/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/141226.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, December 26, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 257 Headlines 123 MCDOUGAL STREET: Faces "Hurley" Suit Alleging ADA Violations AAC HOLDINGS: Paid $2.6 Million to Settle Class Action ADS WASTE: Class Action Lawsuits in Early Stage ALP LIQUIDATING: No New Trial Date Set in "Rothal" Case ALP LIQUIDATING: Bids to Stay Scottsdale Insurance Suit Pending AMIRA'S DELI: Accused of Violating Disabilities Act in New York ANHEUSER-BUSCH COS: Bid to Compel in Knowlton Suit Denied APPLE INC: Defends Antitrust Class Action Over iPod Prices ASSOCIATED MATERIALS: Expects to Incur Additional Warranty Costs AVID TECHNOLOGY: Class Action Scheduled for Trial in March 2015 BAKERSFIELD DODGE: Cal. App. Upholds Denial of Class Cert. BBVA COMPASS: Defending Against "Deaver" Class Action in Calif. BERRY PETROLEUM: Settlement Fund Distribution Begins BRE SELECT: To Pay 20% of Apple REIT Class Suit Fees & Expenses CANADA: Faces Class Action Over EI Sickness Benefits CATALYST PHARMACEUTICAL: Reached $3.5MM Settlement in Class Suit CEC ENTERTAINMENT: No Formal Discovery Yet in "Ford" Litigation CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Parties Reached Settlement in FCRA Litigation CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Suit Says Restaurant Managers Misclassified CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Provides Update on Queso Merger Litigation CHINA XD: Faces Two Putative Securities Class Action Lawsuits COMPASS GROUP: Court Reduces Atty Fee Award in "Terrero" Suit CREDIT ONE: Class Suit Seeks Redress From Violations of TCPA DUNE MANAGEMENT: Property Managers Sue Over Unpaid Overtime Wages EILAT ASHKELON: Faces Class Action Over Arava Desert Oil Spill EOG RESOURCES: Royalty Owners Allowed to Amend Complaint END ZONE BAR: Fails to Pay Minimum and Overtime Wages, Suit Says END ZONE BAR: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT and Minimum Wages EPL OIL: Defendants' Date to File Answer Indefinitely Extended ENVISION HEALTHCARE: AMR Unit Faces Class Actions in California EVERYWARE GLOBAL: Faces Securities Class Action in S.D. Ohio EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Appeals From Judgment in "Dreher" Suit FARMER'S INSURANCE: Calif. Appeals Court Revives "Dowling" Suit GALARDI SOUTH ENTERPRISES: Dancers Win Conditional Certification GENVEC INC: Lead Plaintiffs Did Not Appeal "Shah" Case Dismissal GENVEC INC: To Defend Against "Garnitschnig" Action in Maryland GENVEC INC: To Defend Against "Galitsis" Action in Maryland GERON CORPORATION: Response to Amended Complaint Due GERON CORPORATION: To Seek Consolidation of Securities Lawsuit GREENBURGH-NORTH CASTLE: Accused of Discrimination & Retaliation HARMAN INT'L: D.C. App. Affirms Ruling in "Russell" Suit HITACHI LTD: Supplement Briefing Sought on Sharp's Objections HOME DEPOT: "Marko" Suit Consolidated in Security Breach MDL HOMESTREET INC: Faces "Bushansky" Suit Over Merger Transaction HSBC BANK: Court Approves Force-Placed Insurance Class Action HUBSPOT INC: Settled Class Action for Immaterial Amount ILLINOIS: Faces "Bailey" Suit Alleging Violations of ADA INSTALLED BUILDING: Class Action Settlement Expenses Paid INTERCLOUD SYSTEMS: Lead Plaintiffs Intend to File Amended Suit IRADIMED CORPORATION: Lam Action in Early Stages of Litigation J & G TRANSPORT: Conditional Certification Granted in FLSA Case KMART CORP: Sued by First NBC Bank in Illinois Over Data Breach LIBERTY SILVER: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Class Action LIN MEDIA: Class Action Plaintiffs Withdraw Motion to Expedite MEDTRONIC INC: Removes "Tierney" Suit to Tennessee District Court METROPOLITAN LIFE: Plaintiffs Appeal Summary Judgment Order METROPOLITAN LIFE: Faces "Owens" Class Action in N.D. Ga. METROPOLITAN LIFE: Sales Practices Cases Against Sun Life Ongoing METROPOLITAN LIFE: Final Approval Hearing Held in "Fauley" Case MINNESOTA: Class Action Over Sex Offender Program Pending MOTORS LIQUIDATION: 107 Class Actions Filed Over Vehicle Recall MULTIMEDIA GAMES: Faces "Eykyn" Class Action in W.D. Tex. MULTIMEDIA GAMES: Faces "Coffman" Class Action in W.D. Tex. MULTIMEDIA GAMES: "Maciel" Class Action Dismissed MULTIMEDIA GAMES: Faces "Lewis" Action in Travis County, Texas MULTIMEDIA GAMES: Still Defending Against "Williams" Action MULTIMEDIA GAMES: Still Defending Against "Hardy" Action NUCOR CORP: 5 of 8 Defendants Reached Court-Approved Settlements P.F. CHANG'S: Ill. Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Data Breach Suit PECCOLE RANCH: Homeowners Obtain Favorable Ruling in Class Action PENFORD CORPORATION: Faces Class Action Over Ingredion Merger PFIZER INC: Parkinson's Drug Side-Effect Sufferers Get Payout PHOENIX FRAMING: Sued Over Defects in Condominium Development PROPHASE LABS: Pre-Trial Discovery On-going in Weisblum Case QUEENS BORO: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages REMINGTON ARMS: Settles Class Suit Over Defective Rifle Triggers RETROPHIN INC: Faces "Shkreli" Class Action in New York SABRE CORP: To Appeal Final Judgment in San Antonio Class Suit SABRE CORP: Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint Denied SABRE CORP: Suit in Tex. State Court Over Hotel Fees Pending SEADRILL LTD: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in New York SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Has More Time to Respond to Complaint SHENGDATECH LIQUIDATING: No Trial Date Set in Securities Action SIZMEK INC: Reply in Support of Cross-Motion to Strike Due SKECHERS USA: Misrepresents Efficacy of Toning Shoes, Suit Claims SKECHERS USA: Sued for Misrepresenting Benefits of Toning Shoes SOURCEFIRE INC: 4th Cir. Upheld Settlement Order in "Vukosa" Suit STOLLE MACHINERY: Factory Production Worker Seeks to Recover OT TAKATA CORP: Faces "Tanner" Class Suit Over Defective Airbags TAKATA CORP: Faces Two Air Bag Defect Class Actions in Canada TARGET CORP: Customers Can Proceed With Negligence Class Action UNIQUE VACATIONS: Dist. Ct. Won't Stay TCPA Suit Over FCC Order UNITED STATES: VA Workers' Class Cert. Bid Granted in Part UNITED STATES: Secret Service Faces Racial Discrimination Probe VALEANT PHARMACEUTICAL: Faces Class Suit Alleging Insider Trading VIVINT SOLAR: Parties in California Action Engaged in Discovery VIVINT SOLAR: Faces Class Suit by Former Installation Technicians VITAL RECOVERY: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act VOLTARI CORPORATION: Files Answering Brief in Class Action VOYA RETIREMENT: Court Approves $15MM Class Action Settlement WELLS FARGO: Goes to Trial Over Alleged Mortgage Overcharges WESTCONSIN CREDIT: Accused of Violating Driver's Privacy Act WESTPAC BANKING: Actions Over Exception Fees on Hold WESTPAC BANKING: Faces Class Action by Storm Financial Investors WILHELMINA INTERNATIONAL: Parties Presently Involved in Mediation WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE: Sued Over Deceptive Practices WISCONSIN ENERGY: Inks MOU to Settle Merger Class Actions Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Holdsworth" Suit v. Crane Co. Remains Pending ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. To Appeal Ruling in "Garvin" Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co.'s Appeal in "DeLisle" Suit is Pending ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Awaits Ruling in Bid to Flip Verdicts ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Had $88MM Est. Liability at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Had $155-Mil. Reimbursement Asset ASBESTOS UPDATE: 15 Suits v. Transocean Ltd. Are Pending in Miss. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Ltd. Has 20 Suits Pending in La. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Unit Has 881 PI Suits at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Had 8,844 PI Claims at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Had $97.471MM Fibro Receivable ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Had 268 Fibro Cases at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Magnetek Inc. Continues to Defend PI Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Hallum" Suit v. Andrea Electronics Dismissed ASBESTOS UPDATE: Andrea Electronics Gets Summary Judgment in Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Andrea Electronics Continues to Defend RI Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tyco Int'l. Had 5,600 Fibro Claims at Sept. 26 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tyco Int'l. Estimates $538MM Fibro Liability ASBESTOS UPDATE: Meritor Has $20MM Charge on Fibro Liabilities ASBESTOS UPDATE: Maremont Corp. Had 5,700 PI Claims at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Maremont Corp. Recognizes $73MM Fibro Liability ASBESTOS UPDATE: ArvinMeritor Inc. Has 2,800 Fibro Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: ArvinMeritor Inc. Had $48MM Fibro Liability ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tex. App. Affirms Ruling in Pepsi v. Mafco Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wash. Court Flips in Part Ruling in "Fagg" Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: NC App. Affirms Ruling in "Richardson" Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: RI Court Bars T&N's Deposition of FMC Trust ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3d Cir. Affirms Dismissal Order in "Smiddy" Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Powell's Summary Judgment Bid in PI Suit Denied ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. App. Affirms Ruling in "Holloway" Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Affirms Ruling in Wrongful Discharge Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ocean View Facing $7.8MM Budget Over Fibro ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court OKs Deal to Resolve RPM Fibro Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garlock Plaintiffs Suffer Another Setback ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Discovery Delays Memorial Garden Plans ASBESTOS UPDATE: Firm Says Modified Cells to Fight Mesothelioma ASBESTOS UPDATE: ICG, Director Prosecuted for Disregarding Safety ASBESTOS UPDATE: Co. Owner Faces 5 Years for Fibro Removal ASBESTOS UPDATE: Odor Leads to Fibro Discovery in School ASBESTOS UPDATE: College Trustees to Hire Fibro Investigator ASBESTOS UPDATE: Eynsham Car Worker Dies From Fibro Exposure ASBESTOS UPDATE: MDL Suggestion to Remand Damages Claims Opposed ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manager Fined for Failing to Conduct Fibro Check ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Find Halts Work at Housing Project ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Exposure Victim Awarded GBP61,000 ASBESTOS UPDATE: AM General Wins Delaware Fibro Case ASBESTOS UPDATE: Meriden School Closed Due to Possible Fibro Find ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crumbling Conneaut Building Contains Deadly Dust ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crewkerne Woman Blames Cancer on Fibro Exposure ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro is Canada's Top Cause of Workplace Death ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tonnes of Fibro Dumped Near Queensland Highway ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Exposure Causes Electrician's Death ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ky. Court Flips in Part Suit Dismissal Order ASBESTOS UPDATE: Police Dept. Beset with Fibro Cancer Fears ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Scare Puts School District on Fin'l Brink ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Found in Gabe's Tower ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dumped Fibro in Queensland Poses "Low Risk" ASBESTOS UPDATE: Companies Exposed Public to Fibro, DEQ Says ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Release Puts Dutch City on Alert ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lung Cancer Sufferer Has Fibro in House ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Finds Fibro in Stony Creek, Yarraville ASBESTOS UPDATE: Arsenic, Fibro Found in Northstowe Ground ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro-Laden NZ Bldg. to be Demolished ASBESTOS UPDATE: NSW Gov't to Knock Down Mr. Fluffy Homes ASBESTOS UPDATE: Man Pleads Guilty for Improper Fibro Removal ASBESTOS UPDATE: HSE Prosecuting Council Over Town Hall Fibro ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Dumped on Country Lane in Dunkirk ASBESTOS UPDATE: Illinois Law Nixes Deadline for Fibro Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Store Development to Require Fibro Removal ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tobacco Co. Settles Fibro, Dividends Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Found on Rottnest Island ASBESTOS UPDATE: Group Warns of Mesothelioma Risk in Pipes ASBESTOS UPDATE: Urban Demolitions in Turkey Spread Fibro ********* 123 MCDOUGAL STREET: Faces "Hurley" Suit Alleging ADA Violations ---------------------------------------------------------------- Fredkiey Hurley, individually v. 123 McDougal Street Pizza Corp. d/b/a Ben's Pizza, a New York for profit corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-09924-CM (S.D.N.Y., December 16, 2014) alleges violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff suffers from a relatively rare genetic developmental congenital disorder that he contracted at birth -- spina bifida cystica with myelomeningocele. The Plaintiff is permanently disabled and confined to a wheelchair as there is no known, affordable cure available to him. More specifically, the Plaintiff contends that he is being deprived of the meaningful choice of freely visiting the same accommodations readily available to the general public and he is further deterred and discouraged from additional travel due to the Defendant's ongoing non-compliance with the ADA. He points out that he was not able to receive service at the service counter from his wheelchair because of certain barriers. 123 McDougal Street Pizza Corp. d/b/a Ben's Pizza is the operator of a food establishment located at 123 McDougal Street in New York County, New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Tara Anne Demetriades, Esq. ADA ACCESSIBILITY ASSOCIATES 2076 Wolver Hollow Road Oyster Bay, NY 11771 Telephone: (516) 595-5009 E-mail: tdemetriades@aol.com AAC HOLDINGS: Paid $2.6 Million to Settle Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ AAC Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Company paid $2.6 million to settle a consolidated class action. In April 2013, two wage and hour claims were filed against the Company in the State of California and were subsequently consolidated into a class action. In June 2013, the parties agreed to settle the substantive claims for $2.5 million during mediation. Once the settlement became probable, the Company established a $2.5 million reserve during the second quarter of 2013 for this matter. Subsequently, on April 9, 2014 and following court approval, the Company settled this matter with payment of $2.6 million. The total amount of the litigation settlement of $2.6 million was reflected in accrued liabilities at December 31, 2013. ADS WASTE: Class Action Lawsuits in Early Stage ----------------------------------------------- ADS Waste Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 13, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the class action lawsuits against the Company are in the early stage. In February 2009, the Company and certain of its subsidiaries were named as defendants in a purported class action suit in Circuit Court of Macon County, Alabama. Similar class action complaints were brought against the Company and certain of its subsidiaries in 2011 in Duval County, Florida and in 2013 in Quitman County, Georgia, and Barbour County, Alabama, and in Chester County, Pennsylvania in 2014. The Georgia case was dismissed in March 2014. The plaintiffs in those cases primarily allege that the defendants charged improper fees (fuel, administrative and environmental fees) that were in breach of the plaintiff's contract with the Company and seek damages in an unspecified amount. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses against these purported class actions, which it will vigorously pursue. Given the inherent uncertainties of litigation, including the early stage of these cases, the unknown size of any potential class, and legal and factual issues in dispute, the outcome of these cases cannot be predicted and a range of loss if any cannot currently be estimated. ALP LIQUIDATING: No New Trial Date Set in "Rothal" Case ------------------------------------------------------- ALP Liquidating Trust said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 13, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the court struck the May 2014 trial date with no new trial date set in the case entitled Rothal v. Arvida/JMB Partners Ltd. et al. The Partnership, the General Partner and certain related parties as well as other unrelated parties have been named defendants in an action entitled Rothal v. Arvida/JMB Partners Ltd. et al., Case No. 03-10709 CACE 12, filed in the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida. In this suit that was originally filed on or about June 20, 2003, plaintiffs purport to bring a class action allegedly arising out of construction defects occurring during the development of Camellia Island in Weston, which has approximately 150 homes. On May 9, 2005, plaintiffs filed a nine count second amended complaint seeking unspecified general damages, special damages, statutory damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs, attorneys' fees, and such other relief as the court may deem just and proper. Plaintiffs complain, among other things, that the homes were not adequately built, that the homes were not built in conformity with the South Florida Building Code and plans on file with Broward County, Florida, that the roofs were not properly attached or were inadequate, that the truss systems and installation thereof were improper, and that the homes suffer from improper shutter storm protection systems. Plaintiffs have filed a motion to expand the class to include other homes in Weston. The motion to expand the class was withdrawn. The case went to mediation on March 11, 2010. The case did not settle. The Arvida defendants have filed their answer to the amended complaint. The Arvida defendants believe that they have meritorious defenses and intend to vigorously defend themselves. The court concluded its hearings on the motion to certify the class covering the homes in Camellia Island and certified the class by order dated September 16, 2010. On October 15, 2010, the Partnership filed its notice of appeal challenging the certification order. On June 1, 2011, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's order certifying the class. The case has been returned to the trial court for further proceedings including trial. A further mediation was held on August 13, 2013 and no settlement was reached. The court struck the May 2014 trial date with no new trial date set. The defense of the case is proceeding. The Partnership intends to vigorously defend itself. The Partnership is not able to determine what, if any, loss exposure that it may have for this matter. This case has been tendered to one of the Partnership's insurance carriers, Zurich American Insurance Company (together with its affiliates collectively, "Zurich"), for defense and indemnity. Zurich is providing a defense of this matter under a purported reservation of rights. The Partnership has also engaged other counsel in connection with this lawsuit. The ultimate legal and financial liability of the Partnership, if any, in this matter cannot be estimated with certainty at this time. The Partnership is unable to determine the ultimate portion of the expenses, fees and damages, if any, which will be covered by its insurance. ALP LIQUIDATING: Bids to Stay Scottsdale Insurance Suit Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- ALP