/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/141128.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, November 28, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 237 Headlines ADVANCED ENVIRONMENTAL: Claims Resolution Process Now Completed AETERNA ZENTARIS: Sued Over Securities Exchange Act Violations AGILYSYS INC: "Maynard" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ALL AMERICAN VAN: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages ALLIEDBARTON SECURITY: Court Denies Initial OK of Myles Suit Deal AMARIN CORPORATION: To Defend Against Securities Litigation AMERICAN SUPERCONDUCTOR: Made $0.5MM Cash Payment in Stipulation APPLE INC: Court Narrows Claims in "Moore" Class Action AVX CORP: Parties Agree to Modification of Class Definition BAHA PETROLEUM: Faces "Ross" Suit Over Violation of Labor Laws BANK OF AMERICA: Approval of Securities Action Deal Affirmed BARRETT BUSINESS: Sued in Wash. Over Misleading Financial Reports CHARLES SCHWAB: Appeal in Total Bond Market Fund Case Pending CHECKERS DRIVE-IN: "Hooker" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Plaintiff Filed Petition for Rehearing CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Participated in Mediation in Okla. Owners Case CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Faces 2 Class Actions in Pennsylvania COMPUWARE CORP: Facing Action Related to Thoma Bravo Merger COMPUWARE CORP: Co-Defendant in Class Action Against Covisint COSTCO WHOLESALE: Plaintiffs Have Until Dec. 1 to Amend Suit DAVITA HEALTHCARE: Wage and Hour Claim Pending in California DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE: Engaged in 48 Professional Liability Suits DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE: Settlement Has Not Yet Been Approved DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE: Arkansas Court Decertified Class DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE: Garland Action Remains in Early Stages EA RENFROE: "McFaddin" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime ENDO HEALTH: Controls Availability of Generic Opana ER, Suit Says ENECON NORTHEAST: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages FANNIE MAE: Petition for Rehearing En Banc Denied FANNIE MAE: Lead Plaintiffs Seek Approval of Settlement FANNIE MAE: Agreement Reached in ERISA Litigation FANNIE MAE: D.C. Circuit Consolidates Appeals FIRST CLASS PARKING: "Rodriguez" Suit Alleges Failure to Pay OT FIRST HORIZON: FTBNA a Defendant in Overdraft Fees Class Action GENERAL NUTRITION: Calif. Class Certified in "Brewer" Case HARVEST NATURAL: Court Dismissed Claims in "Sone" Case HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC: ASB's Appeal Pending in Hawaii Supreme Court HERCULES INC: Court OKs Entry of Lone Pine Case Mgmt Order HILLS BANCORPORATION: Appeals Ruling to Iowa Supreme Court HYPERDYNAMICS CORP: Lead Plaintiff Responds to Motion to Dismiss HYPERDYNAMICS CORP: Parties Await Ruling on Motion to Consolidate IDEAL IMAGE: Faces "Marlow" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime IMPACT GLASS: Faces "Casanova" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages INTEGRYS ENERGY: "Inman" Plaintiff Seeks Expedited Discovery INTERCEPT YOUTH: Faces "Altice" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages INTERLINE BRANDS: Order Denying Initial Deal Approval Revised INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Kleen Products Case in Discovery Stage INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Reaches Agreement to Settle U.S. Cases INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Canadian Cases in Preliminary Stage INTERNATIONAL TEXTILE: Gets $3.8MM From Class Action Settlement JOHNSON & JOHNSON: "Rappuchi" Case Remanded to Cal. Super. Ct. KIMBALL INTERNATIONAL: Has $5.0 Million From Settlement Proceeds KY MANI: Faces "Luo" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages LA REVISE: "Romero" Suit Settlement Gets Mag. Judge's Approval LANNETT COMPANY: "Schaefer" Class Action Voluntarily Dismissed LEUCADIA NATIONAL: Agrees to Settle Shareholder Class Actions LIN'S RESTAURANT: Does Not Pay Employees Properly, Suit Claims M&T BANK: Wilmington Trust Case Proceeding With Discovery MARIANI LANDSCAPE: Sued Over Breach of Fair Labor Standards Act MISSION BAY: Summary Judgment Bid in Ex-Worker's Suit Denied MONTGOMERY, AL: Court Enters Injunctive Relief in Mitchell Case NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Sued Over Failure to Pay Property Repair Costs NATURE'S BOUNTY: Wins Dismissal of "Mazzeo" Class Action NEW WHEY: Sued Over Deceptive Labeling of Whey Nutrition Products NORTH AMERICAN POWER: Sued for Overcharging Electric Bill OS RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Batista" Suit Says PDC ENERGY: Oral Settlement Agreement Reached in Class Action PFIZER INC: Plaintiffs in Celebrex and Bextra Case File Appeal PFIZER INC: Bids to Dismiss Effexor XR End-Payor Claims Pending PFIZER INC: To Resolve Consumer Actions Related to Neurontin PFIZER INC: District Court Dismisses Remaining Lipitor MDL Claims PFIZER INC: Suit by Plaintiffs With Diabetes Consolidated in MDL PFIZER INC: Actions in Quebec, Alberta & British Columbia Stayed PFIZER INC: Faces Class Actions Relating to Celebrex PFIZER INC: Provides Update on Actions Relating to Reglan PFIZER INC: Has Settlement With Opt-Out Direct Purchasers PFIZER INC: Complaint Relating to Bapineuzumab Dismissed PROVECTUS BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Hearing Held to Name Lead Plaintiff RADIAN GROUP: Court Stays "White" Case Pending Riddle Case Appeal RADIAN GROUP: Court Stays " Menichino" Pending Riddle Case Appeal RADIAN GROUP: Court Stays "Manners" Pending Riddle Case Appeal RICHARD J. DONOVAN: Phillips Has 45 Days to Submit Amended Suit SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: Motion to Dismiss Fully Briefed and Pending SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: Derivative Case Seeks Class Suit Declaration SOUTHSIDE BANCSHARES: Settles Litigation Over OmniAmerican Merger SPARTANNASH COMPANY: Class Action Over Merger Now Closed STEALTH SECURITY: Has Sent Unsolicited Facsimiles, Suit Claims STUDIO NAILS: "Liu" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages TAKATA CORPORATION: Faces "Meiser" Suit Over Defective Airbags TAKATA CORPORATION: Faces "Rennie" Suit Over Defective Airbags TAKATA CORPORATION: Faces "Young" Suit Over Defective Airbags THORATEC CORPORATION: Court Has Not Ruled on Motion to Dismiss TOTAL SYSTEM: Telexfree Cases Transferred to Massachusetts Court TRINET GROUP: Defendant in Class Actions Related to WSEs TRUSTMARK CORP: Stanford-Related Lawsuits in Preliminary Stages TRUSTMARK CORP: Settlement Administrator Begins Fund Distribution TURCO MEDITTERANEAN: "Reyes" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT U.S. BANCORP: $19MM Carrying Amount of Liability Related to Visa VERTEX PHARMACEUTICALS: Scott and Scott LLP Named as Lead Counsel WALGREEN COMPANY: Class Cert. Denial in Overtime Case Upheld Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ct. to Hear Arguments on Bid to Join Ford Cases ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Received $17-Mil. Payment from Insurers ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Recorded $24MM Liability for Aearo Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: CIRCOR Units Continue to Defend Fibro Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Corp. Had 68,000 Pending Claims at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Corp. Records $10.8-Mil. Fibro Charges ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Corp. Has $727.2MM Estimated Fibro Exposure ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Corp. Estimates 41% Insurance Cost Recovery ASBESTOS UPDATE: ACE Continues to Defend NJ Wrongful Death Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Davis" Suit v. Tampa Electric Remains Pending ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Spence" Suit v. American Vanguard Unit Junked ASBESTOS UPDATE: Badger Meter Continues to Defend Fibro Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Has 2,200 Fibro Cases at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Fibro Liability Upped to $36MM ASBESTOS UPDATE: Foster Wheeler Had 118,760 U.S. Fibro Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Foster Wheeler Records $21.8MM Fibro Payments ASBESTOS UPDATE: Foster Wheeler's UK Units Had 276 Fibro Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graham Corp. Continues to Defend PI Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: AIG Inc. Unit Increases Net Reserves by $28MM ASBESTOS UPDATE: General Cable Had 3,275 PI Cases at Sept. 26 ASBESTOS UPDATE: General Cable Had 2,679 MARDOC Suits at Sept. 26 ASBESTOS UPDATE: MeadWestvaco Had 570 PI Lawsuits as of Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cal. App. Affirms Ruling in Take-Home Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Partial Summary Judgment Granted in La. PI Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trials in 2 NYCAL Suits Stayed ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cal. App. Affirms Ruling in "Izell" Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Denies Bid to Remand "Maguire" Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Ct. Rules on Notice Issue in "Andrucki" Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY App. Div. Modifies Ruling in "Berensman" Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. App. Affirms Ruling in "Shipley" Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Limits Reinsurer's Liability ********* ADVANCED ENVIRONMENTAL: Claims Resolution Process Now Completed --------------------------------------------------------------- Advanced Environmental Recycling Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the claims resolution process in the class action lawsuit relating to ChoiceDek(R) composite decking is now completed. The U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington (Seattle Division) approved a class action settlement in January 2009 related to a purported class action lawsuit seeking to recover on behalf of purchasers of ChoiceDek(R) composite decking for damages allegedly caused by mold and mildew stains on their decks. The settlement includes decking material purchased from January 1, 2004 through December 31, 2007, along with decking material purchased after December 31, 2007 that was manufactured before October 1, 2006, the date a mold inhibitor was introduced into the manufacturing process. In 2008, the Company accrued an estimated $2.9 million for resolving claims. In the third quarter of 2009, the Company increased its estimate of costs to be incurred in resolving claims under the settlement by $5.1 million. The estimate was revised due to events that occurred and information that became available after the second quarter of 2009 concerning primarily the number of claims received. The deadline for submitting new claims has now passed. The claim resolution process had an annual net cost limitation to the Company of $2.0 million. The claims resolution process is now completed. AERT, founded in 1988, recycles polyethylene plastic and develops, manufactures, and markets composite building materials that are used in place of traditional wood or plastic products for exterior applications in building and remodeling homes and for certain other industrial or commercial building purposes. AETERNA ZENTARIS: Sued Over Securities Exchange Act Violations -------------------------------------------------------------- Bing Li, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Aeterna Zentaris, Inc., David A. Dodd, Juergen Engel, Dennis Turpin, Jude Dinges, Richard Sachse, and Paul Blake, Case No. 3:14-cv-07081 (D.N.J., November 11, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Securities Exchange Act. Aeterna Zentaris, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company primarily engaged in developing treatments in oncology and endocrinology. The Individual Defendants are officers and directors of Aeterna Zentaris, Inc. The Plaintiff is represented by: Laurence Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 609 W. South Orange Avenue, Suite 2P South Orange, NJ 07079 Telephone: (973) 313-1887 Facsimile: (973) 833-0399 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com AGILYSYS INC: "Maynard" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Lynn Maynard, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals v. Agilysys, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-03698 (N.D. Ga., November 17, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, declaratory relief, liquidated and actual damages for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Agilysys, Inc. is a provider of innovative hospitality software solutions and services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Elizabeth L. Brown, Esq. Benjamin F. Barrett, Esq. Amanda A. Farahany, Esq. Elizabeth L. Brown, Esq. 1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 500 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 214-0120 Facsimile: (404) 214-0125 E-mail: ben@bf-llp.com amanda@bf-llp.com lily@bf-llp.com ALL AMERICAN VAN: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages -------------------------------------------------------------- Nicholas Sair, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. All American Van Lines, Inc., Ronnie Aviram, and Zach Doe, Case No. 2:14-cv-06766 (E.D.N.Y., November 18, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages and reasonable attorney's fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate a moving business that provides residential and commercial moving services and spa delivery services to customers in Long Island and surrounding areas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Wisniewski, Esq. ROBERT WISNIEWSKI & ASSOCIATES P.C. 225 Broadway, Suite 1020 New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 267-2101 Facsimile: (212) 267-8115 E-mail: rw@rwapc.com ALLIEDBARTON SECURITY: Court Denies Initial OK of Myles Suit Deal ----------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge James Donato denied preliminary approval of class action settlement in JOAN MYLES, Plaintiff, v. ALLIEDBARTON SECURITY SERVICES, LLC, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 12-CV-05761- JD, (N.D. Cal.). Joan Myles filed this employment suit in November 2012 seeking relief on behalf of herself and a putative class of security officers employed by AlliedBarton Security Services. About four months before trial was scheduled to begin, Myles and AlliedBarton submitted a proposed class settlement for the Court's review. The Court advised the parties that the proposed settlement would not be approved, and promised to issue a written order explaining why. In his ruling entered November 12, 2014, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/prNdF5from Leagle.com, Judge Donato held that since the proposed settlement fails to meet a preliminary fairness determination, the Court need not reach plaintiff's request for conditional certification of a class for settlement. If the parties intend to submit another proposed settlement, they are directed to review the Procedural Guidance for Class Action Settlements, which is available on the Court's website. That guide should be used to improve the next approval request and the proposed notice to the class, with recommendations to provide a website that has links to the notice, motions, and any other important documents in the case, as well as proposed language informing class members how to access the Court's docket, Judge Donato said. Joan Myles, Plaintiff, represented by Chaim Shaun Setareh -- shaun@setarehlaw.com -- Setareh Law Group. AlliedBarton Security Services LP, Defendant, represented by Jeremy T. Naftel -- jnaftel@cdflaborlaw.com -- Carothers DiSante & Freudenberger LLP & Nicole A. Legrottaglie -- nlegrottaglie@cdflaborlaw.com -- Carothers DiSante Freudenberger LLP. AMARIN CORPORATION: To Defend Against Securities Litigation ----------------------------------------------------------- Amarin Corporation plc 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 has valid defenses and will vigorously defend against the Amarin Corporation plc, Securities Litigation, but cannot predict the outcome. On November 1, 2013, a purported investor of Amarin filed a putative class action lawsuit captioned Steven Sklar v. Amarin Corporation plc et al., No. 13-cv-6954 (D.N.J. Nov. 1, 2013) in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. Substantially similar lawsuits, captioned Bove v. Amarin Corporation plc, Civ. No. 13-07882 (AT) (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 5, 2013), Bentley v. Amarin Corporation plc, Civ. No. 13-08283 (AT) (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 20, 2013) and Siegel v. Amarin Corporation plc, No. 3:13-cv-07210 (D.N.J. Nov. 27, 2013), were subsequently filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey and U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. On December 9, 2013, the cases filed in the Southern District of New York were transferred to the District of New Jersey and all such cases are now consolidated as In re Amarin Corporation plc, Securities Litigation, No. 3:13-cv-06663 (D.N.J. Nov. 1, 2013). The plaintiffs assert claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and allege that Amarin and certain of its current and former officers and directors made misstatements and omissions regarding the FDA's willingness to approve Vascepa's ANCHOR indication and related contributing factors and the potential relevance of data from the ongoing REDUCE-IT trial to that approval. The lawsuit seeks unspecified monetary damages and attorneys' fees and costs. The Company believes that it has valid defenses and will vigorously defend against this class action suit, but cannot predict the outcome. The Company is unable to reasonably estimate the loss exposure, if any, associated with the claims. The Company has insurance coverage that is anticipated to cover any significant loss exposure that may arise from this action after payment by the Company of the associated deductible obligation under such insurance coverage. Amarin is a biopharmaceutical company with expertise in lipid science focused on the commercialization and development of therapeutics to improve cardiovascular health. AMERICAN SUPERCONDUCTOR: Made $0.5MM Cash Payment in Stipulation ---------------------------------------------------------------- American Superconductor 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 pursuant to a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, which resolved class action lawsuits, the Company made a cash payment of approximately $0.5 million for the decrease in value of the Settlement Shares (as calculated under the Stipulation) as of the Effective Date, and the Company issued the Settlement Shares. Between April 6, 2011 and May 12, 2011, seven putative securities class action complaints were filed against the Company and two of its officers in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (the "Court"); one complaint additionally asserted claims against the underwriters who participated in its November 12, 2010 securities offering. On June 7, 2011, the Court consolidated these actions under the caption Lenartz v. American Superconductor Corporation, et al., Docket No. 1:11-cv-10582-WGY. On August 31, 2011, Lead Plaintiff, the Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension Fund, filed a consolidated amended complaint against the Company, its officers and directors, and the underwriters who participated in its November 12, 2010 securities offering, asserting claims under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Exchange Act, as well as under sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act. On November 19, 2013, the Company entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement (the "Stipulation"), which resolved the claims asserted against the Company, certain of its current and former officers and directors, and the underwriters. The terms of the Stipulation provided, among other things, a settlement payment by the Company of $10.0 million, $8.2 million of which was to be funded by the Company's insurers and $1.8 million of which was paid through the issuance of 944,882 shares of its common stock (the "Settlement Shares"). In the event that the value of the Settlement Shares (as calculated under the Stipulation) decreased as of the effective date of the settlement, the Company was required to make a cash payment for the difference in value. The effective date of the Stipulation was June 5, 2014 (the "Effective Date"). Pursuant to the terms of the Stipulation, (i) on June 11, 2014, the Company made a cash payment of approximately $0.5 million for the decrease in value of the Settlement Shares (as calculated under the Stipulation) as of the Effective Date, and (ii) on June 18, 2014, the Company issued the Settlement Shares. The issuance of the Settlement Shares was exempt from registration pursuant to Section 3(a)(10) of the Securities Act. The aforementioned payments by the Company represented the final amounts to be paid to the plaintiffs under the Stipulation. American Superconductor Corporation is a provider of megawatt- scale solutions that lower the cost of wind power and enhance the performance of the power grid. APPLE INC: Court Narrows Claims in "Moore" Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Adrienne Moore brings a putative class action on behalf of herself and others similarly situated against Apple, Inc. for tortious interference with contract and violations of California's Unfair Competition Law and California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act. Before the Court is Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint. District Judge Lucy H. Koh, in an order dated November 10, 2014, grants in part and denies in part defendant's motion to dismiss. Specifically, Judge Koh grants with prejudice Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's CLRA claim and UCL claim predicated on the CLRA claim. The Court denies Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's tortious interference with contract claim and UCL claim predicated on the tortious interference claim. The Court grants with prejudice Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's UCL claim based on unfair business practices. A copy of the ruling is available at http://is.gd/Q3Mf2vfrom Leagle.com. The case is ADRIENNE MOORE, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs, v. APPLE, INC., Defendant, CASE NO. 14-CV-02269-LHK, (N.D. Cal.) Adrienne Moore, Plaintiff, represented by Roy Arie Katriel -- rak@katriellaw.com -- The Katriel Law Firm. Apple Inc., Defendant, represented by David Michael Walsh, Esq. -- dwalsh@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster, Kai Shields Bartolomeo -- kbartolomeo@mofo.com -- Morrison Foerster LLP & Tiffany Cheung -- tcheung@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP. Adam Backhaut, Interested Party, represented by Theodore H. Chase -- tchase@audetlaw.com -- Audet and Partners, LLP. AVX CORP: Parties Agree to Modification of Class Definition ----------------------------------------------------------- AVX 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 parties in a class action agreed to seek Court modification of the definition of the plaintiff class. On November 27, 2007, a suit was filed in South Carolina State Court by individuals as a class action with respect to property adjacent to the Company's Myrtle Beach, South Carolina factory claiming property values have been negatively impacted by alleged migration of certain pollutants from the Company's property. During the quarter ended June 30, 2014, the parties agreed to seek Court modification of the definition of the plaintiff class. In the event such modification is allowed by the Court, the parties have also agreed to jointly recommend to the Court a settlement of the action. Any settlement will be subject to Court review and approval. Although the final amount of such settlement, if approved by the Court, depends on the number of participating class members, the maximum amount, if all class members participate, would be $1,200. "Accordingly, based on our estimate of potential outcomes, we have $1,200 accrued with respect to this case as of September 30, 2014. We can give no assurance, however, that this action will be resolved on the terms indicated above. If it is not so resolved, we intend to continue to defend vigorously the claims asserted," the Company said. BAHA PETROLEUM: Faces "Ross" Suit Over Violation of Labor Laws -------------------------------------------------------------- Matthew Ross, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. BAHA Petroleum Consulting Corp., Case No. 4:14-cv- 00147 (D.N.D., November 17, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for violation of Fair Labor Standards Act. BAHA Petroleum Consulting Corp. owns and operates a consulting business that provides services for the oil industry. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark V. Larson, Esq. LARSON LAW FIRM, P.C. PO Box 2004 Minot, ND 58702-2004 Telephone: (701) 839-1777 E-mail: larslaw@srt.com BANK OF AMERICA: Approval of Securities Action Deal Affirmed ------------------------------------------------------------ Bank of America 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 on November 5, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court's final approval of the settlement of the Consolidated Securities Class Action. BARRETT BUSINESS: Sued in Wash. Over Misleading Financial Reports ----------------------------------------------------------------- Shiva Stein, 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-05912 (W.D. Wash., November 17, 2014), alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Barrett Business Services, Inc. is a provider of business management solutions, combining human resource outsourcing and professional management consulting for its operational platform. The Plaintiff is represented by: Francis P. McConville, Esq. Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 616-1100 E-mail: fmcconville@pomlaw.com jalieberman@pomlaw.com - and - Dan Drachler, Esq. ZWERLING SCHACHTER & ZWERLING 1904 3rd Ave, Ste 1030 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 223-2053 Facsimile: (206) 223-2053 E-mail: ddrachler@zsz.com CHARLES SCHWAB: Appeal in Total Bond Market Fund Case Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs' appeal in the Total Bond Market Fund Litigation is currently pending, The Charles Schwab 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. On August 28, 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of investors in the Schwab Total Bond Market Fund(TM). The lawsuit, which alleges violations of state law and federal securities law in connection with the fund's investment policy, names Schwab Investments (registrant and issuer of the fund's shares) and CSIM as defendants. Allegations include that the fund improperly deviated from its stated investment objectives by investing in collateralized mortgage obligations (CMOs) and investing more than 25% of fund assets in CMOs and mortgage-backed securities without obtaining a shareholder vote. Plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory and rescission damages, unspecified equitable and injunctive relief, costs and attorneys' fees. Plaintiffs' federal securities law claim and certain of plaintiffs' state law claims were dismissed in proceedings before the court and following a successful petition by defendants to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On August 8, 2011, the court dismissed plaintiffs' remaining claims with prejudice. Plaintiffs have again appealed to the Ninth Circuit, where the case is currently pending. The Charles Schwab Corporation (CSC) is a savings and loan holding company engaged, through its subsidiaries, in securities brokerage, banking, money management, and financial advisory services. Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. (Schwab) is a securities broker-dealer with over 300 domestic branch offices in 45 states, as well as a branch in each of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and London, England. In addition, Schwab serves clients in Hong Kong through one of CSC's subsidiaries. Other subsidiaries include Charles Schwab Bank (Schwab Bank), a federal savings bank, and Charles Schwab Investment Management, Inc. (CSIM), the investment advisor for Schwab's proprietary mutual funds, which are referred to as the Schwab Funds(R), and for Schwab's exchange-traded funds, which are referred to as the Schwab ETFs(TM). CHECKERS DRIVE-IN: "Hooker" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tasha Hooker and Dominique Shoals, on behalf of themselves, and all other plaintiffs similarly situated, known and unknown v. Checkers Drive-In Restaurants, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-09252 (N.D. Ill., November 18, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and liquidated damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Checkers Drive-In Restaurants, Inc. is a nationwide fast food restaurant. The Plaintiff is represented by: Meghan A. Vanleuwen, Esq. John William Billhorn, Esq. BILLHORN LAW FIRM 120 S. State Street, Suite 400 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 513-9555 E-mail: mvanleuwen@billhornlaw.com jbillhorn@billhornlaw.com CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Plaintiff Filed Petition for Rehearing --------------------------------------------------------- Chesapeake Energy Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the plaintiff in the July 2008 Common Stock Offering Litigation filed a petition for rehearing. On February 25, 2009, a putative class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and certain of its officers and directors along with certain underwriters of the Company's July 2008 common stock offering. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on September 11, 2009 alleging that the registration statement for the offering contained material misstatements and omissions and seeking damages under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 of an unspecified amount and rescission. The action was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma on October 13, 2009. Chesapeake and the officer and director defendants moved for summary judgment on grounds of loss causation and materiality on December 28, 2011, and the motion was granted as to all claims as a matter of law on March 29, 2013. Final judgment in favor of Chesapeake and the officer and director defendants was entered on June 21, 2013, and the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on July 19, 2013 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. On August 8, 2014, the District Court dismissal was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, and on September 8, 2014, the plaintiff filed a petition for rehearing. "We are currently unable to assess the probability of loss or estimate a range of potential loss associated with this matter," the Company said. CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Participated in Mediation in Okla. Owners Case ----------------------------------------------------------------- Chesapeake Energy Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Company and the named plaintiff have participated in mediation concerning the claims asserted in the putative class action litigation filed in 2010 on behalf of Oklahoma royalty owners. The Company and other natural gas producers have been named in various lawsuits alleging royalty underpayment. "The suits against us allege, among other things, that we used below-market prices, made improper deductions, used improper measurement techniques and/or entered into arrangements with affiliates that resulted in underpayment of royalties in connection with the production and sale of natural gas and NGL," the Company said. "The Company has resolved a number of these claims through negotiated settlements of past and future royalties and has prevailed in various other lawsuits." "We are currently defending lawsuits seeking damages for royalty underpayment in various states, including cases filed by individual royalty owners and putative class actions, some of which seek to certify a statewide class. The Company also has received DOJ and state subpoenas seeking information on the Company's royalty payment practices. "Plaintiffs have varying royalty provisions in their respective leases and oil and gas law varies from state to state. Royalty owners and producers differ in their interpretation of the legal effect of lease provisions governing royalty calculations, an issue in a putative class action filed in 2010 on behalf of Oklahoma royalty owners asserting claims dating back to 2004. In July 2014, this case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings following the reversal on appeal of certification of a statewide class. "We and the named plaintiff have participated in mediation concerning the claims asserted in the putative class action litigation. Based on analysis we and outside advisors have conducted, we have accrued a loss contingency of $100 million in the Current Quarter condensed consolidated statement of operations. Although we believe our estimate of the potential loss is reasonable, the final resolution of the Oklahoma royalty claims could differ from the amount accrued, and actual results, whether by continued litigation or settlement, could differ materially from management's estimate. "We believe losses are reasonably possible in certain of the other pending royalty cases for which we have not accrued a loss contingency, but we are currently unable to estimate an amount or range of loss or the impact the actions could have on our future results of operations or cash flows. CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Faces 2 Class Actions in Pennsylvania -------------------------------------------------------- Chesapeake Energy 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 in Pennsylvania, two putative statewide class actions and one purported class arbitration were filed in 2014 on behalf of royalty owners asserting various claims for damages related to alleged underpayment of royalties as a result of the Company's divestiture of substantially all of its midstream business and most of its gathering assets in 2012 and 2013. These Pennsylvania cases include claims for violation of and conspiracy to violate the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. "Uncertainties in pending royalty cases generally include the complex nature of the claims and defenses, the potential size of the class in class actions, the scope and types of the properties and agreements involved, and the applicable production years," the Company said. COMPUWARE CORP: Facing Action Related to Thoma Bravo Merger ----------------------------------------------------------- Compuware 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 number of putative class action complaints have been filed by purported shareholders against the Company related to the merger agreement with Thoma Bravo. The complaints generally allege that the Board of Directors breached its fiduciary duties in negotiating and approving the proposed merger transaction. The Company believes these lawsuits are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against these claims. COMPUWARE CORP: Co-Defendant in Class Action Against Covisint ------------------------------------------------------------- Compuware Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Company has been named as a co-defendant in a consolidated class action complaint filed against Covisint, its directors and certain officers at the time of Covisint's initial public offering ("IPO") alleging violation of securities laws in connection with Covisint's IPO and seeking unspecified damages. The Company believes the lawsuit is without merit and intends to vigorously defend against it. COSTCO WHOLESALE: Plaintiffs Have Until Dec. 1 to Amend Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ KAREN THOMAS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, Defendant, CASE NO. 12-CV-02908-BLF, (N.D. Cal.) is a putative class action brought by Plaintiff Lisa Liddle1 against Costco, alleging that eight of Defendant's food products are improperly labeled in violation of both California and federal law. Presently before the Court is Costco's Partial Motion to Dismiss two causes of action asserted for the first time in Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint (TAC): breach of the implied warranty of merchantability and negligent misrepresentation. In the alternative, Defendant seeks partial summary judgment as to Plaintiff's claims relating to six of the eight products at issue, contending that the safe harbor provisions of California's Sherman Act and the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) shield it from liability with regard to any product for which it received certain vendor guarantees. Additionally, Costco asks the Court to dismiss without prejudice or stay Plaintiff's claims related to Costco's use of the term "Evaporated Cane Juice," or ECJ, on the label of a chocolate milk product. In an order dated November 12, 2014, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/M7Csgnfrom