/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/141124.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, November 24, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 233 Headlines 317 AMSTERDAM: Faces "Meza" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime 4 RUNNERS INC: Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages & Damages ALBANY MOLECULAR: Sued in N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Reports AMERICAN EQUITY: Posts $2.2MM Net Benefit From Class Suit Accord AMERICAN REALTY: Sued in N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Reports ANCHOR DRILLING: Faces "Wolfe' Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ARENA PHARMACEUTICALS: Files Brief in Response to Appeal ASTEX PHARMACEUTICALS: Del. Chancery Court Dismisses Class Action BARRETT BUSINESS: Investors File Securities Class Action BAYER INC: Court Certifies Ontario Class Suit Over Yasmin, YAZ BP WEST: Read, Williamson to Introduce Class Suit Judgments Bill CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Discovery Proceeding in "Marchese" Case CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Court Okays Class Notice Distribution Plan CAREER EDUCATION: Court Dismisses Axis Insurance Suit CAREER EDUCATION: Six Individuals Won't Participate in Settlement CAREER EDUCATION: Court Stayed "Enea" Case Pending Appeal CAREER EDUCATION: "Surrett" Case Stayed Pending Appeal CAREER EDUCATION: 97 Plaintiffs Not Within Purview of Settlement CAREER EDUCATION: Parties to Complete Fact Discovery by Jan. 30 CHIQUITA BRANDS: Plaintiff to Pursue Damages Action COCA-COLA COMPANY: Falsely Marketed Juice Products, Action Claims COCA-COLA COMPANY: Faces "Enslin" Suit Over Alleges Data Breach CONSOLIDATION COAL: Faces Class Action Over 1968 Mine Explosion COTY INC: Files Motion to Dismiss Securities Litigation ELECTRONIC ARTS: Settles Athletes' Class Action for $40 Million EPLUS INC: Received Payment of $6.2 Million From Class Action FEDERAL SAVINGS: "McDermott" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT FIRST STEP: Faces "Frank" Suit in Wis. Over Violation of FDCPA FREDDIE MAC: Court Dismissed OPERS Class Action FREDDIE MAC: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Claims GENERAL MOTORS: Seeks Dismissal of Ignition Defect Class Action GOOGLE INC: Does Not Pay Workers Properly, "McPherson" Suit Says GYRODYNE COMPANY: Case Conference Adjourned Until March 2015 HANGER INC: Sued in W.D. Texas Over Misleading Financial Reports HOME DEPOT: Faces Firefighters Credit Union Suit Over Data Breach IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Defendants File Motion to Dismiss Nasyrova Case KAFFE 2 INC: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Fernandez" Suit Says KENTUCKY: Teacher Retirement System Faces Class Action LA CAIMANERA: "Ruiz" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages LM RESTAURANT: Sued in N.Y. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages MCCLATCHY COMPANY: Sacramento Bee Carriers Misclassified MCCLATCHY COMPANY: First Phase of Fresno Bee Case to Begin in Q4 MCDERMOTT INT'L: Motion to Dismiss Class Action Still Pending MEXICAN RADIO: Faces "Spiciarich" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT MOVE INC: Faces "Suprina" Stockholder Class Action MRV COMMUNICATIONS: "Vo" Class Action in Discovery Phase MYLAN INC: Court Drops 775 Self-Funded Customers in Class Suit MYLAN INC: $54.3MM in Settlement Payments Made MYLAN INC: Discovery Now Closed in Modafinil Antitrust Litigation MYLAN INC: No Longer Named as Defendant in Minocycline Complaint MYLAN INC: Filed Motion to Dismiss Pioglitazone Complaint MYLAN INC: Accrued $13.4 Million on Product Liability NATIONAL AUSTRALIA: To Settle Class Action Over Late Fees NET 1: No Motion for Class Certification Filed in Securities Case NETSOL TECHNOLOGIES: Class Not Yet Established in Rand-Heart Case NOVATION COMPANIES: Carpenters' Health Fund Suit in Early Stage OCEAN ENTERPRISES: "Guido" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ORSID REALTY: Sued Over Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act PACIFIC PREMIER: Mulls Filing of Summary Judgment Motion PETRON INDUSTRIES: Faces "Fox" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages PNC FINANCIAL: Petition for Writ of Certiorari Denied POWERSECURE INT'L: Consolidated Amended Complaint Due December 9 PNC FINANCIAL: Updates in Lender-Placed Insurance Litigation RAPID CAPITAL: Faces "Eckstein" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime RAYONIER INC: Faces "Brown" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports SALIX PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports SENIOR HEALTH-TREASURE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages SNY INC: "Soto" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages SPRINT CORPORATION: Files Petition to Appeal Certification Order STATE AUTO: To Defend Against "Schumacher" Class Action SWS GROUP: Stockholders Seek Expedited Proceedings in Class Suit SUNEDISON INC: "Jones" Plaintiffs File Motion for Reconsideration SYNGENTA CORP: Faces Rye Farms Suit Over Viptera Corn TAKATA CORP: Destroyed Evidence of Air Bag Defects, Suit Alleges UNION BANKSHARES: MOU in Suit Over StellarOne Merger Okayed UNITED PARCEL: Trial Scheduled for June 2015 in Class Action UNITED PARCEL: Provides Updates in Class Action in Canada UNITED PARCEL: Inks Agreement in Case Against Freight Forwarders UNIVERSITE LAVAL: Copibec Files Motion to Launch Class Action VIVUS INC: Appeals Court Sets Jan. 16 Oral Argument in "Kovtun" W. P. CAREY: Judge Granted Motion to Dismiss "Gaines" Complaint WALTER INVESTMENT: Briefing on Motion to Dismiss Completed WEB.COM GROUP: Discovery Has Not Yet Commenced in "Hussin" Case WELLS FARGO: Maryland Mortgage Lending Litigation Now Concluded WELLS FARGO: "Petry" Class Action Now Concluded WELLS FARGO: Appeals Ruling in "Order of Posting" Litigation WELLS FARGO: 9th Cir. Affirms $203MM Judgment in "Gutierrez" Case WELLS FARGO: Accord in Securities Lending Case Has Final Approval WEST VIRGINIA AMERICAN: Faces Class Action Over Chemical Spill ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Discovery Completed in "Reyes" Case ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Discovery Continues in Meridian Funds Case ********* 317 AMSTERDAM: Faces "Meza" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- Amy Meza and Abelino Meza, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. 317 Amsterdam Corp. d/b/a Tolani, Stanton Du Toi, and Turgut Balikci, Case No. 1:14-cv-09007 (S.D.N.Y., November 12, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week. The Defendants own and operate Tolani restaurant located at 410 Amsterdam Avenue, New York, New York 10024. The Plaintiff is represented by: Arsenio David Rodriguez, Esq. Brian Scott Schaffer, Esq. Eric Joshua Gitig, Esq. FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER LLP 475 Park Avenue South 12th Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 300-0375 E-mail: arodriguez@fslawfirm.com bschaffer@fslawfirm.com egitig@fslawfirm.com 4 RUNNERS INC: Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages & Damages --------------------------------------------------------------- Mario Hernandez Gomez and Marina Velasquez, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. 4 Runners, Inc. (d/b/a Istanbul Grill), Dayakli Azman, Erol Doner, and Murat Ersen, Case No. 1:14-cv-08998 (S.D.N.Y., November 12, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own, operate, or control a Turkish restaurant located at310 W. 14th Street, New York, New York 10014 under the name Istanbul Grill. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, PC 60 East 42ndStreet, suite2020 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-162 ALBANY MOLECULAR: Sued in N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Reports ---------------------------------------------------------------- John Gauquie, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Albany Molecular Research, Inc., William Marth, and Michael Nolan, Case No. 1:14-cv-06637 (E.D.N.Y., November 12, 2014), alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Albany Molecular Research, Inc. provides integrated drug discovery, development, and manufacturing services primarily in the United States, Europe, and Asia. The Individual Defendants are officers and directors of Albany Molecular Research, Inc. The Plaintiff is represented by: Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. Kevin Chan, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Ave., 34th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Facsimile: (212) 202-3827 Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com kchan@rosenlegal.com AMERICAN EQUITY: Posts $2.2MM Net Benefit From Class Suit Accord ---------------------------------------------------------------- American Equity Investment Life Holding Company said in a Financial Supplement dated September 30, 2014 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014 that: 1) first quarter 2014 includes a net benefit of $2.2 million from recognizing a decrease in an estimated class action litigation reserve based upon developments in the claim process for settlement of the class action and third party costs incurred during the quarter associated with administration of the settlement, which after related adjustments to amortization of deferred sales inducements and deferred policy acquisition costs and income taxes, decreased net loss and loss per common share -- assuming dilution by $0.9 million and $0.01 per share, respectively. 2) fourth quarter 2013 includes expense of $4.2 million from recognizing an increase in an estimated class action litigation reserve based upon developments in the claim process for settlement of the class action litigation and third party costs incurred during the quarter associated with administration of the settlement, which after related adjustments to amortization of deferred sales inducements and deferred policy acquisition costs and income taxes, decreased net income and earnings per common share -- assuming dilution by $1.9 million and $0.02 per share, respectively. AMERICAN REALTY: Sued in N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Reports --------------------------------------------------------------- Simon Abadi, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. American Realty Capital Properties, Inc., Nicholas S. Schorsch, David S. Kay, Peter M. Budko, Brian S. Block, Lisa E. Beeson, William M. Kahane, Edward M. Weil, Jr., Leslie D. Michelson, Edward G. Rendell, and Scott J. Bowman, Case No. 1:14- cv-09006 (S.D.N.Y., November 12, 2014), alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. American Realty Capital Properties, Inc., owns and manages high- quality real estate throughout the United States and Canada. The individual defendants are officers and directors of American Realty Capital Properties, Inc. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Harry Weiss, Esq. WEISS & LURIE 551 Fifth Ave, New York, NY 10176 Telephone: (212) 682-3025 Facsimile: (212) 682-3010 E-mail: jweiss@weisslawllp.com ANCHOR DRILLING: Faces "Wolfe' Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Nathan Wolfe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Anchor Drilling Fluids, USA, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-01545 (W.D. Pa., November 12, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours a week. Anchor Drilling Fluids, USA, Inc. is one of the largest U.S. independent drilling fluids companies and provides customized fluid solutions and well-site services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua P. Geist, Esq. GOODRICH & GEIST, P.C. 3634 California Ave Pittsburgh, PA 15212 Telephone: (412) 766-1455 Facsimile: (412) 766-0300 E-mail: josh@goodrichandgeist.com ARENA PHARMACEUTICALS: Files Brief in Response to Appeal -------------------------------------------------------- Arena Pharmaceuticals, Inc. filed its answering brief in response to the lead plaintiff's appeal in a class action lawsuit, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014. The Company said, "Beginning on September 20, 2010, a number of complaints were filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of California against us and certain of our current and former employees and directors on behalf of certain purchasers of our common stock. The complaints were brought as purported stockholder class actions, and, in general, include allegations that we and certain of our current and former employees and directors violated federal securities laws by making materially false and misleading statements regarding our BELVIQ program, thereby artificially inflating the price of our common stock. The plaintiffs sought unspecified monetary damages and other relief." On August 8, 2011, the Court consolidated the actions and appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On November 1, 2011, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint. On March 28, 2013, the Court dismissed the consolidated amended complaint without prejudice. On May 13, 2013, the lead plaintiff filed a second consolidated amended complaint. On November 5, 2013, the Court dismissed the second consolidated amended complaint without prejudice as to all parties except for Robert E. Hoffman, who was dismissed from the action with prejudice. On November 27, 2013, the lead plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend the second consolidated amended complaint. On March 20, 2014, the Court denied plaintiff's motion and dismissed the second consolidated amended complaint with prejudice. On April 18, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed a notice of appeal, and on August 27, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed his appellate brief in the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. "On October 24, 2014, we filed our answering brief in response to the lead plaintiff's appeal. Due to the stage of these proceedings, we are not able to predict or reasonably estimate the ultimate outcome or possible losses relating to these claims," the Company said. Arena is a biopharmaceutical company focused on discovering, developing and commercializing novel drugs that target G protein- coupled receptors to address unmet medical needs. ASTEX PHARMACEUTICALS: Del. Chancery Court Dismisses Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- By order of the Delaware Court of Chancery dated November 5, 2014, the following notice is being published. Former stockholders of Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. are urged to review the following notice. IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN RE ASTEX PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.) CONSOLIDATED STOCKHOLDERS LITIGATION ) C.A. No. 8917-VCL NOTICE OF DISMISSAL OF CLASS ACTION AND AGREEMENT TO PAY ATTORNEYS FEES AND EXPENSES TO: All Persons who held shares of Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. at any time during the period from and including September 5, 2013 through October 11, 2013. The purpose of this Notice is to inform you about developments with respect to the above-captioned action (the "Action"), including the benefits conferred on Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Astex") stockholders in connection therewith, the dismissal of the above-captioned consolidated class action (the "Consolidated Action"), an agreement to pay attorneys' fees and expenses to counsel for Plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action, and your right to object to that fee agreement prior to the closure for all purposes of the Consolidated Action. By way of background, plaintiffs commenced the Consolidated Action on behalf of themselves and a putative class of Astex stockholders to challenge a series of transactions set forth in a September 5, 2013 merger agreement between Astex and Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. ("Otsuka"), pursuant to which Otsuka ultimately acquired, through a tender offer (the "Tender Offer"), all outstanding shares of Astex for $8.50 per share in cash (the "Transaction"). Related actions were commenced by other Astex stockholders in state court in California (the "California Actions") to challenge the Transaction on behalf of a similar putative class of Astex stockholders (which were consolidated under Wagner v. Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No. HG13695090 (Alameda Cnty. Sup. Ct. Sept. 17, 2013)). On September 13, 2013, Astex issued an initial Schedule 14D-9 Solicitation/Recommendation Statement (the "14D-9") that, among other things, described the background of the Transaction, the fairness opinion issued in connection with the Transaction, and certain financial projections generated by Astex's management. Plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action and the plaintiffs in the California Actions separately reviewed the 14D-9 and separately filed amended complaints that identified various items that plaintiffs contended should have been, but were not, disclosed to Astex's stockholders in the 14D-9, thus allegedly depriving Astex's stockholders of the ability to make an informed decision whether (i) to tender their shares in support of the Transaction, or (ii) exercise their appraisal rights. Plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action and plaintiffs in the California Actions reached an agreement to coordinate their efforts in prosecuting the litigation arising out of the Transaction. Prior to the expiration of the Tender Offer, plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action and plaintiffs in the California Actions engaged in joint expedited discovery pursuant to which Astex and defendants James S.J. Manuso, Charles J. Casamento, Thomas V. Girardi, Allan R. Goldberg, Walter J. Lack, Harren Jhoti, Peter Fellner, Timothy Haines, and Ismail Kola (collectively, the "Astex Defendants") produced more than 50,000 pages of documents concerning, among other things, the process leading up to the Transaction, the financial analyses performed by Astex's financial advisor, Astex's internal financial projections, and details of its potential pipeline of pharmaceutical products throughout its R&D and commercialization process. The plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action and in the California Actions demanded, among other things, that Astex make certain supplemental disclosures concerning the Transaction, including with respect to the sales process leading up to the Transaction, the financial analyses supporting the fairness opinion provided in support of the Transaction, and, most notably, product-level information concerning Astex's financial projections. On October 1, 2013, Astex issued a supplemental Schedule 14D-9/A Solicitation/Recommendation Statement (the "Supplemental 14D- 9/A"), (accessible on Astex's website at http://www.astx.com,on the website of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission1, or by contacting Plaintiffs' Delaware Counsel by writing to the address listed below or by phone at (302) 295-5310) which included the additional disclosures regarding the Transaction identified above, and which plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action and in the California Actions believe enabled Astex's stockholders to make a more fully informed decision with respect to the Transaction. The Transaction closed on October 11, 2013. Also on October 11, 2013, Otsuka filed a motion and brief in support of judgment on the pleadings and a Motion for Class Certification in the Consolidated Action. On October 17, 2013, Astex and the individual defendants filed a motion and brief in support of judgment on the pleadings in the Consolidated Action, and followed up by filing a similar motion, as well as a renewed motion to stay, in the California Actions. By an Order dated November 1, 2013, the Delaware Court of Chancery (the "Court") certified a class of Astex stockholders (the "Class" as defined in that Order) and appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel in the Consolidated Action. Through their review of the documents and discussions with their financial experts, plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action and in the California Actions jointly concluded that the claims asserted in the Consolidated Action and the California Actions, for which plaintiffs were primarily seeking equitable relief, were either moot due to the supplemental disclosures in the Supplemental 14D- 9/A or did not have merit. As such, Plaintiffs decided not to respond to the Defendants motions for judgment on the pleadings. On November 27, 2013, the parties in both the Consolidated Action and the California Actions submitted stipulations to dismiss their respective actions with prejudice as to the named plaintiffs only and without prejudice as to the remaining members of the Class. The parties did not discuss fees at this time. On November 29, 2013, the Court granted the Stipulation filed in the Consolidated Action and thereby dismissed the Consolidated Action with prejudice as to the named plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action but without prejudice as to any claims belonging to the remaining members of the Class, and retained jurisdiction solely for the purpose of determining plaintiffs' application for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses. On December 10, 2013, a similar order was entered in the California Actions pursuant to the Stipulation filed therewith, granting the parties' request to dismiss the California Actions with prejudice as to the named plaintiffs but without prejudice as to any claims belonging to the remaining members of the Class. Only after the Consolidated Action and the California Actions were dismissed did the parties commence and engage in discussions to resolve issues regarding plaintiffs' counsel's application for fees and expenses and the amount thereof, based on the benefits provided by the supplemental disclosures made on October 1, 2013. After negotiations, defendants have agreed to make a global fee and expense payment to counsel in both the Consolidated Action and the California Actions in the amount of $640,000.00 in total in recognition of the benefit conferred on Company stockholders through the issuance of the Supplemental 14D-9/A, as detailed above, and to resolve any application for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses to be made by counsel for plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action or the California Actions. Plaintiffs intend to seek an order closing the Consolidated Action (the "Closure Order") after the expiration of the objection period (detailed below) (the "Objection Process"). RIGHT TO OBJECT If you are a Class member, you may object to the payment of attorneys' fees and expenses described above. Every objection must be in writing and contain: (i) your name, address, email address, and telephone number; (ii) the number of shares of Astex stock you held prior to the consummation of the Transaction, together with third-party documentary evidence, such as the most