/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/141105.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, November 5, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 220 Headlines AETNA INC: Faces "Mayer" Suit in Cal. Over Violation of ERISA AETNA INC: Released Settlement Reserve After Deal Terminated ALABAMA: To Review Correction Programs for Offenders Amid Suits AMAZING DESIGN: "Herrera" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages AMERICAN EXPRESS: Awaits Final Settlement Approval in Marcus Suit AMERICAN EXPRESS: Awaits Final Settlement Okay in "Kaufman" Case AMERICAN EXPRESS: Canada Supreme Court Denies Appeal in "Adams" AMERICAN EXPRESS: Award Partially Restored in "Marcotte" Case AMERICAN EXPRESS: Bid to Approve Accord in "Lopez" Case Denied AMERICAN EXPRESS: "Ross" Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Claims ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Texas Court Approves Deal in Securities Case APPLE INC: Faces "Book" Suit Over Graphical Defects of MacBook ASDA STORES: Faces Class Action Over Equal Pay Issues ARSIM ASSOCIATES: Fails to Pay OT Hours, "Espindola" Suit Says BANKRATE INC: Pomerantz LLP Files Securities Class Action BANKRATE INC: Cohen Milstein Files Securities Class Action BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Feb. 27 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set BEL CO: "Chavez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Penalties BLUE EARTH: Faces Class Action on SeekingAlpha.com Article BOCA RATON, FL: Ticket Clinic Mulls Red Light Camera Class Action BP PLC: WSJ Says Oil Spill Fund "All-You-Can-Eat" Buffet CBCS: Faces "Elvin" Suit in N.J. Over Illegal Collection of Debt CLECO CORP: Trial in Discrimination Claim to Commence in January CLECO CORP: Ratepayers Action Dismissed and Fully Resolved CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Sued Over Illegal Collection of Debt CVS PHARMACY: 1st Cir. Reverses Remand of Wage Class Action DA MARCELLA: "Ramirez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime DONALD TRUMP: Cal. Court Certified RICO Class in "Cohen" Suit DOW CHEMICAL: To Review of $1.06-Bil. Judgment to Supreme Court EI DU PONT: Settles Majority of Imprelis(R) Claims and Lawsuits EI DU PONT: Trial in Drinking Water Actions to Begin in Sept 2015 EL PASO PIPELINE: "Allen" Case Plaintiff Files Notice of Appeal EMCOR GROUP: USM Subsidiary Faces Class Action by Janitors ESTATE INFORMATION: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act FANNIE MAE: Settles Securities Class Action for $170 Million FULLBAR LLC: Faces Consumer Class Action Over "All Natural" Label FRESH DEL MONTE: Appeal of Suit Over DBCP Pending FRESH DEL MONTE: DBCP Action in Costa Rica Still Pending FRESH DEL MONTE: Appeal Filed in Third Circuit Over DBCP FRESH DEL MONTE: Hawaii Supreme Court Decision Still Pending FRESH DEL MONTE: Unit Satisfied Judgments in Unpaid Wages Action GIANT SPORTS: Sued for Misrepresenting Protein Amount in Product GT ADVANCED: Faces "Ringer" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports GREAT SOUTHERN: Awaits Ruling on Investor Class Action Settlement HARLEQUIN ENTERPRISES: 2nd Cir. Certifies Author Class HERBALIFE LTD: Agrees to Settle Suit Over Marketing Practices HOME DEPOT: Faces "Petersen" Suit in Northern District of Georgia IBIO INC: Rosen Law Firms Files Securities Class Action ICM PARTNERS: Intern Class Action Mediation Set for December 15 INBLOOM GROUP: "Holland" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wage INTERNATIONAL AUTO: Sen. Durbin to Look Into Contract Complaints JOHN CRANE: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Hays Mesothelioma Suit JPMORGAN CHASE: Chester County Sues Over Mortgage Recording Fees KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP: Faces Class Action Over Surgical Gowns LEADER SERVICES: "Batres" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages MEDTRONIC INC: Removes "James" Infuse Suit to W.D. Tennessee MICHAELS GENUINE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages MIDLAND FUNDING: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act NAVISTAR INC: Faces Fike Suit Over Faulty MaxxForce Advanced EGR NIAGARA COUNTY, NY: To Settle Welfare Recipients' Class Action NII HOLDINGS: Wants Court to Extend Automatic Stay of Class Action NORTHLAND GROUP: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims OWENS & MINOR: Recovered $5.3MM From Anti-Trust Suit Settlement PACIFIC GATEWAY: Sued Over Unsafe Policies Against Identity Theft PANASONIC CORPORATION: Sued in Cal. Over Capacitors-Price Fixing PANDORA MEDIA: Oral Argument Not Set in Video Rental Privacy Suit PANERA BREAD: Faces "Boswell" Class Action Suit in E.D. Missouri PAYPAL INC: Has Sent Unsolicited Text Messages, Action Claims PEARSON EDUCATION: Sued by Textbook Authors on Improper Royalties PG&E CORPORATION: Appeals Court Affirms Dismissal of Complaint PORTLAND GENERAL: Evaluating How to Proceed With Class Actions QUALITY SYSTEMS: Federal Securities Class Action Dismissed RADARIS LLC: Sued Over Violation of Fair Credit Reporting Act RETAIL PROPERTIES: Suits Against Company and D&Os Now Closed SANCTUARY GOLF: Florida Class Suit Seeks to Collect Unpaid Wages SAPPHIRE GENTLEMEN'S: Strip Club Dancers Entitled to Minimum Wage SCOTT COUNTY, MS: ACLU Class Action Over Indigent Defense Ongoing SECURITY CREDIT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Konakova" Suit Claims SIRIUS XM: To Appeal Decisions in Pre-1972 Sound Recording Cases STATE FARM: Colludes to Lowball Repair Shops, Antitrust Suit Says SYNGENTA CORP: Faces "Houser" Suit Over Viptera Corn SYNGENTA CORP: Faces Rail Transfer Suit Over Viptera Corn SYNGENTA CORP: Faces "Schram" Suit Over Viptera Corn TAKATA CORP: Faces Suits in Cal. and Fla. Over Air Bag Defects TESCO PLC: Texas Pension Fund Files Securities Class Action TRANSCEPT PHARMACEUTICALS: Agreement Reached in Continuum Case TRANSFORM YACHT: "Molina" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages TRIQUINT SEMICONDUCTOR: Oregon Plaintiffs Drop Injunction Bid TRIQUINT SEMICONDUCTOR: No Further Activity in Del. Class Suits TRW AUTOMOTIVE: Car Buyers' Suits Settled for Immaterial Amount TRW AUTOMOTIVE: Faces Class Actions Over Merger Transaction UNITED BUILDING: "Soto" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime UNITED STATES: EFF 4th Amendment Fight vs. NSA's Spying Continues UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Heads to Trial Over Hepatitis C Outbreak UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Posts $27.6MM After-Tax Charge Related to Deal UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH: Sued for Violating ADA, FMLA and FLSA VERISK ANALYTICS: Final Approval of Interthinx Litigation in 2015 VERISK ANALYTICS: Plaintiffs File Appeal in ISO Litigation VERISK ANALYTICS: "Snyder" Plaintiffs File 2nd Amended Complaint VISHAY INTERTECHNOLOGY: Faces 5 Antitrust Class Actions WAL-MART STORES: Faces "Lopez" Suit Over Contaminated Baby Wipes WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN: "Maryland" Suit Moved to District Court WASTE MANAGEMENT: Settles Class Action Over Landfill Odor WEATHERFORD INTERNATIONAL: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime WESTFALL MASONRY: Faces "Arredondo" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT WORD SMART: Called People on "Do Not Call Registry," FTC Says WORLD WRESTLING: Sued by Wrestler for Hiding Brain Injury Dangers * Bill to Eliminate Counsel Fees for Minor Consumer Fraud Claims * Bogus Health-Care Schemes Emerge Amid Ebola Global Threat * Bogus Scheme to Collect Class Suit Damages Reported in N.M. * Cal. State & Federal Courts Split on Arbitration of PAGA Claims * Oceania Calls for Enforcement of Shrimp Product Labeling Laws * Stephen Tillery Against Reinstatement of Justice Karmeier ********* AETNA INC: Faces "Mayer" Suit in Cal. Over Violation of ERISA ------------------------------------------------------------- Ralph Mayer, Jr., M.D., Lutz Surgical Partners PLLC, and NYC Corrective Chiropractic Care P.C., on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Aetna Inc. and Aetna Life Insurance Company, Case No. 2:14-cv-08266 (C.D. Cal., October 24, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The Defendants own and operate a health care provider company based in New York, New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: D. Brian Hufford, Esq. Jason S. Cowart, Esq. ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP 1185 Avenue of the Americas, 31st Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 704-9600 Facsimile: (212) 704-4256 E-mail: dbhufford@zuckerman.com jcowart@zuckerman.com - and - Michael J. Olecki, Esq. Tim B. Henderson, Esq. GRODSKY & OLECKI LLP 2001 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 210 Santa Monica, CA 90403 Telephone: (310) 315-3009 Facsimile: (310) 315-1557 E-mail: michael@grodsky-olecki.com tim@grodsky-olecki.com AETNA INC: Released Settlement Reserve After Deal Terminated ------------------------------------------------------------ In the fourth quarter of 2012, Aetna Inc. recorded a charge of $78.0 million ($120.0 million pretax) related to the settlement of purported class action litigation regarding Aetna's payment practices related to out-of-network health care providers. That charge included the estimated cost of legal fees of plaintiffs' counsel and the costs of administering the settlement. In the first quarter of 2014, Aetna exercised its right to terminate the settlement agreement. As a result, Aetna released the reserve established in connection with the settlement agreement, net of amounts due to the settlement administrator, which reduced first quarter 2014 other general and administrative expenses by $67.0 million ($103.0 million pretax), Aetna said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014. The Company is named as a defendant in several purported actions and individual lawsuits arising out of the Company's practices related to the payment of claims for services rendered to the Company's members by health care providers with whom the Company does not have a contract ("out-of-network providers"). The Company said, "Among other things, these lawsuits allege that we paid too little to our health plan members and/or providers for these services, among other reasons, because of our use of data provided by Ingenix, Inc., a subsidiary of one of our competitors ("Ingenix"). Other major health insurers are the subject of similar litigation or have settled similar litigation. "Various plaintiffs who are health care providers or medical associations seek to represent nationwide classes of out-of- network providers who provided services to our members during the period from 2001 to the present. Various plaintiffs who are members in our health plans seek to represent nationwide classes of our members who received services from out-of-network providers during the period from 2001 to the present. Taken together, these lawsuits allege that we violated state law, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended ("ERISA"), the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and federal antitrust laws, either acting alone or in concert with our competitors. The purported classes seek reimbursement of all unpaid benefits, recalculation and repayment of deductible and coinsurance amounts, unspecified damages and treble damages, statutory penalties, injunctive and declaratory relief, plus interest, costs and attorneys' fees, and seek to disqualify us from acting as a fiduciary of any benefit plan that is subject to ERISA. Individual lawsuits that generally contain similar allegations and seek similar relief have been brought by health plan members and out-of-network providers. "The first class action case was commenced on July 30, 2007. The federal Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation (the "MDL Panel") has consolidated these class action cases in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (the "New Jersey District Court") under the caption In re: Aetna UCR Litigation, MDL No. 2020 ("MDL 2020"). In addition, the MDL Panel has transferred the individual lawsuits to MDL 2020. On May 9, 2011, the New Jersey District Court dismissed the physician plaintiffs from MDL 2020 without prejudice. The New Jersey District Court's action followed a ruling by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (the "Florida District Court") that the physician plaintiffs were enjoined from participating in MDL 2020 due to a prior settlement and release. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has dismissed the physician plaintiffs' appeal of the Florida District Court's ruling. "On December 6, 2012, we entered into an agreement to settle MDL 2020. Under the terms of the proposed nationwide settlement, we would have been released from claims relating to our out-of- network reimbursement practices from the beginning of the applicable settlement class period through August 30, 2013. The settlement agreement did not contain an admission of wrongdoing. The medical associations were not parties to the settlement agreement. "Under the settlement agreement, we would have paid up to $120 million to fund claims submitted by health plan members and health care providers who were members of the settlement classes. These payments also would have funded the legal fees of plaintiffs' counsel and the costs of administering the settlement. In connection with the proposed settlement, the Company recorded an after-tax charge to net income attributable to Aetna of approximately $78 million in the fourth quarter of 2012. "The settlement agreement provided us the right to terminate the agreement under certain conditions related to settlement class members who opted out of the settlement. Based on a report provided to the parties by the settlement administrator, the conditions permitting us to terminate the settlement agreement were satisfied. "On March 13, 2014, we notified the New Jersey District Court and plaintiffs' counsel that we were terminating the settlement agreement. Various legal and factual developments since the date of the settlement agreement led us to believe terminating the settlement agreement was in our best interests. "We intend to vigorously defend ourselves against the claims brought by the plaintiffs. As a result of this termination, we released the reserve established in connection with the settlement agreement, net of amounts due to the settlement administrator, which reduced first quarter 2014 other general and administrative expenses by $67.0 million ($103.0 million pretax)." ALABAMA: To Review Correction Programs for Offenders Amid Suits --------------------------------------------------------------- Kala Kachmar, writing for Montgomery Advertiser, reports that community supervision for offenders is one of three areas the Council of State Governments Justice Center is looking at with a panel of criminal justice stakeholders in Alabama, the Prison Reform Task Force. The goal is to determine what legislative and policy changes will help reduce recidivism, reduce prison overcrowding and improve public safety. Andy Barbee, research manager for the CSG, said part of the problem is that there aren't enough resources, but another part is that the existing resources aren't always used as effectively as they could be. Assessing the risk of an offender's likelihood to commit another crime is supposed to help probation and parole officers triage offenders, manage their workloads and make sure the few resources available get to those who would benefit the most, Mr. Barbee said. But during the CSG's analysis of the criminal justice system, Barbee said a survey of probation and parole officers found that only about 24 percent placed "high value" on using these risk assessment tools. Surveys of probation/parole officers and community corrections agents found that more than 70 percent in each group said mental health programs are sometimes available, rarely available or non- existent. Fewer than 26 percent in surveys of both groups felt they were usually or readily available. Mr. Barbee said community correction programs, which are governed by the Alabama Department of Corrections but can be operated by a government entity, a nonprofit or an authority board, and the Alabama Board of Pardons and Parole "use" the tool, but aren't always taking the information and using it to shape and guide the approach to matching inmates with services and programs. Community corrections departments in the state perform assessments that determine whether an offender's likelihood of committing another crime is low, moderate, high or very high based on factors such as a person's financial situation, education and substance abuse problems, Brown said. Community corrections programs vary from county to county, and not all counties have a program, Mr. Barbee said. The CSG also found that participants in community corrections are generally low-risk offenders, even though it's supposed to be a diversional program for high-risk offenders. The key is that there needs to be a tighter connection between who is making it into community corrections and the kind of risk they present, as well as the programs matched with those on parole and probation. "It's not about the seriousness of the offense they committed," Mr. Barbee said. "What risk means is what is the likelihood they're going to continue committing crimes." Foster Cook, executive director of Treatment Alternatives for Safer Communities (TASC), which is Jefferson County's community corrections program, said the essence of good programming has to do with good risk-needs assessments. "Matching the level of supervision and the types of supervision with the needs of the offender is important," Mr. Cook said. "One-size fits all doesn't work." Mr. Cook also said the state struggles with transitioning people out of prison while ensuring there is adequate medical care, mental health care, planning and coordination of services between the institution and community supervision. TASC is working closely with parole/probation and the ADOC on a strategic re-entry plan that will make transitions smoother and more effective, Cook said. Mr. Barbee said Alabama's system also lacks clear policies on targeting resources to the highest risk populations. The 200 to 1 caseload ratio between officers and inmates makes it difficult to ensure accountability. He also said there isn't a consistent, structured or timely approach across different counties for responding to supervision violations. About 43 percent of probationers in jail awaiting a violation hearing wait more than two weeks. Paul Brown, executive director of the Montgomery County's community corrections program, said it's important to make sure offenders placed in programs get the frequency, duration and intensity they need. "If you put a low-risk offender in a group of high- or moderate- risk offenders, he will start to socialize with that group of individuals," Brown said. "The potential is there to do more harm than good, and you don't want to waste your precious resources on those that truly don't need it." Mr. Barbee said it's not that tools aren't available to assess offenders, but there's evidence that there's not a lot of quality or consistent "buy in." He also said there's a misperception that using these assessment tools to shape decisions comes at the cost of officer discretion. Scarcity of programs But Brown said another piece to the problem is that the services being offered through community corrections are the same services offenders compete for in diversion programs, drug courts and on probation or parole. He said availability of programs and services needs to be addressed across the system, both for inmates and offenders on community supervision. The strength and success of programs and services for inmates also varies from county to county, Mr. Barbee said. For example, Jefferson County's community corrections program is one of the strongest in the state because it's part of the University of Alabama at Birmingham and has several community partners. Rural counties have fewer offender programs than bigger cities such as Huntsville, Montgomery and Mobile. Brown said part of the solution for rural parts of the state will likely be regionalizing services and distant learning technology that will give offenders the opportunity to engage in programs. Alan Smith, executive director of Renascence Inc., said there is a shortage of programs in the state that give nonviolent offenders the guidance they need to re-emerge into society. Often, individuals who don't have a stable home plan when they go up for parole will sit in jail until the end of their sentence, he said. The Renascence program -- which only houses about 12 offenders at a time -- teaches inmates how to live healthy productive lives, both through mandatory programming and through the environment at the facility. Offenders can get there through community corrections, probation, parole or by being sentenced to a halfway house. "It's not just a place to lay your head," Mr. Smith said. "We try to provide them with every step they need to be successful." The state has to invest more heavily in programs and services for offenders, Mr. Barbee said. "Skimping on that part of the system forces you to spend a whole lot more money when you have large numbers of (offenders) failing in the community and ending up in the custodial part of the system," Mr. Barbee said. Low-risk offenders don't usually need programming, Mr. Barbee said. Resources for the highest risk population is the most important, and the first step is to identify what exists and what there's not enough of for those offenders. After that, the state needs to step up and fill the gaps where they can, which would likely include putting out Requests for Proposals from organizations who provide services. But Mr. Barbee said there has to be a continual assessment of what the population looks like in terms of risks. "Lock them up and let them go does not work," Mr. Smith said. "We've got to start treating these folks and the issues that caused them to have a problem." CSG research shows that with the right programs in place, 30 to 40 percent fewer people under community supervision will commit new crimes and go back into the system. Data shows that 40 percent of all Alabama prison admissions in 2013 are violators of either probation or parole. Of the 8,313 total admitted that year, 39 percent had substance abuse problems, mental health needs or both, according to ADOC intake screening. "When people come out of prison and they come back into communities without support, without jobs, without services -- then they go right back to prison," Mr. Cook said. "Efforts to get people out of prison are only as good as the ability to keep people out. The answer to that is what do they find when they come home." Mr. Smith said the staff at Renascence helps offenders find jobs, find apartments and obtain things such as a driver's license. They also offer support and advice for anyone who was previously in the program. "The best approach to the criminal justice problem is a comprehensive approach and (one that) involves all the stakeholders at all levels of this continuum," Mr. Brown said. "The resources need to be available to address the problem at whatever level the offender enters the system." Mr. Barbee said fully investing in resources for offenders will have a dramatic improvement on public safety and recidivism rates, which will naturally lower the prison population. "In every way, if Alabama lets resources get in the way of this, what they're doing is resigning themselves to some combination of a more expensive and dangerous situation," Mr. Barbee said. The state is already facing two class-action lawsuits; one filed by the Southern Poverty Law Center on the quality of medical care and another by the Equal Justice Initiative on the violence and mistreatment of inmates at St. Clair Correctional Facility. Both of these situations are caused in part by overcrowding. "It seems inescapable that if something doesn't change, the third shoe will drop," Mr. Barbee said, adding that a refusal to put resources into these systems is a commitment to spending "vastly" more money at a later date or releasing a lot of inmates from prison that won't really be controlled. AMAZING DESIGN: "Herrera" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Oscar Herrera, and other similarly situated individuals v. Amazing Design and Services LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, Rafael R. Rodriguez, Individually, and Llerena Juan, Case No. 1:14-cv-23975 (S.D. Fla., October 24, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate a wed design company in Miami Dade, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony Maximillien Georges-Pierre, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC Court House Tower, 44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416-5000 Facsimile: (305) 416-5005 E-mail: agp@rgpattorneys.com AMERICAN EXPRESS: Awaits Final Settlement Approval in Marcus Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- American Express Company is awaiting final approval of the settlement in the class action The Marcus Corporation v. American Express Company, et al., the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014. The Company said, "In July 2004, we were named as a defendant in a putative class action captioned The Marcus Corporation v. American Express Company, et al., in which the plaintiffs allege an unlawful antitrust tying arrangement between certain of our charge cards and credit cards in violation of various state and federal laws. The plaintiffs in these actions seek injunctive relief and an unspecified amount of damages." "In December 2013, we announced a proposed settlement of the Marcus case and the putative class actions challenging our anti- steering or non-discrimination provisions. The settlement, which provides for certain injunctive relief for the proposed classes, received preliminary approval in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The final approval hearing was held on September 17, 2014 and we are awaiting decision." AMERICAN EXPRESS: Awaits Final Settlement Okay in "Kaufman" Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- A final settlement approval hearing was held on June 11, 2014 in the case Kaufman v. American Express Travel Related Services, and the Company is awaiting the Court's decision, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014. The Company said, "We are a defendant in a class action captioned Kaufman v. American Express Travel Related Services, which was filed on February 14, 2007, and is pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Plaintiffs' principal allegation is that our gift cards violate consumer protection statutes because consumers allegedly have difficulty spending small residual amounts on the gift cards prior to the imposition of monthly service fees. The Court preliminarily certified a settlement class consisting of (with some exceptions) "all purchasers, recipients and holders of all gift cards issued by American Express from January 1, 2002 through the date of preliminary approval of the settlement."" "We are also a defendant in Goodman v. American Express Travel Related Services, a putative class action pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, that involves allegations similar to those made in Kaufman. Plaintiffs in Goodman have intervened in the Kaufman proceedings and will be subject to any final settlement in Kaufman that may be approved over their objections. A final settlement approval hearing was held on June 11, 2014 and we are awaiting decision." AMERICAN EXPRESS: Canada Supreme Court Denies Appeal in "Adams" --------------------------------------------------------------- The Supreme Court of Canada denied the appeal in the class action captioned Sylvan Adams v. Amex Bank of Canada, American Express Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014. In a class action captioned Sylvan Adams v. Amex Bank of Canada, filed in the Superior Court of Quebec, District of Montreal in 2004, plaintiffs allege that prior to December 2003, Amex Bank of Canada charged a foreign currency conversion commission on transactions to purchase goods and services in currencies other than Canadian dollars and failed to disclose the commissions in monthly billing statements or solicitations directed to prospective Card Members. The action further alleges that conversion commissions made on foreign currency transactions are credit charges under the Quebec Consumer Protection Act (the "QCPA") and cannot be charged prior to the 21-day grace period under the QCPA. The class, consisting of all personal and small business Card Members residing in Quebec that purchased goods or services in a foreign currency prior to December 2003, claims reimbursement of all foreign currency conversion commissions, CDN$1,000 in punitive damages per class member, interest and fees and costs. On June 11, 2009, following trial, the Superior Court rendered a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs against Amex Bank of Canada and awarded damages in the amount of approximately CDN$13.1 million plus interest on the non-disclosure claims, and punitive damages in the amount of CDN$2.5 million. The Court of Appeal overturned the decision in part, with regard to the award of punitive damages. Amex Bank of Canada further appealed and that appeal was heard in the Supreme Court of Canada on February 13, 2014. On September 19, 2014, the Supreme Court denied the appeal. AMERICAN EXPRESS: Award Partially Restored in "Marcotte" Case ------------------------------------------------------------- The Supreme Court of Canada partially restored the trial court's award against Amex Bank of Canada as well as the punitive damages award against all defendants in the class action captioned Marcotte v. Bank of Montreal, et al., American Express Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014. In a class action captioned Marcotte v. Bank of Montreal, et al., filed in the Superior Court of Quebec, District of Montreal in 2003, against Amex Bank of Canada, Bank of Montreal, Toronto- Dominion Bank, Royal Bank of Canada, Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, Scotiabank, National Bank of Canada, Laurentian Bank of Canada and Citibank Canada, plaintiffs alleges that conversion commissions made on foreign currency transactions are credit charges under the Quebec Consumer Protection Act (the "QCPA") and cannot be charged prior to the 21-day grace period under the QCPA. The class includes all persons residing in Quebec holding a credit card issued by one of the defendants to whom fees were charged since April 17, 2000, for transactions made in foreign currency before expiration of the period of 21 days following the statement of account. The class claims reimbursement of all foreign currency conversions, CDN$400 per class member for trouble, inconvenience and punitive damages, interest and fees and costs. On June 11, 2009, following trial, the Superior Court rendered a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs against Amex Bank of Canada and awarded damages in the amount of approximately CDN$8.3 million plus interest on the QCPA and non-disclosure claims and punitive damages in the amount of CDN$25 per Card Member. The Court of Appeal overturned the decision against Amex Bank of Canada and certain of the other co-defendants. The remaining co-defendants and the plaintiffs appealed and that appeal was heard by the Supreme Court of Canada on February 13, 2014. On September 19, 2014, the Supreme Court of Canada denied the co-defendants' appeal but granted plaintiffs' appeal in part, partially restoring the trial court's award against Amex Bank of Canada as well as the punitive damages award against all defendants. AMERICAN EXPRESS: Bid to Approve Accord in "Lopez" Case Denied -------------------------------------------------------------- The motion for preliminary approval of a settlement in the case Lopez, et al. v. American Express Bank, FSB and American Express Centurion Bank, was denied without prejudice to renew, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014. In October 2009, a putative class action, captioned Lopez, et al. v. American Express Bank, FSB and American Express Centurion Bank, was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The amended complaint sought to certify a class of California American Express Card Members whose interest rates were changed from fixed to variable in or around August 2009 or otherwise increased. On August 20, 2014, plaintiffs filed an amended nationwide complaint and an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of a settlement of the claims alleged in that complaint. The settlement provides for certain relief to class members, attorneys' fees and costs of up to $6 million. On September 22, 2014, the motion for preliminary approval was denied without prejudice to renew. The parties are responding to the court's questions regarding the class notice and claims processes and the request for preliminary approval will be renewed. AMERICAN EXPRESS: "Ross" Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in the case Ross, et al. v. American Express Company, have appealed the Court's dismissal of their claims, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014. The Company said, "In July 2004, a purported class action complaint, Ross, et al. v. American Express Company, American Express Travel Related Services and American Express Centurion Bank, was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging that we conspired with Visa, MasterCard and Diners Club in the setting of foreign currency conversion rates and in the inclusion of arbitration clauses in certain of their cardholder agreements. The suit seeks injunctive relief and unspecified damages. The class is defined as "all Visa, MasterCard and Diners Club general-purpose cardholders who used cards issued by any of the MDL Defendant Banks." American Express Card Members are not part of the class. The settlement of the claims asserted on behalf of the damage class concerning foreign currency conversion rates was approved in 2012. On April 10, 2014, following a trial of the claims asserted by the injunction class concerning cardholder arbitration clauses, the Court dismissed plaintiffs' claims and granted judgment in favor of us. Plaintiffs have appealed." ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Texas Court Approves Deal in Securities Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- Anadarko Petroleum Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that two separate class-action complaints were filed in June and August 2010, in the New York District Court on behalf of purported purchasers of the Company's stock between June 12, 2009, and June 9, 2010, against Anadarko and certain of its officers. The consolidated action was subsequently transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas - Houston Division (Texas District Court). The complaints allege causes of action arising pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for purported misstatements and omissions regarding, among other things, the Company's liability related to the Deepwater Horizon events. The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory damages, including interest thereon, as well as litigation fees and costs. In March 2014, the parties reached a settlement in this matter, which was approved by the Texas District Court in September 2014. The settlement was directly funded by the Company's insurers. APPLE INC: Faces "Book" Suit Over Graphical Defects of MacBook -------------------------------------------------------------- Zachary Book, Donald Cowart, and John Manners, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Apple Inc., Case No. 5:14-cv-04746 (N.D. Cal., October 24, 2014), arises out of the graphical distortion, system instability and system failures of 2011 MacBook Pros. Apple Inc. designs, manufactures, sells and warrants a broad range of technology products, including the 2011 MacBook Pro laptop computers. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael F. Ram, Esq. RAM, OLSON, CEREGHINO & KOPCZYNSKI LLP 555 Montgomery Street, Suite 820 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: 415-433-4949 Facsimile: 415-433-74311 E-mail: mram@rocklawcal.com - and - Gary E. Mason, Esq. Steven N. Berk, Esq. Esfand Nafisi, Esq. WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP 1625 Massachusetts Ave., NW, Ste. 1605 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 429-2290 Email: GMason@wbmllp.com sberk@wbmllp.com enafisi@wbmllp.com ASDA STORES: Faces Class Action Over Equal Pay Issues ----------------------------------------------------- Europe Online Magazine reports that Asda Stores, Britain's second- largest supermarket chain, faces legal action from tens of thousands of shop assistants who say they should get paid the same as warehouse staff because their work is of equal value. Law firm Leigh Day said on Oct. 24 that it had received enquiries from 19,000 present and former staff wanting to join any class action against the chain. Asda, which has 150,000 workers and a 17-per-cent share of the market, is a subsidiary of US-based Wal-Mart Stores. "In the supermarkets, the check-out staff and shelf stackers are mostly women [while] the people in the warehouses are pretty much all men," Leigh Day's Michael Newman said. "And, as a whole, the group that is mostly men gets paid more." He said the pay differential could be as high as 4 pounds (6 dollars) an hour. ARSIM ASSOCIATES: Fails to Pay OT Hours, "Espindola" Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------------- Cesario Espindola Garcia, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Arsim Associates Inc. (d/b/a Lenox Hill Grill & Pizza), and John Politidis, Case No. 1:14-cv-08527 (S.D.N.Y., October 24, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for worked in excess of 40 hours per work week. The Defendants own and operate Lenox Hill Grill & Pizza diner, located at 1105 Lexington Avenue, New York, New York 10021. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Antonio Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2020 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 E-mail: faillace@employmentcompliance.com BANKRATE INC: Pomerantz LLP Files Securities Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP filed a class action lawsuit against Bankrate, Inc. and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, and docketed under 14-cv-81183, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased Bankrate securities between March 1, 2013 and September 15, 2014, inclusive. This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you are a shareholder who purchased Bankrate securities during the Class Period, you have until November 17, 2014 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, x237. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. Bankrate is a leading publisher, aggregator and distributor of personal finance content on the Internet. Through its online network including Bankrate.com, its flagship website, the Company provides consumers with independent personal finance editorial content in subject matters such as mortgages, deposits, insurance, credit cards, and other categories, such as retirement, automobile loans, and taxes. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Bankrate's financial statements contained errors related to the improper recognition of revenues and expenses; (2) the Company lacked adequate internal controls over financial reporting; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On September 15, 2014, the Company filed a Form 8-K with the SEC, announcing, among other things, that the SEC is investigating the Company's financial reporting during 2012 and some of its previously issued financial statements should no longer be relied upon. On this news, the Company's shares fell $1.90, or over 13%, to close at $11.92 per share on September 15, 2014. With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and San Diego, The Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 70 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. BANKRATE INC: Cohen Milstein Files Securities Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC on Oct. 24 disclosed that on October 22, 2014, it filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of Bankrate, Inc. securities during the period between March 1, 2013 and September 15, 2014, inclusive. Bankrate is a leading publisher, aggregator, and distributor of personal finance content on the Internet. Through its online network including Bankrate.com, the company provides consumers with independent personal finance editorial content in subject matters such as mortgages, deposits, insurance, credit cards, retirement, automobile loans, and taxes. The complaint alleges that Bankrate and certain of its executives made false and misleading statements and/or omissions in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The claims arise out of Bankrate's materially false and misleading financial statements which contained errors related to the improper recognition of revenues and expenses. Bankrate, moreover, lacked adequate internal controls over financial reporting during the Class Period. As alleged in the complaint, on September 15, 2014, Bankrate disclosed that the SEC is conducting a non-public formal investigation relating to the company's financial reporting during 2012. Bankrate also announced that its audit committee concluded that the company's previously issued financial statements for fiscal years 2011, 2012, and 2013 should no longer be relied upon pending the conclusion of a full internal review. Bankrate's stock price fell substantially following the announcement. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all those who purchased Bankrate securities from March 1, 2013 through September 15, 2014. Cohen Milstein has significant experience in prosecuting investor class actions and actions involving securities fraud. The firm has offices in Washington, D.C., New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Denver, and Palm Beach Gardens. The firm's reputation for excellence has repeatedly been recognized by courts which have appointed the firm to lead positions in complex multi-district or consolidated litigation. Cohen Milstein has taken a lead role in numerous important cases on behalf of defrauded investors, and has been responsible for a number of outstanding recoveries which, in the aggregate, total in the billions of dollars. If you purchased Bankrate securities from March 1, 2013 through September 15, 2014, you may move the court no later than November 17, 2014 (a previous case had been filed against Bankrate in September 2014 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida), and request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. To be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must decide that your claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that you will adequately represent the class. Your share in any recovery will not be enhanced or diminished by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. You may retain Cohen Milstein, or other attorneys, to serve as your counsel in this action. If you have any questions about this notice or the action, or with regard to your rights, please contact either of the following: Steven J. Toll, Esq. Jordan Hill Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC 1100 New York Avenue, N.W. East Tower, Suite 500 Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone: (888) 240-0775 or (202) 408-4600 Email: stoll@cohenmilstein.com jhill@cohenmilstein.com BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Feb. 27 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE ACTION INVOLVING BAXTER INTERNATIONAL INC., PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF DERIVATIVE ACTION, SETTLEMENT HEARING, AND RIGHT TO APPEAR TO: ALL RECORD HOLDERS AND BENEFICIAL OWNERS OF SHARES OF THE COMMON STOCK OF BAXTER INTERNATIONAL, INC. AS OF THE PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT, OCTOBER 15, 2014, UPDATED OCTOBER 22, 2014, WHO CONTINUE TO HOLD SUCH SHARES THIS SUMMARY NOTICE RELATES TO A PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSAL OF THE DERIVATIVE LITIGATION, WESTMORELAND COUNTY EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT SYSTEM, DERIVATIVELY ON BEHALF OF BAXTER INTERNATIONAL INC., PLAINTIFF, V. ROBERT L. PARKINSON, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, AND BAXTER INTERNATIONAL, INC., NOMINAL DEFENDANT, CASE NO. 10 C 6514 (N.D.ILL.) (THARP, J.) PENDING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that the parties have entered into a proposed settlement to resolve the issues raise in the Action. Please be further advised, that pursuant to an Order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, a hearing will be held before the Honorable John J. Tharp, Jr. on February 27, 2015 at 10:00 a.m. at Courtroom 1419 of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Everett McKinley Dirksen United States Courthouse, 219 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois 60604. The purpose of the hearing is to determine: (i) whether the proposed Settlement should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice; (iii) whether the Court should award attorney's fees and reimbursement of expenses for Lead Plaintiff's Counsel, and in what amount; and (iv) to hear such other matters as may properly come before the Court. IF YOU ARE A CURRENT COMPANY STOCKHOLDER, YOU MAY HAVE CERTAIN RIGHTS IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT, AND YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS ACTION. This is a summary notice only. If you have not seen publication of the full-length Notice of Proposed Settlement of Derivative Action, Final Settlement Hearing, and Right to Appear, you may view the Notice on the Baxter website (www.baxter.com) and in Baxter's third quarter 2014 Form 10-Q. If you wish to obtain additional information about the claims asserted in the Action and the terms of the proposed Settlement, please contact Lead Plaintiff's Counsel: Judith S. Scolnick, Esq. Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP The Chrysler Building 405 Lexington Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10174 E-mail: jscolnick@scott-scott.com Telephone: (212) 223-6444 Any objections to the proposed Settlement or Lead Plaintiff's Counsel's application for attorney's fees and reimbursement of expenses must be filled with the Court and delivered to Lead Plaintiff's Counsel and counsel for Baxter and the Individual Defendants such that they are received no later than February 6, 2015, in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Notice and at the addresses set forth in the Notice. If you are a current Company Stockholder and you do not take steps to appear or to object to the proposed Settlement as set forth in the Notice, you will be bound by the Order and Final Judgment of the Court, you will be bound the Settlement and release of claims, and you will be forever barred from: (i) objecting to the fairness, adequacy, or reasonableness of the proposed Settlement; and (ii) objecting to the fairness or reasonableness of Plaintiff's Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses. PLEASE DO NOT CALL, WRITE, OR OTHERWISE DIRECT QUESTIONS TO, EITHER THE COURT OR THE CLERK's OFFICE REGARDING THIS SUMMARY NOTICE. BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS BEL CO: "Chavez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Penalties --------------------------------------------------------------- Fabio Chavez and other similarly situated individuals v. Bel Co, LLC d/b/a Window Gang Miami and Jose Manuel Belsol, Case No. 1:14- cv-23957 (S.D. Fla., October 24, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid wages, attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Bel Co, LLC owns and operates a contracting company in Miami-Dade, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony Maximillien Georges-Pierre, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC Court House Tower, 44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416-5000 Facsimile: (305) 416-5005 E-mail: agp@rgpattorneys.com BLUE EARTH: Faces Class Action on SeekingAlpha.com Article ---------------------------------------------------------- Blue Earth Inc. said in a Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2014, that a class action lawsuit, captioned "Jordan Cianci, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Blue Earth, Inc., Johnny R. Thomas (an executive officer), Brett Woodard (an executive officer) and John Francis (a non-executive officer)", was filed on October 24, 2014, in United States District Court Central District of California (Case No. 2:14-cv-08263) against Blue Earth, Inc. (the "Company") and the aforementioned officers of the Company. The complaint is based, in large part, on the allegations contained in an anonymous article posted on October 21, 2014 on the website "SeekingAlpha.com". The Company has previously responded to the "SeekingAlpha" allegations in a press release dated October 21, 2014 and refuted the veracity of the claims made in the article. The Company believes the claims contained in the complaint are without merit and will vigorously defend this matter. Blue Earth, Inc. provideS energy efficiency and alternative OR renewable energy solutions for small and medium sized commercial and industrial facilities. The Plaintiff is represented by: Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 355 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 2450 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 785-2610 Facsimile: (213) 226-4684 Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com BOCA RATON, FL: Ticket Clinic Mulls Red Light Camera Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- BocaNewsNow.com reports that the City of Boca Raton may find itself as a defendant if attorneys seize on the recent appeals court ruling that declared red light camera tickets illegal in Florida. Boca is among several cities that outsourced the red light camera ticket business to a private company -- something the court just said is wrong. The popular "Ticket Clinic" is considering a class action lawsuit on behalf of those issued a red light camera ticket in Florida. October 24, 2014 Dear Ticket Clinic Client, As you may be aware, our law firm, The Ticket Clinic, has been challenging the legality of red light cameras in Florida for years. We won our appeal to the 4th District Court of Appeals. The Court agreed with our position that the tickets are void and the process that is currently in place violates Florida law. We are now investigating this issue with a view toward filing a class action lawsuit, if our investigation uncovers sufficient facts to support class treatment of this case. As part of this investigation we typically contact clients whom we represent to confirm their current and past circumstances and to explore information that may be relevant to our investigation and how it may impact them. This e-mail is being sent to you for these purposes. In a class action lawsuit, one or more people called "class representatives" sue on behalf of other people who have similar claims against the same person or company called "the defendant." The purpose of the class action lawsuit we are investigating is to attempt to recover the money that has been paid by drivers/car owners for these red light camera violations. We are currently interviewing clients who may have pertinent information, may be class members, and may request to serve as class representative if they received these violations in Broward and/or Palm Beach Counties after July 1, 2010. This type of case is handled on a contingency basis, meaning if there is any payment of attorney's fees that it will come out of the recovery and the law firms will advance all costs of the litigation. There is no cost to you to participate. Among other things, those persons wishing to qualify as a class representative must meet these requirements: 1) The class representative must have received a Notice of Violation (NOV) for $158.00 or a Uniform Traffic Citation (UTC) for $264.00 or $277.00 after July 1, 2010. The NOV and/or UTC must have been paid without having first gone to court. 2) The NOV or UTC must have been issued in Broward or Palm Beach County after July 1, 2010. 3) The class representative must have a clean history (no criminal convictions). We are also interested in speaking with individuals that received a NOV or a UTC while driving a rental vehicle. Class representatives will be acting on behalf of many other people in the "class." There will be some time required by the class representative, as depositions will take place. Class representatives are not promised any more recovery than anyone else who is also in the class. If you feel that you have information that would be relevant to our investigation, or you have interest in participating in the case as a class representative, please e-mail me at: TedHollander. I look forward to your response. Sincerely, Ted L. Hollander, Esq. The Ticket Clinic, a law firm 1580 South Federal Highway Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Phone: 954-990-1479 BP PLC: WSJ Says Oil Spill Fund "All-You-Can-Eat" Buffet -------------------------------------------------------- Kyle Barnett, writing for The Louisiana Record, reports that an editorial in the Wall Street Journal lambasted trial lawyers for their apparent greed in pushing claims through the Deepwater Horizon oil spill settlement agreement that may not be related to the oil spill itself and serve as the basis for a challenge to the U.S. Supreme Court. Last year BP was turned down at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit when they asked that the settlement agreement be decertified saying that Claims Administrator Patrick Juneau was inaccurately calculating some claims without making claimants prove they actually suffered damage. However, the court did require Mr. Juneau to change the way he calculated business economic loss claims -- something BP now says cost them hundreds of millions of dollars which they are trying to get back from claimants who were overpaid or never should have been paid in the first place. The last ditch appeal to decertify the class now looks like it is on it's way to the U.S. Supreme Court and BP has also requested U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier, who is overseeing the case, to remove Juneau as Claims Administrator. BP's requests to remove Mr. Juneau is based on accusations of corruption in his office that has resulted in five top level employees stepping down or being fired and severe inefficiency wherein administrative costs have topped $1 billion and claims payments have slowed to a trickle. In its sharply worded editorial, the WSJ pointed to a "wave of abuse" on behalf of the trial attorneys involved in engineering settlement action, known as the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee (PSC) who as part of their settlement got a $660 million payout off the top, as well as that of Juneau. "The fund has become an all-you-can-eat buffet and everybody is invited, regardless of the cause of the damages they may or may not have suffered," the editorial states. The editorial goes on to say that the issue is an opportunity for the Supreme Court to put trial lawyers in their place, which may have ramifications for other class action settlements to come. "[T]he major question for the High Court to resolve isn't a narrow dispute about whether Mr. Juneau's or BP's interpretation of the terms is right. Rather, it's whether the courts can certify a class in which thousands of people cannot prove they suffered injuries that the defendant caused and could never succeed in an individual lawsuit," the editorial states. LaPlace-based attorney Daniel Becnel represents numerous claimants in the case, but is not part of the PSC. Mr. Becnel has been very critical of the settlement since its inception. "The BP oil spill has been a feeding frenzy for plaintiffs' lawyers. Legitimate clients have not yet been paid, and people who do not deserve money have been paid millions, despite the fact that Judge Barbier has tried to control this case and is a very hard working judge," he said. Mr. Becnel has maintained the class action lawsuit should have never been certified to begin with because those who received damages were not united in the manner in which they were damaged. "You cannot do a class action settlement with that many components," he said. He believes the Supreme Court will at least look at the case, if not overturn it. "I think the Supreme Court is going to do something with this case. Barbier is trying to impose discipline on a bunch of greedy lawyers, but that is like trying to impose discipline in the Amazon with a bunch of flesh easting piranhas. It is kind of hard to do," Mr. Becnel said. Melissa Landry, executive director of Louisiana Lawsuit Abuse Watch, said the Supreme Court appeal is a historic one that offers a chance to set things straight. "Without question, the Wall Street Journal correctly assessed Louisiana's legal climate as a 'lawsuit cesspool.' Such harsh words are hard to hear, but it is obvious to most observers outside the state that unless the Supreme Court acts to address the fundamental issue of causation, the BP settlement will ultimately be defined as one of the worst shakedowns in the history of the American legal system," she said. Mr. Juneau did not respond to a request for comment on this story. CBCS: Faces "Elvin" Suit in N.J. Over Illegal Collection of Debt ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sophia Elvin, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. CBCS and John Does 1-25, Case No. 3:14-cv-06598 (D.N.J., October 24, 2014), seeks to redress the Defendant's actions of using an unfair and unconscionable means to collect debt. The Defendants own and operate a collection agency with its principal office located at 250 E. Broad Street, 4th Floor, Columbus, Ohio 43216 with a mailing address of PO Box 2589, Columbus, Ohio 43216. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq. Marcus Law LLC 1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101 Ocean, NJ 07712 Telephone: (732) 660-8169 E-mail: ari@marcuslawyer.com CLECO CORP: Trial in Discrimination Claim to Commence in January ---------------------------------------------------------------- Cleco Corporation and Cleco Power LLC said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that one claim that a former employee alleged was the result of a disciplinary warning Cleco issued to the former employee has been remanded, and the trial is currently scheduled to commence on January 20, 2015. In December 2009, a complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana (the Court) on behalf of eight current employees and four former employees alleging that Cleco discriminated against each of them on the basis of race. Each was seeking various remedies provided under applicable statutes prohibiting racial discrimination in the workplace, and together, the plaintiffs requested monetary compensation exceeding $35.0 million. In July 2010, the plaintiffs moved to add an additional current employee alleging that Cleco had discriminated on the basis of race. The additional plaintiff sought compensation of no less than $2.5 million and became the thirteenth plaintiff. In April 2011, Cleco entered into a settlement with one of the current employees which resulted in a dismissal of one of the thirteen cases with prejudice. In September 2011, the Court ruled on Cleco's summary judgment motions, with the end result that eleven of the twelve remaining plaintiffs had at least one claim remaining. In February 2013, the Court ruled on the second motion for summary judgment, filed by Cleco in March 2012, in each of the eleven cases and each such case was dismissed with prejudice. Appeals were filed in ten of the eleven dismissed cases to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (the Fifth Circuit). In June 2013, the Fifth Circuit clerk dismissed the appeals of two of the current employees due to their failure to file a brief in support of their respective appeals. On various dates in August through November 2013, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the trial court judgments in favor of Cleco in seven of the eight remaining cases. On April 8, 2014, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the Court's summary judgment dismissing the wrongful termination and other discrimination claims of the one remaining plaintiff, a former employee who served as one of Cleco's human resource representatives. Excluded from the ruling was one claim that the former employee alleged was the result of a disciplinary warning Cleco issued to the former employee. This one claim has been remanded to the Court, and the trial is currently scheduled to commence on January 20, 2015. CLECO CORP: Ratepayers Action Dismissed and Fully Resolved ---------------------------------------------------------- Cleco Corporation and Cleco Power LLC said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the lawsuit by ratepayers of Opelousas was dismissed and the matter is fully resolved in favor of Cleco Power. In March 2010, a complaint was filed in the 27th Judicial District Court of St. Landry Parish, State of Louisiana, on behalf of three Cleco Power customers in Opelousas, Louisiana. The complaint alleged that Cleco Power overcharged the plaintiffs by applying to customers in Opelousas the same retail rates as Cleco Power applies to all of its retail customers. The plaintiffs claimed that Cleco Power owed customers in Opelousas more than $30.0 million as a result of the alleged overcharges. The plaintiffs alleged that Cleco Power should have established, solely for customers in Opelousas, retail rates that were separate and distinct from the retail rates that apply to other customers of Cleco Power and that Cleco Power should not have collected from customers in Opelousas the storm surcharge approved by the LPSC following hurricanes Katrina and Rita. In April 2010, Cleco Power filed a petition with the LPSC appealing to its expertise in declaring that the ratepayers of Opelousas had been properly charged the rates that were applicable to Cleco Power's retail customers and that no overcharges had been collected. In May 2010, a second class action lawsuit was filed in the 27th Judicial District Court for St. Landry Parish, State of Louisiana, repeating the allegations of the first complaint, which was submitted on behalf of 249 Opelousas residents. In January 2011, the presiding judge in the state court proceeding ruled that the jurisdiction to hear the two class actions resided in the state court and not with the LPSC as argued by both Cleco Power and the LPSC Staff. Both Cleco Power and the LPSC Staff appealed this ruling to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals for the State of Louisiana (Third Circuit). In September 2011, the Third Circuit denied both appeals. In October 2011, both Cleco Power and the LPSC appealed the Third Circuit's ruling to the Louisiana Supreme Court. In February 2011, the administrative law judge (ALJ) in the LPSC proceeding ruled that the LPSC has jurisdiction to decide the claims raised by the class action plaintiffs. At its December 2011 Business and Executive Session, the LPSC adopted the ALJ's recommendation that Cleco Power be granted summary judgment in its declaratory action finding that Cleco Power's ratepayers in the City of Opelousas had been served under applicable rates and policies approved by the LPSC and Cleco Power's Opelousas ratepayers had not been overcharged in connection with LPSC rates or ratemaking. In January 2012, the class action plaintiffs filed their appeal of such LPSC decision to the 19th Judicial District Court for East Baton Rouge Parish, State of Louisiana. In December 2012, the Louisiana Supreme Court issued its opinion accepting Cleco Power's jurisdictional arguments and dismissed the state court claims. The appeal of the plaintiffs to the 19th Judicial District Court to review the LPSC ruling in Cleco Power's favor that it had properly charged the ratepayers of Opelousas was dismissed with prejudice on May 21, 2014. With this dismissal, the matter is fully resolved in favor of Cleco Power. CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Sued Over Illegal Collection of Debt ------------------------------------------------------------ Abraham Parnes on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Convergent Outsourcing, Inc. and Verizon Communications Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-06242 (E.D.N.Y., October 24, 2014), alleges that the Defendants unlawfully engaged in the collection of consumer debts in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Defendants are regularly engaged, for profit, in the collection of debts allegedly owed by consumers. The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq. Adam J. Fishbein, Attorney at Law 483 Chestnut Street Cedarhurst, NY 11516 Telephone: (516) 791-4400 Facsimile: (516) 791-4411 E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com CVS PHARMACY: 1st Cir. Reverses Remand of Wage Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Lisa Ryan, writing for Law360, reports that the First Circuit on Oct. 24 reversed the remand of a putative wage class action against CVS Pharmacy Inc., saying CVS' removal shouldn't have been nixed for being filed past the 30-day deadline outlined in the Class Action Fairness Act, since the act includes exceptions when a suit's damages can be readily calculated. The three-judge appellate panel slammed a lower court's remand of a putative class action alleging CVS forces its shift supervisors to remain on store premises when taking rest or meal breaks. The lower court said CVS improperly removed the suit from state court more than 30 days after it was filed, in violation of the CAFA, but the appellate court clarified that the act was lenient on its timeline when damages in a suit are specified or can be calculated easily, saying CVS properly showed the plaintiffs sought more than $5 million. "In line with the other circuits that have adopted a bright-line