/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/141126.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, November 26, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 235 Headlines 718 AUTO SALES: Faces "Salazar" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages ALPHA NATURAL: Settlement in UBB Securities Class Action Approved ALPHA NATURAL: Motions to Dismiss Emerald Action Remain Pending ALPHA NATURAL: Defendants Have Until Dec. 5 to Respond to Suit ALPHA NATURAL: April 2016 Trial Set in NCI Employee Litigation AMERICAN PUBLIC: Plaintiffs Filed Opposition to Motion to Dismiss APCO OIL: Faces Shareholder Suit in Okla. Over Pluspetrol Merger APPLE INC: iPod Antitrust Trial to Proceed ATLAS AIR: Plans to Oppose Recommendation to Certify Class ATLAS AIR: Old Polar Agrees to Settle Class Actions in Canada AVENTURA EATERY: Faces "Aguirre" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT BARRETT BUSINESS: Sued in Wash. Over Misleading Financial Reports BASIC ENERGY: Faces "Vang" Suit in Pa. Over Violation of FLSA BETTER BODY: "Montaya" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages BITCASA INC: Sued Over Illegal Elimination of Data Storage Plan BOCA LECHE: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Class Claims BOSTON HANNAH: Faces "Henry" Suit Over Alleged Sexual Harassment BOULDER BRANDS: Hike in Gen. & Admin. Expenses Due to Settlement BOULDER BRANDS: Paid $0.3 Million to Settle Class Action BOULDER BRANDS: Bid to Dismiss Oil Blend Products Action Pending BUDGET INN: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Bed Bug Infestation CCB CREDIT: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act in N.Y. CHOBANI: Chamber Intervenes in Food Labeling Class Action CITYSIDE HEALTHCARE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages CLOVER GLOBAL: "Fregoso" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages CROSS COUNTRY: Accrued $0.8MM to Settle Wage and Hour Action CVS HEALTH: Certification of Suit Over 1999 Settlement Challenged CVS HEALTH: Cert. Motions in Antitrust Litigation Remain Pending CVS HEALTH: N.H. Court Denies New Motion to Dismiss Stock Lawsuit DOWNTOWN RESTAURANT: Sued Over Breach of Fair Labor Standards Act EASTMAN KODAK: Motion to Dismiss ERISA Suit Still Under Advisement ECHOSPHERE LLC: Removes "Tajonar" Class Suit to S.D. California ELECTRONIC ARTS: No Amended Complaint Filed in Calif. Stock Suit ENERGY TRANSFER: Fact Discovery Concluded in MTBE Litigation ENERGY TRANSFER: Provides Updates on PVR Merger Litigation ENERGY TRANSFER: Suits Filed Over Eagle Rock Midstream Deal EUGENE STRUPINSKY: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act FAIRWAY PLAZA: Faces Independence Project Suit over Breach of ADA FORD MOTOR: Court to Hear Arguments on Bid to Join Asbestos Cases FREIGHTCAR AMERICA: Summary Judgment Motions Filed in Class Suit GEBRUEDER KNAUF: Faces "Bennett" Suit Over Defective Drywalls GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Ariz. AG Suit Over Delayed Vehicle Recalls GENERAL MOTORS: Deadline to File Ignition-Switch Claims Extended GILLETTE COMPANY: Falsely Marketed Duracell Batteries, Suit Says GOLD RESOURCE: Plaintiff Appeals Case Dismissal to Tenth Circuit GT ADVANCED: Faces "Walpole" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports HANGER INC: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Securities Fraud HANSEN MEDICAL: Records Decrease in Legal Expenses HILLTOP HOLDINGS: Plaintiffs Drop Preliminary Injunction Bid HOSPIRA INC: Court Approves Settlement in Securities Litigation I A NUTRITION: Sued Over Illegal Use of Non-Protein Ingredients INTERCEPT PHARMACEUTICALS: Lead Plaintiff Oppose Dismissal Bid INTEREXCHANGE INC: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages JIMMY JOHN'S: Faces Class Action Over Data Breach KERYX BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Shareholders' Class Suit Now Concluded KEY ENERGY: Faces Allegations of Violating California Labor Laws KEY ENERGY: Still Faces Shareholder Litigation in Texas Court KODIAK OIL: Faces 7 Class Actions Over Whiting Deal LABORATORY CORP: Removes "Varsam" Class Suit to S.D. California LEGGETT & PLATT: Settles U.S. Direct Purchaser Antitrust Lawsuit LEGGETT & PLATT: 2015 Trial in Indirect Purchaser Antitrust Suit LEGGETT & PLATT: Canadian Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Cases Remain LEGGETT & PLATT: Suit by Mo. Indirect Purchasers in Discovery LHC GROUP: Final Fairness Hearing Scheduled for December 11 LONDON SILVER: Faces "Depaoli" Suit Over Silver-Price Fixing MARRONE BIO: Delays 3Q Financial Results Amid Class Actions MERRY MAIDS: Removes "Jessop" Suit to California District Court METLIFE INC: To Defend Against Westland Police Class Action METLIFE INC: Magistrate Judge Recommends Approval of Remand Bid METLIFE INC: "Keife" Plaintiffs Appeal Summary Judgment Order METLIFE INC: Facing "Owens" Class Action Over Use of TCA METLIFE INC: Final Approval Hearing This Month on "Fauley" Accord METLIFE INC: Contines to Defend Class Suits Over Sales Practices MXD INC: Removes "Echavarria" Suit to District of New Jersey NAT'L FOOTBALL: DEA Addresses Claims on Players' Drug Use NELNET INC: Settlement in "Yaakov" Case Subject to Finalization NELNET INC: Settlement in "Zaw" Case Subject to Finalization NELNET INC: Ohio Court Hasn't Established Class in "Keating" Case NEVADA: Health Exchange Launches Improved Web Site Following Suit OCLARO INC: Court Gave Final Okay to "Westley" Action Settlement PFIZER INC: Judge to Weigh on Expert Witness Issue in Zoloft MDL POTTERY BARN: Sued Over Failure to Construct POS for Blind People PRC MANAGEMENT: "Quinones" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages PROFESSIONAL RECOVERY: Faces "Dier" Suit Alleging FDCPA Violation PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Class Action Settlement Approved PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Plaintiffs Seek to Amend "Huffman" Case PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Appeal Filed Over Dismissal of Complaints PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Plaintiffs File Motion to Certify Class PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Still Facing "Bouder" Class Action RAPIDSHOT NORTH AMERICA: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages REACHLOCAL INC: Faces Class Action by Former Clients REGADO BIOSCIENCES: Court Consolidated Two Securities Actions ROUND TABLE PIZZA: Inaccessible to Disabled Persons, Suit Claims SCHACHTER PORTNOY: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act SEATTLE IMPACT: Owner Faces Class Action Over Sexual Abuse SIOUX CITY, IA: Judge OKs Franchise Fee Class Action Settlement SMART PAYMENT: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Plan Agreement SOVRAN SELF STORAGE: Consumer Suit Moved to NJ District Court SPIROS PARTNERS: Faces "Valdez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages STARION ENERGY: Sued in N.Y. Over Misleading Business Practices STEREOTAXIS INC: Plaintiffs Did Not File Notice of Appeal SUBWAY 30976: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages SYMMETRY MEDICAL: Dec. 1 Hearing on Preliminary Injunction Motion SYNGENTA CORP: Faces "Bentlage" Suit Over Sale of Viptera Corn TAKATA CORP: Faces "Markowitz" Class Suit Over Exploding Airbags TECUMSEH PRODUCTS: Ontario Court Okays Horsepower Label Suit Deal TECUMSEH PRODUCTS: Horsepower Label Suit Accord in Quebec Okayed TECUMSEH PRODUCTS: Settlement in Compressor Antitrust Suit Okayed TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS: 9th Circuit Upends Split Panel Decision UNI-PIXEL INC: Parties in Final Stages of Negotiations UNIT CORP: Closing Argument in Royalty Owners' Suit Set for Dec. UNITED ONLINE: No Hearing Date for Partial Final Judgment Motion UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA: McAdoo Suit Unlikely to Succeed VAN VLIET: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime and Damages VASCULAR SOLUTIONS: Several Firms Mull Shareholder Class Actions WALTER ENERGY: Alabama Suit Over Hazardous Substance Dismissed WALTER ENERGY: New Cert. Motion Filed in "Rush" Securities Suit WASHINGTON, DC: Police Plan for Future Seizure Proceeds After Suit WATTS WATER: Settlement of Suit Over Toilet Connectors Now Final WELLS FARGO: Appellate Court Revives Mortgage Modification Suit ********* 718 AUTO SALES: Faces "Salazar" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Joel Salazar, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. 718 Auto Sales Inc. d/b/a Great Bear Auto Center and Firas Hiraj, Case No. 1:14-cv-06689 (E.D.N.Y., November 13, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly. The Defendants own and operate an automobile repair center located at 4701 Kissena Boulevard, Flushing, New York 11358. The Plaintiff is represented by: Yesenia Francisco, Esq. Louis Pechman, Esq. BERKE-WEISS & PECHMAN LLP 488 Madison Avenue, Suite 1120 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 583-9500 Facsimile: (212) 308-8582 E-mail: francisco@bwp-law.com pechman@bwp-law.com ALPHA NATURAL: Settlement in UBB Securities Class Action Approved ----------------------------------------------------------------- Alpha Natural Resources, 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 Court entered an order approving the settlement in the Upper Big Branch ("UBB") Purported Securities Class Action and dismissed the class action with prejudice. On April 29, 2010 and May 28, 2010, two purported class actions that were subsequently consolidated into one case were brought against, among others, Massey, now the Company's subsidiary Alpha Appalachia Holdings, Inc. ("Alpha Appalachia"), in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia (the "Court") in connection with alleged violations of the federal securities laws. The lead plaintiffs allege, purportedly on behalf of a class of former Massey stockholders, that (i) Massey and certain former Massey directors and officers violated Section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 thereunder by intentionally misleading the market about the safety of Massey's operations and that (ii) Massey's former officers violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by virtue of their control over persons alleged to have committed violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act. The lead plaintiffs sought a determination that this action was a proper class action; certification as class representatives; an award of compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial, including interest thereon; and an award of reasonable costs and expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees. On February 16, 2011, the lead plaintiffs moved to partially lift the statutory discovery stay imposed under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. On March 3, 2011, the United States moved to intervene and to stay discovery until the completion of criminal proceedings allegedly arising from the same facts that allegedly give rise to this action. On July 9, 2012, the court entered an order maintaining the stay of discovery until the earlier of either the completion of the United States' criminal investigation of the UBB explosion or January 15, 2013. The court extended the stay several times. On April 25, 2011, the defendants moved to dismiss the operative complaint. On March 27, 2012, the court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss. On July 16, 2012, the Company filed its answer to the consolidated amended class action complaint. In October and December 2013, the parties participated in mediation. In December 2013, the parties reached agreement on all material terms of settlement, including a cash payment of $265,000. In February 2014, the parties reached agreement on definitive settlement documentation, subject to court approval, and on February 5, 2014, the lead plaintiffs moved the court for preliminary approval of the settlement. On February 19, 2014, the Court entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement subject to a final determination following a settlement hearing on June 4, 2014. On February 25, 2014, pursuant to the terms of the settlement, the Company made an initial payment of $30,000 into an escrow account and on June 3, 2014, the Company deposited the remaining $235,000 of the settlement amount into the escrow account. The Company received approximately $70,000 of insurance proceeds in connection with the settlement. On June 4, 2014, the Court entered an order approving the settlement and dismissed the class action with prejudice. ALPHA NATURAL: Motions to Dismiss Emerald Action Remain Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Alpha Natural Resources, 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 Boone County Circuit Court held a hearing regarding the motions to dismiss the Emerald Purported Securities Class Action and the motions remain pending. On July 13, 2012, a purported class action brought on behalf of a putative class of former Massey stockholders was filed in Boone County, West Virginia Circuit Court. The complaint asserts claims under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, against the Company and certain of its officers and current and former directors, and generally asserts that the defendants made false statements about the Company's Emerald mine in its public filings associated with the acquisition of Massey by the Company (the "Massey Acquisition"). The plaintiff seeks, among other relief, an award of compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial. On August 16, 2012, the defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia. On August 30, 2012, the plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case back to the Circuit Court of Boone County, West Virginia. On September 13, 2012, the defendants filed an opposition to the plaintiff's motion to remand. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the action on October 19, 2012, and the plaintiff filed an opposition to that motion on November 2, 2012. On November 5, 2012, the federal court remanded the case back to the Boone County Circuit Court (without ruling on the pending motion to dismiss). The plaintiff filed an amended complaint in the Boone County Circuit Court on February 6, 2013. The defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint on March 22, 2013 and March 29, 2013. On March 27, 2014, the Boone County Circuit Court held a hearing regarding the motions to dismiss. The motions remain pending. On April 25, 2014, the named plaintiff in the West Virginia Circuit Court action filed a second complaint in Greene County, Pennsylvania, Court of Common Pleas, again asserting claims under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, against the Company and certain of its officers and current and former directors, and generally asserts that the defendants made false statements about the Company's Emerald mine in its public filings associated with the Massey Acquisition. The plaintiff seeks, among other relief, an award of compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial. ALPHA NATURAL: Defendants Have Until Dec. 5 to Respond to Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Alpha Natural Resources, 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 plaintiffs in Massey Energy Company Derivative and Class Action Litigation filed an amended complaint which maintains claims against Massey and certain former Massey directors and officers but no longer asserts claims against the Company or Mountain Merger Sub, Inc. and under a schedule approved by the court, the defendants have until December 5, 2014 to respond to the amended complaint. In a case filed on April 23, 2010 in Delaware Chancery Court, In re Massey Energy Company Derivative and Class Action Litigation ("In re Massey"), a number of purported former Massey stockholders (the "Delaware Plaintiffs") allege, purportedly on behalf of Massey, that certain former Massey directors and officers breached their fiduciary duties by failing to monitor and oversee Massey's employees, allegedly resulting in fines against Massey and the explosion at Upper Big Branch, and by wasting corporate assets by paying allegedly excessive and inflated amounts to former Massey Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Don L. Blankenship as part of his retirement package. The Delaware Plaintiffs also allege, on behalf of a purported class of former Massey stockholders, that certain former Massey directors breached their fiduciary duties by agreeing to the Massey Acquisition. The Delaware Plaintiffs allege that defendants breached their fiduciary duties by failing to secure the best price possible, by failing to secure any downside protection for the acquisition consideration, and by purportedly eliminating the possibility of a superior proposal by agreeing to a "no shop" provision and a termination fee. In addition, the Delaware Plaintiffs allege that defendants agreed to the Massey Acquisition to eliminate the liability that defendants faced on the Delaware Plaintiffs' derivative claims. Finally, the Delaware Plaintiffs allege that defendants failed to fully disclose all material information necessary for Massey stockholders to cast an informed vote on the Massey Acquisition. The Delaware Plaintiffs also name the Company and Mountain Merger Sub, Inc. ("Merger Sub"), the Company's wholly-owned subsidiary created for purposes of effecting the Massey Acquisition, which, at the effective time of the Massey Acquisition, was merged with and into Massey, as defendants. The Delaware Plaintiffs allege that the Company and Merger Sub aided and abetted the former Massey directors' alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and agreed to orchestrate the Massey Acquisition for the purpose of eliminating the former Massey directors' potential liability on the derivative claims. Two additional putative class actions were brought against Massey, certain former Massey directors and officers, the Company and Merger Sub in the Delaware Court of Chancery following the announcement of the Massey Acquisition, which were consolidated for all purposes with In re Massey on February 9, 2011 and February 24, 2011, respectively. The Delaware Plaintiffs seek an award against each defendant for restitution and/or compensatory damages, plus pre-judgment interest; an order establishing a litigation trust to preserve the derivative claims asserted in the complaint; and an award of costs, disbursements and reasonable allowances for fees incurred in this action. The Delaware Plaintiffs also sought to enjoin consummation of the Massey Acquisition. The court denied their motion for a preliminary injunction on May 31, 2011. On June 10, 2011, Massey moved to dismiss the Delaware Plaintiffs' derivative claims on the ground that the Delaware Plaintiffs, as former Massey stockholders, lacked the legal right to pursue those claims, and the Company and Alpha Appalachia Merger Sub moved to dismiss the purported class action claim against them for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. On June 10 and 13, 2011, certain former Massey director and officer defendants moved to dismiss the derivative claims and filed answers to the remaining direct claims. On September 14, 2011, the parties submitted a Stipulation Staying Proceedings, which stayed the matter until March 1, 2012, without prejudice to the parties' right to seek an extension or a termination of the stay by application to the court. The court approved the stipulation and entered the stay that same day. The court extended the stay several times and the most recent stay expired on October 31, 2014. On October 17, 2014, the Delaware Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint which maintains claims against Massey and certain former Massey directors and officers but no longer asserts claims against the Company or Mountain Merger Sub, Inc. Under a schedule approved by the court, the defendants have until December 5, 2014 to respond to the amended complaint. ALPHA NATURAL: April 2016 Trial Set in NCI Employee Litigation -------------------------------------------------------------- Alpha Natural Resources, 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 Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia has scheduled the trial for April 25-29 and May 2-6, 2016 in the NCI Employee Litigation. On February 7, 2013, the Company received notice of a putative class action lawsuit against Nicewonder Contracting, Inc. filed in the Circuit Court of Mingo County, West Virginia by a former NCI employee (the "NCI Employee Litigation"). The plaintiff in the NCI Employee Litigation is represented by the same attorney who represented the plaintiff in the ACTF Litigation, and the complaint's allegations raise issues similar to those in the ACTF Litigation and arise from the same Red Jacket Contract that was at issue in the ACTF Litigation. The Company believes that NCI has meritorious defenses to the claims asserted in the NCI Employee Litigation. NCI filed its answer to the complaint in the NCI Employee Litigation on March 4, 2013. On April 23, 2013, the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia, granted NCI's motion to transfer and entered an agreed order transferring the NCI Employee Litigation from the Circuit Court of Mingo County to the Circuit Court of Kanawha County. On November 14, 2013, the Circuit Court of Kanawha County granted NCI's Motion to Certify Questions of Law to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, but on June 17, 2014, the Supreme Court declined to review the submitted questions in the absence of a more developed factual record in the lower court. Proceedings in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia therefore resumed. The Circuit Court has scheduled the trial for April 25-29 and May 2-6, 2016. AMERICAN PUBLIC: Plaintiffs Filed Opposition to Motion to Dismiss ----------------------------------------------------------------- American Public Education, 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 plaintiffs filed their opposition to the defendants' motion to dismiss with prejudice the First Amended Complaint in the putative class action styled Tabatha Vickery, Bryan Lynn, on behalf of themselves and a similarly situated class v. Hondros College, Inc. and John G. Hondros. On or about November 18, 2013, the putative class action styled Tabatha Vickery, Bryan Lynn, on behalf of themselves and a similarly situated class v. Hondros College, Inc. and John G. Hondros, was filed in the Court of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga County, Ohio, as Case No. CV 13 817299. National Education Seminars, Inc., which we refer to as Hondros College of Nursing, or HCON, was not named in the lawsuit, but a then member of HCON's board of directors, John Hondros, was named in the lawsuit, and the allegations made in the Complaint related to HCON's operations and not the operations of the entity named in the lawsuit. The lawsuit asserted claims for fraud and fraudulent inducement, negligent misrepresentation, breach of implied-in-fact contract, promissory estoppel, unjust enrichment, and violation of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, for, among other things, the alleged provision of false or misleading information to the named plaintiffs and other putative class members in 2011 and 2012 regarding the status of accreditation by National League for Nursing Accrediting Commission of HCON's Associate Degree in Nursing, or ADN, program offered at its Independence, Ohio campus. The plaintiffs alleged that the putative class consisted of more than 60 former students who in the summer or fall quarters of 2011 enrolled in the ADN or the licensed practical nursing, or LPN, program at the Independence campus with the intention of pursuing a degree in nursing, but who withdrew from the ADN or LPN program. On February 11, 2014, the plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint, which removed Hondros College, Inc. as a defendant and added HCON as a defendant. On February 24, 2014, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss with prejudice the plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint. On April 1, 2014, the plaintiffs filed their opposition to the motion to dismiss. On April 10, 2014, the defendants filed their reply brief in support of the motion to dismiss. The Company is currently unable to estimate the likelihood or range of reasonably probable loss, if any, for this matter. The Company does not believe, based on currently available information, that the outcome of this proceeding, if adverse to HCON, would have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition. American Public Education, Inc., or APEI, provides online and on- campus postsecondary education to approximately 112,600 students through two subsidiaries. APCO OIL: Faces Shareholder Suit in Okla. Over Pluspetrol Merger ---------------------------------------------------------------- Apco Oil and Gas International Inc. is facing a lawsuit in the District Court of Tulsa County in the State of Oklahoma over its merger with Pluspetrol Resources Corporation, according to the company's Nov. 4, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014. On October 23, 2014, a lawsuit was filed in the District Court of Tulsa County in the State of Oklahoma challenging the proposed Merger. The lawsuit is a putative class action filed on behalf of purported shareholders of Apco and names the Company, its directors and WPX Energy, Inc. as defendants. The complaint alleges that Apco's directors breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's shareholders by agreeing to sell Apco for inadequate consideration and by agreeing to improper deal protection terms in the Merger Agreement. The complaint seeks, among other relief, declaratory and injunctive relief against the Merger and costs and fees. APPLE INC: iPod Antitrust Trial to Proceed ------------------------------------------ Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that a class of iPod buyers suing Apple Inc. seems likely to make it to trial intact, after an 11th-hour challenge from the company's legal team fell flat. U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers said on Nov. 18 she's not willing to hack apart the plaintiffs' class two weeks before antitrust claims over Apple's iPods and iTunes music store are set to go to trial. The class will proceed as is, with two individual plaintiffs representing both end users and iPod retailers, Gonzalez Rogers ruled tentatively from the bench in Oakland. Apple had attempted to decertify the retail portion of the class, arguing the named plaintiffs, both consumers, have different interests and damages calculations than those of resellers like Amazon, Best Buy, and Wal-Mart. But Judge Gonzalez Rogers said it's too late. "To decertify at this juncture on the eve of trial, I think frankly more than anything else severely puts at a disadvantage those unnamed class members," she said. "And I'm just not willing to do it." The judge promised to follow up with a written ruling. Plaintiffs lawyers, led by Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd partner Bonny Sweeney, have accused Apple of illegally rigging certain iPod models so they would only play music purchased from the Apple iTunes store. By tying the devices to the music store, Apple created a near monopoly over the MP3 music market, plaintiffs lawyers argue. After 10 years of litigation, jury selection is scheduled to start Wednesday. Plaintiffs estimate damages at about $350 million, with retailers entitled to about $150 million. Apple is represented by Jones Day and Boies, Schiller & Flexner. William Isaacson -- wisaacson@bsfllp.com -- a Boies Schiller partner in Washington, D.C., took the lead role for Apple at Tuesday's hearing. Last month Judge Gonzalez Rogers expressed concern over allowing consumer plaintiffs to represent retailers in the suit and encouraged plaintiffs lawyers to add a retail representative. But Judge Gonzalez Rogers wasn't happy with their choice. Kenneth Riegel, owner of iPod retailer K&N Enterprises Inc., doesn't appear to have standing to sue Apple, the judge said. K&N Enterprises became a void corporation after the company stopped paying required fees to the state of Delaware, Apple's lawyers pointed out, which they say means he has no legal right to sue. "This proposed class representative has not met the statutory requirements," Judge Gonzalez Rogers said. "So I don't see how I can have him serve." Plaintiffs have argued that the class is valid without Mr. Riegel, insisting they sought to add him only out of an abundance of caution. Judge Gonzalez Rogers said she would let plaintiffs proceed and let a higher court have the final word. "After reading your briefs and weighing all the issues, it finally occurred to me I should just let you try the case the way you teed it up," she said, "and then you'll take it to the Ninth Circuit and they'll deal with it the way they're going to deal with it." ATLAS AIR: Plans to Oppose Recommendation to Certify Class ---------------------------------------------------------- Atlas Air Worldwide Holdings, 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 plans to oppose the recommendation of the court magistrate that the court enter an order certifying a class for adjudicating the claims. In 2010, Polar Air Cargo LLC ("Old Polar") entered into an agreement with the United States Department of Justice (the "DOJ") to resolve issues relating to the previously disclosed DOJ investigation concerning alleged manipulation by cargo carriers of fuel surcharges and other rate components for air cargo services (the "DOJ Investigation"). As a result of the DOJ Investigation, the Company and Old Polar have been named defendants, along with a number of other cargo carriers, in several class actions in the United States arising from allegations about the pricing practices of a number of air cargo carriers that have now been consolidated for pretrial purposes in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The consolidated complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants, including the Company and Old Polar, manipulated the market price for air cargo services sold domestically and abroad through the use of surcharges, in violation of United States, state, and European Union antitrust laws. The suit seeks treble damages and injunctive relief. In 2007, the Company and Old Polar commenced an adversary proceeding in bankruptcy court against each of the plaintiffs in this class action litigation seeking to enjoin the plaintiffs from prosecuting claims against the Company and Old Polar that arose prior to 2004, the date on which the Company and Old Polar emerged from bankruptcy. In 2007, the plaintiffs consented to the injunctive relief requested and the bankruptcy court entered an order enjoining plaintiffs from prosecuting Company claims arising prior to 2004. The court in the antitrust class actions has heard and decided a number of procedural motions. Among those was the plaintiffs' motion to join Polar Air Cargo Worldwide, Inc. as an additional defendant, which the court granted on April 13, 2011. There was substantial pretrial written discovery and document production, and a number of depositions were taken. A court hearing on whether or not to certify the case as a class action was held in October 2013 and oral arguments were held in November 2013. "On October 15, 2014, the court magistrate issued a decision recommending that the court enter an order certifying the class for adjudicating the claims. We plan to oppose that recommendation. We are unable to reasonably predict the court's ruling or the ultimate outcome of the litigation," the Company said. Atlas Air provides outsourced aircraft and aviation operating services throughout the world, serving Africa, Asia, Australia, Europe, the Middle East, North America and South America through: (i) contractual service arrangements, including those through which the Company provides aircraft to customers and value-added services, including crew, maintenance and insurance ("ACMI"), as well as those through which the Company provides crew, maintenance and insurance services, with the customer providing the aircraft ("CMI"); (ii) military charter services provided to the U.S. Military Air Mobility Command (the "AMC") ("AMC Charter"); (iii) seasonal, commercial and ad hoc charter services ("Commercial Charter"); and (iv) dry leasing of aircraft and engines ("Dry Leasing" or "Dry Lease"). ATLAS AIR: Old Polar Agrees to Settle Class Actions in Canada ------------------------------------------------------------- Atlas Air Worldwide Holdings, 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, Polar Air Cargo LLC and a number of other cargo carriers were named as defendants in civil class action suits in the provinces of British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec, Canada that are substantially similar to the class action suits in the United States. On August 1, 2014, the Canadian plaintiffs and Old Polar executed a settlement agreement in which Old Polar agreed, without admitting violations of law, to pay an immaterial amount in return for the release of all claims. The settlement agreement is subject to court approval. Atlas Air provides outsourced aircraft and aviation operating services throughout the world, serving Africa, Asia, Australia, Europe, the Middle East, North America and South America through: (i) contractual service arrangements, including those through which the Company provides aircraft to customers and value-added services, including crew, maintenance and insurance ("ACMI"), as well as those through which the Company provides crew, maintenance and insurance services, with the customer providing the aircraft ("CMI"); (ii) military charter services provided to the U.S. Military Air Mobility Command (the "AMC") ("AMC Charter"); (iii) seasonal, commercial and ad hoc charter services ("Commercial Charter"); and (iv) dry leasing of aircraft and engines ("Dry Leasing" or "Dry Lease"). AVENTURA EATERY: Faces "Aguirre" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------ Elder Alexander Morales Aguirre and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. Aventura Eatery LLC d/b/a Sicilian Oven Wood Fired Pizza, and Ralph Disalvo, Case No. 0:14-cv-62592 (S.D. Fla., November 13, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Broward County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jamie H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, PA 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Telephone: (305) 865-6766 Facsimile: 865-7167 E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM BARRETT BUSINESS: Sued in Wash. Over Misleading Financial Reports ----------------------------------------------------------------- Christopher P. Carnes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Barrett Business Services, Inc., Michael L. Elich, and James D. Miller, Case No. 3:14-cv-05903 (W.D. Wash., November 13, 2014), alleges that the Defendants made materially false and misleading financial statements, specifically by understating its self-insured workers' compensation reserves by at least $80 million. Barrett Business Services, Inc. is a self-insured company that provides outsourced solutions to address the costs and complexities of employment-related issues for businesses. The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Drachler, Esq. ZWERLING, SCHACHTER & ZWERLING, LLP 1904 Third Avenue, Suite 1030 Seattle, WA 98101-1170 Telephone: (206) 223-2053 Facsimile: (206) 343-9636 E-mail: ddrachler@zsz.com - and - Robert C. Finkel, Esq. Fei-Lu Qian, Esq. WOLF POPPER LLP 845 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 759-4600 Facsimile: (212) 486-2093 E-mail: rfinkel@wolfpopper.com fqian@wolfpopper.com BASIC ENERGY: Faces "Vang" Suit in Pa. Over Violation of FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- John Vang, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. Basic Energy Services, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-01553 (W.D. Pa., November 13, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Basic Energy Services, Inc. provides a range of well site services, including, well servicing, fluid services, pumping services, rental and fishing tools, contract drilling, wireline, snubbing services, coil tubing, and water solutions services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Shanon J. Carson, Esq. Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq. Alexandra L. Koropey, Esq. BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 Email: scarson@bm.net sschalman-bergen@bm.net akoropey@bm.net - and - David A. Hughes, Esq. HARDIN & HUGHES, LLP 2121 14th Street Tuscaloosa, AL 35401 Telephone: (205) 344-6690 Facsimile: (205) 344-6188 Email: dhughes@hardinhughes.com BETTER BODY: "Montaya" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Mario Campos Montaya, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Better Body Auto Collision LLC, Robert Minott, and Sharon Thompson-Minott, Case No. 1:14-cv-06699 (E.D.N.Y., November 13, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate an auto body shop located at 123-4 Merrick Boulevard, Springfield Gardens, New York. 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 BITCASA INC: Sued Over Illegal Elimination of Data Storage Plan --------------------------------------------------------------- Shawn Romack, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bitcasa, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-05005 (N.D. Cal., November 13, 2014), alleges that the Defendant engages in an unfair and illegal conduct in connection with its recent abrupt elimination of its Infinite data storage plan, whereby costumers could upload and store an unlimited amount of electronic data on data storage servers for a fixed fee. Bitcasa, Inc. is a provider of data storage services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael W. Sobol, Esq. Roger N. Heller, Esq. Jordan Elias, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 E-mail: msobol@lchb.com rheller@lchb.com jelias@lchb.com BOCA LECHE: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Class Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ Nancy Tine and Asja Morrell v. Boca Leche, Inc. and Robin C. Moore, Case No. 0:14-cv-62614-WPD (S.D. Fla., November 17, 2014) alleges that during one or more workweeks, the Defendants did not pay the Plaintiffs time and one half of the Plaintiffs' regular rate of pay for overtime hours worked in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Boca Leche, Inc. was the Plaintiffs' employer and a corporation conducting business in Florida. The Defendants had employees engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, and had employees handling, selling, or otherwise working on goods or materials that were moved in or produced for commerce by a person. The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd William Shulby, Esq. TODD W. SHULBY, P.A. 2800 Weston Road, Suite 101 Weston, FL 33331 Telephone: (954) 530-2236 Facsimile: (954) 530-6628 E-mail: tshulby@shulbylaw.com BOSTON HANNAH: Faces "Henry" Suit Over Alleged Sexual Harassment ---------------------------------------------------------------- Laurin Henry, and Rachelle Treiber, on behalf of themselves and a class of on persons similarly situated v. Boston Hannah Chicago, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-09132 (N.D. Ill., November 13, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for its discriminatory treatment in the form of sexual harassment and retaliation in violation of the Civil Rights Act. Boston Hannah Chicago, LLC is a publishing group producing magazines, websites and digital publications. The Plaintiff is represented by: Carol Coplan Babbitt, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF CAROL COPLAN BABBITT 35 E. Wacker Dr., Suite 650 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 435-9775 Facsimile: (312) 782-4519 E-mail: carol@ccbabbittlaw.com BOULDER BRANDS: Hike in Gen. & Admin. Expenses Due to Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Boulder Brands, 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 general and administrative expenses of $63.7 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2014 increased $9.0 million, or 16.4%, from $54.7 million in 2013. The increase primarily related to increased compensation and benefits of approximately $3.7 million primarily due to increased headcount and the inclusion of EVOL, acquired in December 2013. The increase also related to $1.9 million of severance, relocation expenses and a settlement of a class action lawsuit and a $1.3 million increase in depreciation and amortization expense primarily relating to the inclusion of EVOL. Boulder Brands is committed to creating food solutions that give people opportunities to improve their lives, one product at a time. It distributes its products in all major retail channels, including natural, grocery, club, mass, food, and drug. BOULDER BRANDS: Paid $0.3 Million to Settle Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Boulder Brands, 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 reached a class action settlement whereby it agreed to pay the two plaintiffs and their counsel $0.3 million in full and final settlement. On February 21, 2013, a putative class action lawsuit relating to the labeling of Smart Balance(R) Fat Free Milk products was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging that the label and marketing was misleading because, although the labels says "Fat Free Milk" the product contains 1g of fat from the Omega-3 fatty acid oil blend in the products. After the Company's motion to dismiss was partially granted by the court, it answered the remaining allegations of the complaint, denying the substantive allegations. On July 8, 2014, without any admission of liability, the Company reached a settlement whereby it agreed to pay the two plaintiffs and their counsel $0.3 million in full and final settlement. The settlement payment was made and the case was formally dismissed with prejudice on July 15, 2014. The matter is now fully and finally concluded. Boulder Brands is committed to creating food solutions that give people opportunities to improve their lives, one product at a time. It distributes its products in all major retail channels, including natural, grocery, club, mass, food, and drug. BOULDER BRANDS: Bid to Dismiss Oil Blend Products Action Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Boulder Brands, 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's motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint in a class action related to the labeling and marketing of Smart Balance(R) Butter & Canola Oil Blend products is pending. On July 28, 2012, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California claiming that the labeling and marketing of Smart Balance(R) Butter & Canola Oil Blend products is false, misleading and deceptive (the "California Case"). The plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint and substituted a new plaintiff. The Company moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. That motion is pending. A substantially similar class action lawsuit related to the labeling and marketing of Smart Balance(R) Butter & Canola Oil Blend products was filed on August 9, 2012 in the Southern District of New York. "In light of its similarity to the California Case, the Southern District of New York stayed all activity in the case pending a decision in the California Case on class certification. We believe the allegations contained in both of these complaints are without merit and we intend to vigorously defend ourselves against these allegations," the Company said. Boulder Brands is committed to creating food solutions that give people opportunities to improve their lives, one product at a time. It distributes its products in all major retail channels, including natural, grocery, club, mass, food, and drug. BUDGET INN: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Bed Bug Infestation --------------------------------------------------------------- Linda Harris, writing for The State Journal, reports that attorneys representing a Hurricane woman who developed an antibiotic-resistant staph infection after being treated for bed bugs are seeking class-action status for her complaint against the hotel where she allegedly was exposed to the pests and its owner. Troy N. Giatras and Matthew Stonestreet of the Charleston-based Giatras Law Firm say there are at least 100 potential members of the class -- individuals who rented rooms at Budget Inn, also known as American Inn, in Hurricane after March 2010 and had similar experiences. The firm petitioned for class certification in October. Mr. Giatras also wants the case, originally filed in 2013, remanded to Putnam County Circuit Court. The hotel is an NGS property, owned and operated by Navnit G. Sangani, who had petitioned to have it moved to federal court. Stacy McCown, a Hurricane resident, claims she checked into the motel in August 2011 for a two-day stay, only to develop papules the final day of her visit. The bites increased in number and began to itch, becoming severely inflamed and painful, she said. Ms. McCown sought medical treatment at the emergency room and was diagnosed as having been bitten by cimicidae, otherwise known as bed bugs. Ms. McCown said she reported her diagnosis to the Putnam County Health Department, which investigated and days later issued a written notice to Ms. Sangani that bed bugs had been detected behind the headboard of the bed in the room she'd been assigned to, the complaint stated. That report also noted the poor condition of the box spring and lack of a mattress pad or cover, it added. According to the complaint, concerns with the condition of the facility were documented in health reports as early as March 2009, when more than 20 items requiring attention were singled out -- including floors, walls, shower curtains, coffee pots and heavily stained mattresses that required cleaning, and vents, air conditioning filters, sinks and walkways were said to be in a state of disrepair. Another inspection eight months later in December 2009 listed "crusted feces in toilet and floor," among hygiene issues noted, the complaint stated. Two more sanitation reports in 2010 reflected similar concerns regarding the cleanliness of walls, floors, windows and bathrooms, it said, adding that the March inspection also pointed out one of the rooms required special cleaning after a meth lab bust. An inspection in March 2011 also cited dirty walls, floors, ceilings and water damage, the complaint said. Ms. McCown complained that NGS and Ms. Sangani "continued to rent rooms to the unknowing public," exacerbating the problem by giving the bed bugs "the blood meals required for (their) survival and breeding." The suit claims neither Ms. Sangani nor NGS disclosed the infestation or potentially unsanitary conditions to guests, nor were the premises properly maintained or inspected to make sure guests would be protected. The suit states those impacted by the motel's alleged bed bug infestation would not have rented rooms had they known there was a problem. Ms. McCown said she suffered numerous bite wounds, extreme itching, swelling, anxiety and scarring in addition to the Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection, or MRSA, and said she and other guests also were forced to dispose of clothing and other items they'd brought with them to the motel including any personal bedding, electronics, luggage, purses, wallets and medications She is seeking unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, plus attorney fees and court costs, for herself and other members of the proposed class from NGS and Ms. Sangani for premises liability, negligence, emotional distress, violations of the consumer credit and protection act, battery of a business invitee, breech of express or implied warranty of habitability, deception and unjust enrichment. CCB CREDIT: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act in N.Y. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Avrohom Dier, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers v. CCB Credit Services, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv- 06754 (E.D.N.Y., November 17, 2014) accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq. ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW 483 Chestnut Street Cedarhurst, NY 11516 Telephone: (516) 791-4400 Facsimile: (516) 791-4411 E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com CHOBANI: Chamber Intervenes in Food Labeling Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and at least one other business group intervened in the appeal of a class action in hopes of stemming food-labeling cases in California. The case, brought in 2012, challenges the accuracy of labels on Chobani Greek yogurt and is among a number of class actions filed in the past two years raising food-labeling claims -- particularly in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, referred to by critics as the "food court." The Chobani case focuses on whether consumers who alleged false and misleading labeling lacked standing to sue unless they could prove under California's Unfair Competition Law that they relied on those statements when they purchased the product. In 2004, that law was amended under the state's Proposition 64 to force plaintiffs to show they suffered injuries or lost money or property as a result of unlawful conduct. On Feb. 20, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose dismissed the Chobani case, concluding that the plaintiffs lacked standing. The plaintiffs -- three consumers filing on behalf of a California class -- appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, seeking to affirm dismissal, called upon the Ninth Circuit to prevent a return of "shakedown" lawsuits that it said led to the passage of Proposition 64, according to an amicus brief filed on Nov. 14. The food-labeling lawsuits have been brought under California's Sherman Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, which like its federal counterparts prohibits companies from selling illegally misbranded products. The state's Unfair Competition Law has allowed plaintiffs attorneys to bring private causes of action. The Chobani class action is the first of the recent cases to go before the Ninth Circuit, said Jeremy Rosen, a partner at Horvitz & Levy in Encino, Calif., who wrote the chamber's brief. "It's going to be important for the Ninth Circuit to affirm what the district court did," he said. "If there were a reversal here, that would again open up the floodgates to cases where people could sue without injury, which is exactly what Prop. 64 was designed to stop." Plaintiffs attorney Darren Brown of Provost Umphrey in Beaumont, Texas, did not return a call for comment. Dale Giali -- dgiali@mayerbrown.com -- a partner in the Los Angeles office of Mayer Brown who represents Chobani LLC of Norwich, N.Y., did not respond to a request for comment. The case specifically alleges that consumers were misled about a listed ingredient, "evaporated cane juice," which is really sugar, and that the label's claim of having "natural" ingredients was false because Chobani yogurts contained color additives. On appeal, the plaintiffs argued that it was implausible that consumers -- even health conscious ones -- would necessarily equate evaporated cane juice with sugar. They also noted that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has questioned whether evaporated cane juice should be listed on food labels. Mr. Giali, in Chobani's brief, emphasized that the FDA hasn't issued final guidance on the issue and that ingredients added for color aren't necessarily unnatural. "After four complaints and two years of litigation, the district court concluded that plaintiffs did not plausibly allege reliance on Chobani's labels in the manner pleaded and dismissed with prejudice," he wrote. "This is precisely the sort of case that California's statutory standing requirements are designed to foreclose." In addition to the Chamber, the Washington Legal Center, a tort reform group, filed a similar brief in the case. On Nov. 17, its chief counsel, Rich Samp, said: "It is high time to halt the deluge of food mislabeling claims being filed by plaintiffs lawyers under California's Unfair Competition Law." CITYSIDE HEALTHCARE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Maria Morton, individually, and on behalf of all similarly situated persons v. Cityside Healthcare, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv- 03663 (N.D. Ga., November 13, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly. Cityside Healthcare, Inc. provides health care services in Georgia. The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward D. Buckley, Esq. THE BUCKLEY LAW FIRM, LLC 1230 Peachtree Street, NE Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 781-1100 Facsimile: (404) 781-1101 E-mail: edbuckley@buckleylawatl.com CLOVER GLOBAL: "Fregoso" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Elizabeth Fregoso, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Clover Global Solutions, LP, Case No. 3:14-cv-00363 (S.D. Tex., November 13, 2014), seeks to recover the unpaid overtime wages and other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Clover Global Solutions, LP is a professional staffing business that provides engineering and management employees to oil and gas companies around the world. The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard J. Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com CROSS COUNTRY: Accrued $0.8MM to Settle Wage and Hour Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Cross Country Healthcare, 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 during the nine months ended September 30, 2013, the Company accrued $0.8 million to settle a wage and hour class action lawsuit in California, for which the Court granted final approval of the settlement in September 2014. On December 4, 2012, the Company's subsidiary, CC Staffing, Inc. (now known as Travel Staff, LLC) became the subject of a purported class action lawsuit (Alice Ogues, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. CC Staffing, Inc., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants) filed in the United States District Court, Northern District of California. Plaintiff alleged that traveling employees were denied meal periods and rest breaks, that they should have been paid overtime on reimbursement amounts, various other wage and hour claims, and that they are entitled to associated penalties. In 2013, the parties agreed to settle this lawsuit for $0.8 million with the understanding that such settlement is not an admission by the Company of any liability, negligence or wrong doing. The Court granted final approval of the settlement in September 2014. Cross Country Healthcare, Inc., is a national leader in providing healthcare recruiting, staffing and workforce management solutions. CVS HEALTH: Certification of Suit Over 1999 Settlement Challenged ----------------------------------------------------------------- A rehearing on the class certification of a suit filed on behalf of participants in the 1999 settlement of various securities suit and derivative lawsuits against CVS Health Corporation (formerly CVS Caremark Corporation) is seeking to clarify the ruling with the Alabama Supreme Court, according to the company's Nov. 4, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014. Caremark (the term "Caremark" being used herein to generally refer to any one or more pharmacy benefit management subsidiaries of the Company, as applicable) was named in a putative class action lawsuit filed in October 2003 in Alabama state court by John Lauriello, purportedly on behalf of participants in the 1999 settlement of various securities class action and derivative lawsuits against Caremark and others. Other defendants include insurance companies that provided coverage to Caremark with respect to the settled lawsuits. The Lauriello lawsuit seeks approximately $3.2 billion in compensatory damages plus other non- specified damages based on allegations that the amount of insurance coverage available for the settled lawsuits was misrepresented and suppressed. A similar lawsuit was filed in November 2003 by Frank McArthur, also in Alabama state court, naming as defendants Caremark, several insurance companies, attorneys and law firms involved in the 1999 settlement. This lawsuit was stayed as a later-filed class action, but McArthur was subsequently allowed to intervene in the Lauriello action. Following the close of class discovery, the trial court entered an Order on August 15, 2012 that granted the plaintiffs' motion to certify a class pursuant to Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) but denied their request that the class also be certified pursuant to Rule 23(b)(1). In addition, the August 15, 2012 Order appointed class representatives and class counsel. On September 12, 2014, the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's August 15, 2012 Order. The Defendants timely filed an Application for Rehearing with the Alabama Supreme Court seeking to clarify or modify its September 12, 2014 decision. The proceedings in the trial court remain stayed pending resolution of the rehearing application. CVS HEALTH: Cert. Motions in Antitrust Litigation Remain Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Motions for class certification in In Re Pharmacy Benefit Managers Antitrust Litigation remain pending, and the court has permitted certain additional class discovery and briefing, according to CVS Health Corporation's Nov. 4, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014. Various lawsuits have been filed alleging that Caremark has violated applicable antitrust laws in establishing and maintaining retail pharmacy networks for client health plans. In August 2003, Bellevue Drug Co., Robert Schreiber, Inc. d/b/a Burns Pharmacy and Rehn-Huerbinger Drug Co. d/b/a Parkway Drugs #4, together with Pharmacy Freedom Fund and the National Community Pharmacists Association filed a putative class action against Caremark in Pennsylvania federal court, seeking treble damages and injunctive relief. This case was initially sent to arbitration based on the contract terms between the pharmacies and Caremark. In October 2003, two independent pharmacies, North Jackson Pharmacy, Inc. and C&C, Inc. d/b/a Big C Discount Drugs, Inc., filed a putative class action complaint in Alabama federal court against Caremark and two PBM competitors, seeking treble damages and injunctive relief. The North Jackson Pharmacy case against two of the Caremark entities named as defendants was transferred to Illinois federal court, and the case against a separate Caremark entity was sent to arbitration based on contract terms between the pharmacies and Caremark. The Bellevue arbitration was then stayed by the parties pending developments in the North Jackson Pharmacy court case. In August 2006, the Bellevue case and the North Jackson Pharmacy case were both transferred to Pennsylvania federal court by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation for coordinated and consolidated proceedings with other cases before the panel, including cases against other PBMs. Caremark appealed the decision which vacated an order compelling arbitration and staying the proceedings in the Bellevue case and, following the appeal, the Court of Appeals reinstated the order compelling arbitration of the Bellevue case. Following remand, plaintiffs in the Bellevue case sought dismissal of their complaint to permit an immediate appeal of the reinstated order compelling arbitration and pursued an appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. In November 2012, the Third Circuit Court reversed the district court ruling and directed the parties to proceed in federal court. Motions for class certification in the coordinated cases within the multidistrict litigation, including the North Jackson Pharmacy case, remain pending, and the court has permitted certain additional class discovery and briefing. The consolidated action is now known as the In Re Pharmacy Benefit Managers Antitrust Litigation. CVS HEALTH: N.H. Court Denies New Motion to Dismiss Stock Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire denied the renewed motion of CVS Health Corporation to dismiss a securities lawsuit filed against it, according to the company's Nov. 4, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014. In November 2009, a securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island purportedly on behalf of purchasers of the Company's stock between May 5, 2009 and November 4, 2009. Plaintiffs subsequently amended the lawsuit to allege a class period beginning October 30, 2008. The lawsuit names the Company and certain officers as defendants and includes allegations of securities fraud relating to public disclosures made by the Company concerning the PBM business and allegations of insider trading. In addition, a shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed in December 2009 in the same court against the directors and certain officers of the Company. This lawsuit, which was stayed pending developments in the related securities class action, includes allegations of, among other things, securities fraud, insider trading and breach of fiduciary duties and further alleges that the Company was damaged by the purchase of stock at allegedly inflated prices under its share repurchase program. In January 2011, both lawsuits were transferred to the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire. In June 2012, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the securities class action. The plaintiffs subsequently appealed the court's ruling on the motion to dismiss. In May 2013, the First Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the prior ruling and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. In December 2013, the district court denied the Company's renewed motion to dismiss the lawsuit. The derivative lawsuit is presently stayed pending further developments in the class action. DOWNTOWN RESTAURANT: Sued Over Breach of Fair Labor Standards Act ----------------------------------------------------------------- Diego Sanay, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Downtown Restaurant Co., LLC, Giuseppe Cipriani, and Arrigo Cipriani, Case No. 1:14-cv-09036 (S.D.N.Y., November 13, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 55 Wall Street, 3rd Floor, New York, New York 10005. The Plaintiff is represented by: Constantine Tryfon Tzifas, Esq. ARTHUR J. SEMETIS, P.C. 21 East 40th Street, 14th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 557-3000 Facsimile: (212) 557-5051 E-mail: ctzifas@semetislaw.com EASTMAN KODAK: Motion to Dismiss ERISA Suit Still Under Advisement ------------------------------------------------------------------ Defendants' motion to dismiss In re Eastman Kodak ERISA Litigation was heard and remains under advisement, according to Eastman Kodak Company's Nov. 4, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014. Subsequent to the Company's Bankruptcy Filing, between January 27, 2012 and March 22, 2012, several putative class action suits were filed in federal court in the Western District of New York against the committees of the Company's Stock Ownership Plan ("SOP") and Savings and Investment Plan ("SIP"), and certain former and current executives of the Company. The suits have been consolidated into a single action brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), styled as In re Eastman Kodak ERISA Litigation. The allegations concern the decline in the Company's stock price and its alleged impact on SOP and SIP. Plaintiffs seek the recovery of any losses to the applicable plans, a constructive trust, the appointment of an independent fiduciary, equitable relief, as applicable, and attorneys' fees and costs. Defendants' motion to dismiss the litigation was heard on May 23, 2013 and remains under advisement. On behalf of the defendants in this case, the Company believes that the case is without merit and will vigorously defend the defendants on their behalf. ECHOSPHERE LLC: Removes "Tajonar" Class Suit to S.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit entitled Tajonar v. Echosphere, L.L.C., et al., Case No. 37-2014-00027744-CU-OE-CTL, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (San Diego). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:14-cv-02732-LAB-RBB to the proceeding. Plaintiff Jose Tajonar accuses the Defendants of failure to provide access to employee payroll and personnel records pursuant to the California Labor Code and failure to maintain required records, in violation of the California Labor Code. The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas D. Rutledge, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS D. RUTLEDGE 3555 Fifth Avenue, Suite 201 San Diego, CA 92103 Telephone: (619) 866-7224 Facsimile: (619) 259-5455 E-mail: rutledgelaw@cox.net The Defendants are represented by: Neda N. Dal Cielo, Esq. Marlene Muraco, Esq. Jose Macias, Jr., Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 50 W. San Fernando Street, 15th Floor San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone: (408) 998-4150 Facsimile: (408) 288-5686 E-mail: ndalcielo@littler.com mmuraco@littler.com jmacias@littler.com ELECTRONIC ARTS: No Amended Complaint Filed in Calif. Stock Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- No amended complaint has been filed in a shareholder lawsuit filed against Electronic Arts Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, according to the company's Nov. 4, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014. On December 17, 2013, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and certain of its officers by an individual purporting to represent a class of purchasers of EA common stock. A second purported shareholder class action lawsuit alleging substantially similar claims was subsequently filed in the same court. These lawsuits have been consolidated into one action. The lawsuits, which assert claims under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, allege, among other things, that the Company and certain of its officers issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the rollout of the Company's Battlefield 4 game. On October 20, 2014, the court granted the company's motion to dismiss all claims with leave for the plaintiffs to amend their complaint. As of the date of this filing, no amended complaint has been filed. ENERGY TRANSFER: Fact Discovery Concluded in MTBE Litigation ------------------------------------------------------------ Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. 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 fact discovery has concluded in the MTBE Litigation with respect to an initial set of fewer than 20 sites each that will be the subject of the first trial phase in the New Jersey case and the initial Puerto Rico case. Sunoco, Inc., along with other refiners, manufacturers and sellers of gasoline, is a defendant in lawsuits alleging methyl tertiary butyl ether contamination of groundwater. The plaintiffs typically include water purveyors and municipalities responsible for supplying drinking water and governmental authorities. The plaintiffs are asserting primarily product liability claims and additional claims including nuisance, trespass, negligence, violation of environmental laws and deceptive business practices. The plaintiffs in all of the cases are seeking to recover compensatory damages, and in some cases also seek natural resource damages, injunctive relief, punitive damages and attorneys' fees. As of September 30, 2014, Sunoco is a defendant in nine cases, including cases initiated by the States of New Jersey, Vermont, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and two others by the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico with the more recent Puerto Rico action being a companion case alleging damages for additional sites beyond those at issue in the initial Puerto Rico action. Six of these cases are venued in a multidistrict litigation ("MDL") proceeding in a New York federal court. The most recently filed Puerto Rico action is expected to be transferred to the MDL. The New Jersey, Puerto Rico, Vermont, and Pennsylvania cases assert natural resource damage claims. Fact discovery has concluded with respect to an initial set of fewer than 20 sites each that will be the subject of the first trial phase in the New Jersey case and the initial Puerto Rico case. Insufficient information has been developed about the plaintiffs' legal theories or the facts with respect to statewide natural resource damage claims to provide an analysis of the ultimate potential liability of Sunoco in these matters. It is reasonably possible that a loss may be realized; however, we are unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss in excess of amounts accrued. Management believes that an adverse determination with respect to one or more of the MTBE cases could have a significant impact on results of operations during the period in which any said adverse determination occurs, but does not believe that any such adverse determination would have a material adverse effect on the Partnership's consolidated financial position. ENERGY TRANSFER: Provides Updates on PVR Merger Litigation ---------------------------------------------------------- Energy Transfer Equity, L.P., 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, provided updates on litigation relating to the PVR Merger. Five putative class action lawsuits challenging the merger have been filed and are currently pending. All of the cases name PVR Partners, L.P., PVR GP and the current directors of PVR GP, as well as Regency Energy Partners LP and the General Partner of Regency (collectively, the "Regency Defendants"), as defendants. Each of the lawsuits has been brought by a purported unitholder of PVR, both individually and on behalf of a putative class consisting of public unitholders of PVR. The lawsuits generally allege, among other things, that the directors of PVR GP breached their fiduciary duties to unitholders of PVR, that PVR GP, PVR and the Regency Defendants aided and abetted the directors of PVR GP in the alleged breach of their fiduciary duties, and, as to the actions in federal court, that some or all of PVR, PVR GP, and the directors of PVR GP violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The lawsuits purport to seek, in general, (i) injunctive relief, (ii) disclosure of certain additional information concerning the transaction, (iii) in the event the merger is consummated, rescission or an award of rescissory damages, (iv) an award of plaintiffs' costs and (v) the accounting for damages allegedly caused by the defendants to these actions, and, (vi) such further relief as the court deems just and proper. The styles of the pending cases are as follows: David Naiditch v. PVR Partners, L.P., et al. (Case No. 9015-VCL) in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware); Charles Monatt v. PVR Partners, LP, et al. (Case No. 2013-10606) and Saul Srour v. PVR Partners, L.P., et al. (Case No. 2013-011015), each pending in the Court of Common Pleas for Delaware County, Pennsylvania; Stephen Bushansky v. PVR Partners, L.P., et al. (C.A. No. 2:13-cv-06829- HB); and Mark Hinnau v. PVR Partners, L.P., et al. (C.A. No. 2:13- cv-07496-HB), pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On January 28, 2014, the defendants entered into a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") with Monatt, Srour, Bushansky, Naiditch and Hinnau pursuant to which defendants and the referenced plaintiffs agreed in principle to a settlement of their lawsuits ("Settled Lawsuits"), which will be memorialized in a separate settlement agreement, subject to customary conditions, including consummation of the PVR Acquisition, which occurred on March 21, 2014, completion of certain confirmatory discovery, class certification and final approval by the Court of Common Pleas for Delaware County, Pennsylvania. If the Court approves the settlement, the Settled Lawsuits will be dismissed with prejudice and all defendants will be released from any and all claims relating to the Settled Lawsuits. The settlement will not affect any provisions of the merger agreement or the form or amount of consideration received by PVR unitholders in the PVR Acquisition. The defendants have denied and continue to deny any wrongdoing or liability with respect to the plaintiffs' claims in the aforementioned litigation and have entered into the settlement to eliminate the uncertainty, burden, risk, expense, and distraction of further litigation. ENERGY TRANSFER: Suits Filed Over Eagle Rock Midstream Deal ----------------------------------------------------------- Energy Transfer Equity, L.P., 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 three putative class action lawsuits challenging Regency Energy Partners LP's acquisition of the Eagle Rock midstream assets are currently pending in federal district court in Houston, Texas. All cases name Eagle Rock and its current directors, as well as Regency and a subsidiary as defendants. One of the lawsuits also names additional Eagle Rock entities as defendants. Each of the lawsuits has been brought by a purported unitholder of Eagle Rock (collectively, the "Plaintiffs"), both individually and on behalf of a putative class consisting of public unitholders of Eagle Rock. The Plaintiffs in each case seek to rescind the transaction, claiming, among other things, that it yields inadequate consideration, was tainted by conflict and constitutes breaches of common law fiduciary duties or contractually imposed duties to the shareholders. Plaintiffs also seek monetary damages and attorneys' fees. Regency and its subsidiary are named as "aiders and abettors" of the allegedly wrongful actions of Eagle Rock and its board. EUGENE STRUPINSKY: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act -------------------------------------------------------------- Latrell Washington, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Eugene Strupinsky and The Law Office of Eugene Strupinsky, PLLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-06753 (E.D.N.Y., November 17, 2014) is brought for alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq. ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW 483 Chestnut Street Cedarhurst, NY 11516 Telephone: (516) 791-4400 Facsimile: (516) 791-4411 E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com FAIRWAY PLAZA: Faces Independence Project Suit over Breach of ADA ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Independence Project, Inc., a New Jersey Non-Profit Corporation, and Ronald Moore v. Fairway Plaza Associates, LLC, Case No. 3:14-cv-07119 (D.N.J., November 13, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Fairway Plaza Associates, LLC owns and operates a shopping center in New Jersey. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert J. Donaher, Esq. WALDER HAYDEN P.A. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07066-1727 Telephone: (973) 992-1505 Facsimile: (973) 992-1505 E-mail: rjdonaher@walderhayden.com - and - John P. Fuller, Esq. FULLER, FULLER & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 12000 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 502 North Miami, FL 33181 Telephone: (305) 891-5199 Facsimile: (305) 893-9505 E-mail: jpf@fullerfuller.com FORD MOTOR: Court to Hear Arguments on Bid to Join Asbestos Cases ----------------------------------------------------------------- Lizzy McLellan, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that When the state Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments in Rost v. Ford, it gave itself the opportunity to consider a unique rule that requires the consolidation of asbestos-related cases in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. It is the only court in the state that requires consolidation of asbestos cases, attorneys said, thanks to a rule established when asbestos filings were at a peak level. "From a defendant's standpoint, that is extremely prejudicial," said John J. Hare -- jjhare@mdwcg.com -- of the appellate department at Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin. "These cases were consolidated with different plaintiffs, different products, different exposure history, different medical history." But the practice still serves a purpose, said Stanley Thompson, director of the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Complex Litigation Center, as more than 200 asbestos cases are filed each year. "The fact of the matter is that these cases are still out there," said Benjamin P. Shein, an asbestos plaintiffs attorney. "You can't bring a program to a screeching halt, or you'll be right back where you were before consolidation." Fairness of Consolidation In Rost, the high court will consider "whether the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas' mandatory practice of consolidating unrelated asbestos cases . . . is consistent with the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure and due process; whether consolidation in this case was proper; and whether the Superior Court has the authority to review a trial court's case-consolidation decisions in asbestos cases," according to the Supreme Court order granting allocatur. Richard Rost's case was consolidated with two others involving plaintiffs who had mesothelioma, Estate of Wasekanes v. Sears and Graver v. Foster Wheeler. A Philadelphia jury awarded $844,800 to Mr. Rost and $150,000 to his wife, Joyce Rost. The case faced cross-appeals in the Superior Court, and the court upheld the verdict. In its petition to the Supreme Court for allowance of appeal, Ford said consolidation of these cases caused defendants to suffer severe prejudice. "The three cases did not share common defendants, common claims, common defenses, common facts, common products, common work sites or common counsel," the defense said in its petition. "The only thing they had in common was alleged asbestos exposure and plaintiffs with mesothelioma." Ford had raised the same issue in an appeal to the Superior Court. In response, the court said it did not have authority to address the procedural issue without a claim of constitutional violation. "Ford argues that the trial court erred in consolidating the Rost case with two other cases based upon the grounds that all three involved plaintiffs suffering from mesothelioma," Superior Court Judge Jack A. Panella wrote in the court's opinion. "However, we note that Ford does not cite to any Pennsylvania appellate authority to support its argument that consolidation of asbestos trials by disease constitutes reversible error." Duane Morris attorney Robert L. Byer -- rlbyer@duanemorris.com -- represented Ford and declined to comment. Mr. Rost's lawyer, Robert E. Paul of Paul, Reich & Myers, did not return a call seeking comment. Consolidation can be problematic for defendants, said Mr. Hare, if the cases are not similar enough. "At the end of the day, the jury is required to segregate the different cases," he said. "They hear a blizzard of arguments and allegations and witnesses. . . . They can't keep track of which witnesses apply to which cases." Steven J. Cooperstein -- scooperstein@brbs.com -- of Brookman, Rosenberg, Brown & Sandler, who represents plaintiffs in asbestos cases, disagreed. "The juries can pretty easily distinguish between cases and award an appropriate verdict," he said. "I don't see any real downside from the plaintiffs' standpoint to consolidating." If cases were not consolidated, Mr. Cooperstein said, plaintiffs would have to wait longer for their court dates. Trying the cases would be more expensive too, he said, because expert witnesses would have to attend multiple trials, and the costs of resources could not be split among multiple cases. Mr. Shein said he agreed with Mr. Cooperstein on the benefits of consolidation. However, he said, in some situations the practice could be unfair for either side. "I think that the parties need to be charged with the responsibility of making sure that the cases that are consolidated make sense from a fairness standpoint," he said. "I don't think that's something the Supreme Court can really get involved in." Cases Remain Plentiful The Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas has a specific set of rules related to mass torts, and a subset of rules regarding asbestos litigation in particular. Asbestos cases are the only type that can be consolidated without the consent of all parties involved, according to General Court Regulation No. 2013-01, amended in February 2013. The regulation said asbestos cases must be consolidated into groups of eight to 10, based on various criteria including same law, same disease and same plaintiffs law firm. From there, a maximum of three cases will be tried, the regulation said, and the others may be resolved through settlement or returned to the coordinating judge for regrouping and relisting for trial. Immediately before the trial of up to three cases, the judge is to determine whether they will be tried in a consolidated manner. Before the amendment, more than three cases could be tried together and occasionally were. When the rule was established in the late 1980s, the court had a backlog of thousands of asbestos cases, Mr. Thompson said. The regulation allowed for that backlog to shrink. However, the number of cases has remained steady in recent years. According to the court's inventory breakdown, the court has had a backlog of between 566 and 762 asbestos cases each quarter since January 2009. "I think consolidation works. It's proven to work for a number of years. We've gotten rid of the backlog," Mr. Shein said. "Is there such thing as a perfect system? There's not." The court currently has 633 cases, said Mr. Thompson, 365 of which are listed for trial, and 260 are to be listed. Mr. Thompson said he could not address whether the protocols were up for consideration by the court. More than 200 asbestos cases are filed each year, he said, and the goal is to get them all resolved or to trial within two years of filing. "In a perfect world, every case would be tried individually," Mr. Thompson said. FREIGHTCAR AMERICA: Summary Judgment Motions Filed in Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Freightcar America, 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 parties in the class action involving the Company's retirees filed with the Pennsylvania Court their respective motions for summary judgment as to liability. On July 8, 2013, the Company filed a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment (the "Complaint") in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division (the "Illinois Court"). The case names as defendants the United Steel, Paper & Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial & Services Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC (the "USW"), as well as approximately 650 individual Retiree Defendants (as defined in the Complaint), and was assigned Case No 1:13-cv-4889. As described in the Complaint, pursuant to the 2005 Settlement Agreement among the Company, the USW and the Retiree Defendants, the Company agreed to make certain levels of contributions to medical coverage for the Retiree Defendants and to continue to provide life insurance benefits at their amount at that time under certain of the Company's employee welfare benefit plans. The 2005 Settlement Agreement expressly provided that, as of November 30, 2012, the Company could cease making these contributions. In June 2011, the Company and the USW began discussing the possibility of an extension beyond November 30, 2012 for the Company's contributions to retiree medical coverage and life insurance benefits at a reduced amount and on other mutually acceptable terms. The Company engaged in voluntary negotiations for two years with the USW and counsel for the Retiree Defendants in an effort to reach a consensual agreement regarding such medical and life insurance benefits, but the parties were unable to reach a final agreement. The Company terminated, effective November 1, 2013, its contributions for medical coverage provided to the Retiree Defendants and the provision of life insurance benefits and is seeking declaratory relief to confirm its rights under the ERISA to reduce or terminate retiree medical coverage and life insurance benefits pursuant to the plans that were the subject of the 2005 Settlement Agreement. On July 9, 2013, the USW and certain Retiree Defendants (collectively, the "Pennsylvania Plaintiffs") filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (the "Pennsylvania Court"), captioned as Zanghi, et al. v. FreightCar America, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:13- cv-146. The complaint filed with the Pennsylvania Court alleges that the Company does not have the right to terminate welfare benefits previously provided to the Retiree Defendants and requests, among other relief, entry of a judgment finding that the Retiree Defendants have a vested right to specified welfare benefits. On July 26, 2013, the Pennsylvania Plaintiffs filed with the Illinois Court a Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) or in the Alternative, to Transfer Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1404(a), as well as a Motion to Stay and/or Prevent Plaintiff from Obtaining Defaults against the Retiree Defendants. On August 5, 2013, the Company filed with the Pennsylvania Court a Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) or in the Alternative, to Transfer Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1404(a). On January 14, 2014, the Pennsylvania Court denied the Company's motion to dismiss and, on January 16, 2014, the Illinois Court transferred the Company's case to the Pennsylvania Court. On January 31, 2014, the Company filed a motion to consolidate both cases before the Pennsylvania Court. On April 3, 2014, the Pennsylvania Court entered an order (the "Initial Procedural Order") that, among other things, consolidated both cases before the Pennsylvania Court, certified a class for purposes of the consolidated actions, established discovery parameters and deadlines and established a briefing schedule applicable to the parties' cross motions for summary judgment as to liability only. On July 17, 2014, the parties filed with the Pennsylvania Court their respective motions for summary judgment as to liability. The parties have submitted their responses and replies with respect to each of the motions. There can be no assurance as to when the Pennsylvania Court will issue its ruling on such motions, or how the Pennsylvania Court will rule. On September 5, 2013, the Pennsylvania Plaintiffs and certain putative class representatives filed a Plaintiffs' Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (the "TRO Motion") with the Pennsylvania Court. In the TRO Motion, the plaintiffs requested that the Pennsylvania Court enter an injunction requiring the Company to continue to make monthly contributions at the same rate established by the 2005 Settlement Agreement until the parties' dispute is fully adjudicated on the merits. Following entry of the Initial Procedural Order, the Pennsylvania Court denied the TRO Motion without prejudice. The Company has recorded postretirement benefit plan obligations, a substantial portion of which relates to the dispute now before the Illinois Court and the Pennsylvania Court. Freightcar is a manufacturer of aluminum-bodied railcars and coal cars in North America, based on the number of railcars delivered. GEBRUEDER KNAUF: Faces "Bennett" Suit Over Defective Drywalls ------------------------------------------------------------- Elizabeth Bennett, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Gebrueder Knauf Verwaltungsgesellschaft, et al., Case No. 5:14-cv-02204 (N.D. Ala., November 13, 2014), seeks damages over alleged defective Chinese-manufactured drywall that was designed, manufactured, imported, exported, distributed, delivered, supplied, inspected, marketed, sold and installed by the Defendants. Gebrueder Knauf Verwaltungsgesellschaft is involved in the insulation and building material industry. The Plaintiff is represented by: James V. Doyle Jr., DOYLE LAW FIRM PC 2545 Highland Avenue Suite 100 (35205) PO Box 36445 Birmingham, AL 35235 Telephone: (205) 533-9500 Facsimile: (205) 332-1362 E-mail: jimmy@doylefirm.com GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Ariz. AG Suit Over Delayed Vehicle Recalls ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bob Christie, writing for The Associated Press, reports that Arizona's attorney general has sued General Motors Co. for failing to recall millions of cars and trucks with safety defects the auto giant did not disclose for years. The lawsuit seeks potentially billions of dollars in fines. Attorney General Tom Horne said on Nov. 20 that he sued under the state's consumer fraud statutes and is seeking a $10,000 fine for each of hundreds of thousands of defective vehicles sold in the state. The lawsuit filed in Maricopa County Superior Court in Phoenix also seeks an injunction barring GM from similar actions and an order that it hand over profits it made from selling defective vehicles. Horne took action independent of a group of 48 states that have been jointly investigating GM, which Arizona was participating in. "I made the decision that my job was to protect Arizona citizens and that I would be doing that better if we moved ahead with the lawsuit," he said. GM said in a statement that the lawsuit "misrepresents the facts, the performance of our vehicles and our work to ensure the safety of our customers. We intend to vigorously defend ourselves." Mr. Horne's actions came on the same day that news broke that he was settling campaign-finance allegations brought by the state's public campaign financing board and would pay a $10,000 fine. Mr. Horne is leaving office in January after losing to his Republican opponent in the primary after years of allegations that he violated campaign laws in 2010 and again this year. Mr. Horne said the two developments were unrelated. "One of the questions that I was asked frequently was, 'Can I continue doing my job while defending against charges which I say are false charges?' and I've always said yes, I can," he said. GM has recalled more than 30 million vehicles so far this year, including millions of cars equipped with a defective ignition switch that has been blamed for at least 33 deaths. The ignition switches were installed in many GM small cars for years, and the company has been under fire for failing to recall them until early this year. GM has hired compensation expert Kenneth Feinberg to pay victims and their families and expects to pay $400 million to $600 million in claims. In addition to two assistant attorneys general listed on the lawsuit, Mr. Horne brought in a Seattle law firm with a long history of class-action lawsuits against major companies, including suing Toyota Motor Corp. in a sudden-acceleration case. The GM lawsuit alleges the Detroit company failed to ensure its products were safe, did not tell the truth about safety issues and failed to promptly recall defective vehicles. It also said GM's purported new safety culture "was an illusion given the company's egregious failure to disclose, and its affirmative concealment of, ignition switch defects and a plethora of other safety defects in GM-branded vehicles." GENERAL MOTORS: Deadline to File Ignition-Switch Claims Extended ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rama Venkat Raman, Ben Klayman and Paul Lienert, writing for Reuters, report that the deadline to file claims under General Motors Co's faulty ignition-switch compensation program has been extended by one month to Jan. 31, said Kenneth Feinberg, the program's administrator. Mr. Feinberg's office on Nov. 17 updated its list of claims submitted, saying it had approved compensation for the families of 33 victims killed in GM cars with faulty ignition switches. Notice of the deadline extension was sent to about 4.5 million current and previous owners of eligible vehicles, Mr. Feinberg said in a statement. An extension of a further month was being implemented "out of an abundance of caution," he said. GM said it agreed with the extension of the deadline. "Our goal with the program has been to reach every eligible person impacted," the company said in a statement. Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, an outspoken critic of GM's handling of its ignition-switch problems, said the extension was "inadequate." In a statement, Senator Blumenthal said the compensation fund deadline should either be eliminated or substantially modified. "GM should either commit to waiving its bankruptcy shield in all pending legal actions, or permit all victims who qualify for the fund to postpone their acceptance of their compensation until the completion of the Department of Justice investigation into GM's possible criminal actions," he said. A car-safety advocate has urged a more active approach to finding cases of injury or death. Clarence Ditlow, executive director of the Center for Auto Safety, asked Feinberg to expand outreach efforts and scour federal car-safety databases for accidents in recalled vehicles to determine whether the switch was to blame for additional injuries or deaths. The program, GM Ignition Compensation Claims Resolution Facility, began accepting claims Aug. 1 and as of Nov. 14 had received 2,105 for deaths and serious injuries linked to the switch. GILLETTE COMPANY: Falsely Marketed Duracell Batteries, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Renee Punian, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Gillette Company and The Procter & Gamble Company, Case No. 5:14-cv-05028 (N.D. Cal., November 13, 2014), alleges that Defendants concealed and misrepresented material facts concerning potential battery leakage during storage and intended use of their Duracell Batteries. The Gillette Company produces and sells personal care products for men. The Procter & Gamble Company is a manufacturer of products including personal care, household cleaning, laundry detergents, prescription drugs and disposable nappies. The Plaintiff is represented by: Pierce Gore, Esq. RICHARD R. BARRETT LAW FIRM 2086 Old Taylor Road, Suite 1011 Oxford, MS 38655 Telephone: (662)380-5018 E-mail: rrb@rrblawfirm.net - and - Barrett J. Clisby, Esq. BARRETT J. CLISBY, PLLC Box 240, 2086 Old Taylor Road, Suite 1021 Oxford, MS 38655-0240 Telephone: (662) 234-8413 E-mail: bjclisby@gmail.com - and - Dewitt M. Lovelace, Esq. Valerie Lauro Nettles, Esq. LOVELACE AND ASSOCIATES, P.A. 12870 U.S. Hwy 98 West, Suite 200 Miramar Beach, FL 32550 Telephone: (850) 837-6020 Facsimile: (850) 837-4093 E-mail: dml@lovelacelaw.com vln@lovelacelaw.com - and - Charles Barrett, Esq. CHARLES BARRETT, PC 6518 Highway 100, Suite 210 Nashville, TN 37205 Telephone: (615) 515-3393 E-mail: charles@cfbfirm.com - and - Thomas P. Thrash, Esq. THRASH LAW FIRM, P.A. 1101 Garland Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 374-1058 Facsimile: (501) 374-2222 - and - Charles J. LaDuca, Esq. Bonnie J. Prober, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 8120 Woodmont Avenue, Suite 810 Bethesda, MD 20814 Telephone: (202) 789-3960 Facsimile: (202) 589-1813 E-mail: charles@cuneolaw.com bprober@cuneolaw.com - and - Taylor Asen, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 16 Court Street, Suite 1012 Brooklyn, NY 11241 Telephone: (202) 789-3960 Facsimile: (202) 589-1813 E-mail: tasen@cuneolaw.com GOLD RESOURCE: Plaintiff Appeals Case Dismissal to Tenth Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Gold Resource 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 a securities class action lawsuit subsequently captioned In re Gold Resource Corp. Securities Litigation, No.1:12-cv-02832 was filed on October 25, 2012 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado naming the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors as defendants. The complaint alleged violations of federal securities laws by the Company and certain of its officers and directors. On July 15, 2013, the federal district court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice. The plaintiff has appealed the District Court's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Gold Resouces is a mining company which pursues gold and silver projects that are expected to have low operating costs and high returns on capital. GT ADVANCED: Faces "Walpole" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports --------------------------------------------------------------- Bob Walpole, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Thomas Gutierrez, Kanwardev Raja Singh Bal, and Richard J. Gaynor, Case No. 1:14-cv-00507 (D.N.H., November 13, 2014), alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose that there were significant risks that the Company would be unable to fulfill the requirements of the Apple Agreement to supply sapphire material, that the Company's sapphire material would not be used in the Apple iPhone 6 devices, and that, as a result of the Apple Agreement problems, the Company was facing a liquidity crisis. GT Advanced Technologies Inc. is a diversified technology company producing advanced materials and innovative crystal growth equipment for the global consumer electronics, power electronics, solar and LED industries. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark L. Mallory, Esq. MALLORY & FRIEDMAN, PLLC 3 North Spring Street Concord, NH 03301 Telephone: (603) 228-2277 E-mail: mark@malloryandfriedman.com - and - Brian D. Brooks, Esq. SMITH SEGURA & RAPHAEL LLP 3600 Jackson Street, Suite 111 Alexandria, LA 71303 Telephone: (318) 445-4480 Facsimile: (318) 487-1741 HANGER INC: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Securities Fraud ------------------------------------------------------------ Shareholder rights law firm Johnson & Weaver, LLP on Nov. 14 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed in Federal court on behalf of purchasers of Hanger, Inc. common stock during the period between August 1, 2013 through August 7, 2014. On November 12, 2014, the City of Pontiac General Employees' Retirement System filed a class action complaint against Hanger and certain of its executives alleging that they violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Specifically, the complaint alleges that Hangar failed to disclose the effect that an increase in Medicare audits had on the Company's business, including reserves for bad debt and accounts receivable. Hanger announced on August 7, 2014, that earnings declined 23% due to the Medicare audits. On the news, Hanger's shares declined 24.7% the next trading day. Johnson & Weaver, LLC is investigating whether certain directors and officers violated state laws as well in connection with alleged false and misleading statements. If you are a shareholder that lost a significant amount of money as a result of these alleged improper statements, or you are a long-term shareholder concerned about protecting your investment, please contact Jim Baker -- jimb@johnsonandweaver.com -- by email or by phone at 619-814-4471. If you email, please include your phone number. About Johnson & Weaver, LLP Johnson & Weaver, LLP -- http://www.johnsonandweaver.com-- is a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm with offices in California, New York and Georgia. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder derivative and securities class action lawsuits. HANSEN MEDICAL: Records Decrease in Legal Expenses -------------------------------------------------- Hansen Medical, 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 selling, general and administrative expenses decreased in the third quarter of 2014 compared to same period in 2013 primarily due to a $0.8 million decrease in legal expenses associated with a settlement of the securities class action lawsuit, patent filing expenses and other corporate matters and a $0.3 million decrease in stock-based compensation expenses, partially offset by a $0.3 million increase in the salary and incentive accrual and a $0.2 million increase in sales and marketing expenses for tradeshows, advertising and promotions. Selling, general and administrative expenses increased during the nine months of 2014 compared to same period in 2013 primarily due to a $1.7 million increase in salary related expenses and incentive accrual, $0.8 million increase in advertising and promotion cost related to mobile lab and other costs, $0.4 million increase in sales commissions, $0.3 million severance cost incurred and $0.6 million increase in other general administrative expenses. These increases were partially offset by a $2.3 million decrease in legal and litigation fees related to a settlement of the class action lawsuit and $0.8 million decrease in related stock-based compensation expenses due to executive transitions. Hansen Medical develops, manufactures and markets a new generation of medical robotics designed for accurate positioning, manipulation and stable control of catheters and catheter-based technologies. HILLTOP HOLDINGS: Plaintiffs Drop Preliminary Injunction Bid ------------------------------------------------------------ Hilltop Holdings 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 each of Hilltop, Peruna LLC (wholly owned subsidiary of Hilltop), SWS Group Inc. and the individual members of the board of directors of SWS have been named as defendants in two purported stockholder class action lawsuits arising out of the pending merger. Both lawsuits were filed in Delaware Chancery Court (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 SWS board of directors 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, that the SWS board of directors labored under conflicts of interest, that certain provisions of the merger agreement unduly restrict SWS's ability to negotiate with other potential bidders, and that the other defendants aided and abetted the SWS board of director's breaches of fiduciary duty. The complaint further alleges, among other things, that the proxy statement/prospectus filed by Hilltop on May 29, 2014 omits or misstates certain material information. The complaints seek 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. Hilltop believes that the claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against these actions. Hilltop Holdings has two primary operating business units, PlainsCapital and National Lloyds Corporation ("NLC"). PlainsCapital is a financial holding company, headquartered in Dallas, Texas, that provides, through its subsidiaries, an array of financial products and services. In addition to traditional banking services, PlainsCapital provides residential mortgage lending, investment banking, public finance advisory, wealth and investment management, treasury management, capital equipment leasing, fixed income sales, asset management, and correspondent clearing services. NLC is a property and casualty insurance holding company that provides, through its subsidiaries, fire and homeowners insurance to low value dwellings and manufactured homes primarily in Texas and other areas of the southern United States. HOSPIRA INC: Court Approves Settlement in Securities Litigation --------------------------------------------------------------- Hospira, 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 U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois approved on September 5, 2014, a settlement and dismissed a class action lawsuit filed against Hospira and certain of its current and former corporate officers alleging violations of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. In City of Sterling Heights General Employees' Retirement System, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated vs. Hospira, Inc., F. Michael Ball, Thomas E. Werner, James H. Hardy, Jr., and Christopher B. Begley, amended complaint filed June 25, 2012, the plaintiffs alleged, generally, that the defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding Hospira's financials and business prospects and failed to disclose material facts affecting Hospira's financial condition. The settlement was fully funded by insurance proceeds. Hospira, Inc. is a provider of injectable drugs and infusion technologies that it develops, manufactures, distributes and markets globally. I A NUTRITION: Sued Over Illegal Use of Non-Protein Ingredients --------------------------------------------------------------- Martin Mee, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. I A Nutrition, Inc., a Connecticut corporation, Case No. 3:14-cv-05006 (N.D. Cal., November 13, 2014), arises out of the Defendant's unlawful practice of adding non-protein ingredients to fake a higher protein content through a higher nitrogen content in its Inner Armour Mass Peak Whey Hydrolysate Enhanced and Nitro Peak Whey Hydrolysate Enhanced dietary supplements. The Plaintiff is represented by: Tina Wolfson, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 1016 Palm Avenue West Hollywood, CA 90069 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com - and - Nick Suciu III, Esq. BARBAT, MANSOUR & SUCIU PLLC 434 West Alexandrine #101 Detroit, MI 48201 Telephone: (313) 303-3472 E-mail: nicksuciu@bmslawyers.com - and - Jonathan Shub, Esq. SEEGER WEISS, LLP 1515 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (215) 564-1300 E-mail: jshub@seegerweiss.com INTERCEPT PHARMACEUTICALS: Lead Plaintiff Oppose Dismissal Bid -------------------------------------------------------------- Intercept Pharmaceuticals, 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 defendants filed a motion to dismiss shareholder class actions, which has been opposed by the lead plaintiff. On February 21, 2014 and February 28, 2014, purported shareholder class actions, styled Scot H. Atwood v. Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. and George Burton v. Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al., respectively, were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, naming the Company and certain of its officers as defendants. These lawsuits were filed by stockholders who claim to be suing on behalf of anyone who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities between January 9, 2014 and January 10, 2014. The lawsuits allege that the Company made material misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact in its public disclosures during the period from January 9, 2014 to January 10, 2014, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The alleged improper disclosures relate to the Company's January 9, 2014 announcement that the FLINT trial had been stopped early based on a pre-defined interim efficacy analysis. Specifically, the lawsuits claim that the January 9, 2014 announcement was misleading because it did not contain information regarding certain lipid abnormalities seen in the FLINT trial in OCA-treated patients compared to placebo. On April 22, 2014, two individuals each moved to consolidate the cases and a lead plaintiff was subsequently appointed by the Court. On June 27, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on behalf of the putative class as contemplated by the order of the Court. On August 14, 2014, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which has been opposed by the lead plaintiff. The lead plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the putative class and an award of costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees. Intercept Pharmaceuticals is a biopharmaceutical company focused on the development and commercialization of novel therapeutics to treat chronic liver and intestinal diseases utilizing its proprietary bile acid chemistry. INTEREXCHANGE INC: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Johana Paola Beltran, and those similarly situated v. Interexchange, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-03074 (D. Colo., November 13, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, and post-judgment interest pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Interexchange, Inc. is a non-profit organization dedicated to promoting cultural awareness through a wide range of work and travel, language, volunteer, professional training, internship, and au pair programs within the United States and around the world. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander Neville Hood, Esq. TOWARDS JUSTICE-GOLDEN 601 16th Street, Suite C-207 Golden, CO 80401 Telephone: (720) 239-2606 Facsimile: (303) 957-2289 E-mail: alex@towardsjustice.org JIMMY JOHN'S: Faces Class Action Over Data Breach ------------------------------------------------- Lisa Hoffman, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that a data breach that targeted the Jimmy John's Gourmet Sandwiches chain has spawned a proposed class action by a plaintiff who alleges the company's information systems and security oversight were "grossly inadequate" and its delay in announcing the breach was unlawful. Arizona plaintiff and past Jimmy John's patron Barbara Irwin alleges that she was the victim of five fraudulent charges on the credit card she had used at the sandwich store between July 3 and Aug. 4, and contends that the fraud occurred as a result of the breach of the point-of-sale system used at 216 of the company's stores in 40 states. Jimmy John's Franchises LLC, announced the breach on Sept. 24. The company said it learned of the breach on July 30 and "immediately hired third party forensic experts to assist with its investigation," according to a notice on the firm's website. It said a cyber intruder stole log-in credentials from the company's point-of-sale vendor and used them to access the stores' checkout systems where customers swiped their credit and debit cards between June 16 and Sept. 5. In Irwin v. Jimmy John's, filed Nov. 6 in U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois, where the company is based, Irwin alleges that Jimmy John's violated state statutes that require the disclosure of such security breaches be made in the "most expedient time possible and without unreasonable delay." The fraud Irwin suffered was a "direct result" of the company's waiting two months after the discovery of the break-in to announce it. With swift notification, "Plaintiff and Class members could have avoided making credit or debit card purchases at the Company's stores, could have avoided shopping at the Company's stores at all, and could have contacted their banks to cancel their cards, or could otherwise have tried to avoid the harm caused," the complaint states. Jimmy John's said it has taken steps to prevent this type of event from occurring in the future, including installing encrypted swipe machines, implementing system enhancements, and reviewing its policies and procedures for its third party vendors. But the complaint alleges that the point-of-sale software system used by Jimmy John's did not meet basic safety requirements recommended by security experts, and that the company cut corners on protections to save money. "Defendant's failure to comply with reasonable security standards provided the Company with short-term and fleeting benefits in the form of saving on the costs of compliance, but at the expense and to the severe detriment of its own customers," the complaint states. Along with allegedly breaking state security breach laws, the plaintiffs assert that Jimmy John's engaged in violations of state consumer fraud statutes, as well as unjust enrichment, bailment and breach of implied contract. They ask for injunctive relief, damages, restitution, disgorgement and three years of credit-card monitoring services. Plaintiffs' attorneys are with The Rosen Law Firm, The Hinton Law Firm and Heffner Hurst. KERYX BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Shareholders' Class Suit Now Concluded ---------------------------------------------------------------- Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, 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 lawsuit filed on behalf of a putative class of all of the Company's shareholders is now concluded. On February 1, 2013, a lawsuit was filed against the Company and the Company's chief executive officer on behalf of a putative class of all of the Company's shareholders (other than the defendants) who acquired the Company's shares between June 1, 2009 and April 1, 2012. Smith v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:13-CV-0755-TPG (S.D.N.Y.). On February 26, 2013, a substantially similar lawsuit was filed against us and our chief executive officer as well as our chief financial officer. Park v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:13-CV-1307-TPG (S.D.N.Y.). On June 10, 2013, the Court entered an Order consolidating the two lawsuits and appointing a lead plaintiff. The case was styled In re Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:13-CV- 0755-KBF (S.D.N.Y.). The Company said, "On July 10, 2013, the lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint that, in substance, repeated the claims alleged in the consolidated lawsuits. The Consolidated Amended Complaint asserted claims against (i) us for alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and (ii) our chief executive officer for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5. The claims in the Consolidated Amended Complaint were premised on general allegations that we and the individual defendant participated directly or indirectly in the preparation and/or issuance of purportedly false and misleading earnings reports, SEC filings, press releases, and other public statements, which allegedly caused our stock to trade at artificially inflated prices." "On August 26, 2013, we filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint. On February 14, 2014, the Court entered an Opinion and Order granting the motion to dismiss. The Court entered Judgment for the Defendants on February 24, 2014. The lead plaintiff did not appeal the Judgment and this matter is now concluded." Keryx is a biopharmaceutical company focused on bringing innovative therapies to market for patients suffering from renal disease. KEY ENERGY: Faces Allegations of Violating California Labor Laws ---------------------------------------------------------------- Key Energy Services, Inc. is facing lawsuits alleging violations of California's wage and hour laws, according to the company's Nov. 4, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014. Between May of 2013 and June of 2014, five lawsuits (four class actions and one enforcement action) were filed in California involving alleged violations of California's wage and hour laws. In general, the lawsuits allege failure to pay wages, including overtime and minimum wages, failure to pay final wages upon employment terminations in a timely manner, failure to reimburse reasonable and necessary business expenses, failure to provide wage statements consistent with California law, and violations of the California meal and break period laws, among other claims. The company intends to vigorously investigate and defend these actions. Because these cases are in relatively early stages, and the company has not yet briefed class certification issues, it cannot predict the outcome of these lawsuits at this time. Accordingly, it cannot estimate any possible loss or range of loss. KEY ENERGY: Still Faces Shareholder Litigation in Texas Court ------------------------------------------------------------- Key Energy Services, Inc. continues to face shareholder lawsuits in the U.S. District Court Southern District of Texas Houston Division, according to the company's Nov. 4, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014. A special committee of the company's Board of Directors is investigating possible violations of the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act ("FCPA") involving business activities of the company's operations in Russia and an allegation involving the company's Mexico operations that, if true, could potentially constitute a violation of certain of the company's policies, including the company's Code of Business Conduct, the FCPA and other applicable laws. The special committee's investigations, which also include a review of certain aspects of the Company's operations in Colombia, as well as the company's other international locations, are ongoing. The company is fully cooperating with investigations by the SEC and the Department of Justice ("DOJ"). At this time it is unable to predict the ultimate resolution of these matters with these agencies and, accordingly, cannot estimate any possible loss or range of loss. In August 2014, two class action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court Southern District of Texas Houston Division, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated against the Company and certain officers of the Company, alleging violations of federal securities laws, specifically, violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10(b)-5, Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The lawsuits are as follows: Sean Cady, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated v. Key Energy Services, Inc., Richard J. Alario, and J. Marshall Dodson, No. 4:14-cv-2368, filed on August 15, 2014; and Ian W. Davidson, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated v. Key Energy Services, Inc., Richard J. Alario, and J. Marshall Dodson, No. 4.14-cv-2403, filed on August 21, 2014. Both lawsuits allege that, during the period July 25, 2013 to July 17, 2014, the defendants failed to disclose (1) that the Company's production for Petroleos Mexicanos ("Pemex") was in decline; (2) that the Company engaged in improper conduct related to its operations in Russia; and (3) that the Company's business practices in Russia were in violation of the FCPA. KODIAK OIL: Faces 7 Class Actions Over Whiting Deal --------------------------------------------------- Kodiak Oil & Gas 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 seven purported class action lawsuits have been filed on behalf of the Company's shareholders subsequent to the announcement of the Arrangement Agreement with Whiting Petroleum Corporation. On July 13, 2014, Kodiak Oil & Gas Corp. entered into an Arrangement Agreement with Whiting Petroleum Corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Whiting whereby Whiting Canadian Sub would acquire all of the outstanding common shares as part of a plan of arrangement. Subsequent to the announcement of the Arrangement, seven purported class action lawsuits have been filed on behalf of the Company's shareholders in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado: Quigley and Koelling v.Whiting Petroleum Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-02023, filed July 22, 2014 (the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed this lawsuit on September 24, 2014); Fioravanti v. Krysiak, et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-02037, filed July 23, 2014 (the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed this lawsuit October 24, 2014); Wilkinson v.Whiting Petroleum Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-2074, filed July 25, 2014 (the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed this lawsuit on October 23, 2014); Goldsmith v. Krysiak, et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-2098, filed July 29, 2014 (the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed this lawsuit on October 31, 2014); Rogowski v.Whiting Petroleum Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-2136, filed July 31, 2014 (the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed this lawsuit on October 20, 2014); Reiter v. Peterson, et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-02176, filed August 6, 2014; Sohler v. Whiting Petroleum Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:14-cv- 02863, filed October 20, 2014 (the "Sohler Case"); and one purported class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of the Company's shareholders in Denver District Court, State of Colorado: The Booth Family Trust v. Kodiak Oil & Gas Corp., et al., Case No. 14-cv-32947, filed July 25, 2014. This last case was removed to the United States District Court for the District of Colorado on September 4, 2014 and is pending in that court now as Case No. 1:14-cv-2457. It is possible that other related or amended suits could subsequently be filed. The defendants have filed motions to dismiss with prejudice in the all remaining cases other than the Sohler Case. The allegations in the three remaining lawsuits are similar. They purport to be brought as class actions on behalf of all shareholders of the Company. The complaints name as defendants the individual members of the Company's board of directors, Whiting and Whiting Canadian Sub and list the Company as a nominal party or a defendant. The complaints allege that the Company's board of directors breached its fiduciary duties to the Company's shareholders by, among other things, failing to engage in a fair sale process before approving the Arrangement and to maximize shareholder value in connection with the Arrangement. Additionally, the Sohler Case alleges violations under Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the complaints allege that the Company's board of directors undervalued the Company in connection with the Arrangement and that the Company's board of directors agreed to certain deal protection mechanisms that precluded the Company from obtaining competing offers. The complaints also allege that Whiting and Whiting Canadian Sub aided and abetted the Company's board of directors' alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. The Sohler Case alleges additionally that in issuing the preliminary joint proxy statement/circular the Company's board of directors violated the cited sections of and rule promulgated under the Exchange Act. The complaints seek, among other things, injunctive relief preventing the closing of the Arrangement, rescission of the Arrangement or an award of rescissory damages to the purported class in the event that the Arrangement is consummated, and damages, including counsel fees and expenses. Whiting and the Company believe each lawsuit is without merit. LABORATORY CORP: Removes "Varsam" Class Suit to S.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- Rita Varsam v. Laboratory Corporation of America, et al., Case No. 37-2014-00017789-CU-OE-CTL, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (San Diego). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:14-cv-02719- BTM-JMA to the proceeding. The lawsuit arose from labor-related issues. The Plaintiff is represented by: Amir Nayebdadash, Esq. Heather M. Davis, Esq. PROTECTION LAW GROUP, LLP 136 Main Street, Suite A El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (424) 290-3095 Facsimile: (866) 264-7880 E-mail: amir@protectionlawgroup.com heather@protectionlawgroup.com The Defendants are represented by: Ashley Michelle Farrell, Esq. GRENNBERG TRAURIG, LLP 1840 Century Park East, Suite 1900 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 586-7700 Facsimile: (310) 586-7800 E-mail: ashmichfarrell@aol.com LEGGETT & PLATT: Settles U.S. Direct Purchaser Antitrust Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Leggett & Platt, Inc. reached a tentative settlement in the U.S. direct polyurethane foam purchaser class action cases, according to the company's Nov. 4, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014. Beginning in August 2010, a series of civil lawsuits was initiated in several U.S. federal courts and in Canada against over 20 defendants alleging that competitors of the company's carpet underlay business unit and other manufacturers of polyurethane foam products had engaged in price fixing in violation of U.S. and Canadian antitrust laws. The company has been named as a defendant in three pending direct purchaser class action cases (the first on November 15, 2010) on behalf of a class of all direct purchasers of polyurethane foam products. The direct purchaser class action cases were all filed in or were transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio under the name In re: Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:10-MD-2196. The plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and/or a class of direct purchasers, seek three times the amount of damages allegedly suffered as a result of alleged overcharges in the price of polyurethane foam products from at least 1999 to the present. Each plaintiff also seeks attorney fees, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, court costs, and injunctive relief against future violations. On April 15 and May 6, 2011, the company filed motions to dismiss the U.S. direct purchaser class actions in the consolidated case in Ohio, for failure to state a legally valid claim. On July 19, 2011, the Ohio Court denied the motions to dismiss. A motion for class certification was filed on behalf of the direct purchasers. A hearing on the motion was held January 15, 2014. On April 9, 2014, the Court certified the direct purchaser class. The company filed a Petition for Permission to Appeal from Class Certification Order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on April 23, 2014. The petition to appeal was denied on September 29, 2014. The Court ordered all parties to attend non-binding mediation with a mediator of their choosing. The company reached a tentative settlement in the U.S. direct purchaser class action cases on August 14, 2014, by agreeing to pay an aggregate amount of $39.8, inclusive of plaintiff attorneys' fees and costs. The company continues to deny all allegations in the cases, but settled the direct purchaser class cases to avoid the risk, uncertainty, expense and distraction of the litigation. The settlement is subject to Court approval. The company recorded a $39.8 (pre-tax) accrual for the settlement in the third quarter 2014. Since the payment would be partially attributable to the company's former Prime Foam Products business, which was sold in the first quarter of 2007, $8.3 is reflected in discontinued operations. LEGGETT & PLATT: 2015 Trial in Indirect Purchaser Antitrust Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The trial date in the In re: Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:10-MD-2196 is tentatively set for 2015, according to Leggett & Platt, Inc.'s Nov. 4, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014. The company was named as a defendant (but not served with process) in an indirect purchaser class consolidated amended complaint filed on March 21, 2011 and subsequently sued in an indirect purchaser class action case filed on May 23, 2011, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio that proceeds under the name In re: Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:10-MD-2196. The plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and/or a class of indirect purchasers, bring damages claims under various states' antitrust and consumer protection statutes, and are seeking three times an amount of damages allegedly suffered as a result of alleged overcharges in the price of polyurethane foam products from at least 1999 to the present. Each plaintiff also seeks attorney fees, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, court costs, and injunctive relief against future violations. On April 15 and May 6, 2011, the company filed motions to dismiss the indirect purchaser class action, for failure to state a legally valid claim. On July 19, 2011, the Ohio Court denied the motions to dismiss. Discovery is nearing completion in the indirect purchaser class case. A motion for class certification was filed on behalf of the indirect purchasers. A hearing on the motion was held January 15, 2014. On April 9, 2014, the Court certified the indirect purchaser class. The company filed a Petition for Permission to Appeal from Class Certification Order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on April 23, 2014. The petition to appeal was denied on September 29, 2014. The Court ordered all parties to attend non-binding mediation with a mediator of their choosing. The trial date for the indirect purchaser class cases is tentatively set for 2015. LEGGETT & PLATT: Canadian Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Cases Remain ------------------------------------------------------------------ Leggett & Platt, Inc. continues to face Canadian class action cases for direct and indirect purchasers of polyurethane foam products, according to the company's Nov. 4, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014. The company was named in two Canadian class action cases (for direct and indirect purchasers of polyurethane foam products), both under the name Hi Neighbor Floor Covering Co. Limited and Hickory Springs Manufacturing Company, et al. in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Windsor), Court File Nos. CV-10-15164 (amended November 2, 2011) and CV-11-17279 (issued December 30, 2011). In each of the Canadian cases, the plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and/or a class of purchasers, seek from over 13 defendants restitution of the amount allegedly overcharged, general and special damages in the amount of $100, punitive damages of $10, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and the costs of the investigation and the action. The first issued class action is on behalf of a class of purchasers of polyurethane foam. The second issued class action is on behalf of purchasers of carpet underlay. The company is not yet required to file the company's defenses in these or any other Canadian actions. In addition, on July 10, 2012, plaintiff in a class action case (for direct and indirect purchasers of polyurethane foam products) styled Option Consommateurs and Karine Robillard v. Produits Vitafoam Canada Limitee, et. al. in the Quebec Superior Court of Justice (Montreal), Court File No. 500-6-524-104, filed an amended motion for authorization seeking to add the company and other manufacturers of polyurethane foam products as defendants in this case, which was granted. This action has a pending motion for certification which is to be heard in January 2015. The company were also notified in June 2014 of two motions to add the company as parties to two class proceedings in British Columbia. Those proceedings are similar to the Ontario proceedings in that one proposes a class of purchasers of polyurethane foam (Majestic Mattress Mfg. Ltd. v. Vitafoam Products et al., No. VLC-S-S-106362 Vancouver Registry) and one proposes a class of purchasers of carpet underlay (Trillium Project Management Ltd. v. Hickory Springs Manufacturing Company et al., No.S106213 Vancouver Registry). The motion