Liquidating Trust said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 13, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that there are pending motions to stay and for summary judgment which have not been set for hearing in the case entitled, Scottsdale Insurance Company v. Richard Rothal, et al. On January 19, 2012, the Partnership was sued in a case entitled, Scottsdale Insurance Company v. Richard Rothal, et al., Case No. 2012-CA-03451, in the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida, Complex Litigation Unit. In this case, Scottsdale Insurance Company ("Scottsdale"), an alleged insurer of Waterproofing Systems of Miami, Inc. ("Waterproofing"), seeks a declaratory judgment against, among others, Waterproofing, the class certified in the Rothal action and the Partnership, seeking a declaration of Scottsdale's rights and obligations under two commercial general liability policies it allegedly issued over the years May 29, 2000 - May 29, 2002. The case has been transferred from the complex litigation unit to the trial court handling the Rothal action. The declaration in this case seeks to affect the rights that Waterproofing, Rothal, and the Partnership may have in these policies. On or about August 29, 2012, the Partnership filed an answer, affirmative defenses and a counterclaim seeking, among other things, defense and indemnity in connection with the Rothal action. Scottsdale filed an answer to the Partnership's counterclaim. There are pending motions to stay and for summary judgment which have not been set for hearing. The Partnership will vigorously pursue its interests in the policies written by the plaintiff. The Partnership is unable to determine what portion of its fees and damages in the Rothal case, if any, may be recovered under the Scottsdale policies. AMIRA'S DELI: Accused of Violating Disabilities Act in New York --------------------------------------------------------------- Fredkiey Hurley, individually v. Amira's Deli, Inc. d/b/a N.Y. Village Deli, a New York for profit corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv- 09934-GHW (S.D.N.Y., December 16, 2014) is an action for injunctive relief for alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act entitling the Plaintiff to attorneys' fees, litigation expenses and costs expended in pursuing the action. The Plaintiff suffers from a relatively rare genetic developmental congenital disorder that he contracted at birth -- spina bifida cystica with myelomeningocele. The Plaintiff is permanently disabled and confined to a wheelchair as there is no known, affordable cure available to him. Amira's Deli, Inc., doing business as N.Y. Village Deli, is the operator of a food and deli establishment, which establishment is defined as a "place of public accommodation." The establishment is located in New York County, New York. The property is a five- story building with two ground floor retail units and residential apartments on the higher floors. The Plaintiff is represented by: Tara Anne Demetriades, Esq. ADA ACCESSIBILITY ASSOCIATES 2076 Wolver Hollow Road Oyster Bay, NY 11771 Telephone: (516) 595-5009 E-mail: tdemetriades@aol.com ANHEUSER-BUSCH COS: Bid to Compel in Knowlton Suit Denied --------------------------------------------------------- The class action KNOWLTON v. ANHEUSER-BUSCH COMPANIES, LLC, CONSOLIDATED CASE NO. 4:13-CV-210 SNLJ (E.D. Mo.), has been certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 against defendants Anheuser-Busch Companies, LLC (ABC), Anheuser-Busch Companies Pension Plan (Plan), Anheuser-Busch Companies Pension Plan Appeals Committee, and Anheuser-Busch Companies Pension Plan Administrate Committee. Plaintiffs allege they are former employees of Busch Entertainment Corporation (BEC), are salaried participants in the Pension Plan, and are entitled to certain enhanced benefits under the Pension Plan pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). Currently before the Missouri district court is the plaintiffs' motion to compel responses to discovery requests served upon the defendants. Plaintiffs served three interrogatories and eight requests for production. It appears that the parties are in dispute regarding Interrogatories 1 and 2 and Document Requests 6 and 8. A motion for judgment on the pleadings was filed on November 10. The outcome of that motion will determine whether the information plaintiffs seek must be produced, the Court opined. The Court thus denied the motion to compel without prejudice until after disposition of the motion for judgment on the pleadings. A copy of the District Court's Nov. 18, 2014 Order is available at http://is.gd/U435Dmfrom Leagle.com. Plaintiffs Brian Knowlton, Douglas Minerd, Gary Lensenmayer, and Charles R. Wetesnik are represented by Andrew Servais, Wingert Grebing Brubaker and Juskie LLP; Charles R Grebing, Wingert Grebing Brubaker & Juskie LLP; Joe D. Jacobson, GREEN JACOBSON, P.C.; Scott J. Stitt -- scottstitt@tuckerellis.com -- of TUCKER ELLIS LLP; & Joseph R. Dulle -- jdulle@stoneleyton.com -- of STONE AND LEYTON. Consolidated Filer Plaintiff Nancy J Anderson is represented by Joe D. Jacobson, GREEN JACOBSON, P.C., Joseph R. Dulle, STONE AND LEYTON, Paul J. Puricelli -- ppuricelli@stoneleyson.com -- of STONE AND LEYTON & Scott J. Stitt, TUCKER ELLIS LLP. Consolidated Filer Plaintiffs Richard F. Angevine, Joe Mullins, Andy Fichthorn, and Donald W. Mills, Jr. are represented by Joe D. Jacobson, GREEN JACOBSON, P.C., Scott J. Stitt, TUCKER ELLIS LLP & Joseph R. Dulle, STONE AND LEYTON. Anheuser-Busch Companies, LLC and the other Defendants are represented by James F. Bennett -- jbennett@dowdbennett.com -- of DOWD BENNETT, LLP; Jennifer L. Aspinall -- jaspinall@dowdbennett.com -- of DOWD BENNETT, LLP; Peter B. Morrison -- peter.morrison@skadden.com -- of SKADDEN AND ARPS; Albert L. Hogan, III -- al.hogan@skadden.com -- of SKADDEN AND ARPS & David R. Pehlke -- david.pehlke@skadden.com -- of SKADDEN AND ARPS. APPLE INC: Defends Antitrust Class Action Over iPod Prices ---------------------------------------------------------- Breathecast reports that Apple is currently defending itself against a class action antitrust suit, which claims that the tech titan banned consumers from accessing music that's released by competing audio companies, leading to inflated iPod prices. By banning songs from other music vendors and forcing consumers to purchase songs only from the iTunes store, the plaintiffs claimed that the electronics giant not only affected the business of other music players, but it also led to the increase in the prices of their iPods. They are looking to Apple's FairPlay Digital Rights Management or DRM as the cause. According to the plaintiff, FairPlay prevents iTunes music from being played on other music players, prevents other companies from selling music to Apple consumers, and prevents other companies from reverse engineer FairPlay to make themselves more accessible. The system also deletes music it deemed unauthorized within their own DRM. Eddy Cue, Apple iTunes Chief, testified on Dec. 4 in Oakland, California to explain the policies of Apple's FairPlay DRM software and refuted the allegations being made against them. Mr. Cue explained that closing off their products was not meant to limit consumers and was not the cause of the increased iPod prices. He said that Apple did not agree with the DRM, but the company needed to create its own FairPlay DRM software to ensure the security of their system. This was also the only way for the company to make deals with major record labels and to avail of high quality and licensed music. He also said that the FairPlay DRM prevents them from being hacked by sealing all the contents within their system. He explained that they did plan to release the FairPlay to other companies, but it wasn't possible due to technical issues and they couldn't find a way to make it work reliably. The case has come to the point that even the late Apple co-founder Steve Jobs will be appearing in court, however, by means of a taped deposition, according to CNET. ASSOCIATED MATERIALS: Expects to Incur Additional Warranty Costs ---------------------------------------------------------------- Associated Materials, LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 27, 2014, that on February 13, 2013, the Company entered into a Settlement Agreement and Release of Claims (the "Settlement") for a class action lawsuit filed by plaintiffs and a putative nationwide class of homeowners regarding certain warranty-related claims for steel and aluminum siding, which became effective on September 2, 2013. The Company expects to incur additional warranty costs associated with the Settlement; however, the Company does not believe the incremental costs, which currently cannot be estimated for recognition purposes, have been or will be material. AVID TECHNOLOGY: Class Action Scheduled for Trial in March 2015 --------------------------------------------------------------- Avid Technology, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 13, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the securities class action is scheduled for trial in March 2015. The Company said, "In March 2013 and May 2013, two purported securities class action lawsuits were filed against us and certain of our former executive officers seeking unspecified damages in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. In July 2013, the two cases were consolidated and the original plaintiffs agreed to act as co-plaintiffs in the consolidated case." "In September 2013, the co-plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on behalf of those who purchased our common stock between October 23, 2008 and March 20, 2013. The consolidated amended complaint, which named us, certain of our current and former executive officers and our former independent accounting firm as defendants, purported to state a claim for violation of federal securities laws as a result of alleged violations of the federal securities laws pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. "In October 2013, we filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint, resulting in the dismissal of some of the claims, and the dismissal of Mr. Hernandez and one of the two plaintiffs from the case. The matter is scheduled for trial in March 2015." BAKERSFIELD DODGE: Cal. App. Upholds Denial of Class Cert. ---------------------------------------------------------- The California Appellate Court affirmed a trial court's judgment denying class certification in the case captioned LYLE L. BARNES, et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. BAKERSFIELD DODGE, INC., et al., Defendants and Respondents. Plaintiffs alleged they purchased a vehicle from Dodge pursuant to a retail installment sale contract in which Dodge failed to properly itemize the fees paid for license, registration, transfer, and titling. Plaintiffs moved for certification of the class, asserting improper lumping together of fees as appeared in all class members' retail installment contracts. Plaintiffs contended that there were common questions of fact, because all class members purchased a vehicle from Dodge, signed a contract, and the contract disclosed the registration, transfer, and titling fees as "N/A." Defendants opposed, and filed their own motion to deny class certification, asserting the appellate court's prior opinion and contending that the proposed class members were still subject to arbitration pursuant to arbitration agreements in their standard form contracts and a major issue in the case would be whether defendants could compel them to arbitrate. Defendants argued, among other things, that the class should not be certified because plaintiffs' claims were not typical of the class claims; the proposed class members were subject to arbitration agreements that required them to separately arbitrate disputes with defendants, but the named plaintiffs were not. Accordingly, the trial court denied certification of the proposed class, concluding that plaintiffs did not share a well-defined community of interest in questions of law and fact with the proposed class members. On appeal, the Appellate Court affirmed the trial court's denial of class certification and ruled that plaintiffs cannot effectively represent any of the class members who must arbitrate their claims, if plaintiffs' claims are being adjudicated in a different forum. Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden of demonstrating that substantial evidence does not support the trial court's decision. A copy of the Opinion dated October 23, 2014, is available at bit.ly/10a9AUV from Leagle.com. Rosner, Barry & Babbitt's Hallen D. Rosner, Christopher P. Barry and Lacee B. Smith argue for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Callahan, Thompson, Sherman & Caudill's Robert W. Thompson and Charles S. Russell argue for Defendants and Respondents. BBVA COMPASS: Defending Against "Deaver" Class Action in Calif. --------------------------------------------------------------- BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 13, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Company was named in November 2012 as a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda, Cheryl Deaver, on behalf of herself and others so situated v. Compass Bank, wherein the plaintiff alleges the Company failed to provide lawful meal periods or wages in lieu thereof, full compensation for hours worked, or timely wages due at termination (the plaintiff had previously filed a similar lawsuit in May 2011 which was dismissed without prejudice when the plaintiff failed to meet certain filing deadlines). The plaintiff further alleges that the Company did not comply with wage statement requirements. The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary relief. The Company believes there are substantial defenses to these claims and intends to defend them vigorously. BERRY PETROLEUM: Settlement Fund Distribution Begins ---------------------------------------------------- Berry Petroleum Company, LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Company is a defendant in a certain statewide royalty class action case in which the parties have entered into a settlement agreement to settle past claims for approximately $2.4 million. Subject to approval of the settlement agreement by the court, the Company anticipates distribution of settlement funds to begin in the fourth quarter of 2014. BRE SELECT: To Pay 20% of Apple REIT Class Suit Fees & Expenses --------------------------------------------------------------- BRE Select Hotels Corp., as successor to Apple Six, will pay 20%, and the other parties to the litigation cost sharing agreement will pay 80%, of the fees and expenses of specified counsel or any other counsel, consultant or service provider jointly retained in connection with the Apple REIT class action litigation, incurred after November 29, 2012 in connection with the Apple REIT class action litigation, BRE Select said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014. On December 13, 2011, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (the "District Court") ordered that three putative class actions, Kronberg, et al. v. David Lerner Associates, Inc., et al., Kowalski v. Apple REIT Ten, Inc., et al., and Leff v. Apple REIT Ten, Inc., et al., be consolidated and amended the caption of the consolidated matter to be In re Apple REITs Litigation. The District Court also appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel for the consolidated action and ordered lead plaintiffs to file and serve a consolidated complaint by February 17, 2012. Apple Six was previously named as a party in the Kronberg, et al. v. David Lerner Associates, Inc. et al. class action lawsuit, which was filed on June 20, 2011. On February 17, 2012, lead plaintiffs and lead counsel in the In re Apple REITs Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:11-cv-02919-KAM-JO, filed an amended consolidated complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York against Apple Six, Apple Suites Realty Group, Inc., Apple Eight Advisors, Inc., Apple Nine Advisors, Inc., Apple Ten Advisors, Inc., Apple Fund Management, LLC, Apple REIT Seven, Inc., Apple REIT Eight, Inc., Apple REIT Nine, Inc. and Apple REIT Ten, Inc., their directors and certain officers, and David Lerner Associates, Inc. ("David Lerner Associates") and David Lerner. Apple REIT Seven, Inc., Apple REIT Eight, Inc., Apple REIT Nine, Inc. and Apple REIT Ten, Inc. are collectively referred to as "other Apple REIT companies." The consolidated complaint, purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers of units in Apple Six and the other Apple REIT companies, or those who otherwise acquired these units that were offered and sold to them by David Lerner Associates or its affiliates and on behalf of subclasses of shareholders in New Jersey, New York, Connecticut and Florida, asserts claims under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. The consolidated complaint also asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, and unjust enrichment, and claims for violation of the securities laws of Connecticut and Florida. The complaint seeks, among other things, certification of a putative nationwide class and the state subclasses, damages, rescission of share purchases and other costs and expenses. On February 16, 2012, one shareholder of Apple Six and Apple REIT Seven, Inc., filed a putative class action lawsuit captioned Laurie Brody v. David Lerner Associates, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:12-cv-782-ERK-RER, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York against Apple Six, Apple REIT Seven, Inc., Glade M. Knight, Apple Suites Realty Group, Inc., David Lerner Associates, and certain executives of David Lerner Associates. The complaint, purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers of units of Apple Six and Apple REIT Seven, Inc., or those who otherwise acquired these units, asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, negligence, breach of written or implied contract (against the David Lerner Associates defendants only), and for violation of New Jersey's state securities laws. On March 13, 2012, by order of the court, Laurie Brody v. David Lerner Associates, Inc., et al. was consolidated into the In re Apple REITs Litigation. On April 18, 2012, Apple Six and the other Apple REIT companies served a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint in the In re Apple REITs Litigation. Apple Six and the other Apple REIT companies accompanied their motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint with a memorandum of law in support of their motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. On April 3, 2013, the motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint in the In re Apple REITs Litigation was granted in full with prejudice. On April 12, 2013, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in the Apple REIT class action litigation, appealing the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On July 26, 2013, plaintiffs filed a brief in support of their appeal. On October 25, 2013, defendants filed a brief opposing plaintiffs' appeal. On November 15, 2013, plaintiffs filed a reply brief in further support of their appeal. Oral argument on plaintiffs' appeal was held on March 31, 2014. On April 23, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (the "Second Circuit") entered a summary order in the In re Apple REITs Litigation. In the summary order, the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal by the District Court of the federal securities claims and state securities law claims and affirmed the dismissal of the unjust enrichment claim. However, the Second Circuit vacated the District Court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' state law breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty, and negligence claims and remanded for further proceedings. After remand, on June 6, 2014, defendants filed a brief in support of their motion to dismiss. On July 