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, and Golden State TD investments, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London Subscribing to Syndicate Nos. 623 and 2623 Under Contract No. W15HUJ07PNDM; and Beazley USA Services, Inc., a Connecticut corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-07475 (W.D. Cal., September 24, 2014), is brought for a determination as to the Plaintiffs and the Defendants rights and obligations as to the Excess Policy as it pertains to the Settlement Agreement reached between the Plaintiffs and the Insureds for the claims presented against the Insureds as set forth in Plaintiff's Revised Fourth Amended Class Action Complaint, ECF Docket No. 465, filed in Adversary Case 1:08-ap-01026-GM (Bankruptcy Court, Central District of California-San Fernando Valley Division). Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London Subscribing are authorized to issue certificates of insurance coverage pursuant to the laws of the United Kingdom. The Plaintiff is represented by: Larry W. Gabriel, Esq. Joesph G. Balice, Esq. EZRA BRUTZKUS GUBNER, LLP 21650 Oxnard Street, Suite 500 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (818) 827-9000 Facsimile: (818) 827-9099 Email: lgabriel@ebg-law.com MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Limited Discovery in Voss Litigation -------------------------------------------------------- The Court has permitted only limited discovery in the Voss Litigation and Consolidated Cases, Marvell Technology Group Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 4, 2014, for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2014. On April 7, 2014, Lee Voss ("Voss") filed an action asserting putative class action claims on behalf of the Company's shareholders and derivative claims ostensibly on behalf of the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division. The complaint alleges that certain officers and directors of the Company breached their fiduciary duties by causing or allowing the Company to engage in the purported willful infringement of certain patents asserted against it in litigation by CMU and by failing to institute adequate internal controls, resulting in an adverse verdict. Additionally, the complaint alleges unjust enrichment and a breach of the duty of honest services by three of the officers. The Company is named as a nominal defendant. Voss requests damages and restitution in unspecified amounts, equitable and/or injunctive relief, and the costs and fees of bringing the action. On June 2, 2014, Sebastiano D'Arrigo filed a second, nearly identical complaint in the same court, which was consolidated with the Voss action. On June 13, 2014, James and Marie DiBiase filed a third, nearly identical complaint in the Superior Court for the County of Santa Clara Superior Court, which was removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division and consolidated with the Voss action. The plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint on August 15, 2014. The action is in the preliminary stages and the Court has permitted only limited discovery. Marvell Technology Group Ltd., a Bermuda company (the "Company"), is a global semiconductor provider of high-performance application-specific standard products. MENDOTA INSURANCE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Pro Rata Share ---------------------------------------------------------- Denise Soliz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Mendota Insurance Company, Case No. 8:14-cv-01555 (C.D. Cal., September 25, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay pro rata share of litigation costs and fees as it pertains to medical payment coverage reimbursements as to indicate a general business practice. Mendota Insurance Company is an insurance provider and one of the premier providers of specialty insurance in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Mohammad Kazerouni, Esq. Gouya Ranekouhi, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com mike@kazlg.com gouya@kazlg.com - and - Robert Hyde, Esq. Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. HYDE & SWIGART 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 233-7770 Facsimile: (619) 297-1022 E-mail: bob@westcoastlitigation.com josh@westcoastlitigation.com MODEL SERVICE: Faces "Agerbrink" Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- Eva Agerbrink, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Model Service LLC d/b/a MSA Models and Susan Levine, Case No. 1:14-cv-07841 (S.D.N.Y., September 26, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum and overtime wages. The Defendants own and operate a modeling agency in New York City. The Plaintiff is represented by: Cyrus E. Dugger, Esq. OUTTEN GOLDEN 3 Park Ave. New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 245-2109 Facsimile: (646) 509-2094 E-mail: cdugger@outtengolden.com NAVISTAR CANADA: Harrison Pensa Files MaxxForce Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Harrison Pensa LLP on Sept. 29 disclosed that on September 8, 2014, the law firm commenced an action under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 against Navistar Canada Inc., Navistar Inc., and Navistar International Corporation ("Navistar"). The class action is on behalf of all persons and companies in Canada who purchased or leased Navistar International brand vehicles model years 2008 through 2013, which have been outfitted with MaxxForce EGR Engines. Navistar International brand vehicles include long haul tractor trailers, regional haul trucks and heavy and severe duty trucks designed for a variety of commercial applications. The action alleges that the emissions control system embedded into the MaxxForce EGR Engine is defective. It is alleged that the MaxxForce EGR Engine generates more heat within the engine than it can withstand, and the excess heat and pressure generated leads to broken valves and exhaust leaks that melt and destroy certain engine components. As a result, the engine's computer systems are routinely forced to shut the engine down. The alleged defect leads to sudden and frequent breakdowns which cause owners to incur expenses and to lose productive time while the vehicles are undergoing repairs. The defective engine can also cause coolant and exhaust fumes to enter the passenger compartment of the Navistar trucks, causing a risk of poisoning to the driver and other occupants of the vehicle. "These are expensive and heavy duty vehicles. Class members have a right to expect that they will perform as required -- for the good of their businesses which rely on them. Harrison Pensa is committed to creating results through this litigation for the owners of these vehicles. We encourage any person or company who owns or leases these vehicles to contact our office to share their experiences with us", said Jonathan Foreman of Harrison Pensa LLP. The action seeks to recover the losses and damages that class members have suffered as a result of the defective MaxxForce EGR Engines. If you purchased or leased a Navistar International brand vehicle with the MaxxForce EGR engine, model years 2008 through 2013, please contact Jonathan Foreman at jforeman@harrisonpensa.com Harrison Pensa LLP, based in London Ontario, is one of Canada's foremost class action law firms and has expertise in a full range of class action matters. NEW PENN FINANCIAL: Sued in Cal. Over Unlawful Business Practices ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tejwant S. Bal, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. New Penn Financial, LLC d/b/a Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing, Case No. 8:14-cv-01558 (C.D. Cal., September 25, 2014), for breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, equitable estoppels, including breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and for unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices in violation of California Business & Professions Code. New Penn Financial, LLC is a diversified mortgage servicing company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Vincent A. Gorski, Esq. THE GORSKI FIRM, APC 1430 Truxtun Avenue Fifth Floor Bakersfield, CA 93301-5246 Telephone: (661) 952-9740 Facsimile: (661) 952-9741 E-mail: vgorski@TheGorskiFirm.com NEW ZEALAND: Kiwifruit Growers File Class Suit Over Psa Outbreak ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bay of Plenty Times reports that Kiwifruit growers on Sept. 29 launched