recent account statement, showing such share ownership; and (iii) a detailed statement of your objections and all grounds therefore, including any supporting documents to be considered by the Court. Written objections must be received within 45 days of the date of this Notice or NO LATER THAN December 26, 2014. All such objections must identify the case number (C.A. No. 8917-VCL) and must be filed with the Court at: Register in Chancery 500 N. King St. #1551 Wilmington, DE 19801 And copies of all such papers must also be sent to the following Counsel in the Consolidated Action: RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. SEITZ ROSS ARONSTAM & MORITZ LLP Seth D. Rigrodsky Collins J. Seitz, Jr. Brian D. Long Bradley R. Aronstam Gina M. Serra Eric D. Selden 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120 100 S. West Street, Suite 400 Wilmington, Delaware 19803 Wilmington, Delaware 19801 Plaintiffs' Delaware Counsel Counsel for Defendants James S.J. Manuso, Harren Jhoti, Charles J. Casamento, Peter Fellner, Thomas V. Girardi, Ismail Kola, Allan R. Goldberg, Timothy Haines, Walter J. Lack, and Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP Edward B. Micheletti Jenness E. Parker One Rodney Square P.O. Box 636 Wilmington, Delaware 19899 Attorneys for Defendants Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. and Autumn Acquisition Corporation If an objection is filed, and served, in conformity with the procedures outlined in this Notice, a hearing will be held before the Court, in the New Castle County Courthouse, 500 North King Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801, on Thursday, January 8, 2015, at 2:00 p.m. If you do not take the steps described above (or if you make objections and those objections are rejected by the Court), you will be bound by the Closure Order which the Court may enter without further action by the parties or other stockholders following the expiration of the objection period. BARRETT BUSINESS: Investors File Securities Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Aaron Corvin, writing for The Columbian, reports that investors in Barrett Business Services have filed a class-action lawsuit against the Vancouver-based provider of employment services, alleging the company violated federal securities laws by misleading shareholders about its market value. The suit, filed on Nov. 6 in U.S. District Court in Tacoma, seeks an unspecified amount in compensatory damages, to be proved at trial, and other costs such as attorney fees. Three plaintiffs -- Mitchell Arciaga, Joseph Masseli and Vimal Mathimaran -- filed the complaint on behalf of investors who bought stock in Barrett between Feb. 12, 2013, and Oct. 29, 2014. The suit names the company and two officers -- CEO Michael Elich and Jim Miller, the company's chief financial officer -- as defendants. The company on Nov. 10 did not return phone calls seeking comment. Barrett, whose stock trades as BBSI on the Nasdaq exchange, provides temporary staffing, and employee recruitment and placement services. It also acts as a co-employer for clients, handling their human resources responsibilities. Part of the class-action suit focuses on statements by Barrett during the company's third-quarter earnings release on Oct. 28. That's when the company said it showed a net loss of $37.8 million, largely because of an $80 million increase in its self- insured workers' compensation reserve. The company saw its stock price plummet nearly 60 percent, to $18.28 per share. The $80 million increase in the company's self- insured workers' compensation reserve "effectively wiped out the company's past five years of pretax earnings," according to the suit filed by three law firms: Clifford A. Cantor Law Offices of Sammamish; Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP of Los Angeles; and The Wagner Firm of Los Angeles. Among other accusations, the suit alleges Barrett made false or misleading statements, and failed to disclose detrimental facts about its "business, operations and prospects." The company "under-accrued" its self-insured workers' compensation reserves, the suit asserts, and overstated its earnings. Barrett also "lacked adequate internal and financial controls," the suit alleges. As a result of the company's "wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value" of its securities, according to the suit, shareholders have "suffered significant losses and damages." It's unclear how many shareholders could be involved in the class action, according to the suit, but plaintiffs Arciaga, Masseli and Mathimaran "believe that there are hundreds or thousands" of them. "Millions of (Barrett's) shares were traded publicly" between Feb. 12, 2013, and Oct. 29, 2014, according to the suit. Since Barrett's third-quarter earnings release, four other law firms have issued news releases announcing that a class-action lawsuit has been filed against the company and that they're investigating potential violations on behalf of shareholders. Barrett's stock closed down 95 cents on Nov. 10, at $24.28 per share. The company's shares have traded between $18.25 and $102.20 in the past 52 weeks. According to Zacks Equity Research, Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC and Wolf Popper LLP also filed a class action against Barrett and some of its officers on the same allegations. BAYER INC: Court Certifies Ontario Class Suit Over Yasmin, YAZ -------------------------------------------------------------- McKenzie Lake Lawyers LLP would like to inform residents of Ontario that the Ontario class action against Bayer Inc. in respect of its drospirenone-containing contraceptives, YAZ(R) and Yasmin was certified on April 15, 2013. The claim alleges that Bayer Inc. marketed and sold Yasmin(R) and YAZ(R) without properly warning of the alleged increased risks of suffering blood clots (including pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis), heart problems, stroke and gallbladder disease and/or removal, compared to other available oral contraceptives. The class action seeks, among other things, damages for personal injuries suffered relating to the use of Yasmin(R) and/or YAZ(R) as well as consequential damages suffered by family members of users. The Court has not taken a position as to the likelihood of recovery on the part of the plaintiffs or class, or as to the merits of the claims or defences asserted by either side. All Ontario residents who were prescribed and used Yasmin(R) and/or YAZ(R) between December 10, 2004 and January 6, 2009, respectively, and November 30, 2011, as well as family members of those users are automatically included in the class action lawsuit. If someone who was prescribed Yasmin(R) and/or YAZ(R) during the relevant timeframe in Ontario does not want to participate in the class action lawsuit, they must opt-out. Those who opt out of the class action may be entitled to pursue a claim in a separate proceeding. Anyone who wishes to opt-out and not participate in the class action must send a written, signed election, including their name, address and telephone number by February 9, 2015 to: McKenzie Lake Lawyers LLP c/o Yasmin/YAZ Class Action 140 Fullarton St. Suite 1800 London, ON N6A 5P2 To read the complete Yasmin/YAZ Class Action Notice of Certification, please visit http://is.gd/kuqZz5 BP WEST: Read, Williamson to Introduce Class Suit Judgments Bill ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jeff Manning, writing for The Oregonian, reports that a possible $400 million class-action jackpot from BP West Coast Products is, for the second time, proving a powerful lure to Democratic lawmakers in Salem. Nearly 11 months have passed since a Multnomah County District Court jury found that BP gas stations improperly charged millions of dollars worth of debit card transaction fees. Under the verdict, an estimated 2 million people, most of them Oregonians, are eligible to collect $200, making for a total award of approximately $400 million. With the BP case still open, state Rep. Tobias Read, D-Beaverton, and state Rep. Jennifer Williamson, D-Portland, confirmed they intend to introduce legislation in the 2015 session that would use any unclaimed share of class action judgments to fund legal services for the poor. Similar legislation failed in the 2014 Legislature. "I've asked that a bill be drafted and I definitely plan to introduce it," Mr. Read said. "It's about the principle. Whatever happens in that case, we should join the 48 other states that don't return class-action money to the defendant." In virtually every class action lawsuit, some of the payout is never claimed by those damaged. Either the victims can't be found or they don't submit the necessary paperwork. Many states send the unclaimed money to charity, including Legal Aid, a national provider of legal services to low-income. Oregon is one of the only states in the union in which unclaimed money goes back to the defendant company. With legal aid in Oregon already hamstrung by budget cuts and the state's low-income population growing, proponents say new funding is badly needed. "If there is money left over I want it to go to a deserving cause and I think legal aid is that cause," Ms. Williamson said. BP argues it is unfair and possibly unconstitutional for the bill to apply retroactively to this case. "Retroactivity is our biggest problem, changing the rules in the middle of a case," said Brian Doherty, a Portland lawyer who lobbies for the Western Petroleum Association, of which BP is a member. There are plenty of ways to adequately fund low-income legal services, Mr. Doherty said. "Everyone is such a big fan of legal aid," he said. "But there are other options." The bill envisioned by Williamson and Read will be substantially the same as HB 4143, which stalled in the Oregon Senate in the waning days of the 2014 short session. It was divisive piece of legislation that split Oregon's legal community as well as Senate Democrats. Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum, the Oregon Trial Lawyers Association and the Campaign for Equal Justice all backed the bill. Powerhouse corporate law firms like Stoel Rives and Harrang Long, which both represent BP, argued against it. State Sen. Betsy Johnson, D-Scappoose, joined with Senate Republicans voting against the bill, resulting in a 15-15 stalemate that killed the measure. The dominant performance by Oregon Democrats in the Nov. 4 election may have changed the political equation for the bill. After gaining at least one seat in Senate -- making their advantage over Republicans 17-13 vs. 16-14 -- the Democrats can overcome Johnson's role. The Democrats could make it 18-12 if Chuck Riley manages to beat Bruce Starr for the District 15 seat. "Picking up a seat in both the Senate and the House means the politics have definitely changed," Ms. Williamson said. She noted that one of the new senators is Sara Gelser, the Corvallis Democrat who on Nov. 4 beat Republican incumbent Betsy Close. Gelser voted for HB 4143 last spring when she was in the House. Oregonians will soon be hearing much more about the BP case. The firm hired to administer the claims process will in coming days launch an ad campaign informing Oregonians who is eligible and how the process will work. Customers charged debit card fees at ARCO or AM-PM stores between Jan. 1, 2011, and Aug. 30, 2013, are eligible for the $200 payout. David Sugerman, the Portland attorney who launched the BP suit in 2011, was able to recover the names and addresses of the majority of eligible consumers. Under a somewhat unusual system authorized by Multnomah County Circuit Court Judge Jerome LaBarre, those people will receive a $200 check without having to file a claim. Ironically, the ease of that process could reduce the money available for charity. In any case, BP has vowed to appeal the verdict and no one will receive a check until that process is complete. Mr. Sugerman argued successfully that BP's ARCO and AM-PM outlets violated state consumer protection laws by charging a 35- to 45- cent fee to customers who paid with a debit card. The plaintiffs argued the fee was illegal because it wasn't disclosed until customers went to pay. Mr. Sugerman presented evidence at trial that BP charged the fees 13,000 times a day in Oregon. CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Discovery Proceeding in "Marchese" Case ------------------------------------------------------------ Discovery is proceeding in the case, Marchese, et al. v. Cablevision Systems Corporation and CSC Holdings, LLC, the Companies said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014. The Company is a defendant in a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey by several present and former Cablevision subscribers, purportedly on behalf of a class of iO video subscribers in New Jersey, Connecticut and New York. After three versions of the complaint were dismissed without prejudice by the District Court, plaintiffs filed their third amended complaint on August 22, 2011, alleging that the Company violated Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act by allegedly tying the sale of interactive services offered as part of iO television packages to the rental and use of set-top boxes distributed by Cablevision, and violated Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act by allegedly seeking to monopolize the distribution of Cablevision compatible set-top boxes. Plaintiffs seek unspecified treble monetary damages, attorney's fees, as well as injunctive and declaratory relief. On September 23, 2011, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the third amended complaint. On January 10, 2012, the District Court issued a decision dismissing with prejudice the Section 2 monopolization claim, but allowing the Section 1 tying claim and related state common law claims to proceed. Cablevision's answer to the third amended complaint was filed on February 13, 2012. Discovery is proceeding. The Company believes that these claims are without merit and intends to defend this lawsuit vigorously, but is unable to predict the outcome of the lawsuit or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss. Cablevision Systems, through its wholly-owned subsidiary CSC Holdings, LLC, owns and operates cable television systems and owns companies that provide regional news, local programming and advertising sales services for the cable television industry, provide Ethernet-based data, Internet, voice and video transport and managed services to the business market, and operate a newspaper publishing business. CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Court Okays Class Notice Distribution Plan --------------------------------------------------------------- The court approved the class notice distribution plan in In re Cablevision Consumer Litigation, Cablevision Systems Corporation and CSC Holdings LLC said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014. Following expiration of the affiliation agreements for carriage of certain Fox broadcast stations and cable networks on October 16, 2010, News Corporation terminated delivery of the programming feeds to the Company, and as a result, those stations and networks were unavailable on the Company's cable television systems. On October 30, 2010, the Company and Fox reached an agreement on new affiliation agreements for these stations and networks, and carriage was restored. Several purported class action lawsuits were subsequently filed on behalf of the Company's customers seeking recovery for the lack of Fox programming. Those lawsuits were consolidated in an action before the U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, and a consolidated complaint was filed in that court on February 22, 2011. Plaintiffs asserted claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and consumer fraud, seeking unspecified compensatory damages, punitive damages and attorneys' fees. On March 28, 2012, the Court ruled on the Company's motion to dismiss, denying the motion with regard to plaintiffs' breach of contract claim, but granting it with regard to the remaining claims, which were dismissed. On April 16, 2012, plaintiffs filed a second consolidated amended complaint, which asserts a claim only for breach of contract. The Company's answer was filed on May 2, 2012. On October 10, 2012, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification and on December 13, 2012, a motion for partial summary judgment. On March 31, 2014, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification, and denied without prejudice plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. On May 5, 2014, the Court directed that expert discovery commence. Expert discovery is proceeding. On May 30, 2014, the Court approved the form of class notice, and on October 7, 2014, approved the class notice distribution plan. The Company believes that this claim is without merit and intends to defend these lawsuits vigorously, but is unable to predict the outcome of these lawsuits or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss. Cablevision Systems, through its wholly-owned subsidiary CSC Holdings, LLC, owns and operates cable television systems and owns companies that provide regional news, local programming and advertising sales services for the cable television industry, provide Ethernet-based data, Internet, voice and video transport and managed services to the business market, and operate a newspaper publishing business. CAREER EDUCATION: Court Dismisses Axis Insurance Suit ----------------------------------------------------- The Court has entered an order dismissing the action, Axis Insurance Company v. Career Education Company, et al., with prejudice, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014. On December 11, 2013, Axis Insurance Company filed a declaratory judgment action in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Chancery Division, naming the Company and various individuals as defendants in connection with coverage for the recently settled Ross, et al. v. Career Education Corporation, et al. securities class action and shareholder derivative actions that were previously disclosed. Axis sought a declaration of no coverage. On September 29, 2014, the parties entered into a confidential settlement agreement that resolves the matter. On October 21, 2014, the Court entered an order dismissing the action with prejudice. The colleges, institutions and universities that are part of the Career Education Corporation ("CEC") family offer high-quality education to a diverse student population in a variety of career- oriented disciplines through online, on-ground and hybrid learning program offerings. In addition to its online offerings, Career Education serves students from campuses throughout the United States offering programs that lead to doctoral, master's, bachelor's and associate degrees, as well as to diplomas and certificates. CAREER EDUCATION: Six Individuals Won't Participate in Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------- Career Education Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014 that Abarca v. California Culinary Academy, Inc., et al. (filed June 3, 2011; 115 plaintiffs); Andrade, et al. v. California Culinary Academy, Inc., et al (filed June 15, 2011; 31 plaintiffs); Aprieto, et al. v. California Culinary Academy (filed August 12, 2011; five plaintiffs); Coleman, et al. v. California Culinary Academy (filed January 18, 2013; two plaintiffs) are pending in the San Francisco County Superior Court and generally allege: fraud, constructive fraud, violation of the California Unfair Competition Law, violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, breach of contract and violation of the repealed California Education Code. Plaintiffs contend that California Culinary Academy ("CCA") made a variety of misrepresentations to them, primarily oral, during the admissions process. The alleged misrepresentations relate generally to the school's reputation, the value of the education, the competitiveness of the admissions process, and the students' employment prospects upon graduation, including the accuracy of statistics published by CCA. The plaintiffs in these actions seek damages, including consequential damages, punitive damages and attorneys' fees. All of the plaintiffs in these four actions either opted out of or did not fit the class definition in a previously settled class action captioned Amador, et al. v. California Culinary Academy and Career Education Corporation; Adams, et al. v. California Culinary Academy and Career Education Corporation. None of these four actions are being prosecuted as a class action. All of these cases have been deemed related and have been transferred to the same judge who handled the Amador case. The parties participated in a mediation session on April 2, 2014. At that time, there were 79 individual plaintiffs remaining who had not previously settled or dismissed their claims. At the mediation, the Company agreed to settle with 77 of the remaining plaintiffs by paying approximately $2.2 million plus an as yet undetermined amount of attorneys' fees. Accordingly, for the quarter ended September 30, 2014, the Company has a reserve of $3.2 million which is the current estimate of the total amount of the settlement and based on its assessment that the settlement is probable; of which $0.2 million was recorded during the current quarter. Since the mediation, four additional plaintiffs have dropped out of the settlement. As a result, there are six individuals who elected not to participate in the settlement. The Company has settled three of the six cases for an immaterial amount. If the remaining three cases cannot be settled, they will be set for trial at a later date. "Because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise in the future with respect to the three remaining cases, the outcome in those cases is uncertain. Accordingly, we have not recognized any future liability associated with these actions," the Company said. The colleges, institutions and universities that are part of the Career Education Corporation ("CEC") family offer high-quality education to a diverse student population in a variety of career- oriented disciplines through online, on-ground and hybrid learning program offerings. In addition to its online offerings, Career Education serves students from campuses throughout the United States offering programs that lead to doctoral, master's, bachelor's and associate degrees, as well as to diplomas and certificates. CAREER EDUCATION: Court Stayed "Enea" Case Pending Appeal --------------------------------------------------------- The Court has stayed the case Enea, et al. v. Career Education Corporation, California Culinary Academy, Inc., SLM Corporation, and Sallie Mae, Inc. pending a ruling on the plaintiffs' appeal from the Court's order with respect to the motion to strike the class allegations, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014. Plaintiffs filed this putative class action in the Superior Court State of California, County of San Francisco, on or about June 27, 2013. Plaintiffs allege that CCA materially misrepresented the placement rates of its graduates, falsely stated that admission to the culinary school was competitive and that the school had an excellent reputation among restaurants and other food service providers, represented that the culinary schools were well- regarded institutions producing skilled graduates who employers eagerly hired, and lied by telling students that the school provided graduates with career placement services for life. The plaintiffs or putative class members co-signed the loans for students to attend CCA, some of whom were Amador class members. Plaintiffs seek restitution, damages, civil penalties and attorneys' fees. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss and to strike class action allegations on October 31, 2013. A hearing on the motions was conducted on March 14, 2014. Thereafter, the Court issued two separate orders granting the motion to strike the class allegations and the motion to dismiss without leave to amend. Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking leave to file a third amended complaint and/or for reconsideration of the Court's orders. On May 9, 2014, the Court denied plaintiffs' motion to reconsider its order striking the class allegations and granted plaintiffs leave to file a third amended complaint as to some, but not all, of plaintiffs' claims. On May 15, 2014, plaintiffs appealed the Court's ruling with respect to the motion to strike the class allegations. The Court has stayed the case pending a ruling on the appeal. The colleges, institutions and universities that are part of the Career Education Corporation ("CEC") family offer high-quality education to a diverse student population in a variety of career- oriented disciplines through online, on-ground and hybrid learning program offerings. In addition to its online offerings, Career Education serves students from campuses throughout the United States offering programs that lead to doctoral, master's, bachelor's and associate degrees, as well as to diplomas and certificates. CAREER EDUCATION: "Surrett" Case Stayed Pending Appeal ------------------------------------------------------ All proceedings with the trial court in the case, Surrett, et al. v. Western Culinary Institute, Ltd. and Career Education Corporation, have been stayed pending the outcome of an appeal, Career Education said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014. On March 5, 2008, a complaint was filed in Portland, Oregon in the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon in and for Multnomah County naming Western Culinary Institute, Ltd.("WCI") and the Company as defendants. Plaintiffs filed the complaint individually and as a putative class action and alleged two claims for equitable relief: violation of Oregon's Unlawful Trade Practices Act ("UTPA") and unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 10, 2008, which added two claims for money damages: fraud and breach of contract. Plaintiffs allege WCI made a variety of misrepresentations to them, relating generally to WCI's placement statistics, students' employment prospects upon graduation from WCI, the value and quality of an education at WCI, and the amount of tuition students could expect to pay as compared to salaries they could expect to earn after graduation. WCI subsequently moved to dismiss certain of plaintiffs' claims under Oregon's UTPA; that motion was granted on September 12, 2008. On February 5, 2010, the Court entered a formal Order granting class certification on part of plaintiff's UTPA and fraud claims purportedly based on omissions, denying certification of the rest of those claims and denying certification of the breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims. The class consists of students who enrolled at WCI between March 5, 2006 and March 1, 2010, excluding those who dropped out or were dismissed from the school for academic reasons. Plaintiffs filed a fifth amended complaint on December 7, 2010, which included individual and class allegations by Nathan Surrett. Class notice was sent on April 22, 2011, and the opt-out period expired on June 20, 2011. The class consisted of approximately 2,600 members. They are seeking tuition refunds, interest and certain fees paid in connection with their enrollment at WCI. On May 23, 2012, WCI filed a motion to compel arbitration of claims by 1,062 individual class members who signed enrollment agreements containing express class action waivers. The Court issued an Order denying the motion on July 27, 2012. On August 6, 2012, WCI filed an appeal from the Court's Order and on August 30, 2012, the Court of Appeals issued an Order granting WCI's motion to compel the trial court to cease exercising jurisdiction in the case. The oral argument on the appeal was heard on May 9, 2014 and the Company is awaiting the Court's decision. All proceedings with the trial court have been stayed pending the outcome of the appeal. The colleges, institutions and universities that are part of the Career Education Corporation ("CEC") family offer high-quality education to a diverse student population in a variety of career- oriented disciplines through online, on-ground and hybrid learning program offerings. In addition to its online offerings, Career Education serves students from campuses throughout the United States offering programs that lead to doctoral, master's, bachelor's and associate degrees, as well as to diplomas and certificates. CAREER EDUCATION: 97 Plaintiffs Not Within Purview of Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Career Education Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that approximately 97 of the remaining plaintiffs in the Vasquez class action are not within the purview of the settlement arrangement. On June 23, 2008, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the Los Angeles County Superior Court entitled Daniel Vasquez and Cherish Herndon v. California School of Culinary Arts, Inc. and Career Education Corporation. The plaintiffs allege causes of action for fraud, constructive fraud, violation of the California Unfair Competition Law and violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act. The plaintiffs allege improper conduct in connection with the admissions process during the alleged class period. The alleged class is defined as including "all persons who purchased educational services from California School of Culinary Arts, Inc. ("CSCA"), or graduated from CSCA, within the limitations periods applicable to the alleged causes of action (including, without limitation, the period following the filing of the action)." Defendants successfully demurred to the constructive fraud claim and the Court has dismissed it. Defendants also successfully demurred to plaintiffs' claims based on alleged violations of California's former Private Postsecondary and Vocational Educational Reform Act of 1989 ("the Reform Act"). Plaintiffs' motion for class certification was denied by the Court on March 6, 2012. Plaintiffs' counsel have filed eight separate but related "multiple plaintiff actions" originally involving a total of approximately 1,000 former students entitled Banks, et al. v. California School of Culinary Arts; Abrica v. California School of Culinary Arts; Aguilar, et al. v. California School of Culinary Arts; Alday v. California School of Culinary Arts; Ackerman, et al. v. California School of Culinary Arts; Arechiga, et al. v. California School of Culinary Arts; Anderson, et al. v. California School of Culinary Arts; and Allen v. California School of Culinary Arts. All eight cases are pending in the Los Angeles County Superior Court and the allegations in these cases are essentially the same as those asserted in the Vasquez class action case. The individual plaintiffs in these cases seek compensatory and punitive damages, disgorgement and restitution of tuition monies received, attorneys' fees, costs and injunctive relief. All of these cases have been deemed related to the Vasquez class action and therefore are pending before the same judge who is presiding over the Vasquez case. On June 15, 2012, pursuant to a stipulation by the parties, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint in the Vasquez action consolidating all eight of the separate actions. The complaint was thereafter amended to add additional plaintiffs. As a result of these amendments, there were at one time approximately 1,438 plaintiffs, the majority of whom enrolled between 2003 and 2008 (about 10 of the plaintiffs enrolled in 2009 and 2010). On June 22, 2012, defendants filed motions to compel arbitration of plaintiffs' claims. On August 10, 2012, the Court granted the motions with respect to approximately 54 plaintiffs. Nine arbitration demands were filed before the American Arbitration Association, one of which was tried to a final award and eight of which were settled. The remaining plaintiffs' claims were settled prior to arbitration demands being filed. The total liability for all of these claims was an immaterial amount. Following the resolution of these claims, other settlements, and the voluntary dismissal of certain claims, there were approximately 1,047 remaining plaintiffs in the consolidated action. The Company and plaintiffs' counsel have executed an agreement regarding the framework for individual settlements with approximately 950 of the remaining individual plaintiffs. Pursuant to this settlement arrangement, defendants paid $17.5 million to fund the individual plaintiff settlements, attorneys' fees and administrative costs of the settlement, subject to certain excluded costs which defendants will be separately responsible for. The settlement amounts for each individual plaintiff have been determined by a third party. Of the 954 individuals who participated in the settlement, 948 have accepted offers of settlement as determined by the third party, or offers that are not materially greater than the amounts determined by the third party. Any liability to the six remaining plaintiffs is expected to be an immaterial amount. Approximately 97 of the remaining plaintiffs are not within the purview of the settlement arrangement. Because these plaintiffs have not cooperated with their counsel, the Court entered orders allowing their counsel to withdraw. Because they did not thereafter retain new counsel or otherwise participate in the prosecution of their claims, the Court has dismissed all of these individual cases. The colleges, institutions and universities that are part of the Career Education Corporation ("CEC") family offer high-quality education to a diverse student population in a variety of career- oriented disciplines through online, on-ground and hybrid learning program offerings. In addition to its online offerings, Career Education serves students from campuses throughout the United States offering programs that lead to doctoral, master's, bachelor's and associate degrees, as well as to diplomas and certificates. CAREER EDUCATION: Parties to Complete Fact Discovery by Jan. 30 --------------------------------------------------------------- The court has ordered the parties to complete fact discovery as to that issue by January 30, 2015, in the case, Wilson, et al. v. Career Education Corporation, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014. On August 11, 2011, Riley Wilson, a former admissions representative based in Minnesota, filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The two- count complaint asserts claims of breach of contract and unjust enrichment arising from the Company's decision to terminate its Admissions Representative Supplemental Compensation ("ARSC") Plan. In addition to his individual claims, Wilson also seeks to represent a nationwide class of similarly situated admissions representatives who also were affected by termination of the plan. The Company said, "On October 6, 2011, we filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On April 13, 2012, the Court granted our motion to dismiss in its entirety and dismissed plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim. The Court dismissed this action with prejudice on May 14, 2012. On June 11, 2012, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit appealing the final judgment of the trial court. Briefing was completed on October 30, 2012, and oral argument was held on December 3, 2012." "On August 30, 2013, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling on plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim but reversed and remanded for further proceedings on plaintiff's breach of contract claim. On September 13, 2013, we filed a petition for rehearing to seek review of the panel's decision on the breach of contract claim and for certification of question to the Illinois Supreme Court, but the petition was denied. "The case now is on remand to the district court for further proceedings on the sole question of whether CEC's termination of the ARSC Plan violated the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. CEC has answered the complaint, and the parties have commenced fact discovery as to the issue of liability. The Court has ordered the parties to complete fact discovery as to that issue by January 30, 2015. "Because the matter is in its early stages and because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise, the outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this point. Based on information available to us at present, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential loss, if any, for this action. Accordingly, we have not recognized any liability associated with this action." The colleges, institutions and universities that are part of the Career Education Corporation ("CEC") family offer high-quality education to a diverse student population in a variety of career- oriented disciplines through online, on-ground and hybrid learning program offerings. In addition to its online offerings, Career Education serves students from campuses throughout the United States offering programs that lead to doctoral, master's, bachelor's and associate degrees, as well as to diplomas and certificates. CHIQUITA BRANDS: Plaintiff to Pursue Damages Action --------------------------------------------------- Chiquita Brands International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that plaintiff in a class action lawsuit voluntarily withdrew its application for a preliminary injunction and notified the court that it will instead pursue a damages action. On October 7, 2014, a purported shareholder of Chiquita filed a putative class action in Federal Court in New Jersey challenging the combination of Chiquita and Fyffes. The case is captioned City of Birmingham Firemen's and Policemen's Supplemental Pension System v. Chiquita Brands International Inc., et al., Case Number 14-6200-NLH-AMD (D.N.J.). The action names as defendants Chiquita and each of the members of the Chiquita board of directors. The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that the Chiquita board of directors breached its fiduciary duties in various respects concerning the combination and the unsolicited Cutrale/Safra proposal. On October 16, 2014, the judge in the case entered an order that, among other things, denied plaintiff's request for expedited discovery and required the parties to appear for a show cause hearing on October 23, 2014, on plaintiff's application for a preliminary injunction regarding the combination. On October 21, 2014, plaintiff voluntarily withdrew its application for a preliminary injunction and notified the court that it will instead pursue a damages action. Under the current scheduling order the plaintiff has until November 21, 2014 to file an amended complaint. Chiquita and its board of directors believe that the claims asserted against them by the plaintiff are without merit and will defend this case vigorously. COCA-COLA COMPANY: Falsely Marketed Juice Products, Action Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tom Browne, an Individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. The Coca-Cola Company, a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 3:14-cv-02687 (S.D. Cal., November 12, 2014), alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading representations of the Minute Maid Pomegranate Blueberry 100% Fruit Juice Blend, that just 50 mg of algal DHA and four other nutrients support the brain. When in fact the algal DHA found in the Product have no causative link between DHA algal oil supplementation and brain support. The Coca-Cola Company is the world's leading owner and marketer of nonalcoholic beverages. The Plaintiff is represented by: Elaine A. Ryan, Esq. Patricia N. Syverson, Esq. Lindsey M. Gomez-Gray, Esq. BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C. 2325 E. Camelback Rd. Suite 300 Phoenix, AZ 85016 E-mail: eryan@bffb.com psyverson@bffb.com lgomez-gray@bffb.com - and - Manfred P. Muecke, Esq. BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C. 600 W. Broadway, Suite 900 San Diego, California 92101 Telephone: (619) 756-7748 E-mail: mmuecke@bffb.com - and - Stewart M. Weltman, Esq. STEWART M. WELTMAN, LLC 600 W. Broadway, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 756-7748 E-mail: sweltman@weltmanlawfirm.com COCA-COLA COMPANY: Faces "Enslin" Suit Over Alleges Data Breach --------------------------------------------------------------- Shane K. Enslin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. The Coca-Cola Company, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-06476 (E.D. Pa., November 12, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to take reasonable precautions to protect and safeguard costumers personal identifying and financial information. The Coca-Cola Company is the world's leading owner and marketer of nonalcoholic beverages. The Plaintiff is represented by: Donald E. Haviland Jr., Esq. HAVILAND HUGHES LLC 201 S. Maple Avenue, Suite 110 Ambler, PA 19002 Telephone: (215) 609-4661 Facsimile: (215) 392-4400 E-mail: haviland@havilandhughes.com CONSOLIDATION COAL: Faces Class Action Over 1968 Mine Explosion --------------------------------------------------------------- Misty Poe, writing for The Register-Herald, reports that a class action lawsuit was filed in Marion County, claiming that a former (and now deceased) employee of Consolidation Coal and the company itself covered up the actual cause of the 1968 Farmington No. 9 mine explosion. In a suit filed on Nov. 6, plaintiffs Michael D. Michael and Judith A. Kuhn, administrators of the estates of two miners killed in the explosion, on behalf of themselves and the estates of 76 other miners, filed suit against Consol and the estate of Alex Kovarbasich, the chief electrician at the No. 9 mine at the time of the explosion. The plaintiffs are asking for $110,000 per member of the class action suit, interest and punitive damages "for the intentional, grossly negligent and reprehensible actions on the part of the defendants." The suit is partially based on a 1970 memo, written by federal mine inspector Larry Layne, which states that a ventilation fan's safety alarm was disabled prior to the explosion so "when the fan would stop or slow down, there was no way of anyone knowing about it because the alarm signal was bypassed," the memo reads. The suit claims that on June 9, 2014, the identity of the person who intentionally made the fan alarm system inoperable was discovered and that "Kovarbasich was acting under the direction and control of defendant Consolidation Coal Co." The Explosion At about 5:30 a.m. on Nov. 20, 1968, there was an explosion at the No. 9 mine, sending rolling smoke and flames about 150 feet in the air -- the only visible sign of the devastation inside the mine itself where only 21 of the 99 men working the "cateye" shift were able to make it to the surface. Three subsequent explosions happened that day until about 10:00 p.m., though mine rescue teams continued efforts to try to rescue the 78 men still trapped in the mine. But by Nov. 28, air samples showed there was no possible way to sustain human life inside the mine, and by Nov. 30, concrete was poured into the openings to seal off oxygen from the mine to stop the raging fires. That sealed the fate of the 78 men still unaccounted for, and the hopes were dashed of friends and family members holding only fleeting possibilities of rescue. Though the shafts were opened in September 1969 to recover the bodies of the mine disaster victims, after nine years of searching, teams were unable to locate the remains of 19 miners who are now forever entombed in the depths of the mine. COTY INC: Files Motion to Dismiss Securities Litigation ------------------------------------------------------- Coty Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated class action complaint captioned In re Coty Inc. Securities Litigation. During fiscal 2014, two putative class action complaints were filed in the United States Southern District of New York against the Company, its directors and certain of its executive officers alleging violations of the federal securities laws in connection with the Company's IPO. The first complaint, filed on February 13, 2014, was captioned Eugene Stricker vs. Coty Inc., et al., (the "Stricker Action"), while the second complaint, filed February 21, 2014, was captioned Norman C. Carey vs. Coty Inc., et al., (the "Carey Action"). The Stricker Action and the Carey Action have been consolidated under the caption In re Coty Inc. Securities Litigation ("Securities Litigation"), and following the court's appointment of lead plaintiffs and lead counsel, a consolidated and amended complaint (the "Securities Complaint") was filed on July 7, 2014. The Securities Complaint asserts claims against the Company, its directors and certain of its executive officers under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), and seeks, on behalf of persons who purchased the Company's Class A Common Stock in the IPO, rescission, damages of an unspecified amount and equitable or injunctive relief. The Securities Complaint alleges, inter alia, a failure to disclose a negative trend in color cosmetics and nail products sales, the end of a partnership with a retailer, and destocking activity by U.S. mass retailers. In September 2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated class action complaint captioned In re Coty Inc. Securities Litigation. Additionally, in October 2014, the plaintiffs in the Securities Litigation were permitted to file an amended complaint and briefing on the motion to dismiss continues. The Company believes the lawsuits are without merit and intends to vigorously defend them. Coty Inc. and its subsidiaries engage in the manufacturing, marketing and distribution of fragrances, color cosmetics and skin & body care related products in numerous countries throughout the world. ELECTRONIC ARTS: Settles Athletes' Class Action for $40 Million --------------------------------------------------------------- Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that Electronic Arts Inc. agreed to settle a class action lawsuit against it alleging it violated student athletes' rights. EA, the