to add the company as parties to these actions has been scheduled to be heard with the motions for certification in the two actions in April 2015. The British Columbia actions involve British Columbia purchasers only whereas the Ontario actions propose classes of Canadian purchasers. No certification motions will be brought in the Ontario actions until after the British Columbia motions for certification have been determined. LEGGETT & PLATT: Suit by Mo. Indirect Purchasers in Discovery ------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery has commenced and plaintiff Dennis Baker on behalf of himself and/or a class of indirect purchasers of polyurethane foam products in the State of Missouri has filed a motion for class certification, according to the company's Nov. 4, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014. On June 22, 2012, the company was also made a party to a lawsuit brought in the 16th Judicial Circuit Court, Jackson County, Missouri, Case Number 1216-CV15179 under the caption "Dennis Baker, on Behalf of Himself and all Others Similarly Situated vs. Leggett & Platt, Incorporated." The plaintiff, on behalf of himself and/or a class of indirect purchasers of polyurethane foam products in the State of Missouri, alleged that the company violated the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act based upon the company's alleged illegal price inflation of flexible polyurethane foam products. The plaintiff seeks unspecified actual damages, punitive damages and the recovery of reasonable attorney fees. The company filed a motion to dismiss this action, which was denied on November 5, 2012. Discovery has commenced and plaintiff has filed a motion for class certification. The parties' briefing is completed, and a hearing on the motion was held on February 20, 2014. LHC GROUP: Final Fairness Hearing Scheduled for December 11 ----------------------------------------------------------- LHC 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 the District Court entered an Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement and Providing for Notice and setting a final fairness hearing for December 11, 2014, in the shareholder securities class action. On June 13, 2012, a putative shareholder securities class action was filed against the Company and its Chairman and Chief Executive Officer in the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, styled City of Omaha Police & Fire Retirement System v. LHC Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 6:12-cv- 1609-JTT-CMH. The action was filed on behalf of LHC shareholders who purchased shares of the Company's common stock between July 30, 2008 and October 26, 2011. Plaintiff generally alleges that the defendants caused false and misleading statements to be issued in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended ("the Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and that the Company's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer is a control person under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. On November 2, 2012, Lead Plaintiff City of Omaha Police & Fire Retirement System filed an Amended Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws ("the Amended Complaint") on behalf of the same putative class of LHC shareholders as the original Complaint. In addition to claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, the Amended Complaint added a claim against the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer for violation of Section 20A of the Exchange Act. The Company believes these claims are without merit. On December 17, 2012, the Company and the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint, which was denied by Order dated March 15, 2013. On June 16, 2014, following mediation, the parties entered into a Stipulation of Settlement. On August 5, 2014, the District Court entered an Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement and Providing for Notice and setting a final fairness hearing for December 11, 2014. If approved, as part of the settlement, the Company's insurance carrier will fund the entire $7.9 million settlement amount. The Company's balance sheet reflects the entire settlement in current assets as a receivable due from insurance carrier and correspondingly reflects the entire settlement in current liabilities as a legal settlement payable. LHC Group, Inc. is a health care provider specializing in the post-acute continuum of care primarily for Medicare beneficiaries. LONDON SILVER: Faces "Depaoli" Suit Over Silver-Price Fixing ------------------------------------------------------------ Christopher Depaoli and Kevin Maher, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated v. The London Silver Market Fixing, Ltd., et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-09068 (S.D.N.Y., November 13, 2014), alleges that the Defendants manipulate the price of silver and financial instruments tied to the price of physical silver, such as silver futures, options and other silver based derivatives. The London Silver Market Fixing, Ltd. is responsible for the benchmark prices for gold and silver. The Plaintiff is represented by: Linda P. Nassbaum, Esq. Peter A. Barile III, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER, PA 485 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (646) 722-8500 Facsimile: (646) 722-8501 E-mail: lnussbaum@gelaw.com pbarile@gelaw.com - and - Barbara J. Hart, Esq. Vincent Briganti, Esq. Geoffrey M. Horn, Esq. Christian P. Lewis, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG COHEN & HART, PC One North Broadway White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 997-0500 Facsimile: (914) 997-0035 E-mail: bhart@lowey.com vbriganti@gelaw.com ghorn@gelaw.com clevis@gelaw.com MARRONE BIO: Delays 3Q Financial Results Amid Class Actions ----------------------------------------------------------- Dale Kasler, writing for Sacramento Bee, reports that Marrone Bio Innovations Inc., struggling with an internal investigation into its financial reporting, said on Nov. 14 it's delaying indefinitely the release of its third quarter results. The announcement, disclosed in a Securities and Exchange Commission filing, is the latest sign of trouble at the Davis biotech company. In September, the maker of eco-friendly pesticides said it had begun an in-house probe of its finances after discovering documents "calling into question" the reporting of $870,000 in revenue during the fourth quarter of 2013. The company also said the reported results of the first two quarters of 2014 "should no longer be relied upon." That disclosure, coupled with a previously-reported decline in sales, sent Marrone Bio's stock price plummeting and prompted several class-action shareholder lawsuits. The company laid off 23 percent of its employees in early October. Marrone Bio ordinarily would have announced its the third quarter results by now. The company said it has no estimate of when it will release those numbers. The company's shares closed Friday at $2.84, down 4 cents, on the Nasdaq market. The delay was announced after the market closed. MERRY MAIDS: Removes "Jessop" Suit to California District Court --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Jessop v. Merry Maids, et al., Case No. 37-2014-00034060-CU-MC-CTL, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (San Diego). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:14-cv- 02717-JLS-BLM to the proceeding. The Plaintiff is represented by: James F. Clapp, Esq. DOSTART CLAPP & COVENEY, LLP 4370 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 970 San Diego, CA 92122-1253 Telephone: (858) 623-4200 Facsimile: (858) 623-4299 E-mail: jclapp@sdlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Amy Pesapane Lally, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 555 West 5th Street, 40th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90013 Telephone: (213) 896-6000 Facsimile: (213) 896-6600 E-mail: alally@sidley.com METLIFE INC: To Defend Against Westland Police Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- MetLife 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 case City of Westland Police and Fire Retirement System v. MetLife, Inc., et. al. (S.D.N.Y., filed January 12, 2012) seeks to represent a class of persons who purchased MetLife, Inc. common shares between February 2, 2010, and October 6, 2011. The plaintiff filed a second amended complaint alleging that MetLife, Inc. and several current and former executive officers of MetLife, Inc. violated the Securities Act of 1933, as well as the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by issuing, or causing MetLife, Inc. to issue, materially false and misleading statements concerning MetLife, Inc.'s potential liability for millions of dollars in insurance benefits that should have been paid to beneficiaries or escheated to the states. Plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. The defendants intend to defend this action vigorously. MetLife is a global provider of life insurance, annuities, employee benefits and asset management. METLIFE INC: Magistrate Judge Recommends Approval of Remand Bid --------------------------------------------------------------- MetLife 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 case City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief System v. MetLife, Inc., et al. (N.D. Alabama, filed in state court on July 5, 2012 and removed to federal court on August 3, 2012) seeks to represent a class of persons who purchased MetLife, Inc. common equity units in or traceable to a public offering in March 2011. The plaintiff filed an action alleging that MetLife, Inc., certain current and former directors and executive officers of MetLife, Inc., and various underwriters violated several provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 related to the filing of the registration statement by issuing, or causing MetLife, Inc. to issue, materially false and misleading statements and/or omissions concerning MetLife, Inc.'s potential liability for millions of dollars in insurance benefits that should have been paid to beneficiaries or escheated to the states. Plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. Defendants removed this action to federal court, and plaintiff has moved to remand the action to state court. The magistrate judge recommended granting the motion to remand to state court and the defendants have objected to that recommendation. The defendants intend to defend this action vigorously. MetLife is a global provider of life insurance, annuities, employee benefits and asset management. METLIFE INC: "Keife" Plaintiffs Appeal Summary Judgment Order ------------------------------------------------------------- MetLife 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 Keife, et al. v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (D. Nev., filed in state court on July 30, 2010 and removed to federal court on September 7, 2010); and Simon v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (D. Nev., filed November 3, 2011) are putative class action lawsuits, which have been consolidated. The actions raise breach of contract claims arising from MLIC's use of the TCA to pay life insurance benefits under the Federal Employees' Group Life Insurance program. On March 8, 2013, the court granted MLIC's motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs have appealed that decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. MetLife is a global provider of life insurance, annuities, employee benefits and asset management. METLIFE INC: Facing "Owens" Class Action Over Use of TCA -------------------------------------------------------- MetLife 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 Owens v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (N.D. Ga., filed April 17, 2014) is a putative class action lawsuit alleging that MLIC's use of the TCA as the settlement option for life insurance benefits under some group life insurance policies violates MLIC's fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). As damages, plaintiff seeks disgorgement of profits that MLIC realized on accounts owned by members of the putative class. MetLife is a global provider of life insurance, annuities, employee benefits and asset management. METLIFE INC: Final Approval Hearing This Month on "Fauley" Accord ----------------------------------------------------------------- MetLife 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 the cases C-Mart, Inc. v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., et al. (S.D. Fla., January 10, 2013); Cadenasso v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., et al. (N.D. Cal., November 26, 2013, subsequently transferred to S.D. Fla.); and Fauley v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., et al. (Circuit Court of the 19th Judicial Circuit, Lake County, Ill., July 3, 2014), the Plaintiffs filed these lawsuits against defendants, including MLIC and a former MetLife financial services representative, alleging that the defendants sent unsolicited fax advertisements to plaintiff and others in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227. MLIC has agreed to pay up to $23 million to resolve claims as to fax ads sent between August 23, 2008 and the date of the court's preliminary approval of the settlement. Following this agreement, the Fauley case was filed in Illinois, seeking certification of a nationwide class of plaintiffs and the C-Mart and Cadenasso cases were voluntarily dismissed. In August 2014, the Fauley court preliminarily approved the settlement, certified a nationwide settlement class, and scheduled the final approval hearing for November 2014. MetLife is a global provider of life insurance, annuities, employee benefits and asset management. METLIFE INC: Contines to Defend Class Suits Over Sales Practices ---------------------------------------------------------------- MetLife 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 over the past several years, the Company has faced numerous claims, including class action lawsuits, alleging improper marketing or sales of individual life insurance policies, annuities, mutual funds or other products. Some of the current cases seek substantial damages, including punitive and treble damages and attorneys' fees. The Company continues to vigorously defend against the claims in these matters. The Company believes adequate provision has been made in its consolidated financial statements for all probable and reasonably estimable losses for sales practices matters. MetLife is a global provider of life insurance, annuities, employee benefits and asset management. MXD INC: Removes "Echavarria" Suit to District of New Jersey ------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit styled Echavarria, et al. v. MXD, Inc., Case No. MID L 6373 12, was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Trenton). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:14-cv-07207-AET-LHG to the proceeding. The lawsuit asserts labor-related claims. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Paul A. O'Connor, III, Esq. O'CONNOR PARSONS LANE & NOBLE LLC 435 East Broad Street Westfield, NJ 07090 Telephone: (908) 928-9200 E-mail: paul@lawnj.net - and - Ravi Sattiraju, Esq. THE SATTIRAJU LAW FIRM, P.C. 16 Village Boulevard, Suite 200 Princeton, NJ 08540 Telephone: (609) 799-1266 Facsimile: (609) 799-1267 E-mail: rsattiraju@sattirajulawfirm.com Defendant J&J Trucking, Inc. is represented by: Anthony Santos Almeida, Esq. MASHEL LAW, L.L.C. 500 Campus Drive, Suite 303 Morganville, NJ 07751 Telephone: (732) 536-6161 Facsimile: (732) 536-6165 E-mail: asalmeida@mashellaw.com Defendant MXD, Inc. is represented by: Peter Francis Berk, Esq. GENOVA BURNS GIANTOMASI & WEBSTER 494 Broad Street Newark, NJ 07102-3230 Telephone: (973) 230-2071 E-mail: pberk@genovaburns.com NAT'L FOOTBALL: DEA Addresses Claims on Players' Drug Use --------------------------------------------------------- Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that a class action accusing the National Football League of prescription drug abuse is back in the national spotlight after it reportedly led federal drug agents to question team doctors over the weekend. The Nov. 16 inspections by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, which reports say included the San Francisco 49ers, has turned the tables on the typical relationship between class action lawyers and government investigators Civil litigation often follows federal investigations or indictments, but the reverse is more unusual. "I think it's rare," Reed Smith partner L. Julius Turman -- jturman@reedsmith.com -- said. "Because I think that plaintiffs counsel often use government and government agencies . . . as a means of gathering information, facts and theories before they actually file suit." In this case, plaintiffs lawyers can take much of the credit. They sued in May, accusing the National Football League of illegally dosing players with opiates, anti-inflammatory medicines and local anesthetics on game days to help them play through the pain of past injuries. They allege the drugs were handed out by trainers without medical licenses and without proper prescriptions, in violation of state and federal law. Plaintiffs lawyers say the practice led to permanent health problems for some members of the class, composed of retired players employed by NFL teams between 1969 and 2012. For example, Richard Dent, who played for teams including the Chicago Bears and the 49ers, and was inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame in 2011, developed an addiction to prescription painkillers, according to the complaint. He also played for eight weeks on a broken foot, and now suffers permanent nerve damage. On Nov. 16, DEA spokesman Rusty Payne told The Washington Post the class action triggered the government investigation. The agency declined to comment further Nov. 17, and wouldn't divulge the results of the Nov. 16 inspections. Plaintiffs firms Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd; Silverman, Thompson, Slutkin & White; and Namanny Byrne & Owens are litigating the class claims in the Northern District of California. Steven Silverman of Silverman Thompson agreed it's unusual to see a government probe follow a civil suit, but he welcomed the DEA's involvement. "The allegations in our complaint were not a secret as far as we could tell," he said. "There certainly were media reports over the years of systemic drug abuse and misuse within the National Football League. I can't speak to why this wasn't investigated earlier." The NFL is represented by Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom and Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld. Lawyers from the firms did not respond to calls or emails seeking comment on Nov. 17. NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy declined to comment on the ongoing litigation in an email Monday, but confirmed the DEA inspections. "Our teams cooperated with the DEA," he wrote, "and we have no information to indicate any irregularities were found." The DEA agents may be able to help plaintiffs in the class action by uncovering information the civil lawyers couldn't, said L.A.- based Steptoe & Johnson LLP partner Lawrence Riff -- lriff@steptoe.com "When the phone rings and somebody says 'I am an investigator for the DEA,'" Mr. Riff said, "that certainly commands the respect of the person on the other end of the line." But Mr. Turman wonders how useful the federal investigation will be to the plaintiffs' claims. "The class action, we're looking for commonality, typicality and numerosity," he said. "And the DEA's investigation, going team by team and position by position, is going to be highly individualized." The NFL's lawyers argued the issue of individuality late last month, in a motion to dismiss before U.S. District Judge William Alsup. The lawyers argued plaintiffs' claims center on private interactions between a player and a team's medical staff -- interactions that vary from team to team and from player to player. "Plaintiffs do not, and cannot in good faith, allege that the NFL employed the team doctors, or restricted or controlled the provision of medical care and advice by them to the players," the league's lawyers wrote in their motion to dismiss. They also argued plaintiffs' claims are barred under California's statute of limitations, which stipulates a one-year limit for medical malpractice claims and a two-year limit for personal injury claims. And NFL lawyers argued plaintiffs' claims are subject to the agreements reached by the NFL players union. Claims challenging players' medical care, which is regulated by union agreements, must be fought through the union's grievance procedures, not in court. Judge Alsup postponed his ruling and requested a brief from the National Football League Players Association to determine whether the class of retired players is part of the NFL union. The union has retained Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher partner Andrew Tulumello -- atulumello@gibsondunn.com -- and was scheduled to file a brief Nov. 19. NELNET INC: Settlement in "Yaakov" Case Subject to Finalization --------------------------------------------------------------- Nelnet 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 27, 2014, that the settlement agreement in principle in the case Bais Yaakov of Spring Valley v. Peterson's Nelnet, LLC is subject to finalization and court approval. On January 4, 2011, a complaint against Peterson's Nelnet, LLC ("Peterson's"), a subsidiary of Nelnet, Inc. ("Nelnet"), was filed in the U.S. Federal District Court for the District of New Jersey (the "New Jersey District Court"). The complaint alleges that Peterson's sent six advertising faxes to the named plaintiff in 2008-2009 that were not the result of express invitation or permission granted by the plaintiff and did not include certain opt out language. The complaint also alleges that such faxes violated the Federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (the "TCPA"), purportedly entitling the plaintiff to $500 per violation, trebled for willful violations for each of the six faxes. The complaint further alleges that Peterson's had sent putative class members more than 10,000 faxes that violated the TCPA, amounting to more than $5 million in statutory penalty damages and more than $15 million if trebled for willful violations. The complaint seeks to establish a class action. On September 13, 2013, the named plaintiff filed a motion for class certification, and on October 7, 2013, Peterson's filed a motion to dismiss the named plaintiff's motion for class certification. As of the filing date of this report, the New Jersey District Court has not established, recognized, or certified a class. On January 23, 2014, Peterson's and the named plaintiff reached an agreement in principle whereby Peterson's would, without admitting any wrongdoing or liability, settle all claims in the lawsuit, including potential class action claims, for payment of an immaterial amount. The settlement agreement in principle is subject to finalization and court approval. Nelnet, Inc. is an education services company focused primarily on providing fee-based processing services and quality education- related products and services in four core areas: asset management and finance, loan servicing, payment processing, and enrollment services (education planning). NELNET INC: Settlement in "Zaw" Case Subject to Finalization ------------------------------------------------------------ Nelnet 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 27, 2014, that the settlement agreement in principle in the case Than Zaw v. Nelnet, Inc. is subject to finalization and court approval. On January 18, 2013, a Third Amended Complaint was served on Nelnet in connection with a lawsuit by Than Zaw against Nelnet (erroneously referred to in the lawsuit as Nelnet Business Solutions, Inc.) in the Superior Court of the State of California, Contra Costa County. The case has since been moved to the U.S. Federal District Court for the Northern District of California (the "California District Court"). The lawsuit was originally instituted on December 30, 2010, and alleges that Nelnet violated the California Fair Debt Collection Practices Act in its interactions with the plaintiff, a California resident. The plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint added additional allegations claiming that Nelnet violated Section 632 of the California Penal Code by allegedly recording one or more telephone calls to the plaintiff without the plaintiff's consent, and sought $5,000 in statutory damages per alleged violation. The Third Amended Complaint further alleged that Nelnet improperly recorded telephone calls to other California residents without such persons' consent, and sought to establish a class action with respect to the California Section 632 claim. As of the filing date of this report, the California District Court has not established, recognized, or certified a class. On October 16, 2013, Nelnet and the named plaintiff reached an agreement in principle whereby Nelnet would, without admitting any wrongdoing or liability, settle all claims in the lawsuit, including potential class action claims, for payment of an immaterial amount. The settlement agreement in principle is subject to finalization and court approval. Nelnet, Inc. is an education services company focused primarily on providing fee-based processing services and quality education- related products and services in four core areas: asset management and finance, loan servicing, payment processing, and enrollment services (education planning). NELNET INC: Ohio Court Hasn't Established Class in "Keating" Case ----------------------------------------------------------------- Nelnet 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 27, 2014, that the Ohio District Court has not established, recognized, or certified a class in the case Grant Keating v. Peterson's Nelnet, LLC et al. On August 6, 2012, an Amended Complaint was served on Peterson's, CUnet, LLC ("CUnet"), a subsidiary of Nelnet, and on Nelnet (collectively, the "Keating Defendants"), in connection with a lawsuit by Grant Keating in the U.S. Federal District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (the "Ohio District Court"). The lawsuit was originally instituted on August 24, 2011, and alleges that the Keating Defendants sent an advertising text message to the named plaintiff in June 2011 using an automatic telephone dialing system, and without the plaintiff's express consent. The complaint also alleges that this text message violated the TCPA, purportedly entitling the plaintiff to $500, trebled for a willful violation. The complaint further alleges that the Keating Defendants sent putative class members similar text messages using an automatic telephone dialing system, without such purported class members' consent. The complaint seeks to establish a class action. On August 29, 2013, the Keating Defendants filed motions for summary judgment, and the named plaintiff filed a motion for class certification. On May 12, 2014, the Ohio District Court granted the Keating Defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the case. On September 8, 2014, the named plaintiff filed an appeal brief with the Circuit Court of Appeals and on October 22, 2014, two Keating Defendants filed a responsive brief. As of the filing date of the Form 10-Q report, the Ohio District Court has not established, recognized, or certified a class. The Keating Defendants intend to continue to defend themselves vigorously in this lawsuit. Nelnet, Inc. is an education services company focused primarily on providing fee-based processing services and quality education- related products and services in four core areas: asset management and finance, loan servicing, payment processing, and enrollment services (education planning). NEVADA: Health Exchange Launches Improved Web Site Following Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Lopardi, writing for KNTV, reports that with open enrollment beginning on Nov. 15, leaders with Nevada's health exchange are hoping to avoid the nightmare that users experienced last year. Nevada Health Link recently launched with a new look and function. The site will now serve as a portal to direct customers eligible for a commercial plan to healthcare.gov. Others will be directed to a state website for low-income medical programs. "I'm going to try to be optimistic and hope that it works," said exchange customer David Ferraro. Mr. Ferraro was able to obtain insurance through the old website but has run into problems logging onto the site for months. "I think in this day and age for a computer system not to be able to work and function, and still having problems with it a year later, is totally unacceptable," Mr. Ferraro said. The complaints are well documented: website glitches, lost payments, no coverage. Customers lashed out at the state exchange earlier in the year as the problems came to a boil. In the end, the executive director resigned, the state fired developer Xerox and the exchange decided to switch to a federally supported system. Customers have also filed a class action lawsuit against the state and Xerox over problems with the site. "Our goal is to make this a good experience," said health link spokesman Tyler Klimas. The exchange is opening an enrollment center at the Boulevard Mall where people can sign up in person. "I think this experience is going to be completely different from top to bottom and I hope that they'll come out and they'll see it for themselves," Mr. Klimas said. But insurance broker Pat Casale isn't so optimistic. "My predictions for the first three or four days is there's going to be a lot of issues," Mr. Casale said, noting it will be tougher for local brokers to communicate with representatives from the federal system. Customers who purchased plans last year will have to re-enroll this time around. Open enrollment runs from Nov. 15 to Feb. 15. OCLARO INC: Court Gave Final Okay to "Westley" Action Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Court gave its final approval to the settlement in the class action by Curtis and Charlotte Westley, Oclaro, 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 27, 2014. On May 19, 2011, Curtis and Charlotte Westley filed a purported class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, against the Company and certain of its officers and directors. The Court subsequently appointed the Connecticut Laborers' Pension Fund ("Pension Fund") as lead plaintiff for the putative class. The Company said, "On April 26, 2012, the Pension Fund filed a second amended complaint, captioned as Westley v. Oclaro, Inc., No. 11 Civ. 2448 EMC, allegedly on behalf of persons who purchased our common stock between May 6 and October 28, 2010, alleging that we and certain of our officers and directors issued materially false and misleading statements during this time period regarding our current business and financial condition, including projections for demand for our products, as well as our revenues, earnings, and gross margins, for the first quarter of fiscal year 2011 as well as the full fiscal year. The complaint alleged violations of section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5, as well as section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act. The complaint sought damages and costs of an unspecified amount." "On September 21, 2012, the Court dismissed the second amended complaint with leave to amend. After the Pension Fund moved for reconsideration, on January 10, 2013, the Court allowed plaintiffs to take discovery regarding statements made in May and June 2010. On March 1, 2013 the Pension Fund filed a third amended complaint, attempting to cure pleading deficiencies with regard to statements allegedly made in July and August 2010. "On April 1, 2013, defendants moved to dismiss the third amended complaint with respect to the statements made in July and August 2010. On May 30, 2013, the Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint's claims based on statements made in July and August 2010. Although discovery has commenced, no trial was ever scheduled in this action. "On June 10, 2011, a purported shareholder, Stanley Moskal, filed a purported derivative action in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Santa Clara, against us, as nominal defendant, and certain of our current and former officers and directors, as defendants. The case is styled Moskal v. Couder, No. 1:11 CV 202880 (Santa Clara County Super. Ct., filed June 10, 2011). Four other purported shareholders, Matteo Guindani, Jermaine Coney, Jefferson Braman and Toby