9, 2014, plaintiffs filed an opposition brief. Defendants' reply brief was filed on August 8, 2014. The Company believes that any claims against it are without merit, and it intends to continue to defend against them vigorously. At this time, the Company cannot reasonably predict the outcome of this proceeding or provide a reasonable estimate of the possible loss or range of loss due to this proceeding. CANADA: Faces Class Action Over EI Sickness Benefits ---------------------------------------------------- Laurie Monsebraaten, writing for Toronto Star, reports that Ottawa has quietly paid EI sickness benefits to some women who fell ill during maternity leave while continuing to fight a multi-million- dollar class action lawsuit against others, the Star has learned. Roughly 350 women who launched appeals in 2012 and 2013 have been paid, according to government documents filed in the class action certification to be heard in federal court beginning Dec. 16. Calgary mother Carissa Kasbohm, 30, who developed a serious blood illness while on maternity leave in 2010, wonders why the government has paid some women and not her. "It makes me upset," said Ms. Kasbohm, who figures she is owed about $4,100. "It's good that they are getting the money that they deserve, but it makes me wonder why I am not entitled to it. Why am I still getting messed around? Why haven't I got paid yet?" Liberal Party social development critic Roger Cuzner says the revelation raises serious questions about why the government continues to fight the class action suit. "Instead of paying sick moms, our tax dollars are paying lawyers," said Mr. Cuzner (Cape Breton-Canso). "It's appalling that this government continues to fight parents, to deny them benefits, when they know they've had a legitimate right to receive these benefits since 2002," he said. A spokesperson for Employment and Social Development Canada said the government could not comment on the case as it is before the courts. Ms. Kasbohm is one of as many as 60,000 mothers whose EI sickness benefits have been denied since 2002 and who stand to benefit in the class action suit launched in January 2012. The EI legislation was changed in 2002 to extend the benefit to working women who become ill during pregnancy or while on maternity and parental leave. The amendment allows parents to stack sickness benefits onto maternity/parental benefits. If a parent (usually a woman) becomes sick while on maternity or parental leave, she can apply for a maximum of 15 weeks of sickness benefits. Once those benefits are paid, the maternity or parental leave resumes. While the government paid sickness benefits to women who were pregnant, EI officials said none of the mothers who became ill while on maternity and parental leave were eligible because of a "catch-22" clause in the law that required them to be "otherwise available for work." Technically, mothers on maternity leave are caring for their babies and not available for work, so their sickness claims were denied. But in 2011, Toronto mother Natalya Rougas appealed and won in a ruling that advised the government to either order EI staff to ignore the offending clause or rewrite the legislation. In November 2012, the Conservatives introduced the Helping Families in Need Act that removed the clause. But the government continued to fight cancer survivor Jane Kittmer of Stratford who won a second ruling in support of the 2002 law the following month. The Conservatives' new law took effect in March 2013. But as the Star reported, they continued to fight Ms. Kittmer. During a grilling in the House of Commons, Prime Minister Stephen Harper assured Canadians that "the government is exploring ways that this matter can be addressed and resolved." Ms. Kittmer eventually got her money. And so did many others, according to the court documents. But the class action continues. Lawyer Stephen Moreau, who is handling the case, says the women who have not been paid are just as worthy. CATALYST PHARMACEUTICAL: Reached $3.5MM Settlement in Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Catalyst Pharmaceutical Partners, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 13, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Company reached a settlement of $3,500,000 in the Securities Class Action Lawsuit. In October 2013 and November 2013, three securities class action lawsuits were filed against the Company and certain of its executive officers and directors seeking unspecified damages in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (the Court). These complaints, which were substantially identical, purported to state a claim for violation of federal securities laws on behalf of a class of those who purchased the Company's common stock between October 31, 2012 and October 18, 2013. Two of the cases were voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs and the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss on the third case on January 3, 2014. However, the Court granted leave to the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint within 20 days. On January 23, 2014, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint against the Company and one of its executive officers seeking unspecified damages. The amended complaint purports to state a claim for alleged misrepresentations regarding the development of Firdapse(TM) on behalf of a class of those who purchased shares of the Company's common stock between August 27, 2013 and October 18, 2013. In February 2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which was granted in part and denied in part by the Court. Subsequently, on September 29, 2014, the Court certified a class consisting of all persons or entities that purchased shares of the Company's common stock during the period from August 27, 2013, through October 18, 2013 (the Class Period), and who did not sell such securities prior to October 18, 2013 (excluding: defendants; any entities affiliated with the Company, the present and former officers and directors of the Company or any subsidiary or affiliate thereof; members of such excluded persons' immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns; and any entity in which any excluded person has or had a controlling interest). Following a mediation in mid-October conducted by an independent mediator, the Company entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the lead plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit to settle the lawsuit. The settlement is subject to the execution of a formal stipulation of settlement between the parties to the lawsuit and approval of the settlement by the Court. The Court has ordered that the formal stipulation of settlement be filed with the Court on or before November 21, 2014. Under the MOU, the Company will pay $3.5 million in return for a dismissal and release of all claims against the defendants. The settlement amount is expected to be paid by the Company's insurance carrier. Under the proposed settlement, the defendants, and various of their related persons and entities, will receive a full release of all claims that were or could have been brought in the action, as well as all claims that arise out of, are based upon, or relate to the allegations, transactions, facts, representations, omissions or other matters involved in the action related in any way to the purchase or acquisition of the Company's securities by class members during the class period. The proposed settlement contains no admission of any liability or wrongdoing on the part of the defendants, each of whom continues to deny all of the allegations against each of them and believes that the claims are without merit. Because the full amount of the proposed settlement payment is expected to be paid by the Company's insurance carrier, the settlement is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position or results of operations. There can be no assurance that the settlement will be formally documented and approved by the Court. CEC ENTERTAINMENT: No Formal Discovery Yet in "Ford" Litigation --------------------------------------------------------------- CEC Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the parties have exchanged initial disclosures but no other formal discovery in the Ford Litigation. On January 27, 2014, a purported class action lawsuit against the Company, entitled Franchesca Ford v. CEC Entertainment, Inc. d/b/a Chuck E. Cheese's (the "Ford Litigation"), was filed in San Francisco County Superior Court, California, Cause Number CGC 14- 536992. The Company received service of process on February 26, 2014. The Ford Litigation was filed by Franchesca Ford, a former store employee, claiming to represent other similarly situated hourly non-exempt employees and former employees of the Company in California from January 27, 2010 to the present. The lawsuit alleges violations of the state wage and hour laws involving unpaid vacation wages, meal and rest periods, wages due upon termination and waiting time penalties. The plaintiff seeks an unspecified amount in damages. On March 27, 2014, the Company removed the Ford Litigation to the U.S. District Court Northern District of California San Francisco Division, Cause Number 3:14-cv-01420-MEJ. On April 25, 2014, the plaintiff petitioned the court to remand the Ford Litigation to California state court and on July 10, 2014, the motion to remand was denied. The case thus will proceed in federal court. The parties have exchanged initial disclosures but no other formal discovery. The Company's investigation is on-going. "We believe the Company has meritorious defenses to this lawsuit and intends to vigorously defend against it, including the Ford Litigation plaintiff's efforts to certify a California class action," the Company said. CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Parties Reached Settlement in FCRA Litigation ---------------------------------------------------------------- CEC Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the parties reached a settlement in principle at the September 23rd session of the Continued Early Neutral Evaluation Conference to settle the FCRA litigation on a class-wide basis. On March 24, 2014, a purported class action lawsuit against the Company, entitled Franchesca Ford and Isabel Rodriguez v. CEC Entertainment, Inc. d/b/a Chuck E. Cheese's (the "FCRA Litigation"), was filed in U.S. District Court Southern District, California, Case Number 3:14-cv-00677-JLS-JLB. The Company received service of process on March 31, 2014. The FCRA Litigation was filed by Franchesca Ford and Isabel Rodriguez claiming to represent other similarly situated applicants who were subject to pre-employment background checks with the Company across the United States and in California from March 24, 2012 to the present. The lawsuit alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the California Consumer Credit Reporting and Investigative Reporting Agencies Act. On May 21, 2014, the Company filed an answer to the complaint. The Court conducted an Early Neutral Evaluation Conference in the case on June 30, 2014, and a Continued Early Neutral Evaluation Conference on August 13, 2014 and September 23, 2014. The parties reached a settlement in principle at the September 23rd session of the Continued Early Neutral Evaluation Conference to settle the action on a class-wide basis. The settlement would result in the dismissal of all claims asserted in the action, along with certain related claims and releases in exchange for a maximum settlement payment of $1,750,000, a substantial portion of which would be covered by the Company's insurance carrier. CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Suit Says Restaurant Managers Misclassified -------------------------------------------------------------- CEC Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that in October 2014, the Company was served with a complaint alleging misclassification of certain restaurant managers as exempt employees under federal and New York law. The Company is considering its response. It is too early in the litigation to determine what, if any, potential liability may exist. CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Provides Update on Queso Merger Litigation ------------------------------------------------------------- CEC Entertainment, Inc., in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, provided updates on litigation related to the agreement and plan of merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Queso Holdings Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Parent"), and Q Merger Sub Inc., a Kansas corporation ("Merger Sub"). Parent and Merger Sub were controlled by Apollo Global Management, LLC ("Apollo") and its subsidiaries. Following the January 16, 2014 announcement that the Company had entered into the Merger Agreement, four putative shareholder class actions were filed on behalf of purported stockholders of the Company against the Company, its directors, Apollo, Parent and Merger Sub in connection with the Merger Agreement and the transactions contemplated thereby in the District Court of Shawnee County, Kansas. The first purported class action, which is captioned Hilary Coyne v. Richard M. Frank et al., Case No. 14C57, was filed on January 21, 2014 (the "Coyne Action"). The second purported class action, which is captioned John Solak v. CEC Entertainment, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 14C55, was filed on January 22, 2014 (the "Solak Action"). The third purported class action, which is captioned Irene Dixon v. CEC Entertainment, Inc. et al., Case No. 14C81, was filed on January 24, 2014 and additionally names as defendants Apollo Management VIII, L.P. and the AP VIII Queso Holdings, L.P. (the "Dixon Action"). The fourth purported class action, which is captioned Louisiana Municipal Public Employees' Retirement System v. Frank, et al., Case No. 14C97, was filed on January 31, 2014 and additionally names as defendants, Apollo Managemnet VIII, L.P. and AP VIII Queso Holdings, L.P. (the "LMPERS Action") (together with the Coyne, Solak, and Dixon Actions, the "Shareholder Actions"). Each of the Shareholder Actions alleges that the Company's directors breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's stockholders in connection with their consideration and approval of the Merger Agreement by, among other things, agreeing to an inadequate tender price, the adoption on January 15, 2014 of the Rights Agreement, and certain provisions in the Merger Agreement that allegedly made it less likely that the Board would be able to consider alternative acquisition proposals. The Coyne, Dixon and LMPERS Actions further allege that the Board was advised by a conflicted financial advisor. The Solak, Dixon and LMPERS Actions further allege that the Board was subject to material conflicts of interest in approving the Merger Agreement and that the Board breached its fiduciary duties in allowing allegedly conflicted members of management to negotiate the transaction. The Dixon and LMPERS Actions further allege that the Board breached their fiduciary duties in approving the Solicitation/Recommendation Statement on Schedule 14D-9 (together with the exhibits and annexes thereto, as it may be amended or supplemented, the "Statement") filed with the SEC on January 22, 2014, which allegedly contained material misrepresentations and omissions. Each of the Shareholder Actions allege that Apollo aided and abetted the Board's breaches of fiduciary duties. The Solak and Dixon Actions allege that CEC also aided and abetted such breaches, and the Solak and LMPERS Actions further allege that Parent and the Merger Sub aided and abetted such actions. The LMPERS Action further alleges that Apollo Management VIII, L.P. and AP VIII Queso Holdings, L.P. aided and abetted such actions. The Shareholder Actions seek, among other things, rescission of these transactions, damages, attorneys' and experts' fees and costs and other relief that the court may deem just and proper. On January 24, 2014, the plaintiff in the Coyne Action filed an amended complaint (the "Coyne Amended Complaint"); furthermore, on January 30, 2014, the plaintiff in the Solak Action filed an amended complaint (the "Solak Amended Complaint") (together, the "Amended Complaints"). The Amended Complaints incorporate all of the allegations in the original complaints and add allegations that the Board approved the Statement which omitted certain material information in violation of their fiduciary duties. The Amended Complaints further request an order directing the Board to disclose such allegedly omitted material information. Additionally, the Solak Amended Complaint adds allegations that the Board breached its fiduciary duties in allowing an allegedly conflicted financial advisor and management to lead the sales process. On January 28, 2014, the plaintiffs in the Coyne and Dixon Actions jointly filed a motion in each action for a temporary restraining order, expedited discovery, and the scheduling of a hearing for the plaintiffs' anticipated motion for temporary injunction seeking expedited discovery and a hearing date in anticipation of a motion for a temporary injunction. CEC Entertainment, Inc. and the individual defendants filed responses to those motions on January 31, 2014. On February 6, 2014, the plaintiff in the LMPERS Action filed a motion to join the January 28 motion, and the plaintiff in the Solak Action filed a motion for expedited proceedings in anticipation of a motion for a temporary injunction. On February 7, 2014 and February 11, 2014, the plaintiffs in the four actions pending in Kansas withdrew their respective motions and determined to pursue a consolidated action for damages after the Tender Offer closed. On March 7, 2014, the Coyne, Solak, Dixon and LMPERS Actions were consolidated under the caption In re CEC Entertainment, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, Case No. 14C57. Thereafter, the parties engaged in limited discovery. By stipulation of the parties, the Company has no obligation to answer, move, or otherwise respond to the complaints filed in the Coyne, Solak, Dixon or LMPERS Actions until after the plaintiffs serve a consolidated amended complaint, or designate an operative complaint or amended complaint. A fifth purported class action, which was captioned McCullough v Frank, et al. Case No. CC-14-00622-B, was filed in the County Court of Dallas County, Texas on February 7, 2014 (the "McCullough Action"). On May 21, 2014, the County Court of Dallas County, Texas dismissed the McCullough Action for want of prosecution. On June 10, 2014, Magnetar Global Event Driven Fund Ltd., Spectrum Opportunities Master Fund, Ltd., Magnetar Capital Master Fund, Ltd., and Blackwell Partners LLC, as the purported beneficial owners of shares held as of record by the nominal petitioner Cede & Co., (the "Appraisal Petitioners"), filed an action for statutory appraisal under Kansas state law against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, captioned Magnetar Global Event Driven Master Fund Ltd, et al. v. CEC Entertainment, Inc., 2:14-cv-02279-RDR-KGS. The Appraisal Petitioners seek appraisal of 750,000 shares of common stock. The Company has answered the complaint and filed a verified list of stockholders, as required under Kansas law. On September 3, 2014, the court entered a scheduling order that contemplates that discovery will commence in the fall of 2014 and will substantially be completed by May 2015. Following discovery, the scheduling order contemplates dispositive motion practice followed, pottentially, by a trial on the merits of the Appraisal Petitioners' claims thereafter. We are currently in settlement negotiations with the Appraisal Petitioners, but no settlement has been reached. The Company has accrued for all probable and reasonably estimable losses associated with this claim. "The Company believes these lawsuits are without merit and intends to defend them vigorously; however, we are presently unable to predict the ultimate outcome of this litigation," the Company said. CHINA