Leagle.com, District Judge Beth Labson Freeman grants the Defendant's Partial Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's seventh and eighth causes of action, with leave to amend on these causes of action only. Plaintiff must file a Fourth Amended Complaint no later than December 1, 2014. Plaintiff is not permitted to add any new products or causes of action to her Fourth Amended Complaint without leave of Court. Moreover, Judge Freeman granted the Defendant's Motion to Stay Plaintiff's ECJ claims. Plaintiff's ECJ claims are stayed until the FDA releases its final guidance, after the comment period closes on the Agency's 2009 draft guidance regarding ECJ. The Defendant is further ordered to provide the Court notice when this occurs. The Court defers ruling on the Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment but directed the parties to meet and confer, and file with the Court a discovery plan for the motion for partial summary judgment. After receipt of the parties' discovery plan, the Court says it will issue a schedule for briefing on Defendant's motion. Karen Thomas, Plaintiff, represented by Ben F. Pierce Gore, Pratt & Associates, David Malcolm McMullan, Jr., Don Barrett, P.A. & Guy Gladstone Fisher -- gfisher@pulf.com LISA LIDDLE, Plaintiff, represented by David Malcolm McMullan, Jr., Don Barrett, P.A., Guy Gladstone Fisher & Ben F. Pierce Gore, Pratt & Associates. Costco Wholesale Corporation, Defendant, represented by Amanda L. Groves -- agroves@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn LLP, Luciona Johnson -- lujohnson@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn LLP & Sean D. Meenan -- smeenan@winston.com -- Winston and Strawn. DAVITA HEALTHCARE: Wage and Hour Claim Pending in California ------------------------------------------------------------ Davita Healthcare Partners 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 wage and hour claim, which has been styled as a class action, is pending against the Company in the Superior Court of California. The Company was served with the complaint in this lawsuit in April 2008, and it has been amended since that time. The complaint, as amended, alleges that the Company failed to provide meal periods, failed to pay compensation in lieu of providing rest or meal periods, failed to pay overtime, and failed to comply with certain other California Labor Code requirements. In September 2011, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Plaintiffs appealed that decision. In January 2013, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision on some claims, but remanded the case to the trial court for clarification of its decision on one of the claims. The Company reached an agreement with the plaintiffs to settle the claim that was remanded to the trial court, and that settlement has been finalized. The amount of the settlement is not material to the Company's consolidated financial statements. The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend against the remaining claims. Any potential settlement of the remaining claims is not anticipated to be material to the Company's consolidated financial statements. Davita operates two major divisions, Kidney Care and HealthCare Partners (HCP). DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE: Engaged in 48 Professional Liability Suits ------------------------------------------------------------------ Diversicare Healthcare Services, 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 as of September 30, 2014, the Company is engaged in 48 professional liability lawsuits. Seven lawsuits are currently scheduled for trial or arbitration during the next twelve months, and it is expected that additional cases will be set for trial or hearing. "The ultimate results of any of our professional liability claims and disputes cannot be predicted with certainty. A significant judgment entered against us in one or more of these legal actions could have a material adverse impact on our financial position and cash flows," the Company said. Diversicare Healthcare Services provides long-term care services to nursing center patients in nine states, primarily in the Southeast, Midwest, and Southwest. DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE: Settlement Has Not Yet Been Approved ------------------------------------------------------------ Diversicare Healthcare Services, 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 settlement in a stockholder class action complaint filed in the Chancery Court for Williamson County, Tennessee (21st Judicial District) has not yet been approved by the court. In November 2012, a purported stockholder class action complaint was filed in the Chancery Court for Williamson County, Tennessee (21st Judicial District) against the Company's Board of Directors. This action alleges that the Board of Directors breached its fiduciary duties to stockholders related to its response to certain expressions of interest in a potential strategic transaction from Covington Investments, LLC ("Covington"). The complaint asserts that the Board failed to negotiate or otherwise appropriately consider Covington's proposals. Plaintiff has filed a motion seeking to certify the action as a class action, which is not currently set for hearing. On May 23, 2014, the plaintiff and defendants entered into a memorandum of understanding outlining the terms of a settlement subject to the execution of definitive documentation and court approval. The agreement provides that the Company will adopt and maintain certain corporate governance procedures for a period of at least three years. This settlement has not yet been approved by the court. Diversicare Healthcare Services provides long-term care services to nursing center patients in nine states, primarily in the Southeast, Midwest, and Southwest. DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE: Arkansas Court Decertified Class -------------------------------------------------------- Diversicare Healthcare Services, 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 conditionally certified a nationwide class of all of the Company's hourly employees in the collective action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, but recently decertified the class. The Company said, "In June 2012, a collective action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas against us and certain of our subsidiaries. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and seeks unpaid overtime wages as well as liquidated damages. The Court conditionally certified a nationwide class of all of the Company's hourly employees, but recently decertified the class. The Company intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously." Diversicare Healthcare Services provides long-term care services to nursing center patients in nine states, primarily in the Southeast, Midwest, and Southwest. DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE: Garland Action Remains in Early Stages -------------------------------------------------------------- Diversicare Healthcare Services, 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 complaint filed in the Circuit Court of Garland County, Arkansas remains in its early stages and has not yet been certified by the court as a class action. In January 2009, a purported class action complaint was filed in the Circuit Court of Garland County, Arkansas against the Company and certain of its subsidiaries and Garland Nursing & Rehabilitation Center (the "Facility"). The complaint alleges that the defendants breached their statutory and contractual obligations to the patients of the Facility over the five-year period prior to the filing of the complaints. The lawsuit remains in its early stages and has not yet been certified by the court as a class action. The Company intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously. Diversicare Healthcare Services provides long-term care services to nursing center patients in nine states, primarily in the Southeast, Midwest, and Southwest. EA RENFROE: "McFaddin" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------ Jacqueline McFaddin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. E.A. Renfroe & Company, Inc., a Georgia corporation, Case No. 5:14-cv-02369 (C.D. Cal., November 17, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, premium pay for meal breaks and rest breaks that were not provided, prejudgment interest, penalties, injunctive and other equitable relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. E.A. Renfroe & Company, Inc. specializes in insurance catastrophe claims service. The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles H. Jung, Esq. Andrew R. Kislik, Esq. NASSIRI & JUNG LLP 1055 West 7th Street, Suite 2800 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 626-6200 Facsimile: (213) 284-3900 E-mail: charles@njfirm.com andy@njfirm.com ENDO HEALTH: Controls Availability of Generic Opana ER, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Louisiana Health Service & Indemnity Company d/b/a Blue Cross and Blue Shield Of Louisiana, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Endo Health Solutions, Inc., Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Penwest Pharmaceuticals Co., and Impax Laboratories, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-00721 (M.D. La., November 17, 2014), arises out of the Defendants' overarching anticompetitive scheme to allocate and unreasonably delay competition in the market for extended- release oxymorphone hydrochloride, which is under the brand name Opana ER. The Defendants are specialty healthcare solutions companies focused on branded and generic pharmaceutical products and devices. The Plaintiff is represented by: James R. Dugan II, Esq. David B. Franco, Esq. Chad Primeaux, Esq. Lanson Bordelon, Esq. THE DUGAN LAW FIRM, APLC One Canal Place 365 Canal Street, Suite 1000 New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 648-0180 Facsimile: (504) 648-0181 E-mail: jdugan@dugan-lawfirm.com dfranco@dugan-lawfirm.com pcrimeaux@dugan-lawfirm.com lbordelon@dugan-lawfirm.com - and - Douglas R. Plymale, Esq. The Plymale Law Firm 365 Canal St., Suite 1000 New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 355-0092 Facsimile: (504) 648-0181 E-mail: drplymale@plymalelawfirm.com - and - Charles A. O'Brien, Esq. BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF LOUISIANA 5525 Reitz Avenue, P.O. Box 98029 Baton Rouge, LA 80809 Telephone: (225) 295-2454 ENECON NORTHEAST: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Matthew Mendez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Enecon Northeast Applied Polymer Systems, Inc., Robert Barr, and Michael Barr, each individual and professional capacities, Case No. 2:14-cv-06736 (E.D.N.Y., November 17, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate an application company, providing maintenance and repair services to machinery, equipment and structures damages by erosion, corrosion, and other wear and tear through the use of high performance polymer composites. The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony Patrick Malecki, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES 1010 Northern Blvd Ste 328 Great Neck, NY 11021 Telephone: (516) 248-5550 Facsimile: (516) 248-6027 E-mail: apm@employmentlawyernewyork.com FANNIE MAE: Petition for Rehearing En Banc Denied ------------------------------------------------- Federal National Mortgage Association 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 petition for rehearing en banc related to the Fannie Mae Securities Litigation has been denied. Fannie Mae was a defendant in a consolidated class action lawsuit initially filed in 2004 that was pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The Company said, "In the consolidated complaint filed in 2005, lead plaintiffs Ohio Public Employees Retirement System and State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio alleged that we and certain former officers, as well as our former outside auditor, made materially false and misleading statements in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Plaintiffs contended that Fannie Mae's accounting statements were inconsistent with GAAP requirements relating to hedge accounting and the amortization of premiums and discounts, and sought unspecified compensatory damages, attorneys' fees, and other fees and costs." "On January 7, 2008, the court defined the class as all purchasers of Fannie Mae common stock and call options and all sellers of publicly traded Fannie Mae put options during the period from April 17, 2001 through December 22, 2004. On October 17, 2008, FHFA, as conservator for Fannie Mae, intervened in this case. In September and December 2010, plaintiffs served expert reports claiming damages to plaintiffs under various scenarios ranging cumulatively from $2.2 billion to $8.6 billion. In 2011, the parties filed various motions for summary judgment. On September 20, 2012, the court granted summary judgment to defendant Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's former Chief Executive Officer, on all claims against him. On October 16, 2012, the court granted summary judgment to defendant J. Timothy Howard, Fannie Mae's former Chief Financial Officer, on all claims against him. On November 20, 2012, the court granted summary judgment to defendant Leanne Spencer, Fannie Mae's former Controller, on all claims against her. "On April 10, 2013, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle this litigation, subject to court approval. On May 7, 2013, the parties filed a stipulation of settlement with the court. On June 7, 2013, the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement, approved the form and manner of notice to the class, stayed non-settlement related proceedings, and set certain other deadlines related to the settlement. On October 31, 2013, the court held a hearing to evaluate the fairness of the settlement to the class, and on December 5, 2013, granted final approval of the settlement, dismissed the case with prejudice, and entered an order and judgment effecting the settlement. Fannie Mae's contribution to the settlement did not have a material impact on our results of operations or financial condition. "On January 9, 2014, Rinis Travel Service, Inc. Profit Sharing Trust U.A. 61-1989, a purported class member, appealed the court's approval order with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, but voluntarily dismissed the appeal with prejudice on March 13, 2014. On January 29, 2014, an individual purported class member also appealed the settlement approval, and plaintiffs- appellees moved to dismiss this appeal on February 6, 2014. The motion to dismiss the appeal was granted on May 8, 2014. On June 9, 2014, the individual filed a petition for rehearing en banc. That petition was denied on June 25, 2014." The time for further appeals has expired and this matter is concluded with respect to Fannie Mae. Fannie Mae is a government-sponsored enterprise ("GSE") that was chartered by Congress in 1938. Fannie Mae provides reliable, large-scale access to affordable mortgage credit and indirectly enables families to buy, refinance or rent homes. FANNIE MAE: Lead Plaintiffs Seek Approval of Settlement ------------------------------------------------------- Federal National Mortgage Association 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 lead plaintiffs in the Fannie Mae 2008 Securities Litigation filed a motion seeking preliminary approval of a settlement, certification of the settlement classes, and approval of a notice to be sent to class members. The Company said, "In a consolidated amended complaint filed on June 22, 2009, lead plaintiffs Massachusetts Pension Reserves Investment Management Board and Boston Retirement Board (for common shareholders) and Tennessee Consolidated Retirement System (for preferred shareholders) alleged that we, certain of our former officers, and certain of our underwriters violated Sections 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. Lead plaintiffs also alleged that we, certain of our former officers, and our outside auditor, violated Sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Lead plaintiffs sought various forms of relief, including rescission, damages, interest, costs, attorneys' and experts' fees, and other equitable and injunctive relief. On October 13, 2009, the court entered an order allowing FHFA to intervene. In 2009, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the Securities Act claims as to all defendants. In 2010, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motions to dismiss the Securities Exchange Act claims. As a result of the partial denial, some of the Securities Exchange Act claims remained pending against us and certain of our former officers. Fannie Mae filed its answer to the consolidated complaint on December 31, 2010." "Plaintiffs filed a second amended joint consolidated class action complaint on March 2, 2012, renewing the remaining claims and adding FHFA as a defendant. On August 30, 2012, the court denied defendants' motions to dismiss the second amended complaint, allowing plaintiffs' Securities Exchange Act claims premised on Fannie Mae's subprime and Alt-A disclosures to proceed along with plaintiffs' claims premised on Fannie Mae's risk management disclosures. Fannie Mae filed its answer to the second amended complaint on October 29, 2012. "On July 15, 2014, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle this litigation. The proposed settlement amount did not have a material impact on our results of operations or financial condition. On October 24, 2014, lead plaintiffs filed a motion seeking preliminary approval of the settlement, certification of the settlement classes, and approval of a notice to be sent to class members." Fannie Mae is a government-sponsored enterprise ("GSE") that was chartered by Congress in 1938. Fannie Mae provides reliable, large-scale access to affordable mortgage credit and indirectly enables families to buy, refinance or rent homes. FANNIE MAE: Agreement Reached in ERISA Litigation ------------------------------------------------- Federal National Mortgage Association 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 an agreement in principle with the plaintiffs in the Fannie Mae ERISA Litigation that would resolve this matter on behalf of all parties. The Company said, "In a consolidated complaint filed in 2009, plaintiffs allege that certain of our current and former officers and directors, including members of Fannie Mae's Benefit Plans Committee and the Compensation Committee of Fannie Mae's Board of Directors during the relevant time periods, as fiduciaries of Fannie Mae's Employee Stock Ownership Plan ("ESOP"), breached their duties to ESOP participants and beneficiaries by investing ESOP funds in Fannie Mae common stock when it was no longer prudent to continue to do so. Plaintiffs purport to represent a class of participants and beneficiaries of the ESOP whose accounts invested in Fannie Mae common stock beginning April 17, 2007. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, attorneys' fees and other fees and costs, and injunctive and other equitable relief." Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on March 2, 2012 adding two current Board members and then-CEO Michael J. Williams as defendants. On October 22, 2012, the court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motions to dismiss. The court dismissed with prejudice claims against seven former and current directors and officers who joined the Board of Directors or Benefit Plans Committee after Fannie Mae was placed into conservatorship. The court allowed plaintiffs' breach of fiduciary duty and failure to monitor claims to go forward, but dismissed plaintiffs' conflict of interest claim. "On September 23, 2013, defendants filed a motion asking the court to reconsider its October 22, 2012 order in light of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit's decision in Rinehart v. Akers (In re Lehman Bros. ERISA Litigation), 722 F.3d 137 (2d Cir. 2013). The court denied the motion for reconsideration on April 21, 2014. "On October 31, 2014, we reached an agreement in principle with the plaintiffs that would resolve this matter on behalf of all parties. The proposed settlement amount did not have any impact on our results of operations or financial condition." Fannie Mae is a government-sponsored enterprise ("GSE") that was chartered by Congress in 1938. Fannie Mae provides reliable, large-scale access to affordable mortgage credit and indirectly enables families to buy, refinance or rent homes. FANNIE MAE: D.C. Circuit Consolidates Appeals --------------------------------------------- Federal National Mortgage Association 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. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit consolidated appeals by Plaintiffs in Arrowood Indemnity Company v. Fannie Mae, and plaintiffs in In re Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement Class Action Litigations with appeals in two other cases involving the same subject matter, but to which the Company is not a party. A number of putative class action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against us, FHFA as our conservator, Treasury and Freddie Mac from July through September 2013 by shareholders of Fannie Mae and/or Freddie Mac challenging the August 2012 amendment to each company's senior preferred stock purchase agreement with Treasury. These lawsuits were consolidated and, on December 3, 2013, plaintiffs (preferred and common shareholders of Fannie Mae and/or Freddie Mac) filed a consolidated class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against us, FHFA as our conservator, Treasury and Freddie Mac ("In re Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement Class Action Litigations"). The preferred shareholder plaintiffs allege that the August 2012 amendments to the terms of the senior preferred stock purchase agreements providing that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would pay dividends equal to their entire net worth (minus a specified capital reserve amount) ("the net worth sweep provisions") nullified certain of the shareholders' rights, particularly the right to receive dividends. The common shareholder plaintiffs allege that the August 2012 amendments constituted a taking of their property by requiring that all future profits of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac be paid to Treasury. The Company said, "Plaintiffs allege claims for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing against us, FHFA and Freddie Mac, a takings claim against FHFA and Treasury, and a breach of fiduciary duty claim derivatively on our and Freddie Mac's behalf against FHFA and Treasury. Plaintiffs seek to represent several classes of preferred and/or common shareholders of Fannie Mae and/or Freddie Mac who held stock as of the public announcement of the August 2012 amendments. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, equitable and injunctive relief, and costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees." "A non-class action suit, Arrowood Indemnity Company v. Fannie Mae, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on September 20, 2013 by preferred shareholders against us, FHFA as our conservator, the Director of FHFA (in his official capacity), Treasury, the Secretary of the Treasury (in his official capacity) and Freddie Mac. Plaintiffs bring claims for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing against us, FHFA and Freddie Mac, and claims for violation of the Administrative Procedure Act against the FHFA and Treasury defendants, alleging that the net worth sweep provisions nullified certain rights of the preferred shareholders, particularly the right to receive dividends. Plaintiffs seek damages, equitable and injunctive relief, and costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees. "On September 30, 2014, the court dismissed both lawsuits. Plaintiffs in Arrowood Indemnity Company v. Fannie Mae filed a notice of appeal on October 9, 2014, and plaintiffs in In re Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement Class Action Litigations filed a notice of appeal on October 15, 2014. On October 27, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit consolidated these appeals with appeals in two other cases involving the same subject matter, but to which we are not a party. "Given the stage of these lawsuits, the substantial and novel legal questions that remain, and our substantial defenses, we are currently unable to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss arising from this litigation." Fannie Mae is a government-sponsored enterprise ("GSE") that was chartered by Congress in 1938. Fannie Mae provides reliable, large-scale access to affordable mortgage credit and indirectly enables families to buy, refinance or rent homes. FIRST CLASS PARKING: "Rodriguez" Suit Alleges Failure to Pay OT --------------------------------------------------------------- Andres A. Rodriguez and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. First Class Parking Systems LLC a/k/a 1st Class Valet Service, Sebastian Lopez, and Jorge Zuluaga, Case No. 1:14-cv-24377 (S.D. Fla., November 18, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly. The Defendants provide valet parking services in Miami, serving private events, hotels, restaurants, hotels and buildings. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jamie H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, P.A. 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Telephone: (305) 865-6766 Facsimile: 865-7167 E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM FIRST HORIZON: FTBNA a Defendant in Overdraft Fees Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- First Horizon National 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 First Tennessee Bank National Association ("FTBNA") is a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit concerning overdraft fees charged in connection with debit card transactions. A key claim is that the method used to order or sequence the transactions posted each day was improper. The case is styled as Hawkins v. First Tennessee Bank National Association, before the Circuit Court for Shelby County, Tennessee, Case No. CT-004085-11. The plaintiff seeks actual damages of at least $5 million, unspecified restitution of fees charged, and unspecified punitive damages, among other things. FHN's estimate of reasonably possible loss for this matter is subject to significant uncertainties regarding: whether a class will be certified and, if so, the definition of the class; claims as to which no dollar amount is specified; the potential remedies that might be available or awarded; the ultimate outcome of potentially dispositive early-stage motions such as motions to dismiss; and the incomplete status of the discovery process. GENERAL NUTRITION: Calif. Class Certified in "Brewer" Case ---------------------------------------------------------- General Nutrition Corporation ("GNC") is a retailer of nutritional products such as vitamins and herbal supplements. Charles Brewer, Jessica Bruns, Michael Mitchell, Michael Murphy, and Wayne Neal are five former GNC employees who held positions as Sales Associates and/or Assistant Managers at GNC retail stores. A civil action arose from GNC's alleged failure to compensate putative classes of Sales Associates and Assistant Managers for time worked after store closing hours while performing "closing tasks" such as making off-site bank deposits, as well as alleged failures to pay overtime, supply meal and rest breaks, reimburse for mileage, issue final paychecks within statutorily prescribed time limits, or provide wage statements that comply with California law. Before the Court are plaintiffs' Motion to Certify eight putative classes pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23; and GNC's Motion to Decertify a collective action that the Court, in January 2013, initially certified under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et seq. In an order entered November 12, 2014, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/OG3RBNfrom Leagle.com, District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers granted in part and denied in part the Motion to Certify, holding that: (a) As to Plaintiffs' proposed Wage Statement Class, Meal Period Subclass, Rest Period Subclass, and Reimbursement Subclass the motion is granted on the grounds that they present common questions of law and fact, making them appropriate for class treatment. (b) As to plaintiffs' proposed Final Pay Subclass, the motion is granted in part with respect to the portion of the class members who were: (i) involuntarily discharged; and (ii) who quit and were paid by direct deposit. (c) The motion is denied as to plaintiffs' proposed Off-the-Clock and Records Subclasses because they do not meet the commonality and predominance requirements of Rule 23. (d) The motion is denied as moot as to the Unfair Competition Class since it is redundant of the Class and Subclasses otherwise certified by the Court. Moreover, the Court held that persons who have opted in to the FLSA collective action are not similarly situated. As a consequence, GNC's Motion to Decertify the FLSA Collective Action is granted. The case is CHARLES BREWER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GENERAL NUTRITION CORPORATION, Defendant, CASE NO. 11-CV-3587 YGR, (N.D. Cal.). Charles Brewer, Plaintiff, represented by Chad Avery Pradmore -- cpradmore@employment-lawyers.com -- Hoffman Employment Lawyers LLC. Charles Brewer, Defendants, Plaintiff, represented by Leonard Thomas Emma -- lemma@employment-lawyers.com -- Hoffman Employment Lawyers LLC & Michael Robert Hoffman -- mhoffman@employment- lawyers.com -- Hoffman Employment Lawyers LLC. General Nutrition Corporation, Defendant, represented by Susan L. Germaise, McGuireWoods LLP & Christopher M. Michalik, McGuire Woods LLP. HARVEST NATURAL: Court Dismissed Claims in "Sone" Case ------------------------------------------------------ Harvest 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 issued an order dismissing plaintiffs' claims in the case, Kensho Sone, et al. v. Harvest Natural Resources, Inc., in the United States District Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. On July 24, 2013, 70 individuals, all alleged to be citizens of Taiwan, filed an original complaint and application for injunctive relief relating to the Company's interest in the WAB-21 area of the South China Sea. The complaint alleges that the area belongs to the people of Taiwan and seeks damages in excess of $2.9 million and preliminary and permanent injunctions to prevent the Company from exploring, developing plans to extract hydrocarbons from, conducting future operations in, and extracting hydrocarbons from, the WAB-21 area. On August 8, 2014 the court issued an order dismissing plaintiffs' claims. Plaintiffs may appeal the dismissal. The following related class action lawsuits were filed on the dates specified in the United States District Court, Southern District of Texas: John Phillips v. Harvest Natural Resources, Inc., James A. Edmiston and Stephen C. Haynes (March 22, 2013) ("Phillips case"); Sang Kim v. Harvest Natural Resources, Inc., James A. Edmiston, Stephen C. Haynes, Stephen D. Chesebro', Igor Effimoff, H. H. Hardee, Robert E. Irelan, Patrick M. Murray and J. Michael Stinson (April 3, 2013); Chris Kean v. Harvest Natural Resources, Inc., James A. Edmiston and Stephen C. Haynes (April 11, 2013); Prastitis v. Harvest Natural Resources, Inc., James A. Edmiston and Stephen C. Haynes (April 17, 2013); Alan Myers v. Harvest Natural Resources, Inc., James A. Edmiston and Stephen C. Haynes (April 22, 2013); and Edward W. Walbridge and the Edward W. Walbridge Trust v. Harvest Natural Resources, Inc., James A. Edmiston and Stephen C. Haynes (April 26, 2013). The complaints allege that the Company made certain false or misleading public statements and demand that the defendants pay unspecified damages to the class action plaintiffs based on stock price declines. All of these actions have been consolidated into the Phillips case. The Company and the other named defendants have filed a motion to dismiss and intend to vigorously defend the consolidated lawsuits. HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC: ASB's Appeal Pending in Hawaii Supreme Court --------------------------------------------------------------- Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc. and Hawaiian Electric Company, Inc. said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014. In March 2011, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in the First Circuit Court of the state of Hawaii by a customer who claimed that American Savings Bank, F.S.B., a wholly-owned subsidiary of American Savings Holdings, Inc., had improperly charged overdraft fees on debit card transactions. ASB filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit on the basis that as a bank chartered under federal law, ASB believes its business practices are governed by federal regulations established for federal savings banks and not by state law. In July 2011, the Circuit Court denied ASB's motion and ASB appealed that decision. ASB's appeal is currently pending before the Hawaii Supreme Court. "The probable outcome and range of reasonably possible loss remains indeterminable at this time," the Company said. HERCULES INC: Court OKs Entry of Lone Pine Case Mgmt Order ---------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker granted a defendant's motion for entry of a Lone Pine Case Management Order in the case captioned DOROTHY ABNER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. HERCULES, INC., et al., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:14CV63-KS-MTP, (S.D. Miss.). Lone Pine orders derive from a 1986 New Jersey Superior Court decision, where the court entered a pretrial order that required the plaintiffs to provide facts in support of their claims through expert reports. Lore v. Lone Pine Corp., 1986 WL 637507 (N.J. Sup. Ct. Law Div. Nov. 18, 1986). The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has noted that "Lone Pine orders are designed to handle the complex issues and potential burdens of defendants and the court in mass tort litigation." Acuna v. Brown & Root Inc., 200 F.3d 335, 340 (5th Cir. 2000). The Court found that entering a Lone Pine order is appropriate at this time, and entry of the Lone Pine order does not create undue burdens or expenses for the Plaintiffs. A copy of the Court's November 10, 2014 opinion and order is available at http://is.gd/DYaDSQfrom Leagle.com. HILLS BANCORPORATION: Appeals Ruling to Iowa Supreme Court ---------------------------------------------------------- Hills Bancorporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that on April 24, 2014, a suit was filed against the Bank in the Iowa District Court for Johnson County by a customer alleging that the fees associated with the Bank's automated overdraft program in connection with its debit and ATM cards constitute unlawful interest in violation of Iowa's usury laws and that the collection of such interest violates the Iowa Debt Collection Practices Act. The suit seeks class-action status for Bank customers who have paid overdraft fees arising from debit or ATM card transactions on their consumer accounts. The Bank filed a motion to dismiss the case, which the Court denied. The Bank is appealing the District Court's ruling on the motion to dismiss through the filing of an application for interlocutory appeal to the Iowa Supreme Court. At this stage of the proceedings, it is not possible for management of the Bank to determine the probability of a material adverse outcome or reasonably estimate the amount of any potential loss. Hills Bancorporation is a holding company engaged in the business of commercial banking. The Company's subsidiary is Hills Bank and Trust Company, Hills, Iowa (the "Bank"), which is wholly-owned. HYPERDYNAMICS CORP: Lead Plaintiff Responds to Motion to Dismiss ---------------------------------------------------------------- Hyperdynamics Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the lead plaintiff in a shareholder class action filed a response to the defendants' motion to dismiss, and the defendants filed their reply. The Company said, "On April 2, 2012, a lawsuit styled as a class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas against us and our chief executive officer alleging that we made false and misleading statements that artificially inflated our stock prices. The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that we misrepresented the prospects and progress of our drilling operations, including our drilling of the Sabu-1 well and plans to drill the Baraka-1 well off the coast of the Republic of Guinea. The lawsuit seeks damages based on Sections 10(b) and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, although the specific amount of damages is not specified." "Although several lead plaintiffs were appointed by the Court and then withdrew from the matter, a lead plaintiff has now been appointed and a scheduling order governing briefing on a motion to dismiss has been entered by the Court. "On May 12, 2014, lead plaintiff filed his amended complaint, and defendants filed their motion to dismiss on July 11, 2014. On August 20, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed a response to our motion to dismiss, and we filed our reply on September 19, 2014. "We have assessed the status of this matter and have concluded that an adverse judgment remains reasonably possible, but not probable. As a result, no provision has been made in the consolidated financial statements. Given the early stage of this dispute, we are unable to estimate a range of possible loss; however, in our opinion, the outcome of this dispute will not have a material effect on our financial condition and results of operations." Hyperdynamics has two wholly-owned subsidiaries, SCS Corporation Ltd (SCS), a Cayman corporation, and HYD Resources Corporation (HYD), a Texas corporation. Through SCS and its wholly-owned subsidiary, SCS Guinea SARL (SCSG), which is a Guinea limited liability company formed under the laws of the Republic of Guinea ("Guinea") located in Conakry, Guinea, Hyperdynamics focuses on oil and gas exploration offshore the coast of West Africa. HYPERDYNAMICS CORP: Parties Await Ruling on Motion to Consolidate ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hyperdynamics Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the parties in a class action lawsuit await a ruling on the motion to consolidate. The Company said, "Beginning on March 13, 2014, several lawsuits styled as class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas against us and several officers of the Company alleging that we made false and misleading statements that artificially inflated our stock prices. The lawsuits allege, among other things, that we misrepresented our compliance with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and anti-money laundering statutes and that we lacked adequate internal controls. The lawsuits seek damages based on Sections 10(b) and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, although the specific amount of damages is not specified." "On May 12, 2014, a shareholder filed a motion for appointment as lead plaintiff, which remains pending. Also, on May 12, 2014, lead plaintiff in the April 2012 lawsuit filed a motion to consolidate the March 2014 cases with the earlier case. The parties await a ruling on the motion to consolidate. "In addition to these lawsuits, we have received demands from stockholders to inspect our books and records; however, no proceedings have been instituted. We have assessed the status of this matter and have concluded that an adverse judgment remains reasonably possible, but not probable. As a result, no provision has been made in the consolidated financial statements. "Given the early stage of these disputes, we are unable to estimate a range of possible loss; however, in our opinion, the outcome of this dispute will not have a material effect on our financial condition and results of operations. Hyperdynamics has two wholly-owned subsidiaries, SCS Corporation Ltd (SCS), a Cayman corporation, and HYD Resources Corporation (HYD), a Texas corporation. Through SCS and its wholly-owned subsidiary, SCS Guinea SARL (SCSG), which is a Guinea limited liability company formed under the laws of the Republic of Guinea ("Guinea") located in Conakry, Guinea, Hyperdynamics focuses on oil and gas exploration offshore the coast of West Africa. IDEAL IMAGE: Faces "Marlow" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- Denice Marlow, on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals v. Ideal Image Development Corp., Case No. 3:14-cv- 00540 (E.D. Tenn., November 17, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay its sales representative overtime wages in accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act. Ideal Image Development Corp. offers state-of-the-art laser hair removal services performed by licensed medical and nursing professionals. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brittany B. Skemp, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 4600 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55427 Telephone: (612) 256-3200 Facsimile: (612) 338-4878 - and - Paul J. Lukas, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 4600 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55427 Telephone: (612) 256-3205 Facsimile: (612) 215-6870 E-mail: lukas@nka.com IMPACT GLASS: Faces "Casanova" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jose Casanova, Jose L. Quintana, and Ernesto Sanchez, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Impact Glass Services LLC, a Florida corporation, Juan C. Llinas, and Yussef Saieh Velez, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-24363 (S.D. Fla., November 17, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate a company established in Miami, Florida that specializes in servicing, maintaining and repairing commercial and residential glazing products. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jose Alberto Socorro, Esq. Grissel Seijo, Esq. HUDSON & CALLEJA, LLC 3211 Ponce de Leon Blvd, Suite 102 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 444-6628 Facsimile: (305) 444-6627 E-mail: jsocorro@hudsoncalleja.com gseijo@hudsoncalleja.com - and - Robert Wayne Hudson, Esq. HUDSON & CALLEJA, LLC 355 Alhambra Circle, Suite 801 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 444-6628 Facsimile: (305) 444-6627 E-mail: rhudson@hudsoncalleja.com INTEGRYS ENERGY: "Inman" Plaintiff Seeks Expedited Discovery ------------------------------------------------------------ The case Inman v. Schrock, et al., was consolidated with the case Amo v. Integrys Energy Group, Inc., and the Inman plaintiff in the consolidated Amo Action filed a motion for expedited discovery and a preliminary injunction, Integrys Energy 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. Since the June 23, 2014 announcement of the merger agreement, the Company and its board of directors, along with Wisconsin Energy Corporation (Wisconsin Energy), were named defendants in ten class action lawsuits and/or derivative complaints brought by purported Integrys Energy Group shareholders challenging the proposed merger. Two lawsuits were filed in the Circuit Court of Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, Amo v. Integrys Energy Group, Inc., et al., (the "Amo Action") and Inman v. Schrock, et al., (the "Inman Action"). Two lawsuits were filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois Taxman v. Integrys Energy Group, Inc., et al., and Curley v. Integrys Energy Group, Inc., et al., (the "Illinois Actions"). Three lawsuits were filed in the Circuit Court of Brown County, Wisconsin: Rubin v. Integrys Energy Group, Inc., et al.; Blachor v. Integrys Energy Group, Inc., et al.; Albera v. Integrys Energy Group, Inc., et al. (the "Brown County Actions"). Three lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Steiner v. Budney, et al., and Collison v. Schrock, et al., (the "Steiner and Collision Actions"); and Tri-State Joint Fund v. Integrys Energy Group, Inc., et al., (the "Tri-State Action"). The Company said, "The Amo Action and Illinois Actions allege, among other things, that members of our board breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed transaction, and that the merger agreement involves an unfair price, was the product of an inadequate sales process, and contains unreasonable deal protection devices that purportedly preclude competing offers. The complaints further variously allege that we, Wisconsin Energy, and/or its acquisition subsidiaries aided and abetted the purported breaches of fiduciary duty. The plaintiffs in these lawsuits seek, among other things, (i) a declaration that the merger agreement was entered into in breach of our directors' fiduciary duties, (ii) an injunction enjoining our board from consummating the merger, (iii) an order directing our board to exercise their duties to obtain a transaction which is in the best interests of our shareholders, (iv) an order granting the class members any benefits allegedly improperly received by the defendants, (v) a rescission of the merger or damages, in the event that it is consummated, and/or (vi) an order directing additional disclosure regarding the merger." "The Inman Action generally asserts similar claims on behalf of the purported class and derivatively on behalf of us and, in addition, alleges that the registration statement omits material information. "The Steiner and Collison Actions generally allege that the members of our board breached their fiduciary duties by conducting an inadequate sales process that resulted in an unfair price and by filing a materially deficient registration statement. The Steiner and Collison Actions further allege that Wisconsin Energy aided and abetted those breaches of fiduciary duty. The plaintiffs in the Steiner and Collison Actions, seek, among other things, to enjoin the proposed transaction or an award of damages in the event the merger is consummated. In addition, the Collison complaint alleges that the members of our board were unjustly enriched at the expense of us and seeks a court order directing our board members to disgorge all benefits or compensation obtained as a result of their purported breaches of fiduciary duty. "The Tri-State Action seeks to enjoin the proposed transaction and alleges that we, our board, Wisconsin Energy, and Mr. Klappa (the Wisconsin Energy Chief Executive Officer) violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the 1934 Securities Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder. It alleges, among other things, that the registration statement misrepresented or omitted material facts, including material information about the allegedly unfair and conflicted sales process, the inadequate consideration offered in the proposed transaction, and our actual intrinsic value. "On August 6, 2014, we, our board, and Wisconsin Energy filed a motion to dismiss or stay the Illinois Actions, in deference to the Wisconsin Actions. On August 11, 2014, we, our board, and Wisconsin Energy filed motions to dismiss the Amo Action. Also on August 11, 2014, the plaintiffs in the Wisconsin Actions filed a letter with the courts in which those actions are pending, requesting that the Wisconsin Actions be stayed pending resolution of the Illinois Actions. We, our board, and Wisconsin Energy filed a letter opposing that request on August 12, 2014. "On August 12, 2014, the plaintiffs in the Brown County Actions voluntarily dismissed their suits without prejudice. On August 18, 2014, the plaintiff in the Amo Action moved the Wisconsin court to stay his action in favor of the Illinois Actions. Following a hearing on September 4, 2014, the Wisconsin court denied the plaintiff's motion to stay the Amo Action. "On August 27, 2014, the plaintiff in the Taxman action filed a motion for leave to amend his complaint seeking to add allegations that the defendants breached their fiduciary duty of candor by filing a materially deficient registration statement. "On September 30, 2014, the Illinois court dismissed the Illinois Actions in favor of the Amo Action and Inman Action. "On October 3, 2014, the plaintiff in the Amo Action, joined by plaintiffs from the Brown County Actions, filed an amended class action complaint adding allegations that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by filing a materially deficient registration statement. On October 6, 2014, we, our board, and Wisconsin Energy filed a motion for a protective order staying discovery pending a decision on their motions to dismiss in the Amo Action. On October 7, 2014, the plaintiff in the Amo Action, joined by plaintiffs from the Brown County Actions, filed a motion for limited expedited discovery. "On October 8, 2014, we, our board, and Wisconsin Energy filed motions to dismiss the Steiner and Collison Actions, in deference to the Wisconsin Actions. On October 15, 2014, the Collison Action was consolidated with the Steiner Action. "On October 17, 2014, the Inman Action was consolidated with the Amo Action. On October 21, 2014, the Inman plaintiff in the consolidated Amo Action filed a motion for expedited discovery and a preliminary injunction. "We believe the claims asserted in each lawsuit have no merit and intend to defend the actions vigorously." Integrys Energy Group is a diversified energy holding company with regulated natural gas and electric utility operations (serving customers in Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin), an approximate 34% equity ownership interest in ATC (a federally regulated electric transmission company), and nonregulated energy operations. INTERCEPT YOUTH: Faces "Altice" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Diana Trippeer Altice, on her own behalf, and for all those similarly situated pursuant to 29 Section 216(b) v. Intercept Youth Services, Inc., Case No. 7:14-cv-00627 (W.D. Va., November 18, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Intercept Youth Services, Inc. provides mental health services throughout the Commonwealth. The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas Eugene Strelka, Esq. STRICKLAND DIVINEY & STRELKA P.O. Box 2866 Roanoke, VA 24001 Telephone: (540) 982-7787 Facsimile: (540) 342-2909 E-mail: thomas@strelkalaw.com INTERLINE BRANDS: Order Denying Initial Deal Approval Revised ------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge James Donato entered on November 10, 2014, an amended order denying preliminary approval of class settlement in CORY STOKES, Plaintiff, v. INTERLINE BRANDS, INC., Defendant, CASE NO. 12-CV-05527-JD, (N.D. Cal.). The amended order withdraws in its entirety and replaces the order previously entered in this case. The Court makes this amendment to correct a citation error at page 8 of the original slip opinion. The correction does not change in any way the Court's findings or conclusions which held, among other things, that since the proposed settlement fails to meet a preliminary fairness determination, the Court need not reach plaintiff's request for conditional certification of a class for settlement. A copy of the Amended Order is available at http://is.gd/aYDa27 from Leagle.com. Cory Stokes, on behalf of himself & all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel H. Qualls -- dan@qualls- workman.com -- Qualls & Workman, L.L.P., Aviva N. Roller -- aviva@workmanlawpc.com -- Workman Law Firm, PC, Robin Gibson Workman -- robin@workmanlawpc.com -- Workman Law Firm, PC & Walter Lewis Haines -- walter@whaines.com -- United Employees Law Group, P.C. Interline Brands, Inc., Defendant, represented by Matthew C. Kane, McGuireWoods LLP, Catherine C. Smith, McGuireWoods LLP, Michael David Mandel, McGuireWoods LLP, Sabrina Alexis Beldner, McGuireWoods LLP & Sylvia Jihae Kim, McGuireWoods LLP. Cleansource, Inc., Defendant, represented by Mark S. Posard -- mposard@gordonrees.com -- Gordon & Rees LLP. INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Kleen Products Case in Discovery Stage ----------------------------------------------------------- International Paper Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the the federal action, Kleen Products LLC v. Packaging Corp. of America (N.D. Ill.), is in the discovery stage and the action in state court in Cocke County, Tennessee is in a preliminary stage. In September 2010, eight containerboard producers, including International Paper and Temple-Inland, were named as defendants in a purported class action complaint that alleged a civil violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The suit is captioned Kleen Products LLC v. Packaging Corp. of America (N.D. Ill.). The complaint alleges that the defendants, beginning in February 2004 through November 2010, conspired to limit the supply and thereby increase prices of containerboard products. The alleged class is all persons who purchased containerboard products directly from any defendant for use or delivery in the United States during the period February 2004 to November 2010. The complaint seeks to recover an unspecified amount of treble actual damages and attorney's fees on behalf of the purported class. Four similar complaints were filed and have been consolidated in the Northern District of Illinois. Moreover, in January 2011, International Paper was named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed in state court in Cocke County, Tennessee alleging that International Paper violated Tennessee law by conspiring to limit the supply and fix the prices of containerboard from mid-2005 to the present. Plaintiffs in the state court action seek certification of a class of Tennessee indirect purchasers of containerboard products, damages and costs, including attorneys' fees. The Company disputes the allegations made and is vigorously defending each action. "However, because the federal action is in the discovery stage and the Tennessee action is in a preliminary stage, we are unable to predict an outcome or estimate a range of reasonably possible loss," the Company said. INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Reaches Agreement to Settle U.S. Cases ----------------------------------------------------------- International Paper Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Company reached an agreement in principle to settle the U.S. cases alleging civil violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act against Temple-Inland and a number of other gypsum manufacturers for an immaterial amount. Beginning in late December 2012, certain purchasers of gypsum board filed a number of purported class action complaints alleging civil violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act against Temple- Inland and a number of other gypsum manufacturers. The complaints were similar and alleged that the gypsum manufacturers conspired or otherwise reached agreements to: (1) raise prices of gypsum board either from 2008 or 2011 through the present; (2) avoid price erosion by ceasing the practice of issuing job quotes; and (3) restrict supply through downtime and limiting order fulfillment. The alleged classes are all persons who purchased gypsum board and/or gypsum finishing products directly or indirectly from any defendant. The complainants seek to recover unspecified treble actual damages and attorneys' fees on behalf of the purported classes. On April 8, 2013, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered transfer of all pending cases to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for coordinated and consolidated pretrial proceedings, and the direct purchaser plaintiffs and indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed their respective amended consolidated complaints in June 2013. The amended consolidated complaints allege a conspiracy or agreement beginning in or before September 2011. In October 2014, the Company reached an agreement in principle to settle the U.S. cases for an immaterial amount. This settlement in principle is subject to negotiation and execution of a definitive settlement agreement, which would then be subject to court approval. INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Canadian Cases in Preliminary Stage -------------------------------------------------------- International Paper Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that in September 2013, similar purported class actions were filed in courts in Quebec, Canada and Ontario, Canada, with each suit alleging violations of the Canadian Competition Act and seeking damages and injunctive relief. The Company intends to dispute the allegations made and to vigorously defend the litigation. "Because these Canadian cases are in a preliminary stage, we are unable to predict an outcome or estimate our maximum reasonably possible loss. However, we do not believe that any material loss is probable," the Company said. INTERNATIONAL TEXTILE: Gets $3.8MM From Class Action Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- International Textile 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 Company received $3.8 million of cash from the settlement of a class action lawsuit for use by the Company to pay fees and expenses of various legal and other advisors in connection with the Consolidated Action. The Company was a party, as a nominal defendant only, to a consolidated class action lawsuit and related derivative action (together, the "Consolidated Action"), which consolidated three factually identical lawsuits filed in 2008 and 2009 under the caption In re International Textile Group, Inc. Merger Litigation, in the Court of Common Pleas, Greenville County, South Carolina (the "Court"), C.A. No. 2009-CP-23-3346. The Consolidated Action related to the combination of the Company, which at the time was named Safety Components International, Inc., and a company formerly known as International Textile Group, Inc. ("Former ITG"), which occurred in late 2006 (the "Merger"). The Consolidated Action named as defendants, among others, certain individuals who were officers and directors, and certain stockholders, of Former ITG or the Company at the time of, and an entity which was an independent financial advisor to the Company in connection with, the Merger (the "Non-Company Defendants"). The plaintiffs in the Consolidated Class Action contended that certain of the Non-Company Defendants breached certain fiduciary duties, and have also made related claims, in connection with the Merger. The Company, as a nominal defendant, the plaintiffs and the Non- Company Defendants entered into a Stipulation and Settlement Agreement (the "Settlement Agreement") relating to the Consolidated Action, which was approved by the Court on August 29, 2014 and is no longer subject to appeal. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, and in settlement of the Consolidated Action, (i) certain of the Non-Company Defendants made an aggregate $36.0 million cash payment (the "Cash Settlement"), consisting of a $16.0 million cash payment from the independent financial advisor and its insurers and a $20.0 million cash payment from other Non-Company Defendants and their insurers, (ii) $21.9 million in principal and accrued interest of the Company's senior subordinated notes held by certain affiliates of the Company (the "Affiliates"), (which are designated as "senior subordinated notes -- related party" on the Company's balance sheets and had a maturity date of June 6, 2015), were cancelled, together with all additional interest that accrued on such notes from December 31, 2013 through August 29, 2014 (collectively, the "Cancelled Notes"), and (iii) 10,315,727 shares of the Company's Series A Preferred Stock, having a liquidation value of $257.9 million as of December 31, 2013, and 11,488 shares of the Company's Series C Preferred Stock, having a liquidation value of $11.5 million as of December 31, 2013, in each case together with additional shares of Series A Preferred Stock and Series C Preferred Stock that accrued in arrears with respect to such shares through August 29, 2014 (collectively, the "Cancelled Preferred Stock"), all of which are held by the Affiliates, were cancelled. As a result of the approval by the Court of the Settlement Agreement, the Cancelled Notes and the Cancelled Preferred Stock were cancelled, and the Company's respective obligations, and the Affiliates' respective rights, thereunder were terminated, effective as of December 31, 2013. Such cancellations reduced the Company's long-term debt and stockholders' deficit by the amount of the Cancelled Notes, and reduced the aggregate liquidation value of the Series A Preferred Stock and the Series C Preferred Stock by the respective values of the Cancelled Preferred Stock. During the three and nine months ended September 30, 2014, the Company reversed $1.4 million of PIK interest expense that had been recorded through the six months ended June 30, 2014 related to the Cancelled Notes. In accordance with the Settlement Agreement, the Company received $3.8 million of cash from the Cash Settlement for use by the Company to pay fees and expenses of various legal and other advisors in connection with the Consolidated Action. Such amount was received on October 20, 2014, and was recorded as a sundry receivable on the Company's September 30, 2014 consolidated balance sheet and included in "Other income (expense) - net" in its consolidated statements of operations for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2014. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: "Rappuchi" Case Remanded to Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------------- Ninety-four individual Plaintiffs filed a complaint on February 13, 2014, in state court against Defendants Johnson & Johnson, Ethicon, Inc., Ethicon, LLC, and Does 1 through 500, inclusive. The Complaint alleges that Plaintiffs suffered a variety of injuries from the surgical implantation of pelvic mesh devices designed, tested, manufactured, marketed, sold, and distributed by Defendants. On October 3, 2014, Defendants filed a Motion to Stay this case, pending disposition of the Ninth Circuit's en banc proceedings in Romo v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., No. 13- 56310. On October 17, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Remand this case to state court, contending that removal pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act is improper. District Judge Jesus G. Bernal, in an order dated November 13, 2014, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/D71Zktfrom Leagle.com, granted the Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand, denied as moot Defendants' Motion to Stay, and remanded this action to the Los Angeles County Superior Court, saying the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and must remand the case to California Superior Court. The case is Violet Rappuchi, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson, et al., NO. CV 14-7392 JGB (SPX), (C.D. Cal.) KIMBALL INTERNATIONAL: Has $5.0 Million From Settlement Proceeds ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kimball International, Inc. announced net sales of $348.2 million and net income of $8.0 million, or $0.21 per Class B diluted share, for the first quarter of fiscal year 2015 which ended September 30, 2014. Excluding incremental after-tax costs related to the spin-off of the Company's EMS segment of $1.5 million ($0.04 per Class B diluted share), the adjusted net income for the first quarter of fiscal year 2015 was $9.5 million, or $0.25 per Class B diluted share. Kimball said Other General Income in the first quarter of fiscal year 2014 included $5.0 million of pre-tax income resulting from settlement proceeds related to two antitrust class action lawsuits of which the Company was a class member. The class actions alleged that certain EMS segment suppliers illegally conspired over a number of years to raise and fix the prices of electronic components, resulting in overcharges to purchasers of those components several years ago. Kimball International, Inc. is a manufacturer of design driven, technology savvy, high quality furnishings sold under the Company's family of brands, National Office Furniture, Kimball Office and Kimball Hospitality. KY MANI: Faces "Luo" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Lizen Luo a/k/a Lily Luo, Ping Yu a/k/a Cindy Yu, individually and on behalf of all other employees similarly situated v. Ky Mani Pedi Inc., d/b/a Bellissimo Nails & Spa, Youn Kang, John Does and Jane Does # 1-10, Case No. 1:14-cv-09129 (S.D.N.Y., November 17, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate a spa, beauty and personal care salon. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jian Hang, Esq. HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 136-18 39th Avenue Suite 1003 Flushing, NY 11354 Telephone: (718) 353-8588 Facsimile: (718) 353-6288 E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com LA REVISE: "Romero" Suit Settlement Gets Mag. Judge's Approval -------------------------------------------------------------- Ruben Romero sued La Revise Associates, LLC d/b/a Brasserie Ruhlmann, Jean Denoyer, and Regis Marnier for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Sections 201 et seq. (FLSA), and the New York Labor Law (NYLL). Plaintiff commenced the action as an FLSA collective action under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), and a putative class action as to the NYLL claims under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Romero seeks an order certifying the settlement class; approving the class action settlement; approving the FLSA settlement; and awarding a service award to named plaintiff Romero, attorneys' fees and costs to class counsel, and fees to the claims administrator. According to Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein's November 12, 2014 opinion & order, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/6DCSoAfrom Leagle.com, the plaintiff's motion for final certification of the settlement class, for approval of the class action settlement, and for approval of the FLSA collective action is granted. Plaintiff's motion for a class representative service award is granted in the amount of $5,000. Plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees for class counsel Lee is granted in the amount of $83,333, to be paid from the settlement fund. Plaintiff's motion for an award of reimbursement of expenses is granted in the amount of $4, 185 and his motion to approve the payment of $25,000 in administration fees to Advanced Litigation Strategies, LLC is also granted. Finally, the late opt-out of Svjetlana Blagojevic is accepted, and she is excluded from the settlement along with the individuals who timely opted out. "This Opinion and Order shall constitute the 'Final Approval Order' of the Settlement Agreement under paragraph 1.12 of the Settlement Agreement. The parties shall proceed with the administration of the settlement in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. The Court retains jurisdiction over this action for the purpose of enforcing the Settlement Agreement and all other court orders relevant to effectuating the terms of the settlement and the distribution of settlement funds," ruled Magistrate Judge Gorenstein. The case is dismissed with prejudice and the Court directed the Clerk to enter judgment and to close the case captioned RUBEN ROMERO, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class, Plaintiff, v. LA REVISE ASSOCIATES, L.L.C. et al., Defendants, NO. 12 CIV. 8324 (GWG), (S.D. N.Y.). Ruben Romero, Plaintiff, represented by: Anne Melissa Seelig, Esq. C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, Second Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 465-1180 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 Vianey Rojas Mejia, Plaintiff, represented by C.K. Lee, Lee Litigation Group, PLLC. Charlotte Denoyer, Plaintiff, represented by C.K. Lee, Lee Litigation Group, PLLC. Hyeyoung Jun, Plaintiff, represented by C.K. Lee, Lee Litigation Group, PLLC. Emilie Jean, Plaintiff, represented by C.K. Lee, Lee Litigation Group, PLLC. Luis Filpo, Plaintiff, represented by C.K. Lee, Lee Litigation Group, PLLC. Svjetlana Blagojevic, Plaintiff, represented by C.K. Lee, Lee Litigation Group, PLLC. La Revise Associates, L.L.C., Defendant, represented by Dean Lawrence Silverberg -- DSilverberg@ebglaw.com -- Epstein, Becker & Green, P.C. & Kenneth Welch DiGia -- kdigia@ebglaw.com -- Epstein, Becker & Green, P.C. Jean Denoyer, Defendant, represented by Dean Lawrence Silverberg, Epstein, Becker & Green, P.C. & Kenneth Welch DiGia, Epstein, Becker & Green, P.C. Regis Marnier, Defendant, represented by Dean Lawrence Silverberg, Epstein, Becker & Green, P.C. & Kenneth Welch DiGia, Epstein, Becker & Green, P.C. LANNETT COMPANY: "Schaefer" Class Action Voluntarily Dismissed -------------------------------------------------------------- Lannett Company, 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 David Schaefer, as an alleged class representative, filed on August 27, 2014, a class action complaint in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania (14-cv-05008) against the Company and certain of its officers, alleging violations of federal securities laws arising out of statements about the Company made in its securities filings during the period of September 10, 2013 through July 16, 2014. The complaint alleges that the statements were false and misleading because the defendants allegedly knew at the time the statements were made that the Company was in violation of Connecticut antitrust laws relating to its sale of digoxin. Mr. Schaefer's complaint was voluntarily dismissed in September 2014. Lannett Company, Inc. and subsidiaries develop, manufacture, package, market, and distribute solid oral (tablets and capsules), extended release, topical, and oral solution finished dosage forms of drugs, that address a wide range of therapeutic areas. The Company also manufactures active pharmaceutical ingredients through its Cody Laboratories, Inc. ("Cody Labs") subsidiary, providing a vertical integration benefit. Additionally, the Company distributes products under various distribution agreements, most notably the Jerome Stevens Distribution Agreement. LEUCADIA NATIONAL: Agrees to Settle Shareholder Class Actions ------------------------------------------------------------- Leucadia National Corporation said in a Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, that the Company agreed to settle shareholder class actions relating to the March 1, 2013 transaction through which Jefferies Group LLC became the Company's wholly-owned subsidiary. The terms of the settlement agreement as set forth below are subject to court approval. Seven class action lawsuits had been filed in New York and Delaware on behalf of a class consisting of Jefferies Group's stockholders concerning the transaction. The class actions named as defendants Leucadia National Corporation, Jefferies Group, certain members of the board of directors of Jefferies Group, certain members of our board of directors and, in certain of the actions, certain merger-related subsidiaries. "On October 31, 2014, we and the remaining defendants in the Delaware litigation entered into a settlement agreement with the plaintiffs in the Delaware litigation. The terms of that agreement, which are subject to court approval, provide for an aggregate payment of $70 million to certain former stockholders of Jefferies Group, other than the defendants and certain of their affiliates, along with attorneys' fees to be determined and approved by the court. The agreement further provides that the settlement will be paid, at our option, in either cash or our common shares. If approved by the court, the settlement will resolve all of the class-action claims in Delaware, and release the claims brought in New York," the Company said. "While we and the other defendants continue to deny each of the plaintiffs' claims and deny any liability, we agreed to the settlement solely to resolve the disputes, to avoid the costs and risks of further litigation and to avoid further distractions to our management." LIN'S RESTAURANT: Does Not Pay Employees Properly, Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Lindsey Howell v. Lin's Restaurant, Inc., Amarillo Hayashi Realty, LLC, Zheng Fa Zhong a/k/a Guo Chen, and Jennifer Lin, Case No. 2:14-cv-00236 (N.D. Tex., November 17, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum wage at the rates required by the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremi K. Young, Esq. Rachael Victoria Rustmann, Esq. THE YOUNG LAW FIRM 1001 S. Harrison, Suite 200 Amarillo, TX 79101 Telephone: (806) 331-1800 E-mail: jyoung@youngfirm.com rachael@youngfirm.com M&T BANK: Wilmington Trust Case Proceeding With Discovery --------------------------------------------------------- The case In Re Wilmington Trust Securities Litigation (U.S. District Court, District of Delaware, Case No. 10-CV-0990-SLR) is now proceeding with discovery, M&T Bank 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. Wilmington Trust Corporation is a subsidiary of M&T. Beginning on November 18, 2010, a series of parties, purporting to be class representatives, commenced a putative class action lawsuit against Wilmington Trust, alleging that Wilmington Trust's financial reporting and securities filings were in violation of securities laws. The cases were consolidated and Wilmington Trust moved to dismiss. On March 29, 2012, the Court granted Wilmington Trust's motion to dismiss in its entirety, but allowed plaintiffs to re-file their Complaint. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a Second, Third and Fourth Amended Complaint. Wilmington Trust moved to dismiss the Fourth Amended Complaint on July 17, 2013. The Court issued an order denying Wilmington Trust's motion to dismiss on March 20, 2014. The case is now proceeding with discovery. MARIANI LANDSCAPE: Sued Over Breach of Fair Labor Standards Act --------------------------------------------------------------- Jesus Murillo, Jorge Rios Ruiz, and Luis Guillermo Trujillo, on behalf of themselves, and all other plaintiffs similarly situated, known and unknown v. Mariani Landscape, Mariani Enterprises, Inc., and Frank Mariani, Case No. 1:14-cv-09217(N.D. Ill., November 17, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Mariani Landscape and Mariani Enterprises, Inc. provide landscaping, maintenance, and snowplowing services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Meghan Vanleuwen, Esq. FARMWORKER AND LANDSCAPER ADVOCACY PROJECT 33 N. State Street, Suite 900 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 853-1450 Facsimile: (312) 853-1459 E-mail: mvanleuwen@flapillinois.org - and - Meghan A. Vanleuwen, Esq. John William Billhorn, Esq. BILLHORN LAW FIRM 120 S. State Street, Suite 400 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 513-9555 E-mail: mvanleuwen@billhornlaw.com jbillhorn@billhornlaw.com MISSION BAY: Summary Judgment Bid in Ex-Worker's Suit Denied ------------------------------------------------------------ District Judge Susan Illston denied defendants' motion for summary judgment in the case captioned HORACIO DE VEYRA PALANA, individually, and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MISSION BAY INC. and PRINT IT HERE AND COPY, INC., Defendants, NO. C 13-05235 SI, (N.D. Cal.). Plaintiff Horacio de Veyra Palana is a former employee of defendants, Mission Bay Inc. and Print it Here and Copy, Inc. According to the plaintiff, defendants failed to compensate their employees at the overtime rate for overtime hours and failed to provide employees meal and rest breaks, all in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and California's Labor Code and California's Business & Professions Code section 17200, et seq. Plaintiff also alleges defendants violated California Labor Code sections 203 and 226, by failing to pay employees the amount due to them and failing to provide accurate wage stubs. Plaintiff filed this putative class action on November 12, 2013. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, which motion the Court denied on March 14, 2014. Defendants then moved for summary judgment. According to Judge Illston's November 11, 2014 Order, the Court denies defendants' motion for summary judgment as to plaintiff's claims for failure to compensate their employees for overtime and meal and rest breaks in violation of the FLSA, California Labor Code, and California Business & Professions Code. A copy of the ruling is available at http://is.gd/0U7zpffrom Leagle.com. Horacio De Veyra Palana, Plaintiff, represented by Phung Hoang Truong -- phung@jawlawgroup.com -- Justice at Work Law Group, Tomas Eduardo Margain -- Tomas@jawlawgroup.com -- CASA Legal & Huy Ngoc Tran -- Huy@JAWLawGroup.com -- Justice at Work Law Group. Mission Bay Inc., Defendant, represented by Reyna Elena Macias -- rmacias@wfbm.com -- Walsworth, Franklin, Bevins, McCall & Scott A. Freedman -- sfreedman@wfbm.com -- Walsworth, Franklin, Bevins & McCall LLP. Print It Here And Copy, Inc., Defendant, represented by Reyna Elena Macias, Walsworth, Franklin, Bevins, McCall & Scott A. Freedman, Walsworth, Franklin, Bevins & McCall LLP. MONTGOMERY, AL: Court Enters Injunctive Relief in Mitchell Case --------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Myron H. Thompson entered judgment granting final declaratory and injunctive relief in the case captioned SHARNALLE MITCHELL, LORENZO BROWN, TITO WILLIAMS, COURTNEY TUBBS, TEQUILA BALLARD, WILLIE WILLIAMS, THOMAS ELLIS, GAVIN BULLOCK, KENDRICK MAULL, TAMARA TUDLEY, JERMAINE TYLER, JANET EDWARDS, RISKO McDANIEL, DEMETRI COLVIN, CARL WILLIAMS, and RAYSHONE WILLIAMS, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF MONTGOMERY, HONORABLE LES HAYES, III, HONORABLE MILTON WESTRY, HONORABLE DARRON HENDLEY, and HONORABLE LLORIA JAMES, Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:14CV186-MHT (WO), (M.D. Ala.). Judge Thompson's November 17, 2014 judgment, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/F4zS1nfrom Leagle.com, provides that: (1) The parties' joint motion for entry of final declaratory and injunctive relief is granted. (2) The parties to the agreement to settle declaratory and injunctive claims are to comply with its terms for the periods set out therein. (3) The plaintiffs' request for declaratory and injunctive relief is resolved in full subject only to the further jurisdiction of the court to enforce the settlement agreement for the periods set out therein. (4) The plaintiffs are to notify the court of any material breaches of the settlement agreement after making full attempts to resolve the dispute with the parties as set out in the settlement agreement. The clerk of the court was directed to enter this document on the civil docket as a final judgment pursuant to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. "This case is not closed," Judge Thompson clarified. Robert D. Segall, Shannon L. Holliday, Attorney for Presiding Judge Les Hayesr III, Judge Darron Hendley, Judge Lloria James, and Judge Milton Westry, in their Official, Capacities, and Defendant City of Montgomery. Alec Karakatsanis, Matthew Swerdlin, Joseph Mitchell McGuire, Attorneys for Plaintiffs. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Sued Over Failure to Pay Property Repair Costs ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jeff Hopping and Carolyn Hopping, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company, Case No. 1:14-cv-00140 (E.D. Ark., November 17, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay the full cost of the labor necessary to repair or replace Plaintiffs' and the other Class Members' damaged property in the actual cash value payment. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company is a foreign insurance corporation conducting business in the State of Arkansas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Tom Thompson, Esq. Casey Castleberry, Esq. MURPHY, THOMPSON, ARNOLD, SKINNER & CASTLEBERRY 1141 East Main Street, Suite 300, PO Box 2595 Batesville, AR 72503-2595 Telephone: (870) 793-3821 Facsimile: (870) 793-3815 E-mail: aftomt200l@yahoo.com caseycastleberry2003@yahoo.com - and - Stephen Engstrom, Esq. STEPHEN ENGSTROM LAW OFFICE 200 River Market A venue, Suite 600, PO Box 71 Little Rock, AR 72203 Telephone: (501) 375-6453 Facsimile: (501) 375-5914 E-mail: stephen@wecc-law.com - and - Jason E. Roselius, Esq. MATTINGLY & ROSELIUS, PLLC 13190 N. MacArthur Blvd. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73142 Telephone: (405) 603-2222 Facsimile: (405) 603-2250 E-mail: jason@mroklaw.com - and - Richard E. Norman, Esq. R. Martin Weber, Esq. CROWLEY NORMAN, LLP Three Riverway, Suite 1775 Houston, TX 77056 Telephone: (713) 651-1771 Facsimile: (713) 651-1775 E-mail: rnorman@crowleynorman.com mweber@crowleynorman.com - and - Matthew L. Mustokoff, Esq. Richard A. Russo Jr., Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER CHECK, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (610) 667-7706 Facsimile: (610) 667-7056 E-mail: mmustakoff@ktmc.com rrusso@ktmc.com NATURE'S BOUNTY: Wins Dismissal of "Mazzeo" Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- ANTHONY MAZZEO, Plaintiff, v. NATURE'S BOUNTY, INC., Defendant, CASE NO. 14-60580-CIV-BLOOM/VALLE, (S.D. Fla.) is before the Court on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff's Amended Complaint for Failure to State a Claim and for Lack of Jurisdiction, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The Plaintiff filed this class action on March 5, 2014, alleging that Defendant sells a variety of supplements that make false and misleading claims that are likely to deceive reasonable consumers. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant misrepresents the true nature and/or benefits of its "Flush Free Niacin," including because the label states that the Flush Free Niacin "promotes heart health." On November 10, 2014, District Judge Beth Bloom granted the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. Count II (Breach of Express Warranty) is dismissed with prejudice. All remaining counts are dismissed without prejudice, and Plaintiff is granted leave to amend these claims. A copy of the ruling is available at http://is.gd/k68wz0from Leagle.com. Anthony Mazzeo, Plaintiff, represented by Joshua Harris Eggnatz -- JEggnatz@EggnatzLaw.com -- The Eggnatz Law Firm, P.A., Michael James Pascucci -- MPascucci@EggnatzLaw.com -- The Eggnatz Law Firm & Howard Weil Rubinstein -- howardr@pdq.net -- The Law Offices of Howard W. Rubinstein, P.A.. Nature's Bounty, Inc., Defendant, represented by Brian Michael Ercole -- bercole@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis, Bockius & Christopher J. M. Collings -- ccollings@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius. NEW WHEY: Sued Over Deceptive Labeling of Whey Nutrition Products ----------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Daley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. New Whey Nutrition, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-14199 (D. Mass., November 18, 2014), arises out of the Defendant's deceptive and misleading labeling of its New Whey Nutrition Multi-Pro Whey. New Whey Nutrition, LLC develops and supplies health and fitness drinks throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Erica C. Mirabella, Esq. MIRABELLA LAW 132 Boylston Street, 5th Floor Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 580-8270 Facsimile: (617) 583-1905 E-mail: erica@mirabellaLLC.com - and - 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 Facsimile: (215) 851 NORTH AMERICAN POWER: Sued for Overcharging Electric Bill --------------------------------------------------------- Paul T. Edwards, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. North American Power and Gas, LLC, Case No. 3:14-cv- 01714 (D. Conn., November 18, 2014), alleges that the Defendant engaged in an unfair and deceptive scheme of charging residential consumers an extraordinarily high premium rate for electricity regardless of fluctuations in the underlying market price. North American Power and Gas, LLC provides electricity supply services within the State of Connecticut. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert A. Izard Jr., Esq. IZARD NOBEL, LLP-CT 29 South Main Street, Suite 305 West Hartford, CT 06107 Telephone: (860) 493-6295 Facsimile: (860) 493-6290 E-mail: rizard@izardnobel.com OS RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Batista" Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Danny Batista, on his own behalf and on behalf similarly situated v. OS Restaurant Services, LLC d/b/a Carrabba's Italian Grill, a Florida Limited Liability Company, Case No. 8:14-cv-02874 (M.D. Fla., November 18, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. OS Restaurant Services, LLC owns and operates an Italian restaurant chain throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Carlos V. Leach, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, PA Ste 1600, 20 N Orange Ave, PO Box 4979 Orlando, FL 32801 Telephone: (407) 420-1414 Facsimile: (407) 425-8171 E-mail: cleach@forthepeople.com PDC ENERGY: Oral Settlement Agreement Reached in Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- PDC Energy, 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 and plaintiffs' counsel in the class action regarding 2010 and 2011 partnership purchases reached an oral settlement agreement. In December 2011, the Company and its wholly-owned merger subsidiary were served with an alleged class action on behalf of unit holders of 12 former limited partnerships, related to its repurchase of the 12 partnerships, which were formed beginning in late 2002 through 2005. The mergers were completed in 2010 and 2011. The action was filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California and is titled Schulein v. Petroleum Development Corp. The complaint primarily alleges that the disclosures in the proxy statements issued in connection with the mergers were inadequate, and a state law breach of fiduciary duty. In January 2014, the plaintiffs were certified as a class by the court. In October 2014, the Company and plaintiffs' counsel reached an oral settlement agreement, subject to the contingencies noted below. Under this agreement the plaintiffs would receive a cash payment of $37.5 million, of which PDC would pay $31.5 million and insurers would pay $6 million directly to the plaintiffs. This all-cash settlement agreement is a different structure than the initial agreement in principle, which was structured as part up- front cash and part interests in future wells. The proposed all- cash settlement remains subject to the satisfaction of various conditions, including but not limited to the following: execution of a written settlement agreement; preliminary approval by the court; payments to plaintiffs by the Company's insurance carriers; and final court approval following notice to members of the class. As a result, the Company accrued an additional $7.4 million of expense during the quarter ended September 30, 2014, which is included in general and administrative expense in the condensed consolidated statement of operations. As of September 30, 2014, the Company has accrued a total liability of $31.5 million related to this litigation, which is our best estimate of the amount required to settle the case. The liability is included in other accrued expenses in the condensed consolidated balance sheet. Under this settlement agreement, the class action would be dismissed with prejudice and all claims would be released. If the matter proceeds to trial, the plaintiffs have indicated that they will seek damages of approximately $175 million, plus pre-judgment interest. In such event, we continue to believe we would have good defenses to both the asserted claims and plaintiffs' damage calculations. PDC Energy, Inc. is a domestic independent exploration and production company that produces, develops, acquires and explores for crude oil, natural gas and NGLs with primary operations in the Wattenberg Field in Colorado, the Utica Shale in southeastern Ohio and, until the fourth quarter of 2014, the Marcellus Shale in northern West Virginia. PFIZER INC: Plaintiffs in Celebrex and Bextra Case File Appeal -------------------------------------------------------------- Pfizer 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 28, 2014, that the plaintiffs in the class action over Celebrex and Bextra appealed a district court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Beginning in late 2004, several purported class actions were filed in federal and state courts alleging that Pfizer and certain current and former officers of Pfizer violated federal securities laws by misrepresenting the safety of Celebrex and Bextra. In June 2005, the federal actions were transferred for consolidated pre- trial proceedings to a Multi-District Litigation (In re Pfizer Inc. Securities, Derivative and "ERISA" Litigation MDL-1688) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. In March 2012, the court in the Multi-District Litigation certified a class consisting of all persons who purchased or acquired Pfizer stock between October 31, 2000 and October 19, 2005. In May 2014, the court in the Multi-District Litigation granted Pfizer's motion to exclude the testimony of the plaintiffs' loss causation and damages expert. The Company subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the litigation, and the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to submit an amended report by their expert. In July 2014, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for leave to submit an amended report, and granted the Company's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the plaintiffs' claims in their entirety. In August 2014, the plaintiffs appealed the District Court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. PFIZER INC: Bids to Dismiss Effexor XR End-Payor Claims Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Pfizer 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 28, 2014, that motions to dismiss claims of the end-payor plaintiffs relating to Effexor XR remain pending. Beginning in May 2011, actions, including purported class actions, were filed in various federal courts against Wyeth and, in certain of the actions, affiliates of Wyeth and certain other defendants relating to Effexor XR, which is the extended-release formulation of Effexor. The plaintiffs in each of the class actions seek to represent a class consisting of all persons in the U.S. and its territories who directly purchased, indirectly purchased or reimbursed patients for the purchase of Effexor XR or generic Effexor XR from any of the defendants from June 14, 2008 until the time the defendants' allegedly unlawful conduct ceased. The plaintiffs in all of the actions allege delay in the launch of generic Effexor XR in the U.S. and its territories, in violation of federal antitrust laws and, in certain of the actions, the antitrust, consumer protection and various other laws of certain states, as the result of Wyeth fraudulently obtaining and improperly listing certain patents for Effexor XR, enforcing certain patents for Effexor XR, and entering into a litigation settlement agreement with a generic drug manufacturer with respect to Effexor XR. Each of the plaintiffs seeks treble damages (for itself in the individual actions or on behalf of the putative class in the purported class actions) for alleged price overcharges for Effexor XR or generic Effexor XR in the U.S. and its territories since June 14, 2008. All of these actions have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. On October 7, 2014, the court dismissed the direct purchaser plaintiffs' claims based on the litigation settlement agreement, but declined to dismiss the other direct purchaser plaintiff claims. The direct purchaser plaintiffs moved for reconsideration and for leave to amend their complaint and are also seeking to appeal the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Motions to dismiss the claims of the end-payor plaintiffs remain pending. PFIZER INC: To Resolve Consumer Actions Related to Neurontin ------------------------------------------------------------ Pfizer 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 28, 2014, that the Company is in the process of seeking to resolve the pending consumer actions related to Neurontin, including the purported statewide consumer class actions in California and Illinois. A number of lawsuits, including purported class actions, have been filed against the Company in various federal and state courts alleging claims arising from the promotion and sale of Neurontin. The plaintiffs in the purported class actions seek to represent nationwide and certain statewide classes consisting of persons, including individuals, health insurers, employee benefit plans and other third-party payers, who purchased or reimbursed patients for the purchase of Neurontin that allegedly was used for indications other than those included in the product labeling approved by the FDA. In 2004, many of the suits pending in federal courts, including individual actions as well as purported class actions, were transferred for consolidated pre-trial proceedings to a Multi-District Litigation (In re Neurontin Marketing, Sales Practices and Product Liability Litigation MDL-1629) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. In the Multi-District Litigation, the District Court (i) denied the plaintiffs' motion for certification of a nationwide class of all individual consumers and third-party payers who allegedly purchased or reimbursed patients for the purchase of Neurontin for off-label uses from 1994 through 2004, and (ii) dismissed actions by certain proposed class representatives for third-party payers and for individual consumers. In April 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed the decision of the District Court dismissing the action by the third-party payer proposed class representatives and remanded that action to the District Court for further consideration, including reconsideration of class certification. In December 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the Company's petition for certiorari seeking review of the First Circuit's decision reversing the dismissal of the third-party payer purported class action. In April 2014, the Company and the attorneys for the proposed class representatives and for the plaintiffs in various individual actions entered into an agreement-in-principle to settle the third-party payer purported class action, subject to court approval, as well as the pending individual actions by third-party payers, for an aggregate of $325 million. As part of that settlement, the Company also is in the process of seeking to resolve the pending consumer actions related to Neurontin, including the purported statewide consumer class actions in California and Illinois. PFIZER INC: District Court Dismisses Remaining Lipitor MDL Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Pfizer 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 28, 2014, that the District Court has dismissed the remaining MDL claims related to Lipitor. Beginning in November 2011, purported class actions relating to Lipitor were filed in various federal courts against Pfizer, certain affiliates of Pfizer, and, in most of the actions, Ranbaxy, among others. The plaintiffs in these various actions seek to represent nationwide, multi-state or statewide classes consisting of persons or entities who directly purchased, indirectly purchased or reimbursed patients for the purchase of Lipitor (or, in certain of the actions, generic Lipitor) from any of the defendants from March 2010 until the cessation of the defendants' allegedly unlawful conduct (the Class Period). The plaintiffs allege delay in the launch of generic Lipitor, in violation of federal antitrust laws and/or state antitrust, consumer protection and various other laws, resulting from (i) the 2008 agreement pursuant to which Pfizer and Ranbaxy settled certain patent litigation involving Lipitor, and Pfizer granted Ranbaxy a license to sell a generic version of Lipitor in various markets beginning on varying dates, and (ii) in certain of the actions, the procurement and/or enforcement of certain patents for Lipitor. Each of the actions seeks, among other things, treble damages on behalf of the putative class for alleged price overcharges for Lipitor (or, in certain of the actions, generic Lipitor) during the Class Period. In addition, individual actions have been filed against Pfizer, Ranbaxy and certain of their affiliates, among others, that assert claims and seek relief for the plaintiffs that are substantially similar to the claims asserted and the relief sought in the purported class actions. These various actions have been consolidated for pre-trial proceedings in a Multi-District Litigation (In re Lipitor Antitrust Litigation MDL-2332) in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. In September 2014, the District Court dismissed the claims by direct purchasers. In October 2014, the direct purchaser plaintiffs: (i) filed a motion to amend the judgment and for leave to amend their complaint and (ii) appealed the District Court's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. In October and November 2014, the District Court dismissed the remaining MDL claims. Also, in January 2013, the State of West Virginia filed an action in West Virginia state court against Pfizer and Ranbaxy, among others, that asserts claims and seeks relief on behalf of the State of West Virginia and residents of that state that are substantially similar to the claims asserted and the relief sought in the purported class actions. PFIZER INC: Suit by Plaintiffs With Diabetes Consolidated in MDL ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pfizer 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 28, 2014, that a number of individual and multi-plaintiff lawsuits have been filed against the Company in various federal and state courts alleging that the plaintiffs developed type 2 diabetes as the result of the purported ingestion of Lipitor. Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages. In February 2014, the federal actions were transferred for consolidated pre-trial proceedings to a Multi-District Litigation (In re Lipitor (Atorvastatin Calcium) Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation (No. II) MDL-2502) in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina. PFIZER INC: Actions in Quebec, Alberta & British Columbia Stayed ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pfizer 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 28, 2014, that beginning in December 2008, purported class actions were filed against Pfizer in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Toronto Region), the Superior Court of Quebec (District of Montreal), the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta, Judicial District of Calgary, and the Superior Court of British Columbia (Vancouver Registry) on behalf of all individuals and third-party payers in Canada who have purchased and ingested Champix or reimbursed patients for the purchase of Champix. Each of these actions asserts claims under Canadian product liability law, including with respect to the safety and efficacy of Champix, and, on behalf of the putative class, seeks monetary relief, including punitive damages. In June 2012, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice certified the Ontario proceeding as a class action, defining the class as consisting of the following: (i) all persons in Canada who ingested Champix during the period from April 2, 2007 to May 31, 2010 and who experienced at least one of a number of specified neuropsychiatric adverse events; (ii) all persons who are entitled to assert claims in respect of Champix pursuant to Canadian legislation as the result of their relationship with a class member; and (iii) all health insurers who are entitled to assert claims in respect of Champix pursuant to Canadian legislation. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice certified the class against Pfizer Canada Inc. only and ruled that the action against Pfizer Inc. should be stayed until after the trial of the issues that are common to the class members. The actions in Quebec, Alberta and British Columbia have been stayed in favor of the Ontario action, which is proceeding on a national basis. PFIZER INC: Faces Class Actions Relating to Celebrex ---------------------------------------------------- Pfizer 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 28, 2014, that from July through September 2014, purported class actions were filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against Pfizer and certain subsidiaries of Pfizer relating to Celebrex. The plaintiffs in these various actions seek to represent U.S. nationwide or multi-state classes consisting of persons or entities who directly purchased from the defendants, or indirectly purchased or reimbursed patients for some or all of the purchase price of, Celebrex or generic Celebrex from May 31, 2014 until the cessation of the defendants' allegedly unlawful conduct. The plaintiffs allege delay in the launch of generic Celebrex in violation of federal antitrust laws or certain state antitrust, consumer protection and various other laws as a result of Pfizer fraudulently obtaining and improperly listing a patent on Celebrex, engaging in sham litigation, and prolonging the impact of sham litigation through settlement activity that further delayed generic entry. Each of the actions seeks treble damages on behalf of the putative class for alleged price overcharges for Celebrex since May 31, 2014. PFIZER INC: Provides Update on Actions Relating to Reglan --------------------------------------------------------- Pfizer Inc., in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 28, 2014, provided updates on product liability suits relating to Reglan. Reglan is a pro-motility medicine for the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease and diabetic gastroparesis that was marketed by Wyeth and a predecessor company from 1979 until the end of 2001, when Wyeth sold the product and transferred the new drug application to another pharmaceutical company. Generic versions of Reglan have been sold by other companies since 1985. Pfizer, as Wyeth's parent company, and certain wholly owned subsidiaries and limited liability companies, including Wyeth, along with several other pharmaceutical manufacturers, have been named as defendants in numerous actions in various federal and state courts alleging personal injury resulting from the use of Reglan and/or generic equivalents thereof. Plaintiffs in these actions seek to hold the defendants, including Pfizer and its affiliated companies, liable for a variety of personal injuries, including movement disorders such as Tardive Dyskinesia, allegedly resulting from the ingestion of Wyeth's product and/or products sold by other companies. A substantial majority of the claims involve the ingestion of generic versions of Reglan produced and sold by other companies. Claims against Pfizer and its affiliated companies are largely based on the novel theory of innovator liability under which plaintiffs allege that an innovator pharmaceutical company can be liable for injuries caused by the ingestion of generic forms of the product produced and sold by other companies. This theory of liability has been rejected by more than 100 federal and state courts, applying the laws of 30 states. However, a small number of courts have adopted the theory, including the Alabama Supreme Court in August 2014. Actions have been filed under the laws of those jurisdictions, including Alabama, and additional actions may be filed in the future. PFIZER INC: Has Settlement With Opt-Out Direct Purchasers --------------------------------------------------------- Pfizer 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 28, 2014, that Pfizer, Warner- Lambert and certain direct purchasers who opted out of the certified class entered into an agreement-in-principle to settle two Neurontin Antitrust Actions pending in the District Court of New Jersey. In January 2011, in a Multi-District Litigation (In re Neurontin Antitrust Litigation MDL-1479) that consolidated four actions, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey certified a nationwide class consisting of wholesalers and other entities who purchased Neurontin directly from Pfizer and Warner-Lambert during the period from December 11, 2002 to August 31, 2008 or who purchased generic gabapentin after it became available. The complaints alleged that Pfizer and Warner-Lambert engaged in anticompetitive conduct in violation of the Sherman Act. In April 2014, the parties entered into an agreement to settle this action for $190 million. In addition, in July 2014, Pfizer, Warner- Lambert and certain direct purchasers who opted out of the certified class entered into an agreement-in-principle to settle two actions pending in the District Court of New Jersey, that assert allegations substantially similar to those in the class, on terms not material to Pfizer. PFIZER INC: Complaint Relating to Bapineuzumab Dismissed -------------------------------------------------------- Pfizer 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 28, 2014, that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision to dismiss the complaint relating to Bapineuzumab and the plaintiff's time to file a petition for certiorari requesting a review by the U.S. Supreme Court has expired. In June 2010, a purported class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against Pfizer, as successor to Wyeth, and several former officers of Wyeth. The complaint alleged that Wyeth and the individual defendants violated federal securities laws by making or causing Wyeth to make false and misleading statements, and by failing to disclose or causing Wyeth to fail to disclose material information, concerning the results of a clinical trial involving bapineuzumab, a product in development for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease. The plaintiff sought to represent a class consisting of all persons who purchased Wyeth securities from May 21, 2007 through July 2008 and sought damages in an unspecified amount on behalf of the putative class. In February 2012, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint. In December 2012, the court granted the plaintiff's motion to file an amended complaint. In April 2013, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint. In May 2013, the plaintiff appealed the District Court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. In June 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision to dismiss the complaint. The plaintiff's time to file a petition for certiorari requesting a review by the U.S. Supreme Court expired in September 2014. PROVECTUS BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Hearing Held to Name Lead Plaintiff ----------------------------------------------------------------- A hearing was scheduled with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee on November 14, 2014 to determine which shareholder should be named as Lead Plaintiff in a class action against Provectus Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014. On May 27, 2014, Cary Farrah and James H. Harrison, Jr., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated (the "Farrah Case"), and on May 29, 2014, each of Paul Jason Chaney, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated (the "Chaney Case"), and Jayson Dauphinee, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated (the "Dauphinee Case") (the plaintiffs in the Farrah Case, the Chaney Case and the Dauphinee Case collectively referred to as the "Plaintiffs"), each filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee against the Company, H. Craig Dees, Timothy C. Scott and Peter R. Culpepper (the "Defendants") alleging violations by the Defendants of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the Plaintiffs in each of the Farrah Case, the Chaney Case and the Dauphinee Case allege that the Defendants are liable for making false statements and failing to disclose adverse facts known to them about the Company, in connection with the Company's application to the FDA for Breakthrough Therapy Designation ("BTD") of the Company's melanoma drug, PV-10, in the Spring of 2014, and the FDA's subsequent denial of the Company's application for BTD. The Company intends to defend vigorously against all claims in these complaints. However, in view of the inherent uncertainties of litigation and the early stage of this litigation, the outcome of these cases cannot be predicted at this time. Likewise, the amount of any potential loss cannot be reasonably estimated. On July 9, 2014, the Plaintiffs and the Defendants filed joint motions in the Farrah Case, the Chaney Case and the Dauphinee Case to consolidate the cases and transfer them to United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. By order dated July 16, 2014, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee entered an order consolidating the Farrah Case, the Chaney Case and the Dauphinee Case (collectively and, as consolidated, the "Securities Litigation") and transferred the Securities Litigation to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. Since the consolidation of the three actions, certain shareholders have filed motions seeking their appointment as the "Lead Plaintiff" to direct the Securities Litigation. 