a class action against the Government following the wake of 2010's Psa outbreak. Foundation claimants representing more than 10 per cent of the kiwifruit industry announced this afternoon they would file "The Kiwifruit Claim" at the High Court in Wellington to hold Biosecurity NZ accountable for the devastation that followed Psa's arrival in Te Puke. The claim seeks compensation for the effects of the disease that cost the country at least $885 million and climbing, according to an independent report commissioned by the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI). The foundation growers are represented by a committee consisting of prominent Te Puke grower Bob Burt, dairy farmer and kiwifruit and avocado grower John Cameron (chairman), Aongatete managing director Allan Dawson and Te Puke accountant Murray Gibson. The claim's legal team includes Alan Galbraith QC, Matthew Dunning QC and Parker & Associates. All kiwifruit growers and post-harvest operators have been invited to join the class action, which is supported by litigation funders, LPF Group Ltd. A website with more information has been launched at www.thekiwifruitclaim.org and advertising in newspapers was set to begin on Sept. 30. A first round of grower meetings will begin this week. Growers and post-harvest operators have until 5:00 p.m. Friday, Oct. 24, to sign up to the claim. "All New Zealanders have an interest in the success of The Kiwifruit Claim because everyone has an interest in government officials being found to owe a duty of care when carrying out their official roles," The Kiwifruit Claim chairman John Cameron said on Sept. 29. "In particular, all New Zealanders have an interest in government officials properly protecting our borders from pests and diseases that could devastate not just our agriculture and horticulture industries, but the native flora and fauna that we all cherish. "There is no doubt in our minds that Biosecurity NZ was negligent in how it was protecting New Zealand from Psa and other risks from as far back as 2004. "Negligence by Biosecurity NZ is a key finding of an independent report into the outbreak by international consultants Sapere, commissioned by the Ministry of Primary Industries (MPI)." Mr. Cameron said the growers initiating The Kiwifruit Claim were grateful to the current government for addressing many of the issues identified by Sapere in its report when establishing the new integrated Ministry for Primary Industries, which includes the old Biosecurity NZ. He said the growers had earlier notified the caretaker Minister of Primary Industries, the caretaker Attorney-General, local MPs, the Solicitor-General, Zespri, New Zealand Kiwifruit Growers Incorporated (KGI) and Kiwifruit Vine Health (KVH) of their claim. "We hope to work constructively with the Attorney-General and Solicitor-General to find a way to manage the matter in a timely and non-confrontational way," Mr. Cameron said. NUTELLA: 3rd Cir. Upholds Settlement Order in Deceptive Mktg Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In IN RE NUTELLA MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION, Case Nos. 12-3456, 12-3457 AND 12-4629, Appellants Janis Johnson, Agatha Bochenek, Brandon Goodman, and Edward Hagele appealed the District Court's approval of a class action settlement and related attorneys' fees award regarding allegedly deceptive marketing of Nutella chocolate-hazelnut spread. Ms. Johnson also disputes the propriety of the appeal bond imposed by the District Court. In a Sept. 29, 2014 Opinion available at http://is.gd/6XDPRkfrom Leagle.com, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's ruling. JANIS JOHNSON is Appellant in Case Nos. 12-3456 and 12-4629; while BRANDON GOODMAN and EDWARD HAGELE are Appellants in Case No. 12- 3457. NVIDIA CORP: 9th Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Shareholder Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Wilson, Esq., in an article for FindLaw, reports that the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a suit filed by NVIDIA shareholders over the company's computer chips. NVIDIA Corporation makes a bunch of computer chips, including graphics processing units (GPUs) for all your sweet gaming machines. In 2006, NVIDIA began experiencing problems with some of its chips. NVIDIA initially wasn't sure what the problem was, and issued software updates to run the fans of its graphics cards faster to cool down the cards. But that didn't work. Finally, HP concluded that the problem was the chips themselves. NVIDIA determined that the problem lay in the composition of a new kind of solder used on its chips. In 2008, NVIDIA told its manufacturers to go back to the old solder. However, in 2008, NVIDIA, as a publicly traded company, filed several forms with the SEC. Included in these forms were statements acknowledging the solder problem, and that it was unable to estimate the total cost of the problem to the company at the time it filed the documents. Two months after making these statements, NVIDIA filed another disclosure in which it estimated the cost of repair and replacement to be $150-200 million. The stock market didn't like this news one bit, and NVIDIA's share price declined by 31%. As a result, the plaintiffs in this case, representing all NVIDIA shareholders, filed a lawsuit claiming that NVIDIA knew about the defects and failed to disclose its knowledge, meaning it made materially misleading statements to the SEC. Yes, we're in Securities Exchange Act Sec. 10(b) territory. The district court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims because they didn't adequately allege scienter, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed. Scienter in securities lawsuits requires the defendant had to have "a mental state embracing intent to deceive, manipulate, or defraud." But in the Ninth Circuit, recklessness qualifies, too. Plaintiffs' claims rested partially on an SEC regulation requiring disclosure of anything the company knows might negatively impact sales revenues. It's true that the regulation is there, but the Ninth Circuit said failing to make this disclosure, by itself, isn't evidence that NVIDIA acted with the requisite mental state because the regulation involves future predictions, which can't themselves be material or misleading because they don't exist yet. Because plaintiffs are alleging fraud, they're in Twombly country, and the district court found that NVIDIA's discrete actions didn't create scienter. Plaintiffs tried to suggest that adding up all the little actions could amount to scienter -- but the Ninth Circuit didn't like that, either. Not because it can't be done, but because, looking at the allegations as a whole, NVIDIA didn't do anything wrong: "once it determined that its liability would exceed its normal reserves, NVIDIA disclosed the problem to investors. Any inference of scienter requires more than this." Plaintiffs also couldn't muster a narrative in which NVIDIA intentionally withheld information from shareholders. In fact, for most of the time the problem occurred, NVIDIA wasn't sure what was going on, and plaintiffs didn't present sufficient information to suggest that NVIDIA was hiding the true cause of the problem from investors. A set of disgruntled investors lost money due to a manufacturing problem and then tried to invent a fraud where none apparently existed. OIL STATES ENERGY: "Frost" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bradley Frost, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Oil States Energy Services, L.L.C., Case No. 1:14-cv-02663 (D. Colo., September 26, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Oil States Energy Services, L.L.C. is an oilfield services company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard Jennings Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com PACIFIC SUNWEAR: "Pfeiffer" Class Action in Discovery Phase ----------------------------------------------------------- Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc. is currently in the discovery phase of the case Charles Pfeiffer, individually and on behalf of other aggrieved employees vs. Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc. and Pacific Sunwear Stores Corp., Superior Court of California, County of Riverside, Case No. 1100527, the Company said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 4, 2014, for the quarterly period ended August 2, 2014. On January 13, 2011, the plaintiff in this matter filed a lawsuit against the Company under California's private attorney general act alleging violations of California's wage and hour, overtime, meal break and rest break rules and regulations, among other things. The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages and penalties. The Company has filed an answer denying all allegations regarding the plaintiff's claims and asserting various defenses. The Company is currently in the discovery phase of this case. Pacific Sunwear is a specialty retailer rooted in the action sports, fashion and music influences of the California lifestyle. PACIFIC SUNWEAR: Nov. 4 Hearing on Cert. Bid in "Beeney" Case ------------------------------------------------------------- A hearing on the plaintiff's motion will be held on November 24, 2014, in the case Tamara Beeney, individually and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated vs. Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc. and Pacific Sunwear Stores Corporation, Superior Court of California, County of Orange, Case No. 30-2011-00459346-CU-OE-CXC, the Company said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 4, 2014, for the quarterly period ended August 2, 2014. On March 18, 2011, the plaintiff in this matter filed a putative class action lawsuit against the Company alleging violations of California's wage and hour, overtime, meal break and rest break rules and regulations, among other things. The complaint seeks class certification, the appointment of the plaintiff as class representative, and an unspecified amount of damages and penalties. The Company has filed an answer denying all allegations regarding the plaintiff's claims and asserting various defenses. On February 21, 2014, the plaintiff filed her motion to certify a class with respect to several claims. The Company's opposition to such motion was filed on June 30, 2014 and the plaintiff's reply to such opposition must be filed on or before November 4, 2014. A hearing on the plaintiff's motion will be held on November 24, 2014. Pacific Sunwear is a specialty retailer rooted in the action sports, fashion and music influences of the California lifestyle. PELLA CORP: Clifford Named New Class Counsel in Windows Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Robert A. Clifford -- rclifford@CliffordLaw.com -- founder and senior partner at Clifford Law Offices, was named the new class counsel in a federal class action lawsuit regarding allegedly defective Pella windows. U.S. District Court Judge James B. Zagel appointed Robert Clifford as lead class counsel on September 15th, 2014 citing his "demonstrated skills in the field." George K. Lang of Rolling Meadows was appointed to serve as co-counsel. In his order regarding Pella, Judge Zagel wrote that "Messrs. Clifford and Lang will best serve the interests of the class." In 2013, Judge Zagel approved a supposed $90 million settlement involving defective Pella aluminum-clad windows that leaked, resulting in premature wood rot and other damage to buildings. The Seventh Circuit rejected that figure in rejecting the settlement. "The homes of millions of Pella consumers are affected by the windows at issue, and we are privileged to advocate on behalf of those consumers," said Shannon McNulty -- SMM@CliffordLaw.com -- partner at Clifford Law Offices also handling the matter. "The litigation team leading this case will vigorously protect the consumers' rights." McNulty further clarified that the Seventh Circuit did not dismiss the case but did reject the settlement terms for which approval had been sought prior to the appointment of Clifford and Lang. The case, Saltzman et al. v. Pella Corp, et al., 1:06-cv-04481, is now being led by Clifford and Lang in the Northern District of Illinois. About Robert A. Clifford Robert A. Clifford was named by Chicago Magazine as one of the top 100 Most Powerful Chicagoans in 2013 and Crain's Chicago Business named Clifford once again as one of the "most influential people in Chicago" in 2013. Clifford remains committed to raising the quality of the practice of law in the state of Illinois and promoting civility. He was named the 2012 Chicago Lawyer Person of the Year. Based upon his trial accomplishments, and his contributions to the legal community and the Chicago area, his colleagues nominated him for the prestigious honor given to one person each year. He is the founder of Clifford Law Offices, a nationally recognized personal injury law firm in Chicago concentrating in aviation, transportation, personal injury, medical negligence, and product liability law. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES: US Ruling Limits Price-Fixing Suit Coverage ---------------------------------------------------------------- Chrisee Jalyssa v. Dela Paz, writing for Business World, reports that Philippine Airlines, Inc. said a US District Court decision on a price-fixing class-action lawsuit "enhances" the airline's position because the court reaffirmed a previous judgment declaring as "exempt" certain fares from the US to the Philippines, thus limiting the airline's potential exposure. "[This] has raised hopes at PAL in a . . . lawsuit filed by several passengers who accused PAL and other international carriers of fixing the ticket prices on trans-Pacific flights; The ruling substantially limited the coverage of the complaint thus enhancing PAL's position in the case," PAL said in an e-mail response to a query after the court decision was reported. The flag carrier, however, clarified news reports that the Sept. 24 ruling of US District Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco "did not confirm the alleged price-fixing activities, but instead agreed with PAL and other defendant airlines that fares filed by international carriers with the US Department of Transportation should not be included in the case." A Reuters report on Sept. 25 said that five international airlines, including PAL, must face a class-action lawsuit from passengers accusing them of fixing ticket prices, but also noted that Judge Breyer narrowed the scope of the suit as "certain fares to the Philippines and Japan are exempt from price-fixing claims under federal law." The class-action suits over alleged price-fixing in trans-Pacific ticket fares were filed in 2007, and multiple cases were consolidated in San Francisco in 2008. PAL, in its e-mailed reply, noted that "in 2011, the court partially granted the motion to dismiss filed by PAL and other airlines, barring damage claims arising from flights originating from Manila." RICHEY SHIPLEY: "Uscanga" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Ruperto Uscanga, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Richey Shipley Donut Corporation, Spencer Do-Nut, Inc., La Porte Shipley Donuts, Inc, Beltway 8 Shipleys Donuts Corp., Baytown Do-Nut, Inc., Noy Heng, Chea E. Hok, and Ryna Hok, Case No. 4:14-cv-02756 (S.D. Tex., September 25, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate a retail bakery in Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Shane A. McClelland, Esq. SIMON HERBERT & MCCLELLAND, LLP 3411 Richmond Ave, Suite 400 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 987-7100 Facsimile: (713) 987-7120 E-mail: smcclelland@shmsfirm.com RITE OF PASSAGE: "Keele" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Stephanos Keele, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated v. Rite of Passage, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-02135 (D. Ariz., September 25, 2014), seeks to recover payment for uncompensated overtime hours for time worked each week in excess of 40 hours. Rite of Passage, Inc. offers community-based and residential services for at-risk youth. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua William Carden, Esq. DAVIS MILES MCGUIRE GARDNER PLLC 80 E Rio Salado Pkwy., Ste. 401 Tempe, AZ 85281 Telephone: (480) 733-6800 Facsimile: (480) 733-3748 E-mail: jcarden@davismiles.com RODRIGUEZ PRODUCE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Eladio Aviles-Tinoco, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Luis Rodriguez d/b/a Rodriguez Produce, Case No. 2:14- cv-00560 (M.D. Fla., September 25, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime and minimum wages, an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, obtain declaratory relief, and reasonable attorney's fees and costs in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Rodriguez Produce is an enterprise engaged in the production of goods for commerce. The Plaintiff is represented by: Bill B. Berke, Esq. BERKE LAW FIRM, PA Suite 300, 1003 Del Prado Blvd Cape Coral, FL 33990 Telephone: (239) 549-6689 Facsimile: (239) 549-3331 E-mail: Berkelaw@yahoo.com ROSEBUD RESTAURANTS: Faces "Aguilar" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jose Aguilar and Genaro Aguirre, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated persons, known and unknown v. Rosebud Restaurants, Inc., and Alex Dana, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv- 07532 (N.D. Ill., September 26, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week. Rosebud Restaurants, Inc. and Alex Dana own and operate a restaurant called Carmine's, located at 1043 North Rush Street, Chicago, 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 SEARS CANADA: Hometown Store Dealers' Class Action Can Proceed -------------------------------------------------------------- CBC News reports that a class action lawsuit against Sears Canada Inc. and its U.S. parent by 250 Hometown Store dealers across Canada has been given the go-ahead by an Ontario court. In a court filing, franchisees of Sears Hometown Stores allege Sears Canada and Sears Roebuck and Co. made it "virtually impossible" for them to operate their businesses profitably. Antony Karabus, CEO of retail consultancy HRC Advisory, said Sears Canada lost the trust of both consumers and franchisees in Canada. "The complaint is that these 250-odd hometown dealers are saying that they are franchisees and that Sears Canada has unilaterally changed their working conditions and their ability to make profit," he said in an interview with CBC's The Exchange with Amanda Lang. The Hometown stores are small retail outlets that show a selection of Sears products and provided catalogue ordering in smaller towns and cities that could not support a full-scale store. Mr. Karabus said Sears missed an opportunity to create a digital ordering business by leveraging the loyalty these stores had created in their markets. In their suit, the dealers allege that Sears lowered commissions, reduced advertising for local stores and bypassed the franchises by selling directly to their customers. They also claim that Sears set their compensation and work conditions, without abiding by labor laws or franchise protection laws. Sears Canada said it has reviewed the claims and believes they are without merit. It denied changes to the dealer compensation structure and advertising subsidies could hurt dealers. Sears Canada has been losing market share in Canada for several years. Mr. Karabus said Sears used to be a powerful brand associated with value in Canada. "What went wrong was, when they became owned by financial players, they became much more about squeeze the costs and focus on driving value for the shareholder, which obviously is the objective, but when you do that at the expense of service as a retailer and you sell off all your best locations and you don't create a good working environment, there is a natural effect," he said. Sears has sold off its highest-profile locations, including the Eaton Centre and Yorkdale, to offset its losses. It has laid off thousands of people and sold off its interest in retail centers. The consumer was bound to notice the low employee morale and lack of attention to the retail experience, Mr. Karabus said. "Consumers lose trust," he said. "They say, 'why would I go there when the same time down the street, there are prices just as good.'" SKO BRENNER: Faces "Casagnap" Suit in Over Violation of FDCPA ------------------------------------------------------------- Eppe Casagnap, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Sko Brenner American, Inc., and John Does 1-25, Case No. 2:14-cv-06000 (D.N.J., September 25, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Sko Brenner American, Inc. is a company that uses the mail, telephone, and facsimile and regularly engages in business the principal purpose of which is to attempt to collect debts alleged to be due another. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph K. Jones, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH K. JONES, LLC 375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100 Fairfield, NJ 07004 Telephone: (973) 227-5900 E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com STARBUCKS CORPORATION: Faces "Heinzl" Suit Over Violation of ADA ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah Heinzl, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Starbucks Corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-01316 (W.D. Pa., September 25, 2014), alleges that Defendant's facilities are not fully accessible to, and independently usable by individuals who use wheelchairs in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Starbucks Corporation owns, operates, controls and leases a place of public accommodation. The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin J. Sweet, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH LTD 115 Federal Street, Suite 210 Pittsburgh, PA 15212 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 Facsimile: (412) 231-0246 E-mail: bsweet@carlsonlynch.com STATE FARM: Sued in C.D. Cal. Over Failure to Pay Legal Costs ------------------------------------------------------------- Angel Francisco Alfaro, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Case No. 5:14-cv-01998 (C.D. Cal., September 25, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay pro rata share of litigation costs and fees as it pertains to medical payment recoveries. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company is an insurance company with its corporate headquarters located in Bloomington, Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Mohammad Kazerouni, Esq. Assal Assassi, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com mike@kazlg.com assal@kazlg.com - and - Robert Hyde, Esq. Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. HYDE & SWIGART 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 233-7770 Facsimile: (619) 297-1022 E-mail: bob@westcoastlitigation.com josh@westcoastlitigation.com SUPERFRESH GROUP: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Ever Ramirez, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Superfresh Group Incorporated d/b/a Litm Bar, Restaurant and Art Gallery, Jelynne Jardiniano, in her individual capacity, and Andrea Morin, in her individual capacity, Case No. 2:14-cv-06002 (D.N.J., September 26, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant at 140 Newark Avenue, Jersey City, New Jersey, 07302. The Plaintiff is represented by: Nathaniel K. Charny, Esq. CHARNY & ASSOCIATES 9 West Market Street Rhinebeck, NY 12572 Telephone: (845) 876-7500 E-mail: ncharny@charnyandassociates.com THOMAS MANUFACTURING: Sued in D.N.J. Over Violation of FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------- Fortuna Espaizzat v. Thomas Manufacturing, Inc., and Jeffrey A. Lukowiak, individually, Case No. 2:14-cv-06030 (D.N.J., September 26, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Thomas Manufacturing, Inc. is a producer of custom aluminum products featuring heavy commercial projected casement, throughout the State of New Jersey. The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew I. Glenn, Esq. JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP PA Building 2, Suite 220 168 Franklin Corner Road Lawrenceville, NJ 08648 Telephone: (201) 687-9977 Facsimile: (201) 595-0308 E-mail: aglenn@jaffeglenn.com TRS RECOVERY: Sued in Wis. Over Violation of Debt Collection Law ---------------------------------------------------------------- Gjulsen Halimi, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. TRS Recovery Services, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-01190 (E.D. Wis., September 26, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. TRS Recovery Services, Inc. is engaged in the business of a collection agency, using the mails and telephone to collect consumer debts originally owed to others. The Plaintiff is represented by: Shpetim Ademi, Esq. John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com UNITED ONLINE: Court Has Not Yet Ruled on Motion to Dismiss ----------------------------------------------------------- The court has not yet ruled on the motion to dismiss in a consolidated class action, and no trial date has been set, United Online Inc. said in its Form 10-K/A (Amendment No. 1) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 4, 2014, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013. In March 2012, Hope Kelm, Barbara Timmcke, Regina Warfel, Brett Reilly, Juan M. Restrepo, and Jennie H. Pham filed a purported class action complaint (the "Kelm Class Action") in United States District Court, District of Connecticut, against the following defendants: (i) Chase Bank USA, N.A., Bank of America, N.A., Capital One Financial Corporation, Citigroup, Inc., and Citibank, N.A. (collectively, the "Credit Card Company Defendants"); (ii) 1- 800-Flowers.com, Inc., United Online, Inc., Classmates, Inc., Classmates International, Inc., FTD Group, Inc., Days Inns Worldwide, Inc., Wyndham Worldwide Corporation, PeopleFindersPro, Inc., Beckett Media LLC, Buy.com, Inc., Rakuten USA, Inc., IAC/InterActiveCorp, and Shoebuy.com, Inc. (collectively, the "E- Merchant Defendants"); and (iii) Trilegiant Corporation, Inc. ("Trilegiant"), Affinion Group, LLC ("Affinion"), and Apollo Global Management, LLC ("Apollo"). The complaint alleges (1) violations of the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") by all defendants, and aiding and abetting violations of such act by the Credit Card Company Defendants; (2) aiding and abetting violations of federal mail fraud, wire fraud and bank fraud statutes by the Credit Card Company Defendants; (3) violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act ("ECPA") by Trilegiant, Affinion and the E-Merchant Defendants, and aiding and abetting violations of such act by the Credit Card Company Defendants; (4) violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act by Trilegiant, Affinion, Apollo, and the E-Merchant Defendants, and aiding and abetting violations of such act by the Credit Card Company Defendants; (5) violation of California Business and Professions Code section 17602 by Trilegiant, Affinion, Apollo, and the E-Merchant Defendants; and (6) unjust enrichment by all defendants. The plaintiffs seek class certification, restitution and disgorgement of all amounts wrongfully charged to and received from plaintiffs, damages, treble damages, punitive damages, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, costs of suit, and pre- and post-judgment interest on any amounts awarded. In March 2012, Debra Miller and William Thompson filed a purported class action complaint (the "Miller Class Action") in United States District Court, District of Connecticut, against the following defendants: (i) Trilegiant, Affinion, Apollo, Vertrue, Inc., Webloyalty.com, Inc., and Adaptive Marketing, LLC (collectively, the "Membership Companies"); (ii) 1-800- Flowers.com, Inc., Beckett Media LLC, Buy.com, Inc., Classmates International, Inc., Days Inn Worldwide, Inc., FTD Group, Inc., IAC/Interactivecorp, Inc., Classmates, Inc., Peoplefinderspro, Inc., Rakuten USA, Inc., Shoebuy.com, Inc., United Online, Inc., Wells Fargo & Company, and Wyndham Worldwide Corporation (collectively, the "Marketing Companies"); and (iii) Bank of America, N.A., Capital One Financial Corporation, Chase Bank USA, N.A., and Citibank, N.A. (collectively, the "Credit Card Companies"). The complaint alleges (1) violations of RICO by all defendants, and aiding and abetting violations of such act by the Credit Card Companies; (2) aiding and abetting violations of federal mail fraud, wire fraud and bank fraud statutes by the Credit Card Companies; (3) violations of the ECPA by the Membership Companies and the Marketing Companies, and aiding and abetting violations of such act by the Credit Card Companies; (4) violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act by the Membership Companies and the Marketing Companies, and aiding and abetting violations of such act by the Credit Card Companies; (5) violation of California Business and Professions Code section 17602 by the Membership Companies and the Marketing Companies; and (6) unjust enrichment by all defendants. The plaintiffs seek class certification, restitution and disgorgement of all amounts wrongfully charged to and received from the plaintiffs, damages, treble damages, punitive damages, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, costs of suit, and pre- and post-judgment interest on any amounts awarded. In April 2012, the Kelm Class Action and the Miller Class Action were consolidated with a related case under the case caption In re Trilegiant Corporation, Inc. In September 2012, the plaintiffs filed their consolidated amended complaint and named five additional defendants. The defendants have responded to the consolidated amended complaint by joining in motions to dismiss filed by other defendants in December 2012. Those motions were argued before the district court in September 2013, and taken under submission. The court has not yet ruled on the motion to dismiss, and no trial date has been set. United Online, through its operating subsidiaries, provides consumer services and products over the Internet under a number of brands, including Classmates, StayFriends, Trombi, MyPoints, NetZero, and Juno. UNITED ONLINE: Court Has Not Yet Ruled on Consolidation Request --------------------------------------------------------------- The Court has not yet ruled upon the request for consolidation or the order to show cause in the "Frank" class action, United Online Inc. said in its Form 10-K/A (Amendment No. 1) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 4, 2014, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013. In December 2012, David Frank filed a purported class action complaint (the "Frank Class Action") in United States District Court, District of Connecticut, against the following defendants: Trilegiant, Affinion, Apollo (collectively, the "Frank Membership Companies"); 1-800-Flowers.com, Inc., Beckett Media LLC, Buy.com, Inc., Classmates International, Inc., Days Inn Worldwide, Inc., FTD Group, Inc., Hotwire, Inc., IAC/Interactivecorp, Inc., Classmates, Inc., Orbitz Worldwide, LLC, PeopleFindersPro, Inc., Priceline.com, Inc., Shoebuy.com, Inc., TigerDirect, Inc., United Online, Inc., and Wyndham Worldwide Corporation (collectively, the "Frank Marketing Companies"); Bank of America, N.A., Capital One Financial Corporation, Chase Bank USA, N.A., Chase Paymentech Solutions, LLC, Citibank, N.A., Citigroup, Inc., and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (collectively, the "Frank Credit Card Companies"). The complaint alleges (1) violations of RICO by all defendants; (2) aiding and abetting violations of such act by the Frank Credit Card Companies; (3) aiding and abetting commissions of mail fraud, wire fraud and bank fraud by the Frank Credit Card Companies; (4) violation of the ECPA by the Frank Membership Companies and the Frank Marketing Companies, and aiding and abetting violations of such act by the Frank Credit Card Companies; (5) violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act by the Frank Membership Companies and the Frank Marketing Companies, and aiding and abetting violations of such act by the Frank Credit Card Companies; (6) violation of California Business and Professions Code section 17602 by the Frank Membership Companies and the Frank Marketing Companies; and (7) unjust enrichment by all defendants. The plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution and disgorgement of all amounts wrongfully charged to and received from plaintiff, damages, treble damages, punitive damages, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, costs of suit, and pre- and post-judgment interest on any amounts awarded. In January 2013, the plaintiff moved to consolidate the Frank Class Action with the In re Trilegiant Corporation, Inc. action. In response, the court ordered the plaintiff to show cause as to why, among other things, the plaintiff should be afforded named plaintiff status. The plaintiff filed his response to the order to show cause in February 2013. The court has not yet ruled upon the request for consolidation or the order to show cause. United Online, through its operating subsidiaries, provides consumer services and products over the Internet under a number of brands, including Classmates, StayFriends, Trombi, MyPoints, NetZero, and Juno. VERIFONE SYSTEMS: 9th Cir. Drops Holdings Securities Case Appeal ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an order and mandate, dismissing the appeal in VeriFone Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation with prejudice, VeriFone Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 4, 2014, for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2014. The Company said, "On or after December 4, 2007, several securities class action complaints were filed against us and certain of our officers, former officers, and a former director. These lawsuits were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California and are currently captioned as In re VeriFone Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation, C 07-6140 EMC. The original actions were: Eichenholtz v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc. et al., C 07-6140 EMC; Lien v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc. et al., C 07-6195 JSW; Vaughn et al. v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc. et al., C 07-6197 VRW (Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed this complaint on March 7, 2008); Feldman et al. v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc. et al., C 07-6218 MMC; Cerini v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc. et al., C 07-6228 SC; Westend Capital Management LLC v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc. et al., C 07-6237 MMC; Hill v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc. et al., C 07-6238 MHP; Offutt v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc. et al., C 07-6241 JSW; Feitel v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc., et al., C 08-0118 CW." "On August 22, 2008, the court appointed plaintiff National Elevator Fund lead plaintiff and its attorneys lead counsel. Lead plaintiff filed its consolidated amended class action complaint on October 31, 2008, which asserts claims under the Securities Exchange Act Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20A and SEC Rule 10b-5 for securities fraud and control person liability against us and certain of our current and former officers and directors, based on allegations that we and the individual defendants made false or misleading public statements regarding our business and operations during the putative class periods, and seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief. "We filed our motion to dismiss on December 31, 2008. The court granted our motion on May 26, 2009 and dismissed the consolidated amended class action complaint with leave to amend within 30 days of the ruling. The proceedings were stayed pending a mediation held in October 2009 at which time the parties failed to reach a mutually agreeable settlement. "Lead plaintiff's first amended complaint was filed on December 3, 2009 followed by a second amended complaint filed on January 19, 2010. We filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint and the hearing on our motion was held on May 17, 2010. In July 2010, prior to any court ruling on our motion, lead plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a third amended complaint on the basis that it had newly obtained evidence. "Pursuant to a briefing schedule issued by the court we submitted our motion to dismiss the third amended complaint and lead plaintiff filed its opposition, following which the court took the matter under submission without further hearing. On March 8, 2011, the court ruled in our favor and dismissed the consolidated securities class action without leave to amend. On April 5, 2011, lead plaintiff filed its notice of appeal of the district court's ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. "On June 24 and June 27, 2011, lead plaintiff dismissed its appeal as against defendants Paul Periolat, William Atkinson, and Craig Bondy. Lead plaintiff filed its opening brief on appeal on July 28, 2011. We filed our answering brief on September 28, 2011 and lead plaintiff filed its reply brief on October 31, 2011. A hearing on oral arguments for this appeal was held before a judicial panel of the Ninth Circuit on May 17, 2012. On December 21, 2012, the Ninth Circuit issued its opinion reversing the district court's dismissal of the consolidated shareholder securities class action against us and certain of our officers and directors, with the exception of the dismissal of lead plaintiff's claims under Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, which the Ninth Circuit affirmed. "On January 4, 2013, we filed a petition for en banc rehearing with the Ninth Circuit. On January 30, 2013, the Ninth Circuit denied the petition for rehearing. On February 8, 2013, the Ninth Circuit issued a mandate returning this case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California for further proceeding on lead plaintiff's claims, except for the dismissed Section 20(a) claim. "On August 9, 2013, we entered into a stipulation of settlement in this consolidated shareholder securities class action with and among the other defendants and the lead plaintiff therein. The settlement was subject to various customary conditions, including preliminary approval by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, notice to class members, class member opt- out thresholds and final approval by the court. Upon the settlement becoming final, the total settlement consideration paid for the benefit of the settlement class would be $95.0 million, plus a potential contingent adjustment if we had been acquired on or before April 15, 2014. "We have coverage from our insurance carriers for this settlement consideration in the amount of approximately $33.8 million. The net amount of approximately $61.2 million (excluding the contingent adjustment) would be paid by us. "On October 15, 2013, the court entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement. On November 5, 2013, we deposited approximately $61.2 million, and our insurance carriers have deposited the remaining portion, of the $95.0 million settlement consideration into an escrow account for the settlement. "The hearing on final approval of the settlement was held on February 14, 2014. On February 18, 2014, the court issued an order granting the parties' motion for settlement, and indicated that it intended to issue a final approval of the settlement, subject to the lead plaintiff's submission of a notice plan regarding Israeli investors that includes (i) a longer time period for Israeli class members to file their claims and (ii) the dissemination to Israeli investors of a Hebrew language version of the notice of the proposed settlement, proof of claim and release form (the "Hebrew- Language Notice"). "On February 20, 2014, in response to the court's order, the lead plaintiff filed a proposed notice plan that included (i) an extension of the time period for Israeli class members to file claims to April 30, 2014, (ii) a plan to mail the Hebrew-Language Notice to Israeli investors, (iii) a plan to publish the Hebrew- Language Notice in a leading newspaper in Israel, and (iv) a revision to the claims website to post the Hebrew-Language Notice and make clear that the claims deadline for Israeli class members has been extended to April 30, 2014. "On February 25, 2014, the court issued a final order approving the settlement, dismissing the case with prejudice and entering judgment in the action. One of the objectors to the settlement filed a notice of appeal to the court's February 25, 2014 judgment and orders, but subsequently filed a motion for voluntary dismissal of the appeal with prejudice. On June 2, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an order and mandate, dismissing the appeal with prejudice. "We have denied and continue to deny each and all of the claims alleged in the consolidated shareholder securities class action. Nonetheless, we have agreed to the settlement to eliminate the uncertainty, distraction, burden and expense of further litigation. This settlement also applies to members of the putative class of plaintiffs in the Israel class action under U.S. law." VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Hearing Held on Israel Class Suit Continuation ---------------------------------------------------------------- VeriFone Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 4, 2014, for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2014, that a hearing was held on June 23, 2014 concerning whether the Israel class action should proceed in light of the settlement in the U.S. class action. On June 29, 2014, the plaintiff filed a supplemental pleading at the court's request. The Company filed its reply pleading on August 19, 2014. The Company said, "On January 27, 2008, a class action