Collegiate Licensing Company and the National Collegiate Athletic Association denied the allegations but agreed to settle the class action lawsuits to avoid the expense and uncertainty of ongoing litigation. EA has agreed to pay $40 million and the NCAA has agreed to pay $20 million to resolve the allegations. Payments to qualifying class members will be determined on a case-by-case basis, according to the Sept. 3 settlement order. The factors that will be taken into consideration include how many years the class member played and the way the player's likeness was used in the NCAA video games, according to settlement documents. Each class member will be designated a certain number of points, which will determine how much of the settlement fund he will be entitled to receive. If a class member does not qualify for any points, he will be entitled to receive $100. All current and former student-athletes residing in the United States who competed on an NCAA Division I college or university men's basketball team or on an NCAA Football Bowl Subdivision men's football team and whose images, likenesses and/or names allegedly have been included or could have been included in or used in connection with NCAA-branded videogames published or distributed from July 21, 2005 until Sept. 3 are eligible to be class members in the class action settlement. All NCAA football and basketball players listed on the roster of a school whose team was included in an NCAA-branded video game originally published or distributed during the period May 4, 2003, to May 4, 2007, and May 5, 2007, through Sept. 3 and whose assigned jersey number appears on a virtual player in the software, or whose likeness was otherwise included in the software are also included as class members. Class counsel will seek incentive payments for the class representatives and the amount of each payment, according to the settlement document. Class counsel will seek payment of attorneys' fees not to exceed 33 percent and expenses not to exceed $2.5 million. Edward O'Bannon and Samuel Keller filed separate class action lawsuits in 2009 claiming the defendants unlawfully required student athletes to sign away their publicity rights and then profited by using their names and likenesses in popular NCAA video games. The plaintiffs are represented by Robert B. Carey, Leonard W. Aragon -- leonard@hbsslaw.com -- and Steven W. Berman of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP; Stuart M. Paynter -- stuart@paynterlawfirm.com -- and Celeste H.G. Boyd of the Paynter Law Firm PLLC; Michael D. Hausfeld, Hilary K. Scherrer -- hscherrer@hausfeld.com -- Sathya S. Gosselin -- sgosselin@hausfeld.com -- Michael P. Lehmann -- mlehmann@hausfeldllp.com -- and Arthur N. Bailey Jr. of Hausfeld LLP; Keith McKenna of the McKenna Law Firm LLC; and Dennis J. Drasco and Arthur M. Owens of Lum, Drasco & Positan LLC. NCAA is represented by Juan Carlos Araneda and David P. Borovsky -- david.borovsky@mbtlaw.com -- of Meckler Bulger Tilson Marick & Pearson LLP ; Gregory L. Curtner, Frederick Richard Juckniess, Kimberly K. Kefalas, Jessica Anne Sprovtsoff, Rocky N. Unruh and Suzanne Wahl of Schiff Hardin LLP; Jason Alex Geller -- jgeller@laborlawyers.com -- of Fisher & Phillips LLP; Raoul Dion Kennedy -- raoul.kennedy@skadden.com -- of Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP; Kelly Max Klaus -- Kelly.Klaus@mto.com -- Carolyn Hoecker Luedtke -- Carolyn.Luedtke@mto.com -- Jeslyn A Miller, Glenn D. Pomerantz, Thane Rehn and Rohit K. Singla of Munger Tolles & Olson LLP; and Glen Robert Olson -- golson@longlevit.com -- of Long & Levit LLP. CLC is represented by Peter M. Boyle -- Pboyle@kilpatricktownsend.com -- William Howard Brewster -- Bbrewster@kilpatricktownsend.com -- Christina E. Fahmy, Svetlana S. Gans, Gregory S. Gilchrist, Cindy Dawn Hanson, R. Charles Henn Jr., Constance K. Robinson and Sara M. Vanderhoff of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP; Courtney Elizabeth Curtis of Gersh Derby LLP, Attorneys of Law; James C. Potepan -- james.potepan@leclairryan.com -- of LeClairRyan LLP; Amber Melia Trincado of King & Spalding LLP; and Matthew S. Weiler -- mweiler@morganlewis.com -- of Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP. EA is represented by Steven A. Hirsch -- shirsch@kvn.com -- Robert Adam Lauridsen -- alauridsen@kvn.com -- Robert James Slaughter, Matan Shacham and Robert Addy Van Nest of Keker & Van Nest LLP. A fairness hearing is scheduled for May 14. The case is assigned to District Judge Claudia Wilken. U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California case number: 4:09-cv-01967 EPLUS INC: Received Payment of $6.2 Million From Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- ePlus inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Company filed a claim in a class action suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California which alleged that ten groups of companies conspired to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize prices of certain flat panels used in many flat screen televisions, monitors and notebook computers. "The Claims Administrator found that we had a valid claim, and on August 6, 2014, issued to us a Notice of Claim Final Determination. On October 20, 2014, the court issued an order directing that approved claims be paid. On October 31, 2014, we received payment in the amount of $6.2 million, which will be recognized in our statement of operations as other income in our third quarter of fiscal 2015," the Company said. ePlus and its consolidated subsidiaries provide leading information technology ("IT") products and services, flexible leasing and financing solutions, and enterprise supply management to enable the Company's customers to optimize their IT infrastructure and supply chain processes. FEDERAL SAVINGS: "McDermott" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT ------------------------------------------------------------ Michael McDermott, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Federal Savings Bank, Neil H. Greenberg, John Calk, and Steve Calk, Case No. 2:14-cv-06657 (E.D.N.Y., November 12, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Federal Savings Bank is a federally chartered bank with branches in Illinois and Kansas and loan production offices in New York, Illinois, Arizona, Colorado, Maryland, New Jersey, Nevada, Texas, Ohio, and Virginia. The Plaintiff is represented by: Neil H. Greenberg, Esq. NEIL H. GREENBERG & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 900 Merchants Concourse, Suite 214 Westbury, NY 11590 Telephone: (516) 228-5100 Facsimile: (516) 228-5106 E-mail: ngreenberg@nhglaw.com FIRST STEP: Faces "Frank" Suit in Wis. Over Violation of FDCPA -------------------------------------------------------------- Annmarie Frank, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. First Step Group, LLC, and Cach, LLC, Case No. 2:14- cv-01425 (E.D. Wis., November 12, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. First Step Group, LLC, and Cach, LLC are debt collection agencies with its principal offices at 4900 Viking Drive, Edina, Minnesota 55435. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. Shpetim Ademi, Esq. John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com FREDDIE MAC: Court Dismissed OPERS Class Action ----------------------------------------------- Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Court granted defendants' motions and dismissed in its entirety the case, Ohio Public Employees Retirement System ("OPERS") vs. Freddie Mac, Syron, et al. Ohio Public Employees Retirement System ("OPERS") vs. Freddie Mac, Syron, et al. is a putative securities class action lawsuit filed against Freddie Mac and certain former officers on January 18, 2008 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio purportedly on behalf of a class of purchasers of Freddie Mac stock from August 1, 2006 through November 20, 2007. FHFA later intervened as Conservator, and the plaintiff amended its complaint on several occasions. The Company said, "The plaintiff alleged, among other things, that the defendants violated federal securities laws by making false and misleading statements concerning our business, risk management, and the procedures we put into place to protect the company from problems in the mortgage industry. The plaintiff sought unspecified damages and interest, and reasonable costs and expenses, including attorney and expert fees." Defendants filed motions to dismiss the second and third amended complaints, which the Court initially denied. On April 13, 2013, the judge who had presided over the case since 2008 recused himself, and the case was reassigned to a new judge. On August 23, 2013, the new judge granted defendants' motion to vacate the previous judge's orders denying defendants' motions to dismiss. Defendants filed new motions to dismiss the complaint on October 8, 2013. On October 31, 2014, the Court granted defendants' motions and dismissed the case in its entirety against all defendants, with prejudice. FREDDIE MAC: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Claims -------------------------------------------------- Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the District Court's decision to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims in the case In re Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement Class Action Litigations. In re Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement Class Action Litigations is the result of the consolidation of three putative class action lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia: Cacciapelle and Bareiss vs. Federal National Mortgage Association, Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation and FHFA, filed on July 29, 2013; American European Insurance Company vs. Federal National Mortgage Association, Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation and FHFA, filed on July 30, 2013; and Marneu Holdings, Co. vs. FHFA, Treasury, Federal National Mortgage Association and Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, filed on September 18, 2013. (The Marneu case was also filed as a shareholder derivative lawsuit.) A consolidated amended complaint was filed on December 3, 2013. In the consolidated amended complaint, plaintiffs allege, among other items, that the August 2012 amendment to the Purchase Agreement breached Freddie Mac's and Fannie Mae's respective contracts with the holders of junior preferred stock and common stock and the covenant of good faith and fair dealing inherent in such contracts. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, equitable and injunctive relief, and costs and expenses, including attorney and expert fees. The Cacciapelle and American European Insurance Company lawsuits were filed purportedly on behalf of a class of purchasers of junior preferred stock issued by Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae who held stock prior to, and as of, August 17, 2012. The Marneu lawsuit was filed purportedly on behalf of a class of purchasers of junior preferred stock and purchasers of common stock issued by Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae over a not-yet-defined period of time. FHFA, joined by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint and the other related cases (including the Arrowood case described below) on January 17, 2014. Treasury filed a motion to dismiss the same day. On September 30, 2014, the District Court granted the motions and dismissed the plaintiffs' claims. On October 15, 2014, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the District Court's decision. GENERAL MOTORS: Seeks Dismissal of Ignition Defect Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Linda Sandler, writing for Insurance Journal, reports that General Motors Co. told a judge that claims in a $10 billion customer class-action over ignition flaws are "misleading" and should be dismissed. The 68 named plaintiffs in the group lawsuit argue that the design defect and alleged concealment at the heart of the case are the responsibility of the new GM, which was born after a 2009 bankruptcy. Of those customers, the automaker argued, more than 44 own cars manufactured by the old GM, and they should be told to file claims with that company. "The majority of named plaintiffs are asserting economic loss claims for old GM vehicles that were resold by dealers or third parties (but not new GM)," the Detroit-based company said in a Nov. 5 court filing in federal bankruptcy court in New York. GM has recalled about 32 million cars this year, at a cost of $2.7 billion. A report by lawyer Anton Valukas found that GM engineers and lawyers knew about a switch defect for at least a decade before those cars were recalled. That led customers, who say resale prices have tumbled since the cars were recalled for repairs, to sue GM for exposing them to accidents and economic loss. Past Errors GM's argument marks the start of a process that will help U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Robert Gerber decide whether rulings he made in 2009 are still valid. The automaker argues that Judge Gerber freed it from responsibility for past errors when he approved the bankruptcy as part of a $49.5 billion U.S. bailout of GM. Customers are scheduled to respond by Dec. 16. Judge Gerber has said he'll schedule a hearing in January and probably take more than a month to make a "difficult" decision on GM's liability to car owners. About 130 car-price lawsuits against GM have been combined in two class actions in Manhattan federal court. The smaller group suit is over cars made before the bankruptcy, while the larger one, which seeks $10 billion, is for automobiles purchased afterward. Combined, the suits seek compensation for almost 30 million recalled cars, of which 14.7 million were made pre-bankruptcy. The automaker has denied that its cars have lost value since the recalls. Price Declines Even so, GM says isn't at fault for any defects and price declines in older cars, as it didn't make them. Steve Berman, one of the lawyers leading the group suit, disagreed. "New GM sells a car in, let's say 2011, with a known bad part," he said in an e-mail on Nov. 9. "Even if made by old GM, it's new GM lying to consumers at this point, and we don't believe they can take refuge behind the bankruptcy of old GM." The old GM creditor trust said that new GM had wrongly "tried to inject it" into the legal battles. It couldn't pay customers with faulty switches without hurting existing creditors, including lender JPMorgan Chase & Co., it told Gerber in a separate filing. The suit's $10 billion demand is for penalties as well as money to cover price declines in recalled cars. The Old GM trust calculates that plaintiffs want $7.4 billion of the total for value losses alone. Mr. Berman says that's accurate. The car-price suits are In re General Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litigation, 14-md-02543, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan). The bankruptcy case is In re Motors Liquidation Co., 09-bk-50026, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan). GOOGLE INC: Does Not Pay Workers Properly, "McPherson" Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jacob McPherson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Google, Inc., Odesk Corporation, and Elance- Odesk, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-09026 (S.D.N.Y., November 12, 2014), arises out of the systematic failure of the Defendants to properly classify and pay their workforce. Google, Inc. is one of the largest and most profitable providers of software services. Odesk Corporation provides a web based platform which enables freelancers and employers to connect in real time. Elance-Odesk, Inc. is the corporation that was formed by the merger of oDesk and Elance. The Plaintiff is represented by: David Harrison, Esq. HARRISSON, HARRISON & ASSOCIATES, LTD 110 Highway 35, 2nd Floor Red Bank, NJ 07748 Telephone: (888) 239-4410 Facsimile: (718) 799-9171 E-mail: nycotlaw@gmail.com - and - Julie Salwen, Esq. ABBEY SPANIER RODD & ABRAMS, LLP 212 East 39th St. New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 889-3700 Facsimile: (212) 684-5191 E-mail: julie.salwen@optonline.com GYRODYNE COMPANY: Case Conference Adjourned Until March 2015 ------------------------------------------------------------ A preliminary conference in a class action lawsuit against Gyrodyne Company of America, Inc. has been adjourned until March 3, 2015, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014. On July 3, 2014, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a putative class action lawsuit against the Company and members of its board of directors (the "Individual Defendants"), and against GSD and Gyrodyne, LLC (collectively, the "Defendants"), in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Suffolk (the "Court"), captioned Cashstream Fund, on Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Paul L. Lamb, et al., Index No. 065134/2014 (the "Action"). The plaintiff in the Action alleges that (i) the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties or aided and abetted the breach of those duties in connection with the Merger and (ii) the Company and the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by failing to disclose material information in the Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus. The plaintiff in the Action seeks, among other things, injunctive relief enjoining the Merger, requiring corrective disclosures in the Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus, compensatory and/or rescissory damages, and interest, attorney's fees, expert fees and other costs. On July 17, 2014, the Court signed an Order to Show Cause submitted by the plaintiff setting a return date of August 5, 2014 on plaintiff's motion for an order (a) preliminarily enjoining consummation of the Merger and (b) granting expedited discovery. The plaintiff subsequently withdrew its motion without prejudice and the Court scheduled a preliminary conference in the case for October 20, 2014, which has been adjourned until March 3, 2015. The Defendants believe the lawsuit is without merit. Gyrodyne Company of America is a self-managed and self- administered real estate investment trust ("REIT") formed under the laws of the State of New York. HANGER INC: Sued in W.D. Texas Over Misleading Financial Reports ---------------------------------------------------------------- City Of Pontiac General Employees' Retirement System, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Hanger, Inc., Vinit Asar, George McHenry, Case No. 1:14-cv-01026 (W.D. Tex., November 12, 2014), alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Hanger, Inc. is a provider of orthotic and prosthetic patient care services and a major distributor of O&P devices in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald T. Drought, Esq. MARTIN & DROUGHT, P.C. Bank of America Plaza, 25th Floor 300 Convent Street San Antonio, TX 78205 Telephone: (210) 227-7591 Facsimile: (210) 227-7924 E-mail: gdrought@mdtlaw.com - and - Gerald H. Silk, Esq. Avi Josefson, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 554-1400 Facsimile: (212) 554-1444 E-mail: jerry@blbglaw.com avi@blbglaw.com HOME DEPOT: Faces Firefighters Credit Union Suit Over Data Breach ----------------------------------------------------------------- Firefighters Credit Union, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Home Depot, Inc., Case No. 1:14- cv-03656 (N.D. Ga., November 12, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to secure and safeguard its customer's personal financial data. The Home Depot, Inc. operates a chain of retail stores that sell a wide variety of merchandise, including tools, home goods, and construction supplies. The Plaintiff is represented by: Tom Withers, Esq. GILLEN, WITHERS & LAKE, LLC Post Office Box 10164 Savannah, GA 31412 Telephone: (912) 447-8400 Facsimile: (912) 629-6347 E-mail: twithers@gwllawfirm.com - and - Anthony C. Lake, Esq. GILLEN WITHERS & LAKE, LLC One Securities Centre, Suite 1050 3490 Piedmont Road, N.E. Atlanta, GA 30305 Telephone: (404) 842-9700 Facsimile: (404) 842-9750 E-mail: aclake@gwllawfirm.com - and - Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq. Joseph C. Bournem Esq. Eric S. Taubel, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC Canadian Pacific Plaza 120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 333-8844 Facsimile: (612) 339-6622 E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com jbourne@gustafsongluek.com etaubel@gustafsongluek.com - and - Nicole Lavallee, Esq. BERMAN DEVALERIO One California Street, Suite 900 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 433-3200 Facsimile: (415) 433-6382 E-mail: nlavallee@bermandevalerio.com - and - Patrick T. Egan, Esq. BERMAN DEVALERIO One Liberty Square Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 542-8300 Facsimile: (617) 542-1194 E-mail: pegan@bermandevalerio.com IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Defendants File Motion to Dismiss Nasyrova Case ----------------------------------------------------------------- Immunomedics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint in the case styled Nasyrova v. Immunomedics, Inc. A putative class action lawsuit, styled Nasyrova v. Immunomedics, Inc., was filed on February 27, 2014 in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The lawsuit alleges that the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors failed to disclose and/or made material misstatements in the Company's public filings relating to the termination of the Nycomed Agreement. In particular, the complaint alleges that defendants failed to make timely disclosure concerning a dispute concerning a delay in the development of veltuzumab. On October 9, 2013, the Company announced that the Nycomed Agreement was terminated. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On June 24, 2014 the District Court entered an order appointing John Neff as lead plaintiff and The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. as lead counsel. Lead plaintiff and lead counsel thereafter filed an Amended Class Action Complaint on August 8, 2014. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint on September 22, 2014. The defendants believe that the allegations in the class action complaint are without merit and intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously; however, there can be no assurance regarding the ultimate outcome of this lawsuit. Immunomedics is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company developing monoclonal antibody-based products for the targeted treatment of cancer, autoimmune and other serious diseases. KAFFE 2 INC: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Fernandez" Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Rosendo Leon Fernandez, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Kaffe 2 Inc. (d/b/a Kaffe 1668), Mikael Tjarnberg, Tomas Tjarnberg, and David Aaron Brask, Case No. :14- cv-08996 (S.D.N.Y., November 12, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 401 Greenwich Street, New York, New York, NY 10013. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, PC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2020 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212)317-1200 KENTUCKY: Teacher Retirement System Faces Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ WHAS11 reports that a duPont Manual High School teacher has filed a class action lawsuit against the Kentucky Teacher Retirement System. Teachers say Kentucky has significantly underfunded the state pension system for years. Randolph Wieck, a teacher, has now filed a class action lawsuit in Jefferson County. He says teachers don't have access to social security so their pension plan is it. Mr. Wieck says he has filed this lawsuit to inform teachers across the state of what's happening. He says there could be more legal action to come. LA CAIMANERA: "Ruiz" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sandra Ruiz, and others similarly situated individuals v. La Caimanera Futsal, LLC, Gustavo A Mittlemeyer Jimenez, Daniel Gil Lopez, and Juan L. Acevedo Bueno, Case No. 1:14-cv-24291 (S.D. Fla., November 12, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate bar and restaurant 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 LM RESTAURANT: Sued in N.Y. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Kelly Escaravage, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. LM Restaurant Group LLC, East 54th Management LLC, Disco Sushi Inc., Michael Sinensky, and Sean McGarr, Case No. 1:14-cv-09008 (S.D.N.Y., November 12, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate restaurant within New York City. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian Scott Schaffer, Esq. Eric Joshua Gitig, Esq. Nicholas Paul Melito, Esq. FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP 475 Park Avenue South, 12th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 300-0375 Facsimile: (212) 481-1333 E-mail: bschaffer@fslawfirm.com egitig@fslawfirm.com nmelito@fslawfirm.com MCCLATCHY COMPANY: Sacramento Bee Carriers Misclassified -------------------------------------------------------- The McClatchy Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 28, 2014, that the court in the Sacramento Bee class action case issued a tentative decision following the first phase, finding that the carriers that contracted directly with The Sacramento Bee during the period from February 2005 to July 2009 were misclassified as independent contractors. In December 2008, carriers of The Fresno Bee filed a purported class action lawsuit against us and The Fresno Bee in the Superior Court of the State of California in Fresno County captioned Becerra v. The McClatchy Company ("Fresno case") alleging that the carriers were misclassified as independent contractors and seeking mileage reimbursement. In February 2009, a substantially similar lawsuit, Sawin v. The McClatchy Company, involving similar allegations was filed by carriers of The Sacramento Bee ("Sacramento case") in the Superior Court of the State of California in Sacramento County. Both courts have certified the class in these cases. The class consists of roughly 5,000 carriers in the Sacramento case and 3,500 carriers in the Fresno case. The plaintiffs in both cases are seeking unspecified damages for mileage reimbursement. With respect to the Sacramento case, in September 2013, all wage and hour claims were dismissed and the only remaining claim is an equitable claim under the California Civil Code for mileage. In the Fresno case, in March 2014, all wage and hour claims were dismissed and the only remaining claim is an equitable claim for mileage reimbursement under the California Civil Code. The court in the Sacramento case has trifurcated the trial into three separate phases: the first phase addressed independent contractor status, the second phase will address liability, if any, and the third phase will address damages, if any. On September 22, 2014, the court in the Sacramento case issued a tentative decision following the first phase, finding that the carriers that contracted directly with The Sacramento Bee during the period from February 2005 to July 2009 were misclassified as independent contractors. "We have asked for clarification of the tentative decision and the decision is under review. When a final decision is issued, we will have an opportunity to object. The court has not yet established a date for the second and third phases of trial concerning whether The Sacramento Bee is liable to the carriers in the class for mileage reimbursement or owes any damages," the Company said. MCCLATCHY COMPANY: First Phase of Fresno Bee Case to Begin in Q4 ---------------------------------------------------------------- The McClatchy Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 28, 2014, that the first phase of the Fresno Bee class action case is expected to begin in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2014. In December 2008, carriers of The Fresno Bee filed a purported class action lawsuit against us and The Fresno Bee in the Superior Court of the State of California in Fresno County captioned Becerra v. The McClatchy Company ("Fresno case") alleging that the carriers were misclassified as independent contractors and seeking mileage reimbursement. In February 2009, a substantially similar lawsuit, Sawin v. The McClatchy Company, involving similar allegations was filed by carriers of The Sacramento Bee ("Sacramento case") in the Superior Court of the State of California in Sacramento County. Both courts have certified the class in these cases. The class consists of roughly 5,000 carriers in the Sacramento case and 3,500 carriers in the Fresno case. The plaintiffs in both cases are seeking unspecified damages for mileage reimbursement. The court in the Fresno case has bifurcated the trial into two separate phases: the first phase will address independent contractor status and liability for mileage reimbursement and the second phase will address damages, if any. The first phase of the Fresno case is expected to begin in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2014. MCDERMOTT INT'L: Motion to Dismiss Class Action Still Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- McDermott International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit is still pending before the District Court. The Company said, "On August 15, 2013 and August 20, 2013, two separate alleged purchasers of our common stock filed purported class action complaints against us, Stephen M. Johnson and Perry L. Elders in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. Both of the complaints sought to represent a class of purchasers of our stock between November 6, 2012 and August 5, 2013, and alleged, among other things, that the defendants violated federal securities laws by disseminating materially false and misleading information and failing to disclose material information relating to weaknesses in project bidding and execution, poor risk evaluation, poor project management and losses in each of our reporting segments. Each complaint sought relief, including unspecified compensatory damages and an award for attorneys' fees and other costs." "By order dated December 5, 2013, the District Court consolidated the two cases and appointed a lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's counsel. The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint on February 6, 2014. The consolidated amended complaint asserts substantially the same claims as were made in the two original complaints, with some additional factual allegations, and purports to extend the class period to August 6, 2013. It also seeks relief, including unspecified compensatory damages and an award for attorneys' fees and other costs. "On April 7, 2014, MII and the other defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case. On May 22, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss, and MII and the other defendants filed a reply in support of the defendants' motion to dismiss on June 23, 2014. The motion to dismiss is still pending before the District Court. "We believe the substantive allegations contained in the consolidated amended complaint are without merit, and we intend to defend against these claims vigorously." McDermott International, Inc. delivers fixed and floating production facilities, pipeline installations and subsea systems from concept to commissioning. MEXICAN RADIO: Faces "Spiciarich" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Spiciarich, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Mexican Radio Corp., Mexican Radio Hudson, LLC, William Young, and Lori Selden, Case No. 1:14-cv-09009 (S.D.N.Y., November 12, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week. The Defendants own and operate a Mexican Radio restaurants located at 19 Cleveland Place, New York, New York 10012 and 537 Warren Street, Hudson, New York 12534. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian Scott Schaffer, Esq. Eric Joshua Gitig, Esq. FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP 475 Park Avenue South, 12th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 300-0375 Facsimile: (212) 481-1333 E-mail: bschaffer@fslawfirm.com egitig@fslawfirm.com MOVE INC: Faces "Suprina" Stockholder Class Action -------------------------------------------------- Move Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that Jamie Suprina filed on October 24, 2014, a purported class action lawsuit on behalf of Move stockholders in the Superior Court of the State of California in the County of Santa Clara against Move's directors alleging, among other things, that the Move directors breached their fiduciary duties by allegedly agreeing to sell Move at an unfair and inadequate price and by allegedly failing to take steps to maximize the sales price of Move. The plaintiff further alleges that Move has failed to make adequate disclosures relating to the financial projections and analysis and the background of the proposed transaction. The complaint seeks to enjoin the merger and other equitable relief. The plaintiff also seeks attorneys' and expert fees. Each of Move and the directors believe that the plaintiff's purported claims against the directors lack merit and each of them intends to contest the respective claims against them vigorously. With realtor.com(R) as flagship web site and brand, Move, Inc. is a real estate information marketplace connecting consumers with the information and the expertise they need to make informed home buying, selling, financing and renting decisions. MRV COMMUNICATIONS: "Vo" Class Action in Discovery Phase -------------------------------------------------------- MRV Communications, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, the Company is currently in the discovery phase of the case, Nhan T. Vo, individually and on behalf of other aggrieved employees vs. the Company, Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. On June 27, 2013, the plaintiff in this matter filed a lawsuit against the Company alleging claims for failure to properly pay overtime or provide meal and rest breaks to its non-exempt employees in California, among other things. The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages and penalties under provisions of the Labor Code, including the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act. The Company has filed an answer denying all allegations regarding the plaintiff's claims and asserting various defenses. The Company is currently in the discovery phase of this case. MRV Communications, Inc. ("MRV" or the "Company"), a Delaware corporation, is a global supplier of communications solutions to telecommunications service providers, enterprises and governments throughout the world. MYLAN INC: Court Drops 775 Self-Funded Customers in Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The court granted both plaintiffs' motion to amend the complaint and their motion to dismiss 775 self-funded customers in the class action related to Lorazepam and Clorazepate, Mylan Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014. On June 1, 2005, a jury verdict was rendered against Mylan, MPI, and co-defendants Cambrex Corporation and Gyma Laboratories in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in the amount of approximately $12.0 million, which has been accrued for by the Company. The jury found that Mylan and its co-defendants willfully violated Massachusetts, Minnesota and Illinois state antitrust laws in connection with API supply agreements entered into between the Company and its API supplier (Cambrex) and broker (Gyma) for two drugs, Lorazepam and Clorazepate, in 1997, and subsequent price increases on these drugs in 1998. The case was brought by four health insurers who opted out of earlier class action settlements agreed to by the Company in 2001 and represents the last remaining antitrust claims relating to Mylan's 1998 price increases for Lorazepam and Clorazepate. Following the verdict, the Company filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law, a motion for a new trial, a motion to dismiss two of the insurers and a motion to reduce the verdict. On December 20, 2006, the Company's motion for judgment as a matter of law and motion for a new trial were denied and the remaining motions were denied on January 24, 2008. In post-trial filings, the plaintiffs requested that the verdict be trebled and that request was granted on January 24, 2008. On February 6, 2008, a judgment was issued against Mylan and its co-defendants in the total amount of approximately $69.0 million, which, in the case of three of the plaintiffs, reflects trebling of the compensatory damages in the original verdict (approximately $11.0 million in total) and, in the case of the fourth plaintiff, reflects their amount of the compensatory damages in the original jury verdict plus doubling this compensatory damage award as punitive damages assessed against each of the defendants (approximately $58.0 million in total), some or all of which may be subject to indemnification obligations by Mylan. Plaintiffs are also seeking an award of attorneys' fees and litigation costs in unspecified amounts and prejudgment interest of approximately $8.0 million. The Company and its co-defendants appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and have challenged the verdict as legally erroneous on multiple grounds. The appeals were held in abeyance pending a ruling on the motion for prejudgment interest, which has been granted. Mylan has contested this ruling along with the liability finding and other damages awards as part of its appeal, which was filed in the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. On January 18, 2011, the Court of Appeals issued a judgment remanding the case to the District Court for further proceedings based on lack of diversity with respect to certain plaintiffs. On June 13, 2011, Mylan filed a certiorari petition with the U.S. Supreme Court requesting review of the judgment of the D.C. Circuit. On October 3, 2011, the certiorari petition was denied. The case is now proceeding before the District Court. On January 14, 2013, following limited court-ordered jurisdictional discovery, the plaintiffs filed a fourth amended complaint containing additional factual averments with respect to the diversity of citizenship of the parties, along with a motion to voluntarily dismiss 775 (of 1,387) self-funded customers whose presence would destroy the District Court's diversity jurisdiction. The plaintiffs also moved for a remittitur (reduction) of approximately $8.1 million from the full damages award. Mylan's brief in response to the new factual averments in the complaint was filed on February 13, 2013. On July 29, 2014, the court granted both plaintiffs' motion to amend the complaint and their motion to dismiss 775 self-funded customers. In connection with the Company's appeal of the judgment, the Company submitted a surety bond underwritten by a third-party insurance company in the amount of $74.5 million in February 2008. On May 30, 2012, the District Court ordered the amount of the surety bond reduced to $66.6 million. Mylan is a global pharmaceutical company, which develops, licenses, manufactures, markets and distributes generic, branded generic and specialty pharmaceuticals. MYLAN INC: $54.3MM in Settlement Payments Made ---------------------------------------------- There were $54.3 million of settlement payments made during the nine months ended September 30, 2014 related to Pricing and Medicaid Litigation, Mylan Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014. Beginning in September 2003, Mylan, MPI and/or Mylan Institutional Inc. (formerly known as UDL Laboratories, Inc. and hereafter "MII"), a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, together with many other pharmaceutical companies, were named in civil lawsuits filed by state attorneys general ("AGs") and municipal bodies within the state of New York alleging generally that the defendants defrauded the state Medicaid systems by allegedly reporting Average Wholesale Prices ("AWP") and/or "Wholesale Acquisition Costs" that exceeded the actual selling price of the defendants' prescription drugs, causing state programs to overpay pharmacies and other providers. Mylan, MPI and/or MII were named as defendants in substantially similar civil lawsuits filed by the AGs of Alabama, Alaska, California, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah and Wisconsin, and also by the city of New York and approximately 40 counties across New York State. Several of these cases were transferred to the AWP multi-district litigation proceedings pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts for pretrial proceedings. Other cases have been litigated in the state courts in which they were filed. Each of the cases involved money damages, civil penalties and/or double, treble or punitive damages, counsel fees and costs, equitable relief and/or injunctive relief. Mylan and its subsidiaries have denied liability and have defended each of these actions vigorously. In May 2008, an amended complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts by a private plaintiff on behalf of the United States of America against Mylan, MPI, MII and several other generic manufacturers. The original complaint was filed under seal in April 2000, and Mylan, MPI and MII were added as parties in February 2001. The claims against Mylan, MPI, MII and the other generic manufacturers were severed from the April 2000 complaint (which remains under seal) as a result of the federal government's decision not to intervene in the action as to those defendants. The complaint alleged violations of the False Claims Act and set forth allegations substantially similar to those alleged in the state AG cases mentioned in the preceding paragraph and purported to seek nationwide recovery of any and all alleged overpayment of the "federal share" under the Medicaid program, as well as treble damages and civil penalties. In December 2010, the Company completed a settlement of this case (except for the claims related to the California federal share) and the Texas state action mentioned above. This settlement resolved a significant portion of the damages claims asserted against Mylan, MPI and MII in the various pending pricing litigations. In addition, Mylan reached settlements of the Alabama, Alaska, California (including the federal share), Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Mississippi, New York state and county, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah and Wisconsin state actions, which comprise the balance of all such lawsuits that have been filed against Mylan. The Company had accrued approximately $56.0 million at December 31, 2013. There were $54.3 million of settlement payments made during the nine months ended September 30, 2014. Dey L.P. (now known as Mylan Specialty L.P. and herein as "Mylan Specialty"), a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, was named as a defendant in several class actions brought by consumers and third-party payors. Mylan Specialty reached a settlement of these class actions, which was approved by the court and all claims have been dismissed. Additionally, a complaint was filed under seal by a plaintiff on behalf of the United States of America against Mylan Specialty in August 1997. In August 2006, the Government filed its complaint-in-intervention and the case was unsealed in September 2006. The Government asserted that Mylan Specialty was jointly liable with a codefendant and sought recovery of alleged overpayments, together with treble damages, civil penalties and equitable relief. Mylan Specialty completed a settlement of this action in December 2010. These cases all have generally alleged that Mylan Specialty falsely reported certain price information concerning certain drugs marketed by Mylan Specialty, that Mylan Specialty caused false claims to be made to Medicaid and to Medicare, and that Mylan Specialty caused Medicaid and Medicare to make overpayments on those claims. Under the terms of the purchase agreement with Merck KGaA, Mylan is fully indemnified for the claims in the preceding paragraph and Merck KGaA is entitled to any income tax benefit the Company realizes for any deductions of amounts paid for such pricing litigation. Under the indemnity, Merck KGaA is responsible for all settlement and legal costs, and, as such, these settlements had no impact on the Company's Consolidated Statements of Operations. At September 30, 2014, the Company has accrued approximately $63.3 million in other current liabilities, which represents its estimate of the remaining amount of anticipated income tax benefits due to Merck KGaA. Substantially all of Mylan Specialty's known claims with respect to this pricing litigation have been settled. Mylan is a global pharmaceutical company, which develops, licenses, manufactures, markets and distributes generic, branded generic and specialty pharmaceuticals. MYLAN INC: Discovery Now Closed in Modafinil Antitrust Litigation ----------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery has now closed in the Modafinil Antitrust Litigation, Mylan Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014. Beginning in April 2006, Mylan and four other drug manufacturers have been named as defendants in civil lawsuits filed in or transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania by a variety of plaintiffs purportedly representing direct and indirect purchasers of the drug Modafinil and in a lawsuit filed by Apotex, Inc., a manufacturer of generic drugs. These actions allege violations of federal antitrust and state laws in connection with the generic defendants' settlement of patent litigation with Cephalon relating to Modafinil. Discovery has now closed. On June 23, 2014, the court granted the defendants' motion for partial summary judgment (and denied the corresponding plaintiffs' motion) dismissing plaintiffs' claims that the defendants had engaged in an overall conspiracy to restrain trade. Additional motions remain pending. In addition, by letter dated