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii) provides a rebuttable presumption that the most adequate plaintiff to direct a securities class action is the shareholder who has the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class. Following the motion for appointment filed by Fawwaz Hamati, a shareholder who allegedly suffered the greatest losses, all but one of the other prospective Lead Plaintiffs withdrew their request for appointment as Lead Plaintiff. However, one prospective Lead Plaintiff, shareholder Trilokie Khemai, challenged the appointment of Mr. Hamati as a Lead Plaintiff. According to Mr. Khemai, the timing of Mr. Hamati's purchase of his stock in the Company could subject him to unique defenses not shared by the class, which would render him inadequate as the Lead Plaintiff in the Securities Litigation. A hearing was scheduled with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee on November 14, 2014 to determine which shareholder should be named as Lead Plaintiff. Provectus Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., a Delaware corporation, is a biopharmaceutical company whose planned principal operations is focusing on developing minimally invasive products for the treatment of psoriasis and other topical diseases, and certain forms of cancer including melanoma, breast cancer, and cancers of the liver. RADIAN GROUP: Court Stays "White" Case Pending Riddle Case Appeal ----------------------------------------------------------------- Radian 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 U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania stayed the litigation White v. PNC Financial Services Group, pending the outcome of an appeal filed by plaintiffs in Riddle v. Bank of America et. al. On December 30, 2011, a putative class action under Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974 titled White v. PNC Financial Services Group was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On September 29, 2012, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On November 26, 2012, Radian Guaranty filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims as barred by the statute of limitations. On June 20, 2013, the court granted Radian Guaranty's motion and dismissed plaintiffs' claims, but granted plaintiffs leave to file a second amended complaint. Plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint on July 5, 2013, reasserting a putative claim under RESPA on substantially the same allegations. Radian Guaranty filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' second amended complaint on July 22, 2013. The court denied Radian Guaranty's motion on August 18, 2014, without prejudice to Radian Guaranty's ability to raise the statute of limitations bar on a motion for summary judgment. On September 9, 2014, the court stayed this litigation, pending the outcome of an appeal filed by plaintiffs in Riddle v. Bank of America et. al. (another punitive class action under RESPA in which Radian Guaranty is not a party). On October 15, 2014, the Court of Appeals issued its decision in the Riddle Case, affirming summary judgment against the plaintiffs on the basis that their RESPA claims were barred by the statute of limitations. With respect to each of the putative class actions, Radian intends to file a motion for judgment on the pleadings in light of the Court of Appeal's decision in the Riddle Case. With respect to the putative class action cases, Radian Guaranty believes that the claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself against these claims. "We are not able to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss for these matters because the proceedings are still in a very preliminary stage and there is uncertainty as to the likelihood of a class being certified or the ultimate size of a class," the Company said. Radian is a credit enhancement company with a primary strategic focus on domestic, residential mortgage insurance on First-lien mortgage loans. RADIAN GROUP: Court Stays " Menichino" Pending Riddle Case Appeal ----------------------------------------------------------------- Radian 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 U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania stayed the litigation Menichino, et al. v. Citibank, N.A., et al., pending the outcome of an appeal filed by plaintiffs in the case Riddle v. Bank of America et. al. On January 13, 2012, a putative class action under Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974 titled Menichino, et al. v. Citibank, N.A., et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. Radian Guaranty was not named as a defendant in the original complaint. On December 4, 2012, plaintiffs amended their complaint to add Radian Guaranty as an additional defendant. On February 4, 2013, Radian Guaranty filed a motion to dismiss the claims against it as barred by the statute of limitations. On July 19, 2013, the court granted Radian Guaranty's motion and dismissed plaintiffs' claims, but granted plaintiffs leave to file a second amended complaint. Plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint on August 16, 2013, reasserting a putative claim under RESPA on substantially the same allegations. Radian Guaranty filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' second amended complaint on September 17, 2013. The court denied Radian Guaranty's motion on February 4, 2014, without prejudice to Radian Guaranty's ability to raise the statute of limitations bar on a motion for summary judgment. On March 26, 2014, the court stayed this litigation, pending the outcome of an appeal filed by plaintiffs in the Riddle Case. On October 15, 2014, the Court of Appeals issued its decision in the Riddle Case, affirming summary judgment against the plaintiffs on the basis that their RESPA claims were barred by the statute of limitations. With respect to each of the putative class actions, Radian intends to file a motion for judgment on the pleadings in light of the Court of Appeal's decision in the Riddle Case. With respect to the putative class action cases, Radian Guaranty believes that the claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself against these claims. "We are not able to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss for these matters because the proceedings are still in a very preliminary stage and there is uncertainty as to the likelihood of a class being certified or the ultimate size of a class," the Company said. Radian is a credit enhancement company with a primary strategic focus on domestic, residential mortgage insurance on First-lien mortgage loans. RADIAN GROUP: Court Stays "Manners" Pending Riddle Case Appeal -------------------------------------------------------------- Radian 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 U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania stayed the litigation Manners, et al. v. Fifth Third Bank, et al., pending the outcome of an appeal filed by plaintiffs in Riddle v. Bank of America et. al. On April 5, 2012, a putative class action under Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974 titled Manners, et al. v. Fifth Third Bank, et al. was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. On November 28, 2012, Radian Guaranty moved to dismiss plaintiffs' claims as barred by the statute of limitations. On July 19, 2013, the court granted Radian Guaranty's motion and dismissed plaintiffs' claims, but granted plaintiffs leave to file a second amended complaint. Plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint on August 16, 2013, reasserting a putative claim under RESPA on substantially the same allegations. Radian Guaranty filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' second amended complaint on September 17, 2013. The court denied Radian Guaranty's motion on February 5, 2014, without prejudice to Radian Guaranty's ability to raise the statute of limitations bar on a motion for summary judgment. On March 26, 2014, the court stayed this litigation, pending the outcome of an appeal filed by plaintiffs in the Riddle Case. On October 15, 2014, the Court of Appeals issued its decision in the Riddle Case, affirming summary judgment against the plaintiffs on the basis that their RESPA claims were barred by the statute of limitations. With respect to each of the putative class actions, Radian intends to file a motion for judgment on the pleadings in light of the Court of Appeal's decision in the Riddle Case. With respect to the putative class action cases, Radian Guaranty believes that the claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself against these claims. "We are not able to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss for these matters because the proceedings are still in a very preliminary stage and there is uncertainty as to the likelihood of a class being certified or the ultimate size of a class," the Company said. Radian is a credit enhancement company with a primary strategic focus on domestic, residential mortgage insurance on First-lien mortgage loans. RICHARD J. DONOVAN: Phillips Has 45 Days to Submit Amended Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Chief District Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz issued an order on November 12, 2014, in the case captioned IVORY J. PHILLIPS, CDCR #F-90996, Plaintiff, v. GERALD JANDA; RALPH M. DIAZ; DANIEL PARAMO; DR. JEFFREY BEARD; C. LIVSEY; R. LORIOS; C. OGBUEHI; G. PICKETT; E. SIMON; LIEUTENANT R. RONALD DAVIS; SHEILA ANDERSEN; DeLEON; RODRIGUEZ; PEREZ; NAVARO; and JOHN AND SALLY DOES 1-30, Defendants, CIVIL NO. 13CV0567 BTM (JLB), (S.D. Cal.) Ivory Phillips, a state prisoner currently incarcerated at the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility (RJD) in San Diego, California, is proceeding in pro se and in forma pauperis (IFP) in this civil rights action which he first initiated on March 11, 2013, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. According to Judge Moskowitz's ruling, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/7l6AFOfrom Leagle.com: 1. Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for Appointment of Counsel is denied. 2. Plaintiff's Motions to Clarify and for Leave to Submit Points & Authorities are granted. 3. Plaintiff is further granted 45 days leave from the date the Order is entered into the Court's docket in which to file a Fourth Amended Complaint which cures all deficiencies of pleading described in the Court's June 3, 2014 Order as to his retaliation claims against Defendants Pickett, Espinoza, Perez, Rodriguez, Navaro and Rodriguez only. 4) The Clerk of Court is directed to provide Plaintiff another copy of the Court's June 3, 2014 Order, as well as the Court's form Section 1983 civil rights complaint for his use in amending. Plaintiff must title his pleading as his Fourth Amended Complaint, include Civil Case No. 13cv0567 BTM (JLB) in its caption, complete it without reference to any of his previous pleadings, add no additional Defendants or causes of action, and comply with FED.R.CIV.P. 8, S.D. CAL. CIVLR 8.2 (providing that civil rights actions filed by prisoners must be submitted on the form supplied by the court, must be signed by the plaintiff, and may not include more than fifteen (15) attached additional pages), and S.D. CAL. CIVLR 15.1. 5) Finally, Plaintiff is cautioned that should he fail to file a Fourth Amended Complaint within the time provided, or file a Fourth Amended Complaint that fails to state a retaliation claim or otherwise comply with the Court's June 3, 2014 Order, the Court will enter a final Order of dismissal of the entire action without prejudice and without any further leave to amend as frivolous, malicious, and for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2)(B) and Section 1915A(b). Ivory J. Phillips, Plaintiff, Pro Se. SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: Motion to Dismiss Fully Briefed and Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- Sarepta Therapeutics, 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 a consolidated amended complaint is now fully briefed and pending. Purported class action complaints were filed against the Company and certain of its officers in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on January 27, 2014 and January 29, 2014. The complaints were consolidated into a single action (Corban v. Sarepta, et. al., No. 14-cv-10201) by order of the court on June 23, 2014, and plaintiffs were afforded 28 days to file a consolidated amended complaint. Plaintiffs' consolidated amended complaint, filed on July 21, 2014, seeks to bring claims on behalf of themselves and persons or entities that purchased or acquired securities of the Company between July 10, 2013 and November 11, 2013. The consolidated amended complaint alleges that Sarepta and certain of its officers violated the federal securities laws in connection with disclosures related to eteplirsen, the Company's lead therapeutic candidate for DMD, and seeks damages in an unspecified amount. Pursuant to the court's June 23, 2014 order, Sarepta filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on August 18, 2014, and the motion to dismiss is now fully briefed and pending. Given the relatively early stages of the proceedings, at this time, no assessment can be made as to the likely outcome of these claims or whether the outcomes would have a material impact on the Company. SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: Derivative Case Seeks Class Suit Declaration ------------------------------------------------------------------ Sarepta Therapeutics, 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 derivative suit seeks class action declaration. On September 23, 2014, a derivative suit was filed against the Company's Board of Directors with the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (Terry McDonald, derivatively on behalf of Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc., et. al vs. Goolsbee et. al., No. 10157). The claims allege, among other things, that (i) the Company's non-employee directors paid themselves excessive compensation fees for 2013, (ii) that the compensation for the Company's CEO was also excessive and such fees were the basis for the CEO not objecting to or stopping the excessive fees for the non-employee directors and (iii) that the disclosure in the 2013 proxy statement was deficient. The relief sought, amongst others, are disgorgement and rescindment of excessive or unfair payments and equity grants to the CEO and directors, unspecified damages plus interest, a class action declaration for the suit, declaring approval of the Company's Amended and Restated 2011 Equity Plan at the 2013 meeting ineffective and a revote for approved amendments, correction of misleading disclosures and plaintiff's attorney fees. Given the relatively early stages of the proceedings, at this time, no assessment can be made as to the likely outcome of these claims or whether the outcomes would have a material impact on the Company. SOUTHSIDE BANCSHARES: Settles Litigation Over OmniAmerican Merger ----------------------------------------------------------------- Southside Bancshares, 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 defendants and the plaintiff in the litigation relating to the merger with OmniAmerican Bancorp, Inc., entered into a memorandum of understanding agreeing in principle to settle the Litigation in exchange for defendants' agreement to make certain supplemental disclosures. On June 25, 2014, a purported stockholder of OmniAmerican filed a lawsuit in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland (the "Court") captioned McDougal v. OmniAmerican Bancorp, Inc., et al., Case No. 24-C-14-003920 ( the "Litigation"), naming OmniAmerican, members of OmniAmerican's board of directors, Southside and Omega Merger Sub, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Southside ("Merger Sub"), as defendants. The lawsuit is purportedly brought on behalf of a putative class of OmniAmerican's public stockholders and seeks a declaration that it is properly maintainable as a class action and a certification of the plaintiff and her counsel as class representative and class counsel. The lawsuit asserts direct and derivative claims against OmniAmerican's directors and alleges that they breached their fiduciary duties and that OmniAmerican, Southside and Merger Sub aided and abetted those alleged breaches by, among other things, (a) failing to take steps to maximize shareholder value for OmniAmerican public stockholders; (b) failing to properly value OmniAmerican; (c) failing to protect against conflicts of interest; (d) failing to disclose material information necessary for OmniAmerican stockholders to make an informed vote on the merger; and (e) agreeing to deal protection devices that preclude a fair sales process. Among other relief, the plaintiff seeks to enjoin the merger. After filing the Litigation and engaging in certain limited discovery, plaintiff's counsel indicated to defendants' counsel that they believed additional disclosures should be made available to the stockholders of OmniAmerican. On September 12, 2014, the defendants and the plaintiff in the Litigation entered into a memorandum of understanding (the "MOU") agreeing in principle to settle the Litigation in exchange for defendants' agreement to make certain supplemental disclosures. The MOU contemplates that the parties will prepare a definitive stipulation of settlement, which will be subject to Court approval. If approved by the Court, it is anticipated that the settlement will result in a release of the defendants from any and all claims that were or could have been asserted challenging any aspect of or otherwise relating to the merger, the Merger Agreement or the disclosures made in connection therewith, and that the Litigation will be dismissed with prejudice. Pursuant to the terms of the MOU, OmniAmerican and Southside agreed to make certain supplemental disclosures regarding the merger. The supplemental disclosures were contained in a Form 8-K filed by Southside with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on September 16, 2014. In return, the plaintiff has agreed to the dismissal of the Litigation with prejudice and to withdraw and/or refrain from filing any and all motions seeking to enjoin the merger. In addition, the MOU contemplates that the parties will negotiate in good faith to attempt to agree upon an amount of attorneys' fees and expenses and that plaintiff's counsel may petition the Court for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses, which if granted by the Court, would be paid by OmniAmerican or its insurers or successors. Should the parties fail to reach an agreement on attorneys' fees and expenses, the defendants may oppose the petition for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses. There can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately reach agreement on a definitive stipulation of settlement or that the Court will approve the proposed settlement, even if the parties were to enter into such stipulation of settlement. In such event, the proposed settlement as contemplated by the MOU may be terminated. The settlement will not affect the consideration to be paid to stockholders of OmniAmerican in connection with the proposed merger. The defendants have vigorously denied, and continue to vigorously deny, any wrongdoing or liability with respect to the facts and claims asserted, or which could have been asserted, in the Litigation, including that they have committed any violations of law or breach of fiduciary duty, aided and abetted any violations of law or breaches of fiduciary duty, acted improperly in any way or have any liability or owe any damages of any kind to the plaintiff or to the purported class, and specifically deny that any further supplemental disclosure is required under any applicable rule, statute, regulation or law or that the OmniAmerican directors failed to maximize stockholder value by entering into the merger agreement with Southside and Merger Sub. The settlement contemplated by the MOU is not, and should not be construed as, an admission of wrongdoing or liability by any defendant. However, to avoid the risk of delaying the merger, and to provide additional information to the stockholders of OmniAmerican and shareholders of Southside at a time and in a manner that would not cause any delay of the merger, the defendants agreed to the settlement. The parties considered it desirable that the Litigation be settled to avoid the substantial burden, expense, risk, inconvenience and distraction of continued litigation and to fully and finally resolve the Litigation. SPARTANNASH COMPANY: Class Action Over Merger Now Closed -------------------------------------------------------- SpartanNash Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended October 4, 2014, that the appeals period in the class action related to the merger of Nash-Finch Company and Spartan Stores, Inc. has expired and the matter is now closed. On or about July 24, 2013, a putative class action complaint (the "State Court Action") was filed in the District Court for the Fourth Judicial District, State of Minnesota, County of Hennepin (the "State Court"), by a stockholder of Nash-Finch Company in connection with the pending merger with Spartan Stores, Inc. The State Court Action was styled Greenblatt v. Nash-Finch Co. et al., Case No. 27-cv-13-13710. That complaint was amended on August 28, 2013, after Spartan Stores filed a registration statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission containing a preliminary version of the joint proxy statement/prospectus. On September 9, 2013, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the State Court Action. On or about September 19, 2013, a second putative class action complaint (the "Federal Court Action" and, together with the State Court Action, the "Putative Class Actions") was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota (the "Federal Court"), by a stockholder of Nash-Finch. The Federal Court Action was styled Benson v. Covington et al., Case No. 0:13- cv-02574. The Putative Class Actions alleged that the directors of Nash- Finch breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things, approving a merger that provided for inadequate consideration under circumstances involving certain alleged conflicts of interest; that the merger agreement included allegedly preclusive deal protection provisions; and that Nash-Finch and Spartan Stores allegedly aided and abetted the directors in breaching their duties to Nash-Finch's stockholders. Both Putative Class Actions also alleged that the preliminary joint proxy statement/prospectus was false and misleading due to the omission of a variety of allegedly material information. The complaint in the Federal Court Action also asserted additional claims individually on behalf of the plaintiff under the federal securities laws. The Putative Class Actions sought, on behalf of their putative classes, various remedies, including enjoining the merger from being consummated in accordance with its agreed-upon terms, damages, and costs and disbursements relating to the lawsuit. SpartanNash believed that these lawsuits were without merit; however, to eliminate the burden, expense and uncertainties inherent in such litigation, Nash-Finch and Spartan Stores agreed, as part of settlement discussions, to make certain supplemental disclosures in the joint proxy statement/prospectus requested by the Putative Class Actions in the definitive joint proxy statement/prospectus. On October 30, 2013, the defendants entered into the Memorandum of Understanding regarding the settlement of the Putative Class Actions. The Memorandum of Understanding outlined the terms of the parties' agreement in principle to settle and release all claims which were or could have been asserted in the Putative Class Actions. In consideration for such settlement and release, Nash- Finch and Spartan Stores acknowledged that the supplemental disclosures in the joint proxy statement/prospectus were made in response to the Putative Class Actions. The Memorandum of Understanding contemplated that the parties will use their best efforts to agree upon, execute and present to the State Court for approval a stipulation of settlement within thirty days after the later of the date that the Merger is consummated or the date that plaintiffs and their counsel have confirmed the fairness, adequacy, and reasonableness of the settlement, and that upon execution of such stipulation, and as a condition to final approval of the settlement, the plaintiff in the Federal Action would withdraw the claims in and cause to be dismissed the Federal Action, with any individual claims being dismissed with prejudice. The Memorandum of Understanding provided that Nash-Finch would pay, on behalf of all defendants, the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and expenses, subject to approval by the State Court, in an amount not to exceed $550,000. On February 11, 2014, the parties executed the Stipulation and Agreement Compromise, Settlement and Release (the "Stipulation of Settlement.") to resolve, discharge and settle the Putative Class Actions. The Stipulation of Settlement was subject to customary conditions, including approval by the State Court, which will consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of such settlement. On February 18, 2014, the Federal Court entered a final order dismissing the Federal Court Action with prejudice. On February 28, 2014, pursuant to the terms of the Stipulation of Settlement, the plaintiffs in the State Court Action filed an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement, conditional certification of class, and approval of notice to be furnished to the class. On March 7, 2014, the State Court entered an order preliminarily approving the Settlement Stipulation, subject to a hearing, scheduled for May 20, 2014. At the hearing on May 20, 2014, the Settlement Stipulation was approved. On July 21, 2014, the appeals period expired and the matter is now closed. SpartanNash Company was formerly known as Spartan Stores, Inc. which began doing business under the assumed name of "SpartanNash Company," upon completion of the merger with Nash-Finch Company ("Nash-Finch") on November 19, 2013. The formal name change to SpartanNash Company was approved and became effective after the annual shareholders meeting on May 28, 2014. STEALTH SECURITY: Has Sent Unsolicited Facsimiles, Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- G. M. Sign, Inc., an Illinois corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons v. Stealth Security Systems, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-09249 (N.D. Ill., November 18, 2014), seeks to redress Defendant's practice of sending unsolicited facsimiles in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Stealth Security Systems, Inc. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ross Michael Good, Esq. Ryan M. Kelly, Esq. Brian J. Wanca, Esq. ANDERSON & WANCA 3701 Algonquin Rd, 760 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Telephone: (847) 368-1500 E-mail: rgood@andersonwanca.com rkelly@andersonwanca.com buslit@andersonwanca.com STUDIO NAILS: "Liu" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Al Ping Liu, individually and on behalf of all other employees similarly situated v. Studio Nails & Spa, Inc., Hartsdale Floris Spa, and Nails Inc. d/b/as Floris Spa & Nail, Kyung Sil Ahn, Jennifer Doe, John Does, and Jane Does #1-10, Case No. 7:14-cv- 09128 (S.D.N.Y., November 17, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate a spa, beauty and personal care salon. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jian Hang, Esq. HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 136-18 39th Avenue Suite 1003 Flushing, NY 11354 Telephone: (718) 353-8588 Facsimile: (718) 353-6288 E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com TAKATA CORPORATION: Faces "Meiser" Suit Over Defective Airbags -------------------------------------------------------------- Erin K. Meiser, Marjorie Michelle Avery, and Sonya A. (Tipton) Leonard, on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated v. Takata Corporation, et al., 1:14-cv-00298 (W.D.N.C, November 17, 2014), alleges that the Defective Vehicles contain airbags manufactured by the Defendant that, instead of protecting vehicle occupants from bodily injury during accidents, violently explode and expel vehicle occupants with lethal amounts of metal debris and shrapnel. Takata Corporation is a specialized supplier of automotive safety systems that designs, manufactures, tests, markets, distributes, and sells airbags. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary J. Rickner, Esq. Lynwood P. Evans, Esq. Caroline B. McLean, Esq. WARD AND SMITH, P.A. Post Office Box 2020 Asheville, NC 28802-2020 Telephone: (828) 348-6005 Facsimile: (828) 348-6077 E-mail: gjr@wardandsmith.com lpe@wardandsmith.com cbmclean@wardandsmith.com TAKATA CORPORATION: Faces "Rennie" Suit Over Defective Airbags -------------------------------------------------------------- Diana Rennie and Richard Lee, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Takata Corporation, et al., alleges that the Defective Vehicles contain airbags manufactured by the Defendant that, instead of protecting vehicle occupants from bodily injury during accidents, violently explode and expel vehicle occupants with lethal amounts of metal debris and shrapnel. Takata Corporation is a specialized supplier of automotive safety systems that designs, manufactures, tests, markets, distributes, and sells airbags. The Plaintiff is represented by: Sean Domnick, Esq. DOMNICK LAW 11701 Lake Victoria Gardens Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Telephone: (561) 229-0395 Facsimile: (561) 229-0396 E-mail: eservice@domnicklaw.com - and - W. Daniel ("Dee") Miles III, Esq. Archie I. Grubb II, Esq. Andrew Brashier, Esq. BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES PC 218 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36104 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 Facsimile: (334) 954-7555 E-mail: dee.miles@beasleyallen.com archie.grubb@beasleyallen.com andrew.brashier@beasleyallen.com - and - Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Esq. Todd A. Walburg, Esq. Phong-Chau G. Nguyen, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 Facsimile: (415) 956-1008 E-mail: ecabraser@lchb.com twalburg@lchb.com pgnguyen@lchb.com - and - Robin L. Greenwald, Esq. Curt D. Marshall, Esq. Christopher B. Dalbey, Esq. WEITZ & LUXENBERG, PC 700 Broadway New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 558-5500 Facsimile: (212) 344-5461 E-mail: rgreenwald@weitzlux.com cmarshall@weitzlux.com cdalbey@weitzlux.com TAKATA CORPORATION: Faces "Young" Suit Over Defective Airbags ------------------------------------------------------------- Bonnie Young and Charles Calhoun, Sr., on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated v. Takata Corporation, et al., Case No. 7:14-cv-00267 (E.D.N.C., November 17, 2014), alleges that the Defective Vehicles contain airbags manufactured by the Defendant that, instead of protecting vehicle occupants from bodily injury during accidents, violently explode and expel vehicle occupants with lethal amounts of metal debris and shrapnel. Takata Corporation is a specialized supplier of automotive safety systems that designs, manufactures, tests, markets, distributes, and sells airbags. The Plaintiff is represented by: H. Scott Overholt, Esq. THE OVERHOLT LAW FIRM, PC 2505 South College Road Wilmington, NC 28412 Telephone: (910) 798-5900 Facsimile: (910) 799-8496 E-mail: Scott@Overholtlaw.com THORATEC CORPORATION: Court Has Not Ruled on Motion to Dismiss -------------------------------------------------------------- Thoratec 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 27, 2014, that the Court has not yet ruled on the motion to dismiss a class action complaint. The Company said, "On January 24, 2014, we and three of our present and former officers were named as defendants in a complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The action, entitled Cooper v. Thoratec Corp., Case No. 4:14-cv-00360, is a putative class action brought on behalf of purchasers of our securities between April 29, 2010, and November 27, 2013, inclusive (the "Class Period"), and alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, as well as Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act." "On April 21, 2014, the Court appointed Bradley Cooper as Lead Plaintiff ("Plaintiff"). On June 20, 2014, Plaintiff filed an amended class action complaint ("Complaint"), adding a former officer of the Company as a defendant. The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Defendants made false or misleading statements in various SEC filings, press releases, earnings calls, and healthcare conferences regarding the Company's business and outlook, focusing primarily on Defendants' alleged failure to disclose that the HeartMate II Left Ventricular Assist Device had a purported increased rate of pump thrombosis during the Class Period. Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages, among other relief. Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint on August 19, 2014. The Court has not yet ruled on the motion. "Although the results of litigation are inherently uncertain, based on the information currently available, we do not believe the ultimate resolution of this action will have a material effect on our financial position, liquidity or results of operations." Thoratec Corporation develops, manufactures and markets proprietary medical devices used for mechanical circulatory support ("MCS") for the treatment of heart failure ("HF") patients. TOTAL SYSTEM: Telexfree Cases Transferred to Massachusetts Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- Total System Services, 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 ProPay, Inc. ("ProPay"), a subsidiary of the Company, has been named as one of a number of defendants (including other merchant processors) in several purported class action lawsuits relating to the activities of Telexfree, Inc. and its affiliates and principals. Telexfree is a former merchant customer of ProPay. With regard to Telexfree, each purported class action lawsuit generally alleges that Telexfree engaged in an improper multi-tier marketing scheme involving voice-over Internet protocol telephone services. The plaintiffs in each of the purported class action complaints generally allege that the various merchant processor defendants, including ProPay, knowingly furthered the improper activities of Telexfree with knowledge that Telexfree did not have legitimate business operations. Telexfree filed for bankruptcy protection in Nevada. The bankruptcy was subsequently transferred to the Massachusetts Bankruptcy Court. Specifically, ProPay has been named as one of a number of defendants (including other merchant processors) in each of the following purported class action complaints relating to Telexfree: (i) Waldermara Martin, et al. v. TelexFree, Inc., et al. (Case No. BK-S-14-12524-ABL) filed on May 3, 2014 in the United States Bankruptcy Court District of Nevada, (ii) Anthony Cellucci, et al. v. TelexFree, Inc., et. al. (Case No. 4:14-BK-40987) filed on May 15, 2014 in the United States Bankruptcy Court District of Massachusetts, (iii) Maduako C. Ferguson Sr., et al. v. Telexelectric, LLLP, et. al (Case No. 5:14-CV-00316-D) filed on June 5, 2014 in the United States District Court of North Carolina, (iv) Todd Cook v. TelexElectric LLLP et al. (Case No. 2:14-CV-00134), filed on June 24, 2014 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, (v) Felicia Guevara v. James M. Merrill et al., CA No. 1:14-cv-22405-DPG), filed on June 27, 2014 in the United State District Court for the Southern District of Florida, and (vi) Reverend Jeremiah Githere, et al. v. TelexElectric LLLP et al. (Case No. 1:14-CV-12825-GAO), filed on June 30, 2014 in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (together, the "Actions"). A motion to consolidate the Actions was filed by one of the plaintiffs. On October 21, 2014, the Actions were transferred to and consolidated before the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. ProPay has not yet been required to respond to any of the complaints filed in the Actions. After the consolidation motion was filed, an additional class action complaint was filed on August 20, 2014, in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts, Paulo Eduardo Ferrari et al. v. Telexfree, Inc. et al. (Case No. 14- 04080). The Ferrari action was later transferred to the District of Massachusetts. To date, ProPay has not been served with the Ferrari complaint. ProPay has also received various subpoenas, a seizure warrant and other inquiries requesting information regarding Telexfree from (i) the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Securities Division, (ii) United States Securities and Exchange Commission, (iii) US Immigration a(vii) Paulo Eduardo Ferrari et al. v. Telexfree, Inc. et al. (Case No. 14-04080), filed on August 20, 2014 in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts .nd Customs Enforcement, and (iv) the bankruptcy Trustee of the Chapter 11 entities of Telexfree, Inc., Telexfree, LLC and Telexfree Financial, Inc. Pursuant to the seizure warrant served by the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Massachusetts, ProPay delivered all funds associated with Telexfree held for chargeback and other purposes by ProPay to US Immigration and Customs Enforcement. In addition, ProPay received a notice of potential claim from the bankruptcy Trustee as a result of the relationship of ProPay with Telexfree and its affiliates. Through the Company's North America Services and International Services segments, TSYS processes information through its cardholder systems for financial and nonfinancial institutions throughout the United States and internationally. TRINET GROUP: Defendant in Class Actions Related to WSEs -------------------------------------------------------- TriNet 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 Company has been named as a defendant in various class action lawsuits arising from the nature of its relationship with its worksite employees (WSEs). Management is currently unable to estimate a possible loss or range of loss for these class action lawsuits. "However, at this stage of the lawsuits, management currently believes that none of the pending legal proceedings or claims is reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Nevertheless, regardless of the outcome, litigation can have an adverse impact on us because of defense costs, diversion of management resources and other factors. In addition, if one or more of these legal matters were resolved against the Company in a way contrary to management's expectations, our consolidated financial statements could be materially adversely affected," the Company said. TriNet Group provides a comprehensive human resources solution for small to medium-sized businesses. TRUSTMARK CORP: Stanford-Related Lawsuits in Preliminary Stages --------------------------------------------------------------- Trustmark 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 Trustmark's wholly-owned subsidiary, Trustmark National Bank (TNB), has been named as a defendant in two lawsuits related to the collapse of the Stanford Financial Group. Both Stanford-related lawsuits are in their preliminary stages. The first is a purported class action complaint that was filed on August 23, 2009 in the District Court of Harris County, Texas, by Peggy Roif Rotstain, Guthrie Abbott, Catherine Burnell, Steven