Aguilar, separately filed substantially similar lawsuits in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on June 27, June 28, July 7 and July 26, 2011, respectively. By Order dated September 14, 2011, the Guindani, Coney, and Braman actions were consolidated under In re Oclaro, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Lead Case No. 11 Civ. 3176 EMC. On October 5, 2011, the Aguilar action was voluntarily dismissed. "Each remaining purported derivative complaint alleged that Oclaro has been, or will be, damaged by the actions alleged in the Westley complaint, and the litigation of the Westley action, and any damages or settlement paid in the Westley action. Each purported derivative complaint alleged counts for breaches of fiduciary duty, waste, and unjust enrichment. Each purported derivative complaint sought damages and costs of an unspecified amount, as well as injunctive relief. "By Order dated March 6, 2012, the parties in the Moskal action agreed that defendants shall not be required to respond to the original complaint. By Order dated February 27, 2013, the parties in the Moskal action agreed that plaintiff would serve an amended complaint no later than 30 days after the Court in the Westley action rules on defendants' motion to dismiss the third amended complaint in the Westley action and the stay of discovery would remain in effect until further order of the Court or agreement by the parties, provided, however, that they obtain discovery produced in the Westley Action. "By Order dated March 12, 2013, the parties to In re Oclaro, Inc. Derivative Litigation agreed to stay all proceedings until such time as (a) the defendants file an answer to any complaint in the Westley action; or (b) the Westley action is dismissed in its entirety with prejudice, provided, however, that they obtain discovery produced in the Westley Action. No trial has been scheduled in any of these actions. "On September 3, 2013, the parties agreed to settle the Westley, Moskal, and In re Oclaro Derivative matters for a total of $3.95 million, plus certain corporate governance changes. The money will be paid entirely by our directors and officers liability insurance carriers. Any fees awarded to the plaintiffs in these actions, or their respective counsel, are included in this amount." By Order dated August 13, 2014, the Court in the Westley matter gave its final approval to the settlement. By Order dated September 19, 2014, the Court in the In re Oclaro, Inc. Derivative Litigation gave its final approval to the settlement. By Order dated October 1, 2014, the Court approved the voluntary dismissal of the Moskal matter, terminating the state court derivative matters. PFIZER INC: Judge to Weigh on Expert Witness Issue in Zoloft MDL ---------------------------------------------------------------- Saranac Hale Spencer, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that several months after tossing the key expert witness for plaintiffs who allege that Pfizer's antidepressant drug Zoloft causes birth defects, a federal judge in Philadelphia considered allowing them to offer a new one. Her decision could spell the end of the case if she decides not to allow it. U.S. District Judge Cynthia Rufe of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, who is handling the multidistrict litigation case, held arguments on Nov. 18 over whether she should allow them to offer the new expert, a move that would prompt another Daubert hearing. The first Daubert hearing -- which allows parties in a case to challenge expert testimony before the start of trial and is named for the 1993 U.S. Supreme Court case Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals -- lasted for about a week last April and focused mostly on Dr. Anick Berard, who was the plaintiffs' initial key expert. In July, Judge Rufe barred her testimony, finding several problems with Dr. Berard's research and proffered testimony. The original schedule for the case had the first bellwether trials starting in January, Judge Rufe noted at the start of arguments Nov. 18. She asked Michael Fishbein -- mfishbein@lfsblaw.com -- of Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman, who was arguing for the plaintiffs' steering committee, when the first trial could be ready if she were to grant their motion to present a new expert. "There's no reason it can't be quickly," he said. "And only moving forward with cardiac cases?" Judge Rufe asked, since the new expert, Nicholas Jewell, has proposed testimony on his research linking the use of Zoloft in pregnant women to congenital heart defects in their babies. Dr. Berard's research had linked Zoloft to a plethora of various birth defects. If the plaintiffs would be able to use Jewell as an expert witness, they would only pursue the cardiac defects, Mr. Fishbein said. He and the plaintiffs' steering committee argued that Judge Rufe had erred in her opinion barring Dr. Berard's testimony by setting the wrong standard. "The court's reasoning was predicated in part upon a requirement that an expert must rely on repeated, consistent, statistically significant epidemiological findings in order to have a reliable basis for inferring a causal link between a drug and an adverse event. . . . However, this holding is contrary to United States Supreme Court, Third Circuit, and other federal court precedent, as well as the teachings of Sir Austin Bradford Hill, the author of the Bradford Hill criteria," according to a brief filed by the steering committee. It's important to correct that matter of law, Mr. Fishbein told Judge Rufe. "The reason it's important is because even if Pfizer achieves its fondest wish and gets summary judgment in all 600 cases that are pending before you . . . that's not the end of this litigation," Mr. Fishbein said, explaining that Zoloft is still on the market and the science studying it is continuing to evolve, so plaintiffs will keep filing suits over it. Those plaintiffs will come to court with expert reports from "a Dr. Jewell, or Dr. A, or Dr. B, or Dr. C," Mr. Fishbein said. So, it's essential for the court to set the correct legal standard by which to assess whether the proffered experts meet it. "The law, it seems to me, has to follow the science," Mr. Fishbein said. "But then what happens to finality?" Judge Rufe asked. A case has to be tried at a certain point in time and it has to be tried based on what is available at that time, he answered. Mark Cheffo -- markcheffo@quinnemanuel.com -- of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, who argued on behalf of Pfizer, however, characterized the plaintiffs' motion to introduce a new expert as highly unusual, calling it a "Daubert do-over," using language adapted from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. "It's really a question of . . . is this really disrupting an orderly and efficient trial in the MDL, are you prejudiced . . . I want to really know: How is Pfizer harmed and isn't it just as harmful not to grant the right to have Dr. Jewell come in?" Judge Rufe told Mr. Cheffo. Granting the plaintiffs' motions would lead to "piecemeal litigation with no finality and no end in sight," Mr. Cheffo said. Courts must decide cases based on the science before them, he said, since they must rule quickly and with finality. Pfizer moved in August for summary judgment and, Judge Rufe asked, if she were to grant that motion, which cases would be subject to it? "All cases in the MDL would be subject to this," Mr. Cheffo said. POTTERY BARN: Sued Over Failure to Construct POS for Blind People ----------------------------------------------------------------- Maria Santos, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Pottery Barn, Case No. 2:14-cv-08806 (C.D. Cal., November 13, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to design, construct, and own or operate Point Of Sale Devices that are fully accessible to, and independently usable by, blind people. Pottery Barn owns and operates home improvement retail stores in San Francisco, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Harrison, Esq. THE SANTA CLARITA FIRM 25876 The Old Road, #304 Stevenson Ranch, CA 91381 Telephone: (661) 257-2854 Facsimile: 661-257-3068 Email: Mharrison30@aol.com PRC MANAGEMENT: "Quinones" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Yejide Quinones, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated v. PRC Management Company LLC, PRC Management Corporation, Frank Linde, individually, John Chatzky, and David Gartenlaub, Case No. 1:14-cv-09064 (S.D.N.Y., November 13, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid wages, and other actual damages, liquidated damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants provide property management services to residential buildings in the New York City area. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Wisniewski, Esq. ROBERT WISNIEWSKI, PC 225 Broadway, Suite 1020 New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212)267-2101 PROFESSIONAL RECOVERY: Faces "Dier" Suit Alleging FDCPA Violation ----------------------------------------------------------------- Avrohom Dier, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Professional Recovery Services, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-06738 (E.D.N.Y., November 17, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq. ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW 483 Chestnut Street Cedarhurst, NY 11516 Telephone: (516) 791-4400 Facsimile: (516) 791-4411 E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Class Action Settlement Approved ------------------------------------------------------ The Court granted preliminary approval of a proposed settlement of class acitons challenging the use of retained asset accounts to settle death benefit claims, Prudential Financial, 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 27, 2014. From July 2010 to December 2010, four purported nationwide class actions were filed challenging the use of retained asset accounts to settle death benefit claims of beneficiaries of a group life insurance contract owned by the United States Department of Veterans Affairs that covers the lives of members and veterans of the U.S. armed forces. In 2011, the cases were consolidated in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts by the Judicial Panel for Multi-District Litigation as In re Prudential Insurance Company of America SGLI/VGLI Contract Litigation. The consolidated complaint alleges that the use of the retained assets accounts that earn interest and are available to be withdrawn by the beneficiary, in whole or in part, at any time, to settle death benefit claims is in violation of federal law, and asserts claims of breach of contract, breaches of fiduciary duty and the duty of good faith and fair dealing, fraud and unjust enrichment and seeks compensatory and punitive damages, disgorgement of profits, equitable relief and pre and post- judgment interest. In March 2011, the motion to dismiss was denied. In January 2012, plaintiffs filed a motion to certify the class. In August 2012, the court denied plaintiffs' class certification motion without prejudice pending the filing of summary judgment motions on the issue of whether plaintiffs sustained an actual injury. In October 2012, the parties filed motions for summary judgment. In November 2013, the Court issued a Memorandum and Order stating that the named plaintiffs: (1) did not suffer a cognizable legal injury; (2) are not entitled to any damages based on allegations of delay in payment of benefits; and (3) are not entitled to disgorgement of profits as a remedy. The Court ordered further briefing on whether nominal damages should be awarded and whether any equitable relief should be granted. In February 2014, the parties filed briefs on the issues addressed in the Court's order. In August 2014, the Court granted preliminary approval of a proposed settlement of this matter as a class action settlement. If final approval is obtained from the Court, the anticipated class action settlement will be within the amount reserved for this matter. Prudential Financial and its subsidiaries provide a wide range of insurance, investment management, and other financial products and services to both individual and institutional customers throughout the United States and in many other countries. PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Plaintiffs Seek to Amend "Huffman" Case ------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking leave to amend the complaint in the case, Huffman v. The Prudential Insurance Company, Prudential Financial, 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 27, 2014. In September 2010, Huffman v. The Prudential Insurance Company, a purported nationwide class action brought on behalf of beneficiaries of group life insurance contracts owned by ERISA- governed employee welfare benefit plans was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, challenging the use of retained asset accounts in employee welfare benefit plans to settle death benefit claims as a violation of ERISA and seeking injunctive relief and disgorgement of profits. In July 2011, the Company's motion for judgment on the pleadings was denied. In February 2012, plaintiffs filed a motion to certify the class. In April 2012, the Court stayed the case pending the outcome of a case involving another insurer that is before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. In August 2014, the Court lifted the stay, and in September 2014, Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking leave to amend the complaint. Prudential Financial and its subsidiaries provide a wide range of insurance, investment management, and other financial products and services to both individual and institutional customers throughout the United States and in many other countries. PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Appeal Filed Over Dismissal of Complaints --------------------------------------------------------------- Prudential Financial, 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 27, 2014 that an appeal was filed from the Court's summary judgment decision dismissing complaints related to alternative dispute resolution agreement. From November 2002 to March 2005, 11 separate complaints were filed against the Company and the law firm of Leeds Morelli & Brown in New Jersey state court and in the New Jersey Superior Court, Essex County as Lederman v. Prudential Financial, Inc., et al. The complaints allege that an alternative dispute resolution agreement entered into among Prudential Insurance, over 235 claimants who are current and former Prudential Insurance employees, and Leeds Morelli & Brown (the law firm representing the claimants) was illegal and that Prudential Insurance conspired with Leeds Morelli & Brown to commit fraud, malpractice, breach of contract, and violate racketeering laws by advancing legal fees to the law firm with the purpose of limiting Prudential's liability to the claimants. In February 2010, the New Jersey Supreme Court assigned the cases for centralized case management to the Superior Court, Bergen County. The Company participated in a court-ordered mediation that resulted in a settlement involving 193 of the remaining 235 plaintiffs. The amounts paid to the 193 plaintiffs were within existing reserves for this matter. In December 2013, the Company participated in court-ordered mediation that resulted in a December 2013 settlement involving 40 of the remaining 42 plaintiffs with litigation against the Company, including plaintiffs who had not yet appealed the dismissal of their claims. The amounts paid to the 40 plaintiffs were within existing reserves for this matter. In July 2014, the Court granted the Company's summary judgment motion dismissing with prejudice the complaint of one of the two remaining plaintiffs asserting claims against the Company. In August 2014, an appeal was filed from the Court's summary judgment decision. Prudential Financial and its subsidiaries provide a wide range of insurance, investment management, and other financial products and services to both individual and institutional customers throughout the United States and in many other countries. PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Plaintiffs File Motion to Certify Class ------------------------------------------------------------- Prudential Financial, 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 27, 2014 that plaintiffs in a class action filed a motion to certify a class comprised of investors who purchased shares of the Company's Common Stock between May 5, 2010 and November 4, 2011. In August 2012, a purported class action lawsuit, City of Sterling Heights General Employees' Retirement System v. Prudential Financial, Inc., et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging violations of federal securities law. The complaint names as defendants the Company's Chief Executive Officer, the Chief Financial Officer, the Principal Accounting Officer and certain members of the Company's Board of Directors. The complaint alleges that knowingly false and misleading statements were made regarding the Company's current and future financial condition based on, among other things, the alleged failure to disclose: (i) potential liability for benefits that should either have been paid to policyholders or their beneficiaries, or escheated to applicable states; and (ii) the extent of the Company's exposure for alleged state and federal law violations concerning the settlement of claims and the escheatment of unclaimed property. The complaint seeks an undetermined amount of damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. In May 2013, the complaint was amended to add three additional putative institutional investors as lead plaintiffs: National Shopmen Pension Fund, The Heavy & General Laborers' Locals 472 & 172 Pension & Annuity Funds, and Roofers Local No. 149 Pension Fund. In June 2013, the Company moved to dismiss the amended complaint. In February 2014, the Court denied the Company's motion to dismiss. In July 2014, plaintiffs' filed a motion to certify a class comprised of investors who purchased shares of the Company's Common Stock between May 5, 2010 and November 4, 2011. Prudential Financial and its subsidiaries provide a wide range of insurance, investment management, and other financial products and services to both individual and institutional customers throughout the United States and in many other countries. PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Still Facing "Bouder" Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- In October 2006, a purported class action lawsuit, Bouder v. Prudential Financial, Inc. and Prudential Insurance Company of America, was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, claiming that Prudential failed to pay overtime to insurance agents in violation of federal and Pennsylvania law, and that improper deductions were made from these agents' wages in violation of state law. The complaint sought back overtime pay and statutory damages, recovery of improper deductions, interest, and attorneys' fees. In March 2008, the court conditionally certified a nationwide class on the federal overtime claim. Separately, in March 2008, a purported nationwide class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, Wang v. Prudential Financial, Inc. and Prudential Insurance, claiming that the Company failed to pay its agents overtime and provide other benefits in violation of California and federal law and seeking compensatory and punitive damages in unspecified amounts. In September 2008, Wang was transferred to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey and consolidated with the Bouder matter. Subsequent amendments to the complaint resulted in additional allegations involving purported violations of an additional nine states' overtime and wage payment laws. In February 2010, Prudential moved to decertify the federal overtime class that had been conditionally certified in March 2008 and moved for summary judgment on the federal overtime claims of the named plaintiffs. In July 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification of the state law claims. In August 2010, the district court granted Prudential's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the federal overtime claims. In January 2013, the Court denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification in its entirety. In July 2013, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration, permitting plaintiffs to file a motion to certify a class of employee insurance agents seeking recovery under state wage and hour laws. In September 2013, plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for class certification. No updates were provided in Prudential Financial, Inc.'s Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 27, 2014. Prudential Financial and its subsidiaries provide a wide range of insurance, investment management, and other financial products and services to both individual and institutional customers throughout the United States and in many other countries. RAPIDSHOT NORTH AMERICA: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Matthew Majors, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Rapidshot North America, Inc., Walter Payerl, and Kelley Payerl, Case No. 1:14-cv-02505 (N.D. Ohio, November 13, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation for work in excess of 40 per workweek. Rapidshot North America, Inc. manufactures, sells, and maintains hockey shooting systems throughout the United States and internationally. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan A. Winters, Esq. SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC Ste. 1325, 815 Superior Avenue Cleveland, OH 44114 Telephone: (440) 498-9100 Facsimile: (216) 621-1094 E-mail: ryan@winterslawfirm.com REACHLOCAL INC: Faces Class Action by Former Clients ---------------------------------------------------- ReachLocal, 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 lawsuit, purporting to be a class action, was filed on May 2, 2014, by one of the Company's former clients in the United States District Court in Los Angeles. The complaint alleges breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and violation of California's unfair competition law. The complaint seeks monetary damages, restitution and attorneys' fees. While the case is at an early stage, the Company believes that the case is substantively and procedurally without merit. ReachLocal, Inc. offers a comprehensive suite of online marketing solutions, including a total digital marketing system that combines lead management, marketing automation, campaign analysis, responsive website design and a mobile app (ReachEdge(TM)), search engine marketing (ReachSearch(TM)), display advertising (ReachDisplay(TM)), display retargeting (ReachRetargeting(TM)), search engine optimization (ReachSEO(TM)), Web presence (ReachCast(TM)), online marketing analytics (TotalTrack(R)), an assisted chat service (TotalLiveChat(TM)), and other products, each targeted to local business owners. REGADO BIOSCIENCES: Court Consolidated Two Securities Actions ------------------------------------------------------------- Regado Biosciences, 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 Court consolidated two purported securities class action lawsuits and appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On July 10, 2014, the first of two purported securities class action lawsuits was commenced in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, naming as defendants the Company and certain of its officers and directors. The Company said, "The lawsuits allege violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with allegedly false and misleading statements made by us related to our Phase 3 trial of Revolixys in patients undergoing certain percutaneous coronary intervention procedures. Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that we failed to disclose facts related to the potential risk of several allergic reactions following the administration of Revolixys and therefore made false or misleading statements about Revolixys' safety. Plaintiffs seek damages and an award of reasonable costs and expenses, including attorney's fees." On September 8, 2014, two prospective lead plaintiffs filed motions to consolidate the lawsuits, appoint a lead plaintiff, and appoint lead counsel. On September 26, 2014, the Court consolidated the lawsuits and appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. "We expect the lead plaintiff to file a consolidated complaint. It is possible that additional suits will be filed, or allegations received from stockholders, with respect to these same or other matters and also naming us and/or our officers and directors as defendants. These lawsuits and any other related lawsuits are subject to inherent uncertainties, and the actual defense and disposition costs will depend upon many unknown factors. The outcome of these lawsuits is necessarily uncertain. We could be forced to expend significant resources in the defense of these suits and we may not prevail," the Company said. "In addition, we may incur substantial legal fees and costs in connection with these lawsuits. We have a multi-layer Directors and Officers ("D&O") insurance policy which will provide reimbursement of the defense costs. There is not a guarantee that our insurance limits will be sufficient to cover all incurred expenses. We currently are not able to estimate the possible cost to us from these matters, as these lawsuits are currently at an early stage, and we cannot be certain how long it may take to resolve these matters or the possible amount of any damages that we may be required to pay. We have not established any reserve for any potential liability relating to these lawsuits. It is possible that we could, in the future, incur judgments or enter into settlements of claims for monetary damages. A decision adverse to our interests on these actions could result in the payment of substantial damages, or possibly fines, and could have a material adverse effect on our cash flow, results of operations and financial position." Regado Biosciences is a development stage enterprise incorporated in the State of Delaware on December 19, 2001, operating primarily in Basking Ridge, New Jersey and Durham, North Carolina. It has been focused on the discovery and development of novel, first-in- class, actively controllable antithrombotic drug systems for acute and sub-acute cardiovascular indications. ROUND TABLE PIZZA: Inaccessible to Disabled Persons, Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Gerardo Hernandez v. Round Table Pizza, Inc.; Gustavo Velez Dba Round Table Pizza; Blue Panther Properties, LLC; and Does 1-10, Inclusive, Case No. 5:14-cv-05067-HRL (N.D. Cal., November 17, 2014) involves the alleged denial of accessible public facilities, including exterior and interior paths of travel, entrances, restrooms, and related facilities, to the Plaintiff and other similarly disabled persons at the Round Table Pizza restaurant located in Palo Alto, California. Mr. Hernandez is disabled by paraplegia and requires the use of a wheelchair for locomotion. He is unable to use portions of public facilities, which are not accessible to disabled persons, who require the use of a wheelchair. The Defendants are the owners, operators, lessors, and lessees of the business, property, buildings and portions thereof located in Palo Alto, California, and known as the Round Table Pizza restaurant. The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul L. Rein, Esq. Celia McGuinness, Esq. Catherine M. Cabalo, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF PAUL L. REIN 200 Lakeside Drive, Suite A Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 832-5001 Facsimile: (510) 832-4787 E-mail: reinlawoffice@aol.com cmcguinness@reinlawoffice.com ccabalo@reinlawoffice.com SCHACHTER PORTNOY: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act ---------------------------------------------------------------- Normarily Cruz, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Schachter Portnoy, LLC and John Does 1-25, Case No. 3:14-cv-07176-FLW-DEA (D.N.J., November 17, 2014) accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq. MARCUS LAW LLC 1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101 Ocean, NJ 07712 Telephone: (732) 660-8169 E-mail: ari@marcuslawyer.com SEATTLE IMPACT: Owner Faces Class Action Over Sexual Abuse ---------------------------------------------------------- Lisa Hoffman, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that the owner of the newborn Seattle Impact FC indoor soccer league team is facing a putative class action alleging he is a profane tyrant who sexually assaulted two dance team members, threatened his staff with retribution if they discussed his conduct, and fired a manager because he spoke with police about the allegations. Six former employees lodged the claims against owner Dion Earl in King County Superior Court on Nov. 6, two days before the team's maiden regular-season debut, which they lost, 14-4. Also named as defendants are the Major Arena Soccer League and its commissioner, Kevin Milliken, whom the plaintiffs allege effectively enabled Mr. Earl's behavior and downplayed the allegations. The complaint, Buslon v. Seattle Impact, portrays Mr. Earl as a man allegedly obsessed with building a dance team of young, attractive women and focused on his own self-promotion. "He was more passionate about luring 'smoking hot' dancers than he was about a soccer team," the complaint states. "From the moment that the Seattle Impact was formed, Earl's focus was on creating attention for himself." Among the plaintiffs are Elizabeth Buslon, a former dance team co- captain who alleges Earl sexually assaulted her on Sept. 17, and fellow dancer Jessilyn Roberts, who said Mr. Earl forced himself on her on Sept. 4. Alleging sexual harassment and pressure from Earl to cover up his allegedly unlawful conduct is former dance- team captain Lauren Baumann. Former senior corporate account manager Joe David alleges that Mr. Earl fired him because he cooperated with a police investigation of Mr. Earl's alleged behavior. No criminal charges have been filed and Earl denies wrongdoing. But a Superior Court judge issued an immediate and permanent sexual assault protection order for Ms. Buslon against Mr. Earl on Oct. 22. Ms. Buslon and the other plaintiffs allege the indoor soccer league should not have hired Mr. Earl, particularly given the domestic violence charges and sexual harassment protective orders lodged against him in the past. Part of that past, according to the complaint, is the firing of Mr. Earl, a former college and professional soccer player, from his high-school coaching job in 1998 for his alleged inappropriate behavior towards a high-school cheerleader he attempted to date. The complaint alleges that Mr. Milliken failed to conduct a "reasonable investigation" upon learning of the sexual assault allegations and threats of retribution, and "colluded with Earl" to cover up the assaults. The plaintiffs also allege Milliken and the league were well aware of earlier allegations against Mr. Earl for allegedly "making inappropriate comments of a personal or sexually suggestive nature, inappropriate touching, multiple sexual assaults, unlawful terminations, and willful withholding of wages," according to the complaint. "Commissioner Milliken and the MASL had a duty to protect Plaintiffs from the conduct and behaviors described in this Complaint but failed to do so, and this failure caused damages to the plaintiffs," said the complaint, which alleges the team and its head engaged in negligent hiring, retention and supervision. The complaint alleges Mr. Earl engaged in assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, sexual harassment and discrimination, constructive discharge and discriminatory termination, retaliation and failure to pay wages, among other alleged unlawful acts. Plaintiffs' attorneys are with the firm HKM Employment Attorneys. SIOUX CITY, IA: Judge OKs Franchise Fee Class Action Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that an Iowa judge has approved the settlement of a class-action lawsuit in which the city of Sioux City agreed to return nearly $6.5 million in franchise fees to city residents and businesses. Judge Jeffrey Neary, of Woodbury County District Court, approved the deal on Nov. 14, the Sioux City Journal said. Sioux City resident Kathleen Sweisberger filed the lawsuit in 2006 on behalf of all households and businesses that paid a 2 percent franchise fee for gas or electricity to MidAmerican Energy Co. or Woodbury County Rural Electric Cooperative from Sept. 5, 2001, to May 25, 2009. Lawyers say nearly 62,000 individuals and businesses will qualify for settlement payments. Iowa courts have ruled that the franchise fees were illegal and the state legislature has since legalized franchise taxes of up to 5 percent. The Sioux City Council approved the settlement in April and will borrow money to pay it. The city raised the franchise tax to 5 percent from 2 percent to pay off that debt. Nearly $2.16 million, or 33 percent of the settlement, will go Lane & Waterman, the Davenport law firm that represented Sweisberger, under the terms of her contract with the firm. Richard Davidson, who worked on the case, said the remaining $4.3 million will be divided among businesses and individuals who paid the franchise fees. The payment average is $69.28 per class member, but, Mr. Davidson said, larger users will receive higher amounts. The estimated figure for St. Luke's Regional Medical Center is $52,000, for example, and $46,500 for Mercy Medical Center. A similar lawsuit in Des Moines resulted in a $39 million judgment. Dubuque is in the process of settling another suit for $2.6 million. SMART PAYMENT: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Plan Agreement -------------------------------------------------------------- Z-Quana Powell v. Smart Payment Plan, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-09033 (S.D.N.Y., November 13, 2014), alleges that the Defendant has used its Payment Plan Agreement to establish preauthorization for electronic fund transfers on behalf of thousands of consumers around the United States. Smart Payment Plan, LLC provides flexible bill payment services with its principal place of business located at 999 Vanderbilt Beach Rd, Naples, FL 34108. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander Bachuwa, Esq. THOMPSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, PLLC 5235 E Southern Ave, Mesa, AZ 85206 Telephone: (888)595-9111 Facsimile: (866)317-2674 E-mail: abachuwa@consumerlawinfo.com SOVRAN SELF STORAGE: Consumer Suit Moved to NJ District Court ------------------------------------------------------------- A consumer action against Sovran Self Storage, Inc. was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey Law Division Burlington County to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, according to the company's Nov. 4, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014. On or about August 25, 2014, a putative class action was filed against the Company in the Superior Court of New Jersey Law Division Burlington County. The action seeks to obtain declaratory, injunctive and monetary relief for a class of consumers based upon alleged violations by the Company of the New Jersey Truth in Customer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act, the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and the New Jersey Insurance Producer Licensing Act. On October 17, 2014, the action was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey Law Division Burlington County to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. SPIROS PARTNERS: Faces "Valdez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jocabed Valdez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Spiros Partners, Ltd d/b/a Rick's Cabaret, New Spiros, LLC d/b/a Rick's Cabaret and Eric Langan, Case No. 5:14-cv-01012 (W.D. Tex., November 13, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Spiros Partners, Ltd is a gentlemen's club for adult entertainment in San Antonio, Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Martin A. Shellist, Esq. Ricardo Jose Prieto, Esq. SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP 11 Greenway Plaza-Ste 1515 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 621-2277 Facsimile: (713) 621-0993 E-mail: mshellist@eeoc.net rprieto@eeoc.net STARION ENERGY: Sued in N.Y. Over Misleading Business Practices --------------------------------------------------------------- Diana Windley, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Starion Energy, Inc., Starion Energy NY, Inc., Starion Energy PA, Inc., Robert Zappone, and Does 1-10, Case No. 1:14-cv- 09053 (S.D.N.Y., November 13, 2014), arises out of the Defendants' deceptive and unconscionable business tactics, specifically by misleading consumers to believe that by switching to Starion they will save money over their local public utilities when in fact, soon after customers switched, their rates skyrocket, completely divorced from prevailing market conditions. The Defendants are private energy service company providers in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Melzer, Esq. Jeremy Heisler, Esq. SANFORD HEISLER, LLP 1350 Avenue of the Americas, 31st Fl. New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 402-5650 Facsimile: (646)402-5651 E-mail: jheisler@sanfordheisler.com amelzer@sanfordheisler.com STEREOTAXIS INC: Plaintiffs Did Not File Notice of Appeal --------------------------------------------------------- Stereotaxis, 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 plaintiffs in a purported securities class action did not file a notice of appeal prior to the deadline of April 17, 2014. On October 7, 2011, a purported securities class action was filed against the Company and two of the Company's past executive officers in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri by Kevin Pound, a purported shareholder of the Company. On December 29, 2011, the court granted an unopposed motion appointing Local 522 Pension Fund as Lead Plaintiff in the action and granting Lead Plaintiff leave to file an Amended Complaint, which Lead Plaintiff filed on March 19, 2012. The Amended Complaint alleged that, during the period from February 28, 2011 through August 9, 2011, the Company and certain of its officers made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's financial condition and future business prospects, in violation of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The Amended Complaint sought unspecified damages, costs, attorneys' fees and such other relief as the Court may deem appropriate. On May 18, 2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint. On July 24, 2012, Lead Plaintiff filed its response to the motion to dismiss, and on August 30, 2012, the Company filed its reply brief in support of the motion to dismiss. On March 18, 2014, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss and entered judgment in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs did not file a notice of appeal prior to the deadline of April 17, 2014. Stereotaxis designs, manufactures and markets the Epoch Solution, which is an advanced remote robotic navigation system for use in a hospital's interventional surgical suite, or "interventional lab", that the Company believes revolutionizes the treatment of arrhythmias and coronary artery disease by enabling enhanced safety, efficiency and efficacy for catheter-based, or interventional, procedures. SUBWAY 30976: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Leda M. Rodriguez and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. Subway 30976 of Dade County Inc. d/b/a Subway and Muhammad Idrees, Case No. 1:14-cv-24315 (S.D. Fla., November 13, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly. The Defendants own and operate Subway restaurants within the State of Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jamie H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, PA 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Telephone: (305) 865-6766 Facsimile: 865-7167 E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM SYMMETRY MEDICAL: Dec. 1 Hearing on Preliminary Injunction Motion ----------------------------------------------------------------- A hearing for the plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, Expedited Discovery and a Hearing Date to Continue the Preliminary Injunction Pending Trial is currently scheduled for December 1, 2014, Symmetry Medical 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 27, 2014. On August 4, 2014, the Corporation announced that it has entered a definitive agreement to sell all of its common stock to Tecomet and concurrently transfer to Symmetry Medical, Inc.'s shareholders ownership in a new company holding its Symmetry Surgical business (merger and Separation Transaction). Tecomet, which is owned by Genstar Capital, is a contract manufacturing, engineering and metal fabrication technology company based in Wilmington, Massachusetts. On September 29, 2014, a purported class action complaint challenging the Merger and Separation Transaction was filed on behalf of Resolution Partners, an alleged stockholder of the Corporation, and all others similarly situated, in the Kosciusko Circuit Court in the state of Indiana. The complaint generally alleges, among other things, that the members of the SMI board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to Resolution Partners and SMI stockholders during merger negotiations and by entering into the Merger Agreement and approving the Merger, and that Genstar and Tecomet allegedly aided and abetted such alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. The complaint further alleges that the joint proxy statement/prospectus filed by Symmetry Surgical with the SEC on September 5, 2014, which contained the preliminary proxy statement of SMI, was misleading or omitted certain allegedly material information. The complaint seeks, among other relief, injunctive relief enjoining consummation of the Merger, compensatory and/or rescissory damages in an unspecified amount and costs and fees. On October 15, 2014, the plaintiff filed a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, Expedited Discovery and a Hearing Date to Continue the Preliminary Injunction Pending Trial. On October 23, 2014, the parties agreed to a compromise on expedited discovery, mooting that aspect of plaintiff's motion, and stipulated to a briefing schedule on plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction. The Court has set a hearing for the plaintiff's motion, which is currently scheduled for December 1, 2014. The defendants believe that the claims asserted against them in the lawsuit are without merit, but express no view on the possible outcomes of the litigation. SYNGENTA CORP: Faces "Bentlage" Suit Over Sale of Viptera Corn -------------------------------------------------------------- Darvin Bentlage, Gregory Harris, Richard R. Oswald v. Syngenta Corporation, Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, Syngenta Seeds, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-05151 (W.D. Mo., November 13, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to provide 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: Charles F. Speer, Esq. SPEER LAW FIRM, P.A. 104 West 9th Street, Suite 400 Kansas City, MO 64105 Telephone (816) 472-3560 Facsimile: (816) 421-2150 E-mail: cspeer@speerlawfirm.com - and - Stephen A. Weiss, Esq. Diogenes P. Kekatos, Esq. James A. O'Brien III, Esq. SEEGER WEISS LLP 77 Water St., 26th Floor New York, NY 10005 E-mail: sweiss@seegerweiss.com dkekatos@seegerweiss.com jobrien@seegerweiss.com TAKATA CORP: Faces "Markowitz" Class Suit Over Exploding Airbags ---------------------------------------------------------------- Gail Markowitz and Maureen Rash, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Takata Corporation, TK Holdings, Inc., Highland Industries, Inc., Honda Motor Co. Ltd., and American Honda Motor Co., Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-24366-FAM (S.D. Fla., November 17, 2014) asserts product liability claims. The case is related to the multidistrict litigation known as In re Takata Airbag Litigation, MDL No. 2599. The litigation alleges unlawful conduct involving airbags -- manufactured by Takata and installed in millions of vehicles in the United States by Vehicle Manufacturer Defendants -- that cause serious bodily harm or death to vehicle occupants. The Plaintiffs in the lawsuits, mostly owners or lessees of vehicles recalled because they contain Takata airbags, allege that Takata's airbags, instead of protecting vehicle occupants from bodily injury during accidents, violently explode and eject lethal amounts of metal debris and shrapnel, causing serious injury and death. To date, Takata airbags have caused at least four deaths and numerous horrific injuries, including maiming, loss of eyesight and hearing, and seizures. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Scott P. Schlesinger, Esq. Jeffrey Louis Haberman, Esq. SHELDON J. SCHLESINGER PA 1212 SE 3rd Avenue Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Telephone: (954) 467-8800 E-mail: scott@schlesingerlaw.com JHaberman@schlesingerlaw.com TECUMSEH PRODUCTS: Ontario Court Okays Horsepower Label Suit Deal ----------------------------------------------------------------- A settlement involving all but three of the defendants in the Canadian Horsepower label litigation pending in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, of which Tecumseh Products Company is a defendant, has been negotiated and approved by the court, according to the company's Nov. 4, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014. On March 19, 2010, Robert Foster and Murray Davenport filed a lawsuit under the Class Proceedings Act in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against the company and several other defendants (including Sears Canada Inc., Sears Holdings Corporation, John Deere Limited, Platinum Equity, LLC, Briggs & Stratton Corporation, Kawasaki Motors Corp., USA, MTD Products Inc., The Toro Company, American Honda Motor Co., Electrolux Home Products, Inc., Husqvarna Consumer Outdoor Products N.A., Inc. and Kohler Co.), alleging that defendants conspired to fix prices of lawn mowers and lawn mower engines in Canada, to lessen competition in lawn mowers and lawn mower engines in Canada, and to mislabel the horsepower of lawn mower engines and lawn mowers in violation of the Canadian Competition Act, civil conspiracy prohibitions and the Consumer Packaging and Labeling Act. Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of all persons in Canada who purchased, for their own use and not for resale, a lawn mower containing a gas combustible engine of 30 horsepower or less provided that either the lawn mower or the engine contained within the lawn mower was manufactured and/or sold by a defendant or their predecessors between January 1, 1994 and the date of judgment. Plaintiffs seek undetermined money damages, punitive damages, interest, costs and equitable relief. In addition, Snowstorm Acquisition Corporation and Platinum Equity, LLC, the purchasers of Tecumseh Power Company and its subsidiaries and Motoco a.s. in November 2007, have notified the company that they claim indemnification with respect to this lawsuit under the company's Stock Purchase Agreement with them. A settlement involving all but three of the defendants (Kawasaki, American Honda and Tecumseh) has been negotiated and approved by the court. It is not binding on the non-settling defendants, nor is it determinative of their liability, if any. TECUMSEH PRODUCTS: Horsepower Label Suit Accord in Quebec Okayed ---------------------------------------------------------------- A settlement involving all but three of the defendants in a lawsuit similar to the Canadian Horsepower label litigation pending in the Superior Court of the Province of Quebec, of which Tecumseh Products Company is a defendant, has been negotiated and approved by the court, according to the company's Nov. 4, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014. On May 3, 2010, a class action was commenced in the Superior Court of the Province of Quebec by Eric Liverman and Sidney Vadish against the company and several other defendants (including those listed in the Canadian Horsepower label litigation) advancing allegations similar to such case. Plaintiffs seek undetermined monetary damages, punitive damages, interest, costs, and equitable relief. Snowstorm Acquisition Corporation and Platinum Equity, LLC, the purchasers of Tecumseh Power Company and its subsidiaries and Motoco a.s. in November 2007, have notified the company that they claim indemnification with respect to this lawsuit under the company's Stock Purchase Agreement with them. As was the case with the Ontario litigation, a settlement involving all but three of the defendants (Kawasaki, American Honda and Tecumseh) has been negotiated and approved by the court. It is not binding on the non-settling defendants, nor is it determinative of their liability, if any. TECUMSEH PRODUCTS: Settlement in Compressor Antitrust Suit Okayed ----------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan issued an order granting final approval of the Settlement Agreement between Tecumseh Products Company, Tecumseh Compressor Company, Tecumseh do Brasil, Ltda, and Tecumseh do Brasil U.S.A. LLC and the direct purchaser plaintiffs in a suit filed against certain manufacturers in the compressor industry, according to Tecumseh Products' Nov. 4, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014. On February 17, 2009, the company received a subpoena from the United States Department of Justice Antitrust Division ("DOJ") and a formal request for information from the Secretariat of Economic Law of the Ministry of Justice of Brazil ("SDE") related to investigations by these authorities into possible anti-competitive pricing arrangements among certain manufacturers in the compressor industry. The European Commission began an investigation of the industry on the same day. The company entered into a conditional amnesty agreement with the DOJ under the Antitrust Division's Corporate Leniency Policy. Pursuant to the agreement, the DOJ has agreed to not bring any criminal prosecution or impose any monetary fines with respect to the investigation against the company as long as the company, among other things, continues its full cooperation in the investigation. The company received similar conditional immunity from the European Commission and the SDE, and have received or requested immunity or leniency from competition authorities in other jurisdictions. On December 7, 2011, the European Commission announced it had reached a cartel settlement under which certain of the company's competitors received fines for the conduct investigated. As a result of the company's conditional immunity, the company was not assessed any fine. While the company has taken steps to avoid fines, penalties and other sanctions as the result of proceedings brought by regulatory authorities, the amnesty grants do not extend to civil actions brought by private plaintiffs. The public disclosure of these investigations has resulted in class action lawsuits filed in Canada and numerous class action lawsuits filed in the United States, including by both direct and indirect purchaser groups. In Canada, the class actions are still in a preliminary stage. All of the U.S. actions have been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings under Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL") procedures. Persons who engage in price-fixing in violation of U.S. antitrust law generally are jointly and severally liable to private claimants for three times the actual damages caused by the joint conduct. As a conditional amnesty recipient, however, the company's civil liability will be limited pursuant to the Antitrust Criminal Penalty Enhancement and Reform Act of 2004, as amended ("ACPERA"). As long as the company continues to cooperate with the civil claimants and comply with the requirements of ACPERA, the company will be liable only for actual, as opposed to treble, damages and will not be jointly and severally liable for claims against other participants in the alleged anticompetitive conduct being investigated. Tecumseh Products Company, Tecumseh Compressor Company, Tecumseh do Brasil, Ltda, and Tecumseh do Brasil U.S.A. LLC entered into a settlement agreement with the direct purchaser plaintiffs in the U.S. actions on June 24, 2010 to resolve claims in the action in order to avoid the costs and distraction of this ongoing class action litigation. On June 13, 2011, the Court issued an order denying without prejudice a motion for preliminary approval of the company's proposed settlement with the direct purchaser plaintiffs because the time frame and products covered by the proposed settlement class were inconsistent with the Court's rulings of the same date granting, in part, a motion by the other defendants to dismiss claims by the direct purchaser plaintiffs. The direct purchaser plaintiffs subsequently filed a Second Amended Master Complaint to reflect the court's rulings on the motion to dismiss which allowed them to cover fractional compressors, or compressors of less than one horsepower, used for refrigeration purposes (but excluding those used for air conditioning) purchased from February 25, 2005 to December 31, 2008 (the "Covered Products"). On October 15, 2012, the company entered into a settlement agreement with the direct purchaser plaintiffs (the "Settlement Agreement"). The Settlement Agreement was made by and between the company and the company's subsidiaries and affiliates, and plaintiffs, both individually and on behalf of a class of persons who purchased the Covered Products in the United States, its territories and possessions, directly from a defendant. Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, in exchange for plaintiffs' full release of all U.S. direct purchaser claims against the company relating to refrigeration compressors, the company agreed to pay a settlement amount of $7.0 million and, in addition, agreed to pay up to $150,000 for notice and administrative costs associated with administering the settlement. These costs were recorded as an expense in the second quarter ended June 30, 2010 (and paid in the third quarter of 2010) in the line item captioned "Impairments, restructuring charges, and other items" on the company's Consolidated Statements of Operations. On June 16, 2014, the court issued an order granting final approval of the Settlement Agreement between Tecumseh and the direct purchaser plaintiffs. The court also issued a Final Judgment dismissing all direct purchaser actions against Tecumseh and several other defendants. The company entered into a Settlement Agreement on March 21, 2014 with the named indirect purchaser plaintiffs pursuant to which these plaintiffs agreed to enter a Stipulated Order of Dismissal with Prejudice and Without Costs that dismisses all claims and causes of action alleged in their third consolidated amended complaint. The company's share of the settlement was $250,000. The court entered this order on April 9, 2014. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS: 9th Circuit Upends Split Panel Decision ------------------------------------------------------------- Ross Todd, writing for The Recorder, reports that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has narrowed the opening for plaintiffs lawyers in so-called mass actions to avoid removal to federal court. An en banc ruling on Nov. 18 upended last year's split panel decision that allowed litigation against two pharmaceutical companies on behalf of roughly 1,500 individual plaintiffs to stay in a California state court, over the objections of defendants. Judge Ronald Gould, who dissented from last year's panel decision in Romo v. Teva Pharmaceuticals, wrote the majority opinion in the Nov. 18 9-2 en banc decision. Judge Gould concluded that plaintiffs' petition to coordinate more than two dozen cases "for all purposes" triggered federal court jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act. CAFA gives the federal court jurisdiction over mass actions when they've been "proposed to be tried jointly." "Looking at the plain language of plaintiffs' petitions and memoranda," Judge Gould wrote, "we must conclude that plaintiffs proposed a joint trial in asking that 'all of the actions' be coordinated 'for all purposes.'" Judge Johnnie Rawlinson, who authored the prior majority panel opinion, wrote a 10-page dissent to the Nov. 18 en banc decision joined by Judge Marsha Berzon. While "admittedly a fairly close case," Judge Rawlinson wrote that the plaintiffs' petition for coordination in the state courts focused on pretrial matters such as discovery and witness depositions. "The plaintiffs' petition for coordination stopped short of requesting a joint trial as contemplated by the plain language of the [CAFA] statute," she wrote. Plaintiff Judith Romo is one of about 1,500 individuals suing Teva Pharmaceutical, McKesson Corp. and other drug makers after taking the pain medication propoxyphene. The compound, an ingredient in the painkillers Darvon, Darvocet and their generic equivalents, was on the market for about 50 years before it was pulled in 2010 amid warnings from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Tests showed a risk of potentially serious heart rhythm problems in users. The two cases before the Ninth Circuit were part of a wave of 40 separate lawsuits filed in California state courts that each fell under the 100-plaintiff limit to trigger a CAFA removal to federal court. Law firms representing a majority of the plaintiffs petitioned the state's judicial council to coordinate the cases under California's Code of Civil Procedure. Teva asked that the case be removed to federal court, arguing that the plaintiffs were intentionally working around CAFA. But U.S. District Judge Philip Gutierrez of the Central District of California routed the cases back to state court. The panel upheld Gutierrez's decision in September 2013, noting that U.S. District judges Claudia Wilken, Richard Seeborg and William Alsup, all of the Northern District of California, had issued similar rulings. Jay Lefkowitz of Kirkland & Ellis argued on behalf of Teva. He wasn't immediately available on Nov. 18. A Teva spokesperson said the company is pleased with the decision. Louis Bograd of the Center for Constitutional Litigation argued on behalf of the plaintiffs. He didn't respond to messages. En banc review in the case drew amicus briefs from the Chamber of Commerce, the Washington Legal Foundation, the American Association for Justice and the Product Liability Advisory Council. UNI-PIXEL INC: Parties in Final Stages of Negotiations ------------------------------------------------------ Uni-Pixel, 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 parties in the Class Action Litigation and Shareholder Derivative Litigation are currently in the final stages of negotiating a settlement in both matters. According to the Company, "In June 2013, two purported class action complaints were filed in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York and the United States District Court, Southern District of Texas against the Company and our CEO, CFO, and Chairman. The Southern District of New York complaint was voluntarily dismissed by plaintiff on July 2, 2013. The surviving complaint alleges that we and our officers and directors violated the federal securities laws, specifically Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, by making purportedly false and misleading statements concerning our licensing agreements and product development. The complaint seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of our common stock during the period from December 7, 2012 to May 31, 2013. On July 25, 2014, the judge granted in part and denied in part our motion to dismiss the case, significantly limiting the claims remaining in the case. On August 25, 2014, we filed an answer to the class action complaint. We will continue to vigorously defend against this lawsuit. The Company has directors' and officers' and corporate liability insurance to cover some of the risks associated with securities claims filed against the Company or its directors and officers and has notified its insurers of these actions." On February 19, 2014, a shareholder derivative lawsuit, Jason F. Gerzseny v. Reed J. Killion, et. al., was filed in the 165th Judicial District in Harris County, Texas. On February 21, 2014, another shareholder derivative lawsuit, Luis Lim v. Reed J. Killion, et. al., was also filed in Harris County district court. Both complaints allege various causes of action against certain current and former officers and directors, including claims for breach of fiduciary duty, corporate waste, insider selling, and unjust enrichment. On April 8, 2014, these derivative actions were consolidated into one action, and on September 9, 2014, plaintiff filed an amended consolidated complaint. The Company intends to vigorously defend against this lawsuit, and has directors' and officers' liability insurance to cover some of the risks associated with derivative claims against its directors and officers and has notified its insurers of these actions. On October 21, 2014, the parties in the Class Action Litigation and Shareholder Derivative Litigation conducted a mediation. The parties are currently in the final stages of negotiating a settlement in both matters. Once finalized, the settlements must be approved by the courts. The Company cannot provide any assurance that the settlements will ultimately be finalized or approved. Uni-Pixel, Inc., a Delaware corporation, is the parent company of Uni-Pixel Displays, Inc., its wholly-owned operating subsidiary. The Company is a production stage company delivering Performance Engineered Film(TM) (PEF) products to the display, touch screen and flexible electronics market segments. UNIT CORP: Closing Argument in Royalty Owners' Suit Set for Dec. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The court handling the case Panola Independent School District No. 4, et al. v. Unit Petroleum Company, No. CJ-07-215, District Court of Latimer County, Oklahoma has ordered closing arguments in the case to be held on December 2, 2014, according to Unit Corporation's Nov. 4, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014. Panola Independent School District No. 4, Michael Kilpatrick, Gwen Grego, Carla Lessel, Thelma Christine Pate, Juanita Golightly, Melody Culberson and Charlotte Abernathy are the Plaintiffs in this case and are royalty owners in oil and gas drilling and spacing units for which the company's exploration segment distributes royalty. The Plaintiffs' central allegation is that the company's exploration segment has underpaid royalty obligations by deducting post-production costs or marketing related fees. Plaintiffs sought to pursue the case as a class action on behalf of persons who receive royalty from the company for the company's Oklahoma production. The company asserted several defenses including that the deductions are permitted under Oklahoma law. It also asserted that the case should not be tried as a class action due to the materially different circumstances that determine what, if any, deductions are taken for each lease. On December 16, 2009, the trial court entered its order certifying the class. On May 11, 2012 the court of civil appeals reversed the trial court's order certifying the class. The Plaintiffs petitioned the supreme court for certiorari and on October 8, 2012, the Plaintiff's petition was denied. On January 22, 2013, the Plaintiffs filed a second request to certify a class of royalty owners that was slightly smaller than their first attempt. Since then, the Plaintiffs have further amended their proposed class to just include royalty owners entitled to royalties under certain leases located in Latimer, Le Flore, and Pittsburg Counties, Oklahoma. In July 2014, a second class certification hearing was held where, in addition to the defenses, the company argued that the amended class definition is still deficient under the court of civil appeals opinion reversing the initial class certification. The court has ordered closing arguments to be held on December 2, 2014. The company will continue to resist certification using the defenses. The merits of Plaintiffs' claims will remain stayed while class certification issues are pending. UNITED ONLINE: No Hearing Date for Partial Final Judgment Motion ---------------------------------------------------------------- United Online, 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 date has been set for hearing on Plaintiff's motion for entry of partial final judgment and certification for interlocutory appeal. In March 2012, Hope Kelm, Barbara Timmcke, Regina Warfel, Brett Reilly, Juan M. Restrepo, and Jennie H. Pham filed a purported class action complaint (the "Kelm Class Action") in United States District Court, District of Connecticut, against multiple defendants, including United Online, Inc., Classmates, Inc., Classmates International, Inc., and FTD Group, Inc. The complaint alleges (1) violations of the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), and aiding and abetting violations of such act; (2) aiding and abetting violations of federal mail fraud, wire fraud and bank fraud statutes; (3) violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act ("ECPA"), and aiding and abetting violations of such act; (4) violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, and aiding and abetting violations of such act; (5) violation of California Business and Professions Code section 17602; and (6) unjust enrichment. In March 2012, Debra Miller and William Thompson filed a purported class action complaint (the "Miller Class Action") in United States District Court, District of Connecticut, against multiple defendants, including Classmates International, Inc., FTD Group, Inc., Classmates, Inc., and United Online, Inc. The complaint alleges (1) violations of RICO, and aiding and abetting violations of such act; (2) aiding and abetting violations of federal mail fraud, wire fraud and bank fraud statutes; (3) violations of the ECPA, and aiding and abetting violations of such act; (4) violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, and aiding and abetting violations of such act; (5) violation of California Business and Professions Code section 17602; and (6) unjust enrichment. In April 2012, the Kelm Class Action and the Miller Class Action were consolidated with a related case under the case caption In re Trilegiant Corporation, Inc. In addition, in December 2012, David Frank filed a purported class action complaint (the "Frank Class Action") in United States District Court, District of Connecticut, against multiple defendants, including Classmates International, Inc., FTD Group, Inc., Classmates, Inc., and United Online, Inc. The complaint alleges (1) violations of RICO, and aiding and abetting violations of such act; (2) aiding and abetting commissions of mail fraud, wire fraud and bank fraud; (3) violation of the ECPA, and aiding and abetting violations of such act; (4) violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, and aiding and abetting violations of such act; (5) violation of California Business and Professions Code section 17602; and (6) unjust enrichment. In January 2013, the plaintiff moved to consolidate the Frank Class Action with the In re Trilegiant Corporation, Inc. action. In March 2014, the Court granted the motion to consolidate the Frank Class Action with the In re Trilegiant Corporation, Inc. action, with the latter designated as the lead case. The plaintiffs in the Kelm Class Action, the Miller Class Action and the Frank Class Action seek class certification, restitution and disgorgement of all amounts wrongfully charged to and received from the plaintiffs, damages, treble damages, punitive damages, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, costs of suit, and pre- and post-judgment interest on any amounts awarded. On March 28, 2014, the Court issued an order in the In re Trilegiant Corporation, Inc. action dismissing for lack of Article III standing, and inadequately pled corporate parent liability for its subsidiary's actions, Plaintiffs' claims against United Online, Inc., Memory Lane, Inc. (subsequently renamed Classmates, Inc.), FTD Group, Inc., and Classmates International, Inc. The Court ruled that because none of the named Plaintiffs alleged they used services from or were otherwise injured by any of those defendants, the claims against them are dismissed. The Court's dismissal was without prejudice. The deadline for Plaintiffs to file a motion for reconsideration of the Court's Order expired on April 11, 2014, without any such motion being filed. On April 28, 2014, the Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking entry of partial final judgment on, and certification for interlocutory appeal of, the Court's March 28, 2014 orders dismissing the RICO claims and RICO conspiracy claims, the claims against certain credit card company defendants, the nationwide Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act class action allegations, and the claims of plaintiffs Warfel, Reilly, Restrepo and Brian Schnabel based on their participation in a previous class action settlement. On May 5, 2014, the Court summarily granted Plaintiff's motion for entry of partial final judgment and certification for interlocutory appeal, but subsequently vacated that order and set a May 23, 2014 deadline for the remaining defendants to file their oppositions to Plaintiff's motion. On May 23, 2014, the remaining defendants filed their opposition briefs to the motion for interlocutory review and, on June 5, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a reply brief. No date has been set for a hearing on Plaintiff's motion. The Plaintiffs' motion did not seek entry of a partial final judgment on, nor certification for interlocutory review of, the Court's dismissal of Plaintiffs' claims against United Online, Inc., Memory Lane, Inc. (subsequently renamed Classmates, Inc.), FTD Group, Inc., and Classmates International, Inc., for lack of Article III standing and inadequately pled corporate parent liability for its subsidiary's actions. United Online, through its operating subsidiaries, provides consumer services and products over the Internet under a number of brands, including Classmates, StayFriends, Trombi, MyPoints, NetZero, and Juno. UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA: McAdoo Suit Unlikely to Succeed ------------------------------------------------------------- Ned Barnett, writing for News Observer, reports that Michael McAdoo lost his NCAA eligibility to play football for the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill after a student honor court found him guilty of receiving impermissible help from a tutor who footnoted and sourced one of his papers. When Mr. McAdoo unsuccessfully sued to be reinstated in 2011, he included a copy of the disputed paper, which turned out to have been heavily lifted from material on the Internet. That led to questions about why the professor involved, Julius Nyang'oro, hadn't detected the paper's flaws and opened the university's scandal involving the Department of African and Afro-American Studies and no-show classes for athletes. But what began with unacknowledged use of others' writing is turning into an entirely original legal chapter. Mr. McAdoo, a defensive end out of Antioch, Tenn., who played during UNC's 2008 and 2009 seasons, has sued the university for breach of contract claiming he was denied the education promised him by then-head UNC football coach Butch Davis. Mr. McAdoo filed the suit in federal court and asked that it be accepted as a class action including himself and all football players on scholarship between 1993 and 2011. That is the period that a report from Kenneth Wainstein, a former Justice Department official, says the more than 3,000 students, nearly half of them athletes, were steered into a "shadow curriculum" of bogus classes. The contract at issue is the promise Mr. Davis made to Mr. McAdoo, his mother and his grandparents when he came to Mr. McAdoo's home to recruit him. "I can't guarantee that Michael will play in the NFL," Davis allegedly said, "But one thing I can guarantee is that he will get a good education at the University of North Carolina." It's unlikely McAdoo's suit will be granted class action status -- it doesn't help that it starts with only one plaintiff -- and even if he pursues it alone, it will be on tenuous legal ground. One obvious problem will be proving that he didn't consent to the fraudulent classes and was exploiting the school as much as it was of him. Mr. McAdoo, who played football in Canada and is trying to break into the NFL, lives in Maryland. He was not available for comment. Prospects for its success aside, the McAdoo lawsuit is a significant development in UNC's academic-athletic scandal and in the debate about college revenue sports. Should it go forward, the discovery process and testimony under oath could bring more harsh light on how UNC routed athletes into sham courses. It also brings into sharp focus this question: Just what is the exchange athletes make when they give their time and talents to a major football or basketball program? The schools and coaches collect millions of dollars. What do the athletes get? Apparently it's not always an education. If that's not provided, what are they owed? Jeremi Duru, an American University law professor and one of Mr. McAdoo's attorneys, says compensation is not the aim of the suit, reform is. The suit asks that all athletes be given four- year scholarships, not the current renewable one-year scholarships. And it wants the curriculum for football athletes to be reviewed by a court-appointee who would confirm that the courses are legitimate for five years. "We want to ensure that UNC remains committed to the student- athlete principle . . . We've seen a departure from that. We would love to see that restored," Mr. Duru says. "McAdoo came forward because he wants to right a wrong." Bob Orr, a Raleigh attorney who is a former member of the N.C. Court of Appeals and former justice on the N.C. Supreme Court, informally advised Mr. McAdoo when he was seeking reinstatement of his NCAA eligibility. He is not involved in the current lawsuit, but he said it is focused on a central problem for top sports programs at schools with quality academics. "You can't bring somebody in with a skill set below the median at UNC, Duke or Notre Dame and work them 40 hours a week and expect them to get up to speed doing normal college-level work," Mr. Orr says. He expects that Mr. McAdoo's case is the first of a series that will focus on this conflict between obtaining performance and providing an education. "I think the McAdoo case is the tip of the iceberg," he says. "I think there will be other litigation, more expansive litigation." Paul Haagen, a professor of sports law and policy at Duke Law School, says the lawsuit is unlikely to succeed, but it could have value nonetheless. "This one sounds like it's got some real problems," he says, "but independent of the ability to get damages, this is another opportunity to get discovery and highlight an issue that is going to expose the divide between running an educational institution and running an entertainment wing of a university." Mr. Haagen says the case "may go nowhere," but if it advances at all it will get at the key question that is emerging about college revenue sports: "What inexactly is the value being exchanged for the risk and time of what these kids are engaged in, especially when some people are benefiting extraordinarily?" VAN VLIET: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime and Damages ------------------------------------------------------------ Aimee Staros v. Van Vliet & Trap, LLC, Remco Van Vliet and Cas Trap, Case No. 1:14-cv-09119-AT (S.D.N.Y., November 17, 2014) alleges that the Plaintiff, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, is entitled to recover from the Defendants: (1) unpaid overtime, (2) liquidated damages and (3) attorneys' fees and costs. Van Vliet & Trap, LLC, is a New York domestic limited liability company headquartered in New York City. The Company operates Van Vliet & Trap, an event design company servicing clients that include JP Morgan Chase, Ralph Lauren, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, Goldman Sachs and Conde Nast, among others. The Individual Defendants are the owners of the Company. The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Melissa Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 465-1124 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com anne@leelitigation.com VASCULAR SOLUTIONS: Several Firms Mull Shareholder Class Actions ---------------------------------------------------------------- Neal St. Anthony, writing for Star Tribune, reports that the stock price of Vascular Solutions Inc. plunged by nearly one-fourth on Nov. 14, a day after the company and its chief executive were charged criminally with conspiring to sell a varicose-vein treatment device for unapproved uses. Meanwhile, several firms announced they are considering shareholder class-action lawsuits against the Maple Grove-based company. The stock, which had moved from a low of $18.97 this year to nearly $31 before the Nov. 14 revelations, closed Nov. 15 at $23.74 per share. Howard Root, the longtime CEO of Vascular Solutions, and the company were indicted by a federal grand jury in Texas for selling unapproved and adulterated medical devices. Root, 53, disputes the charges as "absurd," and the company has vowed to fight them in court. Root co-founded Vascular Solutions in 1997 and is the single largest individual shareholder with about 430,000 shares. The Nov. 14 stock drop pared Vascular's market cap by more than $100 million. On Nov. 14, the company said it planned to repurchase up to $20 million worth of its stock. "We announced it concurrent with our statement about the indictment because we knew that some investors were concerned," Vascular vice president Phil Nalbone said on Nov. 14. "Our stock had quite a run [through Nov. 14] and we imagined we would see a pullback and we wanted to assure investors . . . that the legal matter would not affect our ongoing business." Prosecutors say the company marketed the "Vari-Lase" device to seal veins deep in the leg, even though it was approved only to treat superficial blood vessels near the surface of the skin. The Vari-Lase was supposed to revolutionize varicose-vein treatment and generate major revenue for the company because it eliminated the need for vein surgery. The device was voluntarily pulled from the market in July after the company settled a lawsuit alleging the same off-label marketing at issue in the new criminal case. WALTER ENERGY: Alabama Suit Over Hazardous Substance Dismissed -------------------------------------------------------------- The case Louise Moore (Louise Moore v. Walter Energy, Inc. and Walter Coke, Inc., Case No. 2:11-CV-1391) was dismissed without prejudice, according to Walter Energy's Nov. 4, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014. In 2011, the Company and Walter Coke were named in a suit filed by Louise Moore (Louise Moore v. Walter Energy, Inc. and Walter Coke, Inc., Case No. 2:11-CV-1391) in the federal District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. This is a putative civil class action alleging state law tort claims arising from the alleged presence on properties of substances, including arsenic, BaP, and other hazardous substances, allegedly as a result of current and/or historic operations in the area conducted by the defendants and/or their predecessors. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint eliminating Walter Energy as a defendant and amending the claims alleged against Walter Coke to relate to Walter Coke's alleged conduct for the period commencing after March 2, 1995. Thereafter, Walter Coke filed a Motion to Dismiss the amended complaint. On September 28, 2012, the Court issued a memorandum opinion and order granting in part and denying in part the motion. In partially granting Walter Coke's motion, the Court held that the plaintiff's claim for injunctive relief was not valid and that class action-related claims must be dismissed (with leave to re-plead) due to an improperly defined class. In partially ruling for the plaintiff, the Court held that at the pleading stage the plaintiff's claims could not be dismissed on rule of repose grounds or due to insufficient pleading. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on October 29, 2012. On November 19, 2012, Walter Coke filed an answer and motion for partial dismissal of plaintiff's second amended complaint. The Court held a hearing on Walter Coke's motion for partial dismissal of the second amended complaint on January 10, 2013. On September 30, 2013, the Court issued a memorandum opinion and order denying the motion. On November 1, 2013, a joint motion to stay the proceeding was filed with the Court, which the Court granted on November 21, 2013. On September 30, 2014, the case was dismissed without prejudice. However, the Order provides that either party may move for reinstatement before the earlier of (i) 6 months of the EPA's issuance of a Record of Decision for the 35th Avenue Superfund Site, or (ii) 5 years after the date of the Order. Reinstatement also causes the reinstated claims to relate back to the original date of filing. WALTER ENERGY: New Cert. Motion Filed in "Rush" Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in the securities suit Rush v. Walter Energy, Inc., et al. filed a renewed motion for class certification on August 29, 2014, according to the company's Nov. 4, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014. On January 26, 2012 and March 15, 2012, putative class actions were filed against Walter Energy, Inc. and some of its current and former senior executive officers in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama (Rush v. Walter Energy, Inc., et al.). The three executive officers named in the complaints are: Keith Calder, Walter's former CEO; Walter Scheller, the Company's current CEO and a director; and Neil Winkelmann, former President of Walter's Canadian and U.K. Operations (collectively the "Individual Defendants"). The complaints were filed by Peter Rush and Michael Carney, purported shareholders of Walter Energy who each seek to represent a class of Walter Energy shareholders who purchased common stock between April 20, 2011 and September 21, 2011. These complaints allege that Walter Energy and the Individual Defendants made false and misleading statements regarding the Company's operations outlook for the second quarter of 2011. The complaints further allege that the Company and the Individual Defendants knew that these statements were misleading and failed to disclose material facts that were necessary in order to make the statements not misleading. Plaintiffs claimed violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "1934 Act"), Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the 1934 Act. On May 30, 2012, the two actions were consolidated into In re Walter Energy, Inc. Securities Litigation. The court also appointed the Government of Bermuda Contributory and Public Service Superannuation Pension Plans as well as the Stephen C. Beaulieu Revocable Trust to be lead plaintiffs and approved lead plaintiffs' selection of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP and Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP as lead plaintiffs' counsel for the consolidated action. On August 20, 2012, Lead Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action complaint in this action. The consolidated amended complaint names as an additional defendant Joseph Leonard, a current director and former interim CEO of Walter Energy, in addition to the previously named defendants. Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the amended complaint on October 4, 2012. On January 29, 2013, the court denied that motion without prejudice. Defendants answered the complaint on February 15, 2013. The parties are now in the process of discovery. Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification on August 15, 2013. On March 18, 2014, the Court denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification without prejudice to refiling and rebriefing and stayed this litigation pending a decision by the United States Supreme Court in Halliburton Co., et al. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc. ("Halliburton II"). Following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Halliburton II on June 23, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for class certification on August 29, 2014. Defendants' opposition to Plaintiffs' renewed class certification was due October 28, 2014, and Plaintiffs' Reply is due December 19, 2014. All other deadlines have been stayed by the Court. WASHINGTON, DC: Police Plan for Future Seizure Proceeds After Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Robert O'Harrow Jr. and Steven Rich, writing for The Washington Post, report that D.C. police have made plans for millions of dollars in anticipated proceeds from future civil seizures of cash and property, even though federal guidelines say "agencies may not commit" to such spending in advance, documents show. The city's proposed budget and financial plan for fiscal 2015 includes about $2.7 million for the District police department's "special purpose fund" through 2018. The fund covers payments for informants and rewards. The financial details emerged on Nov. 12, when the D.C. Council's judiciary committee unanimously voted to forward a bill that would overhaul asset forfeiture laws in the nation's capital. The bill would raise the threshold of proof required for a forfeiture, bolster the rights of individuals whose property has been taken and require that proceeds from seizures under federal law go into the city general fund, rather than directly to the police department. The full council is set to vote on the bill on Nov. 25. Council member Tommy Wells, chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary and Public Safety, said police should not have a financial incentive to make seizures. He said the bill addresses problems that are common across the country. "All across the nation, law enforcement agencies are directly benefiting from forfeiture," said Mr. Wells (D-Ward 6), who is leading the effort to reform asset forfeiture in the District. "In those places, forfeiture proceeds go directly to the law enforcement entity, creating at best the appearance of a conflict of interest, and at worst, an unchecked incentive for slush funds." In the wake of Sept. 11, 2001, an aggressive brand of policing called "highway interdiction," which involves authorities seizing money and property during traffic stops, has grown in popularity. Thousands of people not charged with crimes are left fighting legal battles to regain their money. Since 2009, D.C. officers have made more than 12,000 seizures under city and federal laws, according to records and data obtained from the city by The Washington Post through the District's open records law. Half of the more than $5.5 million in cash seizures were for $141 or less, with more than a thousand for less than $20. D.C. police have seized more than 1,000 cars, some for minor offenses allegedly committed by the children or friends of the vehicle owners, documents show. When D.C. police seize cash or property under District law, the proceeds go into the city's general fund. But proceeds of seizures made under federal law go directly to the police department through the Justice Department's Equitable Sharing Program, which allows local departments to join with federal agencies in forfeitures and keep up to 80 percent of the proceeds. District financial records show that D.C. police receive about $670,000 annually from the Equitable Sharing Program. About $30,000 in proceeds from forfeitures under District law go into the general fund. Justice Department spokesman Peter Carr declined to discuss civil asset forfeiture practices in the District. He said police agencies can participate in the program only if they comply with its guidelines. Among other things, the guidelines say that agencies "should not 'spend it before you get it' or budget anticipated receipts. Receiving agencies may not commit to the spending of sharing monies for a certain purpose in advance." In a statement, D.C. Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier said the department is not building its budget with the proceeds of civil seizures but is using them "to augment the reward pool of funding and confidential fund programs (witness protection, rewards for information in homicides)." Ms. Lanier said the department's focus is not on generating revenue but on "removing the profit gained from facilitating a crime. By forfeiting those assets, the expansion of criminal activities can also be reduced." The council's reform effort began last year after the Public Defender Service for the District filed a class action lawsuit against the city, alleging that police violated the constitutional rights of residents in the process of seizing their cars. Among other things, the Public Defender Service focused on a city requirement that vehicle owners post bonds of up to $2,500 before they were permitted to challenge seizures. In August 2013, all parties agreed to put the lawsuit on hold as the District worked to modify its forfeiture laws. Mr. Wells said the proposed bill would create a fairer system under District law by scaling back the bond requirement, creating a clearer appeals process and imposing a requirement for notifying property owners within 10 business days of a seizure. But the bill has been opposed by law enforcement officials, partly for the same reason other reform efforts across the country have been stymied: money. The officials also said it would create an administrative burden. In addition to tightening oversight and the rules for civil seizures, the District proposal would cut back on revenue. "Enacting this Bill would almost certainly decrease the number of successful forfeiture cases, which would lead to a loss of significant forfeiture revenues," D.C. Attorney General Irvin B. Nathan warned in a statement to the council last year. Mr. Nathan, who has resigned effective Nov. 10, did not respond to a request for an interview. But a knowledgeable official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the negotiations are ongoing said that Nathan was addressing an earlier version of the bill. The official said the attorney general's office thinks that the current version is an improvement but declined to provide details. The bill would require that the federal proceeds from seized property go into the city's general fund rather than to the department. Because the Equitable Sharing Program requires that seizure proceeds go to the department, D.C. police would effectively be blocked from participating in the program and using the federal law. That would force city police to make all seizures under District law, which already requires that seizure proceeds go into the general fund. Mr. Wells said the general fund provision in the bill cannot take effect until fiscal 2019, because the city has already budgeted the anticipated proceeds to that point. "That is personally offensive to me," said Mr. Wells, whose council term ends in January. "I want to make it fair. There is a financial incentive not to do that." In a fiscal impact statement on Nov. 12, the city's chief financial officer, Jeffrey S. DeWitt, said that the bill "could reduce federal resources received by the District by approximately $670,000" each year if the general fund provision takes effect. Mr. Wells and the Public Defender Service contend that the department's aggressive use of seizure laws -- originally intended to fight drug kingpins and deprive them of ill-gotten riches -- has had a disproportionate impact on the poor and working class. One case cited by the Public Defender Service involves Sharlene Powell, who had worked for three decades as a Postal Service employee. She loaned her car to her son, who was stopped and arrested on a misdemeanor drug offense. Prosecutors dropped the charges, but District police kept the car. To get her car back, Ms. Powell had to pay a $1,772 "penal sum" bond to challenge the seizure, the Public Defender Service said in a statement last year to the judiciary committee. WATTS WATER: Settlement of Suit Over Toilet Connectors Now Final ---------------------------------------------------------------- The approval of the settlement reached in the suit Trabakoolas et al., v. Watts Water Technologies, Inc., et al., is now final, according to the company's Nov. 4, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 28, 2014. On March 8, 2012, Watts Water Technologies, Inc., Watts Regulator Co., and Watts Plumbing Technologies Co., Ltd., among other companies, were named as defendants in a putative nationwide class action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California seeking to recover damages and other relief based on the alleged failure of toilet connectors. The complaint seeks among other items, damages in an unspecified amount, replacement costs, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and costs. On December 12, 2013, the company reached an agreement in principle to settle all claims. The total settlement amount is $23.0 million, of which the company would be responsible for $14.0 million after insurance proceeds of $9.0 million. The Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on February 14, 2014. On July 18, 2014, the Court granted final approval of the class settlement at a fairness hearing, and issued a subsequent written order formalizing the approval on August 5, 2014. No appeal was taken, and the order became final on September 4, 2014. The litigation is now terminated. The liability was reduced by $13.9 million for payments related to notice and claims administration, plaintiff attorneys' fees and partial funding of the settlement amount made during the nine months ended September 28, 2014. The $9.0 million receivable for insurance proceeds was received as of September 28, 2014. The remaining liability of $8.8 million as of September 28, 2014 will be paid over four years. WELLS FARGO: Appellate Court Revives Mortgage Modification Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Sheri Qualters, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that a federal appellate court revived a pro se homeowner's case against Wells Fargo Bank for its alleged refusal to consider him for a mortgage loan modification program required by the terms of the company's settlement in a class action. Jonathan Foley of Hull, Mass., handled the District of Massachusetts and earlier state court legs of Foley v. Wells Fargo Bank but hired a lawyer when it went up for appeal. On Nov. 14, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit vacated U.S. District Judge Dennis Saylor IV's December 2013 dismissal of two claims: breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Judge Saylor improperly converted Wells Fargo's dismissal motion into a summary-judgment motion by sidestepping the standard and relying on a document extraneous to the pleadings, Circuit Judge O. Rogeriee Thompson wrote. Judge Juan Torruella and Federal Circuit Judge Timothy Dyk, sitting by designation, joined her. That document was a July 2013 letter Wells Fargo sent to Mr. Foley, which he received after he filed his lawsuit in early August of that year. It explained that he did not fit the income guidelines for two loan modification programs. Judge Thompson wrote that Mr. Foley's contract claims were more about the bank's alleged failure to fairly consider Foley's modification eligibility for 1 1/2 years before it sent that letter. "Foley was given no opportunity, let alone a reasonable one, to collect and present evidence that would contradict Wells Fargo's. Foley had no way to even challenge whatever numbers the bank used to make its calculations. Thus, Foley was provided no reasonable opportunity to gather or present actual evidence pertinent to his claims," Judge Thompson wrote. The court upheld dismissal of Mr. Foley's claims under state laws governing mortgage default and modification-eligibility notices because he hadn't provided enough detail about the bank's alleged violations. "While we are certainly sympathetic to the challenges pro se plaintiffs may face in filing a lawsuit on their own, it is not our job, in an effort to ferret out the adequacy of a plaintiff's pleaded allegations, to haphazardly mine documents appended to a complaint," Judge Thompson wrote. Mr. Foley obtained a $450,000 mortgage with a Wells Fargo predecessor in 2005. In October 2010, he fell behind on the payments. Starting at that point, he asked Wells Fargo many times to revise his loan under the federal Home Affordable Modification Program. He alleges various bank delays and denials until he filed his case. He also claims that the bank's 2011 settlement of a California class action required it to consider him for a different loan modification program. Mr. Foley's lawyer, Valeriano Diviacchi of Boston, declined to comment except to say, "We're going back to the trial court and hopefully we'll win there." Wells Fargo's lawyer, David Bizar, a Boston Seyfarth Shaw partner who co-chairs the Chicago-based firm's consumer financial services litigation practice, declined to comment. Wells Fargo spokesman Tom Goyda said although the bank was disappointed, the court did not rule on the merits of the surviving claims, only that they will proceed. ********* 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 * * *