/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/141016.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, October 16, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 206 Headlines AMERICAN RECOVERY: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act AUGUSTA-RICHMOND CTY, GA: Fails to Pay Overtime, Firefighter Says BJ'S CARGO: "Corniel" Suit Transferred From E.D. to S.D. New York CAL-MAINE FOODS: Proceedings Stayed in Direct Purchaser Action CAL-MAINE FOODS: Feb. 10-12 Hearing in Indirect Purchaser Action CAL-MAINE FOODS: July 2015 Deadline to File Dispositive Motions CAL-MAINE FOODS: Finalizing Settlement Papers With Retailers CANCUN MARKET: Accused of Racial Discrimination and Retaliation CENTRIC GROUP: Illegally Called Class Members' Phones, Suit Says CHRYSLER GROUP: Removes "Tomassini" Class Suit to N.D. New York CNL WINGS: Class Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime and Damages COMPASS GROUP: "Terrero" Suit Moved From E.D. to S.D. New York EDUCATION MANAGEMENT: Faces "Wallace" Discrimination Suit in Tex. FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Anticipates Consolidation of Antitrust Suits FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Prevailed in 10th Cir. Appeal FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Class Action Legal Fees Total $1.7MM in 2014 GREEN TREE: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act in Fla. HARVARD COLLECTION: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Says HOME DEPOT: Faces Class Suit in Northern District of Georgia I.C. SYSTEM: Sued in Fla. for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act INTERGROUP CORP: Partnership Paid Entire $525,000 Settlement LIBERTY SILVER: Seeks to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint LOWE'S HOME: Faces "Ingram-Fleming" Class Suit in M.D. Florida MEDTRONIC INC: Removes "Goodhue" Suit to Tennessee District Court MODEL N INC: Removes Plymouth IPO-Related Suit to N.D. California OCEAN STATE JOBBERS: "Scribner" Suit Transferred to Conn. PARAMOUNT EQUITY: Faces Suit in California Over Unsolicited Calls PATIENT ACCOUNTING: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Says REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 11 Tobacco-Related Cases Served Against RJR REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 947 Engle Progeny Cases Pending in Dist. Court REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 24 Engle Progeny Cases Became Final REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Updates on Verdicts in Engle Progeny Cases REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 9 Engle Progeny Cases Tried in 3rd Qtr 2014 REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 95 Individual Smoking and Health Cases Pending REYNOLDS AMERICAN: RJR Brief Due in "Izzarelli" Case Appeal REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Oral Argument in "Whitney" Appeal Held REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Briefing Complete in West Virginia IPIC REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 8 "Lights" Class Actions Pending at Sept. 17 REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Nov. 4 Trial in Sateriale Case REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Decision Pending in "Price v. PM" Appeal REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Nov. 19 Status Conference in "Turner" Case REYNOLDS AMERICAN: No Activity in "Howard" v. B&W REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Feb. 2 Status Conference in "Collora" Case REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Feb. 2 Status Conference in "Black" Case REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Still No Activity in Jones v. American Tobacco REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Only Bourassa Case Being Pursued at This Time REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Indirect Purchasers Cases Dismissed at Sept 17 REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Plaintiffs in "Smith" File Petition for Review REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 11 Class Actions Filed Over Lorillard Deal REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Defendant in Corwin v British American Tobacco REYNOLDS AMERICAN: American Snuff Named as Defendant in 6 Cases REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Motion to Stay Court Mandate Still Pending SALVATORE'S CORP: Accused of Violating Fair Labor Standards Act SB SOUTHERN: "Roberts" Suit Transferred From W.D. to N.D. Texas SERVICE EMPLOYEES: Accused of Refusing to Accept Resignations SOUTH CAROLINA, USA: Faces Suit Alleging Civil Rights Violations SPOONFUL MANAGEMENT: Removes "Gonzalez" Suit to S.D. Florida SWF OPERATIONS: Sued for Violating Fair Credit Reporting Act TRG CUSTOMER: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages and Damages WALGREEN CO: Faces "Minter" Suit in Northern District of Georgia ********* AMERICAN RECOVERY: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act -------------------------------------------------------------- Chaim Feldman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. American Recovery Service Incorporated, Case No. 1:14- cv-05897-CBA-JO (E.D.N.Y., October 8, 2014) seeks relief under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: David Palace, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF DAVID PALACE 383 Kingston Avenue, #113 Brooklyn, NY 11213 Telephone: (347) 651-1077 Facsimile: (347) 464-0012 E-mail: davidpalace@gmail.com AUGUSTA-RICHMOND CTY, GA: Fails to Pay Overtime, Firefighter Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Robert D. Morris, Individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Augusta-Richmond County, Georgia, Case No. 1:14-cv- 00196-JRH-BKE (S.D. Ga., October 9, 2014) is a collective action brought on behalf of current and former firefighters employed by the Defendant for violation of the overtime provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Augusta-Richmond County, Georgia, is a government entity and public agency. The Plaintiff is represented by: John D. Hafemann, Esq. 219 Scott Street, PMB 315 Beaufort, SC 29902-5554 Telephone: (855) 645-5878 Facsimile: (843) 645-6530 - and - Jeremy S. McKenzie, Esq. C. Dorian Britt, Esq. KARSMAN, MCKENZIE & HART 21 W. Park Avenue Savannah, GA 31401 Telephone: (912) 335-4977 Facsimile: (912) 351-0085 E-mail: jeremy@themckenzielawfirm.com BJ'S CARGO: "Corniel" Suit Transferred From E.D. to S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------------- The collective action entitled Corniel v. BJ'S Cargo Express Corp., et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-05693, was transferred from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley Square). The Southern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-08126-ALC to the proceeding. Santiago Corniel alleges that the Defendants failed to pay him and others similarly situated for some of their hours worked in excess of 40 hours per work week at a time and a half rate of pay in direct violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. BJ's Cargo Express is a New York corporation. The Company is in the transportation of freight and cargo business. The Individual Defendants are owners, partners, officers or managers of the Company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq. JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A. Lawrence Office Park 168 Franklin Corner Road Bldg. 2, Suite 220 Lawrenceville, NY 08648 Telephone: (201) 687-9977 Facsimile: (201) 595-0308 E-mail: jjaffe@JaffeGlenn.com CAL-MAINE FOODS: Proceedings Stayed in Direct Purchaser Action -------------------------------------------------------------- All proceedings against Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. in the direct purchaser putative class action are stayed pending the district court's final approval of the Company's settlement, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 29, 2014, for the quarterly period ended August 30, 2014. Since September 25, 2008, the Company has been named as one of several defendants in numerous antitrust cases involving the United States shell egg industry. In some of these cases, the named plaintiffs allege that they purchased eggs or egg products directly from a defendant and have sued on behalf of themselves and a putative class of others who claim to be similarly situated. In other cases, the named plaintiffs allege that they purchased shell eggs and egg products directly from one or more of the defendants but sue only for their own alleged damages and not on behalf of a putative class. In the remaining cases, the named plaintiffs are individuals or companies who allege that they purchased shell eggs and egg products indirectly from one or more of the defendants -- that is, they purchased from retailers that had previously purchased from defendants or other parties -- and have sued on behalf of themselves and a putative class of others who claim to be similarly situated. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated all of the putative class actions (as well as certain other cases in which the Company was not a named defendant) for pretrial proceedings in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania court has organized the putative class actions around two groups (direct purchasers and indirect purchasers) and has named interim lead counsel for the named plaintiffs in each group. The direct purchaser putative class cases were consolidated into In re: Processed Egg Products Antitrust Litigation, No. 2:08-md- 02002-GP, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On February 28, 2014, the Court entered an order granting preliminary approval of the Company's previously-reported settlement of these cases, conditionally certifying the class for settlement purposes and approving the Notice Plan submitted by the parties. The Court held a final fairness hearing on the settlement on September 18, 2014, but has not yet issued a ruling on the parties' motion for final approval. All proceedings against the Company in the direct purchaser putative class action are stayed pending the Court's final approval of the Company's settlement. CAL-MAINE FOODS: Feb. 10-12 Hearing in Indirect Purchaser Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- A federal district court will hold a hearing on February 10-12, 2015, on the indirect purchaser plaintiffs' motion for class certification, Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 29, 2014, for the quarterly period ended August 30, 2014. Since September 25, 2008, the Company has been named as one of several defendants in numerous antitrust cases involving the United States shell egg industry. In some of these cases, the named plaintiffs allege that they purchased eggs or egg products directly from a defendant and have sued on behalf of themselves and a putative class of others who claim to be similarly situated. In other cases, the named plaintiffs allege that they purchased shell eggs and egg products directly from one or more of the defendants but sue only for their own alleged damages and not on behalf of a putative class. In the remaining cases, the named plaintiffs are individuals or companies who allege that they purchased shell eggs and egg products indirectly from one or more of the defendants -- that is, they purchased from retailers that had previously purchased from defendants or other parties -- and have sued on behalf of themselves and a putative class of others who claim to be similarly situated. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated all of the putative class actions (as well as certain other cases in which the Company was not a named defendant) for pretrial proceedings in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania court has organized the putative class actions around two groups (direct purchasers and indirect purchasers) and has named interim lead counsel for the named plaintiffs in each group. The indirect purchaser putative class cases were consolidated into In re: Processed Egg Products Antitrust Litigation, No. 2:08-md- 02002-GP, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The court granted with prejudice the defendants' renewed motion to dismiss damages claims arising outside the limitations period applicable to most causes of action. On February 10-12, 2015, the Court will hold a hearing on the indirect purchaser plaintiffs' motion for class certification. CAL-MAINE FOODS: July 2015 Deadline to File Dispositive Motions --------------------------------------------------------------- Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 29, 2014, for the quarterly period ended August 30, 2014, that six of the cases in which plaintiffs do not seek to certify a class have been consolidated with the putative class actions into In re: Processed Egg Products Antitrust Litigation, No. 2:08-md-02002-GP, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The court granted with prejudice the defendants' renewed motion to dismiss the non-class plaintiffs' claims for damages arising before September 24, 2004. The parties have completed nearly all fact discovery related to these cases and expert analysis and proceedings are underway. The deadline for parties to file dispositive motions is July 2, 2015. CAL-MAINE FOODS: Finalizing Settlement Papers With Retailers ------------------------------------------------------------ Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 29, 2014, for the quarterly period ended August 30, 2014, that on May 6, 2014, the Company agreed in principle to settle all claims brought by the four plaintiffs in one of the non-class cases pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc.; Roundy's Supermarkets, Inc.; C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc.; and H.J. Heinz Company, L.P. v. Michael Foods, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:11-cv-00510-GP. The parties are still in the process of finalizing their formal settlement papers. The terms of the settlement are confidential. The Company is settling this case for an amount and on terms that are not expected to have a material impact on the Company's results of operations. CANCUN MARKET: Accused of Racial Discrimination and Retaliation --------------------------------------------------------------- Angelica Paniagua Rodriguez v. Cancun Market, Case No. 3:14-cv- 03634-D (N.D. Tex., October 9, 2014) seeks equitable relief, compensatory and punitive damages, liquidated damages, front and back pay, attorney's fees, expert witness fees, taxable costs of court, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, racial discrimination, and retaliation allegedly suffered by the Plaintiff. Cancun Market is a domestic company authorized to do business, and is doing business, in the state of Texas and the county of Dallas. The Defendant can be served at its primary store located in Farmers Branch, Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Vincent J. Bhatti, Esq. Ditty S. Bhatti, Esq. THE BHATTI LAW FIRM, PLLC 14785 Preston Road, Suite 550 Dallas, TX 75254 Telephone: (214) 253-2533 Facsimile: (214) 204-0033 E-mail: vincent.bhatti@bhattilawfirm.com Ditty.bhatti@bhattilawfirm.com CENTRIC GROUP: Illegally Called Class Members' Phones, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- John Mogannam, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Centric Group L.L.C.; IC Solutions, Case No. 2:14-cv- 02372-TLN-AC (E.D. Cal., October 8, 2014) is brought for damages, injunctive relief and other available remedies, resulting from the Defendants' alleged illegal actions in negligently and willfully contacting the Plaintiff on his telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby, invading his privacy. The Defendants are corporations headquartered in Saint Louis, Missouri. The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, 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 abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com CHRYSLER GROUP: Removes "Tomassini" Class Suit to N.