XD: Faces Two Putative Securities Class Action Lawsuits ------------------------------------------------------------- China XD Plastics Company Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 13, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Company and certain of its officers were named as defendants in two putative securities class action lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. These actions, which allege violations of the United States securities laws, were filed on July 15, 2014 and July 16, 2014 and are captioned Yang v. Han, et al., No. 14-cv-5308 (GBD) and Tompkins v. China XD Plastics Company Ltd., et al., No. 14-cv-5359 (GBD), respectively. The plaintiffs in both actions seek to represent a class of all persons, other than defendants and their affiliates, who purchased the common stock of China XD Plastics Company Limited between August 12, 2009 and July 10, 2014, inclusive. The plaintiffs assert claims for violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. Specifically, the plaintiffs allege the defendants made false or misleading statements and/or omitted material facts in the Company's Form 10-Q for the third quarter ended September 30, 2009 and the Company's Form 10-K for the years ended December 31, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013. The plaintiffs also assert claims under Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the individual defendants as persons who allegedly controlled the Company during the time the allegedly false and misleading statements and omissions were made. The complaints seek damages in unspecified amounts. "Based on our initial review of the complaints, the management believes the lawsuits are without merit and intend to vigorously defend against them," the Company said. COMPASS GROUP: Court Reduces Atty Fee Award in "Terrero" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Jesse M. Furman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, in a memorandum opinion and order dated Dec. 8, 2014, approved a settlement entered into in the class action filed by Cesar Terrero against Compass Group USA, Inc., but found the proposed award of attorney's fees to be excessive in light of the factors set out in Goldberger v. Integrated Resources, Inc., 209 F.3d 43, 50 (2d Cir. 2000). Judge Furman pointed out that the size of the requested fee in relation to the total settlement -- 50% -- is especially too high. Accordingly, the Court reduces the fee award to 30% of the settlement, or $3,000. Moreover, the Court finds that there is no basis to keep the settlement confidential in light of the common law right of access to judicial contents. The case is CESAR TERRERO, Plaintiff, v. COMPASS GROUP USA, INC., Defendant, NO. 14CV08129 (JMF)(S.D.N.Y.). A full-text copy of Judge Furman's Decision is available at http://is.gd/vr24hCfrom Leagle.com. Cesar Terrero, Plaintiff, represented by Jodi Jill Jaffe, Jaffe Glenn Law Group, P.A.. Compass Group USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Craig R. Benson, Esq. -- cbenson@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C. & Sarah Elyse Moss, Esq. -- smoss@littler.com -- at Littler Mendelson, P.C.. CREDIT ONE: Class Suit Seeks Redress From Violations of TCPA ------------------------------------------------------------ A.D., by and through her guardian ad litem Judith Serrano, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Credit One Bank, N.A., Case No. 1:14-cv-10106 (N.D. Ill., December 16, 2014) seeks redress for the Defendant's alleged business practices that violate the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991. A.D. is a minor, age 15 at the time of filing, and is a resident of San Diego, California. The Plaintiff is the regular and exclusive user of a cellular telephone with service registered in the name of her parent. Credit One Bank, N.A. is a national bank and an issuer of consumer revolving debt. The Defendant is organized under the National Banking Act, has its principal place of business in Nevada, and does business in every state, including Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Ankcorn, Esq. ANKCORN LAW FIRM, PC 11622 El Camino Real, Suite 100 San Diego, CA 92130 Telephone: (619) 870-0600 Facsimile: (619) 684-3541 E-mail: mark@ankcorn.com - and - Roberto Robledo, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROBERTO ROBLEDO 9845 Erma Road, Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92131 Telephone: (619) 500-6683 Facsimile: (619) 810-2980 E-mail: roberto@robertorobledo.com DUNE MANAGEMENT: Property Managers Sue Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Erin Costello, on her own behalf, and on behalf of those similarly situated v. Dune Management Company, Inc. d/b/a Dune Resorts, James Zaborski, John Does #1-100, Case No. 2:14-cv-07307-JS-ARL (E.D.N.Y., December 16, 2014) is brought on behalf of similarly situated property managers of the Defendants' various hotel and resort locations. Ms. Costello alleges that she and the members of the proposed class were denied overtime compensation as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act. Based in East Hampton, New York, Dune Management Company is a resort group that operates under the trade name Dune Resorts. James Zaborski is the owner and chief executive officer of the Company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Eli Zev Freedberg, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ELI FREEDBERG, P.C. 11 Broadway, Suite 615 New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (347) 651-0044 Facsimile: (212) 214-0799 E-mail: efreedberg@ezf-law.com EILAT ASHKELON: Faces Class Action Over Arava Desert Oil Spill -------------------------------------------------------------- Tova Dvorin, writing for Arutz Sheva, reports that an Eilat resident filed a class action suit in the Tel Aviv District Court on Dec. 7, on behalf of all the residents of Eilat against the Eilat Ashkelon Pipeline Company (EAPC) for oil spill in the Arava desert. The class action suit, amounting to 380 million shekel ($95.4 million), was brought by Eilat resident Lisa Mellish, via attorney David Mena. The suit accuses EPAC of negligence and ecological damage, and calls for 200 million shekel ($50.2 million) to be repaid for rehabilitation of the Arava region -- in line with regulations by the Ministry for Environmental Protection and the National Park Organization -- and another 180 million shekel ($45.2 million) to be paid to the residents of Eilat, over health risks and inconveniences caused by the disaster. The massive pipeline oil spill in the Arava desert, near Be'er Ora 20 kilometers (12 miles) north of Eilat in the southern Negev, involved the spill of over 1,000 cubic meters -- the equivalent of 40 tanker trucks -- of oil. It was described as an "environmental disaster" by environmental activists. The spill not only closed Route 90, but also proved to introduce a number of health risks. "Dozens of people were evacuated from their homes at night following the huge oil spill, and were damaged by breathing contaminated air and affected by the strong oil smell," the class action suit claims. "The people suffered respiratory distress and vomiting, and some remain injured days after the fact." The suit also notes that residents were kept from engaging in physical activity from the fumes, and that all residents with chronic diseases were forced to stay indoors for long stretches. "The smell was evident and created air pollution which made it difficult to breathe, causing vomiting and headaches," it continues, noting that Eilat's air pollution has risen since to 80% contaminated -- well above the under-30% average. It was also stated in the complaint that "the Ministry of the Environment has recommended that Eilat Municipality cancel the triathlon competition planned for Friday in the affected areas of the leak, due to health concerns during the competition." Attorney David Mena spoke about the case to Walla! News. "If EAPC thinks it can lurk behind the privileges it enjoys, then it's wrong," Mena stated. "In such cases there is no confidentiality order over its failures." Mr. Mena's remarks over confidentiality refer to EAPC's legal confidentiality agreement since 1968; for over 40 years, it has not been required to maintain transparency over its actions in general. Walla! also noted that EAPC had made contacts in Iran shortly after the confidentiality agreement was forged, as Israel and Iran had a working diplomatic relationship at the time. "EAPC will pay a heavy price for all its shortcomings because it was not the first time it was responsible for pipeline failures and oil spills," Mr. Mena added. "Three years ago there was a similar case in Nahal Zin but luckily the area is uninhabited. This failure repeated itself and EAPC hasn't learned from the experience." EAPC responded by evading accusations of foul play or negligence. "As part of construction of the Timna airport, EAPC was asked to perform a routine redirection of segment 42 of the pipeline from Eilat to Ashkelon, around the area in which the airport is supposed to be," it stated. "Due to what appears to be a technical problem for reasons yet unclear, a leak occurred on the line." "When the event was made evident, the leakage control department of the company warned workers to immediately close the valves in that section of the pipeline," it continued. "The valves were closed and isolated that section of the leak [. . .] following the closing of the valves, the flow stopped, but some of the fuel was trapped between the valve and the affected area." "In view of the rapid reaction of employees and the leakage control section, which was equipped with all the technology to prevent a large-scale event, the company reported the leak to all relevant authorities as required in real-time and worked on the emergency procedures flawlessly." It was also reported that "the company invests heavily in preventive maintenance which includes repair of lines in accordance with the highest international standards. In addition, the company invests heavily in equipping the most advanced systems in the world in terms of operation and maintenance of the lines." "The company manages an emergency system equipped with the best technological means and has trained response teams for providing professional and quick response to emergencies." According to the EAPC, "since the spill, the company operates around the clock in coordination with the Ministry of Environment officials and representatives of the National Parks Authority, to pump leakage and remove the contaminated soil. The pumping operation has removed most of the leakage." "According to regulations of the Ministry of Environmental Protection and National Parks Authority, company operations have removed enough oil to return the area to stats quo," it continued. "EAPC is a gateway to the energy of the state of Israel, and operates hundreds of miles of lines used by the energy sector and provides the most distillates in Israel refineries and other factors and activities essential for the functioning of the economy and it has worked reliably and efficiently for decades." EOG RESOURCES: Royalty Owners Allowed to Amend Complaint -------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Julie A. Robinson granted the Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend Complaint and Intervenor's Motion to Intervene in ROCO, INC., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. EOG RESOURCES, INC., Defendants, CASE NO. 14-1065- JAR-KMH (D. Kan.). Plaintiff Roco filed a suit in the District Court of Seward County, County, Kansas alleging claims on behalf of itself and all other similarly situated royalty owners of Defendant-operated gas wells in Kansas. Roco is a Kansas corporation and has a royalty interest in one EOG-producing well in Kansas. Plaintiff sought leave to amend its petition to add a new putative subclass of royalty owners in EOG wells in Oklahoma. The Second Amended Complaint alleges that Defendant underpaid Kansas and Oklahoma royalty owners of EOG-operated gas wells. Defendant opposed the motion on grounds of undue delay, bad faith, and prejudice and filed its own motion for partial judgment on the pleadings arguing that Roco lacks standing to assert claims on behalf of royalty owners located in Oklahoma because it is not a resident of Oklahoma. Sonya Smith, a royalty owner of EOG-owned wells in Oklahoma seeks to intervene in this suit. Also, Roco seeks leave to amend in order to add Smith as a Plaintiff. Roco argues that intervention and amendment render moot any standing challenge. In his Memorandum and Order, Judge Robinson ruled that the Court finds no undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive in Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend. In addition, the Court finds no prejudice or bad faith in allowing intervention of the proceedings and further finds that the proposed intervenor has standing to assert the Oklahoma claims. In granting such motion, the Court finds that the Kansas and Oklahoma claims share a common nucleus of operative facts and law. A copy of the Memorandum and Order dated October 24, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/GewHRofrom Leagle.com. END ZONE BAR: Fails to Pay Minimum and Overtime Wages, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Peace Mano v. Marsha A. Rolfe, a sole proprietor, d/b/a End Zone Bar and Grill; and Does 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 2:14-cv- 02919-GEB-CMK (E.D. Cal., December 16, 2014) accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act by, among other things, failing to pay overtime, to pay minimum wages and to provide meal and rest periods. Marsha A. Rolfe is a sole proprietor of an entity doing business as End Zone Bar and Grill -- a popular and busy restaurant that draws big crowds for a diverse selection of sports as well as large events, including the Wing, Rib, and Chili cook-offs. The Doe Defendants are affiliates, subsidiaries and related entities and the alter egos of the Defendants. The Plaintiff is represented by: Galen T. Shimoda, Esq. Justin P. Rodriguez, Esq. SHIMODA LAW CORP. 9401 East Stockton Boulevard, Suite 200 Elk Grove, CA 95624 Telephone: (916) 525-0716 Facsimile: (916) 760-3733 E-mail: attorney@shimodalaw.com jrodriguez@shimodalaw.com END ZONE BAR: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT and Minimum Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Peace Mano v. Marsha A. Rolfe, a sole proprietor, d/b/a End Zone Bar and Grill; and Does 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 2:14-at- 01591 (E.D. Cal., December 16, 2014) asserts claims for unpaid overtime and minimum wages, penalties, and unfair competition pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Marsha A. Rolfe is a sole proprietor of an entity doing business as End Zone Bar and Grill -- a popular and busy restaurant that draws big crowds for a diverse selection of sports as well as large events, including the Wing, Rib, and Chili cook-offs. The Doe Defendants are affiliates, subsidiaries and related entities and the alter egos of the Defendants. The Plaintiff is represented by: Galen T. Shimoda, Esq. Justin P. Rodriguez, Esq. SHIMODA LAW CORP. 9401 East Stockton Boulevard, Suite 200 Elk Grove, CA 95624 Telephone: (916) 525-0716 Facsimile: (916) 760-3733 E-mail: attorney@shimodalaw.com jrodriguez@shimodalaw.com EPL OIL: Defendants' Date to File Answer Indefinitely Extended -------------------------------------------------------------- EPL Oil & Gas, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the defendants' date to answer, move to dismiss, or otherwise respond to the class action lawsuit has been indefinitely extended. The Company said, "In March and April, 2014, three alleged stockholders (the "Plaintiffs") filed three separate class action lawsuits in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware on behalf of our stockholders against our Company, our directors, Energy XXI, EGC, and Clyde Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of EGC ("Merger Sub" and collectively, the "defendants"). The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware consolidated these lawsuits on May 5, 2014. The consolidated lawsuit is styled In re EPL Oil & Gas Inc. Shareholders Litigation, C.A. No. 9460-VCN, in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "lawsuit")." "Plaintiffs allege a variety of causes of action challenging the Agreement and Plan of Merger between Energy XXI, EGC, Merger Sub, and EPL (the "Merger Agreement"), including that (a) our directors have allegedly breached fiduciary duties in connection with the Merger and (b) we along with Energy XXI, EGC, and Merger Sub, allegedly aided and abetted in these alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. Plaintiffs' causes of action are based on their allegations that (i) the Merger allegedly provided inadequate consideration to our stockholders for their shares of our common stock; (ii) the Merger Agreement contained contractual terms -- including, among others, the (A) "no solicitation," (B) "competing proposal," and (C) "termination fee" provisions -- that allegedly dissuaded other potential acquirers from making competing offers for shares of our common stock; (iii) certain of our officers and directors allegedly received benefits -- including (A) an offer for one of our directors to join the Energy XXI board of directors and (B) the triggering of change-in-control provisions in notes held by our executive officers -- that were not equally shared by our stockholders; (iv) Energy XXI required our officers and directors to agree to vote their shares of our common stock in favor of the Merger; and (v) we provided, and Energy XXI obtained, non-public information that allegedly allowed Energy XXI to acquire us for inadequate consideration. Plaintiffs also allege that the Registration Statement filed on Form S-4 by us and Energy XXI on April 1, 2014 omits information concerning, among other things, (i) the events leading up to the Merger, (ii) our efforts to attract offers from other potential acquirors, (iii) our evaluation of the Merger; (iv) negotiations between us and Energy XXI, and (v) the analysis of our financial advisor. Based on these allegations, plaintiffs seek to have the Merger Agreement rescinded. Plaintiffs also seek damages and attorneys' fees. "Defendants date to answer, move to dismiss, or otherwise respond to the lawsuit has been indefinitely extended. We cannot predict the outcome of the lawsuit or any others that might be filed subsequent to the date of the filing of this Quarterly Report; nor can we predict the amount of time and expense that will be required to resolve the lawsuit. The defendants intend to vigorously defend the lawsuit." ENVISION HEALTHCARE: AMR Unit Faces Class Actions in California --------------------------------------------------------------- Envision Healthcare Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that four different putative class action lawsuits have been filed against AMR and certain subsidiaries in California alleging violations of California wage and hour laws. On April 16, 2008, Laura Bartoni commenced a suit in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Alameda; on July 8, 2008, Vaughn Banta filed suit in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles; on January 22, 2009, Laura Karapetian filed suit in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles: and on March 11, 2010, Melanie Aguilar filed suit in Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles. The Banta, Aguilar and Karapetian cases have been coordinated in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles, and the Aguilar and Karapetian cases have subsequently been consolidated into a single action. In these cases, the plaintiffs allege principally that the AMR entities failed to pay wages, including overtime wages, in compliance with California law, and failed to provide required meal breaks, rest breaks or pay premium compensation for missed breaks. The plaintiffs sought to certify classes on these claims