July 11, 2006, Mylan was notified by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") of an investigation relating to the settlement of the Modafinil patent litigation. In its letter, the FTC requested certain information from Mylan, MPI and Mylan Technologies, Inc. pertaining to the patent litigation and the settlement thereof. On March 29, 2007, the FTC issued a subpoena, and on April 26, 2007, the FTC issued a civil investigative demand to Mylan, requesting additional information from the Company relating to the investigation. Mylan has cooperated fully with the government's investigation and completed all requests for information. On February 13, 2008, the FTC filed a lawsuit against Cephalon in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and the case has subsequently been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On July 1, 2010, the FTC issued a third party subpoena to Mylan, requesting documents in connection with its lawsuit against Cephalon. Mylan has responded to the subpoena. Mylan is not named as a defendant in the FTC's lawsuit, although the complaint includes certain allegations pertaining to Mylan's settlement with Cephalon. Mylan is a global pharmaceutical company, which develops, licenses, manufactures, markets and distributes generic, branded generic and specialty pharmaceuticals. MYLAN INC: No Longer Named as Defendant in Minocycline Complaint ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mylan Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014 that Plaintiffs' consolidated amended complaint was filed on September 12, 2014 in the class acton related to Minocycline, and Mylan and Mylan Laboratories Limited are no longer named defendants in the consolidated amended complaint. On May 1, 2012, the FTC issued a civil investigative demand to Mylan pertaining to an investigation being conducted to determine whether Medicis Pharmaceutical Corporation, Mylan, and/or other generic companies engaged in unfair methods of competition with regard to Medicis' branded Solodyn(R) products and generic Solodyn(R) products, as well as the 2010 settlement of Medicis' patent infringement claims against Mylan and Matrix Laboratories Limited (now known as Mylan Laboratories Limited). Mylan is cooperating with the FTC and has responded to the requests for information. Beginning in July 2013, Mylan and Mylan Laboratories Limited, along with other drug manufacturers, were originally named as defendants in civil lawsuits filed by a variety of plaintiffs in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the District of Arizona, and the District of Massachusetts. Those lawsuits were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The plaintiffs purport to represent direct and indirect purchasers of branded or generic Solodyn(R), and assert violations of federal and state laws, including allegations in connection with separate settlements by Medicis with each of the other defendants of patent litigation relating to generic Solodyn(R). Plaintiffs' consolidated amended complaint was filed on September 12, 2014. Mylan and Mylan Laboratories Limited are no longer named defendants in the consolidated amended complaint. Mylan is a global pharmaceutical company, which develops, licenses, manufactures, markets and distributes generic, branded generic and specialty pharmaceuticals. MYLAN INC: Filed Motion to Dismiss Pioglitazone Complaint --------------------------------------------------------- Mylan Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014 that Mylan and the other defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint related to Pioglitazone on October 10, 2014. Beginning in December 2013, Mylan, Takeda, and several other drug manufacturers have been named as defendants in civil lawsuits consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by plaintiffs which purport to represent indirect purchasers of branded or generic Actos(R) and Actoplus Met(R). These actions allege violations of state and federal competition laws in connection with the defendants' settlements of patent litigation in 2010 relating to Actos(R) and Actoplus Met(R). Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on August 22, 2014. Mylan and the other defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint on October 10, 2014. Mylan is a global pharmaceutical company, which develops, licenses, manufactures, markets and distributes generic, branded generic and specialty pharmaceuticals. MYLAN INC: Accrued $13.4 Million on Product Liability ----------------------------------------------------- Mylan Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014 that the Company is involved in a number of product liability lawsuits and claims related to alleged personal injuries arising out of certain products manufactured and/or distributed by the Company, including but not limited to its Fentanyl Transdermal System, Phenytoin, Propoxyphene and Alendronate. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to these lawsuits and claims and is vigorously defending itself with respect to those matters. From time to time, the Company has agreed to settle or otherwise resolve certain lawsuits and claims on terms and conditions that are in the best interests of the Company. The Company had accrued approximately $13.4 million at September 30, 2014 and $13.8 million at December 31, 2013. "It is reasonably possible that we will incur additional losses above the amount accrued but we cannot estimate a range of such reasonably possible at this time. There are no assurances, however, that settlements reached and/or adverse judgments received, if any, will not exceed amounts accrued," the Company said. Mylan is a global pharmaceutical company, which develops, licenses, manufactures, markets and distributes generic, branded generic and specialty pharmaceuticals. NATIONAL AUSTRALIA: To Settle Class Action Over Late Fees --------------------------------------------------------- Fiona Hudson, writing for Herald Sun, reports that one of the nation's biggest banks is preparing to settle a class action over unfair fees, which could see up to 30,000 customers share in up to $40 million compensation. National Australia Bank boss Andrew Thorburn has flagged to those advising NAB on corporate responsibility that he wants to resolve a long-running case over excessive credit card late fees and other charges. The NAB's surprise move towards a settlement will put pressure on rival banks, fending off similar legal actions, to do likewise. The unfair fees class actions are among the biggest in Australian history. If other major banks follow suit, hundreds of thousands of account holders stand to collect compensation. Law firm Maurice Blackburn has estimated that the various class actions affect up to 45,000 CBA customers, 38,000 ANZ customers and 30,000 Westpac customers. In a letter sent to members of the NAB's Advisory Council on Corporate Responsibility on Nov. 11 -- seen by the Herald Sun -- NAB chief executive Andrew Thorburn revealed that court paperwork was lodged paving the way to wrap up a case which had been running since 2011. The court application was "a first but significant step towards reaching a potential settlement", he wrote. "We are doing this because we believe this is the right thing to do for our customers and our business," he wrote. "Doing the right thing must be reflected not in our words, but in our actions. "This first step to resolve the Bank Fees Class Action demonstrates we are committed to make things right." An interlocutory hearing has been scheduled for November 18 before Federal Court judge Peter Jacobson. If the court approves a joint application by the bank and class action lawyers Maurice Blackburn, NAB customers who haven't already done so will be invited to join the case to get access to any resulting settlement. The Herald Sun understands a final settlement sum will then be negotiated based on the total number of account holders deemed eligible. If the bank's settlement offer is accepted, it is anticipated NAB could distribute payouts to its customers by mid next year. The letter from Mr. Thorburn says the registration process will be managed by IMF -- the company bankrolling bank fees class actions against all of the major Australian financial institutions. There are at least seven different class actions currently under way against Australian banks over excessive fees. The NAB's shock move comes ahead of an imminent ruling on an appeal to the Full Federal Court over a similar case against the ANZ bank over credit card late fees. The appeal followed a ruling from Justice Michelle Gordon earlier this year that ANZ fees of up to $35 were "extravagant and unconscionable". NET 1: No Motion for Class Certification Filed in Securities Case ----------------------------------------------------------------- Net 1 Ueps Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that no motion for class certification has been filed in the class action alleging violations of the federal securities laws. On December 24, 2013, Net1, its chief executive officer and its chief financial officer were named as defendants in a purported class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging violations of the federal securities laws. The lawsuit was brought on behalf of a purported shareholder of Net1 and all other similarly situated shareholders who purchased Net1's securities between August 27, 2009 and November 27, 2013. On July 23, 2014, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On September 22, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint alleging that Net1 made materially false and misleading statements in that it failed to disclose material adverse information and misrepresented the truth about the Company's finances and business prospects. The amended complaint seeks unspecified damages on behalf of the lead plaintiff and all other similarly situated shareholders who purchased Net1's securities between January 18, 2012 and December 4, 2012, which is a shorter class period than proposed in the original complaint. No motion for class certification has been filed. The Company believes this lawsuit has no merit and intends to defend it vigorously. NETSOL TECHNOLOGIES: Class Not Yet Established in Rand-Heart Case ----------------------------------------------------------------- Netsol Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that a class had not yet been established in the Federal Securities class action lawsuit entitled Rand-Heart of New York, Inc. v. NetSol Technologies, Inc., Najeeb Ghauri, Naeem Ghauri, and Salim Ghauri was filed in Central District of California. On July 25, 2014, a Federal Securities class action lawsuit entitled Rand-Heart of New York, Inc. v. NetSol Technologies, Inc., Najeeb Ghauri, Naeem Ghauri, and Salim Ghauri was filed in Central District of California. The action generally alleges the Company violated certain federal securities laws by allegedly issuing false and misleading statements regarding the Company's product and business prospect of that product. Specifically, the complaint alleges the next-generation product did not exist as of November 8, 2011 and there was no reasonable basis for stating that there was a growing interest or serious interest in the product; the product had been gaining momentum or that it had been well received. The plaintiff has alleged the class period to be between November 12, 2009 and November 8, 2013. The Company believes the lawsuit to be meritless and intends to vigorously defend the action including but not limited to motions to dismiss. The Company has engaged counsel and has liability insurance. Given the early stage of the litigation, however, at this time the Company is unable to form a professional judgment that an unfavorable outcome is either probable or remote, and it is not possible to assess whether or not the outcome of these proceedings will or will not have a material adverse effect on the Company. As of the date of the Form 10-Q filing, a class had not yet been established. The Company designs, develops, markets, and exports proprietary software products to customers in the automobile financing and leasing, banking, healthcare, and financial services industries worldwide. The Company also provides system integration, consulting, and IT products and services in exchange for fees from customers. Netsol Technologies designs, develops, markets, and exports proprietary software products to customers in the automobile financing and leasing, banking, healthcare, and financial services industries worldwide. The Company also provides system integration, consulting, and IT products and services in exchange for fees from customers. NOVATION COMPANIES: Carpenters' Health Fund Suit in Early Stage --------------------------------------------------------------- Novation Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the purported class action case filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, by the New Jersey Carpenters' Health Fund, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, is in the early stage of the litigation. On May 21, 2008, a purported class action case was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, by the New Jersey Carpenters' Health Fund, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated. Defendants in the case included NovaStar Mortgage Funding Corporation ("NMFC"), a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, and its individual directors, several securitization trusts sponsored by the Company ("affiliated defendants") and several unaffiliated investment banks and credit rating agencies. The case was removed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On June 16, 2009, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The plaintiff seeks monetary damages, alleging that the defendants violated sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, by making allegedly false statements regarding mortgage loans that served as collateral for securities purchased by the plaintiff and the purported class members. On August 31, 2009, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claims, which the court granted on March 31, 2011, with leave to amend. The plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on May 16, 2011, and the Company again filed a motion to dismiss. On March 29, 2012, the court dismissed the plaintiff's second amended complaint with prejudice and without leave to replead. The plaintiff filed an appeal. On March 1, 2013, the appellate court reversed the judgment of the lower court, which had dismissed the case. Also, the appellate court vacated the judgment of the lower court which had held that the plaintiff lacked standing, even as a class representative, to sue on behalf of investors in securities in which plaintiff had not invested, and the appellate court remanded the case back to the lower court for further proceedings. On April 23, 2013 the plaintiff filed its memorandum with the lower court seeking a reconsideration of the earlier dismissal of plaintiff's claims as to five offerings in which plaintiff was not invested. Given the early stage of the litigation, the Company cannot provide an estimate of the range of any loss. The Company believes that the affiliated defendants have meritorious defenses to the case and expects them to defend the case vigorously. Novation Companies acquires and operates technology-enabled service businesses, with a focus on building and developing these businesses to create long-term value. OCEAN ENTERPRISES: "Guido" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Paul A. Guido, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ocean Enterprises, Inc., a Florida corporation d/b/a "Shuckers"; and Anthony P. Carpentier, individually, Case No. 2:14-cv-14455 (S.D. Fla., November 12, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate a food service business within Martin County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Charles Copeland, Esq. CHRISTOPHER C. COPELAND P.A. 824 W Indiantown Rd Jupiter, FL 33458 Telephone: (561) 691-9048 Facsimile: (866) 259-0719 E-mail: ChrisCopeland@MyFloridaCounsel.com ORSID REALTY: Sued Over Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act ------------------------------------------------------------- Pjeter Gjoni, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Orsid Realty Corp., and 145 East 15th Street Tenants Corp., and Gerardmounic, in his individual and professional capacities, Case No. 1:14-cv-08982 (S.D.N.Y., November 12, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate a full-service real estate management firm in New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander Todd Coleman, Esq. Michael John Borrelli, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES 1010 Northern Blvd., St. 328 Great Neck, NY 11021 Telephone: (516) 248-5550 Facsimile: (516) 248-6027 E-mail: atc@employmentlawyernewyork.com mjb@employmentlawyernewyork.com - and - Todd Dickerson, Esq. BORCHERT, GENOVESI, LASPINA & LANDICINO, P.C 19-02 Whitestone Expressway, Suite 302 Whitestone, NY 11357 Telephone: (631) 786-3380 E-mail: td@employmentlawyernewyork.com PACIFIC PREMIER: Mulls Filing of Summary Judgment Motion -------------------------------------------------------- Pacific Premier Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that in February 2004, Pacific Premier Bank was named in a class action lawsuit titled "James Baker v. Century Financial, et al," alleging various violations of Missouri's Second Mortgage Loans Act by charging and receiving fees and costs that were either wholly prohibited by or in excess of that allowed by the Act relating to origination fees, interest rates, and other charges. The class action lawsuit was filed in the Circuit Court of Clay County, Missouri. The complaint seeks restitution of all improperly collected charges, interest thereon, the right to rescind the mortgage loans or a right to offset any illegal collected charges and interest against the principal amounts due on the loans and punitive damages. In March 2005, the Bank's motion for dismissal due to limitations was denied by the trial court without comment. The Bank's "preemption" motion was denied in August 2006. The Bank has answered the plaintiffs' complaint and the parties have exchanged and answered initial discovery requests. When the record is more fully developed, the Bank intends to raise the limitations issue again in the form of a motion for summary judgment. The Corporation is a California-based bank holding company incorporated in the state of Delaware and registered as a bank holding company under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended ("BHCA"). Its wholly owned subsidiary, Pacific Premier Bank, is a California state-chartered commercial bank. PETRON INDUSTRIES: Faces "Fox" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Greg Fox, on behalf of himselfand others similarly situated v. Petron Industries, Inc. d/b/a Offshore Corp. and Pason Systems USA Corp., Case No. 4:14-cv-03248 (S.D. Tex., November 12, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week. The Defendants provide data management systems for drilling rigs world-wide. The Plaintiff is represented by: Anne Marie Finch, Esq. ZIMMERMAN, AXERAD, MEYER, STERN & WISE, P.C. 3040 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 1300 Houston, TX 77056-6560 Telephone: (713) 552-1234 ext. 108 Facsimile: (713) 212-2790 E-mail: afinch@zimmerlaw.com PNC FINANCIAL: Petition for Writ of Certiorari Denied ----------------------------------------------------- The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014 that in October 2014, in Dasher v. RBC Bank (10-cv-22190- JLK), currently pending for pre-trial proceedings in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida under the caption In re Checking Account Overdraft Litigation (MDL No. 2036, Case No. 1:09-MD-02036-JLK ), the United States Supreme Court denied PNC's petition for a writ of certiorari seeking review of the ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Accordingly, the stay of the court of appeals' ruling is no longer in effect. POWERSECURE INT'L: Consolidated Amended Complaint Due December 9 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Powersecure International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014 that a consolidated amended complaint is due to be filed on or before December 9, 2014 in the Securities Class Action. The Company said, "On May 22, 2014, a putative securities class action lawsuit was filed against us and certain of our executive officers in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. Subsequently, in May and in July 2014, two additional purported securities class action lawsuits were filed against the same defendants in the United States District Courts, one in the Eastern District of North Carolina and the other in the Western District of North Carolina. "On October 10, 2014, these lawsuits were consolidated in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, and a lead plaintiff was appointed. As consolidated, the lawsuit was filed on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased our common stock during a purported class period from August 8, 2013 through May 7, 2014, which is the longer of the two different purported class periods used in the pre-consolidation lawsuits. A consolidated amended complaint is due to be filed on or before December 9, 2014. "The action alleges that certain statements made by the defendants during the applicable class period violated federal securities laws. The lawsuit seeks damages in an unspecified amount, and no determination has been made on the status of the lawsuits proposed as class actions. We believe that the claims asserted in this class action litigation are without merit, and we intend to vigorously defend against all such allegations." PNC FINANCIAL: Updates in Lender-Placed Insurance Litigation ------------------------------------------------------------ The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014 that in August 2014, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida granted in part and denied in part PNC's motion to dismiss in Montoya, et al. v. PNC Bank, N.A., et al. (Case No. 1:14-cv-20474-JEM). Specifically, the court dismissed the breach of contract, Florida deceptive and unfair trade practices, and federal TILA and RICO claims, although it allowed the RICO claims to be re-pled. The remaining claims are state claims for breach of the covenant of good faith, unjust enrichment, the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, and breach of fiduciary duty. Thereafter, in September 2014, on plaintiffs' uncontested motions, the plaintiff in Lauren vs. PNC Bank, N.A., et al. (Case No. 2:14-cv-00230), pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit and a third amended complaint in Montoya was filed adding Lauren as a plaintiff there. In October 2014, PNC moved to partially dismiss the third amended complaint. The motion to dismiss seeks dismissal of the re-pleaded RICO claims and plaintiff Lauren's state law claims for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and breach of fiduciary duty. At the same time, PNC also moved to strike the plaintiffs' nationwide class allegations with respect to the state law claims. Shortly thereafter, the plaintiffs stipulated to this relief, as a result of which the plaintiffs' state law claims are now being brought solely as statewide class action claims in the three states in which the plaintiffs reside. RAPID CAPITAL: Faces "Eckstein" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- Todd Adam Eckstein and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. Rapid Capital Funding II, LLC, Craig I. Hecker, Case No. 1:14-cv-24295 (S.D. Fla., November 12, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly. Rapid Capital Funding II, LLC offers business loan alternatives in the form of business cash advances primarily for small businesses and restaurants. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jamie H. Zidell, Esq. J. H. ZIDELL, PA 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Telephone: (305) 865-6766 Facsimile: (305) 865-7167 E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM RAYONIER INC: Faces "Brown" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports -------------------------------------------------------------- Will Brown, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Rayonier, Inc., David Nunes, Paul G. Boynton, Hans E. Vanden Noort, and H. Edwin Kiker, Case No. 1:14-cv-08986 (S.D.N.Y., November 12, 2014), alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Rayonier, Inc. is a real estate investment trust and engages in the sale and development of real estate and timberland management as well as produces and sells cellulose fibers throughout the U.S., New Zealand, and Australia. The individual defendants are officers and directors of Rayonier, Inc. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Koon-Pon Chan, Esq. Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. Phillip C. Kim, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Facsimile: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: kchan@rosenlegal.com lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com SALIX PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports ------------------------------------------------------------- Peter J. Grignon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd., Carolyn J. Logan, and Adam C. Derbyshire, Case No. 5:14-cv-00804 (E.D.N.C., November 12, 2014), alleges that the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. is a Delaware corporation, acquires, develops, and commercializes prescription drugs and medical devices to treat various gastrointestinal diseases in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary W. Jackson, Esq. RABON LAW FIRM, PLLC 225 E. Worthington Avenue, Suite 100 Charlotte, NC 28203 Telephone: (704) 247-3247 Facsimile: (704) 208-4645 E-mail: gjackson@ncadvocates.com - and - Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. Francis P. McConville, Esq. POMERANTZ, LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 SENIOR HEALTH-TREASURE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Bob Cadeau, and other similarly situated individuals v. Senior Health-Treasure Isle, LLC d/b/a Treasure Isle Care Center, Case No. 1:14-cv-24285 (S.D. Fla., November 12, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Senior Health-Treasure Isle, LLC is a nonresidential building operator located 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 SNY INC: "Soto" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Ruth Soto, and other similarly situated individuals v. SNY, Inc., a Florida profit corporation and Alexandra Papageorgiou, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-24288 (S.D. Fla., November 12, 2014), seeks to recover to recover unpaid overtime compensation and other relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate a full-service, casual dining restaurant & sports bar. 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 SPRINT CORPORATION: Files Petition to Appeal Certification Order ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sprint Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Company filed a petition to appeal a certification order to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. In March 2009, a stockholder brought suit, Bennett v. Sprint Nextel Corp., in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, alleging that Sprint Communications and three of its former officers violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 by failing adequately to disclose certain alleged operational difficulties subsequent to the Sprint-Nextel merger, and by purportedly issuing false and misleading statements regarding the write-down of goodwill. The plaintiff seeks class action status for purchasers of Sprint Communications common stock from October 26, 2006 to February 27, 2008. On January 6, 2011, the Court denied the motion to dismiss. The Company said, "Subsequently, our motion to certify the January 6, 2011 order for an interlocutory appeal was denied, and discovery is continuing. The plaintiff moved to certify a class of bondholders as well as owners of common stock, and on March 27, 2014, the court certified a class including bondholders as well as stockholders." "On April 11, 2014, we filed a petition to appeal that certification order to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. The petition was denied on May 23, 2014. Sprint Communications believes the complaint is without merit and intends to continue to defend the matter vigorously. We do not expect the resolution of this matter to have a material adverse effect on our financial position or results of operations." Sprint Corporation, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is a communications company offering a comprehensive range of wireless and wireline communications products and services that are designed to meet the needs of individual consumers, businesses, government subscribers, and resellers. STATE AUTO: To Defend Against "Schumacher" Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- State Auto Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014 that a putative class action lawsuit (Schumacher vs. State Automobile Mutual Insurance Company, et al.) was filed in April 2013 against State Auto Mutual, State Auto Financial and State Auto P&C in Federal District Court in Ohio. Plaintiffs claim that in connection with the homeowners policies of various State Auto companies, the coverage limits and premiums were improperly increased as a result of an insurance to value ("ITV") program and Plaintiffs allege that they purchased coverage in excess of that which was necessary to insure them in the event of loss. Plaintiffs' claims include breach of good faith and fair dealing, negligent misrepresentation and fraud, violation of the Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and fraudulent inducement. Plaintiffs are seeking class certification and compensatory and punitive damages to be determined by the court. The Company intends to deny any and all liability to plaintiffs or the alleged class and to vigorously defend this lawsuit. SWS GROUP: Stockholders Seek Expedited Proceedings in Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- SWS Group Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014 that plaintiffs in a Merger Litigation filed a motion for expedited proceedings. Two putative class actions on behalf of purported stockholders of the Company challenging the proposed merger of the Company and Peruna are pending in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. Both lawsuits name as defendants the Company, the members of the BOD, Hilltop, and Peruna, (Joseph Arceri v. SWS Group, Inc. et al and Chaile Steinberg v. SWS Group, Inc. et al filed April 8, 2014 and April 11, 2014, respectively). On May 13, 2014, the Delaware Chancery Court consolidated the two actions for all purposes. On June 10, 2014, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint. The complaint generally alleges, among other things, that the BOD breached its fiduciary duties to stockholders by failing to take steps to maximize stockholder value or to engage in a fair sale process before approving the merger, and that the other defendants aided and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duty. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the BOD labored under conflicts of interest, and that certain provisions of the Merger Agreement unduly restrict the Company's ability to negotiate with other potential bidders, and that the Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed by Hilltop on May 29, 2014 omits or misstates certain material information. The complaint seeks relief that includes, among other things, an injunction prohibiting the consummation of the merger, rescission to the extent the merger terms have already been implemented, damages for the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty, and the payment of plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs. On June 16, 2014, plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction prohibiting the consummation of the merger, and for expedited proceedings in connection therewith. Pursuant to negotiations between the parties to the lawsuit, plaintiffs subsequently withdrew those motions. On October 27, 2014 plaintiffs again filed a motion for expedited proceedings. The Company believes the claims are without merit and intends to defend against them vigorously. There can be no assurance, however, with regard to the outcome of this lawsuit. Currently, a loss resulting from these claims is not considered probable or reasonably estimable in amount. SUNEDISON INC: "Jones" Plaintiffs File Motion for Reconsideration ----------------------------------------------------------------- SunEdison, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the plaintiffs in the case Jerry Jones v. SunEdison, Inc., et al. filed a motion for reconsideration with the district court, based on a Supreme Court decision. On December 26, 2008, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri by plaintiff, Jerry Jones, purportedly on behalf of all participants in and beneficiaries of SunEdison's 401(k) Savings Plan (the "Plan") between September 4, 2007 and December 26, 2008, inclusive. The complaint asserted claims against SunEdison and certain of its directors, employees and/or other unnamed fiduciaries of the Plan. The complaint alleged that the defendants breached certain fiduciary duties owed under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, generally asserting that the defendants failed to make full disclosure to the Plan's participants of the risks of investing in SunEdison's stock and that the company's stock should not have been made available as an investment alternative in the Plan. The complaint also alleged that SunEdison failed to disclose certain material facts regarding SunEdison's operations and performance, which had the effect of artificially inflating SunEdison's stock price. On June 1, 2009, an amended class action complaint was filed by Mr. Jones and another purported participant of the Plan, Manuel Acosta, which raised substantially the same claims and was based on substantially the same allegations as the original complaint. However, the amended complaint changed the period of time covered by the action, purporting to be brought on behalf of beneficiaries of and/or participants in the Plan from June 13, 2008 through the present, inclusive. The amended complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages, including losses the participants and beneficiaries of the Plan allegedly experienced due to their investment through the Plan in SunEdison's stock, equitable relief and an award of attorney's fees. No class has been certified and discovery has not begun. The company and the named directors and employees filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which was fully briefed by the parties as of October 9, 2009. The parties each subsequently filed notices of supplemental authority and corresponding responses. On March 17, 2010, the court denied the motion to dismiss. The SunEdison defendants filed a motion for reconsideration or, in the alternative, certification for interlocutory appeal, which was fully briefed by the parties as of June 16, 2010. The parties each subsequently filed notices of supplemental authority and corresponding responses. On October 18, 2010, the court granted the SunEdison defendants' motion for reconsideration, vacated its order denying the SunEdison defendants' motion to dismiss, and stated that it would revisit the issues raised in the motion to dismiss after the parties supplement their arguments. Both parties filed briefs supplementing their arguments on November 1, 2010. On June 28, 2011, Mr. Jones filed a notice of voluntary withdrawal from the action, and the court subsequently entered an order withdrawing Mr. Jones as one of the plaintiffs in this action. The parties each have continued to file additional notices of supplemental authority and responses thereto. On September 27, 2012, the SunEdison defendants moved for oral argument on their pending motion to dismiss, and Mr. Acosta joined in the SunEdison defendants' motion for oral argument on October 9, 2012. On March 24, 2014, the court granted our motion to dismiss but the plaintiffs filed, and the court in April 2014 granted, a motion to stay entry of final judgment pending a Supreme Court decision in a case that could have implications in this matter. That Supreme Court case was decided in June 2014, and the plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration with the district court, based on that Supreme Court decision. "We believe that we continue to have good reason for a dismissal and intend to vigorously defend this motion," the Company said. SunEdison is a major developer and seller of photovoltaic energy solutions, an owner and operator of clean power generation assets, and a global leader in the development, manufacture and sale of silicon wafers to the semiconductor industry. SYNGENTA CORP: Faces Rye Farms Suit Over Viptera Corn ----------------------------------------------------- Rye Farms Partnership and Steve Rye, individually and on behalf of a Class of others similarly situated v. Syngenta Corporation, Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, and Syngenta Seeds, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-03240 (W.D. La., November 12, 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: J.R. Whaley, Esq. WHALEY LAW FIRM 3112 Valley Creek Drive, Suite D Baton Rouge, LA 70808 Telephone: (225) 302-8810 E-mail: jrwhaley@whaleylaw.com - and - Scott E. Poynter, Esq. Will T. Crowder, Esq. Corey D. McGaha, Esq. EMERSON POYNTER LLP The Rozelle-Murphy House 1301 Scott Street Little Rock, AR 72202 Telephone: (501) 907-2555 Facsimile: (501) 907-2556 E-mail: scott@emersonpoynter.com wcrowder@emersonpoynter.com cmcgaha@emersonpoynter.com - and - John G. Emerson, Esq. EMERSON POYNTER LLP 830 Apollo Lane Houston, TX 77058 Telephone: (281) 488-8854 Facsimile: (281) 488-8867 E-mail: jemerson@emersonpoynter.com TAKATA CORP: Destroyed Evidence of Air Bag Defects, Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kurt Orzeck, writing for Law360, reports that car owners slapped Takata Corp. with a California federal class action on Nov. 10 alleging it ordered technicians to destroy data including video and computer backups containing evidence of air bag defects that led to the recall of millions of vehicles in the U.S. The new suit -- which also names Honda Motor Co. Ltd., American Honda Motor Co. Inc. and Takata subsidiaries as defendants -- is the latest in a slew of complaints over the defects but is believed to be the first to accuse Takata of a coverup campaign in which it also allegedly withheld information from federal regulators. The new allegations stem from a Nov. 7 report by the New York Times in which former employees of Takata said the company told lab technicians to eliminate testing data that showed cracks in the steel casings that house their air bag inflators. The company also allegedly ordered technicians to throw the air bag inflators away in the trash to cover up the results of the previously undisclosed secret tests, according to the report. The suit was filed by Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, which in late October filed a separate class action in California federal court that contained similar allegations but not the new accusations that Takata destroyed evidence. "In 2004, Takata and Honda were made aware of a dangerous propensity for air bag inflator explosion in vehicles equipped with Takata air bags -- a driver in Alabama was severely injured from metal shrapnel during an accident," said Hagens Berman Managing Partner Steve Berman, who is also co-lead counsel in the General Motors Inc. ignition switches litigation. "When the two companies were faced with making a decision, they instead decided the issue was 'an anomaly' and ignored it, endangering the lives of vehicle owners across the country." The new class action comes after car owners suing Takata, Chrysler Group LLC, General Motors LLC, Toyota Motor Corp. and others asked the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to consolidate recently filed class actions -- including Hagens Berman's previously filed class action -- in Florida federal court. In two motions for transfer of actions to the Southern District of Florida, Miami, attorneys said the cases -- two of which were filed in that court; two others that were filed in the Central District of California, Western Division, Los Angeles; and one that was filed in the Eastern District of Michigan, Detroit -- similarly accused defendants of not fixing the allegedly defective air bags quickly enough. More than 14 million vehicles with Takata air bags have been recalled worldwide because of a defect that causes the air bags to explode in humid conditions, with most of those recalls coming just in the past year, according to court papers. But the automakers allegedly knew of the defect as early as 2008, when Honda first notified regulators of a problem with its Takata air bags. Instead, the automakers and Takata opted to not address the issue, leading to deaths stemming from the defect, court documents said. The new suit has eight named plaintiffs from California, Florida, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Virginia and Washington. Similar to previously filed complaints, the newly proposed class action accuses Takata of making cheap air bags that "blew up like hand-grenades, sending lethal metal and plastic shrapnel into the vehicle cockpit and into the bodies of the drivers and passengers," causing multiple injuries and fatalities. The suit seeks to represent anyone in the United States who purchased or leased a Honda vehicle with a defective Takata air bag and that has been subject to an air bag-related warning or recall. Honda North America Inc. spokesman Chris Martin told Law360 on on Nov. 10 that they haven't been served with a copy of the new class action and can't comment on its claims. "Our focus is on continuing the actions already underway to address the needs and concerns of our customers," he said. Plaintiffs are represented by Steve W. Berman and Thomas E. Loeser -- toml@hbsslaw.com -- of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. The case is Richard Klinger et al. v. Takata Corp. et al., case number 2:14-cv-08677, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. UNION BANKSHARES: MOU in Suit Over StellarOne Merger Okayed ----------------------------------------------------------- Union Bankshares Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the District Court has approved the memorandum of understanding and the class action settlement in the case relating to the StellarOne acquisition. In a press release issued on June 10, 2013, the Company announced the signing of a definitive merger agreement for the acquisition of StellarOne. The Company closed the acquisition of StellarOne on January 1, 2014. On June 14, 2013, in response to the initial announcement of the definitive merger agreement, Jaclyn Crescente, individually and on behalf of all other StellarOne shareholders, filed a class action complaint against StellarOne, its current directors, StellarOne Bank, and the Company, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia, Charlottesville Division (the "District Court") (Case No. 3:13-cv-00021-NKM). The complaint alleged that the StellarOne directors breached their fiduciary duties by approving the merger with the Company and that the Company aided and abetted in such breaches of duty. The complaint sought, among other things, money damages. StellarOne and the Company believed that the claims were without merit; however, in order to eliminate the expense and uncertainties of further litigation, all the defendants entered into a memorandum of understanding with the plaintiffs in order to settle the litigation prior to the merger. Under the terms of the memorandum of understanding, the plaintiffs agreed to settle the lawsuit and release the defendants from all claims, subject to approval by the District Court. On May 19, 2014, the District Court approved the memorandum of understanding and the class action settlement in the case. UNITED PARCEL: Trial Scheduled for June 2015 in Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ United Parcel Service, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that UPS and its subsidiary The UPS Store, Inc., are defendants in Morgate v. The UPS Store, Inc. et al. an action in the Los Angeles Superior Court brought on behalf of a certified class of all franchisees who chose to rebrand their Mail Boxes Etc. franchises to The UPS Store in March 2003. Plaintiff alleges that UPS and The UPS Store, Inc. misrepresented and omitted facts to the class about the market tests that were conducted before offering the class the choice of whether to rebrand to The UPS Store. The trial is scheduled for June 2015. UNITED PARCEL: Provides Updates in Class Action in Canada --------------------------------------------------------- United Parcel Service, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that in Canada, four purported class-action cases were filed against the Company in British Columbia (2006); Ontario (2007) and Qu‚bec (2006 and 2013). The cases each allege inadequate disclosure concerning the existence and cost of brokerage services provided by the Company under applicable provincial consumer protection legislation and infringement of interest restriction provisions under the Criminal Code of Canada. The British Columbia class action was declared inappropriate for certification and dismissed by the trial judge. That decision was upheld by the British Columbia Court of Appeal in March 2010, which ended the case in the Company's favor. The Ontario class action was certified in September 2011. Partial summary judgment was granted to the Company and the plaintiffs by the Ontario motions court. The complaint under the Criminal Code was