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit entitled Tomassini v. Chrysler Group, LLC, Case No. CA2014002230, was removed from the Supreme Court of New York State, County of Broome, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York (Syracuse). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:14-cv-01226-MAD-DEP to the proceeding. The lawsuit arose from contract dispute. The Plaintiff is represented by: Elmer R. Keach, III, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ELMER ROBERT KEACH, III, P.C. One Pine West Plaza, Suite 109 Albany, NY 12205 Telephone: (518) 434-1718 Facsimile: (518) 770-1558 E-mail: bobkeach@keachlawfirm.com - and - Jordan L. Chaikin, Esq. Peter J. Cambs, Sr., Esq. PARKER, WAICHMAN LAW FIRM 27300 Riverview Center Boulevard, #103 Naples, FL 34134 Telephone: (239) 390-1000 Facsimile: (239) 390-0055 E-mail: jchaikin@yourlawyer.com Pcambs@yourlawyer.com The Defendant is represented by: Alan J. Pope, Esq. POPE, SCHRADER LAW FIRM 2 Court Street, 4th Floor P.O. Box 510 Binghamton, NY 13902 Telephone: (607) 584-4900 Facsimile: (607) 584-4901 E-mail: apope@psslawfirm.com CNL WINGS: Class Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime and Damages ------------------------------------------------------------- Domingo Gonzalez, Carlos Ivan Rubio, Erick Martinez, and Graciela C. Martinez v. CNL Wings VII, Inc., CNL Wings VIII, Inc., CNL Wings X, Inc., CNL Wings XI, Inc., CNL Wings XII, Inc., CNL Wings XIV, Inc., and Charles M. Loflin, Case No. 5:14-cv-00886 (W.D. Tex., October 9, 2014) is brought to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees owed to the Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated employees of the Defendants. The Corporate Defendants are Texas companies. Charles M. Loflin is an individual, who may be served at his principal place of business in San Antonio, Texas. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Javier N. Maldonado, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JAVIER N. MALDONADO, PC 8918 Tesoro Dr., Suite 575 San Antonio, TX 78217 Telephone: (210) 277-1603 Facsimile: (210) 587-4001 E-mail: jmaldonado.law@gmail.com COMPASS GROUP: "Terrero" Suit Moved From E.D. to S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Terrero v. Compass Group USA, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-04283, was transferred from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley Square). The Southern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-08129-JMF to the proceeding. Cesar Terrero alleges that the Defendant has failed to pay him and other similarly situated current and former employees all of the overtime wages to which they were entitled under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Compass Group is a foreign corporation, incorporated in Delaware, with a New York address for service of process. Compass Group is engaged in providing food services. 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 The Defendant is represented by: Craig R. Benson, Esq. Sarah Elyse Moss, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 900 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 583-9600 Facsimile: (718) 732-2369 E-mail: cbenson@littler.com smoss@littler.com EDUCATION MANAGEMENT: Faces "Wallace" Discrimination Suit in Tex. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy B. Wallace v. Education Management Corp. d/b/a Brown Mackie College - San Antonio LLC, Case No. 5:14-cv-00884 (W.D. Tex., October 8, 2014) alleges that the Defendant intentionally discriminated against the Plaintiff because of her sex in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Texas Labor Code. Education Management Corp., doing business as Brown Mackie College - San Antonio LLC, is a Domestic Limited Liability Company within the state of Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam Poncio, Esq. Thomas N. Cammack, III, Esq. PONCIO LAW OFFICES A Professional Corporation 5410 Fredericksburg Road, Suite 109 San Antonio, TX 78229-3550 Telephone: (210) 212-7979 Facsimile: (210) 212-5880 E-mail: salaw@msn.com FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Anticipates Consolidation of Antitrust Suits ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ferrellgas Partners, L.P. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 29, 2014, for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2014, that the Company has been named as a defendant, along with a competitor, in putative class action lawsuits filed in multiple jurisdictions. The complaints, filed on behalf of direct and indirect customers of the Company's tank exchange business, reference the Federal Trade Commission's administrative complaint. The lawsuits allege that Ferrellgas and a competitor coordinated in 2008 to reduce the fill level in barbeque cylinders and combined to persuade a common customer to accept that fill reduction, resulting in increased cylinder costs to retailers and end-user customers in violation of federal and certain state antitrust laws. The lawsuits seek treble damages, attorneys' fees, injunctive relief and costs on behalf of the putative class. Ferrellgas anticipates that these lawsuits will be consolidated into one case by a multidistrict litigation panel. Ferrellgas believes they have strong defenses to the claims and intend to vigorously defend against them. Ferrellgas does not believe loss is probable or reasonably estimable at this time related to these putative class action lawsuits. The Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") initiated an investigation into certain practices related to the filling of portable propane cylinders. On March 27, 2014, the FTC filed an administrative complaint alleging that we and one of our competitors colluded in 2008 to persuade a customer to accept the cylinder fill reduction from 17 pounds to 15 pounds. The complaint does not seek monetary remedies. "We have filed an answer to the complaint and believes that the FTC's claims are without merit and will vigorously defend the claims. We does not believe loss is probable or reasonably estimable at this time," the Company also said. Ferrellgas Partners, L.P. is a growth-oriented publicly traded Delaware limited partnership formed in 1994 and engaged in the retail distribution of propane and midstream operations. FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Prevailed in 10th Cir. Appeal -------------------------------------------------- Ferrellgas Partners, L.P. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 29, 2014, for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2014, that the Company has been named as a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court in Kansas. The complaint was the subject of a motion to dismiss which was granted, in part, in August 2011. The surviving claims allege breach of contract and breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, both of which allegedly arise from the existence of an oral contract for continuous propane service. Ferrellgas believes the claims are without merit and intends to defend them vigorously. The case has not been certified for class treatment. Ferrellgas recently prevailed on an appeal before the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals and the appellate court ordered the trial court to determine whether the case must be arbitrated. Ferrellgas does not believe loss is probable or reasonably estimable at this time related to this putative class action lawsuit. Ferrellgas Partners, L.P. is a growth-oriented publicly traded Delaware limited partnership formed in 1994 and engaged in the retail distribution of propane and midstream operations. FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Class Action Legal Fees Total $1.7MM in 2014 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ferrellgas Partners, L.P. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 29, 2014, for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2014, that during fiscal 2014, 2013, 2012 and 2011, a class action lawsuit resulted in a litigation accrual and related legal fees. The Company said litigation accrual and related legal fees associated with the class action lawsuit total $1,749,000 in 2014 and $1,568,000 in 2013. Ferrellgas Partners, L.P. is a growth-oriented publicly traded Delaware limited partnership formed in 1994 and engaged in the retail distribution of propane and midstream operations. GREEN TREE: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act in Fla. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kimberly Carman, individually and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated v. Green Tree Servicing, LLC, Case No. 3:14-cv- 01224-MMH-MCR (M.D. Fla., October 8, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian W. Warwick, Esq. Janet R. Varnell, Esq. Steven Thomas Simmons, Jr., Esq. VARNELL & WARWICK, PA P.O. Box 1870 Lady Lake, FL 32158 Telephone: (352) 753-8600 Facsimile: (352) 753-8606 E-mail: bwarwick@varnellandwarwick.com jvarnell@varnellandwarwick.com ssimmons@varnellandwarwick.com - and - Max H. Story, Esq. COLLINS & STORY, P.A. 328 2nd Avenue North, Suite 100 Jacksonville Beach, FL 32250 Telephone: (904) 372-4109 Facsimile: (904) 758-5333 E-mail: max@collinsstorylaw.com HARVARD COLLECTION: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Benjamin Lebovits, individually and all other similarly situated consumers v. Harvard Collection Services Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv- 05903-PKC-RER (E.D.N.Y., October 8, 2014) accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: David Palace, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF DAVID PALACE 383 Kingston Avenue, #113 Brooklyn, NY 11213 Telephone: (347) 651-1077 Facsimile: (347) 464-0012 E-mail: davidpalace@gmail.com HOME DEPOT: Faces Class Suit in Northern District of Georgia ------------------------------------------------------------ Cattaraugus County School Employees Federal Credit Union, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-03244-CC (N.D. Ga., October 9, 2014) is brought for breach of fiduciary duty. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander Dewitt Weatherby, Esq. W. PITTS CARR AND ASSOCIATES, PC Building 10 4200 Northside Parkway, N.W. Atlanta, GA 30327 Telephone: (404) 442-9000 E-mail: aweatherby@wpcarr.com - and - Charles S. Zimmerman, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED 651 Nicollet Mall, Suite 501 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 341-0400 E-mail: charles.zimmerman@zimmreed.com - and - W. Pitts Carr, Esq. W. PITTS CARR & ASSOCIATES, PC 10 North Parkway Square 4200 Northside Parkway, N.W. Atlanta, GA 30327 Telephone: (404) 442-9000 Facsimile: (404) 442-9700 E-mail: pcarr@wpcarr.com I.C. SYSTEM: Sued in Fla. for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act ---------------------------------------------------------------- Betty J. Hay, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. I.C. System, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-00585-JES-CM (M.D. Fla., October 9, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Maria Alaimo, Esq. VILES & BECKMAN, LLC 6350 Presidential Ct., Suite A Ft. Myers, FL 33919 Telephone: (239) 334-3933 Facsimile: (239) 334-7105 E-mail: maria@vilesandbeckman.com INTERGROUP CORP: Partnership Paid Entire $525,000 Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------ Justice Investors, a California limited partnership ("Justice" or the "Partnership") paid the entire settlement of $525,000 during the year ended June 30, 2014, The Intergroup Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 29, 2014, for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2014. In August 2012, two current and four former employees of the Hotel commenced a putative wage and hour class action against the Partnership. The Complaint alleged that the Partnership failed to provide compliant meal periods, failed to authorize and permit compliant rest periods, failed to pay all regular and overtime wages due, failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements, and failed to pay all wages owed upon termination of employment. In February 2013, the Partnership agreed to settle the class action lawsuit for $525,000. The amount was accrued as of June 30, 2013 and is included as part of "Accounts payable and accrued liabilities" in the Consolidated Balance Sheet. Prism Hotels L.P. agreed to reimburse the Partnership for 50% of the total amount of the settlement and pay up to $300,000 of legal fees and defense costs incurred in defense of the lawsuit. During fiscal 2013, the Partnership incurred legal costs of $365,000 associated with the lawsuit, of which Prism agreed to pay $300,000 in accordance with the agreement. The amount due to Prism at June 30, 2013 for the management fee was applied against the receivable for the reimbursement of the settlement and legal costs. The Partnership insurance carrier awarded $225,000 in insurance proceeds as a result of a claim related to the settlement. Of the total proceeds, 50%, or $112,500, was allocated