Queyrouze, Jaime Alexis Arroyo Bornstein and Juan C. Olano, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, naming TNB and four other financial institutions unaffiliated with Trustmark as defendants. The complaint seeks to recover (i) alleged fraudulent transfers from each of the defendants in the amount of fees and other monies received by each defendant from entities controlled by R. Allen Stanford (collectively, the "Stanford Financial Group") and (ii) damages allegedly attributable to alleged conspiracies by one or more of the defendants with the Stanford Financial Group to commit fraud and/or aid and abet fraud on the asserted grounds that defendants knew or should have known the Stanford Financial Group was conducting an illegal and fraudulent scheme. Plaintiffs have demanded a jury trial. Plaintiffs did not quantify damages. In November 2009, the lawsuit was removed to federal court by certain defendants and then transferred by the United States Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to federal court in the Northern District of Texas (Dallas) where multiple Stanford related matters are being consolidated for pre-trial proceedings. In May 2010, all defendants (including TNB) filed motions to dismiss the lawsuit, and the motions to dismiss have been fully briefed by all parties. The court has not yet ruled on TNB's motion to dismiss. In August 2010, the court authorized and approved the formation of an Official Stanford Investors Committee ("OSIC") to represent the interests of Stanford investors and, under certain circumstances, to file legal actions for the benefit of Stanford investors. In December 2011, the OSIC filed a motion to intervene in this action. In September 2012, the district court referred the case to a magistrate judge for hearing and determination of certain pretrial issues. In December 2012, the court granted the OSIC's motion to intervene, and the OSIC filed an Intervenor Complaint against one of the other defendant financial institutions. In February 2013, the OSIC filed an additional Intervenor Complaint that asserts claims against TNB and the remaining defendant financial institutions. The OSIC seeks to recover: (i) alleged fraudulent transfers in the amount of the fees each of the defendants allegedly received from Stanford Financial Group, the profits each of the defendants allegedly made from Stanford Financial Group deposits, and other monies each of the defendants allegedly received from Stanford Financial Group; (ii) damages attributable to alleged conspiracies by each of the defendants with the Stanford Financial Group to commit fraud and/or aid and abet fraud and conversion on the asserted grounds that the defendants knew or should have known the Stanford Financial Group was conducting an illegal and fraudulent scheme; and (iii) punitive damages. The OSIC did not quantify damages. In July 2013, all defendants (including TNB) filed motions to dismiss the OSIC's claims. The court has not yet ruled on TNB's motion to dismiss the OSIC's claims. The second Stanford-related lawsuit was filed on December 14, 2009 in the District Court of Ascension Parish, Louisiana, individually by Harold Jackson, Paul Blaine, Carolyn Bass Smith, Christine Nichols, and Ronald and Ramona Hebert naming TNB (misnamed as Trust National Bank) and other individuals and entities not affiliated with Trustmark as defendants. The complaint seeks to recover the money lost by these individual plaintiffs as a result of the collapse of the Stanford Financial Group (in addition to other damages) under various theories and causes of action, including negligence, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, negligent misrepresentation, detrimental reliance, conspiracy, and violation of Louisiana's uniform fiduciary, securities, and racketeering laws. The complaint does not quantify the amount of money the plaintiffs seek to recover. In January 2010, the lawsuit was removed to federal court by certain defendants and then transferred by the United States Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to federal court in the Northern District of Texas (Dallas) where multiple Stanford related matters are being consolidated for pre-trial proceedings. On March 29, 2010, the court stayed the case. TNB filed a motion to lift the stay, which was denied on February 28, 2012. In September 2012, the district court referred the case to a magistrate judge for hearing and determination of certain pretrial issues. TNB's relationship with the Stanford Financial Group began as a result of Trustmark's acquisition of a Houston-based bank in August 2006, and consisted of correspondent banking and other traditional banking services in the ordinary course of business. Both Stanford-related lawsuits are in their preliminary stages and have been previously disclosed by Trustmark. Trustmark Corporation is a bank holding company headquartered in Jackson, Mississippi. Through its subsidiaries, Trustmark operates as a financial services organization providing banking and financial solutions to corporate institutions and individual customers through 207 offices in Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Tennessee and Texas. TRUSTMARK CORP: Settlement Administrator Begins Fund Distribution ----------------------------------------------------------------- Trustmark 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 Trustmark's wholly-owned subsidiary, Trustmark National Bank (TNB), was the defendant in two putative class actions challenging TNB's practices regarding "overdraft" or "non-sufficient funds" fees charged by TNB in connection with customer use of debit cards, including TNB's order of processing transactions, notices and calculations of charges, and calculations of fees. Both of those cases have now been dismissed pursuant to a court-approved class action settlement. The period has ended in which any party could appeal the order approving the settlement. The settlement of $4.0 million, or $2.5 million net of taxes, was included in other noninterest expense for the quarter ended June 30, 2013. The Settlement Administrator has begun distributing the settlement funds. The settlement resolved potential claims of more than 100,000 class members. A total of sixteen customers excluded themselves from the class action settlement. None of those customers have subsequently asserted any claim or made demands on TNB due to overdraft or non-sufficient funds fees. Trustmark Corporation is a bank holding company headquartered in Jackson, Mississippi. Through its subsidiaries, Trustmark operates as a financial services organization providing banking and financial solutions to corporate institutions and individual customers through 207 offices in Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Tennessee and Texas. TURCO MEDITTERANEAN: "Reyes" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT ------------------------------------------------------------ Johnny Reyes, on behalf of himself FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class v. Turco Meditteranean Grill Inc. d/b/a Turco, John Doe Corp. d/b/a Turco, Ala Turk Inc. d/b/a A La Turka, Suleyman Secer, Huseyin Secer and Serpil Aktas, Case No. 1:14-cv-09184 (S.D.N.Y., November 18, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate three Turkish restaurants in New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Anne Melissa Seelig, Esq. C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 465-1124 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 E-mail: anne@leelitigation.com cklee@leelitigation.com U.S. BANCORP: $19MM Carrying Amount of Liability Related to Visa ---------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. Bancorp 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 at September 30, 2014, the carrying amount of the Company's liability related to the Visa Litigation matters, net of its share of the escrow fundings, was $19 million. The Company's payment services business issues and acquires credit and debit card transactions through the Visa U.S.A. Inc. card association or its affiliates (collectively "Visa"). In 2007, Visa completed a restructuring and issued shares of Visa Inc. common stock to its financial institution members in contemplation of its initial public offering ("IPO") completed in the first quarter of 2008 (the "Visa Reorganization"). As a part of the Visa Reorganization, the Company received its proportionate number of shares of Visa Inc. common stock, which were subsequently converted to Class B shares of Visa Inc. ("Class B shares"). Visa U.S.A. Inc. ("Visa U.S.A.") and MasterCard International (collectively, the "Card Associations") are defendants in antitrust lawsuits challenging the practices of the Card Associations (the "Visa Litigation"). Visa U.S.A. member banks have a contingent obligation to indemnify Visa Inc. under the Visa U.S.A. bylaws (which were modified at the time of the restructuring in October 2007) for potential losses arising from the Visa Litigation. The indemnification by the Visa U.S.A. member banks has no specific maximum amount. Using proceeds from its IPO and through reductions to the conversion ratio applicable to the Class B shares held by Visa U.S.A. member banks, Visa Inc. has funded an escrow account for the benefit of member financial institutions to fund their indemnification obligations associated with the Visa Litigation. The receivable related to the escrow account is classified in other liabilities as a direct offset to the related Visa Litigation contingent liability. On October 19, 2012, Visa signed a settlement agreement to resolve class action claims associated with the multi-district interchange litigation, the largest of the remaining Visa Litigation matters. The settlement has been approved by the court, but has been challenged by some class members and is being appealed. In addition, a number of class members opted out of the settlement and have filed actions against the Card Associations. At September 30, 2014, the carrying amount of the Company's liability related to the Visa Litigation matters, net of its share of the escrow fundings, was $19 million. The Company sold 3.0 million and .4 million of its Class B shares during the second and third quarters of 2014, respectively. These sales do not impact the Company's liability for the Visa Litigation matters or the receivable related to the escrow account. The remaining 9.2 million Class B shares held by the Company will be eligible for conversion to Class A shares of Visa Inc., and thereby become marketable, upon final settlement of the Visa Litigation. VERTEX PHARMACEUTICALS: Scott and Scott LLP Named as Lead Counsel ----------------------------------------------------------------- Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated 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 United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts approved Local No. 8 IBEW Retirement Fund as lead plaintiff, and Scott and Scott LLP as lead counsel for the plaintiff and the putative class in the case Local No. 8 IBEW Retirement Plan & Trust v. Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated, et al. On May 28, 2014, a purported shareholder class action Local No. 8 IBEW Retirement Plan & Trust v. Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated, et al. was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, naming the Company and certain of the Company's current and former officers and directors as defendants. The lawsuit alleged that the Company made material misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact in the Company's disclosures during the period from May 7, 2012 through May 29, 2012, all in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The purported class consists of all persons (excluding defendants) who purchased the Company's common stock between May 7, 2012 and May 29, 2012. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages, costs and attorneys' fees as well as disgorgement of the proceeds from certain individual defendants' sales of the Company's stock. On October 8, 2014, the Court approved Local No. 8 IBEW Retirement Fund as lead plaintiff, and Scott and Scott LLP as lead counsel for the plaintiff and the putative class. The Company believes the claims to be without merit and intends to vigorously defend the litigation. As of September 30, 2014, the Company has not recorded any reserves for this purported class action. Vertex Pharmaceuticals is in the business of discovering, developing, manufacturing and commercializing small molecule drugs. WALGREEN COMPANY: Class Cert. Denial in Overtime Case Upheld ------------------------------------------------------------ In re WALGREEN COMPANY OVERTIME CASES, NO. B230191 is a class action about meal breaks at work. Lead plaintiff Darryl Collins charged that Walgreens violated employees' rights to meal breaks. The trial court denied Collins's motion for class certification. The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division One, on November 13, 2014, held that Collins's motion failed in the trial court because Collins had no good proof. Collins tried to support his motion with evidence of three kinds: an expert opinion, emails, and declarations. This evidence was too weak to convince the trial court. Accoringly, the trial court evaluations were valid and the order denying the motion for class certification is affirmed. A copy of the ruling is available at http://is.gd/zrEaY9from Leagle.com. For Plaintiffs and Appellants: James A. Krutcik, Esq. A. Nicholas Georggin, Joo Hee Kershner, Esq. Carmine J. Pearl, Esq. KRUTCIK & GEORGGIN ATTORNEYS 26021 Acero Mission Viejo, CA 92691 Telephone: 949-367-8590 Toll Free: 866-729-2435 Facsimile: 949-367-8597 and R. Duane Westrup, Esq. Phillip R. Poliner, Esq. WESTRUP KLICK, LLP 444 West Ocean Boulevard, Suite 1614 Long Beach, CA 90802 Toll Free: (888) 268-6884 Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Diana Tabacopoulos, Ann H. Qushair -- qushairesq@gmail.com -- and James M. Harris for Defendant and Respondent. Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ct. to Hear Arguments on Bid to Join Ford 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. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Received $17-Mil. Payment from Insurers --------------------------------------------------------------- 3M Company has received payments of $17 million from settlements with its insurers, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014. On January 5, 2007, the Company was served with a declaratory judgment action filed on behalf of two of its insurers (Continental Casualty and Continental Insurance Co. - both part of the Continental Casualty Group) disclaiming coverage for respirator mask/asbestos claims. The action, in the District Court in Ramsey County, Minnesota, sought declaratory judgment regarding coverage provided by the policies and the allocation of covered costs among the policies issued by the various insurers. The action named, in addition to the Company, over 60 of the Company's insurers. The plaintiffs, Continental Casualty and Continental Insurance Co., as well as a significant number of the insurer defendants named in the amended complaint were dismissed because of settlements they had reached with the Company regarding the matters at issue in the lawsuit. In July 2013, the Company reached agreements in principle with the remaining insurers in the lawsuit. All of the settlement agreements have now been executed. In June 2014, the Court issued an order dismissing the case. During the first nine months of 2014, the Company received payments of $17 million from settlements with insurers. The final payment of $6 million from the insurers was received in the third quarter of 2014. The Company has unresolved coverage with claims-made carriers for respirator mask claims. The Company is also seeking coverage under the policies of certain insolvent insurers. Once those claims for coverage are resolved, the Company will have collected substantially all of its remaining insurance coverage for respirator mask/asbestos claims. 3M Company (3M), is a diversified technology company. The Company operates in six segments: industrial and transportation; healthcare; consumer and office; safety, security and protection services; display and graphics, and electro and communications businesses. 3M products are sold through a number of distribution channels, including directly to users and through wholesalers, retailers, jobbers, distributors and dealers in a range of trades in a number of countries worldwide. In April 2012, it acquired CodeRyte Inc. On November 28, 2012, the Company acquired Ceradyne, Inc. In April 2014, the Company acquired Treo Solutions. In September 2014, 3M Co announced that it acquired, through Sumitomo 3M Ltd., of Sumitomo Electric Industries Ltd.'s 25% interest in Sumitomo 3M Ltd. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Recorded $24MM Liability for Aearo Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- 3M Company recorded an estimated $24 million for product liabilities and defense costs related to current and future Aearo- related asbestos and silica-related claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014. On April 1, 2008, a subsidiary of the Company purchased the stock of Aearo Holding Corp., the parent of Aearo Technologies ("Aearo"). Aearo manufactured and sold various products, including personal protection equipment, such as eye, ear, head, face, fall and certain respiratory protection products. As of September 30, 2014, Aearo and/or other companies that previously owned and operated Aearo's respirator business (American Optical Corporation, Warner-Lambert LLC, AO Corp. and Cabot Corporation ("Cabot")) are named defendants, with multiple co-defendants, including the Company, in numerous lawsuits in various courts in which plaintiffs allege use of mask and respirator products and seek damages from Aearo and other defendants for alleged personal injury from workplace exposures to asbestos, silica-related, or other occupational dusts found in products manufactured by other defendants or generally in the workplace. As of September 30, 2014, the Company, through its Aearo subsidiary, has recorded $24 million as the best estimate of the probable liabilities for product liabilities and defense costs related to current and future Aearo-related asbestos and silica- related claims. Responsibility for legal costs, as well as for settlements and judgments, is currently shared in an informal arrangement among Aearo, Cabot, American Optical Corporation and a subsidiary of Warner Lambert and their insurers (the "Payor Group"). Liability is allocated among the parties based on the number of years each company sold respiratory products under the "AO Safety" brand and/or owned the AO Safety Division of American Optical Corporation and the alleged years of exposure of the individual plaintiff. Aearo's share of the contingent liability is further limited by an agreement entered into between Aearo and Cabot on July 11, 1995. This agreement provides that, so long as Aearo pays to Cabot a quarterly fee of $100,000, Cabot will retain responsibility and liability for, and indemnify Aearo against, any product liability claims involving exposure to asbestos, silica, or silica products for respirators sold prior to July 11, 1995. Because of the difficulty in determining how long a particular respirator remains in the stream of commerce after being sold, Aearo and Cabot have applied the agreement to claims arising out of the alleged use of respirators involving exposure to asbestos, silica or silica products prior to January 1, 1997. With these arrangements in place, Aearo's potential liability is limited to exposures alleged to have arisen from the use of respirators involving exposure to asbestos, silica, or silica products on or after January 1, 1997. As of September 30, 2014, Aearo has elected to pay the quarterly fee. Aearo could potentially be exposed to additional claims for some part of the pre-July 11, 1995 period covered by its agreement with Cabot if Aearo elects to discontinue its participation in this arrangement, or if Cabot is no longer able to meet its obligations in these matters. In March 2012, Cabot CSC Corporation and Cabot Corporation filed a lawsuit against Aearo in the Superior Court of Suffolk County, Massachusetts seeking declaratory relief as to the scope of Cabot's indemnity obligations under the July 11, 1995 agreement, including whether Cabot has retained liability for coal workers' pneumoconiosis claims, and seeking damages for breach of contract. In June 2014, the court granted Aearo's motion for summary judgment on all claims. Cabot has filed a motion for reconsideration, and Aearo has filed a motion for clarification of the court's order granting Aearo summary judgment. In October 2014, the court denied Aearo's motion for clarification. The court also denied, in part, Cabot's motion for reconsideration and reaffirmed its ruling that Cabot retained liability for claims involving exposure to silica in coal mine dust. The court granted Cabot's motion, in part, ruling that Aearo was not entitled to summary judgment on Cabot's claim for equitable allocation, and on whether the 258 underlying claims were Cabot's responsibility. These two issues remain in the case for further proceedings. Developments may occur that could affect the estimate of Aearo's liabilities. These developments include, but are not limited to: (i) significant changes in the number of future claims, (ii) significant changes in the average cost of resolving claims, (iii) significant changes in the legal costs of defending these claims, (iv) significant changes in the mix and nature of claims received, (v) trial and appellate outcomes, (vi) significant changes in the law and procedure applicable to these claims, (vii) significant changes in the liability allocation among the co-defendants, (viii) the financial viability of members of the Payor Group including exhaustion of available coverage limits, and/or (ix) a determination that the interpretation of the contractual obligations on which Aearo has estimated its share of liability is inaccurate. The Company cannot determine the impact of these potential developments on its current estimate of Aearo's share of liability for these existing and future claims. If any of the developments described above were to occur, the actual amount of these liabilities for existing and future claims could be significantly larger than the amount accrued. Because of the inherent difficulty in projecting the number of claims that have not yet been asserted, the complexity of allocating responsibility for future claims among the Payor Group, and the several possible developments that may occur that could affect the estimate of Aearo's liabilities, the Company cannot estimate the amount or range of amounts by which Aearo's liability may exceed the accrual the Company has established. 3M Company (3M), is a diversified technology company. The Company operates in six segments: industrial and transportation; healthcare; consumer and office; safety, security and protection services; display and graphics, and electro and communications businesses. 3M products are sold through a number of distribution channels, including directly to users and through wholesalers, retailers, jobbers, distributors and dealers in a range of trades in a number of countries worldwide. In April 2012, it acquired CodeRyte Inc. On November 28, 2012, the Company acquired Ceradyne, Inc. In April 2014, the Company acquired Treo Solutions. In September 2014, 3M Co announced that it acquired, through Sumitomo 3M Ltd., of Sumitomo Electric Industries Ltd.'s 25% interest in Sumitomo 3M Ltd. ASBESTOS UPDATE: CIRCOR Units Continue to Defend Fibro Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Two of CIRCOR International, Inc.'s subsidiaries continue to defend themselves against asbestos-related product liability claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 28, 2014. The Company states: "Asbestos-related product liability claims continue to be filed against two of our subsidiaries Spence Engineering Company, Inc., the stock of which we acquired in 1984; and Circor Instrumentation Technologies, Inc. (f/k/a Hoke Incorporated), the stock of which we acquired in 1998. Due to the nature of the products supplied by these entities, the markets they serve and our historical experience in resolving these claims, we do not believe that these asbestos-related claims will have a material adverse effect on the financial condition, results of operations or liquidity of Spence or Hoke, or our financial condition, consolidated results of operations or liquidity of the Company." CIRCOR International, Inc. designs , manufactures and markets valves and other engineered products and sub-systems used in the energy, aerospace, power generation and other industrial markets. The Company has a global presence and operates 24 primary manufacturing facilities that are located in the United States, Canada, Western Europe, Morocco, India, Brazil and the People's Republic of China. The Company has three reporting segments: Energy, Aerospace and flows Technologies. As of December 31, 2012 , the Company's products were sold through over 900 distributors and the Company serviced more than 7,500 customers in over 100 countries around the world. Within the Company's product groups The Company develops, manufactures, sells and service a portfolio of fluid-control products, sub-systems and technologies. ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Corp. Had 68,000 Pending Claims at Sept. 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- ITT Corporation had 68,000 pending asbestos claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014. The Company states: "ITT, including its subsidiary Goulds Pumps, Inc., has been joined as a defendant with numerous other companies in product liability lawsuits alleging personal injury due to asbestos exposure. These claims generally allege that certain products sold by us or our former subsidiaries prior to 1985 contained a part manufactured by a third party (e.g., a gasket) which contained asbestos. To the extent these third-party parts may have contained asbestos, it was encapsulated in the gasket (or other) material and was non-friable. "As of September 30, 2014, there were approximately 50 thousand pending active claims against ITT, including Goulds Pumps, filed in various state and federal courts alleging injury as a result of exposure to asbestos. Activity related to these asserted asbestos claims during the period was as follows: "For the nine months ended September 30, 2014, the Company had 68,000 pending claims. "Frequently, plaintiffs are unable to identify any ITT or Goulds Pumps product as a source of asbestos exposure. Our experience to date is that a majority of resolved claims are dismissed without any payment from the Company. Management believes that a large majority of the pending claims have little or no value. In addition, because claims are sometimes dismissed in large groups, the average cost per resolved claim can fluctuate significantly from period to period. ITT expects more asbestos-related suits will be filed in the future, and ITT will continue to aggressively defend or seek a reasonable resolution, as appropriate. "Asbestos litigation is a unique form of litigation. Frequently, the plaintiff sues a large number of defendants and does not state a specific claim amount. After filing of the complaint, the plaintiff engages defendants in settlement negotiations to establish a settlement value based on certain criteria, including the number of defendants in the case. Rarely do the plaintiffs seek to collect all damages from one defendant. Rather, they seek to spread the liability, and thus the payments, among many defendants. As a result of this and other factors, the Company is unable to estimate the maximum potential exposure to pending claims and claims estimated to be filed over the next 10 years. "The Company has negotiated with certain of its insurers to reimburse the Company for a portion of its indemnity and defense costs through "coverage-in-place" agreements or long-term policy buyout agreements. The agreements are designed to facilitate an orderly resolution and collection of ITT's insurance portfolio and to mitigate issues that insurers may raise regarding their responsibility to respond to claims. These agreements, in the aggregate, represent approximately 55% of the recorded asbestos- related asset as of September 30, 2014. Under coverage-in-place agreements, an insurer's policies remain in force and the insurer undertakes to provide coverage for the Company's pending and future asbestos claims on specified terms and conditions. Insurance payments under coverage-in-place agreements are made to the Company as asbestos claims are settled or adjudicated. The Company's buyout agreements provide an agreed upon amount of available coverage for future asbestos claims under the subject policies to be paid to a Qualified Settlement Fund (QSF) on a specific schedule as agreed upon by the Company and its insurer. However, assets in the QSF are only available and distributed when qualifying asbestos expenditures are submitted for reimbursement as defined in the QSF agreement. Therefore, recovery of insurance reimbursements under these types of agreements are dependent on the timing of the payment of the liability and, consistent with the asbestos liability, have not been discounted to present value. "Estimating our exposure to pending asbestos claims and those that may be filed in the future is subject to significant uncertainty and risk as there are multiple variables that can affect the timing, severity, quality, quantity and resolution of claims. Any predictions with respect to the variables impacting the estimate of the asbestos liability and related asset are subject to even greater uncertainty as the projection period lengthens. In light of the uncertainties and variables inherent in the long-term projection of the Company's asbestos exposures, although it is probable that the Company will incur additional costs for asbestos claims filed beyond the next 10 years, which additional costs may be material, we do not believe there is a reasonable basis for estimating those costs at this time. "The asbestos liability and related receivables reflect management's best estimate of future events. However, future events affecting the key factors and other variables for either the asbestos liability or the related receivables could cause actual costs or recoveries to be materially higher or lower than currently estimated. Due to these uncertainties, as well as our inability to reasonably estimate any additional asbestos liability for claims which may be filed beyond the next 10 years, it is not possible to predict the ultimate cost of resolving all pending and unasserted asbestos claims. We believe it is possible that future events affecting the key factors and other variables within the next 10 years, as well as the cost of asbestos claims filed beyond the next 10 years, net of expected recoveries, could have a material adverse effect on our financial statements." ITT Corporation (ITT) is a diversified manufacturer of engineered critical components and customized technology solutions for industrial markets. The Company manufactures components that are integral to the operation of systems and manufacturing processes in the energy, transportation and industrial markets. Its products provide enabling functionality for applications where reliability and performance are critically important to its customers and the users of their products. Its product and service offerings are organized in four segments: Industrial Process, Motion Technologies, Interconnect Solutions (ICS), and Control Technologies. In November 2012, the Company sold its shape cutting product lines, including the Burny and Kaliburn brands, to Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc. In November 2012, the Company sold its shape cutting product lines, including the Burny and Kaliburn brands, to Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc. in 2012, the Company acquired Bornemann. ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Corp. Records $10.8-Mil. Fibro Charges ----------------------------------------------------------- ITT Corporation recorded a $10.8 million total net asbestos charges, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014. The Company states: "In the third quarter of each year, we conduct our annual asbestos remeasurement with the assistance of outside consultants to review and update the underlying assumptions used in our asbestos liability and related asset estimates. In each remeasurement, the underlying assumptions are updated based on our actual experience since our previous annual remeasurement and we reassess the appropriate reference period used in determining each assumption and our expectations regarding future conditions, including inflation. "Based on the results of this study, in the third quarter of 2014, we decreased our estimated undiscounted asbestos liability, including legal fees, by $42.8 million, reflecting a decrease in costs the company estimates will be incurred to resolve all pending claims, as well as unasserted claims estimated to be filed over the next 10 years. The decrease in our estimated liability is a result of several developments, including an expectation of lower defense costs relative to indemnities paid over the projection period and favorable experience in the ratio of dismissed claims versus settled claims. These favorable factors were offset in part by an increasing number of cases expected to be adjudicated. Further, in the third quarter of 2014, the Company increased its estimated asbestos-related assets by $16.0 million, principally due to the estimated probable recoveries of certain liabilities resulting from the annual study. "In the third quarter of 2013, ITT reached an agreement-in- principle (Settlement) with an insurer to settle responsibility for multiple categories of claims, including future claims. Under the terms of the Settlement, the insurer agreed to a specified series of payments through 2018 to fully exhaust its primary policies issued to ITT. The Settlement resulted in a net benefit of $31.0 million during the quarter ended September 30, 2013, with a corresponding increase in the asbestos-related asset. "In addition to the charges associated with our annual remeasurement, we record a net asbestos charge each quarter to maintain a rolling 10-year forecast period. The total net asbestos charges for the nine months ended September 30, 2014, was $10.8 million." ITT Corporation (ITT) is a diversified manufacturer of engineered critical components and customized technology solutions for industrial markets. The Company manufactures components that are integral to the operation of systems and manufacturing processes in the energy, transportation and industrial markets. Its products provide enabling functionality for applications where reliability and performance are critically important to its customers and the users of their products. Its product and service offerings are organized in four segments: Industrial Process, Motion Technologies, Interconnect Solutions (ICS), and Control Technologies. In November 2012, the Company sold its shape cutting product lines, including the Burny and Kaliburn brands, to Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc. In November 2012, the Company sold its shape cutting product lines, including the Burny and Kaliburn brands, to Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc. in 2012, the Company acquired Bornemann. ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Corp. Has $727.2MM Estimated Fibro Exposure ---------------------------------------------------------------- ITT Corporation's estimated asbestos exposure, net of expected recoveries, for the resolution of all pending claims and claims estimated to be filed in the next 10 years was $727.2 million, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014. ITT Corporation (ITT) is a diversified manufacturer of engineered critical components and customized technology solutions for industrial markets. The Company manufactures components that are integral to the operation of systems and manufacturing processes in the energy, transportation and industrial markets. Its products provide enabling functionality for applications where reliability and performance are critically important to its customers and the users of their products. Its product and service offerings are organized in four segments: Industrial Process, Motion Technologies, Interconnect Solutions (ICS), and Control Technologies. In November 2012, the Company sold its shape cutting product lines, including the Burny and Kaliburn brands, to Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc. In November 2012, the Company sold its shape cutting product lines, including the Burny and Kaliburn brands, to Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc. in 2012, the Company acquired Bornemann. ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Corp. Estimates 41% Insurance Cost Recovery ---------------------------------------------------------------- ITT Corporation estimates a 41% recovery of the asbestos indemnity and defense costs for pending claims from its insurers, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014. The Company states: "We estimate that we will be able to recover 41% of the asbestos indemnity and defense costs for pending claims as well as unasserted claims estimated to be filed over the next 10 years from our insurers. Actual insurance reimbursements will vary from period to period and the anticipated recovery rate is expected to decline over time due to gaps in our insurance coverage, reflecting uninsured periods, the insolvency of certain insurers, prior settlements with our insurers, and our expectation that certain insurance policies will exhaust within the next 10 years. Certain of our primary coverage-in-place agreements are expected to exhaust within the next several months, which may result in higher net cash outflows until excess carriers begin accepting claims for reimbursement. In the tenth year of our estimate, our insurance recoveries are currently projected to be 25%. Additionally, future recovery rates may be impacted by other factors, such as future insurance settlements, insolvencies, and judicial determinations relevant to our coverage program, which are difficult to predict and subject to a high degree of uncertainty. "Further, there is uncertainty in estimating when cash payments related to the recorded asbestos liability will be fully expended. Such cash payments will continue for a number of years beyond the next 10 years due to the significant proportion of future claims included in the estimated asbestos liability and the delay between the date a claim is filed and when it is resolved. Subject to these inherent uncertainties, it is expected that net cash payments related to pending claims and claims estimated to be filed in the next 10 years will extend through approximately 2028. "Annual net cash outflows, net of tax benefits, are projected to average $15 to $25 over the next five years, as compared to an average of $14 over the past three annual periods, and increase to an average of approximately $40 to $50, over the remainder of the projection period." ITT Corporation (ITT) is a diversified manufacturer of engineered critical components and customized technology solutions for industrial markets. The Company manufactures components that are integral to the operation of systems and manufacturing processes in the energy, transportation and industrial markets. Its products provide enabling functionality for applications where reliability and performance are critically important to its customers and the users of their products. Its product and service offerings are organized in four segments: Industrial Process, Motion Technologies, Interconnect Solutions (ICS), and Control Technologies. In November 2012, the Company sold its shape cutting product lines, including the Burny and Kaliburn brands, to Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc. In November 2012, the Company sold its shape cutting product lines, including the Burny and Kaliburn brands, to Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc. in 2012, the Company acquired Bornemann. ASBESTOS UPDATE: ACE Continues to Defend NJ Wrongful Death Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Atlantic City Electric Company (ACE) continues to defend itself against an asbestos-related wrongful death lawsuit pending in New Jersey, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014. In September 2011, an asbestos complaint was filed in the New Jersey Superior Court, Law Division, against Atlantic City Electric Company (among other defendants) asserting claims under New Jersey's Wrongful Death and Survival statutes. The complaint, filed by the estate of a decedent who was the wife of a former employee of ACE, alleges that the decedent's mesothelioma was caused by exposure to asbestos brought home by her husband on his work clothes. New Jersey courts have recognized a cause of action against a premise owner in a so-called "take home" case if it can be shown that the harm was foreseeable. In this case, the complaint seeks recovery of an unspecified amount of damages for, among other things, the decedent's past medical expenses, loss of earnings, and pain and suffering between the time of injury and death, and asserts a punitive damage claim. At September 30, 2014, ACE has concluded that a loss is probable with respect to this matter and has recorded an estimated loss contingency liability, which is included in Pepco Holdings, Inc.'s liability for general litigation as of September 30, 2014. However, due to the inherent uncertainty of litigation, ACE is unable to estimate a maximum amount of possible loss because the damages sought are indeterminate and the matter involves facts that ACE believes are distinguishable from the facts of the "take-home" cause of action recognized by the New Jersey courts. Delmarva Power & Light (DPL) is engaged in the transmission and distribution of electricity in Delaware and a portion of Maryland (the Eastern Shore); it delivers electricity to about 501,000 customers. DPL also provides natural gas (in northern Delaware) to more than 124,000 customers. DPL is an indirect subsidiary of Pepco Holdings, which owns two other utilities (Potomac Electric Power and Atlantic City Electric) as well as competitive energy generation, marketing, and supply businesses. ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Davis" Suit v. Tampa Electric Remains Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- An asbestos-related wrongful death lawsuit filed by the estate of Scott Davis against Tampa Electric Company remains pending, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014. Thirty six year old Scott Davis died from mesothelioma in March 2014. His estate and his family are suing Tampa Electric as a result. Mr. Davis allegedly suffered exposure to asbestos dust brought home by his father and grandfather, both of whom had been employed as insulators and worked at various job sites throughout the Tampa area. Plaintiff's case against Tampa Electric and nineteen other defendants alleges, among other things, negligence, strict liability, household exposure, loss of consortium, and wrongful death. TEC believes the claim in the pending action without merit and intends to defend the matter vigorously. The company is unable at this time to estimate the possible loss or range of loss with respect to this matter. TECO Energy, Inc. (TECO Energy) is a holding company for regulated utilities and other businesses. TECO Energy owns no operating assets but holds all of the common stock of TEC and, through its subsidiary TECO Diversified, owns TECO Coal. TEC, a Florida corporation and TECO Energy's subsidiary, has two business segments. Its Tampa Electric division provides retail electric service to more than 687,000 customers in West Central Florida with a net winter system generating capacity of 4,668 megawatts. Peoples Gas System (PGS), the gas division of TEC, is engaged in the purchase, distribution and sale of natural gas for residential, commercial, industrial and electric power generation customers in Florida. In September 2014, the Company acquired New Mexico Gas Intermediate (NMGI), the parent company of New Mexico Gas Co. ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Spence" Suit v. American Vanguard Unit Junked --------------------------------------------------------------- An asbestos-related exposure lawsuit filed by Mark Spence against an American Vanguard Corporation subsidiary was dismissed, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014. In Mark Spence v. A.W. Chesterton Company et al. (an asbestos exposure matter in an Illinois state court in which 46 defendants, including the Company, are named), after being informed that the Company has never used asbestos in either its products or packaging, plaintiff dismissed the matter without prejudice on September 22, 2014. Thus, this matter is now concluded. American Vanguard Corporation operates as a holding company. The Company is primarily a chemical manufacturer that develops and markets products for agricultural and commercial uses. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Badger Meter Continues to Defend Fibro Suits ------------------------------------------------------------- Badger Meter, Inc., continues to defend itself against numerous asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014. Like other companies in recent years, the Company is named as a defendant in numerous pending multi-claimant/multi-defendant lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos, manufactured by third parties, and integrated into or sold with a very limited number of the Company's products. The Company is vigorously defending itself against these claims. Although it is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of these matters, the Company does not believe the ultimate resolution of these issues will have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position or results of operations, either from a cash flow perspective or on the financial statements as a whole. This belief is based in part on the fact that no claimant has proven or substantially demonstrated asbestos exposure caused by products manufactured or sold by the Company and that a number of cases have been voluntarily dismissed. Badger Meter, Inc. is a manufacturer and marketer of products incorporating flow measurement and control technologies serving markets globally. The Company's product lines fall into three categories: sales of water meters and related technologies to municipal water utilities (municipal water), sales of meters to various industries for water and other fluids (industrial flow) and sales of concrete vibrators and gas meter radios to markets (specialty products). Municipal water includes water meters and related technologies and services used by water utilities as the basis for generating water and wastewater revenues. Industrial flow includes products sold globally to measure and control materials flowing through a pipe or pipeline, including water, air, steam, oil, and other liquids and gases. Specialty products include sales of radio technology to natural gas utilities for installation on their gas meters, and concrete vibrators. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Has 2,200 Fibro Cases at Sept. 30 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Standard Motor Products, Inc., had 2,200 outstanding asbestos- related cases, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014. The Company states: "In 1986, we acquired a brake business, which we subsequently sold in March 1998 and which is accounted for as a discontinued operation. When we originally acquired this brake business, we assumed future liabilities relating to any alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products manufactured by the seller of the acquired brake business. In accordance with the related purchase agreement, we agreed to assume the liabilities for all new claims filed on or after September 2001. Our ultimate exposure will depend upon the number of claims filed against us on or after September 2001 and the amounts paid for indemnity and defense thereof. At September 30, 2014, approximately 2,200 cases were outstanding for which we may be responsible for any related liabilities. Since inception in September 2001 through September 30, 2014, the amounts paid for settled claims are approximately $16.7 million. We acquired limited insurance coverage up to a fixed amount for defense and indemnity costs associated with certain asbestos-related claims and have exhausted all insurance coverage. "In evaluating our potential asbestos-related liability, we have considered various factors including, among other things, an actuarial study of the asbestos related liabilities performed by an independent actuarial firm, our settlement amounts and whether there are any co-defendants, the jurisdiction in which lawsuits are filed, and the status and results of settlement discussions. As is our accounting policy, we consider the advice of actuarial consultants with experience in assessing asbestos-related liabilities to estimate our potential claim liability. The methodology used to project asbestos-related liabilities and costs in our actuarial study considered: (1) historical data available from publicly available studies; (2) an analysis of our recent claims history to estimate likely filing rates into the future; (3) an analysis of our currently pending claims; and (4) an analysis of our settlements to date in order to develop average settlement values. "The most recent actuarial study was performed as of August 31, 2014. The updated study has estimated an undiscounted liability for settlement payments, excluding legal costs and any potential recovery from insurance carriers, ranging from $36.1 million to $55.4 million for the period through 2058. The change from the prior year study was an $11.7 million increase for the low end of the range and an $18 million increase for the high end of the range. The increase in the estimated undiscounted liability from the prior year study at both the low end and high end of the range reflects historical data and certain assumptions with respect to events that may occur in the future. Based on the information contained in the actuarial study and all other available information considered by us, we have concluded that no amount within the range of settlement payments was more likely than any other and, therefore, in assessing our asbestos liability we compare the low end of the range to our recorded liability to determine if an adjustment is required. Based upon the results of the August 31, 2014 actuarial study, in September 2014 we increased our asbestos liability to $36.1 million, the low end of the range, and recorded an incremental pre-tax provision of $12.8 million in earnings (loss) from discontinued operations in the accompanying statement of operations. Legal costs, which are expensed as incurred and reported in earnings (loss) from discontinued operations in the accompanying statement of operations, are estimated, according to the updated study, to range from $43 million to $76.4 million for the period through 2058. "We plan to perform an annual actuarial evaluation during the third quarter of each year for the foreseeable future. Given the uncertainties associated with projecting such matters into the future and other factors outside our control, we can give no assurance that additional provisions will not be required. We will continue to monitor the circumstances surrounding these potential liabilities in determining whether additional provisions may be necessary. At the present time, however, we do not believe that any additional provisions would be reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on our liquidity or consolidated financial position." Standard Motor Products, Inc. (Standard Motor Products) is an independent manufacturer and distributor of replacement parts for motor vehicles in the automotive aftermarket industry, with a focus on the original equipment service market. The Company operates in two segments: Engine Management Segment and Temperature Control Segment. The Engine Management Segment manufactures ignition and emission parts, ignition wires, battery cables and fuel system parts. The Temperature Control Segment manufactures and remanufactures air conditioning compressors, air conditioning and heating parts, engine cooling system parts, power window accessories, and windshield washer system parts. In January 2014, the Company acquired the assets of Pensacola Fuel Injection, a privately-held company. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Fibro Liability Upped to $36MM -------------------------------------------------------------- Standard Motor Products, Inc., increased its asbestos liability to $36.1 million, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014. The Company states: "We are responsible for certain future liabilities relating to alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products. In accordance with our accounting policy, our most recent actuarial study as of August 31, 2014 estimated an undiscounted liability for settlement payments, excluding legal costs and any potential recovery from insurance carriers, ranging from $36.1 million to $55.4 million for the period through 2058. Based on the information contained in the actuarial study and all other available information considered by us, we have concluded that no amount within the range of settlement payments was more likely than any other and, therefore, in assessing our asbestos liability we compare the low end of the range to our recorded liability to determine if an adjustment is required. Based upon the results of the August 31, 2014, actuarial study, in September 2014 we increased our asbestos liability to $36.1 million, the low end of the range, and recorded an incremental pre-tax provision of $12.8 million in earnings (loss) from discontinued operations in the accompanying statement of operations. In addition, according to the updated study, legal costs, which are expensed as incurred and reported in earnings (loss) from discontinued operations, are estimated to range from $43 million to $76.4 million during the same period. We will continue to perform an annual actuarial analysis during the third quarter of each year for the foreseeable future. Based on this analysis and all other available information, we will continue to reassess the recorded liability and, if deemed necessary, record an adjustment to the reserve, which will be reflected as a loss or gain from discontinued operations. The aforementioned estimated settlement payments and legal costs do not reflect any coverage with insurance carriers for certain asbestos-related claims that we may obtain in the future." Standard Motor Products, Inc. (Standard Motor Products) is an independent manufacturer and distributor of replacement parts for motor vehicles in the automotive aftermarket industry, with a focus on the original equipment service market. The Company operates in two segments: Engine Management Segment and Temperature Control Segment. The Engine Management Segment manufactures ignition and emission parts, ignition wires, battery cables and fuel system parts. The Temperature Control Segment manufactures and remanufactures air conditioning compressors, air conditioning and heating parts, engine cooling system parts, power window accessories, and windshield washer system parts. In January 2014, the Company acquired the assets of Pensacola Fuel Injection, a privately-held company. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Foster Wheeler Had 118,760 U.S. Fibro Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Foster Wheeler AG had 118,760 open U.S. asbestos claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014. The Company states: "Some of our U.S. and U.K. subsidiaries are defendants in numerous asbestos-related lawsuits and out-of-court informal claims pending in the U.S. and the U.K. Plaintiffs claim damages for personal injury alleged to have arisen from exposure to or use of asbestos in connection with work allegedly performed by our subsidiaries during the 1970s and earlier. "For the nine months ended September 30, 2014, there were 118,760 open U.S. claims. "As of September 30, 2014, the Company's total U.S. asbestos- related liabilities $243,303,000. Total U.S. asbestos-related liabilities are estimated through the third quarter of 2029. Although it is likely that claims will continue to be filed after that date, the uncertainties inherent in any long-term forecast prevent us from making reliable estimates of the indemnity and defense costs that might be incurred after that date. "We have worked with Analysis, Research & Planning Corporation, or ARPC, nationally recognized consultants in the U.S. with respect to projecting asbestos liabilities, to estimate the amount of asbestos-related indemnity and defense costs at each year-end based on a forecast for the next 15 years. Each year we have recorded our estimated asbestos liability at a level consistent with ARPC's reasonable best estimate. Our estimated asbestos liability decreased during the first nine months of 2014 as a result of indemnity and defense cost payments totaling approximately $40,900,000, partially offset by the impact of an increase in the liability related to our rolling 15-year asbestos- related liability estimate of approximately $6,000,000. The total asbestos-related liabilities are comprised of our estimates for our liability relating to open (outstanding) claims being valued and our liability for future unasserted claims through the third quarter of 2029. "Our liability estimate is based upon the following information and/or assumptions: number of open claims, forecasted number of future claims, estimated average cost per claim by disease type -- mesothelioma, lung cancer and non-malignancies -- and the breakdown of known and future claims into disease type -- mesothelioma, lung cancer and non-malignancies, as well as other factors. The total estimated liability, which has not been discounted for the time value of money, includes both the estimate of forecasted indemnity amounts and forecasted defense costs. Total defense costs and indemnity liability payments are estimated to be incurred through the third quarter of 2029, during which period the incidence of new claims is forecasted to decrease each year. We believe that it is likely that there will be new claims filed after the third quarter of 2029, but in light of uncertainties inherent in long-term forecasts, we do not believe that we can reasonably estimate the indemnity and defense costs that might be incurred after the third quarter of 2029. "Through September 30, 2014, total cumulative indemnity costs paid, prior to insurance recoveries, were approximately $851,100,000 and total cumulative defense costs paid were approximately $425,400,000, or approximately 33% of total defense and indemnity costs. The overall historic average combined indemnity and defense cost per resolved claim through September 30, 2014 has been approximately $3.3. The average cost per resolved claim is increasing and we believe it will continue to increase in the future. "Over the last several years, certain of our subsidiaries have entered into settlement agreements calling for insurers to make lump-sum payments, as well as payments over time, for use by our subsidiaries to fund asbestos-related indemnity and defense costs and, in certain cases, for reimbursement for portions of out-of- pocket costs previously incurred. As our subsidiaries reach agreements with their insurers to settle their disputed asbestos- related insurance coverage, we increase our asbestos-related insurance asset and record settlement gains. "Asbestos-related assets under executed settlement agreements with insurers due in the next 12 months are recorded within accounts and notes receivable-other and amounts due beyond 12 months are recorded within asbestos-related insurance recovery receivable. Asbestos-related insurance recovery receivable also includes our best estimate of actual and probable insurance recoveries relating to our liability for pending and estimated future asbestos claims through the third quarter of 2029. Our asbestos-related assets have not been discounted for the time value of money." Foster Wheeler AG (Foster Wheeler) is a supplier of engineering, construction and project management contractor and power equipment. It operates through two business groups: Global Engineering and Construction Group (Global E&C Group), and Global Power Group. Its Global E&C Group, which operates worldwide, designs, engineers and constructs onshore and offshore upstream oil and gas processing facilities, natural gas liquefaction facilities and receiving terminals, gas-to-liquids facilities, oil refining, chemical and petrochemical, pharmaceutical and biotechnology facilities and related infrastructure. Its Global Power Group designs, manufactures and erects steam generators and auxiliary equipment for electric power generating stations, district heating and power plants and industrial facilities worldwide.In May 2014, the Company announced that a subsidiary of its Global Power Group acquired Siemens Environmental Systems and Services business. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Foster Wheeler Records $21.8MM Fibro Payments -------------------------------------------------------------- Foster Wheeler AG's net asbestos-related payments was $21,800,000, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014. The Company states: "Our insurance recoveries may be limited by future insolvencies among our insurers. We have not assumed recovery in the estimate of our asbestos-related insurance asset from any of our currently insolvent insurers. We have considered the financial viability and legal obligations of our subsidiaries' insurance carriers and believe that the insurers or their guarantors will continue to reimburse a significant portion of claims and defense costs relating to asbestos litigation. As of September 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, we have not recorded an allowance for uncollectible balances against our asbestos-related insurance assets. We write off receivables from insurers that have become insolvent; there were no such write-offs during the nine months ended September 30, 2014 or 2013. Insurers may become insolvent in the future and our insurers may fail to reimburse amounts owed to us on a timely basis. If we fail to realize the expected insurance recoveries, or experience delays in receiving material amounts from our insurers, our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows could be materially adversely affected. "For the nine months ended September 30, 2014, the Company's approximate U.S. asbestos-related net cash impact for indemnity and defense cost payments and collection of insurance proceeds was $5,173,000. "The provision for revaluation in each period was the result of the accrual of our rolling 15-year asbestos liability estimate. "For the nine months ended September 30, 2014, the Company's net asbestos-related payments was $21,800,000. "We expect to have net cash outflows of $31,700,000 during the full year 2014 as a result of asbestos liability indemnity and defense payments in excess of insurance proceeds. This estimate assumes no settlements with insurance companies and no elections by us to fund additional payments. As we continue to collect cash from insurance settlements and assuming no increase in our asbestos-related insurance liability, the asbestos-related insurance receivable recorded on our consolidated balance sheet will continue to decrease. "The estimate of the liabilities and assets related to asbestos claims and recoveries is subject to a number of uncertainties that may result in significant changes in the current estimates. Among these are uncertainties as to the ultimate number and type of claims filed, the amounts of claim costs, the impact of bankruptcies of other companies with asbestos claims, uncertainties surrounding the litigation process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case to case, as well as potential legislative changes. Increases in the number of claims filed or costs to resolve those claims could cause us to increase further the estimates of the costs associated with asbestos claims and could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. "Based on our December 31, 2013 liability estimate, an increase of 25% in the average per claim indemnity settlement amount would increase the liability by $40,300,000 and the impact on expense would be dependent upon available additional insurance recoveries. Assuming no change to the assumptions currently used to estimate our insurance asset, this increase would result in a charge on our consolidated statement of operations of approximately 85% of the increase in the liability. Long-term cash flows would ultimately change by the same amount. Should there be an increase in the estimated liability in excess of 25%, the percentage of that increase that would be expected to be funded by additional insurance recoveries will decline." Foster Wheeler AG (Foster Wheeler) is a supplier of engineering, construction and project management contractor and power equipment. It operates through two business groups: Global Engineering and Construction Group (Global E&C Group), and Global Power Group. Its Global E&C Group, which operates worldwide, designs, engineers and constructs onshore and offshore upstream oil and gas processing facilities, natural gas liquefaction facilities and receiving terminals, gas-to-liquids facilities, oil refining, chemical and petrochemical, pharmaceutical and biotechnology facilities and related infrastructure. Its Global Power Group designs, manufactures and erects steam generators and auxiliary equipment for electric power generating stations, district heating and power plants and industrial facilities worldwide.In May 2014, the Company announced that a subsidiary of its Global Power Group acquired Siemens Environmental Systems and Services business. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Foster Wheeler's UK Units Had 276 Fibro Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Foster Wheeler AG's UK subsidiaries had 276 open asbestos-related claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014. The Company states: "Some of our subsidiaries in the U.K. have also received claims alleging personal injury arising from exposure to asbestos. As of September 30, 2014, 1,072 claims have been brought against our U.K. subsidiaries, of which 276 remained open as of September 30, 2014. None of the settled claims have resulted in material costs to us. "As of September 30, 2014, the Company's total asbestos-related liabilities for its U.K. subsidiaries based on open (outstanding) claims and its estimate for future unasserted claims through the third quarter of 2029 was $30,372. "The liability estimates are based on a U.K. House of Lords judgment that pleural plaque claims do not amount to a compensable injury. If this ruling is reversed by legislation, the total asbestos liability recorded in the U.K. would increase to approximately $49,300, with a corresponding increase in the asbestos-related asset." Foster Wheeler AG (Foster Wheeler) is a supplier of engineering, construction and project management contractor and power equipment. It operates through two business groups: Global Engineering and Construction Group (Global E&C Group), and Global Power Group. Its Global E&C Group, which operates worldwide, designs, engineers and constructs onshore and offshore upstream oil and gas processing facilities, natural gas liquefaction facilities and receiving terminals, gas-to-liquids facilities, oil refining, chemical and petrochemical, pharmaceutical and biotechnology facilities and related infrastructure. Its Global Power Group designs, manufactures and erects steam generators and auxiliary equipment for electric power generating stations, district heating and power plants and industrial facilities worldwide.In May 2014, the Company announced that a subsidiary of its Global Power Group acquired Siemens Environmental Systems and Services business. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graham Corp. Continues to Defend PI Suits ---------------------------------------------------------- Graham Corporation continues to defend itself against asbestos- related personal injury lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014. The Company states: "We have been named as a defendant in certain lawsuits alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos allegedly contained in our products. We are a co-defendant with numerous other defendants in these lawsuits and intend to vigorously defend ourselves against these claims. The claims are similar to previous asbestos lawsuits that named us as a defendant. Such previous lawsuits either were dismissed when it was shown that we had not supplied products to the plaintiffs' places of work or were settled by us for immaterial amounts. "As of September 30, 2014, we were subject to the claims, as well as other legal proceedings and potential claims that have arisen in the ordinary course of business. "Although the outcome of the lawsuits to which we are a party cannot be determined and an estimate of the reasonably possible loss or range of loss cannot be made, we do not believe that the outcomes, either individually or in the aggregate, will have a material effect on our results of operations, financial position or cash flows." Graham Corporation (Graham) designs, manufactures and sells critical equipment for the energy industry which includes the oil refining, petrochemical, as well as cogeneration, nuclear and alternative power markets. It design and manufacture custom- engineered ejectors, pumps, surface condensers and vacuum systems as well as supplies and components for inside the reactor vessel and outside the containment vessel of nuclear power facilities. Its equipments also used in nuclear propulsion power systems for the defense industry and can be found in other diverse applications such as metal refining, pulp and paper processing, water heating, refrigeration, desalination, food processing, pharmaceutical, heating, ventilating and air conditioning. The Company's two wholly owned subsidiaries include Graham Vacuum and Heat transfers Technology (Suzhou) Co., Ltd. ASBESTOS UPDATE: AIG Inc. Unit Increases Net Reserves by $28MM -------------------------------------------------------------- American International Group, Inc., disclosed that its subsidiary AIG Property Casualty increased its net asbestos reserves by $28 million, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014. The estimation of loss reserves relating to asbestos and environmental claims on insurance policies written many years ago is subject to greater uncertainty than other types of claims due to inconsistent court decisions as well as judicial interpretations and legislative actions that in some cases have tended to broaden coverage beyond the original intent of such policies and in others have expanded theories of liability. AIG Property Casualty's reserves relating to asbestos and environmental claims reflect comprehensive ground-up and top-down analyses performed periodically. In the nine-month period ended September 30, 2014, AIG Property Casualty increased its gross asbestos reserves by $29 million and the net asbestos reserves by $28 million primarily due to minor changes in estimates, accretion of discount, and anticipated uncollectible reinsurance. For the same period, AIG Property Casualty increased its gross environmental reserves by $121 million and its net environmental reserves by $52 million to reflect the results of a top-down analysis completed in the second quarter and a minor change in estimates in the third quarter. AIG Property Casualty also has asbestos reserves relating to foreign risks written by non-U.S. entities of $137 million gross and $110 million net as of September 30, 2014. The asbestos reserves relating to non-U.S. risks written by non-U.S. entities were $134 million gross and $108 million net as of December 31, 2013. American International Group, Inc. (AIG) is a global insurance company. The Company provides a range of property casualty insurance, life insurance, retirement products, mortgage insurance and other financial services to customers in more than 130 countries. It diverse offerings include products and services that help businesses and individuals protect their assets, manage risks and provide for retirement security. It earns revenues primarily from insurance premiums, policy fees from universal life insurance and investment products, and income from investments. In May 2014, the Company completed the sale of 100% interest in International Lease Finance Corporation (ILFC) to AerCap Holdings N.V. ASBESTOS UPDATE: General Cable Had 3,275 PI Cases at Sept. 26 ------------------------------------------------------------- General Cable Corporation had 3,275 asbestos cases, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 26, 2014. The Company states: "We have been a defendant in asbestos litigation for over 20 years. Our subsidiaries have been named as defendants in lawsuits alleging exposure to asbestos in products manufactured by us. As of September 26, 2014, we were a defendant in approximately 3,275 cases brought in Federal District Courts throughout the United States. In the nine months ended September 26, 2014, 81 asbestos cases were brought against us. In the calendar year 2013, 133 asbestos cases were brought against us. In the last 20 years, we have had no cases proceed to verdict. In many of the cases, we were dismissed as a defendant before trial for lack of product identification. As of September 26, 2014, 47,846 asbestos cases have been dismissed. In the nine months ended September 26, 2014, 25,913 asbestos cases were dismissed. In September 2014, upon receipt from the MDL Court of a current statistical report listing numbers of outstanding cases as well as a list identifying outstanding Maritime/MARDOC cases by plaintiff name, General Cable recorded a dismissal of 25,759 cases reducing its number of pending Maritime/MARDOC cases to 2,679. As of December 31, 2013, 21,933 cases were dismissed. With regards to the approximately 3,275 remaining pending cases, we are aggressively defending these cases based upon either