and are seeking lost wages, various penalties, and attorneys' fees under California law. The Court has certified classes in the consolidated Karapetian /Aguilar case on claims alleging that AMR has not provided meal periods in compliance with the law as to dispatchers and call takers, that AMR has an unlawful time round policy, and that AMR has an unlawful practice of setting rates for those employees; the Court denied certification of the rest period claims of these employees. In Banta, the Court denied certification of the meal and rest period claims as to EMTs and paramedics, a decision that is being appealed; the Court indicated that it would certify a class on overtime claims, but plaintiff's counsel have indicated that they intend to dismiss that claim as AMR's policy complies with a recent Court of Appeal decision. In Bartoni, the Court denied certification on the meal and rest period claims, but certified a class on the overtime claims, as to which the Company intends to seek summary judgment. The Company is unable at this time to estimate the amount of potential damages, if any in any of these actions. EVERYWARE GLOBAL: Faces Securities Class Action in S.D. Ohio ------------------------------------------------------------ EveryWare Global, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 13, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Company was named on October 7, 2014, as a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit in a complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. The complaint alleges that the Company and certain of its current and former executive officers violated Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by issuing allegedly false or misleading statements concerning the Company. The plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory damages. "We intend to vigorously defend these claims," the Company said. EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Appeals From Judgment in "Dreher" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Experian Information Solutions, Incorporated, asks the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit for permission to appeal from a summary judgment order entered by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in the class action lawsuit initiated by Michael Dreher, et al. Experian presents two questions: (1) Does Congress's authorization of statutory damages confer Article III standing on the Plaintiffs and absent class members, who have suffered no injury-in-fact from the alleged statutory violation? (2) Under Safeco Insurance Co. v. Burr, 551 U.S. 47, 68 (2007), a violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act cannot be willful if it was not clearly established that the conduct at issue was contrary to what the FCRA requires. In making this "clearly established" determination, (a) does Safeco require a sole focus on the text of the operative provision, to the exclusion of other FCRA provisions, industry practice, statutory purpose, and informal regulatory guidance, and (b) does Safeco make willfulness a question for the court rather than a jury? The case is an approximately 106,000-member nationwide class action under the FCRA alleging that Experian willfully violated the FCRA's requirement that consumer disclosures identify the sources of the credit file information they contain. Experian allegedly violated this requirement with respect to credit card accounts opened with Advanta Bank, by listing those accounts under "Advanta" rather than using the name "CardWorks" or "CardWorks Servicing LLC" -- the formal corporate name of the credit card servicer that handled Advanta's accounts (and that dealt with customers under the Advanta name) after Advanta entered receivership. The class claims no actual damages; it seeks only statutory damages for an allegedly willful FCRA violation. The appellate case is Experian Information Solutions, Incorporated v. Michael Dreher, et al., Case No. 14-491, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The trial court case is Michael Dreher, et al. v. Experian Information Solutions, Incorporated, Case No. 3:11-CV-624 (JAG), in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Petitioner-Defendant Experian is represented by: Daniel J. McLoon, Esq. JONES DAY 555 S. Flower St. Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 489-3939 E-mail: djmcloon@jonesday.com - and - Joseph W. Clark, Esq. JONES DAY 51 Louisiana Ave. N.W. Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 879-3939 E-mail: jwclark@jonesday.com - and - Meir Feder, Esq. Ian Samuel, Esq. JONES DAY 222 E. 41st Street New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 326-7870 E-mail: mfeder@jonesday.com isamuel@jonesday.com Defendants CardWorks, Inc., and CardWorks Servicing LLC are represented by: John C. Lynch, Esq. Ethan G. Ostroff, Esq. TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP 222 Central Park Avenue, Suite 2000 Virginia Beach, VA 23462 Telephone: (757) 687-7765 Facsimile: (757) 687-1504 E-mail: john.lynch@troutmansanders.com ethan.ostroff@troutmansanders.com The Respondents are represented by: Leonard Anthony Bennett, Esq. Susan Mary Rotkis, Esq. CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C. 763 J. Clyde Morris Boulevard Newport News, VA 23601 Telephone: (757) 930-3660 Facsimile: (757) 930-3662 E-mail: lenbennett@clalegal.com srotkis@clalegal.com - and - Matthew James Erausquin, Esq. Casey S. Nash, Esq. CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C. 1800 Diagonal Road Alexandria, VA 22314 Telephone: (703) 273-7770 - and - Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq. Surovell Isaacs Petersen & Levy PLC 4010 University Dr., Suite 200 Fairfax, VA 22030 Telephone: (703) 251-5400 Facsimile: (703) 591-9285 E-mail: kkelly@siplfirm.com - and - Justin Michael Baxter, Esq. BAXTER & BAXTER LLP 8835 SW Canyon Lane Portland, OR 97225 Telephone: (503) 297-9031 - and - Andrew Joseph Guzzo, Esq. KELLY & CRANDALL PLC 4084 University Drive Fairfax, VA 22030 Telephone: (703) 424-7576 Facsimile: (703) 591-0167 E-mail: aguzzo@kellyandcrandall.com - and - Ian Lyngklip, Esq. CONSUMER LAW CENTER, PLC 24500 Northwestern Highway Southfield, MI 48075 Telephone: (248) 208-8864 FARMER'S INSURANCE: Calif. Appeals Court Revives "Dowling" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The California Appellate Court reversed the trial court's judgment dismissing Plaintiff's class action complaint in the case captioned RHONDA DOWLING, et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE, Defendant and Respondent, CASE No. B248946. Plaintiff Rhonda Dowling sued Farmers alleging a single count for violation of the unfair competition law based on a violation of Insurance Code section 1861.02. Plaintiff appeals a judgment of dismissal after the trial court granted Defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to bring the case to trial within five years. Plaintiffs argued in its opposition that the five-year period to bring the case to trial should be tolled based on several events. Farmers argued that plaintiffs had failed to diligently prosecute this action. The five-year deadline had passed, so plaintiffs could not obtain class certification and therefore the motion to dismiss the class action allegations of the complaint should be granted. In reversing the trial court's judgment, the Appellate Court cited the Code of Civil Procedure section 583.130 which states that in construing these provisions the policy favoring trial or other resolution on the merits is generally to be preferred over the policy requiring dismissal for failure to prosecute with reasonable diligence. Further, in computing the five year time period within which an action must be brought to trial pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 583.310, Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 583.340 excludes from the computation the time during which the jurisdiction of the Superior Court to try the action was suspended. Accordingly, the trial court erred in dismissing the action based on plaintiffs' failure to bring the case to trial by an earlier date. Hence, the judgment was reversed. A copy of the Decision dated October 23, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/G0KH0vfrom Leagle.com. GALARDI SOUTH ENTERPRISES: Dancers Win Conditional Certification ---------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman granted the Plaintiffs' motion to conditionally certify a Fair Labor Standard Act ("FLSA") class claim in JASZMANN ESPINOZA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GALARDI SOUTH ENTERPRISES, INC., et al., Defendants (CASE NO. 14-21244- CIVGOODMAN). Plaintiffs are dancers who are suing Defendants for minimum wage and overtime violations arising from their work at Defendant Fly Low, Inc. d/b/a King of Diamonds ("KOD"), a strip club. Plaintiffs allege claims under the FLSA and Florida law. Plaintiffs seek conditional certification of all persons employed as dancers at KOD in Miami, Florida. Further, Plaintiffs alleged that KOD's policy of classifying and paying dancers as independent contractors violated the FLSA and that they performed the same job duties and all were subjected to the same policies and procedure. Defendants opposed the motion and contended that no class should be conditionally certified. Defendants argued that dancers who have signed and filed consent forms do not represent that they were dancers at KOD or that they are similarly situated. Further, Defendants contended that they do not know the specific location of where the putative class members worked at KOD. Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Goodman granted Plaintiffs' motion to conditionally certify an FLSA claims class on the ground that there are other employees who (1) desire to opt into the action, and who (2) are "similarly situated" with regard to their job requirements and pay provisions. Judge Goodman based his ruling on the totality of the circumstances that Plaintiffs have met their low burden to show the existence of other similarly situated employees who would join a collective action. A copy of the Order dated October 23, 2014, is available at http://bit.ly/1wp0WdRfrom Leagle.com. Plantiffs Jaszmann Espinoza et al are represented by Harlan S. Miller, Parks, Chesin & Walbert, P.C. & Dana Mason Gallup, The Law Offices of Dana M. Gallup, P.A. Defendants Galardi South Enterprises, Inc., et al are represented by Dean R. Fuchs, Schulten, Ward & Turner, LLP, Susan Kastan Murphey, Schulten, Ward, & Turner, LLP, Wm. Scott Schulten, Schulten, Ward & Turner, LLP & Daniel Wayne Matlow -- dmatlow@danmatlow.com -- Daniel W. Matlow, P.A. GENVEC INC: Lead Plaintiffs Did Not Appeal "Shah" Case Dismissal ---------------------------------------------------------------- GenVec Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the lead plaintiffs in a clcass action did not file an appeal from the dismissal of the case captioned Satish Shah v. GenVec, Inc., et al. On February 3, 2012, a putative class action lawsuit captioned Satish Shah v. GenVec, Inc., et al. Civil Action. No. 8:12 CV- 00341-DKC was commenced in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland against the Company, Paul H. Fischer, Douglas J. Swirsky and Mark O. Thornton. Following appointment of a Lead Plaintiff group in April 2012, Lead Plaintiffs filed a pleading titled Amended Class Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws on July 6, 2012 (the Amended Complaint). In the Amended Complaint, Lead Plaintiffs asserted claims, purportedly on behalf of a class of persons who had purchased or acquired Company common stock between March 12, 2009 and March 30, 2010 (the Class Period), that the Company and the individual defendants had violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act), Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Lead Plaintiffs alleged generally that defendants had made materially false or misleading statements or omissions concerning the prospects for the Company's leading product candidate at the time, TNFerade, and the outcome of the then-ongoing clinical trial for TNFerade. Lead Plaintiffs alleged that these misrepresentations resulted in the Company's common stock trading at artificially inflated prices throughout the Class Period. Lead Plaintiffs sought unspecified damages. On September 4, 2012, the Company and the individual defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint in its entirety for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. On September 20, 2013, the Court granted this motion and dismissed the case in its entirety and with prejudice. Lead Plaintiffs did not file an appeal. GENVEC INC: To Defend Against "Garnitschnig" Action in Maryland --------------------------------------------------------------- GenVec Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Company disputes the allegations made in the Garnitschnig action and intends to vigorously defend the case. On March 12, 2012, a putative shareholder derivative action was commenced in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland against certain current and former members of our Board of Directors and the Company as a nominal defendant. The case is styled Garnitschnig v. Horovitz, et al. and generally arose out of the matters alleged to underlie the securities action. The plaintiff, who purported to bring the action derivatively on behalf of the Company, originally alleged that the defendants violated their fiduciary duties, wasted corporate assets and were unjustly enriched by the receipt of compensation while serving as our directors. Pursuant to the Court's order dated April 5, 2013, the Garnitschnig case was stayed pending a decision on the motions to dismiss filed in the Shah action. On October 2, 2013, the parties entered into a stipulation confirming that the stay of the Garnitschnig action was lifted and providing that, if the plaintiff elected to continue with the action, he would file an Amended Complaint on or before November 26, 2013. On November 1, 2013, the plaintiff in the Garnitschnig action filed an Amended Verified Shareholder Derivative and Class Action Complaint (the "Amended Complaint") that supersedes the previous Complaint and now asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, waste of corporate assets and alleged violations of the duty of candor. The plaintiff, who now purports to bring the Amended Complaint both derivatively and as a shareholder class action, alleges that certain current and former members of the Board of Directors exceeded their authority under the Company's 2011 Omnibus Incentive Plan (the "2011 Plan") by exceeding certain limits applicable to both stock options and restricted stock. The Amended Complaint further alleges that Company's Proxy Statement is materially false and misleading for failing to disclose the alleged violations of the 2011 Plan. The Amended Complaint seeks, among other things, an unspecified amount of damages. On November 1, 2013, the plaintiff in the Garnitschnig action also filed a motion for preliminary injunction seeking to postpone the Company's 2013 annual meeting unless and until certain disclosures were made to the Company's shareholders regarding the 2011 Plan. On November 20, 2013, the Court denied that motion in its entirety. Defendants then filed motions to dismiss the Amended Complaint on January 27, 2014. On September 5, 2014, the Court denied Defendants' motion to dismiss as to all claims except for the claim for corporate waste, holding that the Amended Complaint adequately alleges claims for breach of fiduciary duty and breach of the duty of candor against the current Board of Directors, and claims for unjust enrichment against certain current and former officer and directors. The Company disputes the allegations made in the Garnitschnig action and intends to vigorously defend the case. "We also are informed that the individual defendants deny the material allegations of these actions and intends to continue vigorously defending each case," the Company said. GENVEC INC: To Defend Against "Galitsis" Action in Maryland ----------------------------------------------------------- GenVec Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Company disputes the allegations made in the Galitsis action and intends to vigorously defend the case. On October 17, 2014, a second putative class and derivative action was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland styled Galitsis v. Swirsky, et. al., Case No. 14-cv-3265. The Galitsis Complaint contains the same allegations and asserts the same claims as those in the Garnitschnig Amended Complaint (except for the dismissed corporate waste claim). At the same time that the Galitsis action was filed, counsel for the plaintiff (who is also counsel for the plaintiff in the Garnitschnig action) advised the Court that, in order to address certain jurisdictional and standing issues, they anticipate they will voluntarily dismiss the Garnitschnig action and instead proceed with the Galitsis action. The Company disputes the allegations made in the Galitsis action and intends to vigorously defend the case. "We also are informed that the individual defendants deny the material allegations of these actions and intends to continue vigorously defending each case," the Company said. GERON CORPORATION: Response to Amended Complaint Due ---------------------------------------------------- Geron Corporation said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 13, 2014, that the Company's response to the consolidated amended class action complaint was due by November 18, 2014. The Company said, "On March 14, 2014, a purported securities class action lawsuit was commenced in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, or the California District Court, naming as defendants us and certain of our officers. The lawsuit alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with allegedly false and misleading statements made by us related to our Phase 2 trial of imetelstat in patients with ET or polycythemia vera, or PV. The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that we failed to disclose facts related to the occurrence of persistent low-grade LFT abnormalities observed in our Phase 2 trial of imetelstat in ET or PV patients and the potential risk of chronic liver injury following long-term exposure to imetelstat. The plaintiff seeks damages and an award of reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees." "On March 28, 2014, a second purported securities class action lawsuit was commenced in the California District Court, naming as defendants us and certain of our officers. This lawsuit, which is based on the same factual background as the purported securities class action lawsuit that commenced on March 14, 2014, also alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and seeks damages and an award of reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees. "On June 30, 2014, both of the foregoing lawsuits, or the Class Action Lawsuits, were consolidated for all purposes, and a lead plaintiff and lead counsel were appointed by the California District Court. On July 21, 2014, the California District Court ordered the lead plaintiff to file its consolidated amended complaint in the Class Action Lawsuits, which was filed on September 19, 2014. Our response to the consolidated amended complaint is due by November 18, 2014." GERON CORPORATION: To Seek Consolidation of Securities Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Geron Corporation said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 13, 2014, that the Company intends to seek to consolidate a securities lawsuit with the purported class action lawsuits filed in the California district court. The Company said, "On June 6, 2014, a purported securities lawsuit, not styled as a class action, was commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, or the Mississippi District Court, naming as defendants us and certain of our officers. This lawsuit, which is based on the same factual background as the Class Action Lawsuits, also alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and seeks damages and an award of reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees. On August 11, 2014, we filed a motion to transfer the purported securities lawsuit filed in the Mississippi District Court to the California District Court so it can be consolidated with the purported Class Action Lawsuits." "On November 4, 2014, the Mississippi District Court granted our motion and transferred the case to the California District Court, and we intend to seek to consolidate the transferred case with the purported Class Action Lawsuits filed in the California District Court." GREENBURGH-NORTH CASTLE: Accused of Discrimination & Retaliation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ivonne Reveron v. Greenburgh-North Castle Union Free School District, Case No. 1:14-cv-09905-RJS (S.D.N.Y., December 16, 2014) is a civil action based upon the Defendant's alleged violations of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 based on national origin and retaliation. Ms. Reveron, a resident of Nassau County, New York, is a Latina of Cuban heritage. She was a certified New York State Spanish teacher. Greenburgh-North Castle Union Free School District is charged by law with responsibility for the operation, management and control of the public education within the municipalities of Greenburgh and North Castle in New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Stewart Lee Karlin, Esq. STEWART LEE KARLIN, ATTORNEY-AT-LAW 9 Murray Street, Suite 4W New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 792-9670 Facsimile: (212) 732-4443 E-mail: slk@stewartkarlin.com HARMAN INT'L: D.C. App. Affirms Ruling in "Russell" Suit -------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, in an opinion dated Dec. 12, 2014, affirmed a lower court's decision in a class action complaint filed by a former employee of Harman International Industries, Inc. In his complaint, Patrick Russell alleges that the purchase deal between Harman and two investment firms fell through because agents of Harman made false and misleading statements to the investment firms. Mr. Russell contends that those statements constituted a breach of fiduciary duty in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The district court rendered a decision in May 2013, determining, among other things, that Mr. Russell had knowingly and voluntarily waived his ERISA rights by signing a severance agreement, and then entered summary judgment for Harman. The Circuit Court, in support of its decision, ruled that Mr. Russell was not prejudiced by his lack of discovery, noting that his failure to suggest any reason why his consent to the severance agreement was unknowing or involuntary convinces the court that discovery would be futile. The appeals case is PATRICK RUSSELL, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Appellant, v. HARMAN INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES, INC., ET AL., Appellees, NO. 137095 (D.C. App.). A full-text copy of the Decision penned by Circuit Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson is available at http://is.gd/fkILoRfrom Leagle.com. Thomas J. McKenna, pro hac vice, argued the cause for the appellant. Toyja E. Kelley and John B. Isbister were with him on brief. Sara Pikofsky argued the cause for the appellees. Evan Miller was with her on brief. Thomas F. Cullen, Jr. entered an appearance. HITACHI LTD: Supplement Briefing Sought on Sharp's Objections ------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Samuel Conti recently entered an order for Supplemental Briefing in IN RE CATHODE RAY TUBE ANTITRUST LITIGATION, CASE NO. C-07-5944 SC, MDL NO. 1917 (N.D. Calif.). The lawsuit alleges that Defendants and co-conspirators conspired to raise and fix the prices of Cathode Ray Tubes (CRTs) and the CRTs contained in certain finished products for over ten years, resulting in overcharges to direct purchasers of those CRTs and certain finished products containing CRTs. The complaint describes how the Defendants and co-conspirators allegedly violated the U.S. antitrust laws by establishing a global cartel that set artificially high prices for, and restricted the supply of, CRTs and the televisions and monitors that contained them. The Defendants include LG Electronics, Inc., LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., LG Electronics Taiwan Taipei Co., Ltd, Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V., Philips Electronics North America Corporation, Philips Electronics Industries (Taiwan), Ltd., Philips da Amazonia Industria Electronica Ltda., LP Displays International, Ltd. f/k/a LG.Philips Displays, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung SDI Co. Ltd., Samsung SDI America, Inc., Samsung SDI Mexico S.A. de C.V., Samsung SDI Brasil Ltda., Shenzhen Samsung SDI Co. Ltd., Tianjin Samsung SDI Co. Ltd., Samsung SDI Malaysia Sdn. Bhd., Toshiba Corporation, Toshiba America, Inc., Toshiba America Consumer Products, LLC., Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc., Toshiba America Electronics Components, Inc., Panasonic Corporation f/k/a Matsushita Electric Industrial, Ltd., Panasonic Corporation of North America, MT Picture Display Co., Ltd., Beijing-Matsushita Color CRT Company, Ltd. (BMCC), Hitachi, Ltd., Hitachi Displays, Ltd., Hitachi Electronic Devices (USA), Inc., Hitachi America, Ltd., Hitachi Asia, Ltd., Tatung Company of America, Inc., Chunghwa Picture Tubes Ltd., Chunghwa Picture Tubes (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd., IRICO Group Corporation, IRICO Display Devices Co., Ltd., IRICO Group Electronics Co., Ltd., Thai CRT Company, Ltd., Daewoo Electronics Corporation f/k/a Daewoo Electronics Company, Ltd., Daewoo International Corporation, Irico Group Corporation, Irico Group Electronics Co., Ltd., and Irico Display Devices Co., Ltd. The Class consists of all persons and entities who, between March 1, 1995 and November 25, 2007, directly purchased a CRT Product in the United States from any Defendant or subsidiary or affiliate thereof, or any co-conspirator. Before the California district court is the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs' (DPPs) motion for final approval of class action settlements with the Hitachi and SDI Defendants (collectively, Settling Defendants). DPPs also ask the Court to grant approval to a proposed claim form and to direct the settlement administrator to provide notice to the class. The Court held a fairness hearing, where it received a belated objection to the settlement by Sharp, which is the subject of a motion seeking a retroactive enlargement of the time to object to the settlement. That motion is opposed. Now Sharp has filed an administrative motion asking "the Court to set a conference to discuss case management issues" relating to the instant motions. The motion is not yet ripe, and the Court anticipates that the interested parties may yet file responsive papers in the coming days. Nonetheless, the Court now enters an order to solicit the parties' views on the following specific issues related to Sharp's proposed solutions: -- The Court is familiar with the requirement that on final approval a class settlement must stand or fall in its entirety. See Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1026 (9th Cir. 1998). May the Court nonetheless order a second round of notice and opportunity to opt-out in the exercise of its discretion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(d) without addressing the merits of DPPs' and the Settling Defendants' final approval motion? -- Similarly, the Court is aware that the costs of class notice must generally be borne by the proponent of class certification. See Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156, 171 (1974). May the Court nonetheless order Sharp bear the costs of a second class action notice? Judge Conti's Nov. 20, 2014 Order is available at http://is.gd/svd6gYfrom Leagle.com. It relates to: ALL DIRECT PURCHASER ACTIONS Sharp Electronics Corp. v. Hitachi Ltd., No. C-13-1173-SC. Crago, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Bruce Lee Simon, Pearson Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Guido Saveri, Saveri & Saveri, Inc., Ashlei Melissa Vargas, Pearson, Simon & Warshaw LLP, Christopher Wilson, Polsinelli Shughart PC, Clifford H. Pearson, Pearson, Simon & Warshaw LLP, Daniel D. Owen, Shughart Thomson & Kilroy, P.C., Daniel L. Warshaw, Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Esther L Klisura, Sher Leff LLP, Jonathan Mark Watkins, Pearson Simon Warshaw & Penny LLP, Patrick John Brady, Polsinelli PC, Aaron M. Sheanin, Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum & Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP. Hawel A. Hawel d/b/a City Electronics, a California business, Plaintiff, represented by Betty Lisa Julian,, Cadio R. Zirpoli, Saveri & Saveri, Inc., Clinton Paul Walker, Damrell, Nelson, Schrimp, Pallios, Pache & Silva, Fred A. Silva, Damrell Nelson Schrimp Pallios, Pacher & Silva, Geoffrey Conrad Rushing, Saveri & Saveri Inc., Gianna Christa Gruenwald, Saveri & Saveri, Guido Saveri, Saveri & Saveri, Inc., Kathy Lee Monday, Damrell, Nelson, Schrimp, Pallios, Pacher & Silva, Richard Alexander Saveri, Saveri & Saveri, Inc., Roger Martin Schrimp, Damrell Nelson Schrimp Pallios Pacher & Silva & Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP. Orion Home Systems, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Cadio R. Zirpoli, Saveri & Saveri, Inc., Geoffrey Conrad Rushing, Saveri & Saveri Inc., Guido Saveri, Saveri & Saveri, Inc., Joseph W. Cotchett, Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy LLP, Niki B. Okcu, AT&T Services, Inc. Legal Dept., Randy R. Renick, Hadsell Stormer & Renick LLP, Richard Alexander Saveri, Saveri & Saveri, Inc., Terry Gross, Gross Belsky Alonso LLP, Adam C. Belsky, Gross Belsky Alonso LLP, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum, Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP, Monique Alonso, Gross & Belsky LLP, Sarah Crowley, Gross Belsky Alonso LLP & Steven Noel Williams, Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy LLP. Jeffrey Figone, Plaintiff, represented by Brian Joseph Barry, Law Offices of Brian Barry, Joseph Mario Patane, Law Office of Joseph M. Patane, Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Mario N. Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott, LLP, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP & Veronica Besmer, Besmer Law Firm. Chad Klebs, Plaintiff, represented by Craig C. Corbitt, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP, Christopher Thomas Micheletti, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP, Francis Onofrei Scarpulla, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP, Jennie Lee Anderson, Andrus Anderson LLP, Judith A. Zahid, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel Mason & Gette, LLP, Lori Erin Andrus, Andrus Anderson LLP, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Patrick Bradford Clayton, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel Mason LLP, Qianwei Fu, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP, Richard Michael Hagstrom, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel Mason LLP, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum & Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP. Princeton Display Technologies, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Bryan L. Clobes, Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel LLP, Lee Albert, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, James E. Cecchi, Carella Byrne Bain Gilfillan Cecchi Stewart & Olstein PC, Lindsey H. Taylor, Carella Byrne Bain Gilfillan Cecchi Stewart & Olstein PC, Marisa C. Livesay, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Betsy Carol Manifold, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, Francis M. Gregorek, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum, Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP & Rachele R. Rickert, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP. Carmen Gonzalez, Plaintiff, represented by James McManis, McManis Faulkner, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Marwa Elzankaly, McManis, Faulkner, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum & Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP. Samuel J. Nasto, a Nevada resident, Plaintiff, represented by Joel Flom, Jeffries Olson & Flom PA, Joseph Mario Patane, Law Office of Joseph M. Patane, Kenneth Leo Valinoti, Valinoti & Dito LLP, Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Lawrence Genaro Papale, Law Offices of Lawrence G. Papale, M. Eric Frankovitch, Frankovitch Anetakis Colantonio & Simon, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Michael G. Simon, Frankovitch Anetakis Colantonio & Simon - Weirton, Robert B. Gerard, Gerard Selden & Osuch, Seymour J. Mansfield, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP, Sherman Kassof, Law Offices of Sherman Kassof, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum & Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP. Craig Stephenson, a New Mexico resident, Plaintiff, represented by Joel Flom, Jeffries Olson & Flom PA, Joseph Mario Patane, Law Office of Joseph M. Patane, Kenneth Leo Valinoti, Valinoti & Dito LLP, Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Lawrence Genaro Papale, Law Offices of Lawrence G. Papale, M. Eric Frankovitch, Frankovitch Anetakis Colantonio & Simon, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Michael G. Simon, Frankovitch Anetakis Colantonio & Simon - Weirton, Robert B. Gerard, Gerard Selden & Osuch, Seymour J. Mansfield, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP, Sherman Kassof, Law Offices of Sherman Kassof, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum & Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP. David G. Norby, a Minnesota resident, Plaintiff, represented by Joel Flom, Jeffries Olson & Flom PA, Joseph Mario Patane, Law Office of Joseph M. Patane, Kenneth Leo Valinoti, Valinoti & Dito LLP, Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Lawrence Genaro Papale, Law Offices of Lawrence G. Papale, M. Eric Frankovitch, Frankovitch Anetakis Colantonio & Simon, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Michael G. Simon, Frankovitch Anetakis Colantonio & Simon - Weirton, Robert B. Gerard, Gerard Selden & Osuch, Seymour J. Mansfield, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP, Sherman Kassof, Law Offices of Sherman Kassof, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum & Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP. John Larch, a West Virginia resident, Plaintiff, represented by Joel Flom, Jeffries Olson & Flom PA, Joseph Mario Patane, Law Office of Joseph M. Patane, Kenneth Leo Valinoti, Valinoti & Dito LLP, Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Lawrence Genaro Papale, Law Offices of Lawrence G. Papale, M. Eric Frankovitch, Frankovitch Anetakis Colantonio & Simon, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Michael G. Simon, Frankovitch Anetakis Colantonio & Simon - Weirton, Robert B. Gerard, Gerard Selden & Osuch, Seymour J. Mansfield, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP, Sherman Kassof, Law Offices of Sherman Kassof, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum & Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP. Gary Hanson, a North Dakota resident, Plaintiff, represented by Joel Flom, Jeffries Olson & Flom PA, Joseph Mario Patane, Law Office of Joseph M. Patane, Kenneth Leo Valinoti, Valinoti & Dito LLP, Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Lawrence Genaro Papale, Law Offices of Lawrence G. Papale, M. Eric Frankovitch, Frankovitch Anetakis Colantonio & Simon, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Michael G. Simon, Frankovitch Anetakis Colantonio & Simon - Weirton, Robert B. Gerard, Gerard Selden & Osuch, Seymour J. Mansfield, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP, Sherman Kassof, Law Offices of Sherman Kassof, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum & Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP. Margaret Slagle, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel R. Karon, Goldman Scarlato and Karon, PC, Joseph M. Alioto, Sr., Alioto Law Firm, Angelina Alioto-Grace, Alioto Law Firm, Joseph Michelangelo Alioto, Jr, Alioto Law Firm, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Mary Gilmore Kirkpatrick, Kirkpatrick & Goldborough PLLC, Theresa Driscoll Moore, Alioto Law Firm, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum & Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP. Barry Kushner, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph M. Alioto, Sr., Alioto Law Firm, Angelina Alioto-Grace, Alioto Law Firm, Daniel R. Karon, Goldman Scarlato and Karon, PC, Daniel Joseph Mulligan, St. James Recovery Services, P.C., Derek G. Howard, Minami Tamaki LLP, Jeffrey D. Bores, Chestnut & Cambronne, Joseph Michelangelo Alioto, Jr, Alioto Law Firm, Karl L. Cambronne, Chestnut & Cambronne & Theresa Driscoll Moore, Alioto Law Firm. Brian A. Luscher, Plaintiff, represented by Angelina Alioto-Grace, Alioto Law Firm, Joseph Michelangelo Alioto, Jr, Alioto Law Firm, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Robert James Pohlman, Ryley Carlock & Applewhite PC, Theresa Driscoll Moore, Alioto Law Firm, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum & Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP. Steven Ganz, Plaintiff, represented by John Dmitry Bogdanov, Cooper & Kirkham, P.C., Josef Deen Cooper, Cooper & Kirkham, P.C., Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum, Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP & Tracy R. Kirkman, Cooper & Kirkham PC. Dana Ross, Plaintiff, represented by Kathleen Styles Rogers, The Kralowec Law Group, Susan Gilah Kupfer, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum & Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP. Brigid Terry, Plaintiff, represented by Jean B. Roth, Mansfield Tanick & Cohen, Joseph Mario Patane, Law Office of Joseph M. Patane, Kenneth Leo Valinoti, Valinoti & Dito LLP, Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Lawrence Genaro Papale, Law Offices of Lawrence G. Papale, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Robert J. Bonsignore, Bonsignore & Brewer, Seymour J. Mansfield, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP, Sherman Kassof, Law Offices of Sherman Kassof, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum & Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP. Southern Office Supply, Inc, Plaintiff, represented by Gilmur Roderick Murray, Murray & Howard, LLP, Daniel R. Karon, Goldman Scarlato & Karon, Donna F Solen, Whitfield Bryson & Mason LLP, Drew A. Carson, Miller Goler Faeges, Issac L. Diel, Sharp McQueen, Krishna Brian Narine, Meredith Narine, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Steven J. Miller, Miller Goler Faeges, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum & Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP. Meijer, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Gregory K Arenson, Kaplan Fox and Kilsheimer LLP, Robert N. Kaplan, Kaplan Kilsheimer & Fox LLP, David Paul Germaine, Gary Laurence Specks, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, Joseph Michael Vanek, Vanek Vickers & Masini PC, Linda P. Nussbaum, Nussbaum LLP, Linda Phyllis Nussbaum, Grant & Eisenhofer P.A., Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum & Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP. Meijer Distribution, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Gregory K Arenson, Kaplan Fox and Kilsheimer LLP, Robert N. Kaplan, Kaplan Kilsheimer & Fox LLP, David Paul Germaine, Gary Laurence Specks, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, Joseph Michael Vanek, Vanek Vickers & Masini PC, Linda P. Nussbaum, Nussbaum LLP, Linda Phyllis Nussbaum, Grant & Eisenhofer P.A., Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum & Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP. Arch