to the Partnership and the remaining amount was allocated to Prism. The insurance reimbursement awarded to the Partnership was offset against the related legal expense included as part of "General and administrative" expenses in the statements of income and partners' accumulated deficit. During the year ended June 30, 2014 the Partnership paid the entire settlement of $525,000. The InterGroup Corporation was organized to buy, develop, operate, rehabilitate and dispose of real property of various types and descriptions, and to engage in such other business and investment activities as would benefit the Company and its shareholders. As of June 30, 2014, the Company owned approximately 80.9% of the common shares of Santa Fe Financial Corporation ("Santa Fe"), a public company (OTCBB: SFEF). Santa Fe's revenue is primarily generated through its 68.8% owned subsidiary, Portsmouth Square, Inc. ("Portsmouth"), a public company (OTCBB: PRSI). InterGroup also directly owns approximately 12.9% of Portsmouth. Portsmouth's primary business is conducted through its general and limited partnership interest in Justice Investors, a California limited partnership ("Justice" or the "Partnership"). Portsmouth has a 93% limited partnership interest in Justice and is the sole general partner. LIBERTY SILVER: Seeks to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint --------------------------------------------------------- Liberty Silver Corp. and certain of its current and former officers and directors moved to dismiss the Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 29, 2014, for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2014. On September 12, 2013, the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors (the "Liberty Silver Parties") were named as defendants in a proposed securities class action lawsuit filed against Robert Genovese, certain individuals alleged to have collaborated with Mr. Genovese, and an offshore investment firm allegedly controlled by Mr. Genovese (the "Action," Case No. 9:13- cv-80923-KLR, Stanaford v. Genovese et al.). The action contains various claims alleging violations of the United States Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and rules thereunder relating to anomalous trading activity and fluctuations in the Company's share price from August through October 2012. The plaintiff purported to bring suit on behalf of all who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common shares from April 1, 2008, through and including October 5, 2012. An amended complaint was filed on September 27, 2013. On January 22, 2014, the Court appointed Jerald Todd Stanaford and Philip Hobel lead plaintiffs and approved Federman & Sherwood as Lead Counsel and Menzer & Hill, PA as Liaison Counsel. On March 24, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint. On May 8, 2014, the Liberty Silver Parties moved to dismiss the Complaint. The Liberty Silver Parties intend to vigorously defend the Action. It is not possible at this time to predict whether the Company will incur any liability as a result of the Action, or to estimate the damages, or the range of damages, if any, that the Company might incur in connection with the Action. LOWE'S HOME: Faces "Ingram-Fleming" Class Suit in M.D. Florida -------------------------------------------------------------- April Ingram-Fleming, on behalf of herself and all similarly- situated individuals v. Lowe's Home Centers, LLC, agent of Lowe's, Case No. 8:14-cv-02569-SDM-MAP (M.D. Fla., October 9, 2014) is brought under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon J. Hill, Esq. Luis A. Cabassa, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA 1110 N Florida Ave., Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 224-0431 Facsimile: (813) 229-8712 E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com lcabassa@wfclaw.com MEDTRONIC INC: Removes "Goodhue" Suit to Tennessee District Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- The lawsuit captioned Goodhue v. Medtronic, Inc., et al., Case No. CT-004251-14, was removed from the Circuit Court of Shelby County, Tennessee, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee (Memphis). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-02784-JTF-cgc to the proceeding. Plaintiff Gregory Goodhue alleges that he was injured by his physician's off-label use of Medtronic and MSD's Infuse Bone Graft/LT-CAGE Lumbar Tapered Fusion Device. Medtronic, Inc. is a Minnesota corporation headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc., is a Tennessee corporation headquartered in Memphis, Tennessee. MSD is a wholly owned subsidiary of Medtronic, Inc. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory Joe Bubalo, Esq. BUBALO GOODE SALES & BLISS, PLC 9300 Shelbyville Road, Suite 215 Louisville, KY 40222 Telephone: (502) 753-1600 E-mail: gbubalo@bubalolaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Robert F. Tom, Esq. BAKER DONELSON BEARMAN CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ 165 Madison Avenue, Suite 2000 Memphis, TN 38103 Telephone: (901) 526-2000 E-mail: rtom@bakerdonelson.com MODEL N INC: Removes Plymouth IPO-Related Suit to N.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Plymouth County Retirement System v. Model N, Inc., et al., Case No. CIV 530291, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, San Mateo County, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:14- cv-04516-LB to the proceeding. The Action is a putative class action brought against Model N, certain officers and directors of Model N, and certain underwriters of Model N's March 20, 2013 initial public offering on the NYSE stock exchange. The Plaintiff is represented by: Shawn A. Williams, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN DOWD LLP Post Montgomery Center One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 288-4545 Facsimile: (415) 288-4534 E-mail: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com - and - Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. Mary K. Blasy, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 1. 1747 Telephone: (631) 367-7100 Facsimile: (631) 367-1173 E-mail: srudman@csgrr.com mblasy@rgrdlaw.com - and - Christopher J. Keller, Esq. Michael W. Stocker, Esq. LABATON SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 Facsimile: (212) 818-0477 E-mail: ckeller@labaton.com mstocker@labaton.com Defendants Zack Rinat, Sujan Jain, James W. Breyer, Sarah Friar, Mark Garrett, Charles J. Robel and Model N, Inc., are represented by: Susan S. Muck, Esq. FENWICK & WEST LLP 555 California Street, 12th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 875-2300 Facsimile: (415) 281-1350 E-mail: smuck@fenwick.com - and - Felix S. Lee, Esq. Michael Davis-Wilson, Esq. FENWICK & WEST LLP Silicon Valley Center 801 California Street Mountain View, CA 94041 Telephone: (650) 988-8500 Facsimile: (650) 938-5200 E-mail: flee@fenwick.com mdaviswilson@fenwick.com OCEAN STATE JOBBERS: "Scribner" Suit Transferred to Conn. --------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Scribner v. Ocean State Jobbers, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-11633, was transferred from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts to the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut (New Haven). The Connecticut District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:14-cv-01486- VLB to the proceeding. The action is brought on behalf of all assistant store managers employed by Ocean State for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Ocean State Jobbers, Inc. is a corporation with its principal office in North Kingstown, Rhode Island. The Defendant, on its own and through various affiliated corporations and limited liability companies, owns and operates numerous Ocean State Job Lot stores throughout New York and New England. The Plaintiff is represented by: Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. Sara Smolik, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 100 Cambridge Street, 20th Floor Boston, MA 02114 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 Facsimile: (617) 994-5801 E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com ssmolik@llrlaw.com - and - Richard E. Hayber, Esq. Margaret B. Ferron, Esq. HAYBER LAW FIRM, LLC 221 Main Street, Suite 502 Hartford, CT 06106 Telephone: (860) 522-8888 Facsimile: (860) 218-9555 E-mail: rhayber@hayberlawfirm.com mferron@hayberlawfirm.com - and - Jordan M. Lewis, Esq. KELLEY/UUSTAL, PLC Courthouse Law Plaza 700 SE 3rd Ave., Third Floor Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33316 Telephone: (954) 522-6601 Facsimile: (954) 522-6608 E-mail: jml@kulaw.com PARAMOUNT EQUITY: Faces Suit in California Over Unsolicited Calls ----------------------------------------------------------------- Matthew Scott Robinson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Paramount Equity Mortgage, LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-02359-TLN-CKD (E.D. Cal., October 8, 2014) accuses the Defendant of willfully violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by causing unsolicited calls to be made to the Plaintiff's and other class members' cellular telephones through the use of an auto-dialer and artificial or pre-recorded or artificial voice message. Paramount Equity Mortgage, LLC is a California corporation headquartered in Roseville, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael R. Dufour, Esq. SOUTHWEST LEGAL GROUP 22440 Clarendon Street, Suite 200 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (818) 591-4300 Facsimile: (818) 591-4315 E-mail: mdufour@swlegalgrp.com - and - W. Craft Hughes, Esq. Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq. Brian B. Kilpatrick, Esq. HUGHES ELLZEY, LLP Galleria Tower I 2700 Post Oak Boulevard, Suite 1120 Houston, TX 77056 Telephone: (713) 554-2377 Facsimile: (888) 995-3335 E-mail: craft@hughesellzey.com jarrett@hughesellzey.com brian@hughesellzey.com PATIENT ACCOUNTING: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Nancy Pardo, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Patient Accounting Service Center, LLC dba ARSTRAT, Case No. 2:14-cv-07817 (C.D. Cal., October 8, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew M. Loker, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ml@kazlg.com REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 11 Tobacco-Related Cases Served Against RJR -------------------------------------------------------------- Reynolds American Inc. said in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 29, 2014, that from the beginning of the third quarter of 2014 through September 17, 2014, 11 tobacco-related cases, including one Engle Progeny case, were served against RJR Tobacco or its affiliates or indemnitees. The updates were made as part of a BRIDGE CREDIT AGREEMENT dated as of September 23, 2014, among REYNOLDS AMERICAN INC., as Borrower, The Lenders Party Hereto and JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., as Administrative Agent, CITIBANK, N.A., as Syndication Agent, and J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, and CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., as Joint Lead Arrangers and Joint Bookrunners. According to Reynolds American, on September 17, 2014, there were 176 cases pending against RJR Tobacco or its affiliates or indemnitees: 160 in the United States and 16 in Canada, as compared with 165 total cases on September 30, 2013. The U.S. case number does not include the approximately 564 individual smoker cases pending in West Virginia state court as a consolidated action, 4,071 Engle Progeny cases, involving approximately 5,172 individual plaintiffs, and 2,570 Broin II cases (as hereinafter defined), pending in the United States against RJR Tobacco or its affiliates or indemnitees. Of the U.S. cases pending on September 17, 2014, 16 are pending in federal court, 143 in state court and 1 in tribal court, primarily in the following states: Maryland (28 cases); Florida (25 cases); Missouri (18 cases); and New York (14 cases). REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 947 Engle Progeny Cases Pending in Dist. Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- Reynolds American Inc. said in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 29, 2014, that as of September 17, 2014, 947 Engle Progeny cases were pending in federal court, and 3,124 of them were pending in state court. The updates were made as part of a BRIDGE CREDIT AGREEMENT dated as of September 23, 2014, among REYNOLDS AMERICAN INC., as Borrower, The Lenders Party Hereto and JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., as Administrative Agent, CITIBANK, N.A., as Syndication Agent, and J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, and CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., as Joint Lead Arrangers and Joint Bookrunners. According to Reynolds American, the cases include approximately 5,172 plaintiffs. In addition, as of September 17, 2014, RJR Tobacco was aware of 16 additional Engle Progeny cases that had been filed but not served. One hundred nine Engle Progeny cases have been tried in Florida state and federal courts since 2011 through September 17, 2014, and numerous state court trials are scheduled for 2014. In 2000, a jury in Engle v. Liggett Group, a class action brought against the major U.S. cigarette manufacturers by Florida smokers allegedly harmed by their addiction to nicotine, rendered a $145 billion punitive damages verdict in favor of the class. In 2006, the Florida Supreme Court set aside that award, prospectively decertified the class, and preserved several of the Engle jury findings for use in subsequent individual actions to be filed within one year of its decision. The preserved findings include jury determinations that smoking causes various diseases, that nicotine is addictive, and that each defendant sold cigarettes that were defective and unreasonably dangerous, committed unspecified acts of negligence and individually and jointly concealed unspecified information about the health risks of smoking. In the wake of Engle, thousands of individual progeny actions were filed in federal and state courts in Florida. Such actions are commonly referred to as "Engle Progeny" cases. The number of pending cases fluctuates for a variety of reasons, including voluntary and involuntary dismissals. Voluntary dismissals include cases in which a plaintiff accepts an "offer of judgment," referred to in Florida statutes as "proposals for settlement," from RJR Tobacco and/or its affiliates. An offer of judgment, if rejected by the plaintiff, preserves RJR Tobacco's right to recover attorneys' fees under Florida law in the event of a verdict favorable to RJR Tobacco. Such offers are sometimes made through court-ordered mediations. In Engle Progeny cases tried to date, a central issue has been the proper use of the preserved Engle findings. RJR Tobacco has argued that use of the Engle findings to establish individual elements of progeny claims (such as defect, negligence and concealment) is a violation of federal due process. In 2013, however, both the Florida Supreme Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, referred to as the Eleventh Circuit, rejected that argument. In addition to this global due process argument, RJR Tobacco raises many other factual and legal defenses as appropriate in each case. These defenses may include, among other things, arguing that the plaintiff is not a proper member of the Engle class, that the plaintiff did not rely on any statements by any tobacco company, that the trial was conducted unfairly, that some or all claims are barred by applicable statutes of limitation or statutes of repose, or that any injury was caused by the smoker's own conduct. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 24 Engle Progeny Cases Became Final ------------------------------------------------------ Reynolds American Inc. said in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 29, 2014, that twenty-four Engle Progeny cases have become final through September 17, 2014. These cases resulted in aggregate payments by RJR Tobacco of $186.4 million ($140.1 million for compensatory and punitive damages and $46.3 million for attorneys' fees and statutory interest). On October 3, 2014, a payment of $11.9 million ($10 million for compensatory and punitive damages and $1.9 million for attorneys' fees and statutory interest) will be made in satisfaction of the adverse judgment in the Crawford case. The updates were made as part of a BRIDGE CREDIT AGREEMENT dated as of September 23, 2014, among REYNOLDS AMERICAN INC., as Borrower, The Lenders Party Hereto and JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., as Administrative Agent, CITIBANK, N.A., as Syndication Agent, and J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, and CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., as Joint Lead Arrangers and Joint Bookrunners. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Updates on Verdicts in Engle Progeny Cases ------------------------------------------------------------- Reynolds American Inc. said in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 29, 2014, that the following chart reflects verdicts in all individual Engle Progeny cases, pending as of September 17, 2014, in which a verdict has been returned against RJR Tobacco or Brown & Williamson, or both, and has not been set aside on appeal. This chart does not include the mistrials or verdicts returned in favor of RJR Tobacco or B&W, or both: Plaintiff RJR Tobacco Compensatory Case Allocation Damages (as Punitive Name of Fault adjusted)(1) Damages ----------------------------------------------------- Cohen 33.3% $3,300,000 -- Putney 30% -- -- Buonomo 77.5% $4,060,000 -- Webb 90% -- -- Soffer 40% $2,000,000 -- Ciccone 30% $1,000,000 -- Hallgren 25% $500,000 $750,000 Calloway 27% $16,100,000 $17,250,000 Hiott 40% $730,000 -- Hancock 5% $700 -- Sikes 51% $3,520,000 $2,000,000 James Smith 55% $600,000 $20,000 Schlenther 50% $5,030,000 $2,500,000 Ballard 55% $5,000,000 -- Williams 85% $4,250,000 -- Evers 60% $1,938,000 -- Schoeff 75% $7,875,000 $30,000,000 Marotta 58% $3,480,000 -- Searcy 30% $1,000,000 $1,670,000 Aycock 72.5% $4,277,000 -- Graham 20% $550,000 -- Starr- Blundell 10% $50,000 -- Odum 50% $100,000 -- Skolnick 30% $767,000 -- Thibault 70% $1,750,000 $1,275,000 Grossman 75% $15,350,000 $22,500,000 Gafney 33% $1,914,000 -- Crawford 70% $9,000,000 $1,000,000 Harford 18% $59,000 -- Cheeley 50% $1,500,000 $2,000,000 Goveia 35% $297,500 $2,250,000 Clayton 10% $60,000 -- Bowden 30% $1,500,000 -- Burkhart 25% $2,500,000 $1,250,000 Bakst 75% $4,503,000 $14,000,000 Robinson 70.5% $16,900,000 $23,600,000,000 Harris 15% $239,000 Wilcox 70% $4,900,000 $8,500,000 Irimi 14.5% $453,000 -- Hubbird 50% $3,000,000 $25,000,000 ------------------------------------ Totals $130,013,200 $23,731,965,000 Appeal Status In the Cohen case, Punitive damages set aside; remanded for partial new trial; notice to invoke jurisdiction of Florida Supreme Court pending; stayed pending resolution of Hess v. Philip Morris USA Inc. In the Putney case, reversed and remanded for further proceedings; notice to invoke jurisdiction of Florida Supreme Court pending; stayed pending resolution of Hess v. Philip Morris USA Inc. In the Buonomo case, punitive damages set aside; remanded for new trial; notice to invoke jurisdiction of Florida Supreme Court pending; stayed pending resolution of Hess v. Philip Morris USA Inc. In the Webb case, reversed and remanded for new trial on damages; new trial scheduled for November 3, 2014 In the Soffer case, Pending -- Florida Supreme Court In the Ciccone case, Pending -- Florida Supreme Court In the Hallgren case, Notice to invoke jurisdiction of Florida Supreme Court pending; stayed In the Calloway case, Pending -- Fourth DCA In the Hiott case, Notice to invoke jurisdiction of Florida Supreme Court pending; stayed pending resolution of Hess v. Philip Morris USA Inc. In the Hancock case, Pending -- Fourth DCA In the Sikes case, Notice to invoke jurisdiction of Florida Supreme Court pending; stayed pending resolution of Hess v. Philip Morris USA Inc. In the James Smith case, Pending -- Eleventh Circuit In the Schlenther case, Pending -- Second DCA In the Ballard case, Pending -- Third DCA In the Williams case, Third DCA affirmed; deadline to file notice to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of the Florida Supreme Court is October 20, 2014 In the Evers case, Punitive damages reversed; pending -- Second DCA In the Schoeff case, Pending -- Fourth DCA In the Marotta case, Pending -- Fourth DCA In the Searcy case, Pending -- Eleventh Circuit In the Aycock case, Pending -- Eleventh Circuit In the Graham case, Pending -- Eleventh Circuit In the Starr-Blundell case, Pending -- First DCA In the Odum case, Pending -- First DCA In the Skolnick case, Pending -- Fourth DCA In the Thibaul case, Pending -- First DCA In the Grossman case, Pending -- Fourth DCA In the Gafney case, Pending -- Fourth DCA In the Crawford case, Third DCA affirmed; payment will be made October 3, 2014 In the Harford case, Post-trial motions are pending(3) In the Cheeley case, Pending -- Fourth DCA In the Goveia case, Pending -- Fifth DCA In the Clayton case, Pending -- First DCA In the Bowden case, Pending -- First DCA In the Burkhart case, Post-trial motions denied; deadline to file notice of appeal is October 16, 2014 In the Bakst case, Post-trial motions denied; deadline to file notice of appeal is October 14, 2014 In the Robinson case, Post-trial motions are pending(3) In the Harris case, Post-trial motions are pending(3) In the Wilcox case, Post-trial motions are pending(3) In the Irimi case, Post-trial motions are pending(3) In the Hubbird case, Post-trial motions are pending(3) (1) Unless otherwise noted, compensatory damages in these cases are adjusted to reflect the jury's allocation of comparative fault. Punitive damages are not so adjusted. The amounts listed above do not include attorneys' fees or statutory interest that may apply to the judgments. (2) The court did not apply comparative fault in the final judgment. (3) Should the pending post-trial motions be denied, RJR Tobacco will likely file a notice of appeal with the appropriate appellate court. As of September 17, 2014, outstanding judgments in favor of the Engle Progeny plaintiffs have been entered and remain outstanding against RJR Tobacco in the amount of $130,013,200 in compensatory damages (as adjusted) and in the amount of $23,731,965,000 in punitive damages, for a total of $23,861,978,200. Excluding the Robinson case, where a jury awarded $16.9 million in compensatory damages and $23.6 billion in punitive damages and where post-trial motions are pending before the trial court, outstanding judgments in favor of the Engle Progeny plaintiffs have been entered and remain outstanding against RJR Tobacco in the amount of $113,113,200 in compensatory damages (as adjusted) and in the amount of $131,965,000 in punitive damages, for a total of $245,078,200. All of these verdicts are at various stages in the appellate process. RJR Tobacco continues to believe that it has valid defenses in these cases, including case-specific issues beyond the due process issue discussed above. It is the policy of RJR Tobacco and its affiliates to vigorously defend all smoking and health claims, including in Engle Progeny cases. The updates were made as part of a BRIDGE CREDIT AGREEMENT dated as of September 23, 2014, among REYNOLDS AMERICAN INC., as Borrower, The Lenders Party Hereto and JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., as Administrative Agent, CITIBANK, N.A., as Syndication Agent, and J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, and CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., as Joint Lead Arrangers and Joint Bookrunners. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 9 Engle Progeny Cases Tried in 3rd Qtr 2014 -------------------------------------------------------------- Reynolds American Inc. said in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 29, 2014, that in the third quarter of 2014 (through September 17, 2014), nine Engle Progeny cases in which RJR Tobacco was a defendant were tried: 1. In Robinson v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found the decedent, Michael Johnson, Sr., to be 29.5% at fault and RJR Tobacco to be 70.5% at fault and awarded $16.9 million in compensatory damages and $23.6 billion in punitive damages. 2. In Harris v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. The jury allocated fault: (1) for the survival claim as follows: decedent -- 60%, RJR Tobacco -- 15%, and the remaining defendants (collectively) -- 25%; and (2) for the wrongful death claim as follows: decedent -- 70%, RJR Tobacco -- 10%, and the remaining defendants (collectively) -- 20%. The jury awarded $400,000 in compensatory damages for the wrongful death claim and $1.3 million in compensatory damages for the survival claim. Punitive damages were not awarded. 3. In Gore v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the court declared a mistrial because the jury returned a potentially inconsistent verdict. The jury found for the plaintiff on liability, but awarded no compensatory damages and determined that the plaintiff was entitled to punitive damages. 4. In Wilcox v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found the decedent, Cleston Wilcox, to be 30% at fault and RJR Tobacco to be 70% at fault, and awarded $7 million in compensatory damages and $8.5 million in punitive damages. 5. In Irimi v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found the decedent, Dale Moyer, to be 70% at fault, RJR Tobacco to be 14.5% at fault, and the remaining defendants collectively to be 15.5% at fault, and awarded approximately $3.1 million in compensatory damages. Punitive damages were not awarded. 6. In Hubbird v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found the decedent, David Ellsworth, to be 50% at fault and RJR Tobacco to be 50% at fault, and awarded $3 million in compensatory damages and $25 million in punitive damages. 7. In Cooper v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the court declared a mistrial because the jury was unable to reach a verdict. 8. In Baum v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants, including RJR Tobacco. 9. In Ellis v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury returned a verdict in favor of RJR Tobacco. The updates were made as part of a BRIDGE CREDIT AGREEMENT dated as of September 23, 2014, among REYNOLDS AMERICAN INC., as Borrower, The Lenders Party Hereto and JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., as Administrative Agent, CITIBANK, N.A., as Syndication Agent, and J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, and CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., as Joint Lead Arrangers and Joint Bookrunners. According to Reynolds American, trial schedules are subject to change, and many cases are dismissed before trial. It is likely that RJR Tobacco and other cigarette manufacturers will have an increased number of tobacco-related trials in 2014. There are six cases, exclusive of Engle Progeny cases, scheduled for trial as of September 17, 2014 through September 17, 2015, for RJR Tobacco or its affiliates and indemnitees: one non-smoking and health case, four individual smoking and health cases and one class action. There are 58 Engle Progeny cases against RJR Tobacco and/or B&W set for trial through September 17, 2015, but it is not known how many of these cases will actually be tried. From January 1, 2011 through September 17, 2014, 114 smoking and health, Engle Progeny and health-care cost recovery cases in which RJR Tobacco or B&W were defendants were tried, including six trials for cases where mistrials were declared in the original proceedings. Verdicts in favor of RJR Tobacco, B&W and, in some cases, RJR Tobacco, B&W and other defendants, were returned in 58 cases, including 16 mistrials, tried in Florida (55), Missouri (1) and West Virginia (2). Verdicts in favor of the plaintiffs were returned in 52 cases tried in Florida and one in New York. Three cases in Florida were dismissed during trial. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 95 Individual Smoking and Health Cases Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- Reynolds American Inc. said in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 29, 2014, that as of September 17, 2014, 95 individual cases were pending in the United States against RJR Tobacco, Brown & Williamson, as its indemnitee, or both. This category of cases includes smoking and health cases alleging personal injury brought by or on behalf of individual plaintiffs, but does not include the Broin II, Engle Progeny or West Virginia IPIC cases. The updates were made as part of a BRIDGE CREDIT AGREEMENT dated as of September 23, 2014, among REYNOLDS AMERICAN INC., as Borrower, The Lenders Party Hereto and JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., as Administrative Agent, CITIBANK, N.A., as Syndication Agent, and J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, and CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., as Joint Lead Arrangers and Joint Bookrunners. According to Reynolds American, a total of 93 of the individual cases are brought by or on behalf of individual smokers or their survivors, while the remaining two cases are brought by or on behalf of individuals or their survivors alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke, referred to as ETS. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: RJR Brief Due in "Izzarelli" Case Appeal ----------------------------------------------------------- RJR Tobacco's brief was due on October 2, 2014, in the appeal in the case Izzarelli v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Reynolds American Inc. said in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 29, 2014. The updates were made as part of a BRIDGE CREDIT AGREEMENT dated as of September 23, 2014, among REYNOLDS AMERICAN INC., as Borrower, The Lenders Party Hereto and JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., as Administrative Agent, CITIBANK, N.A., as Syndication Agent, and J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, and CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., as Joint Lead Arrangers and Joint Bookrunners. According to Reynolds American, on May 26, 2010, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff in Izzarelli v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in December 1999 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. The plaintiff sought to recover damages for personal injuries that the plaintiff alleges she sustained as a result of unsafe and unreasonably dangerous cigarette products and for economic losses she sustained as a result of unfair trade practices of the defendant. The jury found RJR Tobacco to be 58% at fault and the plaintiff to be 42% at fault, awarded $13.9 million in compensatory damages and found the plaintiff to be entitled to punitive damages. In December 2010, the court awarded the plaintiff $3.97 million in punitive damages. Final judgment was entered in December 2010, in the amount of $11.95 million. The court granted the plaintiff's motion for offer of judgment interest, and awarded the plaintiff $15.8 million for the period of December 6, 1999 up to and including December 5, 2010, and approximately $4,000 per day thereafter until an amended judgment was entered. The amended judgment was entered in the amount of approximately $28.1 million in March 2011. RJR Tobacco filed a notice of appeal in September 2011, and the plaintiff thereafter cross appealed with respect to the punitive damages award. In September 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued an opinion that certified the following question to the Connecticut Supreme Court: "Does Comment i to section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts preclude a suit premised on strict products liability against a cigarette manufacturer based on evidence that the defendant purposefully manufactured cigarettes to increase daily consumption without regard to the resultant increase in exposure to carcinogens, but in the absence of evidence of any adulteration or contamination?" Subsequently, the plaintiff submitted a motion to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to amend the certification order to add a second question to the Connecticut Supreme Court: "Does Comment i to section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts preclude a claim under the [Connecticut Products Liability Act] against a cigarette manufacturer for negligence (in the design of its cigarette products)?" The Second Circuit denied the plaintiff's motion. The Connecticut Supreme Court accepted the certified question and denied the plaintiff's request to amend the question with the same additional question that the plaintiff proposed to the Second Circuit. The plaintiff submitted her brief on July 31, 2014. RJR Tobacco's brief is due on October 2, 2014. The Second Circuit has retained jurisdiction over the parties' appeals and will decide the case after the Connecticut Supreme Court has completed its proceedings. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Oral Argument in "Whitney" Appeal Held --------------------------------------------------------- Oral argument was scheduled for October 14, 2014, in the appeal in the case, Whitney v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Reynolds American Inc. said in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 29, 2014. The updates were made as part of a BRIDGE CREDIT AGREEMENT dated as of September 23, 2014, among REYNOLDS AMERICAN INC., as Borrower, The Lenders Party Hereto and JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., as Administrative Agent, CITIBANK, N.A., as Syndication Agent, and J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, and CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., as Joint Lead Arrangers and Joint Bookrunners. According to Reynolds American, on June 19, 2013, in Whitney v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants, including RJR Tobacco. The case was filed in January 2011, in the Circuit Court, Alachua County, Florida. The plaintiff alleged that as a result of using the defendants' products, she suffers from lung cancer and emphysema. Final judgment was entered in July 2013. The plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the First District Court of Appeal, and the defendants filed a notice of cross appeal in August 2013. Oral argument is scheduled for October 14, 2014. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Briefing Complete in West Virginia IPIC ---------------------------------------------------------- Briefing is complete in the West Virginia Individual Personal Injury Cases, Reynolds American Inc. said in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 29, 2014. In re: Tobacco Litigation Individual Personal Injury Cases began in 1999, in West Virginia state court, as a series of roughly 1,200 individual plaintiff cases making claims with respect to cigarettes manufactured by Philip Morris, Lorillard, RJR Tobacco, B&W and The American Tobacco Company. The cases were consolidated for a Phase I trial on various defense conduct issues, to be followed in Phase II by individual trials of any claims left standing. Over the years, approximately 600 individual plaintiff claims were dismissed for failure to comply with the case management order, leaving 564 individual cases pending as of April 2013. On April 15, 2013, the Phase I jury trial began and ended with a virtually complete defense verdict on May 15, 2013. The jury found that cigarettes were not defectively designed, were not defective due to a failure to warn prior to July 1, 1969, that defendants were not negligent, did not breach warranties and did not engage in conduct which would warrant punitive damages. The only claim remaining after the verdict was the jury's finding that all ventilated filter cigarettes manufactured and sold between 1964 and July 1, 1969 were defective for a failure to instruct. The defendants believe that there are only 30 plaintiffs remaining who arguably claim to have smoked a ventilated filter cigarette during the relevant period. The court initially entered judgment on the verdict identifying the 30 plaintiffs remaining, but vacated those orders as premature (leaving to a later day the task of identifying the plaintiffs who might be able to assert a ventilated filter failure to instruct claim during the narrow relevant period). The court entered a new judgment in October 2013, dismissing all claims lost by the plaintiffs and purporting to make those claims and all of the jury rulings immediately subject to appeal. The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals in November 2013. Briefing is complete. The defendants reserved the right to challenge the ventilated filter claim in the event any plaintiff pursues and succeeds on such a claim. The updates were made as part of a BRIDGE CREDIT AGREEMENT dated as of September 23, 2014, among REYNOLDS AMERICAN INC., as Borrower, The Lenders Party Hereto and JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., as Administrative Agent, CITIBANK, N.A., as Syndication Agent, and J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, and CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., as Joint Lead Arrangers and Joint Bookrunners. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 8 "Lights" Class Actions Pending at Sept. 17 --------------------------------------------------------------- Reynolds American Inc. said in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 29, 2014, that as of September 17, 2014, eight class-action cases were pending in the United States against RJR Tobacco or its affiliates or indemnitees. The updates were made as part of a BRIDGE CREDIT AGREEMENT dated as of September 23, 2014, among REYNOLDS AMERICAN INC., as Borrower, The Lenders Party Hereto and JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., as Administrative Agent, CITIBANK, N.A., as Syndication Agent, and J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, and CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., as Joint Lead Arrangers and Joint Bookrunners. According to Reynolds American, in 1996, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in Castano v. American Tobacco Co. overturned the certification of a nation-wide class of persons whose claims related to alleged addiction to tobacco products. Since this ruling by the Fifth Circuit, most class-action suits have sought certification of state-wide, rather than nation-wide, classes. Class-action suits based on claims similar to those asserted in Castano or claims that class members are at a greater risk of injury or injured by the use of tobacco or exposure to ETS are pending against RJR Tobacco and its affiliates and indemnitees in state or federal courts in California, Illinois, Louisiana, Missouri, and West Virginia. The pending class actions against RJR Tobacco or its affiliates or indemnitees include four cases alleging that the use of the term "lights" constitutes unfair and deceptive trade practices under state law or violates the federal RICO statute. Such suits are pending in state or federal courts in Illinois and Missouri. Finally, certain third-party payers have filed health-care cost recovery actions in the form of class actions. Few smoker class-action complaints have been certified or, if certified, have survived on appeal. Eighteen federal courts, including two courts of appeals, and most state courts that have considered the issue have rejected class certification in such cases. Apart from the Castano case only two smoker class actions have been certified by a federal court -- In re Simon (II) Litigation, and Schwab [McLaughlin] v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., both of which were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York and ultimately decertified. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Nov. 4 Trial in Sateriale Case ------------------------------------------------- Trial is scheduled for November 4, 2014 in the case Sateriale v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Reynolds American Inc. said in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 29, 2014. In Sateriale v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a class action filed in November 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, the plaintiffs brought the case on behalf of all persons who tried unsuccessfully to redeem Camel Cash certificates from 1991 through March 31, 2007, or who held Camel Cash certificates as of March 31, 2007. The plaintiffs allege that in response to the defendants' action to discontinue redemption of Camel Cash as of March 31, 2007, customers, like the plaintiffs, attempted to exchange their Camel Cash for merchandise and that the defendants, however, did not have any merchandise to exchange for Camel Cash. The plaintiffs allege unfair business practices, deceptive practices, breach of contract and promissory estoppel. The plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, actual damages, costs and expenses. In January 2010, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which prompted the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint in February 2010. The class definition changed to a class consisting of all persons who reside in the U.S. and tried unsuccessfully to redeem Camel Cash certificates, from October 1, 2006 (six months before the defendant ended the Camel Cash program) or who held Camel Cash certificates as of March 31, 2007. The plaintiffs also brought the class on behalf of a proposed California subclass, consisting of all California residents meeting the same criteria. In May 2010, RJR Tobacco's motion to dismiss the amended complaint for lack of jurisdiction over subject matter and, alternatively, for failure to state a claim was granted with leave to amend. The plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. In July 2010, RJR Tobacco's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint was granted with leave to amend. The plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint, and RJR Tobacco filed a motion to dismiss in September 2010. In December 2010, the court granted RJR Tobacco's motion to dismiss with prejudice. Final judgment was entered by the court, and the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal, in January 2011. In July 2012, the appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims under the Unfair Competition Law and the Consumer Legal Remedies Acts and reversed the dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims for promissory estoppel and breach of contract. RJR Tobacco's motion for rehearing or rehearing en banc was denied in October 2012. RJR Tobacco filed its answer to the plaintiffs' third amended complaint in December 2012. Trial is scheduled for November 4, 2014. The updates were made as part of a BRIDGE CREDIT AGREEMENT dated as of September 23, 2014, among REYNOLDS AMERICAN INC., as Borrower, The Lenders Party Hereto and JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., as Administrative Agent, CITIBANK, N.A., as Syndication Agent, and J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, and CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., as Joint Lead Arrangers and Joint Bookrunners. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Decision Pending in "Price v. PM" Appeal ----------------------------------------------------------- A decision is pending in the appeal in the case Price v. Philip Morris, Inc., Reynolds American Inc. said in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 29, 2014. The updates were made as part of a BRIDGE CREDIT AGREEMENT dated as of September 23, 2014, among REYNOLDS AMERICAN INC., as Borrower, The Lenders Party Hereto and JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., as Administrative Agent, CITIBANK, N.A., as Syndication Agent, and J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, and CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., as Joint Lead Arrangers and Joint Bookrunners. According to Reynolds American, "lights" class-action cases are pending against RJR Tobacco or B&W in Illinois (2) and Missouri (2). The classes in these cases generally seek to recover $50,000 to $75,000 per class member for compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive and other forms of relief, and attorneys' fees and costs from RJR Tobacco and/or B&W. In general, the plaintiffs allege that RJR Tobacco or B&W made false and misleading claims that "lights" cigarettes were lower in tar and nicotine and/or were less hazardous or less mutagenic than other cigarettes. The cases typically are filed pursuant to state consumer protection and related statutes. Many of these "lights" cases were stayed pending review of the Good v. Altria Group, Inc. case by the U.S. Supreme Court. In that "lights" class-action case against Altria Group, Inc. and Philip Morris USA, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that these claims are not preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act or by the Federal Trade Commission's, referred to as FTC, historic regulation of the industry. Since this decision in December 2008, a number of the stayed cases have become active again. The seminal "lights" class-action case involves RJR Tobacco's competitor, Philip Morris, Inc. Trial began in Price v. Philip Morris, Inc. in January 2003. In March 2003, the trial judge entered judgment against Philip Morris in the amount of $7.1 billion in compensatory damages and $3 billion in punitive damages. Based on Illinois law, the bond required to stay execution of the judgment was set initially at $12 billion. Philip Morris pursued various avenues of relief from the $12 billion bond requirement. On December 15, 2005, the Illinois Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision and sent the case back to the trial court with instructions to dismiss the case. On December 5, 2006, the trial court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss and for entry of final judgment. The case was dismissed with prejudice the same day. In December 2008, the plaintiffs filed a petition for relief from judgment, stating that the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Good v. Altria Group, Inc. rejected the basis for the reversal. The trial court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' petition for relief from judgment in February 2009. In March 2009, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Illinois Appellate Court, Fifth Judicial District, requesting a reversal of the February 2009 order and remand to the circuit court. On February 24, 2011, the appellate court entered an order, concluding that the two-year time limit for filing a petition for relief from a final judgment began to run when the trial court dismissed the plaintiffs' lawsuit on December 18, 2006. The appellate court therefore found that the petition was timely, reversed the order of the trial court, and remanded the case for further proceedings. Philip Morris filed a petition for leave to appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court. On September 28, 2011, the Illinois Supreme Court denied Philip Morris's petition for leave to appeal and returned the case to the trial court for further proceedings. In December 2012, the trial court denied the plaintiffs' petition for relief from the judgment. The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Illinois Appellate Court, Fifth Judicial District. In April 2014, the appellate court reinstated the 2003 verdict. In May 2014, Philip Morris filed a petition for leave to appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court and a motion for supervisory order. Philip Morris has requested the Illinois Supreme Court to direct the Fifth Judicial District to vacate its April 2014 judgment and to order the Fifth Judicial District to affirm the trial court's denial of the plaintiff's petition for relief from the judgment, or in the alternative, grant its petition for leave to appeal. A decision is pending. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Nov. 19 Status Conference in "Turner" Case ------------------------------------------------------------- A status conference is scheduled for November 19, 2014, the case Turner v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Reynolds American Inc. said in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 29, 2014. The updates were made as part of a BRIDGE CREDIT AGREEMENT dated as of September 23, 2014, among REYNOLDS AMERICAN INC., as Borrower, The Lenders Party Hereto and JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., as Administrative Agent, CITIBANK, N.A., as Syndication Agent, and J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, and CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., as Joint Lead Arrangers and Joint Bookrunners. According to Reynolds American, in Turner v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in February 2000 in Circuit Court, Madison County, Illinois, a judge certified a class in November 2001. In June 2003, RJR Tobacco filed a motion to stay the case pending Philip Morris's appeal of the Price v. Philip Morris, Inc. case mentioned above, which the judge denied in July 2003. In October 2003, the Illinois Fifth District Court of Appeals denied RJR Tobacco's emergency stay/supremacy order request. In November 2003, the Illinois Supreme Court granted RJR Tobacco's motion for a stay pending the court's final appeal decision in Price. On October 11, 2007, the Illinois Fifth District Court of Appeals dismissed RJR Tobacco's appeal of the court's denial of its emergency stay/supremacy order request and remanded the case to the Circuit Court. A status conference is scheduled for November 19, 2014. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: No Activity in "Howard" v. B&W ------------------------------------------------- There is currently no activity in the case Howard v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., Reynolds American Inc. said in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 29, 2014. In Howard v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., a case filed in February 2000 in Circuit Court, Madison County, Illinois, a judge certified a class in December 2001. In June 2003, the trial judge issued an order staying all proceedings pending resolution of the Price v. Philip Morris, Inc. case mentioned above. The plaintiffs appealed this stay order to the Illinois Fifth District Court of Appeals, which affirmed the Circuit Court's stay order in August 2005. There is currently no activity in the case. The updates were made as part of a BRIDGE CREDIT AGREEMENT dated as of September 23, 2014, among REYNOLDS AMERICAN INC., as Borrower, The Lenders Party Hereto and JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., as Administrative Agent, CITIBANK, N.A., as Syndication Agent, and J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, and CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., as Joint Lead Arrangers and Joint Bookrunners. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Feb. 2 Status Conference in "Collora" Case ------------------------------------------------------------- A status conference is scheduled for February 2, 2015, in the case Collora v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Reynolds American Inc. said in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 29, 2014. A "lights" class-action case is pending against each of RJR Tobacco and B&W in Missouri. In Collora v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in May 2000 in Circuit Court, St. Louis County, Missouri, a judge in St. Louis certified a class in December 2003. In April 2007, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion to reassign Collora and the following cases to a single general division: Craft v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc. and Black v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. In April 2008, the court stayed the case pending U.S. Supreme Court review in Good v. Altria Group, Inc. A nominal trial date of January 10, 2011 was scheduled, but it did not proceed at that time. A status conference is scheduled for February 2, 2015. The updates were made as part of a BRIDGE CREDIT AGREEMENT dated as of September 23, 2014, among REYNOLDS AMERICAN INC., as Borrower, The Lenders Party Hereto and JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., as Administrative Agent, CITIBANK, N.A., as Syndication Agent, and J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, and CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., as Joint Lead Arrangers and Joint Bookrunners. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Feb. 2 Status Conference in "Black" Case ----------------------------------------------------------- A status conference is scheduled for February 2, 2015, in the case Black v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., Reynolds American Inc. said in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 29, 2014. In Black v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., a case filed in November 2000 in Circuit Court, City of St. Louis, Missouri, B&W removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. The plaintiffs filed a motion to remand, which was granted in March 2006. In April 2008, the court stayed the case pending U.S. Supreme Court review in Good v. Altria Group, Inc. A nominal trial date of January 10, 2011, was scheduled, but it did not proceed at that time. A status conference is scheduled for February 2, 2015. The updates were made as part of a BRIDGE CREDIT AGREEMENT dated as of September 23, 2014, among REYNOLDS AMERICAN INC., as Borrower, The Lenders Party Hereto and JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., as Administrative Agent, CITIBANK, N.A., as Syndication Agent, and J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, and CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., as Joint Lead Arrangers and Joint Bookrunners. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Still No Activity in Jones v. American Tobacco ----------------------------------------------------------------- There is currently no activity in the case, Jones v. American Tobacco Co., Inc., Reynolds American Inc. said in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 29, 2014. In Jones v. American Tobacco Co., Inc., a case filed in December 1998 in Circuit Court, Jackson County, Missouri, the defendants removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri in February 1999. The action was brought against the major U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR Tobacco and Brown & Williamson, and parent companies of U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR, by tobacco product users and purchasers on behalf of all similarly situated Missouri consumers. The plaintiffs allege that their use of the defendants' tobacco products has caused them to become addicted to nicotine. The plaintiffs seek to recover an unspecified amount of compensatory and punitive damages. The case was remanded to the Circuit Court in February 1999. There is currently no activity in this case. The updates were made as part of a BRIDGE CREDIT AGREEMENT dated as of September 23, 2014, among REYNOLDS AMERICAN INC., as Borrower, The Lenders Party Hereto and JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., as Administrative Agent, CITIBANK, N.A., as Syndication Agent, and J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, and CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., as Joint Lead Arrangers and Joint Bookrunners. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Only Bourassa Case Being Pursued at This Time ---------------------------------------------------------------- Reynolds American Inc. said in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 29, 2014, that the following seven putative Canadian class actions were filed against various Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities, including RJR Tobacco and one of its affiliates, in courts in the Provinces of Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Ontario and Saskatchewan, although the plaintiffs' counsel have been actively pursuing only the Bourassa action pending in British Columbia at this time: 1. In Adams v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, a case filed in July 2009 in the Court of Queen's Bench for Saskatchewan against Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities, including RJR Tobacco and one of its affiliates, the plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleging her own addiction and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease resulting from the use of tobacco products, is seeking compensatory and unspecified punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all individuals who were alive on July 10, 2009, and who have suffered, or who currently suffer, from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, emphysema, heart disease or cancer, after having smoked a minimum of 25,000 cigarettes designed, manufactured, imported, marketed or distributed by the defendants, as well as disgorgement of revenues earned by the defendants. RJR Tobacco and its affiliate have brought a motion challenging the jurisdiction of the Saskatchewan court. 2. In Dorion v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, a case filed in June 2009, in the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta against Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities, including RJR Tobacco and one of its affiliates, the plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleging her own addiction and chronic bronchitis resulting from the use of tobacco products, is seeking compensatory and unspecified punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all individuals, including their estates, dependents and family members, who purchased or smoked cigarettes designed, manufactured, marketed or distributed by the defendants, as well as restitution of profits and reimbursement of government expenditure for health-care benefits allegedly caused by the use of tobacco products. 