lack of product identification as to whether we manufactured asbestos- containing product and/or lack of exposure to asbestos dust from the use of our product." General Cable Corporation is engaged in the development, design, manufacture, marketing and distribution of copper, aluminum and fiber optic wire and cable products for use in the energy, industrial, construction, specialty and communications markets. The Company additionally engages in the design, integration, and installation on a turn-key basis for products, such as high and extra-high voltage terrestrial and submarine systems. The Company operates in three segments: America, Europe and Mediterranean, and Rest of World (ROW). The Company's product portfolio includes more than 100,000 products. As of December 31, 2013, the Company operated 56 manufacturing facilities, which included four facilities owned by companies in which the Company has an equity investment, in 25 countries with regional distribution centers around the world. ASBESTOS UPDATE: General Cable Had 2,679 MARDOC Suits at Sept. 26 ----------------------------------------------------------------- General Cable Corporation had 2,679 pending lawsuits brought on behalf of plaintiffs by a single admiralty law firm (MARDOC) as of September 26, 2014, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 26, 2014. The Company states: "As of September 26, 2014, 2,679 pending lawsuits were brought on behalf of plaintiffs by a single admiralty law firm ("MARDOC") and seek unspecified damages. Plaintiffs in the MARDOC cases generally allege that they formerly worked in the maritime industry and sustained asbestos-related injuries from products that General Cable ceased manufacturing in the mid-1970s. The MARDOC cases are managed and supervised by a federal judge in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ("District Court") by reason of a transfer by the judicial panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL"). "In the MARDOC cases in the MDL, the District Court in May 1996 dismissed all pending cases filed without prejudice and placed them on an inactive administrative docket. To reinstate a MARDOC case from the inactive docket, plaintiffs' counsel must show that the plaintiff not only suffered from a recognized asbestos related injury, but also must produce specific product identification evidence to proceed against an individual defendant. During 2010, the MDL Court ordered Plaintiffs to identify the defendants against whom they intended to proceed in the Maritime cases. General Cable was not named as a defendant against whom the plaintiffs intended to proceed. As such it is now anticipated that General Cable will be dismissed from all Maritime related lawsuits. "For cases outside the MDL as of September 26, 2014, plaintiffs have asserted monetary damages in 289 cases. In 155 of these cases, plaintiffs allege only damages in excess of some dollar amount (about $381 thousand per plaintiff); in these cases there are no claims for specific dollar amounts requested as to any defendant. In the 134 other cases pending in state and federal district courts (outside the MDL), plaintiffs seek approximately $446 million in damages from as many as 50 defendants. In one case, plaintiffs have asserted damages related to General Cable in the amount of $10 million. In addition, in relation to these 289 cases, there are claims of $313 million in punitive damages from all of the defendants. However, many of the plaintiffs in these cases allege non-malignant injuries. As of September 26, 2014 and December 31, 2013, we had accrued, on a gross basis, approximately $4.8 million and $5.2 million, respectively, and as of September 26, 2014 and December 31, 2013, had recovered approximately $0.5 million of insurance recoveries for these lawsuits. The net amount of $4.3 million and $4.7 million, as of September 26, 2014 and December 31, 2013, respectively, represents our best estimate in order to cover resolution of current and future asbestos-related claims. "The components of the asbestos litigation reserve are current and future asbestos-related claims. The significant assumptions are: (1) the number of cases per state, (2) an estimate of the judgment per case per state, (3) an estimate of the percentage of cases per state that would make it to trial and (4) the estimated total liability percentage, excluding insurance recoveries, per case judgment. Management's estimates are based on the Company's historical experience with asbestos related claims. The Company's current history of asbestos claims does not provide sufficient and reasonable information to estimate a range of loss for potential future, unasserted asbestos claims because the number and the value of the alleged damages of such claims have not been consistent. As such, the Company does not believe a reasonably possible range can be estimated with respect to asbestos claims that may be filed in the future. "Settlement payments are made, and the asbestos accrual is relieved, when we receive a fully executed settlement release from the Plaintiff's counsel. As of September 26, 2014 and September 27, 2013, aggregate settlement costs were $9.4 million and $8.7 million, respectively. For the three months ended September 26, 2014 and September 27, 2013, settlement costs totaled $0.2 million and $0.0 million, respectively. For the nine months ended September 26, 2014 and September 27, 2013, settlement costs totaled $0.6 million and $0.2 million, respectively. As of September 26, 2014 and September 27, 2013, aggregate litigation costs were $24.3 million and $22.4 million, respectively. For the three months ended September 26, 2014 and September 27, 2013, litigation costs were $0.3 million and $0.4 million, respectively. For the nine months ended September 26, 2014 and September 27, 2013, litigation costs were $1.2 million and $1.0 million, respectively. "In January 1994, we entered into a settlement agreement with certain principal primary insurers concerning liability for the costs of defense, judgments and settlements, if any, in all of the asbestos litigation described above. Subject to the terms and conditions of the settlement agreement, the insurers are responsible for a substantial portion of the costs and expenses incurred in the defense or resolution of this litigation. In recent years one of the insurers participating in the settlement that was responsible for a significant portion of the contribution under the settlement agreement entered into insurance liquidation proceedings. As a result, the contribution of the insurers has been reduced and we have had to bear a larger portion of the costs relating to these lawsuits. Moreover, certain of the other insurers may be financially unstable, and if one or more of these insurers enter into insurance liquidation proceedings, we will be required to pay a larger portion of the costs incurred in connection with these cases." General Cable Corporation is engaged in the development, design, manufacture, marketing and distribution of copper, aluminum and fiber optic wire and cable products for use in the energy, industrial, construction, specialty and communications markets. The Company additionally engages in the design, integration, and installation on a turn-key basis for products, such as high and extra-high voltage terrestrial and submarine systems. The Company operates in three segments: America, Europe and Mediterranean, and Rest of World (ROW). The Company's product portfolio includes more than 100,000 products. As of December 31, 2013, the Company operated 56 manufacturing facilities, which included four facilities owned by companies in which the Company has an equity investment, in 25 countries with regional distribution centers around the world. ASBESTOS UPDATE: MeadWestvaco Had 570 PI Lawsuits as of Sept. 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- MeadWestvaco Corporation had 570 asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014. As with numerous other large industrial companies, the Company has been named a defendant in asbestos-related personal injury litigation. Typically, these suits also name many other corporate defendants. To date, the costs resulting from the litigation, including settlement costs, have not been significant. As of September 30, 2014, there were about 570 lawsuits. Management believes that the company has substantial indemnification protection and insurance coverage, subject to applicable deductibles and policy limits, with respect to asbestos claims. Management believes that the company has valid defenses to these claims and intends to continue to defend them vigorously. Additionally, based on its historical experience in asbestos cases and an analysis of the current cases, the company believes that it has adequate amounts accrued for potential settlements and judgments in asbestos-related litigation. At September 30, 2014, the company had recorded litigation liabilities of approximately $21 million, a significant portion of which relates to asbestos. Should the volume of litigation grow substantially, it is possible that the company could incur significant costs resolving these cases. After consulting with legal counsel and after considering established liabilities, it is our judgment that the resolution of pending litigation and proceedings is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the company's consolidated financial condition or liquidity. In any given period or periods, however, it is possible such proceedings or matters could have a material effect on the results of operations. MeadWestvaco Corporation (MWV) is a global packaging company providing solutions to the healthcare, beauty and personal care, food, beverage, home and garden, tobacco, and agricultural industries. The Company also produces specialty chemicals for the automotive, energy, and infrastructure industries and maximizes the value of its land holdings through forestry operations, property development and land sales. MWV's reporting segments are Food & Beverage; Industrial; Specialty Chemicals, and Community Development and Land Management. On December 11, 2012, MWV acquired the remaining 50% interest in Resitec Industria Quimica, Ltda. In December 2013, Meadwestvaco Corp completed the sale of U.S. forestlands to Plum Creek Timber Company. In June, 2014, ASG acquired the Bydgoszcz, Poland-based beauty and personal care folding carton business of MeadWestvaco Corporation. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cal. App. Affirms Ruling in Take-Home Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Wanda L. Beckering appeals a judgment following a grant of summary judgment in favor of Shell Oil Company in a premises liability action. Beckering alleges she developed mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos used by her late husband's employer, Shell. He inadvertently carried home the asbestos fibers on his work clothing, which she laundered. In Campbell v. Ford Motor Co. (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 15 (Campbell), the Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Three, applied the Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal.2d 108 (Rowland) factors, as further clarified in Cabral v. Ralphs Grocery Co. (2011) 51 Cal.4th 764 (Cabral), to hold a "property owner has no duty to protect family members of workers on its premises from secondary exposure to asbestos used during the course of the property owner's business." Guided by Campbell, the Court of Appeals concluded that based upon the Rowland public policy factors, a premises owner has no duty to protect a family member from secondary exposure to asbestos off the premises arising from her association with a family member who wore asbestos-contaminated work clothes home. To hold otherwise would impose limitless liability on premises owners, the Court of Appeals said. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment. The case is WANDA L. BECKERING, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SHELL OIL COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent, NO. B256407 (Cal. App.). A full-text copy of the Decision dated Nov. 21, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/MjnJCGfrom Leagle.com. The Plaintiff and Appellant is represented by: H. W. Trey Jones, Esq. Stephanie M. Taylor, Esq. THE LANIER LAW FIRM 10866 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 400 Tel: (310) 277-5100 The Defendant and Respondent is represented by: Jennifer A. Kuenster, Esq. Ross M. Petty, Esq. Aaron M. Brian, Esq. NIXON PEABODY LLP Gas Company Tower 555 West Fifth Street, 46th floor 90013-1010 Los Angeles, CA Email: jkuenster@nixonpeabody.com rpetty@nixonpeabody.com abrian@nixonpeabody.com ASBESTOS UPDATE: Partial Summary Judgment Granted in La. PI Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Lance M. Africk of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, in a Nov. 21, 2014 order, granted a motion for partial summary judgment filed by Albert L. Bossier, Jr., J. Melton Garrett, OneBeacon America Insurance Company, and Pennsylvania General Insurance Company, all defendants in a lawsuit alleging that decedent, Michael Comardelle, was "exposed to asbestos and asbestos-containing products manufactured, distributed, and sold" by defendants during the course of his employment from 1963 through 1979. According to Judge Africk, the evidence produced by the plaintiffs in the lawsuit suggests that the Avondale executive officers had responsibility for their employees' safety, attended meetings where safety policy was discussed, and knew that asbestos poses a safety risk. However, Judge Africk noted, the plaintiffs' evidence says nothing about the Avondale executive officers' control of the asbestos material itself. Accordingly, Judge Africk granted the motion and the plaintiffs' strict liability claims against the Avondale executive officers are dismissed with prejudice. The case is MICHAEL COMARDELLE, v. PENNSYLVANIA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY ET AL., Section I, CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-6555 (E.D. La.). A full-text copy of Judge Africk's Decision is available at http://is.gd/pHGOF6from Leagle.com. Brenda Perez Comardelle, surviving spouse of Michael Comardelle, Melissa Comardelle, children of Michael Comardelle, and Pamela Comardelle, children of Michael Comardelle, Plaintiffs, represented by Gerolyn Petit Roussel, Roussel & Clement, Jonathan Brett Clement, Roussel & Clement, Lauren Roussel Clement, Roussel & Clement & Perry Joseph Roussel, Jr., Roussel & Clement. Albert L Bossier, Jr, Defendant, Cross Claimant, and Third-party Plaintiff, represented by Gary Allen Lee, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Anita Ann Cates, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Darren M. Guillot, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Michael Scott Minyard, Barfield & Associates, Michael Kevin Powell, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP & Richard Marshall Perles, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP. Bayer CropScience, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Deborah DeRoche Kuchler, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Ernest G. Foundas, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Francis Xavier deBlanc, III, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, McGready Lewis Richeson, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Melissa M. Desormeaux, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Michael H. Abraham, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Milele N. St. Julien, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC & Perrey S. Lee, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC. Cajun Company Inc., incorrectly named as The Cajun Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by James L. Pate, NeunerPate & Jason T. Reed, NeunerPate. CBS Corporation, Defendant, represented by John Joseph Hainkel, III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot L.L.C., James H. Brown, Jr., Frilot L.L.C., Meredith K. Keenan, Frilot L.L.C., Peter R. Tafaro, Frilot L.L.C., Rebecca Abbott Zotti, Frilot L.L.C., Rose Marie Wade, Evert Weathersby Houff & William Davis Harvard, Evert Weathersby Houff. CBS Corporation, formerly known as Westinghouse Electric Corporatioin, Cross Defendant, represented byJohn Joseph Hainkel, III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot L.L.C., James H. Brown, Jr., Frilot L.L.C.,Meredith K. Keenan, Frilot L.L.C., Peter R. Tafaro, Frilot L.L.C., Rebecca Abbott Zotti, Frilot L.L.C., Rose Marie Wade, Evert Weathersby Houff & William Davis Harvard, Evert Weathersby Houff. Chevron Oronite Company LLC, incorrectly named as Chevron Chemical Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Tim Gray, Forman, Perry, Watkins, Krutz & Tardy, LLP, Forrest Ren Wilkes, Forman, Perry, Watkins, Krutz & Tardy, LLP, Jason K. Elam, Forman, Perry, Watkins, Krutz & Tardy, LLP, Troy Nathan Bell, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Tim Gray, Forman, Perry, Watkins, Krutz & Tardy, LLP,Forrest Ren Wilkes, Forman, Perry, Watkins, Krutz & Tardy, LLP, Jason K. Elam, Forman, Perry, Watkins, Krutz & Tardy, LLP & Troy Nathan Bell, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC. Eagle Inc, formerly known as Eagle Asbestos & Packing Co., Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented bySusan Beth Kohn, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Douglas Kinler, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, James R. Guidry, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP & Louis Oliver Oubre, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP. Foster Wheeler LLC, incorrectly named Foster-Wheeler LLC, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by John Joseph Hainkel, III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot L.L.C., James H. Brown, Jr., Frilot L.L.C., Meredith K. Keenan, Frilot L.L.C., Peter R. Tafaro, Frilot L.L.C. & Rebecca Abbott Zotti, Frilot L.L.C.. General Electric Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by John Joseph Hainkel, III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot L.L.C., Erik Nadolink, Esq. -- nadolink@wtotrial.com -- at Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell, LLP, James H. Brown, Jr., Frilot L.L.C., John M. Fitzpatrick, Esq. -- fitzpatrick@wtotrial.com -- at Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell, LLP, Meredith K. Keenan, Frilot L.L.C., Peter R. Tafaro, Frilot L.L.C. & Rebecca Abbott Zotti, Frilot L.L.C.. Hopeman Brothers, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by Kaye N. Courington, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Blaine Augusta Moore, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Jeffrey Matthew Burg, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Jennifer H. McLaughlin, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC & Troy Nathan Bell, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated, Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by Brian C. Bossier, Blue Williams, LLP,Christopher Thomas Grace, III, Blue Williams, LLP, Edwin A. Ellinghausen, III, Blue Williams, LLP, Erin Helen Boyd, Blue Williams, LLP, Laura M. Gillen, Blue Williams, LLP & Tracy C. Rotharmel, Liskow & Lewis. J Melton Garrett, Defendant, Cross Claimant, and Third-party Plaintiff represented by Gary Allen Lee, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Anita Ann Cates, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Darren M. Guillot, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Michael Scott Minyard, Barfield & Associates, Michael Kevin Powell, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP & Richard Marshall Perles, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, as the insurer of Wayne Manufacturing Company, Cross Claimant, Cross Defendant, and Third- party Defendant, represented by Kaye N. Courington, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Blaine Augusta Moore, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Jeffrey Matthew Burg, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Jennifer H. McLaughlin, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC & Troy Nathan Bell, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC. McCarty Corporation, successor to McCarty Branton Inc. and predecessor and successor to McCarty Insulation Sales Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Susan Beth Kohn, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Douglas Kinler, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, James R. Guidry, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP & Louis Oliver Oubre, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP. OneBeacon America Insurance Company, as successor to Commercial Union Insurance Company and Employers Commercial Union Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Samuel Milton Rosamond, III, Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC, Adam Devlin deMahy, Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC &Angela J. O'Brien, Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC. P2S LLC, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Lee M. Rudin, Aaron & Gianna, PLC & Lezly L. Petrovich, Aaron & Gianna, PLC. P2S LLC, Successor to Liability of SECO Industries, Inc. formerly known as Luling Acquisition, LLC, Defendant, represented by John Dennis Person, Esq. -- jperson@aarongianna.com -- at Aaron & Gianna, PLC. Pennsylvania General Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Samuel Milton Rosamond, III, Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC, Adam Devlin deMahy, Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC &Angela J. O'Brien, Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC. Pharmacia LLC, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by David Edmund Redmann, Jr., Bradley, Murchison, Kelly & Shea, LLC & Kimberly C. Delk, Bradley, Murchison, Kelly & Shea, LLC. Pharmacia LLC, formerly known as Pharmacia Corporation formerly known as Monsanto Company, Defendant, represented by Darryl J. Foster, Bradley, Murchison, Kelly & Shea, LLC. Reilly-Benton Company, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Thomas L. Cougill, Willingham Fultz & Cougill, Brandy Gonzales Scurria, Brandy Gonzales Legal Services, LLC, Diane Sweezer Davis, Esq. -- DDavis@ffllp.com -- at Funderburk Finderburk Courtois, LLP, Jamie M Zanovec, Willingham, Fultz & Cougill, Jeanette Seraile-Riggins, Willingham Fultz & Cougill & Jennifer D. Zajac, Willingham Fultz & Cougill. Taylor-Seidenbach, Cross Defendant, represented by Christopher Kelly Lightfoot, Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale, David C Bach, Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale LLP, Jevan Smoot Fleming, Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale & Richard J. Garvey, Jr., Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale. Taylor-Seidenbach, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Christopher Kelly Lightfoot, Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale, Anne Elizabeth Medo, Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale, David C Bach, Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale LLP, Edward J. Lassus, Jr., Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale & Richard J. Garvey, Jr., Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale. Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by David Mark Bienvenu, Jr., Bienvenu, Bonnecaze, Foco, Viator & Holinga, APLLC, Anthony Joseph Lascaro, Bienvenu, Bonnecaze, Foco, Viator & Holinga, APLLC, John Allain Viator, Bienvenu, Bonnecaze, Foco, Viator & Holinga, APLLC, Katie Dampier Chabert, Bienvenu, Bonnecaze, Foco, Viator & Holinga, APLLC, Lexi T. Holinga, Bienvenu, Bonnecaze, Foco, Viator & Holinga, APLLC, Tam Catherine Bourgeois, Bienvenu, Bonnecaze, Foco, Viator & Holinga, APLLC, David Mark Bienvenu, Jr., Bienvenu, Bonnecaze, Foco, Viator & Holinga, APLLC, Anthony Joseph Lascaro, Bienvenu, Bonnecaze, Foco, Viator & Holinga, APLLC, John Allain Viator, Bienvenu, Bonnecaze, Foco, Viator & Holinga, APLLC, Katie Dampier Chabert, Bienvenu, Bonnecaze, Foco, Viator & Holinga, APLLC, Lexi T. Holinga, Bienvenu, Bonnecaze, Foco, Viator & Holinga, APLLC & Tam Catherine Bourgeois, Bienvenu, Bonnecaze, Foco, Viator & Holinga, APLLC. Uniroyal, Inc., Defendant, represented by Forrest Ren Wilkes, Forman, Perry, Watkins, Krutz & Tardy, LLP. Uniroyal, Inc., formerly known as United States Rubber Company, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented byForrest Ren Wilkes, Forman, Perry, Watkins, Krutz & Tardy, LLP. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trials in 2 NYCAL Suits Stayed ----------------------------------------------- The stay of trials in the case styled IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION -- PROCTOR, v. ALCOA, INC. -- MARIO & DiBONO PLASTERING CO., INC., (And Another Action), MOTION NOS. M-4957, M- 4969 (N.Y. App. Div.), are granted on condition appeals perfected for the March 2015 Term. A full-text copy of the Decision of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department, dated Nov. 18, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/fJ7eorfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cal. App. Affirms Ruling in "Izell" Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Union Carbide Corporation appeals from a judgment entered in favor of Plaintiffs Bobbie Izell and Helen Izell on claims for personal injuries and loss of consortium stemming from Mr. Izell's alleged exposure to Union Carbide asbestos and subsequent diagnosis with mesothelioma. After a four-week trial the jury returned special verdicts finding Union Carbide 65% comparatively at fault for the Plaintiffs' injuries and awarding the Plaintiffs $30 million in compensatory damages plus $18 million in punitive damages against Union Carbide. By remittitur, which the Plaintiffs accepted, the trial court reduced the compensatory damage award to $6 million, but declined to disturb the punitive damages. On appeal, Union Carbide contends the evidence was insufficient to support the liability finding, apportionment of comparative fault, and the remitted compensatory damage award. Union Carbide also challenges the punitive damage award as excessive. The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Three, concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict, as well as the compensatory and punitive damage awards. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals affirmed. The appeals case is BOBBIE IZELL et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, Defendant and Appellant, NO. B245085 (Cal. App.). A full-text copy of the Decision dated Nov. 21, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/D1gIas from Leagle.com. Michele Odorizzi, Esq. -- modorizzi@mayerbrown.com -- at Mayer Brown LLP; and David K. Schultz, Esq., at McKenna, Long & Aldridge LLP and for Defendant and Appellant. John Langdoc, Esq. -- jlangdoc@baronbudd.com -- Denyse Clancy, Esq. -- dclancy@baronbudd.com -- and Christine Tamer, Esq. -- ctamer@baronbudd.com -- at Baron & Budd, P.C., for Plaintiffs and Respondents. ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Denies Bid to Remand "Maguire" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Marie T. Maguire, individually and as executrix for the estate of Thomas K. Maguire, brought a personal-injury action in New York state court for injuries arising out of Thomas Maguire's alleged exposure to asbestos. Of the many defendants, one, Crane Co., removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under 28 U.S.C. Section 1442(a)(1). Maguire now moves to remand the case to New York State Supreme Court, arguing that Crane's removal was untimely and that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. U.S. District Judge A. Paul Engelmayer denied the remand motion, but granted Maguire leave (1) to amend the complaint so as to unambiguously be free of any federal claims or defenses, and thereafter (2) to move for remand, on the grounds that the Court should not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this matter. The case is MARIE T. MAGUIRE, as Executrix for the Estate of THOMAS K. MAGUIRE, and MARIE T. MAGUIRE, Individually, Plaintiff, v. A.C. & S., INC., et al., Defendants, NO. 14 CIV. 7578 (PAE)(S.D.N.Y.). A full-text copy of Judge Engelmayer's opinion and order dated Nov. 21, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/6eTWfK from Leagle.com. Marie T. Maguire, as Executrix for the estate of Thomas K. Maguire, Plaintiff, represented by Gennaro Savastano, Wetiz & Luxenberg, P.C.. Marie T. Maguire, individually, Plaintiff, represented by David Joseph Barry, Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C.. A.O. Smith Water Products Co., Defendant, represented by Joseph P. LaSala, Esq. -- jlasala@mdmc-law.com -- at McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter, LLP. Crane Co., Defendant, represented by Angela Digiglio, Esq. -- angela.digiglio@klgates.com -- at K&L Gates & Tara Lynne Pehush, Esq. -- tara.pehush@klgates.com -- at K&L Gates LLP. Burnham LLC, as successor to Burnham Corporation, Defendant, represented by John C. McGuire, Esq. -- jmcguire@mdmc-law.com -- at McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter, LLP. Certain Teed Corporation, Defendant, represented by Eric David Statman, Esq. -- estatman@deybllp.com -- at Darger & Errante Yavitz & Blau LLP. Cleaver Brooks Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Suzanne M. Halbardier, Esq. -- SHalbardier@bmmfirm.com -- at Barry, McTiernan & Moore, LLP. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., Defendant, represented by Timothy M. McCann, David M. Santoro. Dana Companies, LLC, Defendant, represented by Eric David Statman, Darger & Errante Yavitz & Blau LLP. DB Riley, Inc., Defendant, represented by Giovanni Regina, Esq. -- gregina@lawwmm.com -- at Waters, McPherson, McNeil, P.C.. Goodyear Canada, Inc., Defendant, represented by Lawrence Gable Lee, Esq. -- lee@lawlynch.com -- at Lynch Daskal Emery, LLP. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, Defendant, represented by Lawrence Gable Lee, Lynch Daskal Emery, LLP. H.B. Fuller Company, Defendant, represented by Katrina Helene Murphy, Esq. -- kmurphy@smsm.com -- at Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney, Ltd.. Kohler Co., Defendant, represented by Jason S. Riemer, Esq. -- jriemer@hoaglandlongo.com -- at Hoagland Longo Moran Dunst & Doukas. Premier Refractories, Inc., formerly known as Adience, Inc. formerly known as BMI, Defendant, represented by James Michael Skelly, Esq. -- jmskelly@moodklaw.com -- at Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien & Courtney, P.C.. Treadwell Corporation, Defendant, represented by Kerryann Marie Cook, Esq. -- kcook@mklaw.us.com -- at McGivney & Kluger. ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Ct. Rules on Notice Issue in "Andrucki" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeals of New York, in the case styled IN THE MATTER OF NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to MARY ANDRUCKI, & C. ET AL., Appellants, v. ALUMINUM COMPANY OF AMERICA, ET AL., Defendants, PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY, Respondent, held that "[a] statute requires anyone who brings a lawsuit against the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey first to serve a notice stating the nature of the claim. We hold that under this statute a notice of a claim for personal injuries is a sufficient notice of a claim for wrongful death, where the person injured dies of his injuries between the service of the notice of claim and the beginning of the lawsuit." A full-text copy of the Court of Appeals' Opinion dated Nov. 20, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/crF57Wfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY App. Div. Modifies Ruling in "Berensman" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department, ordered that a lower court's decision denying defendant Georgia-Pacific LLC's motion for summary judgment dismissing an asbestos-related complaint and all cross claims as against it, is unanimously modified, on the law, to grant the motion to the extent of dismissing the plaintiffs' claims related to the defendant's wallboard products allegedly containing asbestos. The case is IN RE NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION. WILLIAM BERENSMANN, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. 3M COMPANY FORMERLY KNOWN AS MINNESOTA MINING & MANUFACTURING CO., ET AL., Defendants, GEORGIA-PACIFIC LLC, ETC., Defendant-Appellant, 13566, 190472/12 (N.Y. App. Div.). A full-text copy of the Decision dated Nov. 20, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/wnNF22from Leagle.com. Lynch Daskal Emery LLP, New York (Scott R. Emery, Esq. -- emery@lawlynch.com -- of counsel), for appellant. Levy Konigsberg LLP, New York (James M. Kramer of counsel), for respondent. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. App. Affirms Ruling in "Shipley" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- James Shipley served a citation on defendant C.P. Hall Company, a defunct asbestos distributor which plaintiff won a $3 million judgment. Months later, after C.P. Hall filed for bankruptcy, the plaintiff filed motions alleging that Stephen Hoke (former attorney for C.P. Hall), Patrick Shine (president and owner of C.P. Hall), and Cooney and Conway LLC (a law firm that won hundreds of judgments against C.P. Hall on behalf of asbestos plaintiffs), violated the restraining provision of the citation issued to C.P. Hall. Citing section 2-1402(f)(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the plaintiff sought a judgment holding Hoke, Shine, and Cooney jointly and severally liable for the entire $3 million judgment. In the spring of 2013, the trial court issued separate orders finding that it lacked (1) subject-matter jurisdiction over Shine and (2) personal jurisdiction over Hoke and Cooney. The Plaintiff appeals, arguing that (1) the termination of supplementary proceedings did not deprive the trial court of subject-matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff's enforcement motions, and (2) the plaintiff's failure to issue separate citations to Hoke, Shine, and Cooney did not deprive the court of personal jurisdiction over those parties. The Appellate Court of Illinois, Fourth District, ruled that although it agrees that the court had subject-matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff's enforcement motions and personal jurisdiction over Hoke and Shine, the Appellate Court concluded that Hoke and Shine properly invoked the termination of supplementary proceedings as an affirmative defense, precluding the plaintiff's right to relief under section 2-1402(f)(1) of the Code. The Appellate Court further concluded that the plaintiff's failure to issue a separate citation to Cooney deprived the court of personal jurisdiction over Cooney. Accordingly, the Appellate Court affirmed the court's judgment in both appeals. The appeals case is JAMES SHIPLEY, as Independent Executor of the Estate of Janet Shipley, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STEPHEN HOKE, PATRICK SHINE, and COONEY & CONWAY, Defendants-Appellees, and THE C.P. HALL COMPANY, Defendant, NOS. 4-13-0810, 4-13-0837 CONS (Ill. App.). A full-text copy of the Decision dated Nov. 24, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/Ojw7cYfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Limits Reinsurer's Liability ------------------------------------------------------ Plaintiff Utica Mutual Insurance Company commenced a diversity action against defendant Clearwater Insurance Company, alleging breach of contract claims and seeking declaratory relief. Utica issued a number of primary insurance policies, including general and commercial general liability insurance policies, to Goulds Pumps Inc. Clearwater then agreed to issue facultative reinsurance certificates to Utica. In or about March 2003, Goulds, which had been named as defendant in asbestos claims, commenced an action against Utica, seeking a declaration as to Utica's coverage obligation. Around February 2007, Goulds and Utica settled the declaratory judgment action, and, thereafter, Utica began making payments to Goulds, which continue today. At some point in 2012, Utica began billing Clearwater. In the diversity action, Clearwater filed a motion for partial summary judgment, which Judge Gary L. Sharpe of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York granted. Judge Sharpe ordered that Clearwater's liability, if any, under the 1978 Certificate and 1979 Certificate cannot exceed $5 million or $2.5 million, and ordered that the parties contact Magistrate Judge Therese Wiley Dancks to schedule further proceedings in the matter. The case is UTICA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. CLEARWATER INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, NO. 6:13-CV- 1178.(GLS/TWD)(N.D.N.Y.). A full-text copy of Judge Sharpe's Decision is available at http://is.gd/oisHOpfrom Leagle.com. PHILLIP G. STECK, ESQ., Cooper, Erving Law Firm, Albany, NY, for the Plaintiff. WILLIAM M. SNEED, ESQ., -- wsneed@sidley.com -- at Sidley, Austin Law Firm, Chicago, IL. DAVID M. RAIM, ESQ., -- draim@chadbourne.com -- at Chadbourne, Parke Law Firm, Washington, DC, for the Defendant. ********* 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 * * *