/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/141212.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, December 12, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 247 Headlines 455 HOSPITALITY: Banquet Servers Seek to Recover Unpaid OT & Tips ACXIOM CORPORATION: Parties Reached Settlement in Class Action ALL STEEL: Faces "Rogel" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Hours AMERICAN AIRLINES: Mechanics Lack Standing to Sue, Court Rules APPLE INC: iTunes Updates Protects From Hackers, Expert Testifies AWA SECURITY: Removes "Morales" Suit to Florida District Court AXA EQUITABLE: New York Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Class Suit BLUE BUFFALO: Removes "Cox" Suit to Southern District of Ohio BODACIOUS FOOD: Sued by Cincinnati Insurance in S.D. Florida BOREVIEW SERVICES: "Nash" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages CANADA LINE: 200+ Cambrie Street Merchants File Class Action CHILDRESS DIRECTIONAL: Fails to Pay Overtime, "Nash" Suit Claims COBALT INT'L: Faces "Neuman" Suit Over Securities Laws Violations COBALT INT'L: Sued for Bribing Angolan Officials for Oil Rights COMMUNITY BANK: Reached Settlement in Two Class Actions COMPUTER CREDIT: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims CRANE CO: Completes Obligations to Close Class Suit Settlement CSK AUTO: Uses Consumer Reports for Background Checks, Suit Says DIODES INCORPORATED: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Class Action DISH NETWORK: Faces Suit for Failing to Provide Turner Programs DRESS BARN: Removes "Velasco" Suit to California District Court ELIMAR HOLDINGS: Accused of Not Paying Proper Overtime Wages EP FITNESS: Faces Class Suit Over Membership Cancellation Issues F.N.B. CORP: Plaintiff Voluntarily Dismissed OBA Class Action FANDUEL INC: Faces "Buzin" Suit Over Misleading Product Ad FANDUEL INC: Faces "Carroll" Suit Over Misleading Advertising FAST EVICTION: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Mogadam" Suit Claims FIFTH THIRD: Court Denied Motion to Dismiss Complaints FIFTH THIRD: Supreme Court Remanded Case Back to 6th Circuit FIREEYE INC: Wolf Haldenstein Commences Securities Class Action FIRST AMERICAN: Court Refuses to Open WaMu Appraisal Scheme Files FIT FOODS: Faces False Advertising Class Action GAF MATERIALS: Faces Class Suit Over Defective Timbers Decking GAMESTOP INC: Removes "Larkin" Class Action Suit to S.D. Florida GERBER INC: Court Finds Article III Standing for Class Action GLOBAL PAYMENTS: Faces "Waters" Suit Alleging Violations of FDCPA GOLDMAN SACHS: Labaton Sucharow Files Nationwide Class Action GOLDMAN SACHS: Modern Settings Sue Over Platinum Price Fixing GT ADVANCED: Securities Class Action Pending in New Hampshire GUY A CORP: "Zalucean" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime HEALTHWAYS INC: Junk Fax Suit Removed to California Federal Court HIRISE ENGINEERING: Accused of Violating RICO Act in New York HOME DEPOT: Faces Pittsfield Cooperative Suit Over Data Breach KIMBALL INTERNATIONAL: Has $5 Mil. Pre-Tax Income From Settlement KNIGHTSBRIDGE PROPERTIES: Class Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages, OT KONDAUR CAPITAL: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims MERCHANTS & MEDICAL: Accused of Violating FDCPA in Pennsylvania MINOS CONSTRUCTION: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages MOL GLOBAL: Overstated Financial Reports, "Jewel" Action Claims MUSKEGON, MI: Sued for Violating Civil Rights of Prisoners NATIONAL WESTERN: Resolves Deferred Annuities Litigation NYMOX PHARMA: Bernard M. Gross Law Firm Files Class Suit in N.J. OILTANKING PARTNERS: Faces Suit Over Enterprise Product Merger ONLINE INFORMATION: Faces Suit in N.J. Over Violations of FDCPA PAULSON CAPITAL: Andrews & Springer Files Securities Class Action PC RICHARD: Faces "Steward" Suite Over Failure to Pay OT Wages PETER UNDERGROUND: Faces "Perez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Fails to Provide FDCPA Disclosures, Suit Says PRINCECO INC: Removes "O'Hara" Suit to Florida District Court PROTECTIVE LIFE: Inks MOU to Settle Delaware Class Action RADIOSHACK CORP: Plan Fiduciaries Accused of Breaching Duties SIRIUS XM: Settles Suit Over Automatic Renewals for $3.8 Million STAAR SURGICAL: Plaintiff in "Todd" Case Reduced Class Period STATE FARM: Removes "Burk" Class Suit to Arizona District Court SUNRISE CREDIT: Sued Over Violations of Fair Debt Collection Act SUNTRUST MORTGAGE: Sued Over Force-Placed Insurance Charges TAKATA CORPORATION: Faces "Rosenstock" Suit Over Faulty Airbags TESCO: Bentham Agrees to Fund Shareholder Class Action TIMEKEEPERS INC: Fails to Pay Guards Overtime, "Montes" Suit Says TRICO BANCSHARES: Entered Into MOU to Settle Class Action TWITTER INC: Court Refuses to Junk Text Message Spamming Suit UNITED RECOVERY: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Settlement Escrow Funded in October 2014 VALHI INC: NL Industries' Appeal in Lead Pigment Case Ongoing VICTIM SERVICES: Sued for Using DA Letterhead in Collecting Debts VIVINT SOLAR: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Action WHOLE FOODS: Violates Fair Credit Reporting Act, Class Suit Says WILLIAM A HECHT: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act XL FOODS: Enters Into Tentative Beef Recall Settlement Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: WR Grace Paid $632-Mil. to PI Trust ASBESTOS UPDATE: WR Grace Had $6.8MM Fibro-related Charges ASBESTOS UPDATE: WR Grace Paid $400,000 to PD Trust at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Con Edison Accrues $8MM Fibro Suits Liability ASBESTOS UPDATE: CECONY Has $7-Mil. Fibro Suits Liability ASBESTOS UPDATE: Con Edison Has $50MM Liability for NY Incident ASBESTOS UPDATE: MetLife Unit Receives 3,641 Claims at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Corp. Estimates $36MM Fibro Liability ASBESTOS UPDATE: Steel Partners Unit Has 237 Fibro Tort Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: HII Continues to Defend Fibro Cases ASBESTOS UPDATE: CECO Had 196 Fibro Cases as of Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harsco Corp. Had 17,366 PI Claims at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pfizer Has 61,736 American Optical PI Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Unit Has $591-Mil. Fibro Reserves ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitex Int'l. Continues to Defend Fibro Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: MRC Global Has 402 PI Suits at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Noble Corp. Has 42 Fibro Suits at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court OK's Global Indemnity Fibro Insurance Deal ASBESTOS UPDATE: BNSF Railway Continues to Defend Fibro Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Had 47,922 Fibro Claims at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Court Hears Reargument in Suit v. Crane Co. ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Suit v. Crane Co. Oral Argument Set for 2015 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Frank Paasch's Claim v. Crane Co. Dismissed ASBESTOS UPDATE: NL Industries Has 1,130 Personal Injuries Cases ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3 Cos. Obtain Summary Judgment in NJ PI Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3 Cos. Gets Summary Judgment in "McManns" Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2d. Cir. Affirms Mazza CERCLA Conviction ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2d. Cir. Flips Ruling in Reinsurance Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. Court Recommends Remand of "Bartel" Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. PI Suit Recommended for Remand ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Citron" Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: O'Connor's Bid to Dismiss "Norton" Suit OK'd ********* 455 HOSPITALITY: Banquet Servers Seek to Recover Unpaid OT & Tips ----------------------------------------------------------------- Carlos Ocampo, Igor Morozov, Jorge Villanueva, Amaury Ortiz, Plinio Retana, Manuel Calderon, and Sutee Monchaitanapat, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. 455 Hospitality LLC, DoubleTree Franchise LLC, DoubleTree Hotel Systems, Inc., Richard Friedman, David Ribbens, Norma Abdou and Nurul Haque, Case No. 7:14-cv-09614-KMK (S.D.N.Y., December 4, 2014) is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs, who worked as banquet servers for the Defendants at DoubleTree by Hilton Hotel located in Tarrytown, New York, seek to recover unpaid overtime, gratuities and tips pursuant to the FLSA. 455 Hospitality LLC is a New York limited liability company and is the owner, operator and manager of DoubleTree by Hilton Hotel Tarrytown. 455 Hospitality is a franchisee of DoubleTree Franchise LLC and DoubleTree Hotel Systems, Inc. The Individual Defendants are directors or officers of Hotel. DoubleTree Franchise LLC is a Delaware limited liability company headquartered in McLean, Virginia. DoubleTree Hotel Systems, Inc., is an Arizona corporation also headquartered in McLean. They granted licenses to franchisees, including 455 Hospitality. The Plaintiffs are represented by: John Joseph Malley, Esq. SMITH, BUSS & JACOBS, LLP 733 Yonkers Avenue, Suite 200 Yonkers, NY 10704 Telephone: (914) 476-0600 Facsimile: (914) 476-0614 E-mail: jmalley@sbjlaw.com - and - Vincent Volino, Esq. VINCENT VOLINO PLLC 1250 Central Park Avenue Yonkers, NY 10704 Telephone: (914) 423-2023 Facsimile: (914) 423-8964 E-mail: vvolino@volinolaw.com ACXIOM CORPORATION: Parties Reached Settlement in Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Acxiom Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the parties in a class action lawsuit have reached a tentative settlement agreement and the Company has accrued $3.7 million as its estimate of its probable loss associated with this matter. On August 16, 2012, a putative class action styled Henderson, et al. v. Acxiom Risk Mitigation, Inc., et al. was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against the Company, Acxiom Information Security Systems, a former subsidiary of the Company that was sold to another company in fiscal 2012, and Acxiom Risk Mitigation, Inc. (now known as Acxiom Identity Solutions, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company), a subsidiary of the Company. The action seeks to certify nationwide classes of persons who requested a consumer file from any Acxiom entity from 2007 forward; who were the subject of an Acxiom report sold to a third party that contained information not obtained directly from a governmental entity and who did not receive a timely copy of the report; who were the subject of an Acxiom report and about whom Acxiom adjudicated the hire/no hire decision on behalf of the employer; who, from 2010 forward, disputed an Acxiom report and Acxiom did not complete the investigation within 30 days; or who, from 2007 forward, were the subject of an Acxiom report for which no permissible purpose existed. The complaint alleges various violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and seeks injunctive relief, an unspecified amount of statutory, compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs. The parties have reached a tentative settlement agreement and the Company has accrued $3.7 million as its estimate of its probable loss associated with this matter. The Company believes the chances of additional loss are remote. ALL STEEL: Faces "Rogel" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Hours ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jose Rogel, individually and on behalf of other employees similarly situated v. All Steel Iron Works, Inc., and John Kot, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-09653 (N.D. Ill., December 2, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. All Steel Iron Works, Inc. is a Chicago-area based structural and miscellaneous steel fabricator and erector. The Plaintiff is represented by: Raisa Alicea, Esq. CONSUMER LAW GROUP 6232 N Pulaski Rd, Ste. 200 Chicago, IL 60646 Telephone: (312) 878-1263 E-mail: ralicea@yourclg.com AMERICAN AIRLINES: Mechanics Lack Standing to Sue, Court Rules -------------------------------------------------------------- American Airlines mechanics unhappy with their employer's contract with the Transportation Workers Union lack standing to sue, reports David Lee at Courthouse News Service, citing a federal court ruling. Fort Worth-based American merged with US Airways last year after filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in 2011. Mechanics narrowly ratified the TWU contract during the bankruptcy, defeating a contingent that preferred representation by the American Mechanics Fraternal Association. The contract runs through September 2018 and will not be up for renegotiation until September 2016. Gary Peterson and others brought a federal class action in Washington last year, claiming TWU breached its duty of fair representation and violated their voting rights under the Labor- Management Reporting and Disclosure Act. They claimed that TWU favored mechanics who work at American's main maintenance base in Tulsa, Okla., at the expense of company mechanics elsewhere. American is not a party in the lawsuit. The plaintiffs claimed the union negotiated to "inflict disproportionate losses on what it viewed as troublesome dissenters," and that its leadership was "openly hostile" during negotiations with leaders of non-Tulsa local unions. Instead of trying to invalidate the contract or seek monetary damages, the plaintiffs asked for declaratory judgment and a permanent injunction stopping TWU from using the alleged unfair practices in future negotiations. U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper tossed the lawsuit on December 1 for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In addition to being unripe, the mechanics' suit failed to identify "any impending injury that could be prevented by the relief they seek," Cooper said. "Given the distinct possibility that the TWU will not be the exclusive bargaining representative in negotiations over the next CBA, and the lack of information regarding when and how negotiations can be expected to unfold, plaintiffs have not demonstrated a substantial risk that TWU's alleged favoritism towards the Tulsa mechanics in the last round of system-wide bargaining will reoccur," the 12-page opinion states. "This source of alleged future injury is therefore insufficient to establish standing." The mechanics failed to show that the union's proposal for a joint-negotiation council in the future will nonetheless give TWU influence detrimental to their interests, according to the ruling. "Plaintiffs have not alleged who the TWU representatives on the joint council will be; how the TWU's stance might be adverse to the plaintiffs' interests; or, even if it proves to be adverse, whether the TWU representatives would be in a position to compel the joint council to engage in the types of unfair practices alleged in the second amended complaint," Cooper wrote. "Given these uncertainties, the possibility that the TWU might harm the Plaintiffs via its influence over any future joint council is too speculative to satisfy Article III standing requirements." Cooper also disagreed that the suit is necessary to protect the mechanics from unfair treatment in the current collective- bargaining agreement. The mechanics said continuing negotiations "on a variety of subjects" exposes them to potential harm. "Yet the second amended complaint fails even to mention any specific day-to-day negotiations, let alone allege injuries stemming from them," Cooper wrote. "Although the court may examine evidence outside the complaint to decide a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs still have not meet their burden to allege likely injury arising from day-to-day representation." TWU representatives could not be reached for comment late December 2 evening. American did not respond to a request for comment. The case is Gary Peterson, et al. v. Transport Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, Case No. 1:13-cv-00170 (CRC), in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. APPLE INC: iTunes Updates Protects From Hackers, Expert Testifies ----------------------------------------------------------------- An Apple security expert defended a series of iTunes updates as protection from hackers, as the trial of a class action antitrust lawsuit against the tech giant continued in an Oakland federal court on December 3, according to Arvin Temkar at Courthouse News Service. At issue is the claim that Apple maintained a music player monopoly from 2006 to 2009 by releasing updates to its music store that made it impossible for iPods to play songs from competing stores. Plaintiffs say this harmed consumers by making it costly to switch to other devices, and allowed Apple to charge high prices. Augustin Farrugia, a senior director at Apple, told the jury during the trial's second day that updates were necessary to bolster security in a system that "had flaws everywhere." Part of the trial's focus is software by RealNetwork called Harmony, which allowed songs from Real's music store to be played on the iPod until iTunes updates prevented that. Plaintiff's attorneys have argued that the iTunes updates were directed at competitors like Real. But Farrugia said Apple plays a "cat and mouse" game with hackers, and must continuously update its security to stay ahead. When questioned by Apple's attorneys, Farrugia also pointed out that Apple's updates did not prevent songs downloaded from Amazon.com's mp3 store -- another competitor -- from being played in iTunes or on iPods. After Farrugia's testimony, lead plaintiff Mariana Rosen -- representing a class of an estimated eight million consumers and 500 businesses -- took the stand. Rosen testified that she tried to buy music from a Russian website, but the music did not play because it wasn't in Apple's format. Because much of her music library was purchased through iTunes, she said she didn't want to get another device. "In a way, I was a little bit forced to buy a certain product," Rosen said. "Even if I would have chosen Apple in the end, I would have wanted it to be my own choice." Video from Steve Jobs' deposition in the nearly decade-old case is expected to be shown in court during the trial. It was initially slated for December 3 or 4, but has been pushed back. AWA SECURITY: Removes "Morales" Suit to Florida District Court -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Morales v. AWA Security, Inc., et al., Case No. 14-028599 CA 01, was removed from the County Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-24590-CMA to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings a claim for minimum wage, overtime and attorneys fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act, as well as the Florida Minimum Wage Act. The Plaintiff also brings a claim for retaliation under the Florida Whistleblower Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason Saul Remer, Esq. Brody Max Shulman, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC Court House Tower, Suite 2200 44 West Flagler Street Miami, Fl 33130 Telephone: (305) 416-5000 Facsimile: (305) 416-5005 E-mail: jremer@rgpattorneys.com bshulman@rgpattorneys.com The Defendants are represented by: Jana M. Leichter, Esq. COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A. 1645 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd. Sabadell Bank Building, 2nd Floor West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Telephone: (561) 383-9241 Facsimile: (561) 683-8977 E-mail: Jana.Leichter@csklegal.com AXA EQUITABLE: New York Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied the Company's motion to dismiss a class action complaint. The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in April 2014, entitled Andrew Yale on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. AXA Life Insurance Company F/K/A AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company. The lawsuit is a putative class action on behalf of all persons and entities who, directly or indirectly, purchased, renewed or paid premiums on life insurance policies issued by AXA Equitable from 2011 to March 11, 2014 (the "Policies"). The complaint alleges that the reserves listed in AXA Equitable's New York statutory annual statement did not disclose that certain reinsurance transactions with affiliated reinsurance companies were collateralized using "contractual parental guarantees," and thereby allegedly misrepresented AXA Equitable's "financial condition" and its "legal reserve system." The lawsuit seeks recovery under Section 4226 of the New York Insurance Law of the equivalent of all premiums paid by the class for the Policies during that period. In June 2014, AXA Equitable filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which was denied in October 2014. BLUE BUFFALO: Removes "Cox" Suit to Southern District of Ohio ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Cox v. Blue Buffalo Company, Ltd., Case No. 2014 CV 06322, was removed from the Court of Common Pleas in Montgomery County, Ohio, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (Dayton). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:14-cv-00435-WHR to the proceeding. Plaintiff Beth Cox alleges that Blue Buffalo's advertising and marketing practices violated Ohio common law prohibitions on breach of warranty, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, and unjust enrichment. She contends that Blue Buffalo also falsely claims that its Pet Food Products do not contain corn, other grains or artificial preservatives. The action is one of several related putative class actions filed in multiple jurisdictions against Blue Buffalo, the others of which have all been transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri for "coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings." The Plaintiff is represented by: Stuart E. Scott, Esq. Daniel Frech, Esq. SPANGENBERG SHIBLEY & LIBER LLP 1001 Lakeside Avenue East, Suite 1700 Cleveland, OH 44114 Telephone: (216) 696-3232 Facsimile: (216) 696-3924 E-mail: sscott@spanglaw.com dfrech@spanglaw.com - and - Jonathan Tycko, Esq. Andrea R. Gold, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 2000 L Street, NW, Suite 808 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 973-0900 Facsimile: (202) 973-0950 E-mail: jtycko@tzlegal.com agold@tzlegal.com The Defendants are represented by: D. Jeffrey Ireland, Esq. FARUKI IRELAND & COX, P.L.L. 500 Courthouse Plaza, SW 10 North Ludlow Street Dayton, OH 45402 Telephone: (937) 227-3710 Facsimile: (937) 227-3717 E-mail: djireland@ficlaw.com - and - Martin Flumenbaum, Esq. Robert A. Atkins, Esq. Darren W. Johnson, Esq. PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 373-3000 Facsimile: (212) 757-3990 E-mail: mflumenbaum@paulweiss.com ratkins@paulweiss.com djohnson@paulweiss.com BODACIOUS FOOD: Sued by Cincinnati Insurance in S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------------ The Cincinnati Insurance Company v. Bodacious Food Company, a Georgia Corporation, and Linda Dye, as an Individual and Representative of a Purported Class of Others similarly situated, Case No. 9:14-cv-81515-BB (S.D. Fla., December 4, 2014) seeks declaratory judgment relating to insurance-related dispute. The Plaintiff is represented by: David Arthur Glenny, Esq. BICE COLE LAW FIRM, P.L. 1333 SE 25th Loop, Suite 101 Ocala, FL 34471 Telephone: (352) 732-2255 Facsimile: (352) 351-0166 E-mail: glenny@bicecolelaw.com - and - Melanie Erica Chung-Tims, Esq. BICE COLE LAW FIRM, P.L. 999 Ponce de Leon Blvd., Suite 710 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 444-1225 Facsimile: (305) 446-1598 E-mail: chungtims@bicecolelaw.com BOREVIEW SERVICES: "Nash" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- William Nash, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Boreview Services, LLC, Case No. 4:14-cv-03452 (S.D. Tex., December 2, 2014), seeks to recover the unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Boreview Services, LLC is an oilfield services company based in the Houston area with significant operations in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. FIBICH, HAMPTON, LEEBRON, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON, LLP 1150 Bissonnet St Houston, TX 77005 Telephone: (713) 751-0025 Facsimile: (713) 751-0030 E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com CANADA LINE: 200+ Cambrie Street Merchants File Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Kelly Sinoski, writing for Vancouver Sun, reports that at the height of the Canada Line tunnel construction in December 2007, Leonard Schein's Park Theatre pulled in C$73,000 at the box office. Although Canada Line lawyer Sean Hern suggested on that wasn't a bad haul -- and could have been related to the movies showing at the time -- Mr. Schein disagreed, saying December is usually a big month at the Park. "In December, under C$100,000 we would be doing poorly," Mr. Schein testified before B.C. Supreme Court Justice Christopher Grauer on Nov. 25. "To do so poorly, something is going wrong." That something -- a cut-and-cover tunnel that ripped up a section of Cambie Street for three years -- is at the heart of a class- action lawsuit launched by more than 200 Cambie Street merchants. The suit, started in B.C. Supreme Court, is seeking compensation from Canada Line Rapid Transit Inc., contractor SNC-Lavalin, TransLink and others for the hardship experienced by businesses along Cambie Street from 2005 to 2009. Lawyer Paul Bennett, who is representing the class-action members, argued in his opening statements that SNC-Lavalin and TransLink should have constructed a bored tunnel along Cambie Street between 6th Avenue and King Edward to lessen the impact on merchants. "The construction of the Canada Line tunnels using the cut and cover method of construction transformed Cambie Village into an intense and extensive construction zone for more than three years while the Canada Line was constructed," said Bennett, of Hordo Bennett Mounteer. This is the second time Cambie Street merchants have appeared in court over the Canada Line construction. Susan Heyes, owner of Hazel & Co., was awarded $600,000 in damages as compensation for the construction that disrupted her sales from 2005 to 2008. However, that judgment was overturned by the Court of Appeal in 2011. Canada Line lawyer Robert McDonnell -- rmcdonell@farris.com -- of Farris, Vaughan, Wills & Murphy, said his firm will rely on the Court of Appeal ruling, which dismissed Ms. Heyes' claim for compensation on the basis that Canada Line construction was authorized by provincial statutes. "Canada Line will be asking the court to dismiss these additional claims on the same basis," Mr. McDonnell said. However, Bennett argues the Cambie merchants are entitled to claim damages for nuisance, or alternatively, if the interference was authorized by statute, for injurious affection. "This construction significantly restricted the ability of the public to conveniently access and patronize the businesses operating in Cambie Village," he said. Mr. Schein testified on Nov. 25 that contractor SNC-Lavalin had failed to provide permanent signs to guide traffic, while taking up merchant and customer blocks parking with no warning to the Cambie Village Merchants' Association or the City of Vancouver. "It was like an ongoing battle to have things being done to minimize the damage," Mr. Schein said, adding radio traffic announcers were warning people to stay away from Cambie. "And that was all we were asking for: to minimize the damage." Mr. Schein said it wasn't until seven months later that the Canada Line said it would work with the city to make improvements. And even then, he said, the contractor failed to carry through on its promises to provide funding to enhance Cambie Street with better lamp standards and repaved roads. However, Hern, who is working with McDonnell, suggested Mr. Schein benefited from the Canada Line. He noted the Park box office bounced back after the Canada Line construction was finished, raking in C$110,000 in December 2009 and C$171,000 in December 2010. But Mr. Schein argued the King Edward Station is too far away from the Park for customers, who are mostly women, to walk. "I do not think we were helped by the Canada Line at all," he said. Gary Gautam, of the Cambie General Store, said while he "loves the Canada Line," he was also affected by the construction. Although he considers himself one of the "lucky ones" with strong support from his neighbors and a two-year rent reduction from his landlord, Mr. Gautam said he was forced to cut his hours and raise prices to stay afloat. The hearing continues. CHILDRESS DIRECTIONAL: Fails to Pay Overtime, "Nash" Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- William Nash, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Childress Directional Drilling, LLC, Case No. 4:14-cv- 03450 (S.D. Tex., December 2, 2014), seeks to recover the unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Childress Directional Drilling, LLC is a Houston-based oilfield service company with significant operations in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. FIBICH, HAMPTON, LEEBRON, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON, LLP 1150 Bissonnet St Houston, TX 77005 Telephone: (713) 751-0025 Facsimile: (713) 751-0030 E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com COBALT INT'L: Faces "Neuman" Suit Over Securities Laws Violations ----------------------------------------------------------------- Steven Neuman, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated v. Cobalt International Energy, Inc., Joseph H. Bryant, and John P. Wilkirson, Case No. 4:14-cv-03488 (S.D. Tex., December 5, 2014) is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons other than the Defendants, who purchased Cobalt securities between February 21, 2012, and August 4, 2014, inclusive. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages caused by the Defendants' alleged violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and certain of its top officials. Cobalt International Energy, Inc., is engaged in the exploration and production of oil-focused and below-salt exploration prospects in the deepwater of the U.S. Gulf of Mexico and offshore Angola and Gabon in West Africa. During relevant times, Joseph H. Bryant is the Company's Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors, while John P. Wilkirson is the Company's Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice President. The Plaintiff is represented by: Sammy Ford IV, Esq. ABRAHAM, WATKINS, NICHOLS, SORRELS, AGOSTO & FRIEND 800 Commerce Street Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 222-7211 Facsimile: (713) 225-0827 E-mail: sford@abrahamwatkins.com - and - Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. Francis P. McConville, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com fmcconville@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, Illinois 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com COBALT INT'L: Sued for Bribing Angolan Officials for Oil Rights --------------------------------------------------------------- Cameron Langford at Courthouse News Service reports that Cobalt International Energy bribed Angolan officials for oil drilling rights and its stock price tanked when the SEC took note, costing investors billions of dollars, according to a class action lawsuit. The named plaintiffs are two pension funds: one for St. Lucie County firefighters in Florida and one for firefighters and police in San Antonio. They sued Cobalt, a Houston-based oil drilling firm, its directors, and several investment firms that controlled the company, including Goldman Sachs and The Carlyle Group, on November 28 in Texas Federal Court. Goldman Sachs and its fellow investment firm Riverstone Holdings founded Cobalt in 2005 with $500 million in financing, according to the lawsuit. "Between 2006 and the company's December 15, 2009 initial public offering, the investment firms invested more than $1 billion collectively to capitalize the company," the 72-page complaint states. Cobalt also raised billions of dollars from outside investors and took its fat pockets to Angola to shop for oil wells, the pension funds claim. "In February 2010, pursuant to an agreement with the Angolan government, Cobalt gained access to certain oil exploration 'blocks' in offshore Angola," the lawsuit states. Cobalt enticed investors by claiming the blocks contained oil reserves with a "greater than billion barrel potential," according to the complaint. But things were not as they seemed at Cobalt, the plaintiffs claim, which became apparent when the company announced in February 2012 that the SEC was investigating it under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Though Cobalt told investors it "strongly refuted any allegations of wrongdoing," the SEC did not go away, ramping up investigation in August to include possible securities violations, the plaintiffs say. That news broke on Aug. 5 this year via an announcement from Cobalt. "Also, on the morning of August 5, 2014, Bloomberg reported that an anti-corruption organization had determined that Cobalt had made an apparent bribe to the Angolan government, because Cobalt had paid the Angolan government millions of dollars to support an Angolan research center that Cobalt could not confirm actually exists," the complaint states. On Nov. 5, Cobalt disclosed that contrary to its previous claims that one of its Angolan wells was oil-rich, testing revealed the well contained neither oil nor gas. Investors were whipsawed with the announcements, as the share price fell from $15.97 in early August to $8.84 as of December 2 morning. "As a result of defendants' misconduct, plaintiffs and the class collectively incurred massive, multibillion-dollar losses on their investments in Cobalt securities," the complaint states. The pension funds seek class certification and damages for Securities Act violations. The defendants are a who's who of financial service firms, including Goldman Sachs Group, Riverstone Holdings LLC, The Carlyle Group, First Reserve Corp., KERN Partners Ltd., Morgan Stanley & Co., Credit Suisse Securities (USA), Citigroup Global Markets and JP Morgan Securities. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gerald Drought, Esq. MARTIN & DROUGHT, P.C. Bank of America Plaza 300 Convent St., 25th Floor San Antonio, TX 78205-3789 Telephone: (210) 227-7591 Facsimile: (210) 227-7924 E-mail: gdrought@mdtlaw.com COMMUNITY BANK: Reached Settlement in Two Class Actions ------------------------------------------------------- Community Bank System, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that Community Bank, N.A. reached a settlement in two class actions pending in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania which were commenced October 30, 2013 and May 29, 2014, respectively. The first action alleged that notices provided by the Bank in connection with the repossession of the named plaintiff's automobile failed to comply with certain requirements of the Pennsylvania and New York Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) and related statutes. The plaintiff sought to pursue the action as a class action on behalf of herself and similarly situated plaintiffs who had their automobiles repossessed and sought to recover statutory damages under the UCC. The second action filed May 29, 2014 contained similar allegations, which the plaintiff also sought to pursue as a class action for statutory damages. In both cases, the Bank contested the allegations that the notices were deficient, asserted various legal defenses and counterclaims, and opposed class certification in both of the cases. On September 30, 2014, the Bank reached an agreement in principle to settle both actions for $2.8 million in exchange for releases of all claims. The settlement is subject to final documentation, notice to the class members and Court approval. A litigation settlement charge of $2.8 million with respect to the settlement of the class actions was recorded in the third quarter. The Company also said that operating expenses of $58.8 million and $169.9 for the third quarter and September YTD periods increased $3.8 million or 6.8% and $5.9 million or 3.6% from the comparable prior year periods, respectively, reflective of the additional operating costs associated with operating a larger enterprise. Included in third quarter 2014 operating expenses is a $2.8 million litigation settlement charge pertaining to class action lawsuits involving the sufficiency of consumer notice requirements for certain of the Company's collateral recovery activities. The Company contests the allegations and asserted affirmative defenses to the claims, however, the settlement the Company was able to achieve was, in its judgment, a superior outcome for the shareholders when measured against the risks and resources required for litigation. The settlement is subject to final court approval. Excluding the litigation settlement charge, operating expenses for the quarter and year-to-date periods were $56.0 and $167.1, respectively, an increase of $1.0 million or 1.8% from the third quarter of 2013 and an increase of $3.1 million or 1.9% as compared to the first nine months of 2013. COMPUTER CREDIT: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Ari Pfeffer, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Computer Credit, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-07090 (E.D.N.Y., December 4, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq. ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW 483 Chestnut Street Cedarhurst, NY 11516 Telephone: (516) 791-4400 Facsimile: (516) 791-4411 E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com CRANE CO: Completes Obligations to Close Class Suit Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- Crane Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Company completed all obligations required of it to complete the settlement of a class action related to the Roseland Site. The Roseland Site was operated by Resistoflex Corporation ("Resistoflex"), which became an indirect subsidiary of the Company in 1985 when the Company acquired Resistoflex's parent company, UniDynamics Corporation. Resistoflex manufactured specialty lined pipe and fittings at the site from the 1950s until it was closed in the mid-1980s. In 2009, at the request of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection ("NJDEP"), the Company performed certain tests of the indoor air quality of approximately 40 homes in a residential area surrounding the Roseland Site to determine if any contaminants (volatile organic compound vapors from groundwater) from the Roseland Site were present in those homes. The test results showed that three homes had volatile organic compound vapors above NJ DEP's recommended concentration levels, and the Company installed vapor mitigation equipment in those homes. On April 15, 2011, those three homeowners, and the tenants in one of those homes, filed separate suits against the Company seeking unspecified compensatory and punitive damages for their lost property value and nuisance. In addition, a homeowner in the testing area, whose home tested negative for the presence of contaminants, filed a class action suit against the Company on behalf of himself and 138 other homeowners in the surrounding area, claiming damages in the nature of loss of value on their homes due to their proximity to the Roseland Site. The plaintiffs in these cases amended their complaints to assert claims under New Jersey's Environmental Rights Act for the Company's alleged failure to properly report its waste discharge practices in the late 1960s and early 1970s, and for natural resource damages. In late December 2013, the plaintiffs moved to have a class of 139 homeowners certified, and the motion was granted in early February 2014. At the same time the Court also entered partial summary judgment on liability for the three homes where the Company had installed vapor mitigation equipment. The Company reached an agreement to settle all current claims with the class and individual plaintiffs for a one-time payment of $6.5 million. This agreement was approved by the Court on July 23, 2014 and the Company completed all obligations required of it to complete the settlement on October 10, 2014. The Company undertook an extensive soil remediation effort at the Roseland Site following its closure, and had been monitoring the Site's condition in the years that followed. In response to changes in remediation standards, the Company has conducted further site characterization and delineation studies. In the three months ended September 30, 2014, the Company, in consultation with its advisors, substantially completed its assessment of soil and groundwater contaminants at the Roseland Site, and developed an enhanced remediation plan for the site, which includes further soil removal, groundwater treatment, and soil vapor extraction, resulting in a charge of $6.8 million for remediation activities which are expected to be completed by 2017. Estimates of the Company's environmental liabilities at the Roseland Site are based on currently available facts, present laws and regulations and current technology available for remediation, and are recorded on an undiscounted basis. While actual remediation cost may be more or less than amounts accrued, the Company believes it has established adequate reserves for all probable and reasonably estimable costs. CSK AUTO: Uses Consumer Reports for Background Checks, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Juan Estrada, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. CSK Auto, Inc. d/b/a O'Reilly Auto Parts, an Arizona corporation; O'Reilly Auto Enterprises, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and O'Reilly Automotive Stores, Inc., a Missouri corporation, Case No. 3:14-cv-02888-GPC- NLS (S.D. Cal., December 5, 2014) arises from the Defendants' alleged acquisition and use of consumer and investigative consumer reports to conduct background checks on the Plaintiff and other prospective, current, and former employees. CSK Auto, Inc., doing business as O'Reilly Auto Parts, is an Arizona corporation headquartered in Springfield, Missouri, and is engaged in commercial transactions throughout the county. O'Reilly Auto Enterprises, LLC, is a Delaware limited liability company also headquartered in Springfield. O'Reilly Automotive Stores, Inc., is a Missouri corporation headquartered in Springfield. The Plaintiff is represented by: Raul Perez, Esq. Melissa Grant, Esq. Arnab Banerjee, Esq. Alexandria Witte, Esq. CAPSTONE LAW APC 1840 Century Park East, Suite 450 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 556-4811 Facsimile: (310) 943-0396 E-mail: Raul.Perez@Capstonelawyers.com Melissa.Grant@Capstonelawyers.com Arnab.Banerjee@Capstonelawyers.com Alexandria.Witte@Capstonelawyers.com DIODES INCORPORATED: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Diodes Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas issued on September 15, 2014, an order regarding the putative securities class action, entitled Local 731 I.B. of T. Excavators and Pavers Pension Trust Fund v. Diodes, Inc., Civil Action No. 6:13-cv-00247 (E.D. Tex. filed Mar. 15, 2013) (the "Class Action"), granting defendants' motion to dismiss the Class Action with prejudice. On October 13, 2014, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the order dismissing the Class Action to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The defendants intend to continue defend this action vigorously. Diodes Incorporated is a global manufacturer and supplier of high- quality, application specific standard products within the broad discrete, logic and analog semiconductor markets, serving the consumer electronics, computing, communications, industrial and automotive markets throughout Asia, North America and Europe. DISH NETWORK: Faces Suit for Failing to Provide Turner Programs --------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action seeks compensation for Dish Network's failure to provide programming from (nonparty) Turner Broadcasting from Oct. 21 to Nov. 20 this year. DRESS BARN: Removes "Velasco" Suit to California District Court --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Velasco v. The Dress Barn, Inc., Case No. BC562902, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Los Angeles). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv- 09399 to the proceeding. The case alleges violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Defendant is represented by: David H. Raizman, Esq. OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART P.C. 400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 239-9800 Facsimile: (213) 239-9045 E-mail: david.raizman@ogletreedeakins.com ELIMAR HOLDINGS: Accused of Not Paying Proper Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Rolando Rodriguez, and other similarly situated individuals v. Elimar Holdings, LLC. d/b/a Sunshine Auto Center, a Florida Limited Liability company, Elizabeth Jochim, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-24615-CMA (S.D. Fla., December 5, 2014) alleges that during the Plaintiff's employment, he worked around 55 hours of overtime per week, in which he was not properly compensated. Elimar Holdings, LLC, doing business as Sunshine Auto Center, is a Florida profit corporation authorized to conduct business in Miami-Dade County, Florida, where the Plaintiff worked for the Defendants. Elizabeth Jochim is a corporate officer. The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony Maximillien Georges-Pierre, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC Court House Tower, Suite 2200 44 West Flagler Street Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416-5000 Facsimile: (305) 416-5005 E-mail: agp@rgpattorneys.com EP FITNESS: Faces Class Suit Over Membership Cancellation Issues ---------------------------------------------------------------- BizNews.com reports that one week after KFOX14 investigated popular gym EP Fitness' questionable billing and cancellation policies, a local attorney has informed the news agency he will file a class action lawsuit against the gym. As KFOX14 reported, EP Fitness President Mario Durand admitted to ordering employees to extend the expiration dates on customer credit cards. Local attorneys and the El Paso County Sheriff's Office said that is illegal under Texas Penal Code 32.31. After the story was posted on the KFOX14 Facebook page, it received more than 600 comments, a large majority of which were from people claiming to have experienced numerous billing and cancellation issues. Attorney Ricardo Rios of the firm Rios & Parada saw the report and all of those complaints. "My initial thought was that finally someone is doing something about it," he said. "I cancelled my membership with them more than a year ago, and they continue to call me saying that I have a past due balance." Mr. Rios plans to file the lawsuit using two specific Texas statutes. "The Deceptive Trade Practices Act is one of them," he said. "The other is the Texas Debt Collection Act, and basically, that prohibits anyone from trying to collect a debt that isn't collectible or that isn't owed. You'd have to calculate the damages, so there's a dollar amount to whatever was charged that wasn't owed, then if you can prove it was done intentionally or knowingly, then you can recover up to three times the dollar amount." Because of the sheer amount of people possibly affected by EP Fitness, Mr. Rios said he will aim for a class action lawsuit. "Based off what I've seen so far, a lot of people have the exact same complaints, in order for a class action, you have to show commonality so that everyone was damaged in the same way, so I think we can do that," he said. "For someone to find an attorney to take the case, it's gonna cost a lot more than recovering that $20 or $30. So a lot of the times, nothing is done about it, but in a case where there's repeated offenses and it's affecting a lot of people, then it kind of gives everyone leverage, because now it's worth pursuing and it's not going to cost more than what it's worth." Mr. Rios agreed with opinions KFOX14 had received from other attorneys and law enforcement that the practice of altering customer credit cards is illegal. "In this case I think it's pretty clear, especially when you look at some of the things like they were changing the expiration dates on the credit cards, the Attorney General would step in and either assist or take over the case," he said. "Look at a credit card, can an individual even change the expiration date on their own? And the answer is no, I mean how do you go about doing that?" he said. "They'll renew your credit card and send you a new one, but it's not something you can do on your own, the fact you can't do it yourself with your own speaks wonders about why EP Fitness thinks it's okay to do it." Mr. Rios said before he can file the case, he has to inform EP Fitness and allow them a response. "I think the case will be very strong," he said. "If anyone is having similar problems, or any type of problems for that matter, that are related to this, go ahead and contact our office and we'll go over this on a case-by-case basis." F.N.B. CORP: Plaintiff Voluntarily Dismissed OBA Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- F.N.B. Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the OBA Financial Services, Inc. Stockholder Litigation. As previously reported in the Corporation's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, on May 7, 2014, a purported shareholder of OBA filed a putative class action complaint in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland, captioned Parshall v. OBA Financial Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 390369V, and naming as defendants OBA, OBA Bank, OBA's board of directors, the Corporation and FNBPA. The plaintiff alleged that OBA's board of directors breached its fiduciary duty to OBA's shareholders by approving a proposed transaction containing certain so-called "deal protection devices" and, as a result, OBA's shareholders allegedly would not receive fair value for their stock. The plaintiff further alleged that OBA, OBA Bank, the Corporation and FNBPA aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by the OBA board. On July 3, 2014, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint with additional allegations regarding certain purported nondisclosures relating to the registration statement for the proposed transaction. The plaintiff sought an injunction barring the defendants from completing the merger; rescission of the merger agreement to the extent already implemented or, in the alternative, an award of rescissory damages; an accounting to plaintiff for all damages caused by the defendants; and an award of the costs and expenses incurred by the plaintiff in the lawsuit, including a reasonable allowance for counsel fees and expert fees. On September 15, 2014, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his complaint. FANDUEL INC: Faces "Buzin" Suit Over Misleading Product Ad ---------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Buzin, and Brian Sigman, individually and on behalf of a Class and Subclass v. Fanduel, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-09517 (S.D.N.Y., December 2, 2014), against Defendant for false and misleading advertising in violation of New York General Business Law. Fanduel, Inc. is a fantasy sports website that permits individuals to play one-day fantasy sports games. The Plaintiff is represented by: David P. Kreizer, Esq. FISHER, BYRIALSEN & KREIZER, PLLC 291 Broadway, Suite 709 New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 962-0848 E-mail: Kreizer@FBKLegal.com FANDUEL INC: Faces "Carroll" Suit Over Misleading Advertising ------------------------------------------------------------- John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a class action lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida claims FanDuel Inc. used false or misleading advertising and caused monetary damages to its users. The lawsuit, filed Nov. 20, claims that the fantasy sports website's claim to match a new member's initial deposit of up to $200 is inaccurate, claiming instead a complicated formula used by the site "does not match a single dollar." FanDuel offers consumers an opportunity to pay entry fees to play one-day fantasy sports games and takes a percentage of each pot as a fee for hosting the game. The lawsuit cites television commercials in which FanDuel uses terms such as "Deposit now, and we'll match up to 200 bucks, dollar for dollar;" "Double your deposit with promo code;" and "Deposit is 100% matched." The lawsuit claims rather than matching the new member deposit, the website uses a formula that releases four percent of the entry fee during each contest entered. Instead of a $200 deposit resulting in $400 in a member's account, a consumer receives a bonus of $8 if he or she enters a $200 contest. A consumer would have to spend $5,000 in contest order fees to receive a match of its initial $200 investment, the lawsuit claims. Plaintiff Joshua Carroll started with a $25 initial deposit to FanDuel. When he spent that $25 on contests, FanDuel released $1 of his bonus. "Carroll must invest an additional $600 with FanDuel before FanDuel releases its promised $25 bonus," the lawsuit said. Attorneys Edward H. Zebersky -- ezebersky@zpllp.com -- and Philip A. Gold are representing the plaintiffs. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida case number 1:14-cv-24431. FAST EVICTION: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Mogadam" Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ati Mogadam, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Fast Eviction Service a/k/a Fast Eviction Services a/k/a Ma's Fast Eviction Service, Case No. 2:14-cv-09245 (C.D. Cal., December 2, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for negligently contacting the Plaintiff on the cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Fast Eviction Service operates in California for the purposes of offering eviction assistance to consumers. The Plaintiff is represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Jason Ibey, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com Jason@kazlg.com - and - Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. HYDE & SWIGART 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108-3551 Telephone: (619) 233-7770 Facsimile: (619) 297-1022 E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com FIFTH THIRD: Court Denied Motion to Dismiss Complaints ------------------------------------------------------ Fifth Third Bancorp said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the court in which all but one of the opt-out federal antitrust lawsuit have been consolidated denied defendants' motion to dismiss the complaints. During April 2006, the Bancorp was added as a defendant in a consolidated antitrust class action lawsuit originally filed against Visa(R), MasterCard(R) and several other major financial institutions in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The plaintiffs, merchants operating commercial businesses throughout the U.S. and trade associations, claimed that the interchange fees charged by card-issuing banks were unreasonable and sought injunctive relief and unspecified damages. In addition to being a named defendant, the Bancorp is also subject to a possible indemnification obligation of Visa and has also entered into judgment and loss sharing agreements with Visa, MasterCard and certain other named defendants. In October 2012, the parties to the litigation entered into a settlement agreement. The court entered a Class Settlement Preliminary Approval Order in November 2012. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, the Bancorp paid $46 million into a class settlement escrow account. Previously, the Bancorp paid an additional $4 million in another settlement escrow in connection with the settlement of claims from plaintiffs not included in the class action. More than 7,900 merchants have requested exclusion from the class settlement. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, 25% of the funds paid into the class settlement escrow account have been returned to the control of the defendants through Class Exclusion Takedown Payments. Approximately 460 of the merchants who requested exclusion from the class have filed separate federal lawsuits against Visa, MasterCard and certain other defendants alleging similar antitrust violations. These "opt-out" federal lawsuits have been transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The Bancorp was not named as a defendant in any of the opt-out federal lawsuits, but may have obligations pursuant to indemnification arrangements and/or the judgment or loss sharing agreements noted above. In addition, one merchant filed a separate state court lawsuit against Visa, MasterCard and certain other defendants, including the Bancorp, alleging similar antitrust violations. On January 14, 2014, the court entered a final order approving the class settlement. On July 18, 2014, the court in which all but one of the opt-out federal lawsuits have been consolidated denied defendants' motion to dismiss the complaints. A number of merchants have filed appeals from that approval. FIFTH THIRD: Supreme Court Remanded Case Back to 6th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------ Fifth Third Bancorp said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Supreme Court issued its mandate remanding a class action case back to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals but no further proceedings have occurred. In 2008, two cases were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio against the Bancorp and certain officers styled Dudenhoeffer v Fifth Third Bancorp et al. Case No. 1:08-cv-538. The complaints alleged violations of ERISA based on allegations similar to those set forth in the previously reported securities class action cases. The ERISA actions were dismissed by the trial court, but the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the trial court decision. The Bancorp petitioned the United States Supreme Court to review and reverse the Sixth Circuit decision and sought a stay of proceedings in the trial court pending appeal. On December 13, 2013, the Supreme Court granted certiorari and agreed to hear the appeal. Oral arguments were held on April 2, 2014 and on June 25, 2014 the Supreme Court unanimously vacated the Sixth Circuit decision and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with the standards articulated in its decision. The Supreme Court issued its mandate remanding the case back to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals but no further proceedings have occurred. FIREEYE INC: Wolf Haldenstein Commences Securities Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP on Nov. 25 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired common stock of FireEye, Inc. between January 2, 2014 through November 4, 2014, inclusive, against the Company and certain of the Company's officers and directors, alleging securities fraud pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The litigation is styled Collins v. FireEye, Inc. et al, 14-cv- 05204. A copy of the Complaint filed in this action is available from the Court, or can be viewed on the Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP website at www.whafh.com On May 6, 2014, FireEye announced its first quarter results, surprising investors and analysts. The Company's $24.3 million in product revenue fell meaningfully short of analysts' estimates of $31 million and reflected a move away from FireEye's organic software business and towards service-oriented offerings which lacked the same potential for profitability. In reaction to these disclosures, FireEye closed at $28.65, down $8.48 per share. This 23% decline represented a market capitalization loss of over $1.25 billion. The Company's stock continued its precipitous decline, plummeting to close at a low of $25.76 on October 10, 2014, down 73.1% from its Class Period high of $95.63 on March 5, 2014. Notwithstanding the Company's declining product revenue and the marked turn away from its organic software business, Defendants continuously touted FireEye's organic and acquired growth as reasons for optimism and promising future results. Finally, on November 4, 2014, after the market closed for trading, the Company released disappointing third quarter results that missed analysts' expectations, and further revealed the Company's virtual abandonment of its core software product business model, resulting in a quarterly loss of $0.51 per share. If you purchased FireEye common stock during the Class Period either in the open market and/or pursuant to the Secondary Public Offering (SPO) on March 6, 2014, please call Wolf Haldenstein immediately. You may move to be appointed as lead plaintiff by January 26, 2015. A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Under certain circumstances, one or more class members may together serve as "lead plaintiff." Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. You may retain Wolf Haldenstein, or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in this action. Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and federal trial and appellate courts across the country. The firm has over 70 attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in New York, Chicago and San Diego. The reputation and expertise of this firm in shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated litigation. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions, please contact Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP by telephone at (800) 575-0735, via e-mail at classmember@whafh.com, or visit our website at www.whafh.com All e-mail correspondence should make reference to "FireEye litigation." CONTACT: Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP Gregory Nespole, Esq., Thomas Burt, Esq. or Gregory Stone Email: nespole@whafh.com burt@whafh.com gstone@whafh.com or classmember@whafh.com Tel: (800) 575-0735 (212) 545-4774 FIRST AMERICAN: Court Refuses to Open WaMu Appraisal Scheme Files ----------------------------------------------------------------- Rose Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal judge refused to unseal files related to Washington Mutual Bank's alleged rigging and steering of appraisals to benefit mortgage lenders before the market crashed. The case in Washington, D.C., stems from a 2008 federal class action that Felton Spears Jr. and Sidney Scholl first brought in San Jose, Calif., against Washington Mutual Bank, Lender's Service Inc., and the Santa Ana appraisal-management firm First American eAppraiseIT. Spears and Scholl said that back in 2006 WaMu had eAppraiseIT and Lender's Service provide inflated mortgage-loan appraisals, so that the bank could sell the aggregated security interests in the properties at higher prices. At WaMu's direction, eAppraiseIT and Lender's Service hired former bank employees as appraisal business managers who could override the values determined by third-party appraisers, the complaint alleged. The court in San Jose, Calif., dismissed all but a claim under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act against eAppraiseIT in 2009, and U.S. District Judge Ronald Whyte certified the class in April 2012. In Washington, the plaintiffs served the Office of the Comptroller of Currency (OCC) with a subpoena for documents that the U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (PSI) cited in a 2011 report on the 2007-08 financial crisis. Though the Office of Thrift Supervision, which has since been succeeded by the comptroller's office, gave the Senate the documents under seal and without waiver of any privileges, the comptroller objected to the subpoena, noting that many files may be privileged. After the plaintiffs narrowed their search to "15 specific Bates- stamped documents" months later, the comptroller's office claimed it could not find them. The plaintiffs then moved to compel compliance with the subpoena on Oct. 16, 2013. Deferring ruling on the motion, a federal judge ordered deposition of a comptroller's office representative about the agency's efforts to locate the documents. Upon retrieving the documents from the Senate, the comptroller sent the plaintiffs a letter stating that it was withholding three files based on attorney-client privilege, the attorney work- product doctrine, and the deliberative-process privilege. The plaintiffs argue, however, that the Office of Thrift Supervision waived the privileges when it "voluntarily" gave the files to the Senate subcommittee. U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth denied the motion on Dec. 2, finding that "documents produced pursuant to a subpoena are not voluntarily disclosed. "The OTS provided the documents under seal to the Senate PSI," Lamberth wrote, abbreviating Office of Thrift Supervision. "There is less reason to find waiver when documents have been provided pursuant to a subpoena, and provided under seal." The office neither waived the deliberative process privilege, because the disclosure was not "public," according to the ruling. There is also no showing that the comptroller failed to adequately object to the subpoena based on privilege, according to the ruling. "The OCC had not obtained the Bates-stamped documents, and therefore, had no way of knowing exactly which privileges would apply and for what reasons those privileges would apply," Lamberth wrote, abbreviating Office of the Comptroller of Currency. An appraiser filed similar claims against WaMu and eAppraiseIT in 2008, as did a group of shareholders in May 2009. The case is Felton A. Spears, Jr., et al. v. First American eAppraiseIT (a/k/a eAppraiseIT, LLC), Case No. 1:13-mc-01167 (RCL), in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. FIT FOODS: Faces False Advertising Class Action ----------------------------------------------- Legal Newsline reports that a California man is alleging in a class action lawsuit that a nutrition company falsely advertised one of its protein products. Adrian Canizalez claims in his lawsuit that Fit Foods Ltd. adds a "cheaper free form amino acid" in order to reduce protein- manufacturing costs. This process is often referred to as protein-spiking. The suit says the whey protein industry is expected to grow by 62 percent up to $7.8 billion in 2018, but because the cost of wholesale whey protein is rising companies are protein-spiking products in order to increase profits. Fit Foods said there are 44 grams of protein in the product, but the lawsuit alleges it actually contains about 32.6 grams of protein. As a result, the company's product has less whey protein than represented to consumers, the suit claims. Mr. Canizalez claims at least two companies have recommended against protein-spiking, including General Nutrition Centers, due to the fact that it is misleading to customers. The American Herbal Products Association has also condemned protein-spiking and issued a standard for measuring protein in products, he says. Mr. Canizalez filed the lawsuit through attorney Tina Wolfson -- twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com -- of Ahdoot & Wolfson, PC. United States District Court for Southern District of California case number 3:14-cv-02744. GAF MATERIALS: Faces Class Suit Over Defective Timbers Decking -------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that GAF Materials Corp.'s Cross Timbers Decking cannot stand up to outdoor use as the company promises, a class action claims in Missouri Federal Court. GAMESTOP INC: Removes "Larkin" Class Action Suit to S.D. Florida ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Larkin v. Gamestop, Inc., Case No. 14-27358 CA 40, was removed from the 11th Judicial Circuit in Miami-Dade County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-24596-DLG to the proceeding. The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Gerard Lyons, Esq. Curtis Jay Mase, Esq. Richard David Lara, Esq. William Robert Seitz, Esq. MASE LARA, PA 2601 South Bayshore Drive, Suite 800 Miami, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 377-3770 Facsimile: (305) 377-0080 E-mail: clyons@maselara.com cmase@mletrial.com rlara@mltrial.com wseitz@mltrial.com - and - Jonathan Perazzo, Esq. THE PERAZZO LAW FIRM, P.A. 16666 NE 19th Ave., Suite 112 North Miami Beach, FL 33162 Telephone: (855) 737-2996 The Defendant is represented by: Daniel Brandon Rogers, Esq. Eric Stephen Boos, Esq. SHOOK HARDY & BACON LLP 201 S Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 3200 Miami, FL 33131-4332 Telephone: (305) 358-5171 Facsimile: (305) 358-7470 E-mail: drogers@shb.com eboos@shb.com GERBER INC: Court Finds Article III Standing for Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Gregory Boulos of Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, in an article for JDSupra, reports that in a consumer-protection class action filed against Gerber in the District of New Jersey, In re Gerber Probiotic Sales Practices Litigation, plaintiffs alleged that the marketing and labeling of Gerber's infant formula and cereal were deceptive. Specifically, they claimed that, despite contrary representations, the products provided no immune system benefits, and that Gerber's formula was not near equal to breast milk. Gerber moved to dismiss plaintiffs' fourth amended complaint, arguing, among other things, that plaintiffs lacked Article III standing to bring a claim related to Gerber's formula. Gerber's motion was denied in part and granted in part. Article III Standing: Article III standing requires a plaintiff to suffer an "injury in fact" that is an invasion of a legally protected interest that is (a) concrete and particularized; and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical. Also, there must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of. Thus, it must be likely, not merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision. Gerber argued that plaintiffs lacked Article III standing to assert claims related to its infant formula products because no remaining named plaintiff alleged to have purchased the specific product. As such, Gerber argued that plaintiffs failed to allege an injury in-fact. Citing the Third Circuit's decision in Hass v. Pittsburgh National Bank and the District of New Jersey's decision in Stewart v. Smart Balance, the Court explained that a plaintiff has standing to pursue two closely related claims against the same defendant in a putative class action, notwithstanding the fact that the plaintiff lacks standing to pursue a particular claim. Stewart involved plaintiffs who brought a class action related to three products. Defendants moved to dismiss because the named plaintiffs did not purchase two of the three products. The court found dismissal inappropriate because the basis of the plaintiffs' claims as to each product was the same, all three products were closely related, and the defendants were the same. With this background, the Court concluded that plaintiffs' claim as to Gerber's formula and cereal was the same. Plaintiffs alleged that Gerber falsely promoted both products as having the same probiotic bacteria that promotes the development of children's immune systems. The Court further concluded that the products were closely related because the formula and cereal are part of the same product line. The products also bear the same trademark, which was allegedly designed to help consumers recognize Gerber foods with important vitamins and minerals that support healthy growth as well as nutrients and ingredients that support a healthy immune system. Accordingly, the Court found dismissal of plaintiff's claim inappropriate. Thus, a plaintiff who lacks Article III standing to bring a claim related to a particular product may nonetheless bring the claim in a putative class action when (a) the basis of Plaintiffs' claim as to another product at-issue was the same (b) the products were closely related, and (c) the products were manufactured by the same defendant. GLOBAL PAYMENTS: Faces "Waters" Suit Alleging Violations of FDCPA ----------------------------------------------------------------- James M. Waters and Michaela Shelton Waters, individually, and on behalf of a Class of all others similarly situated v. Global Payments, Inc., Global Payments Direct, Inc., Global Payments Check Recovery Services, Inc., Global Payments Check Services, Inc., and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Case No. 5:14-cv-06134-BP (W.D. Mo., December 5, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants use "remotely created checks" and "remotely created payment orders" to fraudulently cause additional deductions or debits from the customers/checkwriters' bank accounts and corresponding payments to Defendant Global Payments Check Recovery Services, Inc., which are then shared by the Defendants. Global Payments, Inc. is a Georgia corporation that provides electronic transaction and credit card processing, payment processing, money transfer services, and other payment solutions for merchants, corporation, financial institutions, schools, gaming institutions, and government agencies. Global Payments Direct, Inc. is a New York corporation. Direct is a shell corporation that serves to function as Global's primary operating entity in the United States. Global Payments Check Recovery Services, Inc. is a Georgia corporation. Recovery is a "debt collector" and is involved in Global's check processing, re-presentment and recovery services. Global Payments Check Services, Inc. is an Illinois corporation. Services is a "debt collector" and is involved in Global's check processing, re-presentment and recovery services. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. is a national bank, with offices in New York. The Plaintiffs are represented by: R. Frederick Walters, Esq. Garrett M. Hodes, Esq. WALTERS BENDER STROHBEHN & VAUGHAN, P.C. 2500 City Center Square 1100 Main Street Kansas City, Missouri 64105 Telephone: (816) 421-6620 Facsimile: (816) 421-4747 E-mail: fwalters@wbsvlaw.com ghodes@wbsvlaw.com GOLDMAN SACHS: Labaton Sucharow Files Nationwide Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Labaton Sucharow LLP on Nov. 25 filed the first nationwide class action against major platinum and palladium dealers Goldman Sachs, HSBC, Standard Bank, and BASF, for manipulation of key benchmarks used to price platinum and palladium, known as the "Platinum and Palladium Fixings." These entities meet twice a day by teleconference in order to establish a global price for these commodities in the world market. The prices set during these "fixings" also determine the prices of platinum- and palladium- based financial products, such as platinum futures (PL) and options (PO), as well as palladium futures (PA) and options (PAO), traded on NYMEX. "This new case involving price manipulation in the platinum and palladium markets demonstrates that the global benchmark manipulation scandals are far from over," says Firm partner and Antitrust & Competition Litigation Practice co-chair, Gregory Asciolla -- gasciolla@labaton.com "Businesses and investors were injured by an eight-year long global conspiracy run by these commodities dealers." Since at least 2007, plaintiffs allege that Goldman Sachs, HSBC, Standard Bank, and BASF used their influence over the Platinum and Palladium Fixings to manipulate the prices for these metals to enrich themselves at the expense of other market participants. The manipulative conduct included front running and "spoofing" of buy and sell orders. These entities also allegedly shared and discussed customer order flows so they could better coordinate their strategies and increase their own financial gains. Investors in these commodities and platinum- or palladium-based financial products, like NYMEX platinum or palladium futures and options, lost millions of dollars as a result of this conduct. If you bought or sold platinum or palladium directly from a wholesaler, refiner, or mining company, or bought or sold platinum- or palladium-based financial products such as futures and options on NYMEX, please contact Matthew Perez at mperez@labaton.com or 888-753-2796 for more information about potential claims. About Labaton Sucharow LLP Labaton Sucharow -- http://www.labaton.com-- prosecutes precedent-setting class actions, recovering billions of dollars on behalf of defrauded consumers and investors. With nearly 60 full- time attorneys, Labaton Sucharow's litigation group is strengthened by its in-house team of investigators, financial analysts, and forensic accountants. The Firm litigates in the areas of antitrust, consumer protection, and securities law. GOLDMAN SACHS: Modern Settings Sue Over Platinum Price Fixing ------------------------------------------------------------- Erik Larson, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and HSBC Holdings Plc were sued in New York over claims they conspired for eight years to manipulate prices for the precious metals platinum and palladium in what plaintiffs' lawyers say is the first class-action lawsuit of its kind in the U.S. Standard Bank Group Ltd. and a metals unit of BASF SE, the world's largest chemical company, were also sued. The four companies used inside information about client purchases and sale orders to profit from price movements for the metals used in products ranging from jewelry to cars, according to a complaint filed on Nov. 25 in Manhattan federal court. The lawsuit by Modern Settings LLC, a jeweler that buys precious metals and derivatives set on their prices, claims the companies "were privy to and shared confidential, non-public information about client purchase and sale orders that allowed them to glean information about the direction" of prices. Similar lawsuits have been filed this year in Manhattan accusing banks of rigging the benchmark price for gold. Authorities around the world are examining the gold market for signs of wrongdoing. Regulators tightened scrutiny of benchmarks after uncovering price-rigging in interbank-loan rates and currencies. Silver became the first precious metal to change its traditional procedure in August, and Intercontinental Exchange Inc. will run the replacement for the 95-year-old London gold fixing. A new mechanism for platinum and palladium starts Dec. 1. Catalytic Converters Michael DuVally, a spokesman for Goldman Sachs, declined to comment on the lawsuit, as did HSBC spokeswoman Juanita Gutierrez in New York. Standard Bank is based in Johannesburg. A message left at its Manhattan office wasn't immediately returned on Nov. 25, while BASF's London-based metals unit couldn't be reached. The biggest uses of the metals are for jewelry and producing catalytic converters, which curb harmful emissions from vehicles, according to the complaint. Carmakers' use of platinum will climb 7.9 percent to a six- year high of 3.39 million ounces this year, and there will be "broad- based growth" next year, auto-catalysts producer Johnson Matthey Plc estimates. Palladium auto usage will gain 4.9 percent this year to a record 7.3 million ounces. While demand will rise next year, it will likely be at a slower pace, the company predicted. Johnson Matthey makes about one-third of the world's catalytic converters. Conference Calls According to the complaint, the four companies participated in twice-daily conference calls to set global price benchmarks for platinum and palladium, which also affected derivative products based on the precious metals. "This unlawful behavior allowed defendants to reap substantial profits, while non-insiders, which include plaintiffs and members of the class, were injured," lawyers for New York-based Modern Settings said in the filing. Modern Settings needs a judge's approval before it can represent other buyers of the metals. The gross demand for platinum and palladium last year was more than 8 million ounces and more than 9.6 million ounces, respectively, according to the complaint. GT ADVANCED: Securities Class Action Pending in New Hampshire ------------------------------------------------------------- Smith Segura & Raphael, LLP (SSR) alerts investors that a class action has been filed against GT Advanced Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ GS: GTAT). The suit is pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire and investors have until December 8, 2014, to move for lead plaintiff. The complaint has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired GTAT securities between November 5, 2013 and October 6, 2014, inclusive. If your purchases fall in the Class Period, you may contact SSR partner Brian D. Brooks, who is leading the firm's investigation, by calling (917) 652-9453 or emailing bbrooks@ssrllp.com GTAT produces materials and equipment for the electronics industry. On November 4, 2013, GTAT announced a multiyear supply deal with Apple Inc. to produce sapphire glass material for use in consumer electronics products. Under the deal, Apple would provide GTAT with a prepayment of approximately $578 million paid in four installments and, starting in 2015, GTAT would reimburse Apple for the prepayment over a five-year period. As alleged in the complaint however, after that announcement Defendants failed to disclose the significant risk that GTAT would be unable to fulfill the requirements of the supply agreement and that another company's material might be used in Apple's new product line. Additionally, GTAT hid from shareholders the fact that, as a result of problems with the Apple deal, GTAT was facing a liquidity crisis. Because of these factors, Defendants' statements about GTAT's business, operations, and prospects, including GTAT's revenue guidance for 2014, were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When Apple announced the new iPhones did not use GTAT's sapphire glass, shares of GTAT declined $2.29 per share to close at $14.94 per share on September 9, 2014. On October 6, 2014, GTAT announced that it was filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy; shares of GTAT declined $10.25 per share, nearly 93%, to close at $0.80 per share. If you suffered a loss from your investment in GTAT securities between November 5, 2013 and October 6, 2014, please contact Mr. Brooks at (917) 652-9453 as soon as possible. No class has yet been certified in the above action. GUY A CORP: "Zalucean" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------ Natalia Zalucean, on her own behalf and on behalf of those similarly situated v. GUY A, Corp. d/b/a Blue Engrave, Case No. 6:14-cv-01992 (M.D. Fla., December 2, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. GUY A, Corp. is in the business of providing jewelry and engraving services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kimberly De Arcangelis Woods, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, PA Ste 1600, 20 N Orange Ave, PO Box 4979 Orlando, FL 32801 Telephone: (407) 420-1414 Facsimile: (407) 420-5956 E-mail: kwoods@forthepeople.com HEALTHWAYS INC: Junk Fax Suit Removed to California Federal Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- Healthways, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that Healthways and its wholly owned subsidiary, Healthways WholeHealth Networks, Inc. ("HWHN"), were named on September 16, 2014, in a putative class action law suit filed in the Superior Court for Los Angeles County, California, seeking damages relating to alleged violations of the Junk Fax Prevention Act 2005 in connection with fax communications between HWHN and the members of its network of complementary and alternative care practitioners. The complaint seeks damages in excess of $5,000,000. The case was removed to the United States District Court of California, Western Division on October 16, 2014. "We deny the claims and intend to vigorously defend the action," the Company said. Founded and incorporated in Delaware in 1981, Healthways, Inc., together with its wholly-owned subsidiaries, provides specialized, comprehensive solutions to help people improve their well-being, thereby improving their health and productivity and reducing their health-related costs. HIRISE ENGINEERING: Accused of Violating RICO Act in New York ------------------------------------------------------------- Garry Shlyonsky and Melina Shlyonsky, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HiRise Engineering PC, Matthew Pappalardo, United Technical Consultants LLC, Glenn Grogan, ALL Seasons Adjusting Inc., Richard Crowley and Travelers Insurance Company d/b/a The Standard Fire Insurance Company, Case No. 1:14- cv-07136-RJD-MDG (E.D.N.Y., December 5, 2014) alleges violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The Plaintiffs are represented by: John S. Mostyn, Esq. THE MOSTYN LAW FIRM 3810 W Alabama Street Houston, TX 77027 Telephone: (713) 861-6616 Facsimile: (713) 861-8084 E-mail: easkinner@mostynlaw.com - and - Denis George Kelly, Esq. DENIS G. KELLY & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 74 West Park Avenue Long Beach, NY 11561 Telephone: (516) 897-0800 Facsimile: (516) 897-0812 E-mail: dgk6494@gmail.com HOME DEPOT: Faces Pittsfield Cooperative Suit Over Data Breach -------------------------------------------------------------- Pittsfield Cooperative Bank, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated financial institutions v. The Home Depot, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-03836 (N.D. Ga., December 2, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to provide adequate security and protection for its computer systems containing customers' financial and personal data. The Home Depot, Inc. operates a chain of retail stores that sell a wide variety of merchandise, including tools, home goods, and construction supplies. The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas A. Withers, Esq. GILLEN WITHERS & LAKE, LLC 8 East Liberty Street Savannah, GA 31412 Telephone: (912) 447-8400 Facsimile: (912) 233-6584 E-mail: twithers@gwllawfirm.com - and - Gary F. Lynch, Esq. Edwin J. Kilpela, Esq. Jamisen Etzel, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH SWEET & KILPELA, LLP PNC Park 115 Federal Street, Suite 210 Pittsburgh, PA 15212 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 Facsimile: (412) 231-0246 E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com ekilpela@carlsonlynch.com jetzel@carlsonlynch.com KIMBALL INTERNATIONAL: Has $5 Mil. Pre-Tax Income From Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kimball International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that No Other General Income was recorded during the first quarter of fiscal year 2015. Other General Income in the first quarter of fiscal year 2014 included $5.0 million, of pre-tax income resulting from settlements received related to two antitrust class action lawsuits in which Kimball was a class member. The lawsuits alleged that certain suppliers of the Electronic Manufacturing Services ("EMS") segment 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. "First quarter fiscal year 2015 consolidated net sales were $348.2 million compared to first quarter fiscal year 2014 net sales of $317.4 million, a 10% increase, driven by a net sales increase in the EMS segment of 16% and a net sales increase in the Furniture segment of 2%. In the first quarter of fiscal year 2015 we recorded net income of $8.0 million, or $0.21 per Class B diluted share, inclusive of $1.5 million, or $0.04 per Class B diluted share, of incremental after-tax external costs related to the spin-off of our EMS segment, compared to net income of $9.2 million, or $0.24 per Class B diluted share in the first quarter of fiscal year 2014, inclusive of $3.0 million, or $0.08 per Class B diluted share of after-tax distributions resulting from the settlement of two antitrust class action lawsuits of which the Company was a class member and $0.2 million, or $0.01 per Class B share of after-tax restructuring expense," the Company said. KNIGHTSBRIDGE PROPERTIES: Class Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages, OT ----------------------------------------------------------------- Louis Barbato and Francisco Rodriguez, on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated v. Knightsbridge Properties, Case No. 2:14-cv-07043-JS-SIL (E.D.N.Y., December 5, 2014) seeks to recover unpaid wages, unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Knightsbridge Properties is a New York corporation headquartered in Manhasset, New York. Knightsbridge describes itself as a privately owned real estate investment, development and management firms with interests in New York and Europe. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alexander Granovsky, Esq. GRANOVSKY AND SUNDARESH PLLC 48 Wall Street, 11th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (646) 524-6001 Facsimile: (646) 417-5500 E-mail: ag@g-s-law.com KONDAUR CAPITAL: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Brenda Taylor, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Kondaur Capital Corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-00704- SPC-CM (M.D. Fla., December 4, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Maria Alaimo, Esq. VILES & BECKMAN, LLC 6350 Presidential Ct., Suite A Ft. Myers, FL 33919 Telephone: (239) 334-3933 Facsimile: (239) 334-7105 E-mail: maria@vilesandbeckman.com MERCHANTS & MEDICAL: Accused of Violating FDCPA in Pennsylvania --------------------------------------------------------------- Susan Ebner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Merchants & Medical Credit Corporation and Does 1 Through 10, Inclusive, Case No. 2:14-cv-06882-ER (E.D. Pa., December 4, 2014) accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Arkady Eric Rayz, Esq. KALIKHMAN & RAYZ LLC 1051 County Line Road, Suite A Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006 Telephone: (215) 364-5030 Facsimile: (215) 364-5029 E-mail: erayz@kalraylaw.com MINOS CONSTRUCTION: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Jesus Mizquiri, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class v. Minos Construction Corp., Georgia Tsismenakis, and Martin Tsismenakis, Case No. 1:14-cv-07008 (E.D.N.Y., December 2, 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 a New York-based construction company. 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 MOL GLOBAL: Overstated Financial Reports, "Jewel" Action Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Wayne Jewell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MOL Global, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-09493 (S.D.N.Y., December 2, 2014), alleges that the Defendants had grossly overstated its financial results in the Registration Statement in connection with the Company's initial public offering. MOL Global, Inc. operates a payments platform, which connects consumers with digital content providers, telecommunications service providers, and online merchants through a network of distribution channels that accept cash and online payment methods. The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. Mary K. Blasy, Esq. ROBBINS, GELLER, RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 367-7100 Facsimile: (631) 367-1173 E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com mblasy@:rgrdlaw.com MUSKEGON, MI: Sued for Violating Civil Rights of Prisoners ---------------------------------------------------------- Michelle Semelbauer, Paulette Bosch, Denise Vos, Crisa Brown, Latrece Baker, Tammy Speers, Londora Kitchens and Stashia Collins, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons v. County of Muskegon, a municipal corporation; Dean Roesler, in his official capacity as Muskegon County Sheriff; Mark Burns, Lt., in his official capacity as Jail Administrator; Ivan Morris, Correctional Officer, in his individual capacity; Unknown Grieves, Correctional Officer, in his individual capacity; Unknown DeYoung, Correctional Officer, in his individual capacity; David Gutowski, Correctional Officer, in his individual capacity; and Unknown Parties, Correctional Officers, in their individual capacities, Case No. 1:14-cv-01245-JTN (W.D. Mich., December 4, 2014) is brought over alleged violations of Prisoner Civil Rights. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel Stewart Korobkin, Esq. ACLU FUND OF MICHIGAN (DETROIT) 2966 Woodward Ave. Detroit, MI 48201-3035 Telephone: (313) 578-6824 Facsimile: (313) 578-6811 E-mail: dkorobkin@aclumich.org - and - Marc Sebastian Allen, Esq. Miriam J. Aukerman, Esq. ACLU OF MICHIGAN 1514 Wealthy St., SE, Suite 242 Grand Rapids, MI 49506 Telephone: (616) 301-0930 E-mail: mallen@aclumich.org maukerman@aclumich.org NATIONAL WESTERN: Resolves Deferred Annuities Litigation -------------------------------------------------------- National Western Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Company resolved a class action lawsuit pending since June 12, 2006, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. The case is titled In Re National Western Life Insurance Deferred Annuities Litigation. The complaint asserted claims for RICO violations, Financial Elder Abuse, Violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 17200, et seq, Violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 17500, et seq, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Aiding and Abetting Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Fraudulent Concealment, Cal. Civ. Code 1710, et seq, Breach of the Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, and Unjust Enrichment and Imposition of Constructive Trust. On July 12, 2010 the Court certified a nationwide class of policyholders under the RICO allegation and a California class under all of the remaining causes of action except breach of fiduciary duty. The parties entered into a Settlement and Release Agreement in August of 2013 ("Settlement") which was finally approved by the Court on February 11, 2014. On February 12, 2014, the Court issued a redacted final approval order granting the Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement. The Settlement became final and non-appealable on April 12, 2014. The Settlement Agreement and Plaintiffs' Request for Attorneys' Fees and Costs were approved by the Court, and the Company paid the Court-approved amount of attorneys' fees and costs in April 2014. The Company also made certain payments to surrendered and annuitized policyholders in June 2014. In addition, the Company agreed to provide bonuses on annuitization for active policyholders who choose a 10-year or a 20-year certain and life settlement option. The Company had held reserves of $6.5 million for the matter which approximated the ultimate settlement amounts. General insurance expenses include legal expenses and amounts provided for various legal matters and outstanding litigation. During the second quarter of 2013, the Company accrued $3.5 million pertaining to a class action lawsuit, in which it was the defendant, that ultimately was settled in the first quarter of 2014. With the resolution of this matter early in 2014, the Company's legal expenses, excluding the class action lawsuit accrual, have declined in the first nine months of 2014 approximately $1.2 million compared with the same period in 2013. The Company provides life insurance products on a global basis for the savings and protection needs of policyholders and annuity contracts for the asset accumulation and retirement needs of contract holders, both domestically and internationally. NYMOX PHARMA: Bernard M. Gross Law Firm Files Class Suit in N.J. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C. on Nov. 25 filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court, District of New Jersey, 14-cv-07331, on behalf of purchasers of NYMOX common stock between January 31, 2011 and November 2, 2014. This matter is pending before the Honorable Jose L. Linares. The lawsuit filed against the Company and Paul Averback, the president, director and chairman of the Company, alleges violations of the federal securities laws based on their failure to disclose material information affecting the Phase 3 clinical trials for NYMOX's proprietary drug NX-1207 for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). NYMOX is engaged in the research and development of therapeutics and diagnostics, with an emphasis on the products for the unmet needs of the aging population. NX-1207 showed positive results for the treatment of BPH in Phase 1 and Phase 2 clinical trials in the U.S. The Company regularly provided positive updates on the Phase 3 clinical trials. However, in a surprise to the market, and contrary to the positive statement concerning the NX02-0017 and NX02-0018 trials, defendants disclosed on November 2, 2014 that the Company's two Phase 3 U.S. studies of NX-1207 had to be halted because the drug failed to meets its primary endpoints for efficacy. On November 3, 2014, defendants held a conference call with analysts to explain the failure and on that conference call disclosed to the market for the first time, among other things, the difficulties they faced in enrolling men for the trials and the subjective nature of the measurement of the drug's success. The market's reaction was immediate and dramatic as the price of NYMOX common stock fell 82% to close at $.93 on unprecedented trading volume of 19.6 million shares. The Company's U.S. BPH program is currently on hold, pending further evaluation of data. If you wish to serve as Lead Plaintiff for the Class, you must file a motion with the Court no later than January 26, 2015. Any member of the proposed Class may move the Court to serve as Lead Plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain a member of the proposed Class. To discuss this action or ask questions concerning this notice or your rights, please contact plaintiff's counsel, toll-free 866-561-3600 or via email at debbie@bernardmgross.com or susang@bernardmgross.com The firm has expertise in prosecuting class actions alleging violations of the federal securities laws. To discuss this action or have any questions concerning this Notice with respect to these matters, PLEASE CONTACT: Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C. Susan R. Gross, Esq. Deborah R. Gross, Esq. Telephone: 866-561-3600 (toll free) or 215-561-3600 E-mail: susang@bernardmgross.com or debbie@bernardmgross.com Website: http://www.bernardmgross.com OILTANKING PARTNERS: Faces Suit Over Enterprise Product Merger -------------------------------------------------------------- The Southeast Texas Record reports that an Oklahoma man recently filed a class action lawsuit seeking to prevent a merger of two Texas-based oil companies. Oiltanking Partners and Enterprise Product Partners announced a plan to merge on Nov. 12 that would result in Enterprise acquiring all of Oiltanking's outstanding units. Matthew Ellis, an Oiltanking shareholder, claims the executives at Oiltanking "breached their fiduciary duties" and that the deal undervalues Oiltanking. Enterprise agreed to purchase Oiltanking units for $47.33 per share for a total value of approximately $1.4 billion. Mr. Ellis' attorney, Thomas E. Bilek of the Bilek Law Firm, claims in the lawsuit that the deal represents "a meager 3.6 percent premium" on the average closing price of Oiltanking shares. Mr. Ellis claims in the suit that the transaction was "meant to transfer Oiltanking's assets to Enterprise without paying Oiltanking's public unitholders a fair price." The lawsuit also claims the mean price target for Oiltanking units is $51.44, the median price is $52 and the high price reached $61. Given that strong performance, the lawsuit alleges the merger deal is inadequate. Oiltanking shareholders would own 1.87 percent of the combined company if the merger were to go through. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas-Houston Division case number 4:14-cv-3343. ONLINE INFORMATION: Faces Suit in N.J. Over Violations of FDCPA --------------------------------------------------------------- Izabella L. Leblanc, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Online Information Service d/b/a Online Collections and John Does 1-25, Case No. 3:14-cv-07553-JAP-TJB (D.N.J., December 4, 2014) is brought under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq. MARCUS LAW LLC 1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101 Ocean, NJ 07712 Telephone: (732) 660-8169 E-mail: ari@marcuslawyer.com PAULSON CAPITAL: Andrews & Springer Files Securities Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Andrews & Springer LLC, a boutique securities class action law firm focused on representing shareholders nationwide, on Nov. 26 disclosed that it has filed a securities class action lawsuit on behalf of legacy shareholders of Paulson Capital Corp. (now referred to as VBI Vaccines, Inc. who held shares on October 11, 2013 and were eligible to vote at the Company's Annual Meeting of Shareholders held on November 8, 2013. This lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, Case No. 14-cv-9435. If you held shares of Paulson Capital Corp. on October 11, 2013 and would like to join the class action, please visit our website or contact Craig J. Springer, Esq. at cspringer@andrewsspringer.com or call toll free at 1-800-423-6013. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from Nov. 26 (no later than January 26, 2015). NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. Paulson Capital Corp. was once a publicly-traded financial services holding company that operated through its sole subsidiary Paulson Investment Company. Established by president Chester L.F. Paulson in 1970, PIC was one of the largest independent brokerage firms in the Pacific Northwest. According to the lawsuit, PCC issued materially false and misleading information to investors. On October 18, 2013, the Company filed a Definitive Proxy Statement on Schedule 14A with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and solicited votes from shareholders necessary to approve a certain restructuring transaction. Among other things, the October Proxy Statement asked PCC shareholders who held shares as of October 11, 2013 to vote on a transaction that would, among other things, spin off certain legacy assets of PCC and PIC into a Liquidating Trust for the benefit of Legacy Shareholders. The October Proxy Statement set October 11, 2013 as the Record Date for a shareholder meeting that was scheduled to take place on November 8, 2013. PCC represented to Legacy Shareholders that the Trust Assets included, among other things, a 25% equity interest in PIC, underwriter warrants, trading and investment securities, cash, accounts receivable and an insurance policy on the life of Chester L.F. Paulson, the founder of PIC. Collectively, the Trust Assets were valued at approximately $16.6 million. Legacy Shareholders overwhelmingly voted in favor of the Restructuring Transaction and the formation of the Liquidating Trust at the meeting of shareholders held on November 8, 2013. Unbeknownst to Legacy Shareholders, PCC did not create the Liquidating Trust until on or about July 25, 2014, nearly nine months after issuing the October Proxy Statement. Finally on August 8, 2014, PCC's successor, VBI, disclosed in a 10-Q filing with the SEC that the Liquidating Trust was formed with assets "valued at approximately $9.8 million." The August 10-Q filing not only discloses the creation of the Liquidating Trust but also discloses the ownership interests in PIC. Contrary to the representations in the October Proxy Statement, the Liquidating Trust's 25% interest in PIC appears to have been completely eliminated. As a result of PCC's omissions and misleading statements, a class action has been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from Nov. 26 (no later than January 26, 2015). Andrews & Springer -- http://www.andrewsspringer.com-- is a boutique securities class action law firm representing shareholders nationwide who are victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty or corporate misconduct. PC RICHARD: Faces "Steward" Suite Over Failure to Pay OT Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Gerald Steward, Dean Rothman, Constantine Papdopolous, Laurie Mertens, Ramon Mercado, Matthew Barriga and Domenick Falco, On behalf of themselves and all other employees similarly situated v. P.C. Richard & Son, Inc., et al., is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. P.C. Richard & Son, Inc. owns and operates retail stores located on Long Island and in the New York City Boroughs of Queens and Brooklyn. The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher A. Seeger, Esq. Seeger Weiss, LLP 77 Water Street, 26th Flr. New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 584-0700 Facsimile: (212) 584-0799 E-mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com PETER UNDERGROUND: Faces "Perez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------ Jose Perez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Peter Underground Utility LLC, Nelu Cable Inc., Danella Line Services Company, Inc., Peter Serban, Valentin Serban, and James Danella, Case No. 2:14-cv-06999 (E.D.N.Y., December 2, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Peter Underground Utility LLC is a bonded freight shipping and trucking company. Nelu Cable Inc. is a cable/pay television service company and is licensed to carry non-hazmat rated materials. Danella Line Services Company, Inc. provides construction and engineering services to major gas, electric, water, telephone and fiber utility companies throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter Arcadio Romero, Esq. FRANK & ASSOCIATES P.C. 500 Bi-county Blvd, 112n Farmingdale, NY 11735 Telephone: (631) 756-0400 Facsimile: (631) 756-0547 E-mail: promero@laborlaws.com PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Fails to Provide FDCPA Disclosures, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- James E. Wood, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, Case No. 8:14-cv- 03044-MSS-AEP (M.D. Fla., December 5, 2014) is a class action brought pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The case centers on the alleged failure of Portfolio Recovery to provide certain disclosures required by the FDCPA in initial written communications to Florida consumers in connection with the Defendant's collection of consumer debt. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, is a Delaware limited liability company with principal offices situated in Norfolk, Virginia. The Company is an entity that at all relevant times was engaged, by use of the mails and telephone, in the business of attempting to collect a "debt" from the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff is represented by: James L. Davidson, Esq. Michael L. Greenwald, Esq. Aaron D. Radbil, Esq. GREENWALD DAVIDSON PLLC 5550 Glades Road, Suite 500 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (561) 826-5477 Facsimile: (561) 961-5684 E-mail: jdavidson@mgjdlaw.com mgreenwald@mgjdlaw.com aradbil@mgjdlaw.com PRINCECO INC: Removes "O'Hara" Suit to Florida District Court ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled O'Hara, et al. v. Princeco, Inc., Case No. 14-CA-011052, was removed from the 13th Judicial Circuit, in and for Hillsborough County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Tampa). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:14-cv-03041-SCB-EAJ to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought pursuant to the Family and Medical Leave Act. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Luis A. Cabassa, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA 1110 N Florida Ave., Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 224-0431 Facsimile: (813) 229-8712 E-mail: lcabassa@wfclaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Brian David Rubenstein, Esq. COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, PA 4301 W Boy Scout Blvd., Suite 400 Tampa, FL 33607 Telephone: (813) 864-9324 Facsimile: (813) 286-2900 E-mail: brian.rubenstein@csklegal.com PROTECTIVE LIFE: Inks MOU to Settle Delaware Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Protective Life Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Company, each of the members of the Company's Board, Dai-ichi, and DL Investment (Delaware), Inc. entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (the "MOU") with plaintiffs in the Delaware class action which sets forth the parties' agreement in principle for a settlement of the Delaware Action. On June 3, 2014, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with The Dai-ichi Life Insurance Company, Limited, a kabushiki kaisha organized under the laws of Japan ("Dai-ichi") and DL Investment (Delaware), Inc., a Delaware corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of Dai-ichi which provides for the merger of DL Investment (Delaware), Inc. with and into the Company (the "Merger"), with the Company surviving the Merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of Dai-ichi. The Company said that, "Since the entry into the Merger Agreement on June 3, 2014, four lawsuits have been filed against the Company, our directors, Dai-ichi and DL Investment (Delaware), Inc. on behalf of alleged Company shareowners. On June 11, 2014, a putative class action lawsuit styled Edelman, et al. v. Protective Life Corporation, et al., Civil Action No. 01-CV-2014-902474.00, was filed in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama. On July 30, 2014, the plaintiff in Edelman filed an amended complaint. Three putative class action lawsuits were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, Martin, et al. v. Protective Life Corporation, et al., Civil Action No. 9794-CB, filed June 19, 2014, Leyendecker, et al. v. Protective Life Corporation, et al., Civil Action No. 9931-CB, filed July 22, 2014 and Hilburn, et al. v. Protective Life Corporation, et al., Civil Action No. 9937-CB, filed July 23, 2014. The Delaware Court of Chancery consolidated the Martin, Leyendecker and Hilburn actions under the caption In re Protective Life Corp. Stockholders Litigation, Consolidated Civil Action No. 9794-CB, designated the Hilburn complaint as the operative consolidated complaint (the "Delaware Action") and appointed Charlotte Martin, Samuel J. Leyendecker, Jr., and Deborah J. Hilburn to serve as co-lead plaintiffs. These lawsuits alleged that our Board of Directors breached its fiduciary duties to our shareowners, that the Merger involves an unfair price, an inadequate sales process, and unreasonable deal protection devices that purportedly preclude competing offers, and that the preliminary proxy statement filed with the SEC on July 10, 2014 failed to disclose purportedly material information. The complaints also alleged that the Company, Dai-ichi and DL Investment (Delaware), Inc. aided and abetted those alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. The complaints seek injunctive relief, including enjoining or rescinding the Merger, and attorneys' and other fees and costs, in addition to other relief. The Delaware Action also seeks an award of unspecified damages." "With respect to the Edelman lawsuit, on September 5, 2014, the court held a hearing to address motions to dismiss the lawsuit filed on behalf of the Company, the members of the Company's Board, and DL Investment (Delaware), Inc. On September 19, 2014, the court granted those motions and dismissed the Edelman lawsuit in its entirety and with prejudice, pending a possible appeal by the plaintiff. "With respect to the Delaware Action, on September 24, 2014, the Company, each of the members of the Company's Board, Dai-ichi, and DL Investment (Delaware), Inc. entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (the "MOU") with the plaintiffs in that case, which sets forth the parties' agreement in principle for a settlement of the Delaware Action. "As set forth in the MOU, the Company, the members of the Company's Board, Dai-ichi, and DL Investment (Delaware), Inc. agreed to the settlement solely to eliminate the burden, expense, distraction, and uncertainties inherent in further litigation, and without admitting any liability or wrongdoing. The MOU contemplates that the parties will seek to enter into a stipulation of settlement providing for the certification of a mandatory non opt-out class, for settlement purposes only, to include any and all record and beneficial owners of shares (excluding the members of the Company's Board and their immediate family members, any entity in which any member of the Company's Board has a controlling interest, and any successors in interest thereto) that held shares at any time during the period beginning on June 3, 2014, through the date of consummation or termination of the proposed Merger, including any and all of their respective successors in interest, successors, predecessors in interest, representatives, trustees, executors, administrators, heirs, assigns, or transferees, immediate and remote, and any person or entity acting for or on behalf of, or claiming under, any of them, together with their predecessors, successors and assigns, and a global release of claims relating to the Merger as set forth in the MOU. "As part of the settlement, the Company agreed to make certain additional disclosures related to the Merger which are set forth in the Company's Form 8-K filed on September 25, 2014 and which supplement the information contained in the Company's definitive proxy statement filed with the SEC on August 25, 2014, as amended on August 27, 2014. Nothing in the Form 8-K or any stipulation of settlement shall be deemed an admission of the legal necessity or materiality of any of the disclosures set forth in the Form 8-K. The claims in the Delaware Action will not be released until the stipulation of settlement is approved by the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The settlement will not affect the consideration to be received by the Company stockholders in connection with the Merger." Protective Life Corporation is a holding company headquartered in Birmingham, Alabama, with subsidiaries that provide financial services through the production, distribution, and administration of insurance and investment products. RADIOSHACK CORP: Plan Fiduciaries Accused of Breaching Duties ------------------------------------------------------------- Jeffrey Snyder, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Radioshack Corporation, James F. Gooch, Joseph C. Magnacca, Martin O. Moad, Robert E. Abernathy, Frank J. Berlatti, Julia A. Dobson, Daniel R. Feehan, H. Eugene Lockhart, Jack L. Messman, Thomas G. Plaskett, Edwina D. Woodbury, Administrative Committee of the Radioshack 401(K) Plan, Administrative Committee of the Radioshack Puerto Rico 1165(E) Plan, Employee Benefits Committee of the Radioshack 401(K) Plan, Employee Benefits Committee of the Radioshack Puerto Rico 1165(E) Plan, and Does 1- 10, Case No. 4:14-cv-00978-O (N.D. Tex., December 5, 2014) is a class action brought pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 against the Plans' fiduciaries. The Plaintiff is a current Participant in the 401(k) Plan and was a Participant in the Plans during the Class Period, during which time the Plans held interests in the common stock of RadioShack. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants, as "fiduciaries" of the Plans, breached their duties owed to the Plans, to him, and to the other Participants of the Plans by, inter alia, retaining RadioShack Stock as an investment option in the Plans when a reasonable fiduciary using the "care, skill, prudence, and diligence . . . that a prudent man acting in a like capacity and familiar with such matters would use" would have done otherwise. RadioShack Corporation is a Delaware corporation with its principal office located in Fort Worth, Texas. RadioShack engages in the retail sale of consumer electronic goods and services primarily through its chain of stores. RadioShack is the sponsor of the Plans and is a fiduciary of the Plans. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company, or plan fiduciaries. The Plaintiff is represented by: Roger L. Mandel, Esq. Bruce E. Bagelman, Esq. LACKEY HERSHMAN, LLP 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 777 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 560-2201 Facsimile: (214) 560-2203 E-mail: rlm@lhlaw.net beb@lhlaw.net - and - Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq. Robert J. Gray, Esq. CONNOLLY WELLS & GRAY, LLP 2200 Renaissance Blvd., Suite 308 King of Prussia, PA 19406 Telephone: (610) 822-3700 Facsimile: (610) 822-3800 E-mail: gwells@cwg-law.com rgray@cwg-law.com - and - Steven L. Rovner, Esq. ROVNER, ALLEN, ROVNER, ZIMMERMAN AND NASH 175 Bustleton Pike Feasterville, PA 19053 Telephone: (215) 698-1800 Facsimile: (215) 355-0940 E-mail: srovner@dail-law.com SIRIUS XM: Settles Suit Over Automatic Renewals for $3.8 Million ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that some Sirius XM customers, who were charged for satellite radio service they didn't want, can now apply for a refund. Sirius XM has agreed to pay $3.8 million to settle complaints that it misled customers with its advertising and billing practices. The money will be split among 46 states and the District of Columbia. Those in four states, California, Hawaii, Wyoming and New York, can't apply for a refund, according to Sirius. State attorneys general said customers complained that it was difficult to cancel their Sirius XM contracts, and some said that Sirius XM automatically renewed contracts without asking. As part of the settlement, Sirius XM agreed to make several changes to its business, including improving its cancellation process and sending notices before automatic renewals. Sirius XM said on Dec. 5 in a statement that the changes have already been made. Customers who may have been unfairly charged between July 28, 2008, and Dec. 4, 2014, can apply for a refund from their state's attorney general office or from Sirius XM. Sirius XM Holdings Inc., based in New York, has about 26.7 million subscribers. The company said the settlement will have no material financial effect on its business. STAAR SURGICAL: Plaintiff in "Todd" Case Reduced Class Period ------------------------------------------------------------- Staar Surgical Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that a putative securities class action lawsuit was filed on July 8, 2014, by Edward Todd against the Company and three officers in federal court located in Los Angeles, California. The plaintiff claims that STAAR made misleading statements to and omitted material information from the Company's investors between February 27, 2013 and June 30, 2014 about alleged regulatory violations at the Company's Monrovia manufacturing facility. The Company was served with the Complaint on July 21, 2014. Although the ultimate outcome of this action cannot be determined with certainty, the Company believes that the allegations in the Complaint are without merit. The Company intends to vigorously defend against this lawsuit. The Company intends to file a motion to dismiss the complaint, when appropriate, in the ongoing proceeding. On October 20, 2014, plaintiff amended its complaint, dismissed two Company officers, added one other officer, and reduced the alleged Class Period to November 1, 2013 to June 30, 2014. STAAR Surgical Company designs, develops, manufactures and sells implantable lenses for the eye and injector devices used to deliver these lenses into the eye through a small incision. STATE FARM: Removes "Burk" Class Suit to Arizona District Court --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Burk, et al. v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Insurance Company, Case No. CV2014-095133, was removed from the Maricopa County Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona (Phoenix Division). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-02642-GMS to the proceeding. The lawsuit asserts insurance-related claims. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph William Watkins, Esq. JOSEPH W. WATKINS PC 1661 N Swan Rd., Suite 250 Tucson, AZ 85715 Telephone: (520) 882-9115 Facsimile: (520) 882-7708 E-mail: joewlaw2@gmail.com The Defendant is represented by: Carrie Marie Francis, Esq. Craig Alan Morgan, Esq. STINSON LEONARD STREET LLP 1850 N Central Ave., Suite 2100 Phoenix, AZ 85004-4584 Telephone: (602) 279-1600 Facsimile: (602) 240-6925 E-mail: carrie.francis@stinsonleonard.com craig.morgan@stinsonleonard.com SUNRISE CREDIT: Sued Over Violations of Fair Debt Collection Act ---------------------------------------------------------------- Elizabeth Barbara Pasternak, on behalf of herself individually, in her capacity as executrix of the estate of Matthew J. Ciosek, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Sunrise Credit Services, Inc., and Does 1 Through 10, Inclusive, Case No. 2:14- cv-06884-MMB (E.D. Pa., December 4, 2014) seeks relief over alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Arkady Eric Rayz, Esq. KALIKHMAN & RAYZ LLC 1051 County Line Road, Suite A Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006 Telephone: (215) 364-5030 Facsimile: (215) 364-5029 E-mail: erayz@kalraylaw.com SUNTRUST MORTGAGE: Sued Over Force-Placed Insurance Charges ----------------------------------------------------------- Douglas Morales, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Suntrust Mortgage, Inc., Assurant, Inc., and American Security Insurance Company, Case No. 1:14-cv-24552 (S.D. Fla., December 2, 2014), is brought in connection with the requirement to pay for lender-placed or force-placed hazard insurance policies provided through Assurant, Inc. and its subsidiaries, which involved the payment of a kickback in the form of below market-rate portfolio tracking, expense reimbursement, or any other monetary and nonmonetary remuneration to SunTrust. Suntrust Mortgage, Inc. offers residential mortgage products nationally through its retail and correspondent channels. Assurant, Inc. is a provider of specialty insurance products in the U.S. and select worldwide markets. American Security Insurance Company writes force-placed insurance policies in all fifty states and the District of Columbia. The Plaintiff is represented by: Tod N. Aronovitz, Esq. ARONOVITZ LAW One Biscayne Tower 2 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 2630 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 372-2772 Facsimile: (305) 397-1886 E-mail: ta@aronovitzlaw.com TAKATA CORPORATION: Faces "Rosenstock" Suit Over Faulty Airbags --------------------------------------------------------------- Arlene Rosenstock, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Takata Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:14- cv-07004 (E.D.N.Y., December 2, 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: Christopher A. Seeger, Esq. Stephen A. Weiss, Esq. Diogenes P. Kekatos, Esq. Eric H. Jaso, Esq SEEGER WEISS LLP 77 Water Street New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 584-0700 Facsimile: (212) 584-0799 E-mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com sweiss@seegerweiss.com dkekatos@seegerweiss.com ejaso@seegerweiss.com TESCO: Bentham Agrees to Fund Shareholder Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ John Hyde, writing for The Law Society Gazette, reports that Australian litigation funder Bentham has made its biggest entry yet in the European market by agreeing to fund a class action against supermarket giant Tesco. The European subsidiary will fund legal action on behalf of shareholders who are claiming for compensation for losses caused by Tesco's recent overstated profits announcement. London firm Stewarts Law will allege breaches of the Financial Services and Markets Act after the announcement triggered a stock market collapse and more than GBP2 billion was wiped off the Tesco share price. In October, Tesco told the stock market that its previous profit announcement to investors was overstated by GBP263 million. The supermarket has denied deliberately misleading shareholders and has stated that nobody in the company has gained financially as a result of the overstatement of performance. The class action is open to all current and former shareholders who acquired at least 10,000 Tesco shares between April 17, 2013 and October 22, 2014, and who had not sold all their shares by the time of the market announcements. The claim will only proceed if a sufficient number of shareholders join the action. The investment is expected to run into millions of pounds if the anticipated number of claimants comes forward. If the shareholders' case loses, Bentham has said it will pay for the costs of the claimants in pursuing the case and not recoup these and also cover any adverse costs orders made against the claimants. Lawyers will argue that Tesco has made misleading statements to the market and omissions in relation to its profits for recent financial periods. John Walker, managing director of Bentham Europe, said: "Shareholders ought to be able to allocate capital on the London Stock Exchange assuming earnings are not being misstated. "When there has been a material misallocation of capital due to misstated earnings, compensation ought to be paid." Stewarts is already acting for more than 300 shareholders in a litigation with Royal Bank of Scotland. The Tesco announcement is already subject to an investigation by the Financial Conduct Authority and Serious Fraud Office, but the firm has opted to act immediately. Partner Sean Upson -- supson@stewartslaw.com -- said: "We expect to issue proceedings against Tesco in the High Court in London within six months. We do not intend to wait for the outcome of the SFO investigation which may take some years." Bentham Europe founded this year and is a joint venture between IMF Bentham Limited, a publicly listed company which funds litigation and arbitration claims in Australia and other jurisdictions, and subsidiary entities of funds managed by Elliott Management Corporation, a US-based advisory firm. TIMEKEEPERS INC: Fails to Pay Guards Overtime, "Montes" Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jose Montes, Jr., on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Timekeepers, Inc., Tier One Security, Inc., Rabbit Ear Management, Inc., and Shawn Fluitt, Case No. 5:14-cv-00193 (S.D. Tex., December 2, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay gate guards and security officers minimum wages and overtime compensation. The Defendants are companies that provide security and monitoring services, primarily to the oil and gas industry. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lawrence Morales II, Esq. THE MORALES FIRM, P.C. 115 Travis, Suite 1530 San Antonio, TX 78205 Telephone: (210) 225-0811 Facsimile: (210) 225-0821 E-mail: lawrence@themoralesfirm.com TRICO BANCSHARES: Entered Into MOU to Settle Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- On January 24, 2014, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit was filed against TriCo Bancshares, North Valley Bancorp and certain other defendants in connection with TriCo entering into the merger agreement with North Valley Bancorp. The lawsuit, which was filed in the Shasta County, California Superior Court, alleges that the members of the North Valley Bancorp board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to North Valley Bancorp shareholders by approving the proposed merger for inadequate consideration; approving the transaction in order receive benefits not equally shared by other North Valley Bancorp shareholders; entering into the merger agreement containing preclusive deal protection devices; and failing to take steps to maximize the value to be paid to the North Valley Bancorp shareholders. The lawsuit alleges claims against TriCo for aiding and abetting these alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. The plaintiff seeks, among other things, declaratory and injunctive relief concerning the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties injunctive relief prohibiting consummation of the merger, rescission, attorneys' of the merger agreement, fees and costs, and other and further relief. On July 31, 2014 the defendants entered into a memorandum of understanding with the plaintiffs regarding the settlement of this lawsuit. TriCo Bancshares said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that in connection with the settlement contemplated by the memorandum of understanding and in consideration for the full settlement and release of all claims, TriCo and North Valley Bancorp agreed to make certain additional disclosures related to the proposed merger, which are contained in a Current Report on Form 8-K filed by each of the companies. The memorandum of understanding contemplates that the parties will negotiate in good faith and use their reasonable best efforts to enter into a stipulation of settlement. The stipulation of settlement will be subject to customary conditions, including court approval following notice to North Valley Bancorp's shareholders. In the event that the parties enter into a stipulation of settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at which the court will consider the settlement. There can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the court will approve the settlement even if the parties were to enter into such stipulation. In such event, the proposed settlement as contemplated by the memorandum of understanding may be terminated. Neither the Company nor its subsidiaries, are party to any other material pending legal proceeding, nor is their property the subject of any material pending legal proceeding, except routine legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of their business. None of these proceedings is expected to have a material adverse impact upon the Company's business, consolidated financial position or results of operations. TWITTER INC: Court Refuses to Junk Text Message Spamming Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Twitter must defend its text messaging practices in a class action case over spam sent to non-users, reports Julie Baker-Dennis at Courthouse News Service, citing a federal court ruling. U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria refused to dismiss a Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action against Twitter alleging that the social network sends mass text messages to non-users without their consent. Lead plaintiff Beverly Nunes filed her class action against Twitter this past June, claiming that the company sent text messages to individuals who use "recycled" cellphone numbers previously assigned to Twitter users. While those users may have given consent to receive the texts, Nunes claims that should have known that the numbers they were sending the mass text messages to were recycled and no longer used by their members. Nunes says she received unwanted promotional text messages from Twitter several times per day, according to the complaint. She attempted to alert Twitter that the texts were not authorized by replying to the text messages with the company's provided code to stop the messages, but to no avail. "Despite her explicit stop requests, plaintiff continues to receive unauthorized text messages from Twitter, as many as four to six messages per day, at all hours of the day and night, including many before the hour of 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m. local time," Nunes says in her complaint. Twitter moved to dismiss the case, arguing that Nunes can't back up her her TCPA claim that the company uses an automatic dialing system to send the text messages. The social network said that its equipment does not meet the definition of an automatic dialing system since it can't store phone numbers and then dial them using a random number generator without human intervention. Chhabria disagreed, citing the Federal Communication Commission's definition of an automatic dialing system as "any equipment with the capacity to 'generate numbers and dial them without human intervention regardless of whether the numbers called are randomly or sequentially generated or come from calling lists', including hardware that, when paired with certain software, has the capacity to store or produce numbers and dial those numbers at random, in sequential order, or from a database of numbers." He continued: "Accordingly, Nunes' primary theory for why Twitter uses an automatic telephone dialing system (namely, that the equipment as alleged falls within the definition adopted by the FCC) is correct, and the court declines to consider at this stage whether the FCC's definition constitutes an unlawful expansion of the statute." [Parentheses in ruling.] As to Nunes' second theory that Twitter's equipment meets the automatic dialing system requirement because it has the ability to randomly or sequentially generate numbers, Twitter argued that its equipment would have to undergo extensive reconfigurations to meet the Nunes' definition. But Chhabria said it's too early in the case to buy Twitter's argument on that front. "It is an evidentiary matter that cannot be resolved at the pleading stage," Chhabria wrote in the 4-page ruling. "Even if Twitter were correct that Nunes' broader definition of an automatic telephone dialing system is not supported by the FCC orders (or that the FCC orders improperly expand the definition), dismissal of the complaint would not be warranted." As to whether the consent Twitter obtained from the previous owner of Nunes' cellphone number counts as consent to besiege Nunes with spam, Chhabria said that the 7th Circuit has already established in Soppet v. Enhanced Recovery that only the consent of the person currently holding the phone number justifies an automated call -- or in this case, text message. A trial date has not yet been set. The case is Beverly Nunes v. Twitter, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv- 02843-VC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. UNITED RECOVERY: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act -------------------------------------------------------------- Susan Ebner, individually on behalf of all others similarly situated v. United Recovery Systems, LP and Does 1 Through 10 Inclusive, Case No. 2:14-cv-06881-RB (E.D. Pa., December 4, 2014) accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Arkady Eric Rayz, Esq. KALIKHMAN & RAYZ LLC 1051 County Line Road, Suite A Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006 Telephone: (215) 364-5030 Facsimile: (215) 364-5029 E-mail: erayz@kalraylaw.com UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Settlement Escrow Funded in October 2014 ---------------------------------------------------------- Universal Health Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that a settlement escrow, pending final court approval, was funded in October of 2014 related to the class action, Garden City Employees' Retirement System v. Psychiatric Solutions, Inc. ("PSI"), Joey A. Jacobs, Brent Turner and Jack E. Polson. This is a shareholder class action lawsuit filed in 2009 in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee against PSI and certain of its former officers alleging violations of federal securities laws. In September of 2014, a $65 million settlement agreement was reached in connection with this matter. A settlement escrow, pending final court approval, was funded in October of 2014. A pre-tax charge of $49 million was incurred by us during the first nine months of 2014 in connection with this settlement which is net of approximately $16 million of commercial insurance recoveries. VALHI INC: NL Industries' Appeal in Lead Pigment Case Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------- Valhi Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that NL Industries, Inc. filed a notice of appeal with the Sixth District Court of Appeal for the State of California related to the Lead pigment litigation and the appeal is proceeding with the appellate court. NL's former operations included the manufacture of lead pigments for use in paint and lead-based paint. NL, other former manufacturers of lead pigments for use in paint and lead-based paint (together, the "former pigment manufacturers"), and the Lead Industries Association ("LIA"), which discontinued business operations in 2002, have been named as defendants in various legal proceedings seeking damages for personal injury, property damage and governmental expenditures allegedly caused by the use of lead- based paints. Certain of these actions have been filed by or on behalf of states, counties, cities or their public housing authorities and school districts, and certain others have been asserted as class actions. These lawsuits seek recovery under a variety of theories, including public and private nuisance, negligent product design, negligent failure to warn, strict liability, breach of warranty, conspiracy/concert of action, aiding and abetting, enterprise liability, market share or risk contribution liability, intentional tort, fraud and misrepresentation, violations of state consumer protection statutes, supplier negligence and similar claims. The plaintiffs in these actions generally seek to impose on the defendants responsibility for lead paint abatement and health concerns associated with the use of lead-based paints, including damages for personal injury, contribution and/or indemnification for medical expenses, medical monitoring expenses and costs for educational programs. To the extent the plaintiffs seek compensatory or punitive damages in these actions, such damages are generally unspecified. In some cases, the damages are unspecified pursuant to the requirements of applicable state law. A number of cases are inactive or have been dismissed or withdrawn. Most of the remaining cases are in various pre-trial stages. Some are on appeal following dismissal or summary judgment rulings in favor of either the defendants or the plaintiffs. In addition, various other cases (in which NL is not a defendant) are pending that seek recovery for injury allegedly caused by lead pigment and lead-based paint. Although NL is not a defendant in these cases, the outcome of these cases may have an impact on cases that might be filed against NL in the future. NL believes that these actions are without merit, and NL intends to continue to deny all allegations of wrongdoing and liability and to defend against all actions vigorously. NL does not believe it is probable that it has incurred any liability with respect to all of the lead pigment litigation cases to which NL is a party, and liability to us that may result, if any, in this regard cannot be reasonably estimated, because: * NL has never settled any of the market share, intentional tort, fraud, nuisance, supplier negligence, breach of warranty, conspiracy, misrepresentation, aiding and abetting, enterprise liability, or statutory cases, * no final, non-appealable adverse verdicts have ever been entered against NL, and * NL has never ultimately been found liable with respect to any such litigation matters, including over 100 cases over a twenty-year period for which NL was previously a party and for which NL has been dismissed without any finding of liability. Valhi said, "Accordingly, neither we nor NL have accrued any amounts for any of the pending lead pigment and lead-based paint litigation cases filed by or on behalf of states, counties, cities or their public housing authorities and school districts, or those asserted as class actions. In addition, we have determined that liability to us which may result, if any, cannot be reasonably estimated because there is no prior history of a loss of this nature on which an estimate could be made and there is no substantive information available upon which an estimate could be based." In one of these lead pigment cases, in April 2000 NL was served with a complaint (County of Santa Clara v. Atlantic Richfield Company, et al, Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, Case No. 1-00-CV-788657) brought by a number of California government entities against the former pigment manufacturers, the LIA and certain paint manufacturers. The County of Santa Clara sought to recover compensatory damages for funds the plaintiffs had expended or would in the future expend for medical treatment, educational expenses, abatement or other costs due to exposure to, or potential exposure to, lead paint, disgorgement of profit, and punitive damages. In July 2003, the trial judge granted defendants' motion to dismiss all remaining claims. Plaintiffs appealed and the intermediate appellate court reinstated public nuisance, negligence, strict liability, and fraud claims in March 2006. A fourth amended complaint was filed in March 2011 on behalf of The People of California by the County Attorneys of Alameda, Ventura, Solano, San Mateo, Los Angeles and Santa Clara, and the City Attorneys of San Francisco, San Diego and Oakland. That complaint alleged that the presence of lead paint created a public nuisance in each of the prosecuting jurisdictions and sought its abatement. In July and August 2013, the case was tried. In January 2014, the Court issued a judgment finding NL, The Sherwin Williams Company and ConAgra jointly and severally liable for the abatement of lead paint in pre-1980 homes, and ordered the defendants to pay an aggregate $1.15 billion to the people of the State of California to fund such abatement. In February 2014, NL filed a motion for a new trial, and in March 2014 the court denied the motion. Subsequently in March 2014, NL filed a notice of appeal with the Sixth District Court of Appeal for the State of California and the appeal is proceeding with the appellate court. NL believes that this judgment is inconsistent with California law and is unsupported by the evidence, and NL will defend vigorously against all claims. Valhi said, "The Santa Clara case is unusual in that this is the second time that an adverse verdict in the lead pigment litigation has been entered against NL (the first adverse verdict against NL was ultimately overturned on appeal). We have concluded that the likelihood of a loss in this case has not reached a standard of "probable" as contemplated by ASC 450, given (i) the substantive, substantial and meritorious grounds on which the adverse verdict in the Santa Clara case will be appealed, (ii) the uniqueness of the Santa Clara verdict (i.e. no final, non-appealable verdicts have ever been rendered against NL, or any of the other former lead pigment manufacturers, based on the public nuisance theory of liability or otherwise), and (iii) the rejection of the public nuisance theory of liability as it relates to lead pigment matters in many other jurisdictions (no jurisdiction in which a plaintiff has asserted a public nuisance theory of liability has ever successfully been upheld). In addition, liability that may result, if any, cannot be reasonably estimated, as NL continues to have no basis on which an estimate of liability could be made, as discussed above. However, as with any legal proceeding, there is no assurance that any appeal would be successful, and it is reasonably possible, based on the outcome of the appeals process, that NL may in the future incur some liability resulting in the recognition of a loss contingency accrual that could have a material adverse impact on our results of operations, financial position and liquidity. "New cases may continue to be filed against NL. We cannot assure you that we will not incur liability in the future in respect of any of the pending or possible litigation in view of the inherent uncertainties involved in court and jury rulings. In the future, if new information regarding such matters becomes available to us (such as a final, non-appealable adverse verdict against us or otherwise ultimately being found liable with respect to such matters), at that time we would consider such information in evaluating any remaining cases then-pending against us as to whether it might then have become probable we have incurred liability with respect to these matters, and whether such liability, if any, could have become reasonably estimable. The resolution of any of these cases could result in the recognition of a loss contingency accrual that could have a material adverse impact on our net income for the interim or annual period during which such liability is recognized and a material adverse impact on our consolidated financial condition and liquidity." VICTIM SERVICES: Sued for Using DA Letterhead in Collecting Debts ----------------------------------------------------------------- Katherine Proctor, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that a federal class action claims that a California company unfairly collects debts by paying district attorneys for use of their seals and letterheads -- disguising private debt collection as law enforcement. Lead plaintiff Kevin Breazeale claims that defendant CorrectiveSolutions does this to "scare consumers into believing that they are the subject of real criminal proceedings." What's more, Breazeale says in the lawsuit, "Just a few weeks ago, moreover, the American Bar Association issued a formal ethics opinion condemning the practices of companies like CorrectiveSolutions and concluding that they are engaged in the unauthorized practice of law ." Named as defendants are Victim Services Inc. and the National Corrective Group, both dba CorrectiveSolutions. "They are paying prosecutors for the permission essentially to pretend that they're prosecutors," plaintiffs' attorney Paul Arons told Courthouse News. "Basically, they're telling prosecutors that they're acting unethically if they permit this non-lawyer company to pretend they're the prosecutors," Arons said. According to the lawsuit, CorrectiveSolutions usually receives referrals from retailers and private collection agencies, not from district attorneys. Their major referral sources include national retailers such as Target and Safeway, and large debt collection entities such as Telecheck and Certegy, according to the complaint. These sources provide CorrectiveSolutions with consumers' check information, which the company uses to generate form collection letters that appear as if they are sent from a district attorney's office, according to the lawsuit. Members of the proposed class of consumers may have presented checks that did not clear, but this is not a crime under California's Bad Check Diversion Act unless there is probable cause to believe that the consumer presents the check "willfully, with intent to defraud," according to the complaint. The class claims that CorrectiveSolutions informs them, incorrectly, that they are accused of crimes punishable by up to a year in prison and that they can avoid it by participating in a "Bad Check Restitution Program." CorrectiveSolutions also contacts check writers by email and telephone, "frequently repeating or amplifying their prosecution threats," the class claims. They claim that the "driving force" behind CorrectiveSolutions's demands is to charge an unlawful fee of $160 or more for a Financial Accountability Class, which is not required. CorrectiveSolutions' contract with El Dorado County District Attorney's Office is attached as an exhibit to the complaint. The class claims that the contract "reflects the fees CorrectiveSolutions charges throughout California:" "Administrative fee: $50 "Diversion seminar fee: $191 with automatic 3% annual increase "Restitution fee: $15 maximum, based on merchant's bank charge "Credit/debit card fee: $10 "Payment Plan late fee: $10 "Class rescheduling fee: $25 "Overpayment refund fee: $5 "None of these fees are lawful because defendants' program does not comply with the Diversion Act's prerequisites," the complaint states. (Citation to exhibit omitted.) The plaintiffs estimate that the proposed class contains more than 100,000 members. Sources from CorrectiveSolutions could not be reached for comment. The plaintiffs seek class certification, restitution, costs, statutory damages, and damages for violations of the California Business and Professions Code and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Paul Arons, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PAUL ARONS 685 Spring Street, #104 Friday Harbor, WA 98250 Telephone: (360) 378-6496 - and - Beth Terrell, Esq. TERRELL MARSHALL DAUDT & WILLIE, PLLC 936 N. 34th Street, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98103 Telephone: (206) 816-6603 Facsimile: (206) 319-5450 E-mail: bterrell@tmdwlaw.com VIVINT SOLAR: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP on Nov. 26 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Vivint Solar, Inc. and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Southern District of New York, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased Vivint securities between October 1, 2014 and November 10, 2014, inclusive. This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you are a shareholder who purchased Vivint securities during the Class Period, you have until January 20, 2015 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, x237. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. Vivint provides distributed solar energy to residential customers in Arizona, California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York. It installs and owns solar energy systems through long-term customer contracts. The company also offers photovoltaic installation software products and devices. As of June 30, 2014, its solar energy systems had a cumulative capacity of 129.7 megawatts covering approximately 21,900 homes in 7 states. The company was formerly known as V Solar Holdings, Inc. and changed its name to Vivint Solar, Inc. in April 2014. On or about September 30, 2014, Vivint and the underwriters priced the IPO, and on October 1, 2014 filed the final Prospectus, which forms part of the Registration Statement for the IPO, with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The IPO was successful for the Company and the underwriters, with Vivint issuing and selling 20.6 million new shares of Vivint common stock to the public at $16 per share, raising approximately $329.6 million in gross proceeds. The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement for the IPO was negligently prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material facts or omitted to state other facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading. According to the complaint, under the rules and regulations governing the preparation of the Registration Statement, Vivint was required to disclose at the time of the IPO that ownership trends in the residential solar industry had changed from long-term leasing to financing, that demand for long-term leases had declined, and that growth in the Company's operating expenses in the third quarter of 2014 had significantly outstripped growth in revenue, resulting in much weaker sales trends and significantly larger net losses than the market had been led to expect. The Registration Statement contained no such disclosures. On this news, shares of Vivint fell $4.58 per share, or approximately 28.62%, from the IPO price to close at $11.42 per share on November 11, 2014. With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and San Diego, The Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. WHOLE FOODS: Violates Fair Credit Reporting Act, Class Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Colin Speer, on behalf of himself and all similarly-situated individuals v. Whole Foods Market Group, Inc., Case No. 8:14-cv- 03035-RAL-TBM (M.D. Fla., December 4, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon J. Hill, Esq. Luis A. Cabassa, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA 1110 N Florida Ave., Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 224-0431 Facsimile: (813) 229-8712 E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com lcabassa@wfclaw.com WILLIAM A HECHT: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act ------------------------------------------------------------ Esther Dick, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated consumers v. William A. Hecht, P.C., Case No. 1:14-cv-07082 (E.D.N.Y., December 4, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq. ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW 483 Chestnut Street Cedarhurst, NY 11516 Telephone: (516) 791-4400 Facsimile: (516) 791-4411 E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com XL FOODS: Enters Into Tentative Beef Recall Settlement ------------------------------------------------------ John Cotter, writing for Global News, reports that lawyers have brokered a tentative deal to settle part of a class-action lawsuit filed over an E. coli outbreak and the largest meat recall in Canadian history. The lawsuit is against XL Foods Inc., which operated a meat- packing plant in southern Alberta during the tainted beef recall in 2012. Rick Mallett, a lawyer for the Edmonton law firm behind the class action, said the settlement is to cover refunds to consumers for products that were recalled. He said the proposed $1-million settlement, plus other costs, is to go before a judge early next year for approval. "The parties have reached a settlement on beef refund claims subject to approval of the court," Mr. Mallett said on Nov. 25 following a hearing in Court of Queen's Bench. "It applies to anyone who purchased recalled beef -- XL beef -- and disposed of it and didn't get a refund." XL Foods recalled more than 1.8 million kilograms of beef in Canada and the United States. In its statement of defense the company has denied liability and the allegations contained in the class action. The plant in Brooks was sold to JBS Canada last year. In October 2012 Brian Nilsson, one of the chief executives of XL Foods, apologized to people who became ill and was quoted in the media as saying that the company takes full responsibility. If the court approves the settlement, a public notice will be published in newspapers in Canada and some U.S. states to let people know how to submit claims. Mr. Mallett said the agreement applies to anyone who threw beef away in response to recall notices, even if they can't identify whether it was XL beef. During the outbreak, health officials confirmed that 18 people in Canada tested positive for a specific strain of E. coli bacteria linked to meat from the company's plant in Brooks, Alta. The proposed deal does not affect the main part of the class-action lawsuit that involves people who claim they became ill. Mr. Mallett said that part of the lawsuit could continue for another 18 to 24 months. He said the number of people who say they became ill is much higher than the 18 cases documented in reports on the XL Foods recall. "We have been contacted by, at this point, over 200 people indicating that they suffered illness or injury in various degree of severity." At the Nov. 25 hearing, associate chief Justice John Rooke said any public notice about the proposed settlement must make it clear that claims are separate from and would not affect any possible future claims for injury damages. The statement of claim -- which contains allegations not proven in court -- says XL Foods knew it had poor quality control and put its profits above the safety of consumers. Last fall, the court ruled that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency is a third-party defendant in the national class action. Mr. Mallett said the federal food safety watchdog is not part of the proposed settlement on beef refunds, but remains part of the injury lawsuit. "They remain in terms of the liability issues and any other quantum issues that relate to the bodily injury claims," he said. "They continue to be a part of the litigation." Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: WR Grace Paid $632-Mil. to PI Trust ---------------------------------------------------- W.R. Grace & Co. paid $632 million to the asbestos-related personal injury trust in respect of the Company's deferred payment obligation pursuant to the Joint Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization, 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. Asbestos personal injury claimants allege adverse health effects from exposure to asbestos-containing products formerly manufactured by Grace. On April 2, 2001, when Grace and 61 of its subsidiaries filed voluntary petitions for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, 129,191 PI Claims were pending against Grace. Grace believes that a substantial number of additional PI Claims would have been received between the Filing Date and the Effective Date had such PI Claims not been stayed by the Bankruptcy Court. Under the Joint Plan, all PI Claims were channeled to the PI Trust for resolution. The PI Trust will use specified trust distribution procedures to satisfy allowed PI Claims. On the Effective Date, the PI Trust was funded with: * $557.7 million in cash from Grace (includes $464.1 million of cash from Grace and $93.6 million of cash from insurance proceeds that were held in escrow); * A warrant to acquire 10 million shares of Company common stock at an exercise price of $17.00 per share, expiring one year after the Effective Date (the "PI Warrant") (this obligation is expected to be settled in cash with the PI Trust); * Rights to all proceeds under all of Grace's insurance policies that are available for payment of PI Claims; * $42.1 million in cash from a subsidiary of Fresenius AG, pursuant to the terms of a settlement agreement resolving asbestos-related, successor liability and fraudulent transfer claims against Fresenius; and * $856.8 million in cash and 18 million shares of Sealed Air Corporation common stock paid by Cryovac, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Sealed Air, pursuant to the terms of a settlement agreement resolving asbestos-related, successor liability and fraudulent transfer claims against Cryovac and Sealed Air. Under the Joint Plan Grace was also obligated to make deferred payments to the PI Trust of $110 million per year for 5 years beginning in 2019, and $100 million per year for 10 years beginning in 2024, which obligation was secured by the Company's obligation to issue 77,372,257 shares of Company common stock to the asbestos trusts in the event of default, subject to customary anti-dilution provisions. However, in August 2014, Grace and the PI Trust entered into an agreement to settle the deferred payment obligation in exchange for a cash payment of $632 million. Grace made such payment on September 18, 2014, and has no further obligation to make any additional payments to the PI Trust in respect of the deferred payment obligation. The plaintiffs in asbestos property damage lawsuits generally seek to have the defendants pay for the cost of removing, containing or repairing the asbestos-containing materials in commercial and public buildings. Various factors can affect the merit and value of PD Claims, including legal defenses, product identification, the amount and type of product involved, the age, type, size and use of the building, the legal status of the claimant, the jurisdictional history of prior cases, the court in which the case is pending, and the difficulty of asbestos abatement, if necessary. Several class action lawsuits also were filed on behalf of homeowners alleging damage from ZAI. Based on Grace's investigation of the claims described in these lawsuits, and testing and analysis of this product by Grace and others, Grace believes that ZAI was and continues to be safe for its intended purpose and poses little or no threat to human health. The plaintiffs in the ZAI lawsuits dispute Grace's position on the safety of ZAI. In December 2006 the Bankruptcy Court issued an opinion and order holding that, although ZAI is contaminated with asbestos and can release asbestos fibers when disturbed, there is no unreasonable risk of harm from ZAI. W.R. Grace & Co. (Grace) is engaged in the production and sale of specialty chemicals and specialty materials on a global basis. The Company operates in three segments: Grace Catalysts Technologies; Grace Materials Technologies; and Grace Construction Products. Grace Catalysts Technologies will include catalysts and related technologies used in refining, petrochemical and other chemical manufacturing applications. Grace's Advanced Refining Technologies LLC (ART) joint venture will be managed in this segment. Grace Materials Technologies will include engineered materials, coatings and sealants used in industrial, consumer, pharmaceutical and packaging applications. In December 2013, the Company announced that it has completed the acquisition of the assets of the Polypropylene Licensing and Catalysts business of The Dow Chemical Company. ASBESTOS UPDATE: WR Grace Had $6.8MM Fibro-related Charges ---------------------------------------------------------- W.R. Grace & Co. had $6.8 million asbestos and bankruptcy-related charges for the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2014, 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 recorded asbestos-related liability as of December 31, 2013, was $2,092.4 million, and was included in "liabilities subject to compromise" in the Company's Consolidated Balance Sheets. The asbestos-related liability was settled at the recorded amount on the Effective Date, including payment of cash of $499.5 million at the Effective Date, issuance of deferred payment obligations of $594.5 million and the warrant of $490.0 million, and transfer of all cash and rights with respect to Grace's insurance policies that provide coverage for asbestos-related claims. The PI Trust deferred payment obligation of $110 million per year for 5 years beginning January 2, 2019, and of $100 million per year for 10 years beginning January 2, 2024, was recorded at fair value of $567 million on the Effective Date. The value of the deferred payment obligation was estimated based on (i) interest rates; (ii) the Company's credit standing and the payment period of the deferred payments; (iii) restrictive covenants and terms of the Company's other credit facilities; (iv) assessment of the risk of a default, which if default were to occur would require Grace to issue shares of Company common stock; and (v) the subordination provisions of the deferred payment agreement. In August 2014, Grace and the PI Trust entered into an agreement to settle the deferred payment obligation in exchange for a cash payment of $632 million. Grace made such payment on September 18, 2014, and has no further obligation to make any additional payments to the PI Trust in respect of the deferred payment obligation. Grace also recorded a deferred payment obligation of $27.5 million representing the present value of the $30 million payment due to the ZAI PD Account on February 3, 2017. This amount is included in "debt payable after one year" in the Company's September 30, 2014, Consolidated Balance Sheet. The warrant to acquire 10 million shares of the Company's common stock for $17.00 per share was recorded at its estimated value of $490 million on February 3, 2014 (the "Effective Date") based on the current trading range of Company common stock, other valuation factors, and the PI Warrant Settlement. A copy of the Company's Form 10-Q filing is available at: http://goo.gl/RuiXVs W.R. Grace & Co. (Grace) is engaged in the production and sale of specialty chemicals and specialty materials on a global basis. The Company operates in three segments: Grace Catalysts Technologies; Grace Materials Technologies; and Grace Construction Products. Grace Catalysts Technologies will include catalysts and related technologies used in refining, petrochemical and other chemical manufacturing applications. Grace's Advanced Refining Technologies LLC (ART) joint venture will be managed in this segment. Grace Materials Technologies will include engineered materials, coatings and sealants used in industrial, consumer, pharmaceutical and packaging applications. In December 2013, the Company announced that it has completed the acquisition of the assets of the Polypropylene Licensing and Catalysts business of The Dow Chemical Company. ASBESTOS UPDATE: WR Grace Paid $400,000 to PD Trust at Sept. 30 --------------------------------------------------------------- W.R. Grace & Co. paid $0.4 million to the asbestos-related property damage trust established under the company's Joint Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization, 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: "The plaintiffs in asbestos property damage lawsuits generally seek to have the defendants pay for the cost of removing, containing or repairing the asbestos-containing materials in commercial and public buildings. Various factors can affect the merit and value of PD Claims, including legal defenses, product identification, the amount and type of product involved, the age, type, size and use of the building, the legal status of the claimant, the jurisdictional history of prior cases, the court in which the case is pending, and the difficulty of asbestos abatement, if necessary. "Several class action lawsuits also were filed on behalf of homeowners alleging damage from ZAI. Based on Grace's investigation of the claims described in these lawsuits, and testing and analysis of this product by Grace and others, Grace believes that ZAI was and continues to be safe for its intended purpose and poses little or no threat to human health. The plaintiffs in the ZAI lawsuits dispute Grace's position on the safety of ZAI. In December 2006 the Bankruptcy Court issued an opinion and order holding that, although ZAI is contaminated with asbestos and can release asbestos fibers when disturbed, there is no unreasonable risk of harm from ZAI. "At Grace's request, in July 2008, the Bankruptcy Court established a claims bar date for U.S. ZAI PD Claims and approved a related notice program that required any person with a U.S. ZAI PD Claim to submit an individual proof of claim no later than October 31, 2008. Approximately 17,960 U.S. ZAI PD Claims were filed prior to the October 31, 2008, claims bar date and, as of the Effective Date, an additional 1,310 U.S. ZAI PD Claims were filed. "Under the Joint Plan, all PD Claims have been channeled to the PD Trust for resolution. The PD Trust contains two accounts, the PD Account and the ZAI PD Account. U.S. ZAI PD Claims are to be paid from the ZAI PD Account and non-ZAI PD Claims are to be paid from the PD Account. Canadian ZAI PD Claims are to be paid by a separate fund established in Canada. Each account has a separate trustee and the assets of the accounts may not be commingled. PD Account "On the Effective Date, the PD Account of the PD Trust was funded with $39.9 million in cash from Grace and $111.4 million in cash from Cryovac and Fresenius to pay allowed non-ZAI PD Claims settled as of the Effective Date, and CDN$8.6 million in cash from Grace to fund the Canadian ZAI PD Claims fund. Following the Effective Date, unresolved non-ZAI PD Claims are to be litigated in the Bankruptcy Court and any future non-ZAI PD Claims are to be litigated in a federal district court, in each case pursuant to procedures to be approved by the Bankruptcy Court. To the extent any such PD Claims are determined to be allowed claims, they are to be paid in cash by the PD Trust. Grace is obligated to make a payment to the PD Trust every six months in the amount of any non-ZAI PD Claims allowed during the preceding six months plus interest (if applicable) and, except for the first six months, the amount of PD Trust expenses for the preceding six months (the "PD Obligation"). The aggregate amount to be paid under the PD Obligation is not capped and Grace may be obligated to make additional payments to the PD Account in respect of the PD Obligation. Grace has accrued for those unresolved non-ZAI PD Claims that it believes are probable and estimable. Grace has not accrued for other unresolved or unasserted non-ZAI PD Claims, as it does not believe that payment on any such claims is probable. As of September 30, 2014, Grace paid $0.4 million to the PD Trust since the Effective Date to fund the payment of two non-ZAI PD Claims that were filed in the Chapter 11 Cases but not resolved until after the Effective Date. On the Effective Date, the PD Trust contributed CDN$8.6 million to a separate Canadian ZAI PD Claims fund through which Canadian ZAI PD Claims are to be resolved. Grace has no continuing or contingent obligations to make additional payments into this fund. "On the Effective Date, the ZAI PD Account was funded with $34.4 million in cash from Cryovac and Fresenius. "Grace is obligated to make a payment of $30 million in cash to the ZAI PD Account on the third anniversary of the Effective Date, and Grace is obligated to make up to 10 contingent deferred payments of $8 million per year to the ZAI PD Account during the 20-year period beginning on the fifth anniversary of the Effective Date, with each such payment due only if the assets of the ZAI PD Account fall below $10 million during the preceding year. The amounts that Grace will be obligated to pay to the ZAI PD Account under the Joint Plan are capped amounts. Grace is not obligated to make additional payments to the PD Trust in respect of the ZAI PD Account beyond the payments described. Grace has accrued for the $30 million payment due on the third anniversary of the Effective Date, but has not accrued for the 10 additional payments since Grace does not currently believe they are probable. "The PD Trust is to resolve U.S. ZAI PD Claims that qualify for payment under specified trust distribution procedures by paying 55% of the claimed amount, but in no event is the PD Trust to pay more per claim than $4,125 (as adjusted for inflation each year after the fifth anniversary of the Effective Date). All payments to the PD Trust required after the Effective Date are secured by the Company's obligation to issue 77,372,257 shares of Company common stock to the asbestos trusts in the event of default, subject to customary anti-dilution provisions. Grace has the right to conduct annual audits of the books, records and claim processing procedures of the PD Trust." A copy of the Company's Form 10-Q filing is available at: http://goo.gl/RuiXVs W.R. Grace & Co. (Grace) is engaged in the production and sale of specialty chemicals and specialty materials on a global basis. The Company operates in three segments: Grace Catalysts Technologies; Grace Materials Technologies; and Grace Construction Products. Grace Catalysts Technologies will include catalysts and related technologies used in refining, petrochemical and other chemical manufacturing applications. Grace's Advanced Refining Technologies LLC (ART) joint venture will be managed in this segment. Grace Materials Technologies will include engineered materials, coatings and sealants used in industrial, consumer, pharmaceutical and packaging applications. In December 2013, the Company announced that it has completed the acquisition of the assets of the Polypropylene Licensing and Catalysts business of The Dow Chemical Company. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Con Edison Accrues $8MM Fibro Suits Liability -------------------------------------------------------------- Consolidated Edison, Inc., has accrued an $8 million liability for asbestos suits, 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. Suits have been brought in New York State and federal courts against Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., and Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc. (the "Utilities") and many other defendants, wherein a large number of plaintiffs sought large amounts of compensatory and punitive damages for deaths and injuries allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos at various premises of the Utilities. The suits that have been resolved, which are many, have been resolved without any payment by the Utilities, or for amounts that were not, in the aggregate, material to them. The amounts specified in all the remaining thousands of suits total billions of dollars; however, the Utilities believe that these amounts are greatly exaggerated, based on the disposition of previous claims. In 2013, Con Edison and CECONY estimated that their aggregate undiscounted potential liability for these suits and additional suits that may be brought over the next 15 years was $8 million and $7 million, respectively. The estimates were based upon a combination of modeling, historical data analysis and risk factor assessment. In addition, certain current and former employees have claimed or are claiming workers' compensation benefits based on alleged disability from exposure to asbestos. Under its current rate plans, CECONY is permitted to defer as regulatory assets (for subsequent recovery through rates) costs incurred for its asbestos lawsuits and workers' compensation claims. In the Companies' estimation, there is not a reasonable possibility that an exposure to loss exists for the asbestos proceedings that is materially in excess of the estimated liability accrued. For Con Edison, the accrued liability for asbestos suits was $8 million and $86 million for workers' compensation proceedings (including those related to asbestos exposure) at September 30, 2014. For CECONY , the accrued liability for asbestos suits $7 million and $81 million workers' compensation proceedings (including those related to asbestos exposure) and the amounts deferred as regulatory assets at September 30, 2014. Consolidated Edison, Inc. (Con Edison) is a holding company, which owns Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (CECONY), which delivers electricity, natural gas and steam to customers in New York City and Westchester County; Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc. (O&R) (together with CECONY referred to as the Utilities), which delivers electricity and natural gas to customers primarily located in southeastern New York, and northern New Jersey and northeastern Pennsylvania, and competitive energy businesses, which provide retail and wholesale electricity supply and energy services. CECONY's business operations are its regulated electric, gas and steam delivery businesses. O&R's business operations are its regulated electric and gas delivery businesses. In July 2012, Consolidated Edison Development, a wholly owned subsidiary of Con Edison, and GCL Solar Energy Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of GCL-Poly Energy Holdings Limited, acquired two solar photovoltaic projects. ASBESTOS UPDATE: CECONY Has $7-Mil. Fibro Suits Liability --------------------------------------------------------- Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., has accrued a $7 million liability for asbestos suits, according to Consolidated Edison, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014. For CECONY, the accrued liability for asbestos suits $7 million and $81 million workers' compensation proceedings (including those related to asbestos exposure) and the amounts deferred as regulatory assets at September 30, 2014. Consolidated Edison, Inc. (Con Edison) is a holding company, which owns Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (CECONY), which delivers electricity, natural gas and steam to customers in New York City and Westchester County; Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc. (O&R) (together with CECONY referred to as the Utilities), which delivers electricity and natural gas to customers primarily located in southeastern New York, and northern New Jersey and northeastern Pennsylvania, and competitive energy businesses, which provide retail and wholesale electricity supply and energy services. CECONY's business operations are its regulated electric, gas and steam delivery businesses. O&R's business operations are its regulated electric and gas delivery businesses. In July 2012, Consolidated Edison Development, a wholly owned subsidiary of Con Edison, and GCL Solar Energy Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of GCL-Poly Energy Holdings Limited, acquired two solar photovoltaic projects. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Con Edison Has $50MM Liability for NY Incident --------------------------------------------------------------- Consolidated Edison, Inc., has accrued its estimated liability of $50 million relating to suits due to the rupture of its subsidiary's steam main in midtown Manhattan, 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 July 2007, a CECONY steam main located in midtown Manhattan ruptured. It has been reported that one person died and others were injured as a result of the incident. Several buildings in the area were damaged. Debris from the incident included dirt and mud containing asbestos. The response to the incident required the closing of several buildings and streets for various periods. Approximately 90 suits are pending against the company seeking generally unspecified compensatory and, in some cases, punitive damages, for personal injury, property damage and business interruption. The company has notified its insurers of the incident and believes that the policies in force at the time of the incident will cover the company's costs to satisfy its liability to others in connection with the suits. In the company's estimation, there is not a reasonable possibility that an exposure to loss exists for the suits that is materially in excess of the estimated liability accrued. At September 30, 2014, the company had accrued its estimated liability for the suits of $50 million and an insurance receivable in the same amount. Consolidated Edison, Inc. (Con Edison) is a holding company, which owns Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (CECONY), which delivers electricity, natural gas and steam to customers in New York City and Westchester County; Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc. (O&R) (together with CECONY referred to as the Utilities), which delivers electricity and natural gas to customers primarily located in southeastern New York, and northern New Jersey and northeastern Pennsylvania, and competitive energy businesses, which provide retail and wholesale electricity supply and energy services. CECONY's business operations are its regulated electric, gas and steam delivery businesses. O&R's business operations are its regulated electric and gas delivery businesses. In July 2012, Consolidated Edison Development, a wholly owned subsidiary of Con Edison, and GCL Solar Energy Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of GCL-Poly Energy Holdings Limited, acquired two solar photovoltaic projects. ASBESTOS UPDATE: MetLife Unit Receives 3,641 Claims at Sept. 30 --------------------------------------------------------------- MetLife, Inc.'s subsidiary received approximately 3,641 new 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. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is and has been a defendant in a large number of asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state courts. These suits principally allege that the plaintiff or plaintiffs suffered personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos and seek both actual and punitive damages. MLIC has never engaged in the business of manufacturing, producing, distributing or selling asbestos or asbestos-containing products nor has MLIC issued liability or workers' compensation insurance to companies in the business of manufacturing, producing, distributing or selling asbestos or asbestos-containing products. The lawsuits principally have focused on allegations with respect to certain research, publication and other activities of one or more of MLIC's employees during the period from the 1920's through approximately the 1950's and allege that MLIC learned or should have learned of certain health risks posed by asbestos and, among other things, improperly publicized or failed to disclose those health risks. MLIC believes that it should not have legal liability in these cases. The outcome of most asbestos litigation matters, however, is uncertain and can be impacted by numerous variables, including differences in legal rulings in various jurisdictions, the nature of the alleged injury and factors unrelated to the ultimate legal merit of the claims asserted against MLIC. MLIC employs a number of resolution strategies to manage its asbestos loss exposure, including seeking resolution of pending litigation by judicial rulings and settling individual or groups of claims or lawsuits under appropriate circumstances. Claims asserted against MLIC have included negligence, intentional tort and conspiracy concerning the health risks associated with asbestos. MLIC's defenses (beyond denial of certain factual allegations) include that: (i) MLIC owed no duty to the plaintiffs -- it had no special relationship with the plaintiffs and did not manufacture, produce, distribute or sell the asbestos products that allegedly injured plaintiffs; (ii) plaintiffs did not rely on any actions of MLIC; (iii) MLIC's conduct was not the cause of the plaintiffs' injuries; (iv) plaintiffs' exposure occurred after the dangers of asbestos were known; and (v) the applicable time with respect to filing suit has expired. During the course of the litigation, certain trial courts have granted motions dismissing claims against MLIC, while other trial courts have denied MLIC's motions. There can be no assurance that MLIC will receive favorable decisions on motions in the future. While most cases brought to date have settled, MLIC intends to continue to defend aggressively against claims based on asbestos exposure, including defending claims at trials. MLIC received approximately 5,898 asbestos-related claims in 2013. During the nine months ended September 30, 2014 and 2013, MLIC received approximately 3,641 and 4,256 new asbestos-related claims, respectively. The number of asbestos cases that may be brought, the aggregate amount of any liability that MLIC may incur, and the total amount paid in settlements in any given year are uncertain and may vary significantly from year to year. The ability of MLIC to estimate its ultimate asbestos exposure is subject to considerable uncertainty, and the conditions impacting its liability can be dynamic and subject to change. The availability of reliable data is limited and it is difficult to predict the numerous variables that can affect liability estimates, including the number of future claims, the cost to resolve claims, the disease mix and severity of disease in pending and future claims, the impact of the number of new claims filed in a particular jurisdiction and variations in the law in the jurisdictions in which claims are filed, the possible impact of tort reform efforts, the willingness of courts to allow plaintiffs to pursue claims against MLIC when exposure to asbestos took place after the dangers of asbestos exposure were well known, and the impact of any possible future adverse verdicts and their amounts. The ability to make estimates regarding ultimate asbestos exposure declines significantly as the estimates relate to years further in the future. In the Company's judgment, there is a future point after which losses cease to be probable and reasonably estimable. It is reasonably possible that the Company's total exposure to asbestos claims may be materially greater than the asbestos liability currently accrued and that future charges to income may be necessary. While the potential future charges could be material in the particular quarterly or annual periods in which they are recorded, based on information currently known by management, management does not believe any such charges are likely to have a material effect on the Company's financial position. The Company believes adequate provision has been made in its consolidated financial statements for all probable and reasonably estimable losses for asbestos-related claims. MLIC's recorded asbestos liability is based on its estimation of the following elements, as informed by the facts presently known to it, its understanding of current law and its past experiences: (i) the probable and reasonably estimable liability for asbestos claims already asserted against MLIC, including claims settled but not yet paid; (ii) the probable and reasonably estimable liability for asbestos claims not yet asserted against MLIC, but which MLIC believes are reasonably probable of assertion; and (iii) the legal defense costs associated with the foregoing claims. Significant assumptions underlying MLIC's analysis of the adequacy of its recorded liability with respect to asbestos litigation include: (i) the number of future claims; (ii) the cost to resolve claims; and (iii) the cost to defend claims. MLIC reevaluates on a quarterly and annual basis its exposure from asbestos litigation, including studying its claims experience, reviewing external literature regarding asbestos claims experience in the United States, assessing relevant trends impacting asbestos liability and considering numerous variables that can affect its asbestos liability exposure on an overall or per claim basis. These variables include bankruptcies of other companies involved in asbestos litigation, legislative and judicial developments, the number of pending claims involving serious disease, the number of new claims filed against it and other defendants and the jurisdictions in which claims are pending. Based upon its reevaluation of its exposure from asbestos litigation, MLIC has updated its liability analysis for asbestos-related claims through September 30, 2014. MetLife, Inc. (MetLife) is a provider of insurance, annuities and employee benefit programs, serving 90 million customers in over 50 countries. Through its subsidiaries and affiliates, MetLife operates in the United States, Japan, Latin America, Asia Pacific, Europe and the Middle East. It is organized into six segments: Insurance Products, Retirement Products, Corporate Benefit Funding and Auto & Home (collectively, U.S. Business), and Japan and Other International Regions (collectively, International). U.S. Business provides insurance and financial services products, including life, dental, disability, auto and homeowner insurance. In September 2013, MetLife Inc and Thayer Lodging Group acquired the 365-room Hilton Los Cabos Beach & Golf Resort in Cabo San Lucas, Mexico in a joint venture. Effective August 12, 2014, MetLife Inc acquired The Loop, a Kissimmee-based shopping center. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Corp. Estimates $36MM Fibro Liability -------------------------------------------------------------- Rexnord Corporation estimates the potential liability for asbestos-related claims, as well as the claims expected to be filed in the next ten years to be approximately $36.0 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's subsidiaries are involved in various unresolved legal actions, administrative proceedings and claims in the ordinary course of business involving, among other things, product liability, commercial, employment, workers' compensation, intellectual property claims and environmental matters. The Company establishes accruals in a manner that is consistent with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States for costs associated with such matters when liability is probable and those costs are capable of being reasonably estimated. Although it is not possible to predict with certainty the outcome of these unresolved legal actions or the range of possible loss or recovery, based upon current information, management believes the eventual outcome of these unresolved legal actions, either individually or in the aggregate, will not have a material adverse effect on the financial position, results of operations or cash flows of the Company. In connection with the Carlyle acquisition in November 2002, Invensys plc ("Invensys") has provided the Company with indemnification against certain contingent liabilities, including certain pre-closing environmental liabilities. The Company believes that, pursuant to such indemnity obligations, Invensys is obligated to defend and indemnify the Company with respect to the matters relating to the Ellsworth Industrial Park Site and to various asbestos claims. The indemnity obligations relating to the matters described, together with indemnity obligations relating to other matters, to an overall dollar cap equal to the purchase price, which is an amount in excess of $900 million. The following paragraphs summarize the most significant actions and proceedings: * In 2002, Rexnord Industries, LLC ("Rexnord Industries") was named as a potentially responsible party ("PRP"), together with at least ten other companies, at the Ellsworth Industrial Park Site, Downers Grove, DuPage County, Illinois (the "Site"), by the United States Environmental Protection Agency ("USEPA"), and the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency ("IEPA"). Rexnord Industries' Downers Grove property is situated within the Ellsworth Industrial Complex. The USEPA and IEPA allege there have been one or more releases or threatened releases of chlorinated solvents and other hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants, allegedly including but not limited to a release or threatened release on or from the Company's property, at the Site. The relief sought by the USEPA and IEPA includes further investigation and potential remediation of the Site and reimbursement of USEPA's past costs. Rexnord Industries' allocated share of past and future costs related to the Site, including for investigation and/or remediation, could be significant. All previously pending property damage and personal injury lawsuits against the Company related to the Site have been settled or dismissed. Pursuant to its indemnity obligation, Invensys continues to defend the Company in known matters related to the Site and * Multiple lawsuits (with approximately 1,000 claimants) are pending in state or federal court in numerous jurisdictions relating to alleged personal injuries due to the alleged presence of asbestos in certain brakes and clutches previously manufactured by the Company's Stearns division and/or its predecessor owners. Invensys and FMC, prior owners of the Stearns business, have paid 100% of the costs to date related to the Stearns lawsuits. Similarly, the Company's Prager subsidiary is a defendant in two pending multi-defendant lawsuits relating to alleged personal injuries due to the alleged presence of asbestos in a product allegedly manufactured by Prager. Additionally, there are numerous individuals who have filed asbestos related claims against Prager; however, these claims are currently on the Texas Multi-district Litigation inactive docket. The ultimate outcome of these asbestos matters cannot presently be determined. To date, the Company's insurance providers have paid 100% of the costs related to the Prager asbestos matters. The Company believes that the combination of its insurance coverage and the Invensys indemnity obligations will cover any future costs of these matters. In connection with the acquisition of The Falk Corporation ("Falk"), Hamilton Sundstrand has provided the Company with indemnification against certain products-related asbestos exposure liabilities. The Company believes that, pursuant to such indemnity obligations, Hamilton Sundstrand is obligated to defend and indemnify the Company with respect to the asbestos claims, and that, with respect to these claims, such indemnity obligations are not subject to any time or dollar limitations. The following paragraph summarizes the most significant actions and proceedings for which Hamilton Sundstrand has accepted responsibility: * Falk, through its successor entity, is a defendant in multiple lawsuits pending in state or federal court in numerous jurisdictions relating to alleged personal injuries due to the alleged presence of asbestos in certain clutches and drives previously manufactured by Falk. There are approximately 100 claimants in these suits. The ultimate outcome of these lawsuits cannot presently be determined. Hamilton Sundstrand is defending the Company in these lawsuits pursuant to its indemnity obligations and has paid 100% of the costs to date. Certain Water Management subsidiaries are also subject to asbestos litigation. As of September 30, 2014, Zurn and numerous other unrelated companies were defendants in approximately 7,000 asbestos related lawsuits representing approximately 26,000 claims. Plaintiffs' claims allege personal injuries caused by exposure to asbestos used primarily in industrial boilers formerly manufactured by a segment of Zurn. Zurn did not manufacture asbestos or asbestos components. Instead, Zurn purchased them from suppliers. These claims are being handled pursuant to a defense strategy funded by insurers. As of September 30, 2014, the Company estimates the potential liability for the asbestos-related claims, as well as the claims expected to be filed in the next ten years to be approximately $36.0 million, of which Zurn expects its insurance carriers to pay approximately $29.0 million in the next ten years on such claims, with the balance of the estimated liability being paid in subsequent years. The $36.0 million was developed based on an actuarial study and represents the projected indemnity payout for claims filed in the next ten years. However, there are inherent uncertainties involved in estimating the number of future asbestos claims, future settlement costs, and the effectiveness of defense strategies and settlement initiatives. As a result, actual liability could differ from the estimate described herein. Further, while this current asbestos liability is based on an estimate of claims through the next ten years, such liability may continue beyond that time frame, and such liability could be substantial. Management estimates that its available insurance to cover this potential asbestos liability as of September 30, 2014, is approximately $249.2 million, and believes that all current claims are covered by insurance. However, principally as a result of the past insolvency of certain of the Company's insurance carriers, certain coverage gaps will exist if and after the Company's other carriers have paid the first $173.2 million of aggregate liabilities. As of September 30, 2014, the Company had a recorded receivable from its insurance carriers of $36.0 million, which corresponds to the amount of this potential asbestos liability that is covered by available insurance and is currently determined to be probable of recovery. However, there is no assurance that $249.2 million of insurance coverage will ultimately be available or that this asbestos liability will not ultimately exceed $249.2 million. Factors that could cause a decrease in the amount of available coverage include: changes in law governing the policies, potential disputes with the carriers regarding the scope of coverage, and insolvencies of one or more of the Company's carriers. Rexnord Corporation (Rexnord) is a multi-platform industrial company. The Company comprises of two platforms, Process & Motion Control and Water Management. Rexnord's Process & Motion Control product portfolio includes gears, couplings, industrial bearings, aerospace bearings and seals, FlatTop chain, engineered chain and conveying equipment, and are marketed and sold globally under brands, including Rexnord, Rex, Falk and Link-Belt. Its Water Management platform operates in the commercial construction market for water management products and the municipal water and wastewater treatment markets. Its Water Management product portfolio includes drainage products, flush valves and faucet products, backflow prevention pressure release valves, PEX piping and engineered valves and gates for the water and wastewater treatment markets. In April 2014, the Company acquired Green Turtle Technologies Ltd., Green Turtle Americas Ltd. and Filamat Composites Inc. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Steel Partners Unit Has 237 Fibro Tort Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- A Steel Partners Holdings L.P. subsidiary has 237 asbestos-related toxic-tort 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. A then-subsidiary of the BNS Liquidating Trust ("BNS Sub") has been named as a defendant in 1,307 and 1,234 alleged asbestos- related toxic-tort claims as of September 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, respectively. The claims were filed over a period beginning 1994 through September 30, 2014. In many cases these claims involved more than 100 defendants. Of the claims filed, 1,070 and 1,023 were dismissed, settled or granted summary judgment and closed as of September 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, respectively. Of the claims settled, the average settlement was less than $3. There remained 237 and 211 pending asbestos claims as of September 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, respectively. There can be no assurance that the number of future claims and the related costs of defense, settlements or judgments will be consistent with the experience to date of existing claims. BNS Sub has insurance policies covering asbestos-related claims for years beginning 1974 through 1988 with estimated aggregate coverage limits of $183,000, with $2,102 and $2,082 at September 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013 in estimated remaining self insurance retention (deductible). There is secondary evidence of coverage from 1970 to 1973 although there is no assurance that the insurers will recognize that the coverage was in place. Policies issued for BNS Sub beginning in 1989 contained exclusions related to asbestos. Under certain circumstances, some of the settled claims may be reopened. Also, there may be a significant delay in receipt of notification by BNS Sub of the entry of a dismissal or settlement of a claim or the filing of a new claim. BNS Sub believes it has significant defenses to any liability for toxic- tort claims on the merits. None of these toxic-tort claims has gone to trial and, therefore, there can be no assurance that these defenses will prevail. In addition, there can be no assurance that the number of future claims and the related costs of defense, settlements or judgments will be consistent with the experience to date of existing claims, and that BNS Sub will not need to increase significantly its estimated liability for the costs to settle these claims to an amount that could have a material effect on the consolidated financial statements. Steel Partners Holdings L.P. (SPH) is a global diversified holding company. The Company is engaged in multiple businesses through consolidated subsidiaries, associated companies and other interests. The Company owns and operates businesses and has interests in companies in various industries, including diversified industrial products, energy, defense, banking, insurance, food products and services, oilfield services, sports, training, education, and the entertainment and lifestyle industries. The Company operates in three segments: Diversified Industrial, Financial Services and Other. The Company's subsidiary, SPH Services, Inc., through its subsidiary, SP Corporate Services LLC (SP Corporate), provides certain executive and corporate management services to it and some of its companies. On July 5, 2011, its ownership interest in DGT Holdings Corp. increased to 51.1%. ASBESTOS UPDATE: HII Continues to Defend Fibro Cases ---------------------------------------------------- Huntington Ingalls Industries, Inc., continues to defend itself against 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. HII and its predecessors-in-interest are defendants in a longstanding series of cases that have been and continue to be filed in various jurisdictions around the country, wherein former and current employees and various third parties allege exposure to asbestos containing materials while on or associated with HII premises or while working on vessels constructed or repaired by HII. The cases allege various injuries, including those associated with pleural plaque disease, asbestosis, cancer, mesothelioma and other alleged asbestos related conditions. In some cases, several of HII's former executive officers are also named as defendants. In some instances, partial or full insurance coverage is available to the Company for its liability and that of its former executive officers. Although the Company believes the ultimate resolution of these cases will not have a material effect on its consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows, it cannot predict what new or revised claims or litigation might be asserted or what information might come to light and can, therefore, give no assurances regarding the ultimate outcome of asbestos related litigation. Huntington Ingalls Industries, Inc. (HII) owns and operates two segments: Ingalls Shipbuilding and Newport News Shipbuilding. Through the Company's Ingalls segment, it is a supplier and builder of amphibious assault and expeditionary ships to the United States Navy, the builder of National Security Cutters for the United States Coast Guard, and one of the two companies that builds the United States Navy's fleet of DDG-51 Arleigh Burke- class destroyers. Through the Company's Newport News segment, it is an industrial designer, builder, and refueler of nuclear- powered aircraft carriers, and one of the two companies designing and building nuclear-powered submarines for the United States Navy. It conducts all of its business with the United States Government, principally the Department of Defense (DoD). In January 2014, HII acquired The S.M. Stoller Corporation. Effective June 2, 2014, HII acquired UniversalPegasus International Inc. ASBESTOS UPDATE: CECO Had 196 Fibro Cases as of Sept. 30 -------------------------------------------------------- There were 196 asbestos-related cases pending against CECO Environmental Corp., 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 subsidiary, Met-Pro, beginning in 2002, began to be named in asbestos-related lawsuits filed against a large number of industrial companies including, in particular, those in the pump and fluid handling industries. In management's opinion, the complaints typically have been vague, general and speculative, alleging that Met-Pro, along with the numerous other defendants, sold unidentified asbestos-containing products and engaged in other related actions which caused injuries (including death) and loss to the plaintiffs. Counsel has advised that more recent cases typically allege more serious claims of mesothelioma. The Company's insurers have hired attorneys who, together with the Company, are vigorously defending these cases. Many cases have been dismissed after the plaintiff fails to produce evidence of exposure to Met-Pro's products. In those cases where evidence has been produced, the Company's experience has been that the exposure levels are low and the Company's position has been that its products were not a cause of death, injury or loss. The Company has been dismissed from or settled a large number of these cases. Cumulative settlement payments from 2002 through September 30, 2014 for cases involving asbestos-related claims were $0.7 million, which, together with all legal fees other than corporate counsel expenses, have been paid by the Company's insurers. The average cost per settled claim, excluding legal fees, was approximately $25,000. "Based upon the most recent information available to the Company regarding such claims, there were a total of 196 cases pending against the Company as of September 30, 2014 (with Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania and West Virginia having the largest number of cases), as compared with 173 cases that were pending as of December 31, 2013. During the nine months ended September 30, 2014, 41 new cases were filed against the Company, and the Company was dismissed from 18 cases and settled zero cases. Most of the pending cases have not advanced beyond the early stages of discovery, although a number of cases are on schedules leading to, or are scheduled for trial. The Company believes that its insurance coverage is adequate for the cases currently pending against the Company and for the foreseeable future, assuming a continuation of the current volume, nature of cases and settlement amounts. However, the Company has no control over the number and nature of cases that are filed against it, nor as to the financial health of its insurers or their position as to coverage. The Company also presently believes that none of the pending cases will have a material adverse impact upon the Company's results of operations, liquidity or financial condition." CECO Environmental Corp. (CECO) is a provider of global, air pollution control technology. The Company operates as a provider of air pollution control technology, products and services through three principal product groups, including Engineered Equipment Technology and Parts Group, Contracting/Services Group and Component Parts Group. Its Engineered Equipment Technology and Parts Group produces various types of air pollution control technology and equipment. Its Contracting/Services Group, which produces air pollution control and engineered industrial ventilation systems and its Component Parts Group, which manufactures products used by the Company and other air pollution control companies and air system contractors. In August 2014, the Company acquired all of the assets of HEE Environmental Engineering. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harsco Corp. Had 17,366 PI Claims at Sept. 30 -------------------------------------------------------------- There are 17,366 pending asbestos personal injury claims filed against Harsco Corporation, 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 the United States, the Company has been named as one of many defendants (approximately 90 or more in most cases) in legal actions alleging personal injury from exposure to airborne asbestos over the past several decades. In their suits, the plaintiffs have named as defendants, among others, many manufacturers, distributors and installers of numerous types of equipment or products that allegedly contained asbestos. The Company believes that the claims against it are without merit. The Company has never been a producer, manufacturer or processor of asbestos fibers. Any component within a Company product that may have contained asbestos would have been purchased from a supplier. Based on scientific and medical evidence, the Company believes that any asbestos exposure arising from normal use of any Company product never presented any harmful levels of airborne asbestos exposure, and, moreover, the type of asbestos contained in any component that was used in those products was protectively encapsulated in other materials and is not associated with the types of injuries alleged in the pending suits. Finally, in most of the depositions taken of plaintiffs to date in the litigation against the Company, plaintiffs have failed to specifically identify any Company products as the source of their asbestos exposure. The majority of the asbestos complaints pending against the Company have been filed in New York. Almost all of the New York complaints contain a standard claim for damages of $20 million or $25 million against the approximately 90 defendants, regardless of the individual plaintiff's alleged medical condition, and without specifically identifying any Company product as the source of plaintiff's asbestos exposure. As of September 30, 2014, there are 17,366 pending asbestos personal injury claims filed against the Company. Of these cases, 17,017 are pending in the New York Supreme Court for New York County in New York State. The other claims, totaling 349, are filed in various counties in a number of state courts, and in certain Federal District Courts (including New York), and those complaints generally assert lesser amounts of damages than the New York State court cases or do not state any amount claimed. As of September 30, 2014, the Company has obtained dismissal by stipulation, or summary judgment prior to trial, in 27,487 cases. In view of the persistence of asbestos litigation nationwide, the Company expects to continue to receive additional claims. However, there have been developments during the past several years, both by certain state legislatures and by certain state courts, which could favorably affect the Company's ability to defend these asbestos claims in those jurisdictions. These developments include procedural changes, docketing changes, proof of damage requirements and other changes that require plaintiffs to follow specific procedures in bringing their claims and to show proof of damages before they can proceed with their claim. An example is the action taken by the New York Supreme Court (a trial court), which is responsible for managing all asbestos cases pending within New York County in the State of New York. This Court issued an order in December 2002 that created a Deferred or Inactive Docket for all pending and future asbestos claims filed by plaintiffs who cannot demonstrate that they have a malignant condition or discernible physical impairment, and an Active or In Extremis Docket for plaintiffs who are able to show such medical condition. As a result of this order, the majority of the asbestos cases filed against the Company in New York County have been moved to the Inactive Docket until such time as the plaintiffs can show that they have incurred a physical impairment. As of September 30, 2014, the Company has been listed as a defendant in 167 Active or In Extremis asbestos cases in New York County. The Court's Order has been challenged by some plaintiffs. The Company's insurance carrier has paid substantially all legal and settlement costs and expenses to date related to the Company's U.S. asbestos cases. The Company has liability insurance coverage under various primary and excess policies that the Company believes will be available, if necessary, to substantially cover any liability that might ultimately be incurred on these claims. The Company intends to continue its practice of vigorously defending these claims and cases. It is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings due to the unpredictable nature of personal injury litigation, and no loss provision has been recorded in the Company's consolidated financial statements because a loss contingency is not deemed probable or estimable. Despite this uncertainty, and although results of operations and cash flows for a given period could be adversely affected by asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings, the Company does not expect that any costs that are reasonably possible to be incurred by the Company in connection with asbestos litigation would have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. Harsco Corporation is a diversified, multinational provider of industrial services and engineered products serving global industries. The Company operates in four segments: Harsco Metals & Minerals, Harsco Infrastructure, Harsco Rail and Harsco Industrial. The Company's principal lines of business include outsourced, on-site services to steel mills and other metals producers; resource recovery technologies for the re-use of industrial waste stream by-products; industrial abrasives and roofing granules; engineered scaffolding, concrete forming and shoring, and other access-related services, rentals and sales; railway track maintenance services and equipment; industrial grating products; air-cooled heat exchangers, and heat transfer products. In January 2014, the Company acquired Hammco Corp. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pfizer Has 61,736 American Optical PI Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Pfizer Inc., reported that there were 61,736 asbestos-related personal injury claims naming American Optical as one of the defendants, 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. Between 1967 and 1982, Warner-Lambert owned American Optical Corporation, which manufactured and sold respiratory protective devices and asbestos safety clothing. In connection with the sale of American Optical in 1982, Warner-Lambert agreed to indemnify the purchaser for certain liabilities, including certain asbestos- related and other claims. As of September 28, 2014, approximately 61,736 claims naming American Optical and numerous other defendants were pending in various federal and state courts seeking damages for alleged personal injury from exposure to asbestos and other allegedly hazardous materials. Warner-Lambert is actively engaged in the defense of, and will continue to explore various means to resolve, these claims. Numerous lawsuits are pending against Pfizer in various federal and state courts seeking damages for alleged personal injury from exposure to products containing asbestos and other allegedly hazardous materials sold by Gibsonburg Lime Products Company (Gibsonburg). Gibsonburg was acquired by Pfizer in the 1960s and sold products containing small amounts of asbestos until the early 1970s. There also are a small number of lawsuits pending in various federal and state courts seeking damages for alleged exposure to asbestos in facilities owned or formerly owned by Pfizer or its subsidiaries. Pfizer Inc. (Pfizer) is a research-based, global biopharmaceutical company. The Company manages its operations through five segments: Primary Care; Specialty Care and Oncology; Established Products and Emerging Markets; Animal Health, and Consumer Healthcare. The Company's diversified global healthcare portfolio includes human and animal biologic and small molecule medicines and vaccines, as well as nutritional products and consumer healthcare products. Its Animal Health business unit discovers, develops and sells products for the prevention and treatment of diseases in livestock and companion animals. Primary Care operating segment includes revenues from human prescription pharmaceutical products primarily prescribed by primary-care physicians. In November 2012, the Company acquired NextWave Pharmaceuticals, Inc. On November 30, 2012, the Company completed the sale of its Nutrition business. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Unit Has $591-Mil. Fibro Reserves -------------------------------------------------------------- Duke Energy Corporation's subsidiary has recognized asbestos- related reserves of $591 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. Duke Energy Carolinas has experienced numerous claims for indemnification and medical cost reimbursement related to asbestos exposure. These claims relate to damages for bodily injuries alleged to have arisen from exposure to or use of asbestos in connection with construction and maintenance activities conducted on its electric generation plants prior to 1985. As of September 30, 2014, there were 61 asserted claims for non-malignant cases with the cumulative relief sought of up to $13 million, and 23 asserted claims for malignant cases with the cumulative relief sought of up to $7 million. Based on Duke Energy Carolinas' experience, it is expected that the ultimate resolution of most of these claims likely will be less than the amount claimed. Duke Energy Carolinas has recognized asbestos-related reserves of $591 million at September 30, 2014 and $616 million at December 31, 2013. These reserves are based upon the minimum amount of the range of loss for current and future asbestos claims through 2033, are recorded on an undiscounted basis and incorporate anticipated inflation. In light of the uncertainties inherent in a longer-term forecast, management does not believe they can reasonably estimate the indemnity and medical costs that might be incurred after 2033 related to such potential claims. It is possible Duke Energy Carolinas may incur asbestos liabilities in excess of the recorded reserves. Duke Energy Carolinas has third-party insurance to cover certain losses related to asbestos-related injuries and damages above an aggregate self-insured retention of $476 million. Duke Energy Carolinas' cumulative payments began to exceed the self-insurance retention in 2008. Future payments up to the policy limit will be reimbursed by the third-party insurance carrier. The insurance policy limit for potential future insurance recoveries indemnification and medical cost claim payments is $864 million in excess of the self-insured retention. Receivables for insurance recoveries were $616 million at September 30, 2014, and $649 million at December 31, 2013. These amounts are classified in Other within Investments and Other Assets and Receivables on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Duke Energy Carolinas is not aware of any uncertainties regarding the legal sufficiency of insurance claims. Duke Energy Carolinas believes the insurance recovery asset is probable of recovery as the insurance carrier continues to have a strong financial strength rating. Duke Energy Corporation (Duke Energy) is an energy company. Duke Energy operates in the United States primarily through its direct and indirect wholly owned subsidiaries, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke Energy Carolinas), Carolina Power & Light Company d/b/a Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. (Progress Energy Carolinas), Florida Power Corporation d/b/a Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (Progress Energy Florida), Duke Energy Ohio, Inc. (Duke Energy Ohio), and Duke Energy Indiana, Inc. (Duke Energy Indiana), as well as in Latin America through Duke Energy International, LLC (DEI). Duke Energy's segment includes U.S. Franchised Electric and Gas (USFE&G), Commercial Power and International Energy. In December 2012, the Company's subsidiary acquired CGE Group's Iberoamericana de Energia Ibener S.A. (Ibener) subsidiary in Chile. In June 2013, Duke Energy Corp acquired an undisclosed minority stake in Clean Power Finance Inc. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitex Int'l. Continues to Defend Fibro Suits --------------------------------------------------------------- Manitex International, Inc., continues to defend itself againsy asbestos-related product liability 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 has been named as a defendant in several multi- defendant asbestos related product liability lawsuits. In certain instances, the Company is indemnified by a former owner of the product line in question. In the remaining cases the plaintiff has, as of September 30, 2014, not been able to establish any exposure by the plaintiff to the Company's products. The Company is uninsured with respect to these claims but believes that it will not incur any material liability with respect to these to claims. Manitex International, Inc. is engaged in providing engineered lifting solutions. The Company operates in two segments: Lifting Equipment segment and Equipment Distribution segment. The Company, in its Lifting Equipment segment, designs, manufactures and distributes a group of products that serve different functions and are used in a variety of industries. Through its subsidiary, Manitex, Inc., the Company markets a line of boom trucks and sign cranes. Manitex's boom trucks and crane products are primarily used for industrial projects, energy exploration and infrastructure development, including roads, bridges and commercial construction. The Company, in its Equipment Distribution segment, operates a crane dealership located in Bridgeview, Illinois that distributes Terex rough terrain and truck cranes, Fuchs material handlers, and Manitex boom trucks and sky cranes. In December 2013, the Company announced that it has completed the acquisition of Valla, SpA, of Piacenza, Italy. ASBESTOS UPDATE: MRC Global Has 402 PI Suits at Sept. 30 -------------------------------------------------------- MRC Global Inc., has 402 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 are one of many defendants in lawsuits that plaintiffs have brought seeking damages for personal injuries that exposure to asbestos allegedly caused. Plaintiffs and their family members have brought these lawsuits against a large volume of defendant entities as a result of the defendants' manufacture, distribution, supply or other involvement with asbestos, asbestos containing-products or equipment or activities that allegedly caused plaintiffs to be exposed to asbestos. These plaintiffs typically assert exposure to asbestos as a consequence of third- party manufactured products that our McJunkin Red Man Corporation subsidiary purportedly distributed. As of September 30, 2014, we are named a defendant in approximately 402 lawsuits involving approximately 1,047 claims. No asbestos lawsuit has resulted in a judgment against us to date, with a majority being settled, dismissed or otherwise resolved. Applicable third-party insurance has substantially covered these claims, and insurance should continue to cover a substantial majority of existing and anticipated future claims. Accordingly, we have recorded a liability for our estimate of the most likely settlement of asserted claims and a related receivable from insurers for our estimated recovery, to the extent we believe that the amounts of recovery are probable. It is not possible to predict the outcome of these claims and proceedings. However, in our opinion, the likelihood that the ultimate disposition of any of these claims and legal proceedings will have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial statements is remote." MRC Global Inc. is a distributor of pipe, valves and fittings and related products and services to the energy industry. It operates in two segments: North American segment and International segment. Its North American segment includes over 180 branch locations, six distribution centers in the United States, one distribution center in Canada, 11 valve automation service centers and over 170 pipe yards located in the oil and natural gas regions in North America. Its International segment includes over 40 branch locations throughout Europe, Asia and Australasia with distribution centers in each of the United Kingdom, Singapore and Australia and 10 automation service centers in Europe and Asia. Effective January 6, 2014, MRC Global Inc a unit of GS Capital Partners LP subsidiary of Goldman Sachs Group Inc's Goldman Sachs & Co unit, acquired Stream AS. In May 2014, MRC Transmark Pte. Ltd acquired MSD Engineering (Pte) Ltd. In June 2014, its MRC Teamtrade subsidiary acquired Hypteck AS. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Noble Corp. Has 42 Fibro Suits at Sept. 30 ----------------------------------------------------------- Noble Corporation plc has 42 asbestos-related 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 are from time to time a party to various lawsuits that are incidental to our operations in which the claimants seek an unspecified amount of monetary damages for personal injury, including injuries purportedly resulting from exposure to asbestos on drilling rigs and associated facilities. At September 30, 2014, there were 42 asbestos related lawsuits in which we are one of many defendants. These lawsuits have been filed in the United States in the states of Illinois, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas. We intend to vigorously defend against the litigation. We do not believe the ultimate resolution of these matters will have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows." Noble Corporation plc is an offshore drilling contractor for the oil and gas industry. The Company performs contract drilling services through its subsidiaries. In August 2014, the Company announced that it has completed the spin-off of Paragon Offshore plc. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court OK's Global Indemnity Fibro Insurance Deal ----------------------------------------------------------------- One of Global Indemnity plc's companies obtained court approval of a settlement agreement resolving asbestos-related coverage litigation, 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 2009, one of the Company's insurance companies entered into a settlement agreement to resolve asbestos-related coverage litigation related to approximately 3,900 existing asbestos- related bodily injury claims and future claims. The settlement was approved by the Court and a final order was issued in September 2014. Global Indemnity plc (Global Indemnity) is a holding company. Global Indemnity is a property and casualty insurers in the industry, provides its insurance products across a distribution network-binding authority, program, brokerage, and reinsurance. The Company manages the distribution of these products in two segments: Insurance Operations and Reinsurance Operations. The Company offers property and casualty insurance products in the excess and surplus lines marketplace through its Insurance Operations and provides third party treaty reinsurance for writers of excess and surplus and specialty lines of property and casualty insurance through its Reinsurance Operations. The Company's subsidiaries include United National Insurance Company, Penn- America Insurance Company and Penn-Star Insurance Company; Diamond State Insurance Company and United National Casualty Insurance Company; United National Specialty Insurance Company and Penn- Patriot Insurance Company. ASBESTOS UPDATE: BNSF Railway Continues to Defend Fibro Suits ------------------------------------------------------------- BNSF Railway Company continues to defend itself against a number of personal injury 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 is party to a number of personal injury claims by employees and non-employees who may have been exposed to asbestos. The heaviest exposure for BNSF Railway employees was due to work conducted in and around the use of steam locomotive engines that were phased out between the years of 1950 and 1967. However, other types of exposures, including exposure from locomotive component parts and building materials, continued after 1967 until they were substantially eliminated at BNSF Railway by 1985. BNSF Railway assesses its unasserted asbestos liability exposure on an annual basis during the third quarter. BNSF Railway determines its asbestos liability by estimating its exposed population, the number of claims likely to be filed, the number of claims that will likely require payment and the estimated cost per claim. Estimated filing and dismissal rates and average cost per claim are determined utilizing recent claim data and trends. During the third quarters of 2014 and 2013, the Company analyzed recent filing and payment trends to ensure the assumptions used by BNSF Railway to estimate its future asbestos liability were reasonable. In the third quarter of 2014, management recorded a decrease in expense of $2 million. In the third quarter of 2013, management determined that the liability remained appropriate and no change was recorded. The Company plans to update its study again in the third quarter of 2015. Throughout the year, BNSF Railway monitors actual experience against the number of forecasted claims and expected claim payments and will record adjustments to the Company's estimates as necessary. Based on BNSF Railway's estimate of the potentially exposed employees and related mortality assumptions, it is anticipated that unasserted asbestos claims will continue to be filed through the year 2050. The Company recorded an amount for the full estimated filing period through 2050 because it had a relatively finite exposed population (former and current employees hired prior to 1985), which it was able to identify and reasonably estimate and about which it had obtained reliable demographic data (including age, hire date and occupation) derived from industry or BNSF Railway specific data that was the basis for the study. BNSF Railway projects that approximately 60, 80 and 95 percent of the future unasserted asbestos claims will be filed within the next 10, 15 and 25 years, respectively. BNSF Railway Company operates one of the largest railroad networks in North America. A wholly-owned subsidiary of Burlington Northern Santa Fe, the company provides freight transportation over a network of about 32,500 route miles of track across two-thirds of the western US and two provinces in Canada. About 23,000 miles of that track are company owned, while the remainder is owned and permitted by other railroads. BNSF Railway owns or leases a fleet of about 6,900 locomotives. It also has some 30 intermodal facilities that help to transport agricultural, consumer, and industrial products, as well as coal. In addition to major cities and ports, BNSF Railway serves smaller markets in alliance with short-line partners. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Had 47,922 Fibro Claims at Sept. 30 -------------------------------------------------------------- Crane Co. had 47,922 pending 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. As of September 30, 2014, the Company was a defendant in cases filed in numerous state and federal courts alleging injury or death as a result of exposure to asbestos. Of the 47,922 pending claims as of September 30, 2014, approximately 18,700 claims were pending in New York, approximately 9,600 claims were pending in Texas, approximately 5,100 claims were pending in Mississippi, and approximately 300 claims were pending in Ohio, all jurisdictions in which legislation or judicial orders restrict the types of claims that can proceed to trial on the merits. Substantially all of the claims the Company resolves are either dismissed or concluded through settlements. To date, the Company has paid three judgments arising from adverse jury verdicts in asbestos matters. The first payment, in the amount of $2.54 million, was made on July 14, 2008, approximately two years after the adverse verdict in the Joseph Norris matter in California, after the Company had exhausted all post-trial and appellate remedies. The second payment, in the amount of $0.02 million, was made in June 2009 after an adverse verdict in the Earl Haupt case in Los Angeles, California on April 21, 2009. The third payment, in the amount of $0.9 million, was made in June 2014, approximately two years after the adverse verdict in the William Paulus matter in California, after the Company had exhausted all post-trial and appellate remedies. The Company has tried several cases resulting in defense verdicts by the jury or directed verdicts for the defense by the court. The Company further has pursued appeals of certain adverse jury verdicts that have resulted in reversals in favor of the defense. Crane Co. (Crane) is a diversified manufacturer of engineered industrial products. It operates in five segments: Aerospace & Electronics, Engineered Materials, Merchandising Systems, Fluid Handling and Controls. The Aerospace & Electronics segment has two groups, the Aerospace Group and the Electronics Group. The Engineered Materials segment manufactures fiberglass-reinforced plastic panels. The Merchandising Systems segment is comprised of two businesses, Vending Solutions and Payment Solutions. The Fluid Handling segment is a provider of engineered fluid handling equipment. The Controls segment provides customer solutions for sensing and control applications. In December 2013, the Company announced that it has completed the acquisition of MEI Conlux Holdings. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Court Hears Reargument in Suit v. Crane Co. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Superior Court in Philadelphia heard reargument in the third quarter of 2014 in an asbestos-related lawsuit filed against Crane Co., 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 March 23, 2010, a Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, state court jury found the Company responsible for a 1/11th share of a $14.5 million verdict in the James Nelson claim, and for a 1/20th share of a $3.5 million verdict in the Larry Bell claim. On February 23, 2011, the court entered judgment on the verdicts in the amount of $0.2 million against the Company, only, in Bell, and in the amount of $4.0 million, jointly, against the Company and two other defendants in Nelson, with additional interest in the amount of $0.01 million being assessed against the Company, only, in Nelson. All defendants, including the Company, and the plaintiffs took timely appeals of certain aspects of those judgments. The Company resolved the Bell appeal by settlement, which is reflected in the settled claims for 2012. On September 5, 2013, a panel of the Pennsylvania Superior Court, in a 2-1 decision, vacated the Nelson verdict against all defendants, reversing and remanding for a new trial. Plaintiffs have requested a rehearing in the Superior Court, which the defendants, including the Company, have opposed. By order dated November 18, 2013, the Superior Court vacated the panel opinion, and granted en banc reargument, which was heard in the third quarter of 2014. Crane Co. (Crane) is a diversified manufacturer of engineered industrial products. It operates in five segments: Aerospace & Electronics, Engineered Materials, Merchandising Systems, Fluid Handling and Controls. The Aerospace & Electronics segment has two groups, the Aerospace Group and the Electronics Group. The Engineered Materials segment manufactures fiberglass-reinforced plastic panels. The Merchandising Systems segment is comprised of two businesses, Vending Solutions and Payment Solutions. The Fluid Handling segment is a provider of engineered fluid handling equipment. The Controls segment provides customer solutions for sensing and control applications. In December 2013, the Company announced that it has completed the acquisition of MEI Conlux Holdings. ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Suit v. Crane Co. Oral Argument Set for 2015 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Oral argument in an asbestos-related lawsuit filed against Crane Co. in New York will be heard in 2015, 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 August 17, 2011, a New York City state court jury found the Company responsible for a 99% share of a $32 million verdict on the Ronald Dummitt claim. The Company filed post-trial motions seeking to overturn the verdict, to grant a new trial, or to reduce the damages, which the Company argued were excessive under New York appellate case law governing awards for non-economic losses. The Court held oral argument on these motions on October 18, 2011, and issued a written decision on August 21, 2012, confirming the jury's liability findings but reducing the award of damages to $8 million. At plaintiffs' request, the Court entered a judgment in the amount of $4.9 million against the Company, taking into account settlement offsets and accrued interest under New York law. The Company appealed, and the judgment was affirmed in a 3-2 decision and order dated July 3, 2014. The Company has appealed to the New York Court of Appeals. The Court has set a briefing schedule, which will be completed in the fourth quarter of 2014; oral argument will be heard in 2015. Crane Co. (Crane) is a diversified manufacturer of engineered industrial products. It operates in five segments: Aerospace & Electronics, Engineered Materials, Merchandising Systems, Fluid Handling and Controls. The Aerospace & Electronics segment has two groups, the Aerospace Group and the Electronics Group. The Engineered Materials segment manufactures fiberglass-reinforced plastic panels. The Merchandising Systems segment is comprised of two businesses, Vending Solutions and Payment Solutions. The Fluid Handling segment is a provider of engineered fluid handling equipment. The Controls segment provides customer solutions for sensing and control applications. In December 2013, the Company announced that it has completed the acquisition of MEI Conlux Holdings. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Frank Paasch's Claim v. Crane Co. Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------------ A Philadelphia court has entered an order dismissing Frank Paasch's asbestos-related claim against Crane Co., 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 March 9, 2012, a Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, state court jury found the Company responsible for a 1/8th share of a $123,000 verdict in the Frank Paasch claim. The Company and plaintiffs filed post-trial motions. On May 31, 2012, on plaintiffs' motion, the Court entered an order dismissing the claim against the Company, with prejudice, and without any payment. Crane Co. (Crane) is a diversified manufacturer of engineered industrial products. It operates in five segments: Aerospace & Electronics, Engineered Materials, Merchandising Systems, Fluid Handling and Controls. The Aerospace & Electronics segment has two groups, the Aerospace Group and the Electronics Group. The Engineered Materials segment manufactures fiberglass-reinforced plastic panels. The Merchandising Systems segment is comprised of two businesses, Vending Solutions and Payment Solutions. The Fluid Handling segment is a provider of engineered fluid handling equipment. The Controls segment provides customer solutions for sensing and control applications. In December 2013, the Company announced that it has completed the acquisition of MEI Conlux Holdings. ASBESTOS UPDATE: NL Industries Has 1,130 Personal Injuries Cases ---------------------------------------------------------------- NL Industries, Inc., has 1,130 asbestos-related personal injuries 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: "NL has been named as a defendant in various lawsuits in several jurisdictions, alleging personal injuries as a result of occupational exposure primarily to products manufactured by our former operations containing asbestos, silica and/or mixed dust. In addition, some plaintiffs allege exposure to asbestos from working in various facilities previously owned and/or operated by NL. There are 1,130 of these types of cases pending, involving a total of approximately 1,643 plaintiffs. In addition, the claims of approximately 8,298 plaintiffs have been administratively dismissed or placed on the inactive docket in Ohio, Indiana and Texas state courts. We do not expect these claims will be re-opened unless the plaintiffs meet the courts' medical criteria for asbestos-related claims. We have not accrued any amounts for this litigation because of the uncertainty of liability and inability to reasonably estimate the liability, if any. To date, we have not been adjudicated liable in any of these matters. Based on information available to us, including: * facts concerning historical operations, * the rate of new claims, * the number of claims from which we have been dismissed, and * our prior experience in the defense of these matters; we believe that the range of reasonably possible outcomes of these matters will be consistent with our historical costs (which are not material). Furthermore, we do not expect any reasonably possible outcome would involve amounts material to our consolidated financial position, results of operations or liquidity. We have sought and will continue to vigorously seek, dismissal and/or a finding of no liability from each claim. In addition, from time to time, we have received notices regarding asbestos or silica claims purporting to be brought against former subsidiaries, including notices provided to insurers with which we have entered into settlements extinguishing certain insurance policies. These insurers may seek indemnification from us." NL Industries, Inc. (NL) is a holding company. The Company operates in the component products industry through its majority- owned subsidiary, CompX International Inc. The Company operates in the chemicals industry through its non-controlling interest in Kronos Worldwide, Inc. As of December 31, 2011, it owned 87% interest in CompX International Inc and 30% interest in Kronos Worldwide, Inc. The Company also owns 100% of EWI RE, Inc., an insurance brokerage and risk management services company. CompX is a manufacturer of engineered components utilized in a variety of applications and industries. Kronos is a global producer and marketer of value-added titanium dioxide pigments. In July of 2011, CompX completed the acquisition of an ergonomic component products business. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3 Cos. Obtain Summary Judgment in NJ PI Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc., Durametallic Corporation, and Union Carbide Corporation filed separate motions for summary judgment on all claims asserted against them in the lawsuit arising out of plaintiff William Patterson's alleged exposure to asbestos. In an opinion dated Dec. 5, 2014, Judge Robert B. Kugler of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey granted the defendants' motions, after finding that the plaintiffs have not produced sufficient evidence specifically identifying the defendants as a manufacturer or distributor of asbestos-containing products that Patterson was exposed to during the alleged time period. The case is WARREN PATTERSON and MARGARET PATTERSON, Plaintiffs, v. A.W. CHESTERTON CO., et al., Defendants, CIVIL NO. 13-5584 (RBK/JS)(D.N.J.). A full-text copy of Judge Kugler's Decision is available at http://is.gd/h2Iv2Zfrom Leagle.com. WARREN PATTERSON, Plaintiff, represented by JAMES J. PETTIT, LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC. MARGARET PATTERSON, (h/w), Plaintiff, represented by JAMES J. PETTIT, LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC. A.W. CHESTERTON COMPANY, Defendant, represented by JOSEPH T. HANLON, Esq. -- joseph.hanlon@wilsonelser.com -- WILSON ELSER MOSKOWITZ EDELMAN & DICKER & SUSAN KARLOVICH, Esq. -- susan.karlovich@wilsonelser.com -- WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, EDELMAN & DICKER, LLP. FOSTER WHEELER, LLC, Defendant, represented by MICHAEL A. TANENBAUM, Esq. -- michael.tanenbaum@sedgwicklaw.com -- SEDGWICK LLP & CHRISTOPHER J. KEALE, Esq. -- christopher.keale@sedgwicklaw.com -- SEDGWICK LLP. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Defendant, represented by JOANNE HAWKINS, SPEZIALI, GREENWALD & HAWKINS P.C., MICHAEL A. TANENBAUM, SEDGWICK LLP & CHRISTOPHER J. KEALE, SEDGWICK LLP. GOULDS PUMPS, INC., Defendant, represented by STEVEN FREDERIK SATZ, Esq. -- ssatz@hoaglandlongo.com -- HOAGLAND LONGO MORAN DUNST & DOUKAS. INGERSOLL-RAND LIMITED, Defendant, represented by LISA PASCARELLA, PASCARELLA DIVITA LINDENBAUM & TOMASZEWSKI, PLLC. METROPOLITAN LIFE, Defendant, represented by RICHARD V. JONES, LAW OFFICES OF ROGER V. JONES, LLP & ROGER V. JONES. WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY, Defendant, represented by MICHAEL A. TANENBAUM, SEDGWICK LLP & CHRISTOPHER J. KEALE, SEDGWICK LLP. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3 Cos. Gets Summary Judgment in "McManns" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Pabst Brewing Company, Crane Co., and SB Decking Inc., filed separate motions for summary judgment in the asbestos- related personal injury lawsuit filed by Alan and Donna McMann. Judge Benjamin H. Settle of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Tacoma, in an order dated Dec. 2, 2014, granted in part and denied in part the motions. The McManns contend that Olympia Brewing Company, as predecessor- in-interest to Pabst, has a "dual-persona" and the claim can be maintained under the third-party exception to the Washington's Industrial Insurance Act, RCW Title 51 ("IIA"). However, Judge Settle found that "[t]he immunities conferred by the [IIA] are not easy to avoid" and the IIA "has always been construed stringently in eliminating claims against employers." With no case directly on point, Judge Settle declined to adopt such an unusual proposition that, when an indivisible injury is alleged, the employer is both immune under the IIA and subject to third-party liability under the IIA. Therefore, the Court granted Pabst's motion for summary judgment because the McManns' claims are barred by the IIA. With respect to Crane, Judge Settle found that the McManns failed to submit evidence or direct the Court to evidence in support of the majority of their claims. The McManns, however, do argue that there exist material questions of disputed fact on the issue of whether Crane is liable for Mr. McMann's exposure to Crane's asbestos containing the product "Cranite." Crane concedes that disputed questions of fact exist on this sole issue. Therefore, the Court granted Crane's motion as to all of the McManns' claims except for Crane's potential liability for exposure to "Cranite." For that sole exception, the Court denied the motion. With respect to SB Decking, the McManns failed to submit evidence or direct the Court to evidence in support of the majority of their claims. The failure to submit evidence in support of essential elements of their claims is fatal to these claims; therefore, the Court granted SB Decking's motion on the McManns' claims for civil conspiracy, spoliation, willful or wanton misconduct, and any other applicable theory of liability. With regard to the McManns' claims based on asbestos exposure, the McManns have met their minimal burden, Judge Settle found. The case is ALAN McMANN and DONNA McMANN, husband and wife, Plaintiff, v. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. C14-5429 BHS (W.D. Wash.). A full-text copy of Judge Settle's Decision is available at http://is.gd/cBrXCl from Leagle.com. Alan McMann, Plaintiff, represented by Barrett B Naman, THE NEMEROFF LAW FIRM, Benjamin Robert Couture, WEINSTEIN COUTURE PLLC, Brian Weinstein, WEINSTEIN COUTURE PLLC & Christopher B Norris, THE NEMEROFF LAW FIRM. Donna McMann, Plaintiff, represented by Barrett B Naman, THE NEMEROFF LAW FIRM, Benjamin Robert Couture, WEINSTEIN COUTURE PLLC, Brian Weinstein, WEINSTEIN COUTURE PLLC & Christopher B Norris, THE NEMEROFF LAW FIRM. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, Defendant, represented by Barry Neal Mesher, Esq. -- barry.mesher@sedgwicklaw.com -- SEDGWICK LLP, Brian D Zeringer, Esq. -- brian.zeringer@sedgwicklaw.com -- SEDGWICK LLP & Rachel Tallon Reynolds, Esq. -- rachel.reynolds@sedgwicklaw.com -- SEDGWICK LLP. AstenJohnson Inc, Defendant, represented by Daniel Ruttenberg, Esq. -- druttenberg@foleymansfield.com -- FOLEY & MANSFIELD & J. Scott Wood, Esq. -- swood@foleymansfield.com -- at FOLEY & MANSFIELD PLLP. CBS Corporation, Defendant, represented by Christopher S Marks, Esq. -- chris.marks@sedgwicklaw.com -- SEDGWICK LLP & R Dirk Bernhardt, Esq. -- dirk.bernhardt@sedgwicklaw.com -- at SEDGWICK LLP. Crane Co, Defendant, represented by G William Shaw, Esq. -- bill.shaw@klgates.com -- K&L GATES LLP. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Defendant, represented by David D Mordekhov, Esq. -- dmordekhov@gandtlawfirm.com -- GARDNER TRABOLSI & ASSOC. PLLC & Ronald C Gardner, Esq. -- rgardner@gandtlawfirm.com -- GARDNER TRABOLSI & ASSOC. PLLC. International Paper Company, Defendant, represented by John Michael Mattingly, Esq. -- mmattingly@rizzopc.com -- at RIZZO MATTINGLY BOSWORTH PC. Pacific Construction Systems Inc, Defendant, represented by Jason H Daywitt, Esq. -- jdaywitt@rizzopc.com -- at RIZZO MATTINGLY BOSWORTH PC. Pfizer Inc, Defendant, represented by Marissa Alkhazov, Esq. -- malkhazov@bpmlaw.com -- at BETTS PATTERSON & MINES. SB Decking Inc, Defendant, represented by John Michael Mattingly, RIZZO MATTINGLY BOSWORTH PC. Thomas Dee Engineering Co, Defendant, represented by D K Yoshida, Esq. -- dyoshida@omwlaw.com -- at OGDEN MURPHY WALLACE PLLC. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2d. Cir. Affirms Mazza CERCLA Conviction --------------------------------------------------------- Dominick Mazza and Mazza & Sons, Inc., appeal from June 19, 2013, judgments of conviction entered by the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York following an Oct. 16, 2012 jury verdict. The jury found both Mazza defendants guilty of: (1) conspiracy to, inter alia, violate Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 371; (2) a substantive CERCLA violation under 42 U.S.C. Section 9603(b); and (3) making false statements in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 1001. The jury also found Mazza & Sons guilty of obstruction of justice in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 1519. The Mazza defendants argue that their convictions should be vacated and a new trial ordered. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated Mazza's and Mazza & Sons' convictions for conspiracy and false statements and affirmed Mazza's and Mazza & Sons' convictions for the CERCLA violation and for obstruction of justice. The appeals case is UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. DOMINICK MAZZA, AKA SEALED DEFENDANT #4, MAZZA & SONS, INC., AKA SEALED DEFENDANT #5, Defendants-Appellants, NOS. 13-2540, 13-2710 (2d. Cir.). A full-text copy of the Decision dated Dec. 4, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/gZys4Sfrom Leagle.com. SUSAN C. WOLFE, Esq. -- scwolfe@hpplegal.com -- at Hoffman & Pollok LLP, New York, NY, for Defendants-Appellants. THEKLA HANSEN-YOUNG (Allen M. Brabender and Todd W. Gleason, on the brief), for Sam Hirsch, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Washington, DC, for Appellee. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2d. Cir. Flips Ruling in Reinsurance Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff-Appellant Utica Mutual Insurance Company appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York granting summary judgment to Defendant- Appellee Munich Reinsurance America, Inc., on Utica's claims for breach of contract and declaratory judgment. Munich is Utica's reinsurer under a facultative reinsurance certificate covering an umbrella policy issued by Utica to Goulds Pumps Inc. in 1973, under which Utica has been exposed to millions of dollars in losses arising from asbestos lawsuits against Goulds. The Certificate contains a $5 million limit of liability, and it obligates Munich to reimburse Utica for expense payments in addition to losses. Munich has already paid $5 million under the Certificate, but Utica contends that Munich's liability for expenses is not subject to the Certificate's liability limit. Utica filed an action seeking recovery for unpaid expenses and a declaration that Munich is obligated to continue reimbursing it for expense payments. Munich's position is that the Certificate's $5 million limit includes expenses, and that its liability under the Certificate has therefore been exhausted. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, having reviewed Munich's contentions, found them to be without merit. The Second Circuit ruled that Munich is not entitled to summary judgment on the grounds relied upon by the district court. Accordingly, the Second Circuit vacated the judgment of the district court and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Second Circuit ruled that the district court did not consider extrinsic evidence in interpreting the Certificate, and the record shoes that Munich has not presented any extrinsic evidence in support of its position, and while Utica has done so, it argued that further discovery was required. The appeals case is UTICA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff- Appellant, v. MUNICH REINSURANCE AMERICA, INC., Defendant- Appellee, NO. 13-4170-CV (2d. Cir.). A full-text copy of the Second Circuit is available at http://is.gd/Fpuizsfrom Leagle.com. MARY KAY VYSKOCIL, Esq. -- mvyskocil@stblaw.com -- at Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, New York, NY, for Plaintiff-Appellant. BRUCE M. FRIEDMAN, Esq. -- bfriedman@rubinfiorella.com -- at Rubin, Fiorella & Friedman LLP, New York, NY, for Defendant- Appellee. ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. Court Recommends Remand of "Bartel" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana, recommended the remand of the asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit commenced by William E. Bartel, as personal representative of the estate of Silas B. Bishop, to the 19th Judicial District Court for the Parish of East Baton Rouge, Louisiana, after finding that the Plaintiff's Jones Act claims are not removable under 28 U.S.C. Section 1445(a) when removal is based on the general removal statute, Section 1441. The case is WILLIAM E. BARTEL, as personal representative of the ESTATE OF SILAS B. BISHOP, v. ALCOA STEAMSHIP COMPANY, ET AL., CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-251-JJB-RLB, C/W NO. 14-252-JJB-RLB (M.D. La.). A full-text copy of Magistrate Bourgeois' Report and Recommendations dated Nov. 6, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/MoAt9bfrom Leagle.com. William E Bartel, as personal representative of the Estate of Silas B. Bishop, Plaintiff, represented by Cameron Ray Waddell, Waddell Anderman, LLC, Jeffery R. Nicholson, Nicholson Law Firm, L.L.C. & Jody E. Anderman, Waddell Anderman, LLC. Alcoa Steamship Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by John A. Bolles, Esq. -- john.bolles@phelps.com -- Phelps Dunbar LLP, Annette N. Peltier, Esq. -- annette.peltier@phelps.com -- Phelps Dunbar, Kevin Jacob LaVie, Esq. -- kevin.lavie@phelps.com -- Phelps Dunbar LLP, Meredith W. Blanque, Esq. -- meredith.blanque@phelps.com -- Phelps Dunbar & Robert J. Barbier, Esq. -- robert.barbier@phelps.com -- Phelps Dunbar. American President Lines, Ltd., Defendant, represented by John A. Bolles, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Annette N. Peltier, Phelps Dunbar, Kevin Jacob LaVie, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Meredith W. Blanque, Phelps Dunbar & Robert J. Barbier, Phelps Dunbar. BP Corp. North American, Inc., individually and/or as Successor- in-Interest American Oil Co. Successor-in-Interest Amoco Shipping Co., Defendant, represented by Janet Wessler Marshall, Johnson Johnson Barrios & Yacoubian, Aaron Benjamin Greenbaum, Pusateri Barrios Guillot & Greenbaum & Salvador Joseph Pusateri, Pusateri Barrios Guillot & Greenbaum. Central Gulf Lines, Inc., individually and/or as Successor-in- Interest Central Gulf Steamship Corporation, Defendant, represented by John A. Bolles, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Annette N. Peltier, Phelps Dunbar, Kevin Jacob LaVie, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Meredith W. Blanque, Phelps Dunbar & Robert J. Barbier, Phelps Dunbar. Central Gulf Steamship Corporation, Defendant, represented by John A. Bolles, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Annette N. Peltier, Phelps Dunbar, Kevin Jacob LaVie, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Meredith W. Blanque, Phelps Dunbar & Robert J. Barbier, Phelps Dunbar. Crowley Marine Services, Inc., as Successor by Merger Delta Steamshhip Lines, Inc., f/k/a Misissippi Shipping Co., Defendant, represented by John A. Bolles, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Annette N. Peltier, Phelps Dunbar, Kevin Jacob LaVie, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Meredith W. Blanque, Phelps Dunbar & Robert J. Barbier, Phelps Dunbar. Delta Steamship Lines, Inc., Defendant, represented by John A. Bolles, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Annette N. Peltier, Phelps Dunbar, Kevin Jacob LaVie, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Meredith W. Blanque, Phelps Dunbar & Robert J. Barbier, Phelps Dunbar. Empire Transport Inc., Defendant, represented by John A. Bolles, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Annette N. Peltier, Phelps Dunbar, Kevin Jacob LaVie, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Meredith W. Blanque, Phelps Dunbar & Robert J. Barbier, Phelps Dunbar. Farrell Lines Incorporated, formerly known as American South African Lines, Defendant, represented by John A. Bolles, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Annette N. Peltier, Phelps Dunbar, Kevin Jacob LaVie, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Meredith W. Blanque, Phelps Dunbar & Robert J. Barbier, Phelps Dunbar. James River Transport Inc., Defendant, represented by John A. Bolles, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Annette N. Peltier, Phelps Dunbar, Kevin Jacob LaVie, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Meredith W. Blanque, Phelps Dunbar & Robert J. Barbier, Phelps Dunbar. Chas. Kurz & Company, individually and/or as Successor-in-Interest Keystone Shipping Co. Successor-in-Interest Keystone Tankship Corp., Defendant, represented by John A. Bolles, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Annette N. Peltier, Phelps Dunbar & Kevin Jacob LaVie, Phelps Dunbar LLP. Chas. Kurz & Company, Defendant, represented by Meredith W. Blanque, Phelps Dunbar & Robert J. Barbier, Phelps Dunbar. Marine Navigation Company, Defendant, represented by John A. Bolles, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Annette N. Peltier, Phelps Dunbar, Kevin Jacob LaVie, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Meredith W. Blanque, Phelps Dunbar & Robert J. Barbier, Phelps Dunbar. Crowley Maritime Corp., individually and/or as Successor-in- Interest Marine Transport, Lines, Inc., Defendant, represented by John A. Bolles, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Annette N. Peltier, Phelps Dunbar, Kevin Jacob LaVie, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Meredith W. Blanque, Phelps Dunbar & Robert J. Barbier, Phelps Dunbar. Mathiasen Tanker Ind. Inc., Defendant, represented by John A. Bolles, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Annette N. Peltier, Phelps Dunbar, Kevin Jacob LaVie, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Meredith W. Blanque, Phelps Dunbar & Robert J. Barbier, Phelps Dunbar. Matson Navigation Co. Inc., Defendant, represented by John A. Bolles, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Annette N. Peltier, Phelps Dunbar, Kevin Jacob LaVie, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Meredith W. Blanque, Phelps Dunbar & Robert J. Barbier, Phelps Dunbar. National Bulk Carriers, Inc., Defendant, represented by John A. Bolles, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Annette N. Peltier, Phelps Dunbar, Kevin Jacob LaVie, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Meredith W. Blanque, Phelps Dunbar & Robert J. Barbier, Phelps Dunbar. Ogden Leader Stransport Inc., Defendant, represented by John A. Bolles, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Annette N. Peltier, Phelps Dunbar, Kevin Jacob LaVie, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Meredith W. Blanque, Phelps Dunbar & Robert J. Barbier, Phelps Dunbar. Pan Atlantic Steamship Co., Defendant, represented by John A. Bolles, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Annette N. Peltier, Phelps Dunbar, Kevin Jacob LaVie, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Meredith W. Blanque, Phelps Dunbar & Robert J. Barbier, Phelps Dunbar. Sea-Land Service Inc., Defendant, represented by John A. Bolles, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Annette N. Peltier, Phelps Dunbar, Kevin Jacob LaVie, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Meredith W. Blanque, Phelps Dunbar & Robert J. Barbier, Phelps Dunbar. Wabash Transport Inc., Defendant, represented by John A. Bolles, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Annette N. Peltier, Phelps Dunbar, Kevin Jacob LaVie, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Meredith W. Blanque, Phelps Dunbar & Robert J. Barbier, Phelps Dunbar. Waterman Steamship Corporation, Defendant, represented by John A. Bolles, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Annette N. Peltier, Phelps Dunbar, Kevin Jacob LaVie, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Meredith W. Blanque, Phelps Dunbar & Robert J. Barbier, Phelps Dunbar. Amerada Hess Corp., Defendant, represented by Brett D. Wise, Esq. -- bdwise@liskow.com -- Liskow & Lewis, Elizabeth S. Wheeler, Esq. -- ewheeler@liskow.com -- Liskow & Lewis & Nora Bolling Bilbro, Esq. -- nbilbro@liskow.com -- Liskow & Lewis. Hess Oil & Chem, Corp., Defendant, represented by Brett D. Wise, Liskow & Lewis- N.O., Elizabeth S. Wheeler, Liskow & Lewis & Nora Bolling Bilbro, Liskow & Lewis. Marine Transport Lines, Inc., Defendant, represented by John A. Bolles, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Annette N. Peltier, Phelps Dunbar, Kevin Jacob LaVie, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Meredith W. Blanque, Phelps Dunbar & Robert J. Barbier, Phelps Dunbar. Keystone Shipping Co., Defendant, represented by John A. Bolles, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Annette N. Peltier, Phelps Dunbar, Kevin Jacob LaVie, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Meredith W. Blanque, Phelps Dunbar & Robert J. Barbier, Phelps Dunbar. Central Gulf Lines, Inc., Defendant, represented by John A. Bolles, Phelps Dunbar LLP & Robert J. Barbier, Phelps Dunbar. Farrell Lines, Inc., formerly known as American South African Lines, Defendant - Consolidated, represented by John A. Bolles, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Annette N. Peltier, Phelps Dunbar, Kevin Jacob LaVie, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Meredith W. Blanque, Phelps Dunbar & Robert J. Barbier, Phelps Dunbar. Chas. Kurz & Co. Inc., Defendant - Consolidated, represented by John A. Bolles, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Annette N. Peltier, Phelps Dunbar, Kevin Jacob LaVie, Phelps Dunbar LLP & Meredith W. Blanque, Phelps Dunbar. Chas. Kurz & Co. Inc., Individually Successor-in-Interest Keystone Shipping Co. Successor-in-Interest Keystone Tankship Corp., Defendant - Consolidated, represented by Robert J. Barbier, Phelps Dunbar. ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. PI Suit Recommended for Remand --------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana, recommended the remand to the 19th Judicial District Court for the Parish of East Baton Rouge, Louisiana, of the asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit filed by William E. Bartel, personal representative of the estate of Joseph L. Dennis, after finding that the Plaintiff's Jones Act claims are not removable under 28 U.S.C. Section 1445(a) when removal is based on the general removal statute, Section 1441. The case is WILLIAM E. BARTEL, as personal representative of the ESTATE OF JOSEPH L. DENNIS, v. AMERICAN EXPORT ISBRANDTSEN, ET AL., CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-257-JJB-RLB, NO. 14-261-JJB-RLB (M.D. La.). A full-text copy of Magistrate Bourgeois' report and recommendations dated Nov. 6, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/mt1VpAfrom Leagle.com. William E Bartel, As personal representative on behalf of Estate of Joseph L. Dennis, Plaintiff, represented by Cameron Ray Waddell, Waddell Anderman, LLC, Jeffery R. Nicholson, Nicholson Law Firm, L.L.C. & Jody E. Anderman, Waddell Anderman, LLC. American Export Isbrandtsen, Defendant, represented by John A. Bolles, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Annette N. Peltier, Phelps Dunbar, Kevin Jacob LaVie, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Meredith W. Blanque, Phelps Dunbar & Robert J. Barbier, Phelps Dunbar. Farrell Lines Incorporated, Defendant, represented by John A. Bolles, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Annette N. Peltier, Phelps Dunbar, Kevin Jacob LaVie, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Meredith W. Blanque, Phelps Dunbar & Robert J. Barbier, Phelps Dunbar. American Export Lines, Inc., Defendant, represented by John A. Bolles, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Annette N. Peltier, Phelps Dunbar, Kevin Jacob LaVie, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Meredith W. Blanque, Phelps Dunbar & Robert J. Barbier, Phelps Dunbar. American President Lines Ltd., Defendant, represented by John A. Bolles, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Annette N. Peltier, Phelps Dunbar, Kevin Jacob LaVie, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Meredith W. Blanque, Phelps Dunbar & Robert J. Barbier, Phelps Dunbar. American Trading & Production Corporation, Defendant, represented by John A. Bolles, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Annette N. Peltier, Phelps Dunbar, Kevin Jacob LaVie, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Meredith W. Blanque, Phelps Dunbar & Robert J. Barbier, Phelps Dunbar. American Trading Transp. Co., Defendant, represented by John A. Bolles, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Annette N. Peltier, Phelps Dunbar, Kevin Jacob LaVie, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Meredith W. Blanque, Phelps Dunbar & Robert J. Barbier, Phelps Dunbar. Central Gulf Lines, Inc., Individually and/or Successor-in- Interest Central Gulf Steamship Corporation, Defendant, represented by John A. Bolles, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Annette N. Peltier, Phelps Dunbar, Kevin Jacob LaVie, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Meredith W. Blanque, Phelps Dunbar & Robert J. Barbier, Phelps Dunbar. Chas. Kurz & Company, Individually and/or Successor-in-Interest Keystone Shipping Co. Successor-in-Interest Keystone Tankship Corp., Defendant, represented by John A. Bolles, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Annette N. Peltier, Phelps Dunbar, Kevin Jacob LaVie, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Meredith W. Blanque, Phelps Dunbar & Robert J. Barbier, Phelps Dunbar. Farrell Lines Inc., Defendant, represented by John A. Bolles, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Annette N. Peltier, Phelps Dunbar, Kevin Jacob LaVie, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Meredith W. Blanque, Phelps Dunbar & Robert J. Barbier, Phelps Dunbar. Hess Oil & Chem Corp., Defendant, represented by Brett D. Wise, Liskow & Lewis- N.O., Elizabeth S. Wheeler, Liskow & Lewis & Nora Bolling Bilbro, Liskow & Lewis. Mathiasen Tanker Ind. Inc., Defendant, represented by John A. Bolles, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Kevin Jacob LaVie, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Meredith W. Blanque, Phelps Dunbar, Robert J. Barbier, Phelps Dunbar & Annette N. Peltier, Phelps Dunbar. Trinidad Corporation, Defendant, represented by John A. Bolles, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Annette N. Peltier, Phelps Dunbar, Kevin Jacob LaVie, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Meredith W. Blanque, Phelps Dunbar & Robert J. Barbier, Phelps Dunbar. ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Citron" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In an asbestos personal injury action, defendant Trane U.S., Inc., f/k/a American Standard, Inc., moves for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against it on the ground that there is insufficient evidence to raise a triable issue of fact whether plaintiffs' decedent Roslyn Citron was exposed to asbestos from an American Standard product. Judge Sherry Klein Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York County, in a decision and order dated Nov. 25, 2014, denied the motion, holding that pieced together, the collective testimony in the case would permit the trier of fact to reasonably infer that the Citron brothers removed asbestos insulation and rope gasketing from the Defendant's boilers at the Bell Scrap Metal yard, that dust therefrom landed on their clothing, and that their mother was exposed to that dust while doing their laundry. Read in conjunction with the uncontroverted evidence that the Defendant's boilers utilized asbestos components, the plaintiffs have demonstrated a causal nexus between the Defendant's boilers and the decedent's injuries, Judge Heitler ruled. The case is STEVE CITRON and MARTIN CITRON, Individually and as co-administrators for the estate of ROSLYN CITRON, Plaintiffs, v. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS, et al., Defendants, DOCKET NO. 190069/13, MOTION SEQ. 004 (N.Y. Sup.). A full-text copy of Judge Heitler's Decision is available at http://is.gd/ExUS43from Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: O'Connor's Bid to Dismiss "Norton" Suit OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant O'Connor Constructors, Inc. f/k/a/ Thomas O'Connor & Co., Inc., in an asbestos personal injury action, moves for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs' complaint and all cross-claims asserted against it. In a decision and order dated Nov. 25, 2014, Judge Sherry Klein Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York County, granted the defendant's motion after finding that it is apparent from testimony presented in the case that the source of plaintiff Kevin Norton's asbestos exposure was the application of insulation to the boilers, not the erection of the boilers themselves. It is also apparent that the insulation work was not the defendant's responsibility, Judge Klein ruled, thus, while a reasonable inference can be drawn that Mr. Norton was exposed to asbestos at the powerhouses in question, that exposure cannot be attributed to the defendant. The case is KEVIN A. NORTON and ADELE NORTON, Plaintiffs, v. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS CO., et al., Defendants, DOCKET NO. 190279/13, MOTION SEQUENCE NO. 003 (N.Y. Sup.). A full-text copy of Judge Heitler's Decision is available at http://is.gd/w94vmr from Leagle.com. ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Ma. Cristina Canson, Noemi Irene A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2014. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-362-8552. * * * End of Transmission * * *