dismissed. No appeal is being taken from that decision. The allegations of inadequate disclosure were granted and the Company is appealing that decision. The motion to authorize the 2006 Qu‚bec litigation as a class action was dismissed by the motions judge in October 2012; there was no appeal, which ended that case in the Company's favor. The 2013 Qu‚bec litigation also has been dismissed. "We deny all liability and are vigorously defending the one outstanding case in Ontario. There are multiple factors that prevent us from being able to estimate the amount of loss, if any, that may result from this matter, including: (1) we are vigorously defending ourselves and believe that we have a number of meritorious legal defenses; and (2) there are unresolved questions of law and fact that could be important to the ultimate resolution of this matter. Accordingly, at this time, we are not able to estimate a possible loss or range of loss that may result from this matter or to determine whether such loss, if any, would have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or liquidity," the Company said. UNITED PARCEL: Inks Agreement in Case Against Freight Forwarders ---------------------------------------------------------------- United Parcel Service, Inc. entered into an agreement in principle with plaintiffs in a class action against numerous global freight forwarders to settle the remaining claims asserted against UPS for an immaterial amount. The agreement in principle is subject to the negotiation of final settlement documents and court approval of the settlement, the Company said said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014. In January 2008, a class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York alleging price-fixing activities relating to the provision of freight forwarding services. UPS was not named in this case. In July 2009, the plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint naming numerous global freight forwarders as defendants. UPS and UPS Supply Chain Solutions are among the 60 defendants named in the amended complaint. The plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint in October 2010, which the Company moved to dismiss. "In August 2012, the Court granted our motion to dismiss all claims relevant to UPS in the Second Amended Complaint, with leave to amend. The plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint in November 2012. We filed another motion to dismiss," the Company said. In January 2014, the Court dismissed UPS from one of the claims in the Third Amended Complaint with prejudice, but denied UPS's motion to dismiss with respect to the other claims asserted against UPS. In June 2014, UPS entered into an agreement in principle with the plaintiffs to settle the remaining claims asserted against UPS for an immaterial amount. This agreement in principle is subject to the negotiation of final settlement documents and court approval of the settlement. UNIVERSITE LAVAL: Copibec Files Motion to Launch Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Copibec on Nov. 10 disclosed that it has filed a motion in Quebec Superior Court for authorization to launch a class action on behalf of thousands of authors and publishers from Quebec, the rest of Canada and other countries around the world because their copyright protected works have been copied without permission by Universite Laval. On an annual basis, the Quebec City-based university copies more than 11 million pages from 7,000 different works published in Quebec, the rest of Canada or abroad and includes them in coursepacks sold to students or distributes them online via its secure internal computer network. Until May 2014, Universite Laval, like all other Quebec universities, held a comprehensive license issued by Copibec allowing it to make those copies legally. However, the university's board of directors decided not to renew its licence and on May 21, 2014 put into effect a policy concerning the use of third-party works for teaching, learning, research and private study purposes ("Politique et directives relatives a l'utilisation de l'oeuvre d'autrui aux fins des activites d'enseignement, d'apprentissage, de recherche et d'etude privee a l'Universite Laval"). That policy now lets professors, lecturers, instructors and researchers make copies of copyright protected works and excerpts from those works without the university having to obtain permission from each author and publisher or pay the required royalties. Universite Laval is the only educational institution in Quebec acting in that way. Copibec, whose official name is the Societe quebecoise de gestion collective des droits de reproduction, is a not-for-profit created in 1998 by the Union des ecrivaines et ecrivains quebecois (UNEQ) and the Association nationale des editeurs de livres (ANEL) to manage the reproduction rights for copyright protected works in print and digital formats. It has the authority to manage the reproduction rights of 2,330 publishers and 24,295 authors from Quebec as well as the authors and publishers represented by reproduction rights organizations in 32 countries, including France, Belgium and the United States. On behalf of the authors and publishers whose works were copied without permission by Universite Laval, Copibec intends to ask the Superior Court to issue orders so that the illegal copying can be stopped and the illegally copied material can be seized. It also intends to ask the Court to sentence Universite Laval to pay those authors and publishers approximately $2 million in unpaid royalties, $1 million in moral damages and $1 million in punitive damages in addition to the profits earned on the sale of coursepacks to students. Since the case is before the courts, Copibec's representatives will not be giving interviews about the class action. CONTACT INFORMATION For more information, please contact Copibec's legal counsel in this case Daniel Payette 418-837-2521 VIVUS INC: Appeals Court Sets Jan. 16 Oral Argument in "Kovtun" --------------------------------------------------------------- VIVUS Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Court of Appeals has set oral argument for January 16, 2015 in a Securities Related Class Action. The Company, a current officer and a former officer were defendants in a putative class action captioned Kovtun v. VIVUS, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:10-CV-04957-PJH, in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. The action, filed in November 2010, alleged violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the federal Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegedly false or misleading statements made by the defendants in connection with the Company's clinical trials and New Drug Application, or NDA, for Qsymia as a treatment for obesity. The Court granted defendants' motions to dismiss both plaintiff's Amended Class Action Complaint and Second Amended Class Action Complaint; by order dated September 27, 2012, the latter dismissal was with prejudice and final judgment was entered for defendants the same day. On October 26, 2012, plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Briefing of the appeal is complete, and the Court of Appeals has set oral argument for January 16, 2015. VIVUS is a biopharmaceutical company with two therapies approved by the FDA: Qsymia for chronic weight management and STENDRA for erectile dysfunction. STENDRA is also approved by the European Commission, or EC, under a trade name, SPEDRA, for the treatment of erectile dysfunction in the EU. W. P. CAREY: Judge Granted Motion to Dismiss "Gaines" Complaint --------------------------------------------------------------- W. P. Carey Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the judge granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety in the case, Ira Gaines, et al. v. Corporate Property Associates 16 - Global Incorporated. On December 31, 2013, Ira Gaines and entities affiliated with him commenced a purported class action (Ira Gaines, et al. v. Corporate Property Associates 16 - Global Incorporated, Index. No. 650001/2014, N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. County) against the Company, WPC REIT Merger Sub Inc., CPA(R):16 - Global, and the directors of CPA(R):16 - Global. On April 11, 2014, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, as amended, and on October 15, 2014, the judge granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety. W. P. Carey Inc., is, together with its consolidated subsidiaries and predecessors, a real estate investment trust, or REIT, that provides long-term financing via sale-leaseback and build-to-suit transactions for companies worldwide and manages a global investment portfolio. WALTER INVESTMENT: Briefing on Motion to Dismiss Completed ---------------------------------------------------------- Walter Investment Management Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that briefing on the motions to dismiss a putative shareholder class action complaint was completed on September 24, 2014. On March 7, 2014, a putative shareholder class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida against the Company, Mark O'Brien, Charles Cauthen, Denmar Dixon, Marc Helm and Robert Yeary captioned Beck v. Walter Investment Management Corp., et al., No. 1:14-cv-20880 (S.D. Fla.). On July 7, 2014, an amended class action complaint was filed. The amended complaint names as defendants the Company, Mark O'Brien, Charles Cauthen, Denmar Dixon, Keith Anderson, Brian Corey and Mark Helm, and is captioned Thorpe, et al. v. Walter Investment Management Corp., et al. No. 1:14-cv-20880-UU. The amended complaint asserts federal securities law claims against the Company and the individual defendants under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Additional claims are asserted against the individual defendants under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The amended complaint alleges that between May 9, 2012 and February 26, 2014 the Company and the individual defendants made material misstatements or omissions relating to the Company's internal controls and financial reporting, the processes and procedures for compliance with applicable regulatory and legal requirements by Green Tree Servicing (including certain of the Company's business practices that are being reviewed by the FTC and the CFPB), the liabilities associated with the Company's acquisition of RMS and RMS's internal controls. The complaint seeks class certification and an unspecified amount of damages on behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's securities between May 9, 2012 and February 26, 2014. On August 11, 2014, all defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. Briefing on the motions to dismiss was completed on September 24, 2014. The Company cannot provide any assurance as to the outcome of the putative shareholder class action or that such an outcome will not have a material adverse effect on its reputation, business, prospects, results of operations, liquidity or financial condition. Walter Investment Management is a fee-based services provider to the residential mortgage industry focused primarily on providing specialty servicing for credit-sensitive forward residential mortgages, as well as reverse mortgages and higher credit-quality performing forward residential mortgages. WEB.COM GROUP: Discovery Has Not Yet Commenced in "Hussin" Case --------------------------------------------------------------- Web.com Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that a putative class action was filed on October 31, 2014, in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (Tammy Hussin, et al. v. Web.com Group, Inc.). The lawsuit complains that the Company allegedly contacted the plaintiff and putative class (which plaintiff alleges may "number in the thousands, if not more") on their cellular telephones via an automatic telephone dialing system without their prior express consent in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227 et seq. ("TCPA"). Plaintiff is seeking for each alleged TCPA violation $500 in statutory damages or $1,500 if a willful violation is shown. In addition to statutory damages and damages for willful violations, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief. "We have not yet responded to the Complaint and discovery has not yet commenced but we intend to vigorously defend ourself," the Company said. Web.com Group, Inc. provides a full range of Internet services to small businesses to help them compete and succeed online. WELLS FARGO: Maryland Mortgage Lending Litigation Now Concluded --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the jury verdict on August 5, 2014 and the Maryland Mortgage Lending Litigation case is now concluded, Wells Fargo & Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014. On December 26, 2007, a class action complaint captioned Denise Minter, et al., v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. The complaint alleges that Wells Fargo and others violated provisions of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act and other laws by conducting mortgage lending business improperly through a general partnership, Prosperity Mortgage Company. The complaint asserts that Prosperity Mortgage Company was not a legitimate affiliated business and instead operated to conceal Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.'s role in the loans at issue. A plaintiff class of borrowers who received a mortgage loan from Prosperity Mortgage Company that was funded by Prosperity Mortgage Company's line of credit with Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. from 1993 to May 31, 2012, had been certified. Prior to trial, the Court narrowed the class action to borrowers who were referred to Prosperity Mortgage Company by Wells Fargo's partner and whose loans were transferred to Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. from 1993 to May 31, 2012. On May 6, 2013, the case went to trial. On June 6, 2013, the jury returned a verdict in favor of all defendants, including Wells Fargo. The plaintiffs appealed. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the jury verdict on August 5, 2014 and the case is now concluded. WELLS FARGO: "Petry" Class Action Now Concluded ----------------------------------------------- No further appeal has been taken in the class action complaint captioned Stacey and Bradley Petry, et al., v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al., and the case is now concluded, Wells Fargo & Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014. On July 8, 2008, a class action complaint captioned Stacey and Bradley Petry, et al., v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al., was filed. The complaint alleges that Wells Fargo and others violated the Maryland Finder's Fee Act in the closing of mortgage loans in Maryland. On March 13, 2013, the Court held the plaintiff class did not have sufficient evidence to proceed to trial, which was previously set for March 18, 2013. On June 20, 2013, the Court entered judgment in favor of the defendants. The plaintiffs appealed. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the judgment in favor of the defendants on July 10, 2014. No further appeal has been taken and the case is now concluded. WELLS FARGO: Appeals Ruling in "Order of Posting" Litigation ------------------------------------------------------------ Wells Fargo & Company has appealed the decision in the Order of Posting Litigation to the Eleventh Circuit, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014. A series of putative class actions have been filed against Wachovia Bank, N.A. and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as well as many other banks, challenging the high to low order in which the banks post debit card transactions to consumer deposit accounts. There are currently several such cases pending against Wells Fargo Bank (including the Wachovia Bank cases to which Wells Fargo succeeded), most of which have been consolidated in multi-district litigation proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The bank defendants moved to compel these cases to arbitration under recent Supreme Court authority. On November 22, 2011, the Judge denied the motion. The bank defendants appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. On October 26, 2012, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the District Court's denial of the motion. Wells Fargo renewed its motion to compel arbitration with respect to the unnamed putative class members. On April 8, 2013, the District Court denied the motion. Wells Fargo has appealed the decision to the Eleventh Circuit. WELLS FARGO: 9th Cir. Affirms $203MM Judgment in "Gutierrez" Case ----------------------------------------------------------------- Wells Fargo & Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that on October 29, 2014, the Ninth Circuit affirmed a trial court's judgment against Wells Fargo for approximately $203 million, but limited the injunction to debit card transactions. Wells Fargo is presently considering its options. On August 10, 2010, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued an order in Gutierrez v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., a case that was not consolidated in the multi-district proceedings, enjoining the bank's use of the high to low posting method for debit card transactions with respect to the plaintiff class of California depositors, directing the bank to establish a different posting methodology and ordering remediation of approximately $203 million. On October 26, 2010, a final judgment was entered in Gutierrez. On October 28, 2010, Wells Fargo appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On December 26, 2012, the Ninth Circuit reversed the order requiring Wells Fargo to change its order of posting and vacated the portion of the order granting remediation of approximately $203 million on the grounds of federal pre-emption. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's finding that Wells Fargo violated a California state law prohibition on fraudulent representations and remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings. On August 5, 2013, the District Court entered a judgment against Wells Fargo in the approximate amount of $203 million, together with post-judgment interest thereon from October 25, 2010, and, effective as of July 15, 2013, enjoined Wells Fargo from making or disseminating additional misrepresentations about its order of posting of transactions. On August 7, 2013, Wells Fargo appealed the judgment to the Ninth Circuit. On October 29, 2014, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the trial court's judgment against Wells Fargo for approximately $203 million, but limited the injunction to debit card transactions. Wells Fargo is presently considering its options. WELLS FARGO: Accord in Securities Lending Case Has Final Approval ----------------------------------------------------------------- Wells Fargo & Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Court granted final approval of the settlement in the Securities Lending Litigation. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. is involved in five separate pending actions brought by securities lending customers of Wells Fargo and Wachovia Bank in various courts. In general, each of the cases alleges that Wells Fargo violated fiduciary and contractual duties by investing collateral for loaned securities in investments that suffered losses. One of the cases, filed on March 27, 2012, is composed of a class of Wells Fargo securities lending customers in a case captioned City of Farmington Hills Employees Retirement System v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. The class action was pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. On April 12, 2014, the parties reached a settlement. The Court granted final approval of the settlement on August 14, 2014. WEST VIRGINIA AMERICAN: Faces Class Action Over Chemical Spill -------------------------------------------------------------- According to Huntingtonnews.net, multiple sources have reported that environmental activist, Erin Brockovich, the subject of a previous film concerning her environmental legal pursuits in California, told a Charleston, WV public forum that a class action suit will be filed against West Virginia American Water. The action follows the January 2014 spill in which the chemical MCHM leaked from Freedom Industries into the Elk River. Mr. Brockovich speculated that each of the company's 100,000 customers in the affected nine counties which receive water from the Kanawha Valley plant could receive $5,000 in damages. WVAWC released the following statement on Nov. 10: "West Virginia American Water is vigorously contesting all lawsuits filed against the company as a result of the spill caused by Freedom Industries. The company did not cause the spill, responded swiftly and appropriately to the spill given the circumstances, and worked diligently to restore full water service to its customers and the community. West Virginia American Water will also contest any new lawsuits filed." ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Discovery Completed in "Reyes" Case --------------------------------------------------------- Zions Bancorporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that current putative class actions and similar claims include a complaint relating to the Company's banking relationships with customers that allegedly engaged in wrongful telemarketing practices in which the plaintiff seeks a trebled monetary award under the federal RICO Act, Reyes v. Zions First National Bank, et. al., brought in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. In the third quarter of 2013, the District Court denied the plaintiff's motion for class certification in the Reyes case. In the third quarter of 2014, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals heard an appeal by the plaintiff of the District Court decision. Discovery has been completed in the Reyes case. ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Discovery Continues in Meridian Funds Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- Zions Bancorporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that current putative class actions and similar claims include a complaint arising from the Company's banking relationships with Frederick Berg and a number of investment funds controlled by him using the "Meridian" brand name, in which the liquidating trustee for the funds seeks an award from the Company, on the basis of aiding and abetting and other claims, for monetary damages suffered by victims of a fraud allegedly perpetrated by Berg, In re Consolidated Meridian Funds a/k/a Meridian Investors Trust, Mark Calvert as Liquidating Trustee, et. al. vs. Zions Bancorporation and The Commerce Bank of Washington, N.A., pending in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Washington. Discovery continues in the Meridian Funds case. ********* 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 * * *