approach, we hold that the time limits in Section 1446(b) apply when the plaintiffs' pleadings or the plaintiffs' other papers provide the defendant with a clear statement of the damages sought or with sufficient facts from which damages can be readily calculated," the opinion said. A group of CVS shift supervisors filed the suit on Aug. 31, 2011, in Massachusetts superior court, claiming that CVS' policy of requiring the workers to remain on store premises during breaks when no other managerial employees are on duty or only one other employee is on duty violates state law, since CVS does not pay them for these "breaks," the opinion says. CVS filed a notice of removal on Sept. 30, 2011, and calculated the damages -- which weren't specified in the complaint -- as $10,396,944, assuming that the class members lost each meal break during the class period in the suit, according to the opinion. The district court rejected CVS' calculation and granted the plaintiff's motion to remand the suit back to state court. But on Jan. 18, 2013, the plaintiffs informed CVS in an email that, during discovery, they found 116,499 meal breaks during the period of August 2010 through June 2012 when no other shift supervisor was working. CVS then filed a second notice of removal on Feb. 15, 2013, saying there was a "reasonable probability" that the suit sought more than $5,000,000 in light of the new information, the opinion says. The district court once again granted the plaintiff's bid to remand this past March, since it was filed later than the 30-day deadline outlined in Section 1146(b)(3) of the CAFA. But in its Oct. 24 opinion, the appellate panel said that the section's "thirty-day clocks" are only triggered when the complaint or the plaintiffs' "subsequent paper" provide the defendant with sufficient information to easily determine that the suit is removable, as the email had done in this instance. "The district court erred in imposing too great a duty of inquiry on the defendant," the opinion said. Judges Sandra L. Lynch, Juan R. Torruella and Jeffrey R. Howard sat on the panel for the First Circuit. CVS is represented by James N. Boudreau -- boudreauj@gtlaw.com -- and John F. Farraher Jr. -- farraherj@gtlaw.com -- of Greenberg Traurig LLP. The putative class is represented by Thomas V. Urmy Jr. -- turmy@shulaw.com -- Rachel M. Brown -- rbrown@shulaw.com -- and Patrick J. Vallely -- pvallely@shulaw.com -- of Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP. The suit is Romulus et al. v. CVS Pharmacy Inc., case number 14-1937, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. DA MARCELLA: "Ramirez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------ Ever Ramirez and Jhon Urichima, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Da Marcella 51 Inc., 11 West 51 Realty LLC, and Cucina Buona Group INC d/b/a Da Marcella Restaurant, et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-08532 (S.D.N.Y., October 24, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation and spread of hours compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Leonor Hidalgo Coyle, Esq. Lloyd Robert Ambinder, Esq. VIRGINIA & AMBINDER LLP 40 Broad Street, 7th fl., Suite 1403 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 943-9080 Facsimile: (212) 943-9082 E-mail: lcoyle@vandallp.com lambinder@bivas.net DONALD TRUMP: Cal. Court Certified RICO Class in "Cohen" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Elizabeth Warmerdam, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that a federal judge certified a RICO class action accusing Donald Trump of misrepresenting Trump University "to make tens of millions of dollars" but delivering "neither Donald Trump nor a university." Lead plaintiff Art Cohen sued Donald J. Trump in October 2013, claiming Trump "devised and executed a scheme to make tens of millions of dollars" by misrepresenting that Trump University was an actual university taught by a faculty of professors at least partly selected by Trump himself. Trump claimed that Trump University would teach some of his real estate investing secrets. To entice students, Trump spent up to $6 million annually on a national advertising campaign, which included YouTube, e-mail, Web site and postal mail solicitations, according to the complaint. Cohen says he attended a free seminar after receiving a "special invitation" in the mail, then paid Trump University $1,495 to attend a three-day real estate retreat, where he purchased a "Gold Elite" program for nearly $35,000 more. But Cohen claims Trump did not teach students his real estate investing secrets, did not contribute in any meaningful way to the curriculum for the live events, and did not handpick the instructors who taught at the three-day events or in the elite mentorship programs. Trump in October lost a court battle against New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman when a judge ruled that Trump was personally liable for running the university without a license. Schneiderman accused Trump of fraud, claiming he had cheated students out of $40 million. New York Supreme Court Justice Cynthia Kern found that Trump and Michael Saxton, who served as the school's president, knew that the university was being run without a license. A determination of damages in that case is pending. On October 27 in San Diego, U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel ruled that Cohen's complaint can continue as a class action. "Plaintiff has introduced evidence that the alleged misrepresentations of a 'university' and of Donald Trump's participation in the Trump University Live Events were prominently featured in all Trump University marketing materials; and that a 'Playbook,' Powerpoint presentations, and scripts encouraged if not required Trump University representatives to continue these representations," Curiel wrote. "The court finds this evidence provides a method for plaintiff to establish proximate causation on a classwide basis without resorting to individualized inquiries, by relying on a common sense inference that consumers are likely to rely on prominently marketed features of a product which they purchase." Trump unsuccessfully argued that individualized determinations will need to be met to determine whether the statute of limitations bars class members' claims. He claimed that Cohen could have known as early as July 2009 that Trump University was not an actual university, based on the facts that Cohen was not looking for a diploma, the seminars were in a hotel, and Cohen had not made any inquiries into the accreditation status of the university. Judge Curiel was not persuaded: "The court has found a nucleus of common issues and is not convinced at this point that the inquiry into whether the individual class members in this case knew or should have known about the fraudulent scheme as alleged in the present action will require individualized determinations or may depend on facts peculiar to each case," Curiel wrote. "Although defendant may yet show that plaintiff and the putative class members knew or should have known that defendant had devised a scheme to falsely market Trump University via mail or wire prior to October 2009, the court is satisfied that determination of defendant's statute of limitations defense in this case will not defeat the predominance of common issues in this case." The case is Art Cohen v. Donald J. Trump, Case No. 13-cv-2519-GPC- WVG, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. DOW CHEMICAL: To Review of $1.06-Bil. Judgment to Supreme Court --------------------------------------------------------------- The Dow Chemical Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that it will seek judicial review by the U.S. Supreme Court if its appeal of the $1.06 billion judgment in the Urethane lawsuits is denied or the results of any rehearing by the Court of Appeals are unfavorable. In 2005, the Company, among others, was named as a defendant in multiple civil class action lawsuits alleging a conspiracy to fix the price of various urethane chemical products, namely the products that were the subject of the above described DOJ antitrust investigation. These lawsuits were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas (the "District Court") or have been tolled. On July 29, 2008, the District Court certified a class of purchasers of the products for the six-year period from 1999 through 2004. Shortly thereafter, a series of "opt-out" cases were filed by a number of large volume purchasers; these cases are substantively identical to the class action lawsuit, but expanded the time period to include 1994 through 1998. In January 2013, the class action lawsuit went to trial in the District Court with the Company as the sole remaining defendant, the other defendants having previously settled. On February 20, 2013, the jury in the matter returned a damages verdict of approximately $400 million against the Company, which ultimately was trebled by the District Court under applicable antitrust laws - less offsets from other settling defendants - resulting in a judgment entered in July 2013 in the amount of $1.06 billion. The Company appealed this judgment to the U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ("Tenth Circuit" or "Court of Appeals"), which heard oral arguments on the matter on May 14, 2014. On September 29, 2014, the Court of Appeals issued an opinion affirming the District Court judgment. On October 14, 2014, the Company filed a petition for Rehearing or Rehearing En Banc (collectively the "Petition") with the Court of Appeals. In the Petition, Dow requests that the Tenth Circuit's September 29th decision be reheard to correct fundamental errors. Specifically, the Tenth Circuit panel's decision violates the law of the U.S. Supreme Court as set out in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011) and Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 133 S. Ct. 1426 (2013). Further, the Petition points out that the panel has not followed accepted circuit court law, including precedent from the U.S. First, Second, Third, Fifth, Eighth, Ninth, and D.C. Circuit Courts. To the contrary, the erroneous law applied by the panel is not supported by any other circuit court. The Tenth Circuit decision stands alone, and Dow's Petition asks for this to be corrected to avoid a split in the circuit courts. The same day that Dow filed its Petition, the Tenth Circuit ordered the class plaintiffs to file a response to Dow's Petition by October 24, 2014. On October 21, 2014, the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America filed an amicus brief in support of Dow's Petition. On October 24, 2014, the class plaintiffs filed a response to Dow's Petition. The Court of Appeals may grant the Petition and rehear the case en banc or decline to rehear the case. If the Petition is denied or the results of any rehearing are unfavorable, the Company will pursue a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking judicial review by the U.S. Supreme Court. "While it is unknowable whether or not the U.S. Supreme Court will accept the petition for review, there are several compelling reasons why the U.S. Supreme Court should grant the petition for writ of certiorari and if the petition for writ of certiorari is accepted, the Company believes it is likely that the District Court judgment will be vacated," the Company said. The Company has consistently denied plaintiffs' allegations of price fixing and the Company will continue to vigorously defend this litigation. As part of the Company's review of the jury verdict, the resulting judgment and the Court of Appeals' opinion, the Company assessed the legal and factual circumstances of the case, the trial record, the appellate record, and the applicable law including clear precedent from the U.S. Supreme Court. Based on this review and the reasons stated above, the Company believes the judgment and decision from the Court of Appeals are not appropriate. As a result, the Company has concluded it is not probable that a loss will occur and, therefore, a liability has not been recorded with respect to these matters. While the Company believes it is not probable a loss will occur, the existence of the jury verdict, the Court of Appeals' opinion and the pendency of the appeals process indicate that it is reasonably possible that a loss could occur. The estimate of the possible range of loss to Dow is zero to the $1.06 billion judgment (excluding post- judgment interest and possible award of class attorney fees). On September 30, 2014, the "opt-out" cases that had been consolidated with the class action lawsuit for purposes of pre- trial proceedings were remanded from the District Court to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. Dow also said there are two separate but inter-related matters in Ontario and Quebec, Canada. In March 2014, the Superior Court of Justice in London, Ontario, ruled in favor of the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Dow filed its Notice of Motion for Leave to Appeal in March 2014, which was subsequently denied. The Quebec case has been stayed pending the outcome of the Ontario case. The Company has concluded it is not probable that a loss will occur and, therefore, a liability has not been recorded with respect to these matters. EI DU PONT: Settles Majority of Imprelis(R) Claims and Lawsuits --------------------------------------------------------------- E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the company has settled or reached settlements in principle for the majority of these claims and lawsuits. The company has received claims and has been served with multiple lawsuits alleging that the use of Imprelis(R) herbicide caused damage to certain trees. Sales of Imprelis(R) were suspended in August 2011 and the product was last applied during the 2011 spring application season. The lawsuits seeking class action status were consolidated in multidistrict litigation in federal court in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. In February 2014, the court entered the final order dismissing these lawsuits as a result of the class action settlement. As part of the settlement, DuPont paid about $7 million in plaintiffs' attorney fees and expenses. In addition, DuPont is providing a warranty against new damage, if any, caused by the use of Imprelis(R) on class members' properties through May 2015. Certain class members opted out of the class action settlement and made independent claims or filed suit in various state courts, the majority of which were removed to federal court in Philadelphia. At September 30, 2014, the company has settled or reached settlements in principle for the majority of these claims and lawsuits. Approximately 35 lawsuits remain pending claiming property and related damage. This represents a decrease of about 90 over the number of lawsuits pending at June 30, 2014. The company has established review processes to verify and evaluate damage claims. There are several variables that impact the evaluation process including the number of trees on a property, the species of tree with reported damage, the height of the tree, the extent of damage and the possibility for trees to naturally recover over time. Upon receiving claims, DuPont verifies their accuracy and validity which often requires physical review of the property. At September 30, 2014, DuPont had recorded charges of $1,175 million, within other operating charges, to resolve these claims, which represents the company's best estimate of the loss associated with resolving these claims. The company did not take any charges related to this matter during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2014. The three months ended September 30, 2013 included net charges of $40 million, consisting of a $65 million charge offset by $25 million of insurance recoveries. The nine months ended September 30, 2013 included net charges of $155 million, consisting of charges of $180 million offset by $25 million of insurance recoveries received in the third quarter 2013. At September 30, 2014, DuPont had accruals of $312 million related to these claims. The company has an applicable insurance program with a deductible equal to the first $100 million of costs and expenses. The insurance program limits are $725 million for costs and expenses in excess of the $100 million. Insurance recoveries are recognized when realized. DuPont has submitted and will continue to submit requests for payment to its insurance carriers for costs associated with this matter. The company has begun to receive payment from its insurance carriers and continues to seek recovery although the timing and outcome remain uncertain. To date the company has recognized and received insurance recoveries of $73 million. EI DU PONT: Trial in Drinking Water Actions to Begin in Sept 2015 ----------------------------------------------------------------- E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the first trial in the drinking water actions is scheduled to begin in September 2015, and the second in November 2015. In August 2001, a class action, captioned Leach v DuPont, was filed in West Virginia state court alleging that residents living near the Washington Works facility had suffered, or may suffer, deleterious health effects from exposure to PFOA in drinking water. DuPont and attorneys for the class reached a settlement in 2004 that binds about 80,000 residents. In 2005, DuPont paid the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and expenses of $23 million and made a payment of $70 million, which class counsel designated to fund a community health project. The company funded a series of health studies which were completed in October 2012 by an independent science panel of experts (the "C8 Science Panel"). The studies were conducted in communities exposed to PFOA to evaluate available scientific evidence on whether any probable link exists, as defined in the settlement agreement, between exposure to PFOA and human disease. The C8 Science Panel found probable links, as defined in the settlement agreement, between exposure to PFOA and pregnancy- induced hypertension, including preeclampsia; kidney cancer; testicular cancer; thyroid disease; ulcerative colitis; and diagnosed high cholesterol. In May 2013, a panel of three independent medical doctors released its initial recommendations for screening and diagnostic testing of eligible class members. In September 2014, the medical panel recommended follow-up screening and diagnostic testing three years after initial testing, based on individual results. The medical panel has not communicated its anticipated schedule for completion of its protocol. The company is obligated to fund up to $235 million for a medical monitoring program for eligible class members and, in addition, administrative costs associated with the program, including class counsel fees. In January 2012, the company put $1 million in an escrow account to fund medical monitoring as required by the settlement agreement. The court appointed Director of Medical Monitoring has established the program to implement the medical panel's recommendations. Under the program, notice has been given and the registration process, as well as eligibility screening, to participate in diagnostic testing has begun. As of September 30, 2014, no money has been disbursed from the fund. In addition, under the settlement agreement, the company must continue to provide water treatment designed to reduce the level of PFOA in water to six area water districts, including the Little Hocking Water Association (LHWA), and private well users. Class members may pursue personal injury claims against DuPont only for those human diseases for which the C8 Science Panel determined a probable link exists. At September 30, 2014, there were approximately 2,545 lawsuits filed in various federal and state courts in Ohio and West Virginia, an increase of about 255 over June 30, 2014. In accordance with a stipulation reached in the third quarter 2014 and other court procedures, these lawsuits have been or will be served and consolidated in multi-district litigation in Ohio federal court ("MDL"). The majority of the lawsuits allege personal injury claims associated with high cholesterol and thyroid disease from exposure to PFOA in drinking water. There are 18 lawsuits alleging wrongful death. Based on comments from attorneys for the plaintiffs, DuPont expects additional lawsuits may be filed. In the third quarter 2014, six plaintiffs from the MDL were selected for the individual trial. The first trial is scheduled to begin in September 2015, and the second in November 2015. DuPont denies the allegations in these lawsuits and is defending itself vigorously. EL PASO PIPELINE: "Allen" Case Plaintiff Files Notice of Appeal --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff in the case, Allen v. El Paso Pipeline GP Company, L.L.C., et al. has filed a notice of appeal on the dismissal of the case, and both plaintiff and defendants have filed opening briefs, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014. The Company said, "In May 2012, a unitholder of EPB filed a purported class action in Delaware Chancery Court, alleging both derivative and non-derivative claims, against us, and our general partner and its board. We were named in the lawsuit as both a "Class Defendant" and a "Derivative Nominal Defendant." The complaint alleges a breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing in connection with the March 2011 sale to us of a 25% ownership interest in SNG. On June 20, 2014, defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted, dismissing the case in its entirety. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal in July 2014, and both plaintiff and defendants have filed opening briefs. EMCOR GROUP: USM Subsidiary Faces Class Action by Janitors ---------------------------------------------------------- EMCOR Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that one of its subsidiaries, USM, Inc. ("USM"), doing business in California provides, among other things, janitorial services to its customers by having those services performed by independent janitorial companies. USM and one of its customers, which owns retail stores (the "Customer"), are co-defendants in a federal class action lawsuit brought by employees of five of USM's California janitorial contractors. The action was commenced on September 5, 2013 in a Superior Court of California and was removed by USM on November 22, 2013 to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The employees allege in their complaint, among other things, that USM and the Customer violated a California statute that prohibits USM from entering into a contract with a janitorial contractor when it knows or should know that the contract does not include funds sufficient to allow the janitorial contractor to comply with all local, state and federal laws or regulations governing the labor or services to be provided. The employees have asserted that the amounts USM pays to its janitorial contractors are insufficient to allow those janitorial contractors to meet their obligations regarding, among other things, wages due for all hours their employees worked, minimum wages, overtime pay and meal and rest breaks. These employees seek to represent not only themselves, but also all other individuals who provided janitorial services at the Customer's stores in California during the relevant four year time period. "We do not believe USM or the Customer has violated the California statute or that the employees may bring the action as a class action on behalf of other employees of janitorial contractors with whom USM contracted for the provision of janitorial services to the Customer. However, if the pending lawsuit is certified as a class action and USM is found to have violated the California statute, USM might have to pay significant damages and might be subject to similar lawsuits regarding the provision of janitorial services to its other customers in California. The plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that USM has violated the California statute, monetary damages, including all unpaid wages and interest thereon, restitution for unpaid wages, and an award of attorney fees and costs," the Company said. EMCOR is one of the largest electrical and mechanical construction and facilities services firms in the United States. ESTATE INFORMATION: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act --------------------------------------------------------------- Emil Furman, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Estate Information Services, LLC dba EIS Collections, Case No. 1:14-cv-06400 (E.D.N.Y., October 29, 2014) seeks relief from violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Maxim Maximov, Esq. MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP 1701 Avenue P Brooklyn, NY 11229 Telephone: (718) 395-3459 Facsimile: (718) 408-9570 E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com FANNIE MAE: Settles Securities Class Action for $170 Million ------------------------------------------------------------ Sheri Qualters, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that Fannie Mae's $170 million proposed settlement of a securities class action ended a six-year fight over who should pay for investors' losses related to the subprime mortgage market meltdown. The consolidated New York federal case sprang from lawsuits filed in 2008, after the Federal Housing and Finance Agency placed the Federal National Mortgage Association -- Fannie Mae's formal name -- into conservatorship. Fannie Mae offers mortgage investment products on the U.S. secondary mortgage market. The Boston Retirement System, Massachusetts Pension Reserves Investment Management and Tennessee Consolidated Retirement System claimed Fannie Mae and two former officers made false and misleading statements about the company's exposure to risky mortgage-loan products and its internal controls between November 2006 and September 2008. Thomas Dubbs -- tdubbs@labaton.com -- of Labaton Sucharow, class colead counsel, spoke with the NLJ about the case and the settlement announced on Oct. 24. He also discussed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit's November 2013 ruling affirming dismissal of a similar case against sister company Freddie Mac, which provides mortgage capital to lenders and is also under conservatorship. NLJ: Tell me about the settlement. Thomas Dubbs: It is $170 million for common stock shareholders and preferred stock shareholders. It's coming from Fannie Mae. The case was mediated after many years of litigation. NLJ: What were some of the major challenges in this case? Dubbs: Fannie Mae is in conservatorship, so in some sense we were litigating against the U.S. government. Their strategies and goals are different than those of a typical defendant. An additional wrinkle was a housing and finance agency regulation that in essence said if a plaintiff recovered a judgment they could not execute on that judgment, so it would be worthless. Although two judges expressed skepticism concerning that regulation, it was a cloud over the litigation. Another major challenge was the Second Circuit decision involving Freddie Mac. NLJ: How did you deal with the risks created by the Second Circuit ruling? Dubbs: The challenge was to develop from the record and through experts alternative damages theories. [To claim what's known as] disaggregating damages, we had to recreate what lawyers call the "but for" world of what Fannie Mae would have looked like without the securities law violations and without the extrinsic fact of their going into conservatorship. That involved going through millions of documents that detailed Fannie Mae's investment holdings and its various practices to recreate what would have happened had they purchased, processed and retained securities of a certain investment grade. NLJ: Why did this case end differently than the Freddie Mac case? Dubbs: We studied the opinion and came to the conclusion that we could disaggregate damages and had a very good chance of getting around the opinion. But given the uncertainties involved, that was an impetus to settle. FULLBAR LLC: Faces Consumer Class Action Over "All Natural" Label ----------------------------------------------------------------- Beth Winegarner, writing for Law360, reports that Fullbar LLC, the maker of popular appetite-curbing snacks, was slapped with a proposed consumer class action in Florida federal court on Oct. 23 claiming it tricked consumers into paying more for its "all natural" bars, which actually contain synthetic ingredients such as maltodextrin and soy lecithin. The suit, filed on behalf of a nationwide class and a separate Florida class that purchased Colorado-based Fullbar's products, alleges that labels on the front and back of the boxes claimed the snacks were either "100% natural" or "all natural." However, the products contain maltodextrin, potato maltodextrin, soy protein concentrate, soy protein isolate, soy lecithin and other processed ingredients, according to the complaint. Lead plaintiff Elizabeth Livingston said she purchased Fullbar products, including the chocolate peanut butter and double chocolate flavors, 10 to 15 times from a Wal-Mart store in Pembroke Pines, Florida, between January and August 2014. She later discovered that some of the bars' ingredients were not "all natural" as the labels claimed, according to the complaint. "Plaintiff and members of the class would not have purchased the products had they known that they were not '100% natural,'" the lawsuit said. Maltodextrin is produced through "partial acid and enzymatic hydrolysis" of corn starch, a "relatively severe" process that produces the "synthetic factory-produced texturizer" that doesn't occur in nature, according to the complaint. It also frequently includes genetically modified organisms, which by law are not natural because their DNA strands can be patented, according to the complaint. Fullbar's soy ingredients, including soy protein concentrate, soy protein isolate and soy lecithin, are allegedly also made from genetically modified organisms or seeds; because they were modified technologically, they don't qualify as "100 percent natural," the complaint said. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has defined "natural" products as those that don't contain added colors, artificial flavors or synthetic substances; federal laws claim an ingredient is synthetic if it is "formulated or manufactured by a chemical process" or "a process that chemically changes a substance extracted from naturally occurring plant, animal or mineral sources," the complaint said. Ms. Livingston's suit accuses Fullbar of violating Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act, as well as of negligent misrepresentation, breach of express warranty and unjust enrichment. She seeks damages and restitution, as well as an order either preventing Fullbar from using synthetic ingredients in its bars or from using the "natural" labeling on its boxes, according to the lawsuit. Ms. Livingston is represented by Joshua H. Eggnatz -- JEggnatz@EggnatzLaw.com -- and Michael J. Pascucci -- MPascucci@EggnatzLaw.com -- of the Eggnatz Law Firm. The case is Livingston v. Fullbar, LLC, case number 0:14-cv-62430, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. FRESH DEL MONTE: Appeal of Suit Over DBCP Pending ------------------------------------------------- Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 26, 2014, that a group of former banana cooperative workers from the Philippines filed in February 2011, a complaint in the Philippines against two of the Company's subsidiaries claiming injury from exposure to the chemical dibromochloropropane ("DBCP"). The trial court dismissed the complaint against the subsidiaries on October 3, 2011. Plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal to the Court of Appeals, which appeal is pending. Fresh Del Monte Produce was incorporated under the laws of the Cayman Islands in 1996 and is engaged primarily in the worldwide production, transportation and marketing of fresh produce. The Company sources its products, which include bananas, pineapples, melons and non-tropical fruit (including grapes, apples, pears, peaches, plums, nectarines, avocados, citrus and kiwis) and tomatoes, primarily from Central America, North America, South America, Africa, the Philippines and Europe. FRESH DEL MONTE: DBCP Action in Costa Rica Still Pending -------------------------------------------------------- On October 14, 2004, two of Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc.'s subsidiaries were served with a complaint in an action styled Angel Abarca, et al. v. Dole Food Co., et al. filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles on behalf of more than 2,600 Costa Rican banana workers who claim injury from exposure to the chemical dibromochloropropane ("DBCP"). On January 2, 2009, three of the Company's subsidiaries were served with multiple complaints in related actions styled Jorge Acosta Cortes, et al. v. Dole Food Company, et al. filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles on behalf of 461 Costa Rican residents. An initial review of the plaintiffs in the Abarca and Cortes actions found that a substantial number of the plaintiffs were claimants in prior DBCP actions in Texas and may have participated in the settlement of those actions. On June 27, 2008, the court dismissed the claims of 1,329 plaintiffs who were parties to prior DBCP actions. On June 30, 2008, the Company's subsidiaries moved to dismiss the claims of the remaining Abarca plaintiffs on grounds of forum non conveniens in favor of the courts of Costa Rica. On September 22, 2009, the court granted the motion to dismiss and on November 16, 2009 entered an order conditionally dismissing the claims of those remaining plaintiffs who allege employment on farms in Costa Rica exclusively affiliated with the Company's subsidiaries. Those dismissed plaintiffs re-filed their claim in Costa Rica on May 17, 2012. On January 18, 2013, all remaining plaintiffs in California filed Requests for Dismissal effecting the dismissal of their claims without prejudice. On September 25, 2013, the Company's subsidiaries filed an answer to the claim re-filed with the courts of Costa Rica. No updates were provided on the Costa Rica action in Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc.'s Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 26, 2014. Fresh Del Monte Produce was incorporated under the laws of the Cayman Islands in 1996 and is engaged primarily in the worldwide production, transportation and marketing of fresh produce. The Company sources its products, which include bananas, pineapples, melons and non-tropical fruit (including grapes, apples, pears, peaches, plums, nectarines, avocados, citrus and kiwis) and tomatoes, primarily from Central America, North America, South America, Africa, the Philippines and Europe. FRESH DEL MONTE: Appeal Filed in Third Circuit Over DBCP -------------------------------------------------------- Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 26, 2014, that a notice of appeal has been filed with the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit with respect to action over exposure to the chemical dibromochloropropane ("DBCP") during the period 1965 to 1990. The Company said, "On May 31 and June 1, 2012, eight actions were filed against one of our subsidiaries in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware on behalf of approximately 3,000 plaintiffs alleging exposure to DBCP on or near banana farms in Costa Rica, Ecuador, Panama, and Guatemala. We and our subsidiaries have never owned, managed or otherwise been involved with any banana growing operations in Panama and were not involved with any banana growing operations in Ecuador during the period when DBCP was in use. The plaintiffs include claimants who had cases pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana which were dismissed on September 17, 2012." "On August 30, 2012, our subsidiary joined a motion to dismiss the claims of those plaintiffs on the grounds that they have first- filed claims pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. The motion was granted on March 29, 2013. "On September 21, 2012, our subsidiary filed an answer with respect to the claims of those plaintiffs who had not already filed in Louisiana. On May 27, 2014, the court granted a motion made by a co-defendant and entered summary judgment against all plaintiffs based on the September 19, 2013 affirmance by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit of the dismissal of related cases by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. "On July 7, 2014, our subsidiary joined in a motion for summary judgment as to all plaintiffs on the basis of the court's May 27, 2014 ruling. Plaintiffs agreed that judgment be entered in favor of all defendants for the claims still pending in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware on the basis of the summary judgment granted on May 27, 2014 and the district court entered judgment dismissing all plaintiffs' claims on September 22, 2014. "On October 21, 2014, a notice of appeal was filed with the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, but the notice expressly limited the appeal to the claims of 57 (out of the more than 2,400) plaintiffs." Fresh Del Monte Produce was incorporated under the laws of the Cayman Islands in 1996 and is engaged primarily in the worldwide production, transportation and marketing of fresh produce. The Company sources its products, which include bananas, pineapples, melons and non-tropical fruit (including grapes, apples, pears, peaches, plums, nectarines, avocados, citrus and kiwis) and tomatoes, primarily from Central America, North America, South America, Africa, the Philippines and Europe. FRESH DEL MONTE: Hawaii Supreme Court Decision Still Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 26, 2014, that in Hawaii, plaintiffs filed a petition for certiorari to the Hawaii Supreme Court based upon the Hawaii Court of Appeals affirmance in March 2014 of a summary judgment ruling in defendants' favor at the trial court level. The Hawaii Supreme Court accepted the petition and oral argument was held on September 18, 2014 with respect to whether the claims of the six named plaintiffs were properly dismissed on statute of limitations grounds. The decision of the Hawaii Supreme Court remains pending. Fresh Del Monte Produce was incorporated under the laws of the Cayman Islands in 1996 and is engaged primarily in the worldwide production, transportation and marketing of fresh produce. The Company sources its products, which include bananas, pineapples, melons and non-tropical fruit (including grapes, apples, pears, peaches, plums, nectarines, avocados, citrus and kiwis) and tomatoes, primarily from Central America, North America, South America, Africa, the Philippines and Europe. FRESH DEL MONTE: Unit Satisfied Judgments in Unpaid Wages Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc.'s subsidiary has satisfied the judgments in the Unpaid Wages Class Action Litigation in accordance with the court's final order, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 26, 2014. The Company said, "In December 2007, a class action complaint was filed against one of our subsidiaries for unpaid wages in an action styled Maria Delgado and Abdia Liberio, et al. v. Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc. in the Circuit Court of Multnomah County, Oregon. On October 5, 2009, a jury verdict was entered against our subsidiary. The court entered judgments in favor of plaintiffs consistent with the jury verdict. "On January 2, 2014, the Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed the judgments. Our subsidiary appealed the Court of Appeals decision to the Oregon Supreme Court. On May 8, 2014, the Oregon Supreme Court denied our subsidiary's petition for review. Our subsidiary satisfied the judgments in accordance with the court's final order." Fresh Del Monte Produce was incorporated under the laws of the Cayman Islands in 1996 and is engaged primarily in the worldwide production, transportation and marketing of fresh produce. The Company sources its products, which include bananas, pineapples, melons and non-tropical fruit (including grapes, apples, pears, peaches, plums, nectarines, avocados, citrus and kiwis) and tomatoes, primarily from Central America, North America, South America, Africa, the Philippines and Europe. GIANT SPORTS: Sued for Misrepresenting Protein Amount in Product ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lazaro Rodriguez v. Giant Sports Products, LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv- 08378-RGK-AS (C.D. Cal., October 29, 2014) is a class action brought on behalf of all persons and entities in the United States and the state of California, who purchased the product Giant Sports Delicious Protein from the Defendant, who misrepresents the amount of protein available in the Product. Giant Sports Products, LLC is a Limited Liability Company licensed in the state of New Jersey, with a principal place of business in Brick, New Jersey. The Defendant designed, manufactured, warranted, advertised and sold the Product throughout the United States, including in the state of California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan N. Shub, Esq. Scott Alan George, Esq. SEEGER WEISS LLP 1515 Market Street, Suite 1380 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (215) 564-2300 Facsimile: (215) 851-8029 E-mail: jshub@seegerweiss.com sgeorge@seegerweiss.com - and - Nick Suciu III, Esq. BARBAT, MANSOUR & SUCIU PLLC 434 West Alexandrine #101 Detroit, MI 48201 Telephone: (313) 303-3472 E-mail: nicksuciu@bmslawyers.com - and - Bassma Zebib, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF BASSMA ZEBIB 811 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 1708 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (310) 920-7037 E-mail: zebiblaw@gmail.com GT ADVANCED: Faces "Ringer" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports -------------------------------------------------------------- Dennis Ringer, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Thomas, Gutierrez, Richard J. Gaynor, Raja Bal, J. Michael Conaway, Kathleen A. Cote, Ernest L. Godshalk, Matthew E. Massengill, Mary Petrovich, Robert E. Switz, Noel G. Watson, Thomas Wroe, Jr., Morgan Stanley & Co., LLC, Goldman Sachs & Co., and Canaccord Genuity Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-00478 (D.N.H., October 24, 2014), made materially false and misleading statements with respect to GTAT's relationship with Apple, as well as GTAT's capital position. GT Advanced Technologies Inc. is a leading diversified technology company producing advanced materials and innovative crystal growth equipment for the global consumer electronics, power electronics, solar and LED industries. The Individual Defendants are director and officers of GT Advanced Technologies Inc. The Company Defendants are underwriters of the Initial Public Offerings of GT Advanced Technologies Inc. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark L. Mallory, Esq. MALLORY & FRIEDMAN, PLLC 3 North Spring Street Concord, NH 03301 Telephone: (603) 228-2277 E-mail: mark@malloryandfriedman.com - and - Jeffrey H. Squire, Esq. Lawrence P. Eagel, Esq. BRAGAR, EAGEL & SQUIRE, PC 885 Third Avenue, Suite 3040 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 308-5858 Facsimile: (202) 337-1567 E-mail: squire@bespc.com eagel@bespc.com GREAT SOUTHERN: Awaits Ruling on Investor Class Action Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------- Shaun Drummond, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports former Great Southern director Jeff Mews flew from Perth to Melbourne on Oct. 26, hoping an end to "four years of hell" may be in sight. The 70-year-old retired businessman will learn whether the Victorian Supreme Court will approve a settlement of a class action with Bendigo and Adelaide Bank and Javelin Asset Management after the AU$1.8 billion collapse of the investment scheme in 2009. On Oct. 24, Victorian Supreme Court justice James Judd wrote to plaintiffs and defendants arguing he should be allowed to read Justice Clyde Croft's judgment, which was stopped by the settlement two days before it was due to be given on July 25. Many see the judgment's release as the only way a verdict on the conduct of Great Southern founder John Young, managing director Cameron Rhodes and deputy managing director Phillip Butlin will finally be given almost six years after its collapse. More than 1300 investors also want the Victorian Supreme Court to throw out the settlement. It will see insurers of Great Southern pay AU$20 million to clients of M+K to cover their legal costs for the class action and AU$3.5 million spread among possibly up to 50,000 former investors as far back as 1998, or around AU$16.79 per AU$10,000 invested, for any misleading statements in Great Southern's product disclosure statement. In return, investors admit loans and interest are valid and due within 30 days. M+K argues for the settlement because, even if the judgment is in their favor, Bendigo and Javelin will appeal and the case could drag on for at least another four years with no guarantee of a win. Mr. Mews and chairman Peter Patrikeos resigned from the board of Great Southern, which in its last five years put AU$1.8 billion of investors' money into olives, vineyards, tree plantations and cattle, in 2005 over what they saw as a cover up of poor yields reported to the board. Despite blowing the whistle well before Great Southern went bust in May 2009, M+K called them as defendants to the class action in late 2009. It later dropped charges against them but, within a week, Messrs. Lews and Patrikeos were pursued by the lawyers for Messrs. Rhodes and Butlin and brought in again as defendants. "My adversaries and their supporters have put me through the last four years of hell," Mr. Mews said of Messrs. Rhodes, Butlin and Young. Investors are livid that the settlement will see more than AU$320 million in loans outstanding repayable in full to financiers, law firm fees repaid and even the founder of Great Southern, John Young, potentially profiting. ASIC records show Mr. Young still controls a AU$2 shelf company called JSJA Holdings, which is understood to hold a "fixed and floating charge" over Javelin. Javelin bought AU$23 million worth of loans for AU$9 million just before Great Southern's collapse in 2009. As for Bendigo, the settlement rules all loans it bought fully enforceable. Fairfax Media contacted Mr. Young, but he refused to answer questions. "It is such a pathetic settlement sum," said M+K client Kerry O'Brien, who has invested hundreds of thousands of dollars for virtually no return in both Great Southern and another similar scheme, Timbercorp. Bharat Gupta, also an M+K client, agreed, arguing Bendigo and former directors should share the pain. His initial loan from Great Southern Finance, later bought by Bendigo Bank, of about AU$35,000 has doubled because M+K advised him to stop paying the interest. He argues Bendigo should take at least some share of the responsibility for lax lending standards of Great Southern. "Bendigo, when it bought the loans, should have done their due diligence on Great Southern," he said. "They should take some responsibility, rather than blaming us as investors." Rod Whitehouse, another M+K client, now owes Bendigo AU$147,000 after taking out an AU$80,000 loan in 2008 with Adelaide Bank before it was bought by Bendigo. He says he was pushed into the investment by accountants paid a commission to recommend it and believes the banks that approved the loans should take more of the pain of the collapse. "No deposit required, no questions asked, none of the usual checks and balances required, in all it took about a week to stitch me up to this deal," he said. "Somebody or bodies have done a lot of wrong with regards to Great Southern investors yet it appears that once again justice for white-collar crime is out of reach for the average person." HARLEQUIN ENTERPRISES: 2nd Cir. Certifies Author Class ------------------------------------------------------ Michael Cader, writing for Publishers Lunch, reports that the author class has been certified by Second Circuit District Court Judge William H. Pauley, III in the suit brought by three authors against Harlequin for underpayment on ebooks licensed to Harlequin subsidiaries. In May, the Appeals Court overturned Judge Judge Harold Baer's dismissal of the class action suit. HERBALIFE LTD: Agrees to Settle Suit Over Marketing Practices ------------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that Herbalife says it has agreed to settle a lawsuit that claimed the company's business structure and marketing practices violated federal and state laws. The weight loss and nutritional supplements company did not elaborate in its statement on Oct. 31 on the terms of the proposed settlement in the class-action case. The lawsuit was filed in April 2013 in a California federal court by a former salesman. Herbalife Ltd. maintains it hasn't done anything wrong and the lawsuit is meritless. It says it's seeking to settle the case in hopes of avoiding the potential cost and distraction of prolonged litigation. The company has also been defending itself against activist investor Bill Ackman, who runs Pershing Square Capital Management. Mr. Ackman has bet heavily against the company's stock, describing Herbalife as a pyramid scheme. HOME DEPOT: Faces "Petersen" Suit in Northern District of Georgia ----------------------------------------------------------------- Eric Petersen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Home Depot, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-03477-RWS (N.D. Ga., October 29, 2014) alleges breach of fiduciary duty. The Plaintiff is represented by: Rachel Soffin, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, PA P.O. Box 57007 191 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 4200 Atlanta, GA 30343-1007 Telephone: (813) 223-5505 Facsimile: (813) 223-5402 E-mail: rsoffin@forthepeople.com IBIO INC: Rosen Law Firms Files Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- The Rosen Law Firm on Oct. 24 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit against iBio, Inc. on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's common stock between October 13, 2014 and October 23, 2014, inclusive. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for iBio shareholders under the federal securities laws. To join the iBio class action, go to the website at http://rosenlegal.com/cases-409.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. or Jonathan Horne, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or jhorne@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. The suit is pending in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. The lawsuit claims that iBio issued materially false and misleading statements to investors by wrongfully suggesting that iBio's Launch platform patents and related proprietary technology would be licensed by the makers of the experimental Ebola drug, ZMapp. The lawsuit claims that when the true facts were revealed, the price of iBio's stock dropped, damaging investors. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than December 23, 2014. If you wish to join the litigation go to http://rosenlegal.com/cases-409.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact, Phillip Kim, Esq. or Jonathan Horne, Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or jhorne@rosenlegal.com The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. ICM PARTNERS: Intern Class Action Mediation Set for December 15 --------------------------------------------------------------- Dominic Patten, writing for Deadline, reports that two days after NBCUniversal settled a potential class action lawsuit by former Saturday Night Live interns for $6.4 million, ICM Partners has moved one step closer to possibly resolving its own labor issue. As expected, the agency and representatives for ex-interns Kimberly Behzadi and Jason Rindenau have agreed to mediation, now scheduled for December 15. ICM Partners attorney Steven Herd said in a letter from both sides sent to U.S. District Court Judge Lorna Schofield on Oct. 23 that the mediation will be before Dina Jansenson of the dispute- resolution firm JAMS. Judge Schofield said she wants to know the result of the mediation by January 6. Mr. Herd's letter also asked for ICM's motions of dismissal and others to be stayed during the mediation process. Additionally, it requested the discovery process be stated as well. Judge Schofield said yes to the former and no to the latter. Will we see a checkbook repeat of the NBCU situation? Well, the beginning of mediation is long, long way from that -- though it should be noted that the firm repping the ex-ICM interns is Outten & Golden. That's the same firm that repped ex-Saturday Night Live intern Monet Eliastam and others against the Comcast-owned company to a likely nearly $1.2 million payout for their efforts. Outten & Golden also is working on the ongoing case of the ex-Black Swan interns and their battle with Fox Searchlight. That suit really started the round of such actions that have hit the media industry in the past two years. Regardless if it ends up there or not, the gist of the case is that Ms. Behzadi and Mr. Rindenau allege that while they respectively were at the ICM offices in NYC and LA in early 2012 and mid-2011 they did the jobs and duties of paid employees. Following a rash of intern lawsuits hitting the industry over the past two years, Ms. Behzadi filed her case on June 17 with Mr. Rindenau joining in an amended complaint on August 15. Just over a week later, the two applied to have the case reclassified to a class action suit -- which could encompass hundreds of former ICM interns. The agency tried to have the initial complaint and the amended one dismissed. In the first case, they cited an arbitration clause that Ms. Behzadi refuted as not applicable to claims out of the internship. In the case of the amended complaint, the agency in its Sept. 5 motion to dismiss that action cited that because the amended complaint was filed on Aug. 15, more than three years had passed since Mr. Rindenau's May 23-Aug. 5, 2011 internship the statute of limitations apply. Needless to say the plaintiffs disagreed and on Sept. 19 called the motion "premature" without even the process of discovery having began. Now just over a week later the two sides are trying to find a way to talk. If successful, this could be over before the end of the year. If not, expect around 21 days in court next year. Rachel Bien, Justin Swartz and Sally Abrahamson of the labor- issues firm Outten & Golden are representing the interns. It should be noted that Bien and the firm are involved in the Black Swan suit and that Swartz also is handing legal duties on a class action launched against NBCUniversal by a former MSNBC intern and an ex-Saturday Night Live intern. Elise Michelle Bloom and Steven Hurd of Proskauer Rose's NYC office and Michelle Annese of the firm's Newark office represent ICM Partners. INBLOOM GROUP: "Holland" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wage ------------------------------------------------------------- Victoria Holland, and other similarly-situated individuals v. Flavio Ullivarri, Hortensia Ullivarri, Pablo Egas, individually, and Inbloom Group, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, Case No. 1:14-cv-23967 (S.D. Fla., October 24, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants are farm direct distributors of pre-made bouquets, consumer bunches and bulk fresh cut flowers. The Plaintiff is represented by: Tyler Aaron Stull, Esq. Anthony Maximillien Georges-Pierre, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC 44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416-5000 E-mail: tstull@gwlawfirm.net agp@rgpattorneys.com INTERNATIONAL AUTO: Sen. Durbin to Look Into Contract Complaints ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Fitzgerald, writing for BND.com, reports that U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., announced he will begin looking directly into the problems plaguing International Auto Logistics LLC of Brunswick, Ga., a federal contractor that received a nearly $1 billion contract from the U.S. Transportation Command, based at Scott, to ship military members' privately owned vehicles. Mr. Durbin said that he appreciated the hard work of Air Force Gen. Paul Selva, the commander of Transcom, based at Scott Air Force Base. But Mr. Durbin remains "deeply concerned regarding the performance of International Auto Logistics," according to a statement he issued on Oct. 25. "It shouldn't take six months of inquiries and complaints for IAL to meet its obligation to our nation's servicemembers and the basic requirements of its contract," Mr. Durbin said. As chairman of the Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, Durbin continued, "I have begun inquiries into the performance of this contract, and I intend to get to the bottom of what went wrong and how to make sure it does not happen again." Almost as soon as IAL took over the private vehicle shipping contract in early May, complaints from military families started pouring into both Transcom and the Army Surface Deployment and Distribution Command, also based at Scott, about missing cars, late delivery dates and problems with customs paperwork. Another major source of frustration was IAL's many failures to communicate with bewildered and stressed-out troops looking for their cars. Both Transcom and IAL have blamed IAL's problems on a six-month delay caused by protests and appeals filed by the previous contractor, American Auto Logistics. When IAL finally took over the contract, on May 1, it was in the midst of the peak season for the shipment of servicemembers' vehicles. In early August, in response to a rising tide of customer complaints, Mr. Selva ordered Transcom to set up a special 12- person "fusion cell" team consisting to logistics and supply chain experts. The team's mission was to help IAL unravel the problems behind the contractor's inability to track thousands of privately owned vehicles being shipped to the United States from Europe and Hawaii. A few weeks later, Mr. Selva sent teams of inspectors to visit ports in Germany, Hawaii and four sites in the continental United States to look for the missing vehicles. A month later, Transcom reported that the on-time delivery of military members' privately owned cars had improved sharply. Even so, plenty of complaints persisted, especially from military members who had entrusted their cars to IAL before Aug. 1. Sabrina Tunis, whose husband is an Army sergeant stationed at Fort Campbell, Ky., started a Facebook page in July to air complaints about IAL. In recent weeks, IAL's performance has been "getting a little bit better," said Tunis, whose Facebook page has more than 4,800 members. But Ms. Tunis still wants Transcom to replace IAL with a new contractor because of the many complaints against IAL concerning missing and damaged vehicles, as well as the two class-action lawsuits in Georgia filed on behalf of unhappy customers. That's in addition to a third lawsuit filed by subcontractor Liberty Global Logistics against IAL for the non-payment nearly $20 million in fees. "That should tell Transcom enough," Ms. Tunis said. These complaints led to a recent meeting in Washington, D.C., between Selva and U.S. Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., to "discuss the unacceptable burden thousands of service members returning from duty overseas are experiencing" due to vehicles misplaced by IAL, according to a statement Warner released. Mr. Warner called the meeting with Mr. Selva after receiving calls of complaint from 160 constituents who had asked for help, according to Warner's statement. Durbin's announcement on Oct. 25 follows by five weeks Mr. Selva's published comments that he had "personally communicated to the leadership" of IAL to tell them of his expectation that "they improve their performance with the timely and reliable delivery of vehicles and communication with customers." Transcom declined to comment on Mr. Selva's meeting with Mr. Warner, whose office also declined to comment. Amanda Nunez, an IAL spokeswoman, declined to comment on Mr. Warner's meeting with Mr. Selva. Nor would Ms. Nunez comment on the lawsuit filed recently by Liberty Global Logistics, the IAL subcontractor, which listed six reasons for seeking to withdraw its contract with IAL. Those reasons included IAL's alleged failure to merge its computer tracking system with Liberty's, and IAL's tardiness in making more than $20 million in required payments to Liberty. "To respect the legal process, IAL will not comment on ongoing litigation," Ms. Nunez wrote. IAL's dispute with the subcontractor had threatened to freeze all shipment of privately owned vehicles. JOHN CRANE: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Hays Mesothelioma Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Adolfo Pesquera, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that John Crane obtained a favorable ruling in a mesothelioma suit. Details: William S. Hays, a career U.S. Navy boiler tender, worked in the engine rooms of ships and at the Shore Intermediate Maintenance Activity facility in Mayport until his retirement from military service. His work kept him in close proximity to asbestos insulation and mechanical components that contained asbestos. He contracted mesothelioma and died in December 2009 at 68, defense attorney M. Stephen Smith said. The case in West Palm Beach was transferred to the multidistrict litigation court in Philadelphia a month after filing for joint pretrial proceedings. The Hays case was one of thousands filed by former Navy servicemen and civilian shipbuilders because asbestos exposure was common in several naval trades through the 1970s. Cases that could not be settled or dismissed made their way back to the plaintiff's home jurisdiction. The Hays case returned to Florida on April 18, 2013, with Mary Charlene Hays as representative of her husband's estate. Initially, there were many defendants. The original defendant was Foster Wheeler Energy Corp., which announced a confidential settlement June 5, 2013, according to court records. Another defendant, Honeywell Inc., filed a notice of settlement Nov. 27, 2013. Other defendants were dismissed, and John Crane Inc. was the lone defendant at trial. The case was tried under maritime law, Mr. Smith said. Plaintiffs case: John Crane products -- asbestos packing and gaskets -- were alleged to have been defective and the legal cause of Mr. Hays' cancer. Expert witnesses included Arnold Brody, a pathology professor at Tulane University Medical Center; Jerrold Abraham, an anatomic pathologist from Syracuse; and James Millette, an industrial hygienist from Atlanta. "Our experts testified that all forms of asbestos cause cancer, including the kind of asbestos in John Crane parts," plaintiffs attorney Jonathan Ruckdeschel -- rucklawfirm@rucklawfirm.com -- said. "They testified working with gaskets and packing can release asbestos in amounts above that found in the general environment. In people diagnosed with mesothelioma, the cancer is caused by the cumulative effect of exposures to asbestos." They also testified all asbestos exposure increases the risk of asbestos disease and there is no safe level of exposure to asbestos, Mr. Ruckdeschel said. The damages request was $180,000 for economic losses, $594,000 for medical expenses, $4,679 for funeral expenses and $4 million for pain and suffering. Defense case: Two expert witnesses were called: Dr. James Crapo, a pulmonologist from Denver, and Frederick Toca, an expert in industrial hygiene, toxicology and occupational safety from Atlanta. Mr. Smith said Mr. Toca testified he tested fibers released from John Crane gaskets and packing and found them at or below Occupational Safety and Health Administration standards. Mr. Smith contended the greatest hazard to Hays came from the ship's insulation. Before the 1980s, mechanical rooms where boiler tenders worked used large quantities of friable asbestos. Burns was lead counsel on the case. Outcome: After deliberating for 65 minutes, the jury said John Crane's products were not defective or the cause of Mr. Hays' cancer. The verdict form included four Fabre defendants -- A.W. Chesterton, Crane Co., Ford Motor Co. and Genuine Parts Co. No one was assigned fault. Comments: "The EPA banned the stuff around 1970 it was so bad. The Navy had a program to remove all of the asbestos. Mr. Hays was on board ship during some of that. He was there during the big tear-out of the insulation," Mr. Smith said. Post-verdict: Marra entered a final judgment Oct. 9 for John Crane. Case: Mary Charlene Hays v. John Crane Case no: 09-cv-81881 Description: Wrongful death Filing Date: Nov. 3, 2009 Trial dates: Sept. 15-29, 2014 Judge: U.S. District Judge Kenneth A. Marra, West Palm Beach Plaintiffs attorneys: Jonathan Ruckdeschel and Jacqueline Badders, Ruckdeschel Law Firm, Ellicott City, Md. Defense attorneys: M. Stephen Smith -- ssmith@rumberger.com -- and Michael Holt -- mholt@rumberger.com -- Rumberger, Kirk & Caldwell, Miami; Thomas Burns -- tjb@otmblaw.com -- and Benjamin Pucci -- bpucci@otmblaw.com -- O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns, Chicago Verdict amount: For the defense JPMORGAN CHASE: Chester County Sues Over Mortgage Recording Fees ---------------------------------------------------------------- Michaelle Bond, writing for Philly.com, reports that Chester County is the latest government in the region to sue some of the nation's largest banks to recover millions of dollars in recording fees for mortgage assignments. The Chester County Recorder of Deeds filed a lawsuit Oct. 10 against several banks, including JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citibank, and Bank of America, in County Court. The county says the banks used a members-only electronic registry system, created by the banking industry, to track mortgage assignments among themselves. Using Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, the banks circumvented the Recorder of Deeds Office and avoided paying recording fees, said the recorder, Richard T. Loughery. "This practice violates the commonwealth's recording laws and has caused gaps, omissions, and inaccuracies to appear in the county's land records, which undermine the integrity of our public land- recording system," Mr. Loughery said in a statement. Residents use recorder of deeds records to verify property title, trace ownership of land, and know who holds their mortgages. Mr. Loughery said the banks owe Chester County as much as $10 million in fees. Montgomery County filed a lawsuit on behalf of the entire state in federal court Sept. 24 against several banks that used Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems. "They were the largest banks that have ignored Pennsylvania statutes," said Nancy J. Becker, Montgomery County's recorder of deeds. Montgomery County filed a class-action lawsuit against Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems and its parent company, Merscorp Inc., in 2011 on behalf of the state's 67 recorders. A federal judge in Philadelphia ruled in June that the company violated Pennsylvania law. Merscorp, which provides a marketplace for buying and selling mortgages, is appealing the judge's ruling. Chester County expects its case to go to trial next October. KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP: Faces Class Action Over Surgical Gowns ----------------------------------------------------------- Robert Jablon, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a $500 million lawsuit against Kimberly-Clark Corp. alleges the company falsely claimed its surgical gowns protected against Ebola and other infectious diseases. The suit, filed on Oct. 29 in federal court, alleges that the multinational company knew for at least a year that its Microcool Breathable High Performance Surgical Gown had failed industry tests of impermeability to blood and microbes, but it continued to claim the product provided the highest level of protection against diseases including Ebola. Many of the gowns tested had "catastrophic" failures, according to the lawsuit, which called Kimberly-Clark's actions "utterly reprehensible." "We are aware of individuals that have contracted various diseases while wearing the gown, but we are not at liberty to disclose what those are at the present time," said Michael Avenatti, the lead attorney in the case. Mr. Avenatti said the Texas hospital where two nurses contracted Ebola once stocked the gowns but he didn't know whether those workers or an infected nursing assistant in Spain had worn them. "We are still investigating," he said. Kimberly-Clark said in a statement that it does not comment regarding ongoing litigation but the company stands behind the safety and efficacy of its products. The lawsuit, which seeks class-action status, alleges fraud, false advertising, negligent misrepresentation and unfair business practices. It was filed by Hrayr Shahinian, a Los Angeles surgeon specializing in skull base and brain tumor operations who said he had used the gowns and thus was potentially exposed to harm. Dallas-based Kimberly-Clark, which also makes consumer products such as Kleenex and Huggies, has more than half the worldwide market for surgical gowns that meet the highest level of resistance to transfers of bodily fluids, according to the lawsuit. "We estimated that tens of millions of the gowns have been sold worldwide," Mr. Avenatti said. However, "up until now, individuals have had no reason to suspect that these gowns were defective," he said. Companies that manufacture protective suits and gowns have increased production in the wake of the Ebola outbreak that has killed thousands of people in Africa and Asia and one person in the United States. DuPont Co. has said it is tripling production of protective suits. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends equipment for medical workers treating Ebola patients include either a coverall or "fluid resistant or impermeable gown that extends to at least mid-calf." LEADER SERVICES: "Batres" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Ricardo Batres, and other similarly situated individuals v. Leader Services, LLC and Angel L. Rosa, Case No. 1:14-cv-23973 (S.D. Fla., October 24, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Leader Services, LLC provides landscaping, yard aeration, clean up, pressure washing, interior and exterior painting and light construction services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony Maximillien Georges-Pierre, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC Court House Tower, 44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416-5000 Facsimile: (305) 416-5005 E-mail: agp@rgpattorneys.com MEDTRONIC INC: Removes "James" Infuse Suit to W.D. Tennessee ------------------------------------------------------------ The lawsuit styled James v. Medtronic, Inc., et al., Case No. CT- 004573-14, 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-02858 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff alleges that she was injured by her physician's off- label use of the Defendants' Infuse Bone Graft/LT-CAGE Lumbar Tapered Fusion Device. 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 MICHAELS GENUINE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages -------------------------------------------------------------- Andres Duque, on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Michaels Genuine Hospitality, LLC, a Florida for- profit corporation, Michael Schwartz, an individual, and Charles Bell, an individual, Case No. 1:14-cv-23965 (S.D. Fla., October 24, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime compensation, reimbursement for tips illegally taken, liquidated damages, and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate Michael's Genuine Food and Drink restaurant in Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert William Brock II, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF LOWELL J. KUVIN 17 East Flagler Street, Suite 223 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 358-6800 Facsimile: (305) 358-6808 E-mail: robert@kuvinlaw.com MIDLAND FUNDING: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act -------------------------------------------------------------- Dana J. Abraham, individually and as Class Representative for all others similarly situated v. Midland Funding LLC, Case No. 1:14- cv-03485-RWS-JFK (N.D. Ga., October 29, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: David F. Addleton, Esq. ADDLETON LTD. CO. 355 Cotton Avenue Macon, GA 31201 Telephone: (404) 797-7166 E-mail: dfaddleton@gmail.com - and - James W. Hurt, Jr., Esq. HURT, STOLZ, LLC 345 West Hancock Avenue Athens, GA 30601 Telephone: (706) 395-2750 Facsimile: (866) 766-9245 E-mail: jhurt@hurtstolz.com - and - Steven Howard Koval, Esq. THE KOVAL FIRM, LLC 3575 Piedmont Road Building 15, Suite 120 Atlanta, GA 30305 Telephone: (404) 350-5900 Facsimile: (404) 549-4654 E-mail: shkoval@aol.com NAVISTAR INC: Faces Fike Suit Over Faulty MaxxForce Advanced EGR ---------------------------------------------------------------- Fike Logistics, Inc, a Kentucky corporation, on behalf of others similarly situated v. Navistar, Inc., Case No. 5:14-cv-00201-TBR (W.D. Ky., October 29, 2014) is brought on behalf of a putative class of similarly situated entities, who purchased or leased a vehicle with a 2010, 2011, 2012 or 2013 Navistar 11, 13 and 15 liter MaxxForce Advanced EGR diesel engine, or MaxxForce 7, MaxxForce DT, MaxxForce 9 and MaxxForce 10 mid-range diesel engines. The MaxxForce Engine contains exhaust emission controls to reduce diesel engine exhaust emissions in compliance with the EPA's Final Rule for "Control of Air Pollution From New Motor Vehicles: Heavy- Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards and Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control Requirements." Navistar calls the emission system used in the MaxxForce Engines, the "MaxxForce Advanced EGR." The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant's Advanced EGR emission control system did not reduce exhaust emissions to the EPA Standard and was defective, causing the MaxxForce Engines to not function as required, and as represented, on a consistent and reliable basis, even after repeated warranty repairs and replacements. Fike Logistics, Inc. is a Kentucky corporation with its principal place of business located in Murray, Kentucky. Fike purchased or leased, from establishments in the states of North Carolina, Tennessee and Texas, at least one vehicle containing a MaxxForce Engine utilizing the Advanced EGR system to reduce diesel exhaust emissions. Navistar International Corporation is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business located in Lisle, Illinois. Navistar designed, manufactured, distributed, delivered, supplied, inspected, marketed, leased and sold for profit, and warranted the MaxxForce Engine and in particular the exhaust emission control, the Advanced EGR, to be free of defects in material and workmanship. The Plaintiff is represented by: John C. Whitfield, Esq. WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP 19 North Main St. Madisonville, KY 42431 Telephone: (270) 821-0656 Facsimile: (270) 825-1163 E-mail: john@wbmllp.com - and - Richard J. Burke, Esq. QUANTUM LEGAL LLC 1010 Market Street, Suite 1310 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (847) 433-4500 Facsimile: (847) 433-2500 E-mail: richard@complexlitgroup.com - and - Jeffrey A. Leon, Esq. Jamie E. Weiss, Esq. Zachary Jacobs, Esq. QUANTUM LEGAL LLC 513 Central Avenue, 3rd Floor Highland Park, IL 60035 Telephone: (847) 433-4500 Facsimile: (847) 433-2500 E-mail: jeff@complexlitgroup.com - and - Jonathan Shub, Esq. SEEGER WEISS LLP 1515 Market Street, Suite 1380 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (215) 564-2300 Facsimile: (215) 851-8029 E-mail: jshub@seegerweiss.com - and - James E. Cecchi, Esq. CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 994-1700 Facsimile: (973) 994-1744 E-mail: JCecchi@carellabyrne.com - and - Steven Calamusa, Esq. GORDON & DONER, P.A. 4114 Northlake Boulevard Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Telephone: (561) 799-5070 E-mail: scalamusa@fortheinjured.com NIAGARA COUNTY, NY: To Settle Welfare Recipients' Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Thomas Prohaska, writing for News Niagara Reporter, reports that the Niagara County Legislature was expected to vote on Oct. 28 to settle a class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of welfare recipients, but the welfare clients won't see a penny. The entire payment of $108,827 will go to the lawyers that filed the suit against the county in U.S. District Court last year, said Thomas W. Scirto, attorney for the county Social Services Department. The payment will go to the National Center for Law and Economic Justice in New York City, court papers said. It covers their legal fees and costs through Aug. 1. The lawsuit charged that the county did not process applications for welfare benefits within the time limits required in federal and state law, and sought damages for all county residents who applied for welfare or food stamps since July 9, 2010. Darrell McCoy of Niagara Falls was the official plaintiff. He applied in March 2013 and by the time the lawsuit was filed July 9, 2013, he hadn't received any benefits despite filing all the necessary documentation. The law requires food stamps to be delivered to eligible applicants within 30 days of their application, and New York has an expedited food stamp program with a five-day time limit. The deadline for cash assistance is 30 days, except for Safety Net, which has a 45-day limit. The lawsuit charged that the county was late in acting on an average of 229 food stamp applications a month and 180 cash applications a month between August 2012 and January 2013. Because of the sharply increasing volume of applications in recent years, combined with several vacant jobs in Social Services' intake unit, the accusations were largely true, Social Services Commissioner Anthony J. Restaino said. "In order to mitigate what the financial penalties would be, we thought it was in our best interest to settle," Mr. Restaino said last week, after the Legislature's Community Services and Administration committees approved the payoff. Mr. Scirto said, "The federal statute this (lawsuit) was based on is a strict action statute that supposes 100 percent compliance, which is impossible." As part of the settlement, the county pledged to implement procedures to ensure timely processing of applications. Mr. Restaino said he restructured the intake unit, moving people from job to job and converting clerical workers into intake caseworkers. The county has more than 15,000 open food stamp cases, a figure that has doubled since 2008, Mr. Restaino said. There are nearly 3,100 open cash assistance cases, including the federally mandated Temporary Assistance to Needy Families and the state-mandated Safety Net. The state created the latter after the federal welfare reform act signed by President Bill Clinton placed a five-year limit on the length of time a person can receive federally funded welfare. There is no time limit in New York's Safety Net program. The Oct. 28 Legislature agenda also includes a resolution asking the State Senate and Assembly to pass a bill allowing counties to opt out of Safety Net. The caseload for that program in Niagara County has risen 51 percent since 2006, and the cost has gone up 167 percent during that period, according to the resolution. The county has to bear 71 percent of the cost of Safety Net -- the county's bill was $7.8 million in 2013 -- and it accounts for about 10 percent of the county's property tax levy. The state used to split Safety Net costs 50-50 with the counties, but changed that in 2011. The county has spent $26 million on Safety Net since then. Another resolution on Tuesday's agenda asks the state to take over 100 percent of Safety Net costs. NII HOLDINGS: Wants Court to Extend Automatic Stay of Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------------ Stewart Bishop, writing for Law360, reports that NII Holdings Inc. on Oct. 23 asked a New York bankruptcy court to extend the automatic stay of litigation to cover its executives, who are facing an investor class action over allegedly false statements about the Nextel-brand wireless service provider's performance, saying the litigation could harm restructuring efforts. Virginia-based NII said that if the suit is allowed to proceed against its officers, it will significantly distract and burden its senior management and key employees who are directly involved in NII's efforts to reorganize. The class action, which accuses the company of making false statements about NII's troubled transition to a third-generation or 3G network in Latin America, has already been stayed against NII, but it also names Director and CEO Steven M. Shindler, Chief Operating Officer Gokul Hemmady, who is also the president of a Brazilian subsidiary, and former Director and CEO Steven P. Dussek. If allowed to proceed against the executives, the litigation "could impose considerable direct and indirect costs on the debtors' estates and have a substantial detrimental effect on the debtors' ability to reorganize," NII said in a motion. NII said the anticipated protracted nature of the discovery process of the class action could be very expensive, and courts have extended the automatic stay to non-debtor defendants to avoid irreparable harm caused by tying up a debtor, its executives, and its employees in a costly and time-consuming discovery fight. NII filed for Chapter 11 in September after a year of unprecedented losses in its two key markets, Brazil and Mexico, where it has struggled to replace its dated wireless infrastructures with 3G networks that support the latest smartphones. Its bankruptcy was virtually assured once it skipped a $119 million interest payment on its bonds in September, triggering a 30-day grace period and leading to market speculation that it would restructure through a prepackaged Chapter 11 plan. Talks with two bondholder groups, one led by Aurelius Capital Management LP, failed to produce a consensual restructuring before the window closed. Eight related companies joined the NII parent in Chapter 11, including its NII Capital Corp. and NII International Telecom SCA subsidiaries. Those units have $4.35 billion in unsecured bonds outstanding that make up the bulk of NII's indebtedness. The restructuring talks have pitted the Aurelius-led group, which holds a minority position in NII Capital's subordinated debt, against a larger group that holds half the outstanding notes across both subsidiaries. The Aurelius-led group advanced a plan to equitize all of the outstanding bonds, which was rejected by certain bondholders of NII International Telecom, better known as LuxCo. Any plan will have to address fraudulent-transfer claims that Aurelius has asserted over certain 2009 intercompany transactions that allegedly swung value away from NII Capital and its creditors and toward LuxCo. Aurelius first raised the claims months ago but hasn't sued, suggesting it is using the threat of litigation as a bargaining chip. Its plan calls for postponing any intercreditor disputes until after NII leaves bankruptcy and conducting a rights offering to give the reorganized entity fresh equity. Most of NII's debt comes from NII Capital, which issued $800 million in 10 percent notes due in 2016, $500 million in 8.875 percent notes due in 2019 and $1.45 billion in 7.625 percent notes due in 2021. LuxCo has $900 million in 11.375 percent notes and $700 million in 7.875 percent notes outstanding, both due in 2019. Trading on the LuxCo notes have tumbled since August, taking prices from between 87 and 85 cents on the dollar to the low 60s. NII is represented by Scott J. Greenberg -- sgreenberg@jonesday.com -- David G. Heiman -- dgheiman@jonesday.com -- and Carl E. Black -- ceblack@jonesday.com -- of Jones Day. The case is In re: NII Holdings Inc., case number 1:14-bk-12611, in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. NORTHLAND GROUP: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Joseph Rapaport, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Northland Group Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-06401 (E.D.N.Y., October 29, 2014) is brought for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Maxim Maximov, Esq. MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP 1701 Avenue P Brooklyn, NY 11229 Telephone: (718) 395-3459 Facsimile: (718) 408-9570 E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com OWENS & MINOR: Recovered $5.3MM From Anti-Trust Suit Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- Owens & Minor, Inc. reported financial results for the third quarter ended September 30, 2014. The Company said that for the nine months ended September 30, 2014, consolidated revenues were $6.95 billion, increased approximately $195.4 million, or 2.9%, when compared to consolidated revenues for the same period of 2013. Net income for the period was $52.5 million, or $0.84 per diluted share. Adjusted net income (non-GAAP) was $79.2 million, or $1.26 per diluted share, excluding after-tax charges of: $6.6 million for acquisition-related activities, $11.0 million for exit and realignment activities, and the $9.1 million loss on early retirement of debt. Year-to-date results include the first quarter recovery of $5.3 million from the settlement of a direct purchaser anti-trust class action lawsuit, which was included in other operating income. Owens & Minor, Inc. (NYSE: OMI) provides logistics services across the spectrum of medical products from disposable medical supplies to devices and implants. PACIFIC GATEWAY: Sued Over Unsafe Policies Against Identity Theft ----------------------------------------------------------------- Rachel Hochstetler and Cirena Torres, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Pacific Gateway Concessions LLC, and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 3:14-cv-04748 (N.D. Cal., October 24, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act intended to safeguard against identity theft and credit and debit card fraud. Pacific Gateway Concessions LLC owns, manages, maintains and or operates retail stores offering various goods and services for sale to the public. The Plaintiff is represented by: Chant Yedalian, Esq. CHANT & COMPANY A Professional Law Corporation 1010 N. Central Ave. Glendale, CA 91202 Telephone: (877) 574-7100 Facsimile: (877) 574-9411 E-mail: chant@chant.mobi PANASONIC CORPORATION: Sued in Cal. Over Capacitors-Price Fixing ---------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Brooks and Royce Parking Control Systems, Inc. d/b/a Royce Integrated Solutions, Inc., Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Panasonic Corporation, et al., Case No. 5:14-cv-04742 (N.D. Cal., October 24, 2014), alleges that the Defendants and other co-conspirators agreed, combined and conspired to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize prices, and to allocate market shares for aluminum and tantalum electrolytic capacitors. Panasonic Corporation manufactured, sold and distributed aluminum and tantalum electrolytic capacitors either directly or through its subsidiaries, agents or affiliates to customers throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Guido Saveri, Esq. R. Alexander Saveri, Esq. Lisa Saveri, Esq. Melissa Shapiro, Esq. Travis L. Manfredi, Esq. SAVERI & SAVERI, INC. 706 Sansome Street San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 217-6810 Facsimile: (415) 217-6813 E-mail: guido@saveri.com rick@saveri.com lisa@saveri.com melissa@saveri.com travis@saveri.com - and - Krishna B. Narine, Esq. Joel C. Meredith, Esq. MEREDITH & NARINE 100 S. Broad St., Suite 905 Philadelphia, PA 19110 Telephone: (215) 564-5182 Facsimile: (267) 687-1628 E-mail: knarine@m-npartners.com jmeredith@m-npartners.com - and - Isaac L. Diel, Esq. SHARP MCQUEEN P.A. Financial Plaza, 6900 College Blvd., Suite 285 Overland Park KS 66211 Telephone: (913) 661-9931 x102 Facsimile: (913) 661-9935 E-mail: idiel@sharpmcqueen.com PANDORA MEDIA: Oral Argument Not Set in Video Rental Privacy Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- No date has been set for oral argument in the appeal in a class action lawsuit against Pandora Media, Inc., the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014. A putative class action lawsuit was filed in September 2011 against Pandora in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging that the Company violated Michigan's video rental privacy law and consumer protection statute by allowing the listeners' listening history to be visible to the public. The Company's motion to dismiss the complaint was granted on September 28, 2012, judgment was entered on November 14, 2012. The plaintiff appealed the judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Briefing of the appeal was completed on August 2, 2013. No date has been set for oral argument. Pandora Media provides an internet radio service offering a personalized experience for each listener wherever and whenever they want to listen to radio on a wide range of smartphones, tablets, traditional computers and car audio systems, as well as a range of other internet-connected devices. PANERA BREAD: Faces "Boswell" Class Action Suit in E.D. Missouri ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Boswell and David Lutton, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Panera Bread Company, a Delaware Corporation, and Panera LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Case No. 4:14-cv-01833-AGF (E.D. Mo., October 29, 2014) asserts claims for breach of contract. The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy Coffield, Esq. COFFIELD PLC 5374 Gordonsville Road Keswick, VA 22947 Telephone: (434) 218-3133 E-mail: tc@coffieldlaw.com PAYPAL INC: Has Sent Unsolicited Text Messages, Action Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Shahriar Noorparvar, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Paypal, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-08280 (C.D. Cal., October 24, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for negligently and intentionally contacting the Plaintiff on the cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Mohammad Kazerouni, Esq. Jason Ibey, Esq. Gouya Ranekouhi, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com mike@kazlg.com jason@kazlg.com gouya@kazlg.com PEARSON EDUCATION: Sued by Textbook Authors on Improper Royalties ----------------------------------------------------------------- Lawrence J. Gitman and Michael D. Joehnk, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Pearson Education, Inc., Pearson PLC, and Pearson, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-08626 (S.D.N.Y., October 29, 2014) is brought on behalf of authors of textbooks to seek redress for Pearson's alleged practice of systematically short-changing textbook authors on the royalties they are owed. The Plaintiffs are emeritus university professors, who have authored several widely used finance textbooks and entered into publishing agreements with various predecessors in interest to Pearson Education. Pearson, PLC is a United Kingdom corporation with its principal offices located in London, England and New York. Pearson PLC operates in the United States through its wholly owners subsidiaries Pearson, Inc., headquartered in New York City, and Pearson Educational, Inc., headquartered in Saddle River, New Jersey. One of Pearson PLC's businesses is educational publishing, and it is presently one of the largest publishers of educational textbooks in the world. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Sanford P. Dumain, Esq. Leigh Smith, Esq. MILBERGLLP One Pennsylvania Plaza New York, NY 10119 Telephone: (212) 594-5300 Facsimile: (212) 868-1229 E-mail: sdumain@milberg.com lsmith@milberg.com - and - Robert I. Lax, Esq. 380 Lexington A venue, 31st Floor New York, NY 10168 Telephone: (212) 818-9150 Facsimile: (212) 818-1266 E-mail: rlax@lax-law.com - and - Daniel E. Sobelsohn, Esq. THE SOBELSOHN LAW FIRM 1801 Century Park East, 24th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (31 0) 775-0504 Facsimile: (31 0) 861-5205 E-mail: dsobelsohn@sobelsohnlaw.com PG&E CORPORATION: Appeals Court Affirms Dismissal of Complaint -------------------------------------------------------------- PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and Electric Company said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Court of Appeals has affirmed the court's ruling to dismiss a class action complaint. In August 2012, a complaint was filed in the San Francisco Superior Court against PG&E Corporation and the Utility (and other unnamed defendants) by individuals who seek certification of a class consisting of all California residents who were customers of the Utility between 1997 and 2010, with certain exceptions. The plaintiffs alleged that the Utility collected more than $100 million in customer rates from 1997 through 2010 for the purpose of various safety measures and operations projects but instead used the funds for general corporate purposes such as executive compensation and bonuses. The plaintiffs alleged that PG&E Corporation and the Utility engaged in unfair business practices in violation of California state law. The plaintiffs sought restitution and disgorgement, as well as compensatory and punitive damages. In May 2013, the court granted PG&E Corporation's and the Utility's request to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the CPUC has exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate the issues raised by the plaintiffs' allegations. In October 2014, the Court of Appeals affirmed the court's ruling to dismiss the complaint. PG&E Corporation and the Utility believe it is remote that any material losses will be incurred in connection with this complaint. PORTLAND GENERAL: Evaluating How to Proceed With Class Actions -------------------------------------------------------------- Portland General Electric Company is evaluating how to proceed with respect to the class actions following an Oregon Supreme Court decision on October 2, 2014, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014. In two separate legal proceedings, lawsuits were filed in Marion County Circuit Court against PGE in 2003 on behalf of two classes of electric service customers. The class action lawsuits seek damages totaling $260 million, plus interest, as a result of the Company's inclusion, in prices charged to customers, of a return on its investment in Trojan. In 2006, the Oregon Supreme Court issued a ruling ordering the abatement of the class action proceedings until the Public Utility Commission of Oregon or OPUC responded to a 2002 Order denying all of the challenges of the Utility Reform Project (URP). The Oregon Supreme Court concluded that the OPUC has primary jurisdiction to determine what, if any, remedy can be offered to PGE customers, through price reductions or refunds, for any amount of return on the Trojan investment that the Company collected in prices. The Oregon Supreme Court further stated that if the OPUC determined that it can provide a remedy to PGE's customers, then the class action proceedings may become moot in whole or in part. The Oregon Supreme Court added that, if the OPUC determined that it cannot provide a remedy, the court system may have a role to play. The Oregon Supreme Court also ruled that the plaintiffs retain the right to return to the Marion County Circuit Court for disposition of whatever issues remain unresolved from the remanded OPUC proceedings. The Marion County Circuit Court subsequently abated the class actions in response to the ruling of the Oregon Supreme Court. On October 2, 2014, the Oregon Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, affirmed the February 6, 2013 Oregon Court of Appeals decision that upheld the OPUC's 2008 Order. The 2008 Order required PGE to provide refunds, including interest from September 30, 2000, to customers who received service from the Company during the period from October 1, 2000 to September 30, 2001. The URP and the plaintiffs in the class actions separately appealed the 2008 Order to the Oregon Court of Appeals. The October 2, 2014 Oregon Supreme Court decision expressly noted that the plaintiffs in the class action must address any request to lift the abatement with the Marion County Circuit Court. PGE is evaluating how to proceed with respect to the class actions. Because the class actions remain pending, management believes that it is reasonably possible that a loss to the Company in excess of the amounts previously recorded and discussed could result. As these matters involve unsettled legal theories and have a broad range of potential outcomes, sufficient information is currently not available to determine PGE's potential liability, if any, or to estimate a range of potential loss. QUALITY SYSTEMS: Federal Securities Class Action Dismissed ---------------------------------------------------------- Quality Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the court granted on October 20, 2014, the motion dismissing the Federal Securities Class Action with prejudice. On November 19, 2013, a putative class action complaint was filed on behalf of the shareholders of the Company other than the defendants against the Company and certain of the Company's officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Central District of California by a shareholder of the Company. After the court appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel for this action, and recaptioned the action In re Quality Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 8L13-cv-01818-CJC(JPRx), lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 7, 2014. The amended complaint generally alleges that statements made to the Company's shareholders regarding the Company's financial condition and projected future performance were false and misleading in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and that the individual defendants are liable for such statements because they are controlling persons under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint seeks compensatory damages, court costs and attorneys' fees. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on June 20, 2014, which the court granted on October 20, 2014, dismissing the complaint with prejudice. RADARIS LLC: Sued Over Violation of Fair Credit Reporting Act ------------------------------------------------------------- John Huebner and Irmin Langton, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. Radaris, LLC, a Massachusetts limited liability company, Radaris America, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and Edgar Lopin, an individual, Case No. 3:14-cv-04735 (N.D. Cal., October 24, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The Defendants are engaged in the business of owning, operating, administering, and promoting information-sharing websites and e- commerce websites. The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Orshansky, Esq. Justin Kachadoorian, Esq. COUNSELONE, P.C. 9301 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 650 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (310) 277-9945 Facsimile: (424) 277-3727 E-mail: anthony@counselonegroup.com justin@counselonegroup.com RETAIL PROPERTIES: Suits Against Company and D&Os Now Closed ------------------------------------------------------------ Retail Properties of America, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that certain shareholders of the Company filed putative class action lawsuits against the Company and certain of its officers and directors. On June 10, 2014, the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of Illinois (the Court) dismissed four of the five lawsuits with prejudice and entered judgment in favor of the Company and its officers and directors. The Court dismissed the fifth lawsuit without prejudice and granted the plaintiff in that case permission to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint did not name the Company or its officers and directors as defendants. On August 6, 2014, in the fifth lawsuit, the Court entered judgment in favor of the Company and its officers and directors. The plaintiffs did not file a timely appeal from the June 10, 2014 dismissal order and judgments, and the time to appeal has now expired in all five lawsuits. Consequently, the lawsuits against the Company and its officers and directors are now closed. Retail Properties of America, Inc. is a REIT and is one of the largest owners and operators of high quality, strategically located shopping centers in the United States. SANCTUARY GOLF: Florida Class Suit Seeks to Collect Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jeneen Mensche, on her own behalf and on behalf of those similarly situated v. The Sanctuary Golf Club, Inc., a Florida non-profit corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-00631-SPC-DNF (M.D. Fla., October 29, 2014) seeks to collect unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Angeli Murthy, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, PA 600 N Pine Island Rd., Suite 400 Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (954) 318-0268 Facsimile: (954) 333-3515 E-mail: amurthy@forthepeople.com SAPPHIRE GENTLEMEN'S: Strip Club Dancers Entitled to Minimum Wage ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ken Ritter, writing for The Associated Press, reports that in a legal decision with wide implications for strip clubs in Sin City, the Nevada Supreme Court ruled on Oct. 30 that dancers at one Las Vegas club are employees, not independent contractors, and are entitled to be paid minimum wage. The unanimous ruling on Oct. 30 in a 2009 class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of six dancers at Sapphire Gentlemen's Club could change the landscape statewide in a business where dancers have for decades depended on tips and even paid "house fees" to establishments that allowed them to work. "Given that Sapphire bills itself as the 'World's Largest Strip Club,' and not, say, a sports bar or nightclub," the high court said, "we are confident that the women strip-dancing there are useful and indeed necessary to its operation." Mick Rusing, the Tucson, Arizona, attorney who represented plaintiff Zuri-Kinshasa Maria Terry and five other dancers in the initial case, said the ruling might directly effect more than 6,500 current and former members of the affected class, dating to about 2006. Mr. Rusing said they could be entitled to a combined $40 million in back wages, plus the return of house fees. "And it keeps going up every month," Mr. Rusing said. "As employees, you get a lot of rights. The girls are entitled to be paid. At very least, minimum wage." Sapphire officials and the attorneys who represented the company before the Supreme Court didn't immediately respond to messages. The Supreme Court ruling, written by Justice Kristina Pickering, declared clubs are not exempt from provisions of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act. That includes worker compensation and sexual harassment rules, Rusing said. "Sapphire argues that the performers had no 'contract of hire' and alternatively that the performers were not 'in the service of' Sapphire," the ruling said. It declares signed entertainment agreements detailing terms under which Sapphire permitted performers to dance "an express contract of hire," and dismisses Sapphire's assertions that the performers "never intended to be employees." The high court sent the case back to Clark County District Court for hearings to determine how much the plaintiffs are owed. The Nevada state minimum wage is $8.25 per hour, although some service employees are paid less if they also receive tips. Ryan Anderson, a Las Vegas attorney who once was involved in the lawsuit, said the ruling will change forever the relationship between companies that enlist dancers to entice customers into their clubs and dancers whose income has been paid by patrons. Anderson in recent years has been recruiting dancers as potential clients for independent cases to recover back wages and benefits at other clubs. Mr. Anderson guessed there are about two dozen topless, strip and nude clubs in Las Vegas, and he noted the ruling covers the entire state. He said he didn't think the ruling would cripple the clubs. Mr. Rusing noted that other courts in other states have issued similar rulings, and that strip clubs have adopted rules to comply. "They're going to have to do business differently," Mr. Anderson said. "They're going to have to sit down with an employment attorney and determine what they're going to have to have when they hire a dancer." SCOTT COUNTY, MS: ACLU Class Action Over Indigent Defense Ongoing ----------------------------------------------------------------- Matthew Jones, writing for The Guilfordian, reports that Oct. 18 marked 11 months of waiting for Octavious Burks. Mr. Burks spent that time inside the Scott County Detention Center in Forest, Mississippi, waiting for a grand jury indictment and a public defender. On Sept. 23, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a class action lawsuit against Scott County on behalf of Mr. Burks and Joshua Bassett, another inmate who spent nine months in the same jail. The lawsuit alleges that the county violated the inmates' constitutional rights to counsel, a speedy trial and a fair bail hearing. "The ACLU is upset that these people have languished in jail for eight to 10 months without ever being represented by a lawyer," said Jerry Joplin, professor of justice & policy studies. "That sounds legitimate to me. Somebody should not lose their liberty just because they've been accused of a crime." Both Messrs. Burks and Basset made initial appearances before Justice Court Judge Bill Freeman on the days of their respective arrests, Nov. 18, 2013 and Jan. 3, 2014. In these initial appearances, the judge combined several business items into one shorter session. But in most other places, judges handle those tasks in as many as four separate hearings. "These guys were taken to court with only the arresting officer, one judge and no lawyer present, and they did the initial appearance, the preliminary hearing and the bail hearing all at one time," said Mr. Joplin. In the suit, the ACLU alleges that this practice violated the plaintiffs' rights to a fair bail hearing. The group charges that Messrs. Burks and Bassett should have had access to a lawyer and that the judge did not appropriately take their financial status into account when setting their bail. "The 14th Amendment provides against unreasonably high bails," said Early College senior Porter Jones in an email interview. "Otherwise, judges could essentially hold every poor individual in jail without even giving them a (fair) chance at bail." Neither Messrs. Burks nor Bassett could make their respective $30,000 and $100,000 bail set at their hearings. "I only draw a little over $600 a month," said Mr. Bassett's mother Brenda in an interview with The New York Times. "I would give everything I have to get my son out of this mess. But, I don't have anything." After the hearing, both Messrs. Burks and Bassett filed requests for a public defender from the senior circuit judge, Marcus Gordon, as allowed by Mississippi law. Although he approved their requests, Mr. Gordon refused to appoint an attorney until a grand jury indicted them. "The reason (for this) is the public defender would go out and spend his time and money and cost the county money in investigating the matter," said Mr. Gordon in a brief interview with The New York Times. "And then, sometimes, the defendant is not indicted by the grand jury." But Mississippi is one of several states including North Carolina that do not have limits on how long a defendant can be held without an indictment. This allows long delays between the time a defendant is arrested and the time he receives a lawyer. "That means no one is advocating for their interests, including filing and arguing motions for a bond reduction, or investigating potential defenses," said Danielle Carman, assistant director of the North Carolina Office of Indigent Defense Services, in an email interview. Across Mississippi, similar incidents have occurred. The state government does not provide funds for public defenders, putting already cash-strapped counties in a tight spot when it comes to providing lawyers. The problem also extends beyond Mississippi. The New York Civil Liberties' Union filed suit against the State of New York for not providing a statewide public defender system. The suit, recently endorsed by the Justice Department, alleges that the lack of a system strains budgets and leads to shortages of public defenders. "The right to counsel is one of the core guarantees of the Bill of Rights, and yet, as countless cases and studies show, indigent defense systems across the country are facing significant challenges in meeting their Sixth Amendment obligations," said Acting U.S. Assistant Attorney General Molly Moran in a statement released Sept. 25. Back in Mississippi, the ACLU's fight continues. The group says that the county continues to hold dozens of inmates without indictments. The suit asks the court to place a permanent injunction on the county requiring it to release unindicted inmates after 21 days and individuals who remain without counsel a week after their arrest. Additionally, the suit's class-action status will allow other detainees who believe that the county violated their rights to join the suit. But, Messrs. Burks and Bassett will not have to wait for a ruling to get out of the jail. As of Oct. 19, Mr. Burks' record listed him as transferred out of the jail. Scott County released Mr. Bassett only two days after the ACLU filed the lawsuit. SECURITY CREDIT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Konakova" Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Elena Konakova, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Security Credit Systems, Inc., and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:14-cv-06073 (E.D. Pa., October 24, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for using inappropriate tactics to collect debt. The Defendants are engaged in the business of debt collection within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The Plaintiff is represented by: Arkady "Eric" Rayz, Esq. Demetri A. Braynin, Esq. KALIKHMAN & RAYZ, LLC 1051 County Line Road, Suite "A" Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006 Telephone: (215) 364-5030 Facsimile: (215) 364-5029 E-mail: erayz@kalraylaw.com dbraynin@kalraylaw.com - and - Gerald D. Wells III, Esq. Robert J. Gray, Esq. CONNOLLY WELLS & GRAY, LLP 2200 Renaissance Blvd., Suite 308 King of Prussia, PA 19406 Telephone: (610) 822-3700 Facsimile: (610) 822-3800 Email: gwells@cwg-law.com rgray@cwg-law.com SIRIUS XM: To Appeal Decisions in Pre-1972 Sound Recording Cases ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sirius XM Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Company intends to appeal decisions by the United States District Court for the Central District of California and the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles related to the Pre-1972 Sound Recording Matters. The Company said, "We are a defendant in three class action suits and one additional suit, which were commenced in August and September 2013 and challenge our use and public performance via satellite radio and the Internet of sound recordings fixed prior to February 15, 1972 under California, New York and/or Florida law. The plaintiffs in each of these suits purport to seek in excess of $100,000,000 in compensatory damages along with unspecified punitive damages and injunctive relief. We believe we have meritorious defenses to the claims asserted in these actions, and we intend to defend them vigorously. In our opinion, we do not believe the result of these matters will likely have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations." "In September 2014, the United States District Court for the Central District of California ruled that the grant of "exclusive ownership" to the owner of a sound recording under California's copyright statute included the exclusive right to control public performances of the sound recording. The court further found that the unauthorized public performance of sound recordings violated California laws on unfair competition, misappropriation and conversion. "In October 2014, the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles adopted the Central District Court's interpretation of "exclusive ownership" under California's copyright statute. That Court did not find that the unauthorized public performance of sound recordings violated California laws on unfair competition, misappropriation and conversion. "We intend to appeal both of these decisions." These cases are titled Flo & Eddie Inc. v. Sirius XM Radio Inc. et al., No. 2:13-cv-5693-PSG-RZ (C.D. Cal.), Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., et al., No. 1:13-cv-23182-DPG (S.D. Fla.), Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. Sirius XM Radio Inc. et al., No. 1:13-cv- 5784-CM (S.D.N.Y.), and Capitol Records LLC et al. v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., No. BC-520981 (Super. Ct. L.A. County). STATE FARM: Colludes to Lowball Repair Shops, Antitrust Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that State Farm and virtually every other major insurer collude to lowball body-repair shops, six shops claim in a federal antitrust class action filed in Phoenix. SYNGENTA CORP: Faces "Houser" Suit Over Viptera Corn ---------------------------------------------------- John D. Houser III and Beth Houser, d/b/a Houser Farms, individually and on behalf of a Class of all others similarly situated v. Syngenta Corporation, Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, and Syngenta Seeds, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-04163 (D.S.C., October 24, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to provide an adequate warning to farmers, grain elevators, grain exporters, and the general public regarding the dangers of planting, growing, harvesting, transporting, or otherwise using Viptera corn at the time Viptera corn was sold. The Defendants are engaged in commercial seed business, developing, producing, and selling, through dealers and distributors or directly to growers, a wide range of agricultural products throughout the United States, including corn seed with certain genetically modified traits. The Plaintiff is represented by: William E. Hopkins Jr., Esq. HOPKINS LAW FIRM, LLC 12019 Ocean Highway Post Office Box 1885 Pawleys Island, SC 29585 Telephone: (843) 314-4202 Facsimile: (843) 314-9365 E-mail: bill@hopkinslawfirm.com - and - Roman A. Shaul, Esq. BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C. Post Office Box 4160 Montgomery, AL 36103-4160 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 Facsimile: (334) 954-7555 E-mail: Roman.Shaul@BeasleyAllen.com SYNGENTA CORP: Faces Rail Transfer Suit Over Viptera Corn --------------------------------------------------------- Rail Transfer, Incorporated, a Minnesota corporation, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Syngenta Corporation, Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, and, Syngenta Seeds, Inc., Case No. 0:14-cv-04477 (D. Minn., October 24, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to provide an adequate warning to farmers, grain elevators, grain exporters, and the general public regarding the dangers of planting, growing, harvesting, transporting, or otherwise using Viptera corn at the time Viptera corn was sold. The Defendants are engaged in commercial seed business, developing, producing, and selling, through dealers and distributors or directly to growers, a wide range of agricultural products throughout the United States, including corn seed with certain genetically modified traits. The Plaintiff is represented by: Hart L. Robinovitch, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED, PLLP 14646 N. Kierland Blvd., Suite 145 Scottsdale, AZ 85254 Telephone: (480) 348-6400 E-mail: Hart.Robinovitch@zimmreed.com - and - David M. Cialkowski, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED, PLLP 1100 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 341-0400 E-mail: David.Cialkowski@zimmreed.com - and - Caleb LH Marker, Esq. RIDOUT LYON + OTTOSON, LLP 555 E. Ocean Boulevard, Suite 500 Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (562) 216-7380 E-mail: c.marker@rlollp.com SYNGENTA CORP: Faces "Schram" Suit Over Viptera Corn ---------------------------------------------------- Jeremy Schram, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Syngenta Seeds Inc., Syngenta Corporation, and Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC., Case No. 5:14-cv-04093 (N.D. Iowa, October 24, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to provide an adequate warning to farmers, grain elevators, grain exporters, and the general public regarding the dangers of planting, growing, harvesting, transporting, or otherwise using Viptera corn at the time Viptera corn was sold. The Defendants are engaged in commercial seed business, developing, producing, and selling, through dealers and distributors or directly to growers, a wide range of agricultural products throughout the United States, including corn seed with certain genetically modified traits. The Plaintiff is represented by: John C. Gray, Esq. HEIDMAN LAW FIRM, L.L.P 1128 Historic Fourth Street Sioux City, IA 51101 Telephone: (712) 255-8838 Facsimile: (712) 258-6714 E-mail: john.gray@heidmanlaw.com - and - Christopher F. Burger, Esq. Matthew H. Hoy, Esq. STEVENS & BRAND, L.L.P. 900 Massachusetts Street, Suite 500 Lawrence, KS 66044 Telephone: (785) 843-0811 Facsimile: (785) 843-0341 E-mail: cburger@stevensbrand.com mhoy@stevensbrand.com - and - R. Bryant McCulley, Esq. MCCULLEY MCCLUER PLLC 2113 Middle Street, Suite 208 Sullivan's Island, SC 29482 Telephone: (205) 238-6757 Facsimile: (662) 368-1506 E-mail: bmcculley@mcculleymccluer.com - and - Stuart H. McCluer, Esq. MCCULLEY MCCLUER PLLC 1223 Jackson Avenue East, Suite 200 Oxford, MS 38655 Telephone: (662) 550-4511 Facsimile: (662) 368-1506 E-mail: smccluer@mcculleymccluer.com - and - Stephen D. Susman, Esq. Vineet Bhatia, Esq. Manmeet Walia, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 5100 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 651-9366 Facsimile: (713) 654-6666 E-mail: ssusman@susmangodfrey.com vbhatia@susmangodfrey.com mwalia@susmangodfrey.com - and - Joseph C. Portera, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 901 Main Street, Suite 5100 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (214) 754-1900 Facsimile: (214) 754-1933 E-mail: jpotera@susmangodfrey.com - and - Stephen E. Morrissey, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 1201 3rd Avenue, Suite 3800 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 516-3880 E-mail: smorrissey@susmangodfrey.com TAKATA CORP: Faces Suits in Cal. and Fla. Over Air Bag Defects -------------------------------------------------------------- Federal class actions in Los Angeles and Miami accuse air-bag manufacturer Takata and major automakers of fraudulently concealing potentially fatal defects in air bag inflators, Courthouse News Service reports. Plaintiffs in both cases claim that Takata airbags can violently explode and expel lethal amounts of metal debris and shrapnel. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration on October 28, 2014, said it had "received notification from BMW, Chrysler, Ford, Honda, Mazda, Nissan and Toyota that they are conducting limited regional recalls to address a possible safety defect involving Takata brand air bag inflators." The NHTSA said it had received "six reports of air bag inflator ruptures, all of which occurred in Florida and Puerto Rico." "Based on the limited data available at this time, NHTSA supports efforts by automakers to address the immediate risk in areas that have consistently hot, humid conditions over extended periods of time," the NHTSA said. In Los Angeles, lead plaintiff David Takeda et al. seek certification of a nationwide class, and damages for violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, fraudulent concealment, false advertising, unfair competition, breach of implied warranty, and negligent failure to recall. They also want the defendants ordered to repair the affected vehicles as quickly as possible. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Roland Tellis, Esq. BARON AND BUDD, P.C. 15910 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1600 Encino, CA 91436 Telephone: (818) 839-2320 Facsimile: (818) 986-9698 E-mail: rtellis@baronbudd.com The Miami Plaintiff is also represented by: Peter Prieto, Esq. PODHURST ORSECK, LLP City National Bank Building 25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 358-2800 Facsimile: (305) 358-2382 E-mail: pprieto@podhurst.com TESCO PLC: Texas Pension Fund Files Securities Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Randles, writing for Law360, reports that a Texas pension fund on Oct. 23 filed a securities class action in New York federal court against Tesco PLC over the beleaguered U.K. retailer's omission that it has overstated its profits by œ263 million ($421.4 million), a revelation that sent the company's stock tumbling. The lawsuit was brought by the Irving Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund which is seeking to represent a class that bought Tesco shares from Feb. 2 through Sept. 22 -- the day the company revealed the problem. Tesco made false and misleading statements to investors about the company's financial situation, the retirement fund claims. Former Tesco CEO Philip Clarke, who has since been replaced by David Lewis, and former chief financial officer Laurie McIlwee, who resigned in April, months before the accounting irregularities were revealed, are also named in the lawsuit as individual defendants. IFRRF is a pension fund for retired firefighters that is funded through its participants' contributions, the City of Irving, Texas, and investment earnings, according to the pension's investment guidelines. According to the complaint, IFRRF purchased what are known as American Depository Shares. Tesco shares fell 15 percent after the problem was revealed, dropping from $11.29 on Sept. 19 to as low as $9.61 on Sept. 22 when the news broke. The lawsuit says Tesco stock plummeted 43 percent from a high of $16.97 percent at the beginning of the class period "Defendants' wrongful conduct, as alleged herein, directly and proximately caused the economic loss suffered by plaintiff and the class," the lawsuit said. Messages sent on Oct. 24 to the chair of the pension fund, Heidle Baskin, and an attorney were not immediately returned. Tesco could not immediately be reached for comment. The complaint was filed the same day Tesco announced the results of an independent investigation by accounting firm Deloitte showing that the size of the overstatement was greater than the company originally projected. In Tesco's original announcement, the retailer projected the overstatement at œ250 million. Tesco said the Deloitte report will be passed along to the appropriate regulators, including the U.K.'s Financial Conduct Authority which announced earlier in October that it would investigate that matter. Tesco Chairman Richard Broadbent also announced at that time that he intends to leave the company. Tesco is one of the largest grocers in the world, with more than 3,300 stores in the U.K. alone. The company also has operations in several other countries, including India, China, Thailand and South Korea. Even before the substantial accounting problem was revealed, Tesco was facing competition in the U.K. and abroad. In an interview posted on Tesco's website, new CEO Lewis said the company needs to refocus on its core U.K. business and rebuild trust with customers. The plaintiffs are represented by Joseph Guglielrno, Donald A. Broggi, Tom Laughlin and David Scott of Scott + Scott, Attorneys At Law, LLP. The case is Irving Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund v. Tesco PLC, et al., case number 14-cv-8495, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. TRANSCEPT PHARMACEUTICALS: Agreement Reached in Continuum Case -------------------------------------------------------------- Transcept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that on October 3, 2014, Continuum Capital filed a purported shareholder class action on behalf of themselves and the other stockholders of the company in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Contra Costa, against the Company, its current directors, and Paratek. The lawsuit alleges that the Company's Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's stockholders in connection with the proposed merger and acted on the basis of alleged conflicts of interests, and that the Company's registration statement dated September 29, 2014 contains material misstatements and omissions. The lawsuit also alleges that Paratek aided and abetted the alleged breaches of duty. The complaint seeks, among other things, a declaration that the Company and its Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties, injunctive relief including enjoining the merger of Paratek into Merger Sub. contemplated by the Merger Agreement, and the issuance of shares of the Company to the Paratek stockholders pursuant to the Merger Agreement, and an award of compensatory damages and attorney's fees. On October 20, 2014, the defendants reached an agreement-in- principle providing for a settlement of all of the claims in the action on the terms and conditions set forth in a stipulation of settlement that will be filed with the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Contra Costa. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, the Company made certain disclosures in a current report filing on Form 8-K, which was filed with the SEC on October 20, 2014, and which amended and supplemented the Definitive Proxy Statement filed by the Company on October 2, 2014 in connection with the proposed merger. Under the settlement, the parties also agreed to an award of attorney's fees and reimbursement of expenses in the amount of $550,000. The settlement and award of fees and expenses remains subject to the approval of the court in the action. This settlement is included in general and administration expenses for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2014. Transcept Pharmaceuticals is a specialty pharmaceutical company focused on the development and commercialization of proprietary products that address important therapeutic needs in the field of neuroscience. TRANSFORM YACHT: "Molina" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Ada Molina, and other similarly situated individuals v. Transform Yacht Modification Corporation, a Florida profit corporation and Steven Tran, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-23956 (S.D. Fla., October 24, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Yacht Modification Corporation is engaged in the business of manufacturing, building and repairing sailing yacht. The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony Maximillien Georges-Pierre, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC Court House Tower, 44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416-5000 Facsimile: (305) 416-5005 E-mail: agp@rgpattorneys.com TRIQUINT SEMICONDUCTOR: Oregon Plaintiffs Drop Injunction Bid ------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in the Oregon class actions against Triquint Semiconductor, Inc. won't pursue their request for a preliminary injunction, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 27, 2014. Since the public announcement of the proposed business combination with RF Micro Devices, Inc. ("RFMD") on February 24, 2014, five putative stockholder class action lawsuits have been filed against the Company, its directors, RFMD, and others in connection with the proposed mergers. Two of the five actions were filed in the Multnomah County Circuit Court in the State of Oregon: (1) Roberts vs. TriQuint Semiconductor, Inc. et al., Case No. 1402-02441, filed on February 28, 2014; and (2) Lam v. Steven J. Sharp et al., Case No. 1403-02757, filed on March 6, 2014. The other three actions were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware: (1) Philemon v. TriQuint Semiconductor, Inc. et al., Case No. 9415-VCN, filed on March 5, 2014; (2) Schmitz v. TriQuint Semiconductor, Inc. et al., Case No. 9427-VCN, filed on March 7, 2014; and (3) Wallace v. TriQuint Semiconductor, Inc. et al., Case No. 9429-VCN, filed on March 10, 2014. Each of these lawsuits was filed on behalf of a putative class of the Company's stockholders against the Company, the individual members of the Company's board of directors, RFMD, Qorvo, Inc. (formerly Rocky Holding, Inc.), and/or the subsidiaries of Qorvo, Inc. that will be used to effect the mergers. The plaintiffs in each of these lawsuits generally seek, among other things, declaratory and injunctive relief concerning alleged breaches of fiduciary duties, injunctive relief prohibiting completion of the mergers, rescission of the mergers if they are completed, an accounting by defendants, rescissionary damages, attorney's fees and costs, and other relief. On April 29, 2014, the Oregon trial court orally granted the plaintiff's motions to consolidate the Roberts and Lam actions. TriQuint moved to dismiss the Oregon actions, which the trial court denied on August 14, 2014. The Company filed a petition for writ of mandamus with the Oregon Supreme Court on October 3, 2014, asking that court to take immediate review of the trial court's decision and is waiting for the Oregon Supreme Court's ruling about whether it will immediately review the trial court decision. As of August 18, 2014, the plaintiffs in the Oregon actions informed the trial court that they would not pursue their request for a preliminary injunction. TRIQUINT SEMICONDUCTOR: No Further Activity in Del. Class Suits --------------------------------------------------------------- There has been no further activity in the Delaware class actions against Triquint Semiconductor, Inc. since the court denied plaintiffs' motion for expedited proceedings, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 27, 2014. Since the public announcement of the proposed business combination with RF Micro Devices, Inc. ("RFMD") on February 24, 2014, five putative stockholder class action lawsuits have been filed against the Company, its directors, RFMD, and others in connection with the proposed mergers. Two of the five actions were filed in the Multnomah County Circuit Court in the State of Oregon: (1) Roberts vs. TriQuint Semiconductor, Inc. et al., Case No. 1402-02441, filed on February 28, 2014; and (2) Lam v. Steven J. Sharp et al., Case No. 1403-02757, filed on March 6, 2014. The other three actions were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware: (1) Philemon v. TriQuint Semiconductor, Inc. et al., Case No. 9415-VCN, filed on March 5, 2014; (2) Schmitz v. TriQuint Semiconductor, Inc. et al., Case No. 9427-VCN, filed on March 7, 2014; and (3) Wallace v. TriQuint Semiconductor, Inc. et al., Case No. 9429-VCN, filed on March 10, 2014. Each of these lawsuits was filed on behalf of a putative class of the Company's stockholders against the Company, the individual members of the Company's board of directors, RFMD, Qorvo, Inc. (formerly Rocky Holding, Inc.), and/or the subsidiaries of Qorvo, Inc. that will be used to effect the mergers. The plaintiffs in each of these lawsuits generally seek, among other things, declaratory and injunctive relief concerning alleged breaches of fiduciary duties, injunctive relief prohibiting completion of the mergers, rescission of the mergers if they are completed, an accounting by defendants, rescissionary damages, attorney's fees and costs, and other relief. On April 29, 2014, the Delaware Court of Chancery consolidated the actions filed in Delaware under the caption In re TriQuint Semiconductor, Inc. Stockholders Litigation, C.A. No. 9415-VCN. On May 1, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action complaint in the consolidated action and on May 12, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a motion for expedited proceedings and a motion for preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin defendants from taking any action to complete the proposed mergers. The Company opposed the motion for expedited proceedings, and the court denied the motion for expedited proceedings on June 13, 2014. There has been no further activity in the Delaware lawsuits since the court denied plaintiffs' motion for expedited proceedings. TRW AUTOMOTIVE: Car Buyers' Suits Settled for Immaterial Amount --------------------------------------------------------------- TRW Automotive Holdings Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 26, 2014, that the Company has settled, for an amount that is immaterial to the Company, certain purported class action lawsuits filed on behalf of vehicle purchasers, lessors and dealers, alleging that the Company and certain of its competitors conspired to fix and raise prices for Occupant Safety Systems products. These lawsuits were filed on various dates from June 2012 through July 2013 and were consolidated in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Once the court approves the settlements, those cases will be dismissed. The Company has also settled, for an amount that is immaterial to the Company, similar cases filed in various courts in Canada on behalf of vehicle purchasers, lessors, dealers and direct purchasers. Class action lawsuits filed against the Company on various dates from June 2012 through May 2014 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on behalf of direct purchasers remain pending, which the Company intends to vigorously defend. Management believes that the ultimate resolution of those cases will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. TRW is among the world's largest and most diversified suppliers of automotive systems, modules and components to global automotive original equipment manufacturers, or OEMs, and related aftermarkets. TRW AUTOMOTIVE: Faces Class Actions Over Merger Transaction ----------------------------------------------------------- TRW Automotive Holdings Corp. on September 15, 2014, entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with ZF Friedrichshafen AG, a stock corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Federal Republic of Germany ("ZF"), and MSNA, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Merger Sub") and a wholly owned subsidiary of ZF held directly by ZF North America, Inc. ("ZNA"), pursuant to which Merger Sub will be merged with and into the Company (the "ZF Merger") with the Company surviving the ZF Merger as an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of ZF. The Board of Directors of the Company unanimously approved the Merger Agreement and resolved to recommend that the Company's stockholders vote to adopt the Merger Agreement. TRW said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 26, 2014, that following the announcement of the execution of the Merger Agreement on September 15, 2014, seven purported stockholders of the Company initiated legal actions challenging the merger. On September 19, 2014, purported stockholder New Jersey Laborers Pension Fund filed a putative class action complaint in the Oakland County Circuit Court in the State of Michigan against the Company, ZF, ZNA, Merger Sub, and the members of the Company's board of directors (the "Company Board"), in an action styled New Jersey Laborers Pension Fund vs. TRW Automotive Holdings Corp., et al., No. 2014-143032-CB. On September 26, 2014, purported stockholder Joseph Bidwell filed a putative class action complaint in the Wayne County Circuit Court in the State of Michigan against the Company, ZF, ZNA, Merger Sub, and the members of the Company Board, in an action styled Bidwell vs. TRW Automotive Holdings Corp., et al., No. 14- 012463-CB. On October 3, 2014, purported stockholder Daniel Fumia filed a putative class action complaint in Wayne County Circuit Court in the State of Michigan against the Company, ZF, ZNA, Merger Sub, and the members of the Company Board, in an action styled Daniel Fumia v. James F. Albaugh, Francois J. Castaing, Robert L. Friedman, Michael R. Gambrell, J. Michael Losh, David W. Meline, Jody G. Miller, MSNA, Inc., John C. Plant, Neil P. Simpkins, David S. Taylor, TRW Automotive Holdings Corp., ZF Friedrichshafen AG, ZF North America, Inc., No. 14-012818-CB. On October 6, 2014, purported stockholder Alan Abramson filed a putative class action complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against the Company, the members of the Company Board, ZF and Merger Sub, in an action styled Abramson vs. TRW Automotive Holdings Corp., et al., No. 10203-VCL. On October 15, 2014, purported stockholder Zhao Nie filed a putative class action complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against the Company, ZF, ZNA, Merger Sub and the Company Board in an action styled Nie vs. TRW Automotive Holdings Corp., et al., No. 10236-VCL. On October 21, 2014, purported stockholder Luther Berry and purported stockholder I.U.O.E. Local 132 Health and Welfare Fund each filed a putative class action complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against the Company, the members of the Company Board, ZF and Merger Sub, in actions styled Berry vs. TRW Automotive Holdings Corp., et al., No. 10264-VCL and I.U.O.E. Local 132 Health and Welfare Fund vs. TRW Automotive Holdings Corp., et al., No. 10265-VCL, respectively. The complaints include claims for breach of fiduciary duty against the individual directors, alleging that the directors violated the duties of loyalty, good faith and due care owed to the Company's stockholders. The complaints also include claims for aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty. The plaintiffs seek, among other forms of relief, an order enjoining the transaction, rescinding the Merger Agreement to the extent it has already been implemented, and awarding attorneys' fees and costs. Although it is not possible to predict the outcome of these litigation matters with certainty, the Company and the Company Board believe that the claims raised in these complaints are without merit and intend to defend their position in these matters vigorously. The lawsuits are in their early stages. Management believes that the ultimate resolution of the foregoing legal actions will not have a material effect on the Company's financial statements as a whole. TRW is among the world's largest and most diversified suppliers of automotive systems, modules and components to global automotive original equipment manufacturers, or OEMs, and related aftermarkets. UNITED BUILDING: "Soto" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- Jose Soto and Oscar Chavez, on behalf themselves and other similarly situated persons v. United Building Maintenance, Inc. d/b/a UBM Facility Services, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-08378 (N.D. Ill., October 24, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, unlawful deductions, liquidated damages and other penalties, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. United Building Maintenance, Inc. operates a janitorial and building maintenance company that contracts with private and public entities, including Chicago Public Schools and the Chicago White Sox, Ltd. The Plaintiff is represented by: Carlos G. Becerra, Esq. Perla M. Gonzalez, Esq. BECERRA LAW GROUP, LLC. 332 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 1020 Chicago, Illinois 60604 Telephone: (312) 957-9005 Facsimile: (773) 890-7780 E-mail: cbecerra@law-rb.com pgonzalez@law-rb.com UNITED STATES: EFF 4th Amendment Fight vs. NSA's Spying Continues ----------------------------------------------------------------- The National Security Agency illegally searches and seizes Americans' Internet communications, class plaintiffs continue to argue in California Federal Court, reports Arvin Temkar at Courthouse News Service. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, which filed the high-profile domestic spying case Jewel v. NSA in 2008, submitted a brief October 24 responding to the government's opposition to a motion for partial summary judgment in September. The privacy advocacy group also filed a motion the same day to strike a secret brief filed by the government. In its new brief, the EFF strikes back against what it calls on its website "the government's various attempts at constitutional circumvention." The EFF has argued that the government, by tapping fiber-optic cables of telecommunications companies and copying the data stream without a warrant, violates the Fourth Amendment. The government claims it cannot disclose how its data collection program -- known as "Upstream" -- works, on national security grounds. It's partially on those grounds that the government sought dismissal of the EFF's claims. The Jewel case stems from a 2006 revelation by a former AT&T technician that the company was routing copies of emails, Web browsing data and other Internet information to a secret NSA- controlled location in San Francisco. The EFF claims in its new brief that tapping into fiber-optic cables is a seizure, even if the government does not physically take something, such as a hard drive. It also claims that using a computer program to scan for data is a constitutional breach, because Americans have a reasonable expectation of privacy in online communication. In filing its motion to strike the government's secret brief, the EFF claims that allowing the government to make a secret legal argument without letting plaintiffs respond would be "an extraordinary violation of due process," the EFF said on its website. The case is due for oral arguments on Dec. 19 in Oakland before U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Cindy Cohn, Esq. Lee Tien, Esq. Kurt Opsahl, Esq. James S. Tyre, Esq. Mark Rumold, Esq. Andrew Crocker, Esq. David Greene, Esq. ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION 815 Eddy Street San Francisco, CA 94109 Telephone: (415) 436-9333 Facsimile: (415) 436-9993 E-mail: cindy@eff.org tien@eff.org andrew@eff.org davidg@eff.org - and - Richard R. Wiebe, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD R. WIEBE One California Street, Suite 900 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 433-3200 Facsimile: (415) 433-6382 E-mail: wiebe@pacbell.net - and - Rachael E. Meny, Esq. Benjamin W. Berkowitz, Esq. Michael S. Kwun, Esq. Audrey Walton-Hadlock, Esq. Justina K. Sessions, Esq. Philip J. Tassin, Esq. KEKER & VAN NEST, LLP 633 Battery Street San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 391-5400 Facsimile: (415) 397-7188 E-mail: rmeny@kvn.com bberkowitz@kvn.com mkwun@kvn.com ahadlock@kvn.com jsessions@kvn.com ptassin@kvn.com - and - Thomas E. Moore III, Esq. ROYSE LAW FIRM, PC 1717 Embarcadero Road Palo Alto, CA 94303 Telephone: (650) 813-9700 Facsimile: (650) 813-9777 E-mail: tmoore@rroyselaw.com - and - Aram Antaramian, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ARAM ANTARAMIAN 1714 Blake Street Berkeley, CA 94703 Telephone: (510) 289-1626 E-mail: aram@eff.org The case is Carolyn Jewel, et al. v. National Security Agency, et al., Case No. 4:08-cv-4373-JSW, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Oakland Division. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Heads to Trial Over Hepatitis C Outbreak ------------------------------------------------------------ Julie Triedman, writing for The Litigation Daily, reports that there's no question that UnitedHealth Group Inc. wishes its HMO subsidiaries had steered clear of Dr. Dipak Desai, a Nevada clinic owner who sparked a massive hepatitis C outbreak by reusing vials of the sedative propofol. But should UHG have to pay the price for including the criminally negligent doctor in its HMO provider networks? That's the billion-dollar question facing UHG in a trial now gearing up in state court in Las Vegas, as well as in an ongoing appeal of a previous blockbuster verdict. In hopes of persuading jurors to answer in the negative, the company tapped the powerhouse litigation boutique Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott to lead its defense in the upcoming trial. And it recently roped in Hogan Lovells appellate whiz Neal Katyal -- neal.katyal@hoganlovells.com -- to help overturn the earlier verdict, said to be the largest in Nevada state court history. Jury selection is now underway in the latest trial, which is expected to begin in earnest in early November. The case is one of about a dozen targeting UHG and its subsidiaries that are now wending their way through Nevada's courts, all brought on behalf of patients who contracted Hepatitis C between 2004 and 2008. They say the disease was transmitted during endoscopies at Dr. Desai's Las Vegas clinic, where staff allegedly infected patients by improperly double-dipping from single-use vials of propofol and ignoring other safety protocols. Dr. Desai was tried and convicted on multiple charges related to the Hep C outbreak in July 2013. He received a life sentence on counts that included second-degree murder. After the outbreak, Robert Eglet of Las Vegas plaintiffs firm Eglet Wall Christiansen and Rick Friedman of Bremerton, Wash.- based Friedman Rubin filed about two dozen lawsuits against UHG subsidiary Health Plan of Nevada and another smaller HMO. In each case, they argue that the HMO was negligent for including Dr. Desai and his clinic in its preferred health care provider network. They allege that the HMO kept Desai in its network even after learning of sloppy and potentially dangerous practices at the clinic. Mr. Eglet tried the first case in early 2013 on behalf of two clinic patients who contracted the disease, winning a $524 million verdict that was later reduced to $366 million. Friedman tried the second case early this year -- opposite new defense counsel and before a different judge -- and walked away with a relatively paltry $1.25 million verdict. Before the trial, in which the plaintiffs sought $2.5 billion, UnitedHealth brought in Bartlit Beck to try the case along with the company's lawyers at Las Vegas-based Weinberg, Wheeler, Hudgins, Gunn & Dial. Philip Beck led UHG's trial team in the case, which has since been resolved as part of a confidential global settlement of Friedman's other cases. In the current trial, Mr. Eglet and his cocounsel, Will Kemp of Kemp Jones & Coulthard, will square off against a trial team by Bartlit Beck's Donald Scott -- donald.scott@bartlit-beck.com UGH, which is also represented by Weinberg Wheeler and by Holland & Hart's Constance Akridge, faces potential damages that could top $1 billion. Trial in the case, Paul v. Health Plan of Nevada, is expected to last 12 weeks. Meanwhile, UHG is battling to overturn the first trial verdict at the Supreme Court of Nevada. It's also fighting to fend off efforts by the plaintiffs to derail the appeal entirely -- and perhaps force a retrial that could result in an even bigger verdict. Mr. Eglet asked the state's high court to toss the appeal in August, on the grounds that UHG and its lawyers withheld key evidence in the case that tainted the trial. Thanks to belated discovery in another case, Mr. Eglet claims, the plaintiffs uncovered documents showing that top HMO executives learned of a whistleblower's malpractice allegations in 1997. Mr. Eglet claims that UHG and its lawyers knew of the revelations but committed "fraud on the court" by keeping them under wraps before and during the original 2013 trial. UnitedHealth has responded that the newly surfaced documents aren't evidence that witnesses made false statements at trial. On Oct. 10, the appeals court ruled that the issue should be lodged before the trial court judge for now. Hogan Lovells' Katyal formally joined UHG's appellate team last month, joining a lineup that includes Dan Poulsenberg -- DPolsenberg@LRRLaw.com -- and Joel Henriod -- JHenriod@LRRLaw.com -- of Las Vegas-based Lewis Roca Rothgerber. UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Posts $27.6MM After-Tax Charge Related to Deal ---------------------------------------------------------------- Universal Health Services, Inc. (NYSE: UHS) said in its filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2014, that an after-tax charge of $27.6 million ($44.0 million pre-tax), or $.27 per diluted share, incurred in connection with a $65 million settlement of Garden City Employees' Retirement System v. Psychiatric Solutions, Inc. ("PSI"), Joey A. Jacobs, Brent Turner and Jack E. Polson. This matter was a shareholder class action lawsuit filed in 2009 against PSI and certain of its former officers alleging their violations of federal securities laws and UHS assumed the defense and liability of this matter as a result of its acquisition of PSI in 2010. The charge incurred during the third quarter of 2014 is net of approximately $16 million of commercial insurance recoveries that UHS was entitled to and a previously recorded estimated reserve. Universal Health Services, Inc. ("UHS") -- http://www.uhsinc.com -- is one of the nation's largest hospital companies operating through its subsidiaries acute care hospitals, behavioral health facilities and ambulatory centers located throughout the United States, the United Kingdom, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. It acts as the advisor to Universal Health Realty Income Trust, a real estate investment trust (NYSE:UHT). UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH: Sued for Violating ADA, FMLA and FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- Laura Young v. U.P.M.C., Case No. 2:14-cv-01467-CB (W.D. Pa., October 29, 2014) is brought pursuant to The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, and the Fair Labor Standards Act. Laura Young is a former employee of the Defendant and a resident of Gibsonia, Pennsylvania. UPMC is the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center with a place of business located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The Plaintiff is represented by: Erik M. Yurkovich, Esq. 207 Pine Creek Road Building 1, Suite 201 Wexford, PA 15090 Telephone: (724) 933-9199 E-mail: Erik.Yurkovich@gmail.com VERISK ANALYTICS: Final Approval of Interthinx Litigation in 2015 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Verisk Analytics, Inc. anticipates preliminary and final approval of a Joint Stipulation of Settlement and Release resolving the Shaw, Dehdashtian and Nagl matters to occur in 2014 and 2015, respectively, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014. On May 13, 2013, the Company was served with a putative class action titled Celeste Shaw v. Interthinx, Inc., Verisk Analytics, Inc. and Jeffrey Moyer. The plaintiff is a current employee of the Company's former subsidiary Interthinx, Inc. based in Colorado, who filed the class action in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of all fraud detection employees who have worked for Interthinx for the last three years nationwide and who were classified as exempt employees. The class complaint claims that the fraud detection employees were misclassified as exempt employees and, as a result, were denied certain wages and benefits that would have been received if they were properly classified as non-exempt employees. It pleads three causes of action against defendants: (1) Collective Action under section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act for unpaid overtime (nationwide class); (2) A Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 class action under the Colorado Wage Act and Wage Order for unpaid overtime and (3) A Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 class action under Colorado Wage Act for unpaid commissions/nondiscretionary bonuses (Colorado class). The complaint seeks compensatory damages, penalties that are associated with the various statutes, declaratory and injunctive relief interest, costs and attorneys' fees. On July 2, 2013, the Company was served with a putative class action titled Shabnam Shelia Dehdashtian v. Interthinx, Inc. and Verisk Analytics, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The plaintiff, Shabnam Shelia Dehdashtian, a former mortgage auditor at the Company's former subsidiary Interthinx, Inc. in California, filed the class action on behalf of all persons who have been employed by Interthinx as auditors, mortgage compliance underwriters and mortgage auditors nationwide at any time (i) within 3 years prior to the filing of this action until trial for the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) class and (ii) within 4 years prior to the filing of the initial complaint until trial for the California collective action. The class complaint claims that the defendants failed to pay overtime compensation, to provide rest and meal periods, waiting time penalties and to provide accurate wage statements to the plaintiffs as required by federal and California law. It pleads seven causes of action against defendants: (1) Failure to pay overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA for unpaid overtime (nationwide class); (2) Failure to pay overtime compensation in violation of Cal. Lab. Code sections 510, 1194 and 1198 and IWC Wage Order No. 4; (3) Failure to pay waiting time penalties in violation of Cal. Lab. Code sections 201-203; (4) Failure to provide itemized wage statements in violation of Cal. Lab. Code section 226 and IWC Order No. 4; (5) Failure to provide and or authorize meal and rest periods in violation of Cal. Lab. Code section 226.7 and IWC Order No. 4; (6) Violation of California Business and Professions Code sections 17200 et seq; and (7) a Labor Code Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) Public enforcement claim, Cal. Lab. Code section 2699 (California class). The complaint seeks compensatory damages, penalties that are associated with the various statutes, equitable and injunctive relief, interest, costs and attorneys' fees. On October 14, 2013, the Company received notice of a claim titled Dejan Nagl v. Interthinx Services, Inc. filed in the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency. The claimant, Dejan Nagl, a former mortgage auditor at the Company's former subsidiary Interthinx, Inc. in California, filed the claim on behalf of himself and all current and former individuals employed in California as auditors by Interthinx, Inc. for violations of the California Labor Code and Wage Order. The claimant alleges on behalf of himself and other auditors the following causes of action: (1) Failure to provide rest breaks and meal periods in violation of Lab. Code sections 226.7, 514 and 1198; (2) Failure to pay overtime wages in violation of Lab. Code sections 510 and 1194; (3) Failure to provide accurate wage statements in violation of Lab. Code section 226; (4) Failure to timely pay wages in violation of Lab. Code section 204; and (5) Failures to timely pay wages for violations of Lab. Code sections 201- 203. The claim seeks compensatory damages and penalties that are associated with the various statutes, costs and attorneys' fees. On March 11, 2014, the Company sold 100 percent of the stock of Interthinx. Pursuant to the terms of the sale agreement, the Company is responsible for the resolution of these matters. In October 2014, the parties agreed to a Joint Stipulation of Settlement and Release resolving the Shaw, Dehdashtian and Nagl matters. The Joint Stipulation of Settlement and Release provides for a payment of $6,000,000, the majority of which is to be paid by insurance, but is subject to Preliminary and Final Approval by the United States District Court for the District of Colorado which the Company anticipates to occur in 2014 and 2015, respectively. Verisk Analytics, Inc. provides its customers proprietary data that, combined with analytic methods, create embedded decision support solutions. The Company is one of the largest aggregators and providers of data pertaining to property and casualty ("P&C") insurance risks in the United States of America ("U.S."). The Company offers solutions for detecting fraud in the U.S. P&C insurance, financial and healthcare industries and sophisticated methods to predict and quantify loss in diverse contexts ranging from natural catastrophes to supply chain to health insurance. The Company provides solutions, including data, statistical models or tailored analytics, all designed to allow clients to make more logical decisions. VERISK ANALYTICS: Plaintiffs File Appeal in ISO Litigation ---------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs have filed their Notice of Appeal in the Insurance Services Office, Inc. Litigation, Verisk Analytics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014. In October 2013, the Company was served with a summons and complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in an action titled Laurence J. Skelly and Ellen Burke v. Insurance Services Office, Inc. and the Pension Plan for Insurance Organizations. The plaintiffs, former employees of our subsidiary Insurance Services Office, Inc., or ISO, bring the action on their own behalf as participants in the Pension Plan for Insurance Organizations and on the behalf of similarly situated participants of the pension plan and ask the court to declare that a certain amendment to the pension plan as of December 31, 2001, which terminated their right to calculate and define the value of their retirement benefit under the pension plan based on their compensation levels as of immediately prior to their "retirement" (the "Unlawful Amendment"), violated the anti- cutback provisions and equitable principles of ERISA. The First Amended Class Action Complaint (the "Amended Complaint") alleges that (1) the Unlawful Amendment of the pension plan violated Section 502(a)(1)(B) of ERISA as well as the anti-cutback rules of ERISA Section 204(g) and Section 411(d)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code; (2) ISO's failure to provide an ERISA 204(h) notice in a manner calculated to be understood by the average pension plan participant was a violation of Sections 204(h) and 102(a) of ERISA; and (3) the Living Pension Right was a contract right under ERISA common law and that by terminating that right through the Unlawful Amendment ISO violated plaintiffs' common law contract rights under ERISA. The Amended Complaint seeks declaratory, equitable and injunctive relief enjoining the enforcement of the Unlawful Amendment and ordering the pension plan and ISO retroactive to the date of the Unlawful Amendment to recalculate the accrued benefits of all class members, indemnification from ISO to the pension plan for costs and contribution requirements related to voiding the Unlawful Amendment, bonuses to the class representatives, costs and attorney's fees. On September 12, 2014, the District Court granted ISO's motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint finding that ISO provided ample, clear and sufficient notice of the 2002 Amendment to the Plan and that plaintiffs' claims were time barred. Plaintiffs filed their Notice of Appeal on October 14, 2014. At this time, it is not possible to determine the ultimate resolution of, or estimate the liability related to, this matter. Verisk Analytics, Inc. provides its customers proprietary data that, combined with analytic methods, create embedded decision support solutions. The Company is one of the largest aggregators and providers of data pertaining to property and casualty ("P&C") insurance risks in the United States of America ("U.S."). The Company offers solutions for detecting fraud in the U.S. P&C insurance, financial and healthcare industries and sophisticated methods to predict and quantify loss in diverse contexts ranging from natural catastrophes to supply chain to health insurance. The Company provides solutions, including data, statistical models or tailored analytics, all designed to allow clients to make more logical decisions. VERISK ANALYTICS: "Snyder" Plaintiffs File 2nd Amended Complaint ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in the case titled Snyder, et. al. v. ACORD Corp., et al., filed their Second Amended Complaint, Verisk Analytics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014. On August 1, 2014 the Company was served with an Amended Complaint filed in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado titled Snyder, et. al. v. ACORD Corp., et al. The action is brought by nineteen individual plaintiffs, on their own behalf and on behalf of a putative class, against more than 120 defendants, including the Company and its subsidiary, Insurance Services Office, Inc. or ISO. Except for the Company, ISO and the defendant Acord Corporation, which provides standard forms to assist in insurance transactions, most of the other defendants are property and casualty insurance companies that plaintiffs claim conspired to underpay property damage claims. Plaintiffs claim that the Company and ISO, along with all of the other defendants, violated state and federal antitrust and racketeering laws as well as state common law. On September 8, 2014, the Court entered an Order striking the Amended Complaint and granting leave to the plaintiffs to file a new complaint. On October 13, 2014, plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint that continues to allege that the defendants conspired to underpay property damage claims, but does not specifically allege what role the Company or ISO played in the alleged conspiracy. The Second Amended Complaint similarly alleges that the Company and ISO, along with all of the other defendants, violated state and federal antitrust and racketeering laws as well as state common law, and seeks all available relief including, injunctive, statutory, actual and punitive damages as well as attorneys' fees. At this time, it is not possible to determine the ultimate resolution of, or estimate the liability related to this matter. Verisk Analytics, Inc. provides its customers proprietary data that, combined with analytic methods, create embedded decision support solutions. The Company is one of the largest aggregators and providers of data pertaining to property and casualty ("P&C") insurance risks in the United States of America ("U.S."). The Company offers solutions for detecting fraud in the U.S. P&C insurance, financial and healthcare industries and sophisticated methods to predict and quantify loss in diverse contexts ranging from natural catastrophes to supply chain to health insurance. The Company provides solutions, including data, statistical models or tailored analytics, all designed to allow clients to make more logical decisions. VISHAY INTERTECHNOLOGY: Faces 5 Antitrust Class Actions ------------------------------------------------------- Vishay Intertechnology, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 27, 2014, that since July 18, 2014, the Company has been named as a defendant in purported antitrust class action complaints filed by: 1) Yana Bashmadin, Louis-Alexandre Leclair and Archie Martin, each in the Superior Court for the Province of Quebec, District of Montreal; 2) Chip-Tech, Ltd., David A. Bennett, Dependable Component Supply Corp., Everett Ellis, et al., Quathimatine Holdings, Inc., et al., Schuten Electronics, Inc., Home Tech Solutions Corp., and Steve Wong, each in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California; 3) Cygnus Electronic Corporation in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice; 4) eIQ Energy, Inc. in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey; and 5) Sara Ramsay in the Supreme Court of British Columbia. The case filed by eIQ Energy has since been transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaints allege restraints of trade in aluminum and tantalum electrolytic capacitors, and in some cases, film capacitors, by the Company and other manufacturers, and seek injunctive relief and unspecified joint and several treble damages. The Company intends to defend vigorously against the complaints. WAL-MART STORES: Faces "Lopez" Suit Over Contaminated Baby Wipes ---------------------------------------------------------------- Arvin Temkar, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that a federal class action claims Wal-Mart and a manufacturer posed "extreme dangers to infant children," citing a warning that the manufacturer's baby wipes may be contaminated with bacteria. Lead plaintiff Sam Lopez sued Wal-Mart, Nutek Disposables and First Quality Enterprises on Oct. 20 in San Francisco. A similar federal class action was filed Oct. 27 in New York. According to Lopez's complaint, Sam's Club, which is owned by Wal- Mart, issued a warning on Oct. 10 that some of Nutek's Simply Right baby wipes, sold from June 30, could be contaminated with B. cepacia bacteria. Sam's Club said the bacteria poses little medical risk to healthy people, but could affect people with weakened immune systems or chronic lung disease, particularly cystic fibrosis. The company pulled the product from its shelves and asked customers to discontinue use, according to the complaint. Lopez claims that defendants "did not adequately monitor the manufacture and design of the products, and allowed the hazardous products to be sold in the United States." Nutek has initiated a nationwide product recall of baby wipes, according to an Oct. 25 company statement distributed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. It says it has received "numerous" complaints, including of rash, irritation, infections, fever, gastro-intestinal issues and respiratory issues. Affected brand names include Cuties, Diapers.com, Femtex, Fred's, Kidgets, Member's Mark, Simply Right, Sunny Smiles, Tender Touch and Well Beginnings. Lopez seeks class certification, restitution and damages for breach of implied warranty and business code violations. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gene J. Stonebarger, Esq. STONEBARGER LAW 75 Iron Point Circle, Suite 145 Folsom, CA 95630 Telephone: (916) 235-7140 Facsimile: (916) 235-7141 E-mail: gstonebarger@stonebargerlaw.com WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN: "Maryland" Suit Moved to District Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant MV Transportation Inc. removed the class action lawsuit titled Maryland, et al. v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, et al., Case No. CAL 14-24334, from the Circuit Court for Prince George's County, Maryland, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland (Greenbelt). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:14-cv-03397-TDC to the proceeding. The lawsuit alleges that the Defendants willfully and unlawfully maintain employment policies that violate the Transportation Code. Defendant MV Transportation Inc. is represented by: John Steven Bolesta, Esq. OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK AND STEWART PC 1909 K St NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 263-0255 Facsimile: (202) 887-0866 E-mail: john.bolesta@ogletreedeakins.com WASTE MANAGEMENT: Settles Class Action Over Landfill Odor --------------------------------------------------------- Ariel Barkhurst, writing for Sun Sentinel, reports that the operator of a Coconut Creek landfill and a group of nearby residents who say they suffer from its smell have reached a settlement in a class action lawsuit. The settlement would require Waste Management to do more to contain the smell at the Monarch Hill Landfill, sometimes called "Mount Trashmore" by locals. It would also award $500 to those living within a two-mile radius who complained to Broward County about the odor between mid-2009 and mid-2014. A judge will decide Jan. 9 whether the settlement is fair, and if so, those who qualify would have to fill out a form to get their money, said attorney Spencer Aronfeld, who filed the lawsuit in June 2013. "Is it enough?" Mr. Aronfeld said. "It's never enough, when you're doing these kinds of lawsuits. It's not enough if it's $500, $5,000, $50,000 . . . But when we take these cases on, the main goal is to get the problem corrected." Waste Management would have to install a small arsenal of new odor control equipment that will make the landfill's gas collection system "more efficient" and better able to immediately mitigate smells when they arise, the settlement says. The settlement would also mean no one else can sue Waste Management for smells the landfill emitted from mid-2009 to mid- 2014, the time period the lawsuit encompasses. As part of the settlement, Waste Management does not admit the company has any "liability or wrongdoing" connected with landfill smells. Waste Management "does a very good job of being a good neighbor," said spokeswoman Dawn McCormick. The landfill spends "considerable dollars" every year on odor control. "We go above and beyond what's required by environmental law to reduce odors and not have issues," she said. Monarch Hill has had odor problems in the past. It paid $1.6 million in improvements and fines to Broward County last January as part of a settlement over repeated citations for odor violations between May and October of 2012. The current suit covers the period from July 1, 2009, to June 30, 2014, because that was the negotiated time period, Mr. Aronfeld said. Waste Management wanted it shorter, attorneys for the residents wanted it longer. This settlement might come at a time when Monarch Hill really is less smelly than it used to be. Last summer, the landfill stopped accepting food and other materials that decay. That was part of an agreement Waste Management and the city of Coconut Creek hammered out in 2010, when the city threatened to sue over the smell. The change was expected to reduce odors, Coconut Creek commissioners said at the time. Odor complaints for Monarch Hill have slowed over the last year, said Sermin Turegun, Broward County environmental licensing manager. WEATHERFORD INTERNATIONAL: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------ Kevin Niemeyer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Weatherford International, LLC, Case No. 4:14-cv-03068 (S.D. Tex., October 24, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for hours in excess of 40 per work week. Weatherford International, LLC is one of the largest oilfield services companies in the world. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. FIBICH, HAMPTON, LEEBRON, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON, LLP 1150 Bissonnet St Houston, TX 77005 Telephone: (713) 751-0025 Facsimile: (713) 751-0030 E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com WESTFALL MASONRY: Faces "Arredondo" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT --------------------------------------------------------------- Efrain Ramirez Arredondo and Mario Gustavo Ramirez Arredondo, and all others similarly situated v. Westfall Masonry, Inc. and Andrew Westfall, Case No. 1:14-cv-02370 (N.D. Ohio, October 24, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages. Westfall Masonry, Inc. is a masonry company, providing services such as building cement walls in Ohio and in Pennsylvania. The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephan I. Voudris Brad Levine, Esq. VOUDRIS Law LLC Ste. 8, 8401 Chagrin Road Bainbridge Township, OH 44023 Telephone: (440) 543-0670 Facsimile: (440) 543-0721 E-mail: svoudris@me.com blevine@voudrislaw.com WORD SMART: Called People on "Do Not Call Registry," FTC Says ------------------------------------------------------------- Ellen Marks, writing for The Albuquerque Journal, reports that parents can be vulnerable when it comes to a product or service that promises to boost their children's IQ or grade-point average or SAT score or math and reading abilities or college-essay writing skills and so on and so on. Some marketers even offer a money-back guarantee. That was the case with a company called WordSmart Corp., which recently agreed to settle charges filed by the Federal Trade Commission. It promised that using Word Smart for 20 hours would guarantee students could improve letter grades by at least one GPA point and SAT scores by at least 200 points, for example. The FTC accused the company of having no substantiation for its claims. The agency also alleged that "WordSmart called people on the Do Not Call Registry, contacted people who had specifically asked the company not to call them, and failed to connect calls to a sales representative within two seconds of the completed greeting, as required by law." WordSmart sold its programs on its website and through telemarketing, charging between $15 and $300 for each program, according to the FTC. Many companies that market educational improvement are legitimate businesses, but there's at least one good lesson from the FTC's settlement with WordSmart. If a telemarketer claims to be calling because your child has expressed interest in the company's products, double-check. And if the firm says it is affiliated with local schools or national standardized testing companies, double-check that as well. WORLD WRESTLING: Sued by Wrestler for Hiding Brain Injury Dangers ----------------------------------------------------------------- World Wrestling Entertainment deceived its wrestlers for years of the dangers of traumatic brain injuries, a former wrestler claims in a federal class action, reports Courthouse News Service. World Wrestling thus joins the NFL, NHL, professional soccer and the NCAA as a defendant in class actions accusing them of concealing and denying medical research that shows the debilitating effects of multiple concussions and the traumatic brain injuries from it. Lead plaintiff William Albert Haynes III, who wrestled under the name of Billy Jack Haynes, sued WWE on Oct. 23. His lawsuit tracks the claims made by hundreds or thousands of other athletes in other sports. Claiming that "WWE is in the business of selling violence," Haynes accuses WWE of "egregious mistreatment of its wrestlers for its own benefit, as well as its concealment and denial of medical research and evidence concerning traumatic brain injuries suffered by WWE wrestlers. Under the guise of providing 'entertainment,' WWE has, for decades, subjected its wrestlers to extreme physical brutality that it knew, or should have known, caused long-term irreversible bodily damage, including brain damage. For most of its history, WWE has engaged in a campaign of misinformation and deception to prevent its wrestlers from understanding the true nature and consequences of the injuries they have sustained. WWE's representations, actions, and inactions have caused its wrestlers to suffer from death, long-term debilitating injuries, lost profits, premature retirement, medical expenses, and other losses." Haynes seeks class certification and punitive damages for fraudulent concealment, negligent misrepresentation, negligence, and liability for abnormally dangerous activities. He also seeks medical monitoring for the class, to be paid for through a trust fund, and declaratory and injunctive relief. The Plaintiff is represented by: Steve Larson, Esq. STOLL STOLL BERNE LOKTING & SHLACHTER P.C. 209 SW Oak Street, Suite 500 Portland, OR 97204 Telephone: (503) 227-1600 Facsimile: (503) 227-6840 E-mail: slarson@stollberne.com * * * Kevin Harden, writing for Portland Tribune, reports that Billy Jack Haynes wants to give World Wrestling Entertainment Inc.'s head-smacking, money-making "soap opera" a federal court body slam because of what he says is the international sports giant's disregard for wrestlers' safety. Billy Jack -- 61-year-old Gaston resident William Albert Haynes III -- is suing WWE in federal court for "egregious mistreatment of its wrestlers for its own benefit, as well as its concealment and denial of medical research and evidence concerning traumatic brain injuries suffered by WWE wrestlers," according to the 42- page lawsuit filed Thursday, Oct. 23, in Portland's U.S. District Court. Mr. Haynes is also asking the court to grant class-action status for what his lawyers say could be 500 people who suffered injuries while wrestling or performing in the WWE ring. "Under the guise of providing 'entertainment,' WWE has, for decades, subjected its wrestlers to extreme physical brutality that it knew, or should have known, caused long-term irreversible bodily damage, including brain damage," according to the lawsuit filed by Portland attorneys Steve D. Larson and Joshua L. Ross of the firm Stoll Stoll Bernie Lokting & Schlachter. "For most of its history, WWE has engaged in a campaign of misinformation and deception to prevent its wrestlers from understanding the true nature and consequences of the injuries they have sustained. WWE's representations, actions, and inactions have caused its wrestlers to suffer from death, long-term debilitating injuries, lost profits, premature retirement, medical expenses, and other losses as alleged herein." WWE officials said on Oct. 25 that Mr. Haynes' lawsuit did not take into account that the company has been "well ahead of sports organizations in implementing concussion management procedures and policies as a precautionary measure as the science and research on this issue emerged." Here is the WWE statement on Mr. Haynes' lawsuit: "Billy Jack Haynes performed for WWE from 1986-1988. His filed lawsuit alleges that WWE concealed medical information and evidence on concussions during that time, which is impossible since the condition now called chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) had not even been discovered. WWE was well ahead of sports organizations in implementing concussion management procedures and policies as a precautionary measure as the science and research on this issue emerged. Current WWE procedures include ImPACT testing for brain function, annual educational seminars and the strict prohibition of deliberate and direct shots to the head. Additionally, WWE has committed significant funding for concussion research conducted by the Sports Legacy Institute (SLI), leaders in concussion research, and WWE Executive Vice President Paul Levesque sits on SLI's board." No court date has been set for the case. 'Cobra Clutch Slam' WWE of Stamford, Conn., is a publicly traded company that delivers wrestling action year-round through television programming, pay- per-view, digital media and publishing platforms. WWE programming reaches more than 650 million homes worldwide in 35 languages. The company's stock closed on Oct. 24 at $13.27 a share on the New York Stock Exchange. According to Mr. Haynes' lawsuit, the company is "tightly controlled by a small group of related executives who manage both polices and the conduct of wrestlers during matches. Vince McMahon has been chairman of WWE since the retirement of his father, Vince McMahon Sr., in 1980." Mr. Haynes' lawsuit alleges that the entertainment giant "claims that its wrestlers are independent contractors. Thus, WWE does not provide its wrestlers, past or current, with health insurance, disability insurance, or unemployment insurance. When wrestlers retire, they are effectively on their own." The lawsuit says "WWE calls itself an 'action soap opera.' Its matches are scripted, with preordained winners and losers, and it has a carefully written, ongoing plot. WWE predetermines much of the dialogue between the wrestlers and the winners of the matches, as well as many of the violent acts perpetrated by the wrestlers on each other." Mr. Haynes' lawyers listed several dangerous moves used by wrestlers: * "Brain Buster" - a front facelock combined with a vertical suplex in which the victim lands headfirst; * "Bulldog" - a wrestler grabs his opponent's head and leaps forward, so that the victim's face is driven into the ground; * "Cobra Clutch Slam" - a wrestler places the opponent in a hold called the cobra clutch, lifts his opponent, and then jumps into the air, landing his opponent on the ground; * "Facebreaker" - a knee to the face, including many variants involving throwing an opponent down onto one's propped up knee, headfirst; * "Jawbreaker" - a move in which the opponent's jaw is slammed into the wrestler's body, usually the knee or elbow; and, * "Powerslam" - a move in which the performer falls face-first into his opponent. Medical trust fund Mr. Haynes wrestled professionally for more than a dozen years beginning in 1982. From 1986 to 1988, he wrestled with the World Wrestling Federation (now World Wrestling Entertainment Inc.). During that time, Mr. Haynes claimed he wrestled for several days at a time, with little time off and no off-season. He had at least 15 concussions, and numerous other injuries, using drugs to handle the pain. He also contracted Hepatitis C from blows to the head from chairs, chains and other weapons, Mr. Haynes said. "As a result of the head trauma he sustained while wrestling in WWE, Haynes suffers from depression and exhibits symptoms of dementia," according to the lawsuit. Mr. Haynes was hospitalized in March 2013 suffering from an aortic aneurysm, and liver and kidney issues. Mr. Haynes' lawsuit asked the court to force WWE to establish "a trust fund, in an amount to be determined, to pay for the medical monitoring of all wrestlers subjected to checks and hits, as frequently as determined to be medically necessary, as well as to pay to develop and research other methods by which the risk of those affected can be reduced." * Bill to Eliminate Counsel Fees for Minor Consumer Fraud Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Booth, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that the New Jersey Legislature is moving toward eliminating the award of counsel fees and costs for violations of the state's Consumer Fraud Act that are technical in nature and did not result in any ascertainable loss for the victim. The Assembly Consumer Affairs Committee recommended passage of the bill, A207, in a 4-0-1 vote. The bill is sponsored by Assemblyman Reed Gusciora, D-Mercer. New Jersey has one of the toughest consumer fraud statutes in the country. In addition to allowing for fee-shifting and costs, the act lets judges set treble damages for victims. But Mr. Gusciora, in testimony before the committee, said it was not the intent of the legislature to force defendants to pay counsel fees and costs if they are found to have made only minor, technical violations. The act's fee-shifting provision, Mr. Gusciora said, was meant to apply only to "substantial" claims. The committee asked Mr. Gusciora if he could provide an example of when counsel fees were not warranted for a violation of the CFA. Mr. Gusciora, who has a solo practice in Princeton, N.J., said he knew of a contractor hired by a homeowner to install new windows. It was to be a one-day job and the contractor, whom he did not identify, failed to include a start and end date in the contract, which is a CFA violation. The homeowner decided she did not like the windows and filed a CFA claim against the contractor. The contractor ultimately was found to not have substantively violated the CFA, but was forced to fight a demand for $35,000 in counsel fees and costs because of the technical violation. "I don't think anyone ever envisioned awarding attorney fees for technical violations," he said. Assemblyman Brian Rumpf, R-Ocean, expressed some misgivings about the bill. The act is meant to ensure that victims of consumer fraud have greater access to legal representation by allowing for fee-shifting, said Mr. Rumpf, of Rumpf, Reid & Dolcy in Toms River, N.J. Under Gusciora's bill, he said, "they're not going to have the benefit of competent counsel." Mr. Rumpf, who agreed to abstain after Mr. Gusciora agreed to amend the bill, said the legislation "goes too far." Mr. Gusciora said the bill merely codified a ruling by the state Supreme Court in Perez v. Professionally Green. There, the court ruled that counsel fees and costs should not be awarded unless the victim has sustained an ascertainable loss. The legislation is being opposed by the New Jersey Association for Justice and Legal Services of New Jersey, among other groups. NJAJ's first vice president, Michael Donahue, said the legislation runs afoul of the act's intention to encourage attorneys to take consumer fraud cases. "This will make it more difficult for consumers to obtain competent counsel," said Mr. Donahue, of Stark & Stark in Lawrenceville, N.J. "All violations of the act start with technical violations." The bill, Mr. Donahue said, provides a "safe harbor for violators" of the CFA. "Why should there be free-pass violations?" he asked. David McMillan, an attorney for Legal Services, said the bill goes beyond the court's ruling in Perez. "You already have to show proximate cause" for counsel fees to be awarded, he said. The New Jersey State Bar Association also opposes the bill. "The association opposes this legislation because it appears unnecessary given existing safeguards in current law to prevent awards in frivolous or 'nuisance' cases brought under the CFA," the bar said in a statement. "The bill, instead, has the potential of creating uncertainty about what conduct and practices are truly prohibited under the CFA." The bill is being supported by the New Jersey Business and Industry Association and a tort reform group, the New Jersey Civil Justice Institute. Christine Stearns, the NJBIA's vice president for health and legal affairs, called Gusciora's bill a "reasonable update" to the CFA. Alida Kass, CJI's chief counsel, said the bill is "an important first step." The act's fee-shifting provisions, she said, should be used in only the most egregious cases. "It can be a fairly blunt instrument," she said. Ms. Kass said the legislature should eventually move toward eliminating the award of counsel fees and costs for all but the most serious violations of the act. The committee agreed to move the bill after Mr. Gusciora agreed to amend the bill to read that a technical violation does not include any unconscionable business practice, deception, fraud, false promise, misrepresentation, knowing concealment or omission of material fact. The bill also does not bar the state Division of Consumer Affairs or county or municipal consumer affairs agencies from seeking counsel fees in any CFA case. The bill is now set to be considered by the full Assembly. There is no comparable Senate version. * Bogus Health-Care Schemes Emerge Amid Ebola Global Threat ----------------------------------------------------------- Ellen Marks, writing for The Albuquerque Journal, reports that bogus health-care schemes abound, but you should be aware of several new ones that are trying to take cruel advantage of global concern about the Ebola virus. There are reports of marketers claiming you can protect or cure yourself with "products containing everything from silver to herbal oils and snake venom," the Federal Trade Commission says. Here are the facts: The Food and Drug Administration has not approved any vaccines or drugs to prevent or treat Ebola. There are some experimental vaccines and treatments, but they're "in the early stages of product development, have not yet been fully tested for safety or effectiveness, and the supply is very limited," the FTC says. "There are no approved vaccines, drugs, or products specifically for Ebola available for purchase online or in stores. No dietary supplements can claim to prevent or cure Ebola," the agency says. In this country, the virus is not water- or food-borne and is not transmitted through the air, according to the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It is spread through direct contact with the body fluids of an infected person or with objects such as needles that have been contaminated with the virus. Whenever you get a pitch for a health-related product, ask the caller for more information about it. Then consult a knowledgeable doctor, pharmacist or other health-care professional. "Promoters of legitimate health-care products don't object to your seeking additional information -- in fact, most welcome it," according to a news release. * Bogus Scheme to Collect Class Suit Damages Reported in N.M. ------------------------------------------------------------- Ellen Marks, writing for The Albuquerque Journal, reports that several residents have contacted the Attorney General's Office in New Mexico reporting phone calls asking if the person has had "a surgery that involves a bladder sling or a bladder mesh." The caller asks if you're aware of a class-action lawsuit involving these products -- used for urinary incontinence -- and claims to be from the law firm handling the legal action. You will be told that you're entitled to $8,645 in damages. But there is a catch: You must wire $260 by 4 p.m. that day to cover processing fees. Or you can provide your bank-account number. The way it really works is that if you are part of a class-action lawsuit, notice to you will be made through the mail. "Remember to never give a bank account number to anyone you do not know personally," says a scam alert from the AG's Consumer Protection Division. * Cal. State & Federal Courts Split on Arbitration of PAGA Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dustin Dow, Esq. and John Lewis, Esq. of Baker Hostetler, in an article for Law.com, report that one of the last barriers to full enforcement of arbitration agreements with class action waivers sustained another blow. A California federal district court disagreed with the California Supreme Court in holding that an employment arbitration agreement can waive an employee's right to pursue a representative claim under the state's Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA"). Langston v. 20/20 Companies, Case No. EDCV 14-1360 JGB (C.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2014). It is well known by now that the U.S. Supreme Court has taken a favorable view of arbitration agreements that waive a litigant's ability to pursue class or representative action claims, either in court or arbitration. Since 2009, the Court has chiseled away at the obstacles and procedural rules preventing enforcement of such arbitration agreements based upon the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"). Indeed, in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 131 S. Ct. 1740 (2011), the Court held that the FAA's policy of enforcing arbitration agreements pre-empted a California rule requiring the availability of class-wide arbitration. But California courts remain undaunted. This summer, the California Supreme Court held that Concepcion did not require individual arbitration of a claim brought under PAGA where the individual litigant represents a class on behalf of the government -- even though the individual remains in control of the litigation. That case, Iskanian v. CLS Transp., L.A., LLC, 327 P.3d 129 (Cal. 2014), currently is pending on certiorari before the United States Supreme Court. The petition in CLS Transp., L.A. LLC v. Iskanian, No. 14-341, raises the question addressed by the district court: "Is an employee's waiver in an arbitration agreement of a collective or 'representative action' under [PAGA] so distinguishable from a 'class action' waiver that it is immune from the otherwise preemptive effect of the Federal Arbitration Act as held by this court in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion?" (citation omitted). Now, for the third time, a federal district court has refused to follow the Iskanian court's lead. In Langston, the Central District of California held that Concepcion does require enforcement of an employment arbitration agreement, even if that means compelling individual arbitration of PAGA claims. The judge in Langston explained that Concepcion instructed that an arbitration agreement cannot be invalidated by impermissible application of a policy "in a fashion that disfavors arbitration." Nevertheless, the Iskanian court held PAGA waivers in arbitration agreements to be unconscionable, even though it acknowledged that an employee could choose on his or her own to waive the government's right to bring a PAGA claim. The district judge seized on this apparent illogic that he interpreted to be in conflict with Concepcion: "That inconsistency illuminates the fact that, it is not the individual's ability to waive the government's right that drives the [Iskanian] court's rule, but rather the court's general disfavor for pre-existing agreements to arbitrate such claims individually." Thus, Langston joined two previous California federal district courts (See Ortiz v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., No. 2:13-cv-01619 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2014), and Fardig v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., No. SACV 14-00561 JVS (C.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2014)) in upholding the enforceability of an agreement to individually arbitrate, despite the presence of PAGA representative claims. The U.S. Supreme Court may soon decide whether this latest conflict between the California state and federal courts warrants clarity following in the footsteps of Concepcion. Until then, the scope of the full enforcement of an employment arbitration agreement depends on which court is considering it. As a result, a third federal court has now disagreed with the California Supreme Court's Iskanian result, widening the divide between enforcement of arbitration agreements in federal and state courts. In California state court, an arbitration agreement cannot waive an individual's ability to pursue PAGA representative claims on behalf of the government. At least in some federal courts, the Concepcion rule continues to require enforcement of arbitration agreements, even if that requires individual arbitration of a PAGA claim. The Bottom Line: A split is growing between California state and federal courts over whether a defendant can compel the arbitration of PAGA claims. * Oceania Calls for Enforcement of Shrimp Product Labeling Laws --------------------------------------------------------------- Cain Burdeau, writing for The Associated Press, reports that from New York to New Orleans to Oregon, consumers are being misled about the shrimp they're buying, according to a survey by the advocacy group Oceana. Cheap, imported farm-raised shrimp is being sold as prized wild- caught Gulf shrimp while common, more plentiful shrimp is being sold as premium. And shrimp of all kinds is sold with no indication whatsoever about where it came from, the group said. Shrimp caught in the open oceans is considered superior in taste, texture and healthiness compared with farm-raised shrimp that tend to be more rubbery and without the distinct salty taste of the sea. Imports of farm-raised shrimp have skyrocketed in recent years, coinciding with shrimp's ascent as the nation's most popular seafood. Oceana said it found about 30 percent of 143 shrimp products bought from 111 vendors were not what the label said. Bad labeling was discovered on shrimp sold at national and regional supermarkets and smaller grocery stores alike. Restaurants, from national chains to high-dollar eateries, were also selling poorly labeled shrimp, the group said. The survey looked at shrimp sold in Washington, D.C.; Portland, Oregon; and various spots around the Gulf of Mexico as well as New York City, which it deemed the worst offender. The group acknowledged that the survey was a small sample, but said it used a technique involving DNA to trace the shrimp's roots. "It was a first good look at shrimp," said Kimberly Warner, a marine scientist with Oceana. She went out and obtained many of the samples. The group did a similar survey last year for fish and made similar findings. In that report, Oceana said consumers routinely are misled into believing they're buying tuna and red snapper when in reality they're getting less expensive fish. Oceana is urging Congress and regulators to enforce proper labeling. Oceana declined to provide the names of the vendors it obtained the samples from. Dustin Cranor, an Oceana spokesman, said the company did not want to identify them because "fraud can happen at any point in the supply chain." Misleading and illegal labeling of food is considered a major problem among food purists because it cheats consumers and puts them at risk of tainted foods. It also hurts honest vendors and tarnishes an industry's product. The group's report came as no surprise to fishermen and others involved in the shrimp industry. "I've been shouting this for ages from the rooftop," said Kimberly Chauvin, who runs a family shrimp business with fishing boats and docks in Chauvin, Louisiana. She said shrimp mislabeling will get worse unless regulators "start handing out big fines" to companies that break the Food and Drug Administration's labeling laws. Jerald Horst, a Louisiana seafood writer and former state fisheries specialist, said mislabeling runs rampant in the seafood industry. He said many of the big vendors want to keep the status quo -- in other words, lackluster enforcement of labeling. "There's a lot of pressure from the major institutions for them not to do it," Mr. Horst said. "They want the freedom to do 'creative marketing.'" Lauren Sucher, an FDA spokeswoman, said mislabeling is illegal and pointed out that the agency inspects and enforces labeling laws, handing out warnings and fines. * Stephen Tillery Against Reinstatement of Justice Karmeier ----------------------------------------------------------- BND.com reports that some attorneys wish they didn't have Illinois Supreme Court Justice Lloyd Karmeier as a thorn in their side, and now they're apparently willing to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to try to get the voters to boot him off the bench. Justice Karmeier is running for retention after 10 years of service on the high court. With the Nov. 4 election just around the corner, an anti-Karmeier group has formed and so far has bought $561,700 in advertising urging people not to retain him. More is expected. St. Louis attorney Stephen Tillery wants to get a $10 billion judgment reinstated in the Philip Morris class-action lawsuit that originated in Madison County. Two attorneys from his firm have contributed a combined $500,000 to the anti-Karmeier effort. Justice Karmeier previously voted to overturn the judgment, so it's easy to understand why Mr. Tillery doesn't want him on the high court when the case comes back before the court. The plaintiffs' attorneys stand to collect $1.77 billion in legal fees if that $10 billion judgment is upheld. ********* 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 202-362-8552. * * * End of Transmission * * *