3. In Kunka v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, a case filed in 2009 in the Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba against Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities, including RJR Tobacco and one of its affiliates, the plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleging her own addiction and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, severe asthma and lung disease resulting from the use of tobacco products, is seeking compensatory and unspecified punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all individuals, including their estates, and their dependents and family members, who purchased or smoked cigarettes manufactured by the defendants, as well as restitution of profits and reimbursement of government expenditure for health-care benefits allegedly caused by the use of tobacco products. 4. In Semple v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, a case filed in June 2009 in the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia against Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities, including RJR Tobacco and one of its affiliates, the plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleging his own addiction and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease resulting from the use of tobacco products, is seeking compensatory and unspecified punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all individuals, including their estates, dependents and family members, who purchased or smoked cigarettes designed, manufactured, marketed or distributed by the defendants for the period from January 1, 1954, to the expiry of the opt-out period as set by the court, as well as restitution of profits and reimbursement of government expenditure for health- care costs allegedly caused by the use of tobacco products. 5. In Bourassa v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, a case filed in June 2010 in the Supreme Court of British Columbia against Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities, including RJR Tobacco and one of its affiliates, the plaintiff, the heir to a deceased smoker, alleging that the deceased was addicted to and suffered emphysema resulting from the use of tobacco products, is seeking compensatory and unspecified punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all individuals, including their estates, who were alive on June 12, 2007, and who have suffered, or who currently suffer from chronic respiratory diseases, after having smoked a minimum of 25,000 cigarettes designed, manufactured, imported, marketed, or distributed by the defendants, as well as disgorgement of revenues earned by the defendants from January 1, 1954, to the date the claim was filed. RJR Tobacco and its affiliate have filed a challenge to the jurisdiction of the British Columbia court. The plaintiff filed a motion for certification in April 2012, and filed affidavits in support in August 2013. 6. In McDermid v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, a case filed in June 2010 in the Supreme Court of British Columbia against Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities, including RJR Tobacco and one of its affiliates, the plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleging his own addiction and heart disease resulting from the use of tobacco products, is seeking compensatory and unspecified punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all individuals, including their estates, who were alive on June 12, 2007, and who have suffered, or who currently suffer from heart disease, after having smoked a minimum of 25,000 cigarettes designed, manufactured, imported, marketed, or distributed by the defendants, as well as disgorgement of revenues earned by the defendants from January 1, 1954, to the date the claim was filed. RJR Tobacco and its affiliate have filed a challenge to the jurisdiction of the British Columbia court. 7. In Jacklin v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, a case filed in June 2012 in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities, including RJR Tobacco and one of its affiliates, the plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleging her own addiction and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease resulting from the use of tobacco products, is seeking compensatory and unspecified punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all individuals, including their estates, who were alive on June 12, 2007, and who have suffered, or who currently suffer from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, heart disease, or cancer, after having smoked a minimum of 25,000 cigarettes designed, manufactured, imported, marketed, or distributed by the defendants, as well as restitution of profits, and reimbursement of government expenditure for health-care benefits allegedly caused by the use of tobacco products. In each of these seven cases, the plaintiffs allege fraud, fraudulent concealment, breach of warranty, breach of warranty of merchantability and of fitness for a particular purpose, failure to warn, design defects, negligence, breach of a "special duty" to children and adolescents, conspiracy, concert of action, unjust enrichment, market share liability, joint liability, and violations of various trade practices and competition statutes. Pursuant to the terms of the 1999 sale of RJR Tobacco's international tobacco business, RJR Tobacco has tendered the defense of these seven actions to Japan Tobacco Inc. Subject to a reservation of rights, JTI has assumed the defense of RJR Tobacco and its current or former affiliates in these actions. The updates were made as part of a BRIDGE CREDIT AGREEMENT dated as of September 23, 2014, among REYNOLDS AMERICAN INC., as Borrower, The Lenders Party Hereto and JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., as Administrative Agent, CITIBANK, N.A., as Syndication Agent, and J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, and CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., as Joint Lead Arrangers and Joint Bookrunners. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Indirect Purchasers Cases Dismissed at Sept 17 ----------------------------------------------------------------- As of September 17, 2014, all of the federal and state court cases on behalf of indirect purchasers had been dismissed, Reynolds American Inc. said in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 29, 2014. A number of tobacco wholesalers and consumers have sued U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR Tobacco and Brown & Williamson, in federal and state courts, alleging that cigarette manufacturers combined and conspired to set the price of cigarettes in violation of antitrust statutes and various state unfair business practices statutes. In these cases, the plaintiffs asked the court to certify the lawsuits as class actions on behalf of other persons who purchased cigarettes directly or indirectly from one or more of the defendants. As of September 17, 2014, all of the federal and state court cases on behalf of indirect purchasers had been dismissed. The updates were made as part of a BRIDGE CREDIT AGREEMENT dated as of September 23, 2014, among REYNOLDS AMERICAN INC., as Borrower, The Lenders Party Hereto and JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., as Administrative Agent, CITIBANK, N.A., as Syndication Agent, and J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, and CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., as Joint Lead Arrangers and Joint Bookrunners. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Plaintiffs in "Smith" File Petition for Review ----------------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiffs in the case Smith v. Philip Morris Cos., Inc., filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court of the State of Kansas, Reynolds American Inc. said in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 29, 2014. In Smith v. Philip Morris Cos., Inc., a case filed in February 2000, and pending in District Court, Seward County, Kansas, the court granted class certification in November 2001, in an action brought against the major U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR Tobacco and B&W, and the parent companies of the major U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR, seeking to recover an unspecified amount in actual and punitive damages. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants participated in a conspiracy to fix or maintain the price of cigarettes sold in the United States. In an opinion dated March 23, 2012, the court granted summary judgment in favor of RJR Tobacco and B&W on the plaintiffs' claims. On July 18, 2014, the Court of Appeals of the State of Kansas affirmed the grant of summary judgment. On August 18, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court of the State of Kansas. The updates were made as part of a BRIDGE CREDIT AGREEMENT dated as of September 23, 2014, among REYNOLDS AMERICAN INC., as Borrower, The Lenders Party Hereto and JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., as Administrative Agent, CITIBANK, N.A., as Syndication Agent, and J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, and CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., as Joint Lead Arrangers and Joint Bookrunners. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 11 Class Actions Filed Over Lorillard Deal ------------------------------------------------------------- Reynolds American Inc. said in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 29, 2014, that in the third quarter of 2014, 11 alleged class action lawsuits were filed in the Chancery Court of the State of Delaware regarding RAI's proposed acquisition of Lorillard, Inc. The plaintiffs allege that Lorillard's Board of Directors breached its fiduciary duties to Lorillard's shareholders by approving the transaction with RAI and that RAI and BAT allegedly aided and abetted the breach of fiduciary duties. Plaintiffs seek to enjoin the transaction with Lorillard and seek the recovery of unspecified money damages. Plaintiffs'counsel has indicated that, once RAI's proxy statement is filed in connection with the proposed acquisition, they will likely file one or more amended complaints. Plaintiffs' counsel in several of the cases has moved to consolidate all 11 actions. The updates were made as part of a BRIDGE CREDIT AGREEMENT dated as of September 23, 2014, among REYNOLDS AMERICAN INC., as Borrower, The Lenders Party Hereto and JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., as Administrative Agent, CITIBANK, N.A., as Syndication Agent, and J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, and CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., as Joint Lead Arrangers and Joint Bookrunners. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Defendant in Corwin v British American Tobacco ----------------------------------------------------------------- Reynolds American Inc. said in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 29, 2014, that in the third quarter of 2014, Corwin v. British American Tobacco PLC, an alleged class action lawsuit, was filed in the Superior Court, Guilford County, North Carolina against RAI and its Board of Directors. The plaintiff alleges that RAI's Board of Directors breached its fiduciary duties to RAI's shareholders by agreeing to the proposed sale of shares of RAI common stock to BAT in connection with the proposed Lorillard acquisition, and to a proposed technology sharing agreement with BAT. The plaintiff also alleges that BAT breached its fiduciary duties to RAI's other shareholders. The plaintiff seeks to enjoin the transaction and seeks the recovery of unspecified money damages. The plaintiff's counsel has indicated that, once RAI's proxy statement is filed in connection with the proposed acquisition, they will likely file an amended complaint. The updates were made as part of a BRIDGE CREDIT AGREEMENT dated as of September 23, 2014, among REYNOLDS AMERICAN INC., as Borrower, The Lenders Party Hereto and JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., as Administrative Agent, CITIBANK, N.A., as Syndication Agent, and J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, and CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., as Joint Lead Arrangers and Joint Bookrunners. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: American Snuff Named as Defendant in 6 Cases --------------------------------------------------------------- Reynolds American Inc. said in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 29, 2014, that as of September 17, 2014, American Snuff Co. was a defendant in six actions brought by individual plaintiffs in West Virginia state court seeking damages in connection with personal injuries allegedly sustained as a result of the usage of American Snuff Co.'s smokeless tobacco products. These actions are pending before the same West Virginia court as the 564 consolidated individual smoker cases against RJR Tobacco, Brown & Williamson, as RJR Tobacco's indemnitee, or both. Pursuant to the court's December 3, 2001, order, the smokeless tobacco claims and defendants remain severed. Pursuant to a second amended complaint filed in September 2006, American Snuff Co. is a defendant in Vassallo v. United States Tobacco Company, pending in the Eleventh Circuit Court in Miami- Dade County, Florida. The individual plaintiff alleges that he sustained personal injuries, including addiction and cancer, as a result of his use of smokeless tobacco products, allegedly including products manufactured by American Snuff Co. The plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory and consequential damages in an amount greater than $15,000. There is no punitive damages demand in this case, though the plaintiff retains the right to seek leave of court to add such a demand later. Discovery is underway. Pursuant to the court's scheduling order, trial is anticipated to begin in the fourth quarter of 2015. The updates were made as part of a BRIDGE CREDIT AGREEMENT dated as of September 23, 2014, among REYNOLDS AMERICAN INC., as Borrower, The Lenders Party Hereto and JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., as Administrative Agent, CITIBANK, N.A., as Syndication Agent, and J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, and CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., as Joint Lead Arrangers and Joint Bookrunners. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Motion to Stay Court Mandate Still Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- The defendants' motion to stay a court mandate pending the filing of a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court in the ERISA Litigation is pending, Reynolds American Inc. said in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 29, 2014. The updates were made as part of a BRIDGE CREDIT AGREEMENT dated as of September 23, 2014, among REYNOLDS AMERICAN INC., as Borrower, The Lenders Party Hereto and JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., as Administrative Agent, CITIBANK, N.A., as Syndication Agent, and J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, and CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., as Joint Lead Arrangers and Joint Bookrunners. According to Reynolds American, in May 2002, in Tatum v. The R.J.R. Pension Investment Committee of the R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company Capital Investment Plan, an employee of RJR Tobacco filed a class-action suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, alleging that the defendants, RJR, RJR Tobacco, the RJR Employee Benefits Committee and the RJR Pension Investment Committee, violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, referred to as ERISA. The actions about which the plaintiff complains stem from a decision made in 1999 by RJR Nabisco Holdings Corp., subsequently renamed Nabisco Group Holdings Corp., referred to as NGH, to spin off RJR, thereby separating NGH's tobacco business and food business. As part of the spin-off, the 401(k) plan for the previously related entities had to be divided into two separate plans for the now separate tobacco and food businesses. The plaintiff contends that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to participants of the RJR 401(k) plan when the defendants removed the stock funds of the companies involved in the food business, NGH and Nabisco Holdings Corp., referred to as Nabisco, as investment options from the RJR 401(k) plan approximately six months after the spin-off. The plaintiff asserts that a November 1999 amendment (the "1999 Amendment") that eliminated the NGH and Nabisco funds from the RJR 401(k) plan on January 31, 2000, contained sufficient discretion for the defendants to have retained the NGH and Nabisco funds after January 31, 2000, and that the failure to exercise such discretion was a breach of fiduciary duty. In his complaint, the plaintiff requests, among other things, that the court require the defendants to pay as damages to the RJR 401(k) plan an amount equal to the subsequent appreciation that was purportedly lost as a result of the liquidation of the NGH and Nabisco funds. In July 2002, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the court granted in December 2003. In December 2004, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the dismissal of the complaint, holding that the 1999 Amendment did contain sufficient discretion for the defendants to have retained the NGH and Nabisco funds as of February 1, 2000, and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court granted the plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint and denied all pending motions as moot. In April 2007, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, dismissing all claims against the RJR Employee Benefits Committee and the RJR Pension Investment Committee. The remaining defendants, RJR and RJR Tobacco, filed their answer and affirmative defenses in June 2007. The plaintiff filed a motion for class certification, which the court granted in September 2008. The district court ordered mediation, but no resolution of the case was reached. In September 2008, each of the plaintiffs and the defendants filed motions for summary judgment, and in January 2009, the defendants filed a motion to decertify the class. A second mediation occurred in June 2009, but again no resolution of the case was reached. The district court overruled the motions for summary judgment and the motion to decertify the class. A non-jury trial was held in January and February 2010. During closing arguments, the plaintiff argued for the first time that certain facts arising at trial showed that the 1999 Amendment was not validly adopted, and then moved to amend his complaint to conform to this evidence at trial. On June 1, 2011, the court granted the plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint and found that the 1999 Amendment was invalid. The parties filed their findings of fact and conclusions of law on February 4, 2011. On February 25, 2013, the district court dismissed the case with prejudice. On March 8, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. Oral argument occurred on March 18, 2014. On August 4, 2014, a divided panel reversed the district court's judgment in part. Judge Motz, writing for the majority and joined by Judge Diaz, held that the district court applied the wrong standard when it held that the defendants did not cause any loss to the plan. Judge Wilkinson dissented, arguing that the district court applied the correct causation standard. The defendants petitioned the court for rehearing en banc on August 18, 2014, which the court denied on September 2, 2014. On September 8, 2014, the defendants filed a motion to stay the court's mandate pending the filing of a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court. That motion is currently pending. SALVATORE'S CORP: Accused of Violating Fair Labor Standards Act --------------------------------------------------------------- Miguel Anguisaca, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Salvatore's Corp. d/b/a Coppola's Restaurant East and Salvatore Coppola, Case No. 1:14-cv-08123-KBF (S.D.N.Y., October 8, 2014) is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: David Stein, Esq. SAMUEL & STEIN 38 West 32nd Street, Suite 1110 New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 563-9884 Facsimile: (212) 563-9870 E-mail: dstein@samuelandstein.com SB SOUTHERN: "Roberts" Suit Transferred From W.D. to N.D. Texas --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Roberts v. S.B. Southern Welding, L.L.C., et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-00327, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas (Dallas). The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:14-cv-03617-B to the proceeding. Plaintiff Jack Roberts accuses the Defendants of requiring him to work more than 40 hours in a workweek as a welder. He contends that the Defendants misclassified him as an independent contractor and was never paid overtime wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. S.B. Southern Welding, L.L.C. is a domestic for-profit limited liability company headquartered in Waxahachie, Texas, and does business under the trade name Southern Welding and Millwrights. Shane Boston is the owner and president of the Company. The Defendants provide welding services throughout Texas and the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gabriel A. Assaad, Esq. KENNEDY HODGES, L.L.P. 711 W. Alabama St. Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 523-0001 Facsimile: (713) 523-1116 E-mail: Gassaad@kennedyhodges.com The Defendants are represented by: Mark A. Shank, Esq. Rachel D Ziolkowski, Esq. GRUBER HURST JOHANSEN HAIL SHANK LLP 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 2500 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (214) 855-6846 Facsimile: (214) 855-6808 E-mail: Mshank@ghjhlaw.com rziolkowski@ghjhlaw.com SERVICE EMPLOYEES: Accused of Refusing to Accept Resignations ------------------------------------------------------------- Douglas Kennedy, Eduardo Berumen, Griselda Moran, and Magi Sahagian, for Themselves and the Class They Seek to Represent v. Service Employees International Union, Local 99; Los Angeles Unified School District; and Megan K. Reilly, Chief Financial Officer of the Los Angeles Unified School District, Case No. 2:14- cv-07855 (C.D. Cal., October 9, 2014) arises under the Civil Rights Act of 1871 to redress the deprivation of the rights, privileges, and immunities secured to the Plaintiffs and the class members they seek to represent by the Constitution of the United States, specifically the First and Fourteenth Amendments thereto. The Plaintiffs challenge Local 99's refusal to accept their resignations and requests to pay only the reduced agency fee amount that does not include political, ideological, and other non-chargeable expenses, and the Defendants' alleged continued collection of non-chargeable dues and fees from the Plaintiffs, despite their resignations from Local 99 membership and their objections to paying for Local 99's political, ideological, and non-chargeable activities. Headquartered in Los Angeles, California, Service Employees International Union, Local 99, is an "employee organization" pursuant to the California Government Code. Los Angeles Unified School District is a "public school employer" or "employer." The District pays the wages of its employees, including the Plaintiffs and the class members. Megan K. Reilly is the District's Chief Financial Officer. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Thomas Myers, Esq. SMITH & MYERS LLP 333 South Hope Street, 35th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 613-2380 Facsimile: (213) 613-2395 E-mail: myers@smithmyerslaw.com - and - Nathan J. McGrath, Esq. Milton L. Chappell, Esq. NATIONAL RIGHT TO WORK LEGAL DEFENSE FOUNDATION, INC. 8001 Braddock Road, Suite 600 Springfield, VA 22151 Telephone: (703) 321-8510 Facsimile: (703) 321-9319 E-mail: njm@nrtw.org mlc@nrtw.org SOUTH CAROLINA, USA: Faces Suit Alleging Civil Rights Violations ---------------------------------------------------------------- T M, by and through her guardian ad litem, Jane Doe, and on behalf of similarly situated persons v. Nikki Haley, in her official capacity as Governor of South Carolina; and Amber Gillum, in her official capacity as Acting Director of the South Carolina Department of Social Services, SCDSS, Case No. 3:14-cv-03933-TLW (D.S.C., October 9, 2014) alleges violations of the Civil Rights Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Deborah J. Butcher, Esq. Robert J. Butcher, Esq. CAMDEN LAW FIRM PO Box 610 Camden, SC 29021 Telephone: (803) 432-7599 E-mail: dbutcher@camdensc-law.com rjbutcher@camdensc-law.com SPOONFUL MANAGEMENT: Removes "Gonzalez" Suit to S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit captioned Gonzalez v. Spoonful Management Miami, LLC, Case No. 14-23659 CA 01, was removed from the 11th Judicial Circuit in Miami-Dade County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-23734-PCH to the proceeding. The Complaint states that the nature of the action is a minimum wage violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The action seeks to recover money damages based on the alleged violations. The Plaintiff is represented by: Roderick Victor Hannah, Esq. RODERICK V. HANNAH, ESQ., P.A. 4018 Sheridan Street Hollywood, FL 33021-3536 Telephone: (954) 362-3800 Facsimile: (954) 362-3779 E-mail: rhannah@rhannahlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Kimberly A. Gilmour, Esq. KIMBERLY A. GILMOUR, P.A. 4179 Davie Road, Suite 101 Davie, FL 33314 Telephone: (954) 584-6460 Facsimile: (954) 584-3552 E-mail: gilmourlaw@aol.com - and - Paul E. Wagner, Esq. STOKES, WAGNER, HUNT, MARETZ & TERRELL 903 Hanshaw Road Ithaca, NY 14850 Telephone: (607) 257-5165 E-mail: pwagner@stokeswagner.com SWF OPERATIONS: Sued for Violating Fair Credit Reporting Act ------------------------------------------------------------ Kimberly Kohler, o/b/o herself and all similarly-situated individuals v. SWF Operations, LLC d/b/a Domino's Pizza, and Domino's Pizza, LLC, Case No. 8:14-cv-02568-RAL-TGW (M.D. Fla., October 9, 2014) seeks relief under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon J. Hill, Esq. Luis A. Cabassa, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA 1110 N Florida Ave., Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 224-0431 Facsimile: (813) 229-8712 E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com lcabassa@wfclaw.com TRG CUSTOMER: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages and Damages ------------------------------------------------------------ Mary Andrews, Individually and on behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. TRG Customer Solutions, Inc. d/b/a IBEX Global Solutions, Case No. 1:14-cv-00135 (M.D. Tenn., October 9, 2014) seeks to recover unpaid wages, unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, costs and attorney's fees. TRG Customer Solutions is a Delaware Corporation doing business in the state of Tennessee, with its principal office in Washington, D.C. IBEX Global Solutions is a trade name for TRG Customer Solutions. TRG is a privately held company that operates 18 call centers across five countries, including the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jerry E. Martin, Esq. David W. Garrison, Esq. Scott P. Tift, Esq. Seth M. Hyatt, Esq. BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC Bank of America Plaza 414 Union Street, Suite 900 Nashville, TN 37219 Telephone: (615) 244-2202 Facsimile: (615) 252-3798 E-mail: jmartin@barrettjohnston.com dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com stift@barrettjohnston.com shyatt@barrettjohnston.com - and - John L. Mays, Esq. Mike Walker, Esq. MAYS & KERR LLC 235 Peachtree Street NE North Tower, Suite 202 Telephone: (404) 410-7998 Facsimile: (404) 855-4066 E-mail: mike@maysandkerr.com john@maysandkerr.com WALGREEN CO: Faces "Minter" Suit in Northern District of Georgia ---------------------------------------------------------------- Deanna Minter, Individually and on Behalf of All others Similarly Situated v. Walgreen Co. d/b/a Walgreens, Case No. 1:14-cv-03251- ODE (N.D. Ga., October 9, 2014) alleges fraud. The Plaintiff is represented by: James Benjamin Finley, Esq. MaryBeth Vassil Gibson, Esq. THE FINLEY FIRM, P.C. Building 14, Suite 230 3535 Piedmont Road Atlanta, GA 30305 Telephone: (404) 320-9979 Facsimile: (404) 320-9978 E-mail: bfinley@thefinleyfirm.com mgibson@thefinleyfirm.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 * * *