complaint was filed against us in the Central District Court in Tel Aviv, Israel on behalf of purchasers of our stock on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange. The complaint seeks compensation for damages allegedly incurred by the class of plaintiffs due to the publication of erroneous financial reports. We filed a motion to stay the action, in light of the proceedings already filed in the United States, on March 31, 2008. A hearing on the motion was held on May 25, 2008. Further briefing in support of the stay motion, specifically with regard to the threshold issue of applicable law, was submitted on June 24, 2008. On September 11, 2008, the Israeli District Court ruled in our favor, holding that U.S. law would apply in determining our liability. On October 7, 2008, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to appeal the Israeli District Court's ruling to the Israeli Supreme Court. Our response to plaintiffs' appeal motion was filed on January 18, 2009. The Israeli District Court has stayed its proceedings until the Israeli Supreme Court rules on plaintiffs' motion for leave to appeal. On January 27, 2010, after a hearing before the Israeli Supreme Court, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' motion for leave to appeal and addressed the case back to the Israeli District Court. The Israeli Supreme Court instructed the Israeli District Court to rule whether the Israel class action should be stayed, under the assumption that the applicable law is U.S. law. Plaintiffs subsequently filed an application for reconsideration of the Israeli District Court's ruling that U.S. law is the applicable law. Following a hearing on plaintiffs' application, on April 12, 2010, the parties agreed to stay the proceedings pending resolution of the U.S. securities class action, without prejudice to plaintiffs' right to appeal the Israeli District Court's decision regarding the applicable law to the Israeli Supreme Court. On May 25, 2010, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to appeal the decision regarding the applicable law with the Israeli Supreme Court. "In August 2010, plaintiff filed an application to the Israeli Supreme Court arguing that the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Morrison et al. v. National Australia Bank Ltd., 561 U.S. __, 130 S. Ct. 2869 (2010), may affect the outcome of the appeal currently pending before the Court and requesting that this authority be added to the Court's record. Plaintiff concurrently filed an application with the Israeli District Court asking that court to reverse its decision regarding the applicability of U.S. law to the Israel class action, as well as to cancel its decision to stay the Israeli proceedings in favor of the U.S. class action in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Morrison. "On August 25, 2011, the Israeli District Court issued a decision denying plaintiff's application and reaffirming its ruling that the law applicable to the Israel class action is U.S. law. The Israeli District Court also ordered that further proceedings in the case be stayed pending the decision on appeal in the U.S. class action. "On November 13, 2011, plaintiff filed an amended application for leave to appeal addressing the Israeli District Court's ruling. We filed an amended response on December 28, 2011. On January 1, 2012, the Israeli Supreme Court ordered consideration of the application by three justices. On July 2, 2012, the Israeli Supreme Court ordered us to file an updated notice on the status of the proceedings in the U.S. securities class action then pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit by October 1, 2012. On October 11, 2012, we filed an updated status notice in the Israeli Supreme Court on the proceedings in the U.S. securities class action pending at the time in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. "On January 9, 2013, the Israeli Supreme Court held a further hearing on the status of the appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and recommended that the parties meet and confer regarding the inclusion of the Israeli plaintiffs in the federal class action pending in the U.S. On February 10, 2013, the Israeli Supreme Court issued an order staying the case pursuant to the joint notice submitted to the court by the parties on February 4, 2013. "The plaintiff and putative class members in this action are included in the stipulated settlement of the federal securities class action, In re VeriFone Holdings, Inc., unless an individual plaintiff opts out. Following the February 25, 2014 judgment and orders by the U.S. court, in April 2014, the parties in the Israel class action filed a joint motion requesting that the Israeli Supreme Court renew the proceedings on appeal concerning the determination of the applicable law. "A hearing was held on June 23, 2014 concerning whether the Israel class action should proceed in light of the settlement in the U.S. class action. On June 29, 2014, the plaintiff filed a supplemental pleading at the court's request. We filed our reply pleading on August 19, 2014." VERIFONE SYSTEMS: April 2015 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss --------------------------------------------------------- The court has set a hearing on April 3, 2015 for any forthcoming motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in the VeriFone Securities Litigation, VeriFone Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10- Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 4, 2014, for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2014. The Company said, "On March 7, 2013, a putative securities class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against us certain of our former officers and one of our current officers and alleged claims in connection with our February 20, 2013 announcement of preliminary financial results for the fiscal quarter ended January 31, 2013. The action, captioned Sanders v. VeriFone Systems, Inc. et al., Case No. C 13- 1038, and subsequently re-captioned In re VeriFone Securities Litigation, was initially brought on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of VeriFone securities between December 14, 2011 and February 19, 2013 and asserted claims under the Securities Exchange Act Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and SEC Rule 10b-5 for securities fraud and control person liability. The claims were based on allegations that we and the individual defendants made false or misleading public statements regarding our business, operations, and financial controls during the putative class period. The complaint sought unspecified monetary damages and other relief. Two additional class actions related to the same matter (Laborers Local 235 Benefit Funds v. VeriFone Systems, Inc. et al., Case No. CV 13-1676 and Bland v. VeriFone Systems, Inc. et al., Case No. CV 13-1853) were filed in April 2013." "On May 6, 2013, several putative plaintiffs and plaintiffs' law firms filed motions to consolidate these three securities class actions and requesting appointment as lead plaintiff and lead counsel, respectively. The plaintiffs in Laborers Local 235 Benefit Funds v. VeriFone Systems, Inc. et al. and Bland v. VeriFone Systems, Inc. et al. voluntarily dismissed their respective actions, without prejudice, on July 10, 2013 and July 17, 2013, respectively, and filed motions to be appointed lead plaintiff in the action previously captioned Sanders v. VeriFone Systems, Inc. et al. "On October 7, 2013, the court entered an order appointing the Selz Funds as lead plaintiffs and appointing Gold Bennett Cera & Sidener LLP as lead counsel. Lead plaintiffs' first amended complaint was filed on December 16, 2013. The first amended complaint expanded the putative class period to December 14, 2011 and February 20, 2013, inclusive, and removed the current officer who was named in the original complaint from the action. "We filed our motion to dismiss the amended complaint on February 14, 2014, lead plaintiffs filed their opposition on April 15, 2014 and we filed our reply on May 16, 2014. On May 27, 2014, the court took the motion to dismiss under submission without oral argument. On August 8, 2014, the court dismissed the amended complaint, with leave to amend. "Pursuant to the parties' stipulation, lead plaintiff's second amended complaint is to be filed by October 7, 2014 and we shall answer or otherwise respond to the second amended complaint by December 8, 2014. The court has set a hearing on April 3, 2015 for any forthcoming motion to dismiss the second amended complaint." VERINT SYSTEMS: Says Class Suit Mediation Process "Unsuccessful" ---------------------------------------------------------------- The mediation process in a class action had been unsuccessful, Verint Systems Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 4, 2014, for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2014. The Company said, "On March 26, 2009, legal actions were commenced by Ms. Orit Deutsch, a former employee of our subsidiary, Verint Systems Limited ("VSL"), against VSL in the Tel Aviv Regional Labor Court (Case Number 4186/09) (the "Deutsch Labor Action") and against CTI in the Tel Aviv District Court (Case Number 1335/09) (the "Deutsch District Action"). In the Deutsch Labor Action, Ms. Deutsch filed a motion to approve a class action lawsuit on the grounds that she purports to represent a class of our employees and former employees who were granted Verint and CTI stock options and were allegedly damaged as a result of the suspension of option exercises during our previous extended filing delay period." In the Deutsch District Action, in addition to a small amount of individual damages, Ms. Deutsch is seeking to certify a class of plaintiffs who were allegedly damaged due to their inability to exercise Verint and CTI stock options as a result of alleged negligence by CTI in its financial reporting. The class certification motions do not specify an amount of damages. On February 8, 2010, the Deutsch Labor Action was dismissed for lack of material jurisdiction and was transferred to the Tel Aviv District Court and consolidated with the Deutsch District Action. On March 16, 2009 and March 26, 2009, respectively, legal actions were commenced by Ms. Roni Katriel, a former employee of CTI's former subsidiary, Comverse Limited, against Comverse Limited in the Tel Aviv Regional Labor Court (Case Number 3444/09) (the "Katriel Labor Action") and against CTI in the Tel Aviv District Court (Case Number 1334/09) (the "Katriel District Action"). In the Katriel Labor Action, Ms. Katriel is seeking to certify a class of plaintiffs who were granted CTI stock options and were allegedly damaged as a result of the suspension of option exercises during CTI's previous extended filing delay period. In the Katriel District Action, in addition to a small amount of individual damages, Ms. Katriel is seeking to certify a class of plaintiffs who were allegedly damaged due to their inability to exercise CTI stock options as a result of alleged negligence by CTI in its financial reporting. The class certification motions do not specify an amount of damages. On March 2, 2010, the Katriel Labor Action was transferred to the Tel Aviv District Court, based on an agreed motion filed by the parties requesting such transfer. On April 4, 2012, Ms. Deutsch and Ms. Katriel filed an uncontested motion to consolidate and amend their claims and on June 7, 2012, the District Court allowed Ms. Deutsch and Ms. Katriel to file the consolidated class certification motion and an amended consolidated complaint against VSL, CTI, and Comverse Limited. Following CTI's announcement of its intention to effect the Comverse share distribution, on July 12, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion requesting that the District Court order CTI to set aside up to $150 million in assets to secure any future judgment. The District Court ruled that it would not decide this motion until the Deutsch and Katriel class certification motion was heard. Plaintiffs initially filed a motion to appeal this ruling in August 2012, but subsequently withdrew it in July 2014. The Company said, "Prior to the consummation of the Comverse share distribution, CTI either sold or transferred substantially all of its business operations and assets (other than its equity ownership interests in us and Comverse) to Comverse or unaffiliated third parties. On October 31, 2012, CTI completed the Comverse share distribution, in which it distributed all of the outstanding shares of common stock of Comverse to CTI's shareholders. As a result of the Comverse share distribution, Comverse became an independent public company and ceased to be a wholly owned subsidiary of CTI, and CTI ceased to have any material assets other than its equity interest in us." "On February 4, 2013, we completed the CTI Merger. As a result of the CTI Merger, we have assumed certain rights and liabilities of CTI, including any liability of CTI arising out of the Deutsch District Action and the Katriel District Action. However, under the terms of the Distribution Agreement between CTI and Comverse relating to the Comverse share distribution, we, as successor to CTI, are entitled to indemnification from Comverse for any losses we suffer in our capacity as successor-in-interest to CTI in connection with the Deutsch District Action and the Katriel District Action. "Following an attempt to mediate the dispute, on July 1, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a notice with the District Court informing it that the mediation process had been unsuccessful. As a result, the District Court has ordered the parties to file summations for its consideration." Verint is a global leader in Actionable Intelligence solutions. Actionable Intelligence is a necessity in a dynamic world of massive information growth because it empowers organizations with crucial insights and enables decision makers to anticipate, respond, and take action. With Verint solutions and value-added services, organizations of all sizes and across many industries can make more timely and effective decisions. Today, more than 10,000 organizations in over 180 countries, including over 80 percent of the Fortune 100, use Verint solutions to improve enterprise performance and make the world a safer place. WORLD JOURNAL: Faces "Lin" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------ Chia Hao Lin, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and Class members v. World Journal, LLC, and John Doe Corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-05655 (E.D.N.Y., September 26, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime and minimum wages, liquidated damages and statutory penalties, and attorneys' fees and costs. World Journal, LLC operate and distribute a widely read Chinese- language newspaper World Journal. The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, 2nd floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com XYZ CORPORATION: "Li" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------- Yunsheng Li, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Shanyou Chen, Wai Zhong Huang, Wild Ginger, and XYZ Corporation d/b/a Wild Ginger, Case No. 1:14-cv-07838 (S.D.N.Y., September 26, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages, liquidated damages, pre judgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs. XYZ Corporation owns and operates Wild Ginger restaurant located at 226 East 51st Street, New York, New York 10022. The Plaintiff is represented by: David Yan, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF DAVID YAN 136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 11E Flushing, NY 11354 Telephone: (718) 888-7788 Facsimile: (718) 888-0870 E-mail: davidyanlawfirm@yahoo.com ZURICH NA: Sued Over Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act ---------------------------------------------------------- Thomas Frederking, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Zurich North America Insurance, and Zurich American Insurance, Company and Norfolk Southern Railway Company d/b/a Triple Crown Services Company, Case No. 3:14-cv-01041 (S.D. Ill., September 26, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Zurich North America Insurance, and Zurich American Insurance, Company are multi-line insurance providers. Norfolk Southern Railway Company operates and maintains a terminal in Edwardsville, Madison County, Illinois The Plaintiff is represented by: Lee W. Barron, Esq. LEE W. BARRON, P.C. 112 Front Street Alton, IL 62002 Telephone: (618) 462-9160 Facsimile: (618) 462-9167 E-mail: lee@leebarronlaw.com ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Ma. Cristina Canson, Noemi Irene A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2014. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-241-8200. * * * End of Transmission * * *