Electronics, Inc, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony J. Bolognese, Bolognese & Associates LLC, Gregory K Arenson, Kaplan Fox and Kilsheimer LLP, Linda P. Nussbaum, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP, Robert N. Kaplan, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP, Joshua H. Grabar, Bolognese & Associates, LLC, Kevin Bruce Love, Hanzman Criden & Love, P.A., Linda Phyllis Nussbaum, Grant & Eisenhofer P.A., Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum & Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP. Studio Spectrum, Inc., is a California business, Plaintiff, represented by Steven F. Benz, Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, David Nathan-Allen Sims, Saveri & Saveri, Inc., Guido Saveri, Saveri & Saveri, Inc., James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum & Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP. Kory Pentland, a Michigan resident, Plaintiff, represented by Elizabeth Anne McKenna, Milberg LLP, Jeff S. Westerman, Westerman Law Corp, Paul F Novak, Milberg LLP, Andrew J. Morganti, Milberg LLP, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Peter G.A. Safirstein, Morgan & Morgan, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP & James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum. Radio & TV Equipment, Inc, Plaintiff, represented by Lisa J. Rodriguez, Trujillo Rodriguez & Richards LLP, Jason Kilene, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum & Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP. Brady Lane Cotton, a Florida resident, Plaintiff, represented by Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Christina Diane Crow, Jinks, Crow & Dickson P.C., J. Matthew Stephens, McCallum Methvin & Terrell PC, James Michael Terrell, McCallum, Methvin & Terrell, P.C., Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Robert G. Methvin, McCallum Methvin & Terrell PC, Robert Gordon Methvin, Jr, McCallum, Methvin & Terrell, P.C., Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum, Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP, Lynn W. Jinks, Jinks Crow & Dickson PC & Nathan A. Dickson, Jinks Crow & Dickson PC. Colleen Sobotka, a Florida resident, Plaintiff, represented by Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Christopher William Cantrell, J. Matthew Stephens, McCallum Methvin & Terrell PC, James Michael Terrell, McCallum, Methvin & Terrell, P.C., Keith Thomson Belt, Jr., Belt Law Firm, P.C., Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Robert Page Bruner, Belt Law Firm, P.C., Robert G. Methvin, McCallum Methvin & Terrell PC, Robert Gordon Methvin, Jr, McCallum, Methvin & Terrell, P.C., Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum, Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP, Lynn W. Jinks, Jinks Crow & Dickson PC & Nathan A. Dickson, Jinks Crow & Dickson PC. Daniel Riebow, a Hawaii resident, Plaintiff, represented by Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum & Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP. Travis Burau, a Iowa resident, Plaintiff, represented by Elizabeth Anne McKenna, Milberg LLP, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Paul F Novak, Milberg LLP, Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum & Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP. Andrew Kindt, a Michigan resident, Plaintiff, represented by James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP & Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP. James Brown, a Michigan resident, Plaintiff, represented by Elizabeth Anne McKenna, Milberg LLP, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Paul F Novak, Milberg LLP, Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum & Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP. Alan Rotman, a Minnesota resident, Plaintiff, represented by Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum & Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP. Ryan Rizzo, a Minnesota resident, Plaintiff, represented by Elizabeth Anne McKenna, Milberg LLP, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Paul F Novak, Milberg LLP, Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum & Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP. Charles Jenkins, a Mississippi resident, Plaintiff, represented by Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, J. Matthew Stephens, McCallum Methvin & Terrell PC, James Michael Terrell, McCallum, Methvin & Terrell, P.C., Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Robert G. Methvin, McCallum Methvin & Terrell PC, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum, Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP, Lynn W. Jinks, Jinks Crow & Dickson PC & Nathan A. Dickson, Jinks Crow & Dickson PC. Daniel R. Hergert, a Nebraska resident, Plaintiff, represented by Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum & Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP. Adrienne Belai, a New York resident, Plaintiff, represented by Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum & Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP. Joshua Maida, a North Carolina resident, Plaintiff, represented by Elizabeth Anne McKenna, Milberg LLP, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Paul F Novak, Milberg LLP, Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum & Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP. Rosemary Ciccone, a Rhode Island resident, Plaintiff, represented by Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum & Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP. Frank Warner, a Tennessee resident, Plaintiff, represented by Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum & Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP. Albert Sidney Crigler, a Tennessee resident, Plaintiff, represented by Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Robert Brent Irby, McCallum, Hoaguland Cook & Irby LLP, Eric D. Hoaglund, McCallum Hoaglund Cook & Irby LLP, Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Richard Freeman Horsley, King, Horsley & Lyons, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum & Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP. Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs, Plaintiff, represented by Richard Alexander Saveri, Saveri & Saveri, Inc., Aaron M. Sheanin, Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Allan Steyer, Steyer Lowenthal Boodrookas Alvarez & Smith LLP, Christopher L. Lebsock, Hausfeld LLP, Donald Scott Macrae, Steyer Lowenthal Boodrookas Alvarez & Smith LLP, Guido Saveri, Saveri & Saveri, Inc., Jayne Ann Peeters, Steyer Lowenthal Boodrookas Alvarez & Smith LLP, Jill Michelle Manning, Steyer Lowenthal, Michael Paul Lehmann, Hausfeld LLP, Stephanie Yunjin Cho, Hausfeld LLP, Travis Luke Manfredi, Saveri and Saveri Inc, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Bruce Lee Simon, Pearson Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Daniel D. Cowen, Shughart Thomson & Kilroy PC, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum, Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP & P. John Brady, Shughart Thomson & Kilroy PC. Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs, Plaintiff, represented by Lingel Hart Winters, Law Offices of Lingel H. Winters, Craig C. Corbitt, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP, Jennie Lee Anderson, Andrus Anderson LLP, John Dmitry Bogdanov, Cooper & Kirkham, P.C., Josef Deen Cooper, Cooper & Kirkham, P.C., Joseph Mario Patane, Law Office of Joseph M. Patane, Judith A. Zahid, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel Mason & Gette, LLP, Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Sylvie K. Kern, KAG Law Group, Tracy R. Kirkham, Cooper & Kirkham, P.C., Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum, Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Christopher Thomas Micheletti, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP, David Nathan Lake, Law Offices of David N. Lake, Francis Onofrei Scarpulla, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP, Joseph Mario Patane, Law Office of Joseph M. Patane, Judith A. Zahid, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel Mason & Gette, LLP, Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum & Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP. State of Washington, State of Washington Attorney General 800 5th Avenue Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104 206-464-7030 State of Washington, Plaintiff, represented by David Michael Kerwin, Washington State Attorney General's Office, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum & Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP. Electrograph Systems, Inc, Plaintiff, represented by Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Philip J. Iovieno, Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner & James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum. Electrograph Technologies Corp., Plaintiff, represented by Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Philip J. Iovieno, Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner & James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum. Interbond Corporation of America, Plaintiff, represented by Stuart Harold Singer, Boies Schiller & Flexner, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP & James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum. Office Depot, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Stuart Harold Singer, Boies Schiller & Flexner, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner & James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum. Compucom Systems Inc, Plaintiff, represented by Lewis Titus LeClair, McKool Smith, P.C., William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Mike McKool, McKool Smith, P.C., Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP & James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum. Costco Wholesale Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Cori Gordon Moore, Perkins Coie LLP, David Burman, Perkins Coie LLP, Eric J. Weiss, PERKINS COIE LLP, Euphemia Nikki Thomopulos, Perkins Coie, Joren Surya Bass, Perkins Coie LLP, Nicholas H. Hesterberg, Perkins Coie LLP, Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Steven Douglas Merriman, Perkins Coie LLP, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum & Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP. Alfred H. Siegel, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Peterson, Susman Godfrey LLP, John Pierre Lahad, Susman Godfrey LLP, Johnny William Carter, Susman Godfrey LLP, Jonathan Jeffrey Ross, N/A, Susman Godfrey L.L.P., Jonathan Mark Weiss, Klee Tuchin Bogdanoff Stern LLP, Matthew C. Behncke, Susman Godfrey LLP, Michael Lloyd Tuchin, Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Robert J. Pfister, Klee, Tuchin, Bogdanoff & Stern LLP, Robert Sabre Safi, Susman Godfrey L.L.P., William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum, Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP & Kenneth S. Marks, Susman Godfrey LLP. Department of Legal Affairs, Plaintiff, represented by Patricia A. Conners, Attorney General's Office, R. Scott Palmer, Office of the Attorney General, Liz Ann Brady, Office of the Attorney General, Nicholas J. Weilhammer, Office of the Attorney General, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum & Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP. Office of the Attorney General, Plaintiff, represented by Patricia A. Conners, Attorney General's Office, R. Scott Palmer, Office of the Attorney General, Liz Ann Brady, Office of the Attorney General, Nicholas J. Weilhammer, Office of the Attorney General, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum & Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP. Best Buy Co., Inc., Plaintiff, represented by David Martinez, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi L.L.P., Laura Elizabeth Nelson, Robins Kaplan Miller and Ciresi, Jill Sharon Casselman, Robins, Kaplan, Miller and Ciresi L.L.P., Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Elliot S. Kaplan, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi, Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP, K. Craig Wildfang, Attorney at Law & Roman M. Silberfeld, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi L.L.P.. Best Buy Enterprise Services, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by David Martinez, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi L.L.P., Laura Elizabeth Nelson, Robins Kaplan Miller and Ciresi, Jill Sharon Casselman, Robins, Kaplan, Miller and Ciresi L.L.P., Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Elliot S. Kaplan, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi, Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP, K. Craig Wildfang, Attorney at Law & Roman M. Silberfeld, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi L.L.P.. Best Buy Purchasing LLC, Plaintiff, represented by David Martinez, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi L.L.P., Laura Elizabeth Nelson, Robins Kaplan Miller and Ciresi, Jill Sharon Casselman, Robins, Kaplan, Miller and Ciresi L.L.P., Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Elliot S. Kaplan, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi, Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP, K. Craig Wildfang, Attorney at Law & Roman M. Silberfeld, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi L.L.P.. Best Buy Stores, L.P., Plaintiff, represented by David Martinez, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi L.L.P., Laura Elizabeth Nelson, Robins Kaplan Miller and Ciresi, Jill Sharon Casselman, Robins, Kaplan, Miller and Ciresi L.L.P., Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Elliot S. Kaplan, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi, Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP, K. Craig Wildfang, Attorney at Law & Roman M. Silberfeld, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi L.L.P.. Best Buy.com LLC, Plaintiff, represented by David Martinez, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi L.L.P., Laura Elizabeth Nelson, Robins Kaplan Miller and Ciresi, Jill Sharon Casselman, Robins, Kaplan, Miller and Ciresi L.L.P., Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Elliot S. Kaplan, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi, Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP, K. Craig Wildfang, Attorney at Law & Roman M. Silberfeld, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi L.L.P.. Magnolia Hi-Fi, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by David Martinez, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi L.L.P., Laura Elizabeth Nelson, Robins Kaplan Miller and Ciresi, Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Elliot S. Kaplan, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi, Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP, Jill Sharon Casselman, Robins, Kaplan, Miller and Ciresi L.L.P., K. Craig Wildfang, Attorney at Law & Roman M. Silberfeld, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi L.L.P.. Good Guys, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Jason C. Murray, Crowell & Moring LLP, Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP & William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner. KMart Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Jason C. Murray, Crowell & Moring LLP, William J. Blechman, Kenny Nachwalter PA, Gavin David Whitis, Pond North LLP, Jalaine Garcia, James T Almon, Kenny Nachwalter, PA, Kevin J. Murray, Kenny Nachwalter PA, Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Richard A. Arnold, Kenny Nachwalter, Ryan C Zagare, Kenny Nachwalter, PA, Samuel J Randall, Kenny Nachwalter PA & William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner. Old Comp Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Jason C. Murray, Crowell & Moring LLP, Daniel Allen Sasse, Crowell & Moring LLP, Deborah Ellen Arbabi, Crowell and Moring LLP, Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP & William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner. Radioshack Corp., Plaintiff, represented by Jason C. Murray, Crowell & Moring LLP, Daniel Allen Sasse, Crowell & Moring LLP, Deborah Ellen Arbabi, Crowell and Moring LLP, Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP & William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner. Sears, Roebuck and Co., Plaintiff, represented by Jason C. Murray, Crowell & Moring LLP, William J. Blechman, Kenny Nachwalter PA, Gavin David Whitis, Pond North LLP, Jalaine Garcia, James T Almon, Kenny Nachwalter, PA, Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Richard A. Arnold, Kenny Nachwalter, Ryan C Zagare, Kenny Nachwalter, PA, Samuel J Randall, Kenny Nachwalter PA, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner & Kevin J. Murray, Kenny Nachwalter PA. Target Corp., Plaintiff, represented by Jason C. Murray, Crowell & Moring LLP, Astor Henry Lloyd Heaven, III, Crowell and Moring LLP, Jerome A. Murphy, Crowell & Moring LLP, Matthew J. McBurney, Crowell & Moring LLP, Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Robert Brian McNary, Crowell & Moring LLP & William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner. Giovanni Constabile, Plaintiff, represented by Lingel Hart Winters, Law Offices of Lingel H. Winters. Gio's Inc, a California corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Lingel Hart Winters, Law Offices of Lingel H. Winters. Schultze Agency Services, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP & Philip J. Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP. Tweeter Newco, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Philip J. Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner & Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP. ABC Appliance, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner & Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP. Marta Cooperative of America, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP & William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner. P.C. Richard & Son Long Island Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP & William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner. Kerry Lee Hall, Plaintiff, represented by Robert J. Gralewski, Kirby McInerney LLP & Daniel Hume, Kirby McInerney LLP. Tech Data Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Melissa Willett, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, Mitchell E. Widom, Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod, LLP, Robert Turken, Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod LLP, Scott N. Wagner, Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod LLP, Stuart Harold Singer, Boies Schiller & Flexner, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP & Philip J. Iovieno, Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP. Tech Data Product Management, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Robert Turken, Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod LLP, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Scott N. Wagner, Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod LLP, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner & Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP. Sharp Electronics Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Craig A Benson, Paul Weiss LLP, Jonathan Alan Patchen, Taylor & Company Law Offices, LLP, Joseph J Simons, Paul Weiss LLP, Kenneth A. Gallo, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP & Stephen E. Taylor, Taylor & Company Law Offices, LLP. Sharp Electronics Manufacturing Company of America, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Craig A Benson, Paul Weiss LLP, Jonathan Alan Patchen, Taylor & Company Law Offices, LLP, Joseph J Simons, Paul Weiss LLP, Kenneth A. Gallo, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP & Stephen E. Taylor, Taylor & Company Law Offices, LLP. Dell Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Debra Dawn Bernstein, Alston & Bird LLP, Elizabeth Helmer Jordan, Alston & Bird LLP, Jon G. Shepherd, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, Matthew David Kent, Alston + Bird LLP, Michael P. Kenny, Alston & Bird LLP, Rodney J Ganske, Alston & Bird LLP & James Matthew Wagstaffe, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP. Dell Products L.P., Plaintiff, represented by Debra Dawn Bernstein, Alston & Bird LLP, Elizabeth Helmer Jordan, Alston & Bird LLP, Jon G. Shepherd, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, Matthew David Kent, Alston + Bird LLP, Michael P. Kenny, Alston & Bird LLP, Rodney J Ganske, Alston & Bird LLP & James Matthew Wagstaffe, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP. Magnolia Hi-Fi, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by David Martinez, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi L.L.P., Laura Elizabeth Nelson, Robins Kaplan Miller and Ciresi, Jill Sharon Casselman, Robins, Kaplan, Miller and Ciresi L.L.P., Elliot S. Kaplan, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi & Roman M. Silberfeld, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi L.L.P.. Viewsonic Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Jason C. Murray, Crowell & Moring LLP, Astor Henry Lloyd Heaven, III, Crowell and Moring LLP, Daniel Allen Sasse, Crowell & Moring LLP, Deborah Ellen Arbabi, Crowell and Moring LLP, Jerome A. Murphy, Crowell & Moring LLP, Matthew J. McBurney, Crowell & Moring LLP & Robert Brian McNary, Crowell & Moring LLP. Sharp Corporation, Petitioner, represented by Colin C. West, Bingham McCutchen LLP & Jonathan Alan Patchen, Taylor & Company Law Offices, LLP. YRC, INC., Creditor, represented by Jeffrey M. Judd, Judd Law Group. Chunghwa Picture Tubes, LTD., ("Chunghwa PT") is a Taiwanese company, Defendant, represented by Joel Steven Sanders, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Austin Van Schwing, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP & Rachel S. Brass, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP. Chunghwa Picture Tubes (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd., Defendant, represented by Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP & Rachel S. Brass, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP. Hitachi, Ltd., is a Japanese company, Defendant, represented by Eliot A. Adelson, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Douglas L Wald, James Maxwell Cooper, Kirkland and Ellis LLP, James Mutchnik, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Katherine Hamilton Wheaton, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP & Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP. Hitachi America, Ltd., Defendant, represented by Eliot A. Adelson, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, James Maxwell Cooper, Kirkland and Ellis LLP, James Mutchnik, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, Katherine Hamilton Wheaton & Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP. Hitachi Asia, Ltd., Defendant, represented by Eliot A. Adelson, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Barack Shem Echols, Kirkland Ellis LLP, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Douglas L Wald, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, James Maxwell Cooper, Kirkland and Ellis LLP, James Mutchnik, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Katherine Hamilton Wheaton, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP & Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP. Irico Group Corp., ("IGC") is a Chinese entity, Defendant, represented by Joseph R. Tiffany, II, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP. Irico Display Devices Co., Ltd., ("IDDC") is a Chinese entity, Defendant, represented by Joseph R. Tiffany, II, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP. LG Electronics, Inc., Defendant, represented by Douglas L Wald, Miriam Kim, Munger, Tolles & Olson, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Cathleen Hamel Hartge, Munger Tolles and Olson LLP, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Hojoon Hwang, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jerome Cary Roth, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Jessica Barclay-Strobel, Munger, Tolles and Olson LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP, Xiaochin Claire Yan, Munger Tolles and Olson, LLP, Bethany Woodard Kristovich, Munger Tolles and Olson LLP, Jonathan Ellis Altman, Munger Tolles and Olson, Kim YoungSang, ARNOLD & PORTER LLP, Laura K Lin, Munger, Tolles and Olson LLP, William David Temko, Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP & YongSang Kim. Panasonic Corporation of North America, Defendant, represented by David L. Yohai, Weil, Gotshal, & Manges, LLP, Eva W. Cole, Winston & Strawn LLP, A. Paul Victor, Winston & Strawn LLP, Aldo A. Badini, Winston & Strawn LLP, Amy Lee Stewart, Rose Law Firm, Andrew R. Tillman, Paine Tarwater Bickers & Tillman, Bambo Obaro, Weil, Gotshal and Manges, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Craig Y. Allison, Bunsow, De Mory, Smith & Allison LLP, David E. Yolkut, Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP, Diana Arlen Aguilar, Weil, Gotshal and Manges, Douglas L Wald, James F. Lerner, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jennifer Stewart, Winston and Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., John Selim Tschirgi, Winston and Strawn LLP, Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Joseph Richard Wetzel, King & Spalding, Kajetan Rozga, Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Kevin B. Goldstein, Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP, Lara Elvidge Veblen, Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP, Margaret Anne Keane, DLA Piper LLP, Marjan Hajibandeh, Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP, Martin C. Geagan, Jr., Winston and Strawn LLP, Matthew Robert DalSanto, Winston and Strawn LLP, Meaghan Thomas-Kennedy, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Molly Donovan, Winston & Strawn LLP, Ryan Michael Goodland, Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Sofia Arguello, Winston and Strawn LLP, Steven A. Reiss, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP & Molly M Donovan, Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP. Samsung SDI Co., Ltd., Defendant, represented by Bruce Cobath, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Douglas L Wald, Gary L. Halling, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, James Landon McGinnis, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Leo David Caseria, Sheppard Mullin Richter Hampton LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP & Tyler Mark Cunningham, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton. Samsung SDI America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Bruce Cobath, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Douglas L Wald, Gary L. Halling, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, James Landon McGinnis, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Mona Solouki, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP & Tyler Mark Cunningham, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton. Samtel Color, Ltd., ("Samtel") is a Indian company, Defendant, represented by William Diaz, McDermott Will & Emery LLP. Toshiba Corporation, Defendant, represented by Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Dana E. Foster, White and Case LLP, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Aya Kobori, White and Case LLP, Bijal Vijay Vakil, White & Case LLP, Douglas L Wald, George L. Paul, White & Case LLP, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jeremy Kent Ostrander, White & Case LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Lucius Bernard Lau, White & Case LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Samuel J. Sharp, Samuel James Sharp, White and Case LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP & Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP. Toshiba Corporation, Defendant, represented by Toshiba Corporation, Defendant, represented by William H. Bave, III, Charise Naifeh, White & Case LLP & Matthew Frutig, White & Case LLP. Beijing-Matsushita Color CRT Company, Ltd., Defendant, represented by Terry Calvani, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer US LLP, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Bruce C. McCulloch, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer US LLP, Christine A. Laciak, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer US LLP, Craig D. Minerva, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer US LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, Michael Lacovara, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer US LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP & Richard Sutton Snyder, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer US LLP. LG Eletronics U.S.A., Inc., Defendant, represented by Miriam Kim, Munger, Tolles & Olson, Cathleen Hamel Hartge, Munger Tolles and Olson LLP, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Douglas L Wald, Hojoon Hwang, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jerome Cary Roth, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Jessica Barclay-Strobel, Munger, Tolles and Olson LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Laura K Lin, Munger, Tolles and Olson LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP, Xiaochin Claire Yan, Munger Tolles and Olson, LLP & William David Temko, Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP. Philips Electronics North America Corporation, Defendant, represented by Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Douglas L Wald, Ethan E. Litwin, Ethan E. Litwin, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Joseph A. Ostoyich, Howrey LLP, Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Marc Howard Kallish, Freeborn Peters LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Stephen M. Ng, Baker Botts LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP, Tiffany B. Gelott, Baker Botts LLP, Charles M Malaise, & Erik T. Koons, Baker Botts LLP. Samsung Electronics Co Ltd, Defendant, represented by Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Michael Frederick Tubach, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Courtney C Byrd, David Kendall Roberts, O'Melveny and Myers LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Kevin Douglas Feder, O'Melveny and Myers LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Anton Metlitsky, David Roberts, O'Melveny & Myers LLP & Haidee L. Schwartz, O'Melveny & Myers LLP. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Michael Frederick Tubach, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Benjamin Gardner Bradshaw, O'Melveny & Meyers LLP, Courtney C Byrd, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Kevin Douglas Feder, O'Melveny and Myers LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Anton Metlitsky, David Roberts, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Haidee L. Schwartz, O'Melveny & Myers LLP & James Landon McGinnis, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP. Toshiba America Electronics Components, Inc, Defendant, represented by Bernadette Shawan Gillians, Buist Moore Smythe and McGee, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, George L. Paul, White & Case LLP, Lucius Bernard Lau, White & Case LLP, William C. Cleveland, Buist Moore Smythe and McGee, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Aya Kobori, White and Case LLP, Bijal Vijay Vakil, White & Case LLP, Douglas L Wald, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Samuel J. Sharp, Samuel James Sharp, White and Case LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP, William H. Bave, III, Charise Naifeh, White & Case LLP, Dana E. Foster, White and Case LLP & Matthew Frutig, White & Case LLP. Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc., Defendant, represented by Bernadette Shawan Gillians, Buist Moore Smythe and McGee, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, George L. Paul, White & Case LLP, Lucius Bernard Lau, White & Case LLP, William C. Cleveland, Buist Moore Smythe and McGee, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Aya Kobori, White and Case LLP, Bijal Vijay Vakil, White & Case LLP, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jeremy Kent Ostrander, White & Case LLP, Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP & Samuel J. Sharp. Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc., Defendant, represented by Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc., Defendant, represented by William H. Bave, III, Charise Naifeh, White & Case LLP, Dana E. Foster, White and Case LLP & Matthew Frutig, White & Case LLP. Toshiba America, Inc, Defendant, represented by Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, George L. Paul, White & Case LLP, Lucius Bernard Lau, White & Case LLP, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Aya Kobori, White and Case LLP, Bijal Vijay Vakil, White & Case LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jeremy Kent Ostrander, White & Case LLP & Samuel J. Sharp. Toshiba America, Inc, Defendant, represented by Toshiba America, Inc, Defendant, represented by William H. Bave, III, Charise Naifeh, White & Case LLP & Dana E. Foster, White and Case LLP. MT Picture Display Co., LTD, Defendant, represented by A. Paul Victor, Winston & Strawn LLP, Aldo A. Badini, Winston & Strawn LLP, Bambo Obaro, Weil, Gotshal and Manges, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Craig Y. Allison, Bunsow, De Mory, Smith & Allison LLP, David E. Yolkut, Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP, Diana Arlen Aguilar, Weil, Gotshal and Manges, Douglas L Wald, Eva W. Cole, Winston & Strawn LLP, Gregory Hull, James F. Lerner, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jennifer Stewart, Winston and Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kajetan Rozga, Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Lara Elvidge Veblen, Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP, Margaret Anne Keane, DLA Piper LLP, Martin C. Geagan, Jr., Winston and Strawn LLP, Matthew Robert DalSanto, Winston and Strawn LLP, Meaghan Thomas-Kennedy, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Molly Donovan, Winston & Strawn LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Sofia Arguello, Winston and Strawn LLP, Steven A. Reiss, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP & David L. Yohai, Weil, Gotshal, & Manges, LLP. Samsung SDI Co. Ltd, Defendant, represented by Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP & Bruce Cobath, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP. Samsung SDI Co. Ltd, fka Samsung Display Device Company ("Samsung SDI") is a South Korean company formerly known as Samsung Display Device Co., Defendant, represented by Christopher M. Curran, White & Case. Samsung SDI Co. Ltd, Defendant, represented by Douglas L Wald, Gary L. Halling, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP, James Landon McGinnis, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP & Tyler Mark Cunningham, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton. Samsung SDI Co., Ltd., Defendant, represented by Bruce Cobath, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Douglas L Wald, Dylan Ian Ballard, Gary L. Halling, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Helen Cho Eckert, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Mona Solouki, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP, James Landon McGinnis, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP & Tyler Mark Cunningham, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton. Toshiba America Consumer Products, LLC, Defendant, represented by Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, George L. Paul, White & Case LLP, Lucius Bernard Lau, White & Case LLP, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Aya Kobori, White and Case LLP, Bijal Vijay Vakil, White & Case LLP, Gary L. Halling, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jeremy Kent Ostrander, White & Case LLP, Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Samuel J. Sharp, Samuel James Sharp, White and Case LLP, Tsung-Hui (Danny) Wu, White and Case LLP, William H. Bave, III, Charise Naifeh, White & Case LLP, Dana E. Foster, White and Case LLP & Matthew Frutig, White & Case LLP. Panasonic Corporation, Defendant, represented by David L. Yohai, Weil, Gotshal, & Manges, LLP, A. Paul Victor, Winston & Strawn LLP, Aldo A. Badini, Winston & Strawn LLP, Amy Lee Stewart, Rose Law Firm, Bambo Obaro, Weil, Gotshal and Manges, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Craig Y. Allison, Bunsow, De Mory, Smith & Allison LLP, David E. Yolkut, Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP, Diana Arlen Aguilar, Weil, Gotshal and Manges, Douglas L Wald, Eva W. Cole, Winston & Strawn LLP, James F. Lerner, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jennifer Stewart, Winston and Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., John Selim Tschirgi, Winston and Strawn LLP, Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kajetan Rozga, Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Kevin B. Goldstein, Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP, Lara Elvidge Veblen, Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP, Margaret Anne Keane, DLA Piper LLP, Marjan Hajibandeh, Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP, Martin C. Geagan, Jr., Winston and Strawn LLP, Meaghan Thomas- Kennedy, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Molly Donovan, Winston & Strawn LLP, Molly M Donovan, Winston & Strawn LLP, Ryan Michael Goodland, Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Sofia Arguello, Winston and Strawn LLP, Steven A. Reiss, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP & Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP. Hitachi Displays, Ltd., Defendant, represented by Eliot A. Adelson, Kirkland & Ellis LLP & Christopher M. Curran, White & Case. Hitachi Displays, Ltd., ("Hitachi Displays") is a Japanese company also known as Japan Display Inc, Defendant, represented by Douglas L Wald. Hitachi Displays, Ltd., Defendant, represented by Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP. Hitachi Displays, Ltd., ("Hitachi Displays") is a Japanese company also known as Japan Display Inc, Defendant, represented by James Maxwell Cooper, Kirkland and Ellis LLP. Hitachi Displays, Ltd., Defendant, represented by James Mutchnik, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Katherine Hamilton Wheaton, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP & Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP. Hitachi Electronic Devices (USA), Defendant, represented by Eliot A. Adelson, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, James Maxwell Cooper, Kirkland and Ellis LLP, James Mutchnik, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP & Katherine Hamilton Wheaton. Philips da Amazonia Industria Electronica Ltda., Defendant, represented by David Michael Lisi, Reed Smith LLP, Ethan E. Litwin, Ethan E. Litwin, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP & Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P.. Samsung SDI (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd., Defendant, represented by Bruce Cobath, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Douglas L Wald, Dylan Ian Ballard, Gary L. Halling, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Helen Cho Eckert, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Leo David Caseria, Sheppard Mullin Richter Hampton LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Mona Solouki, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP, Tyler Mark Cunningham, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton & James Landon McGinnis, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP. Samsung SDI Mexico S.A. de C.V., Defendant, represented by Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Bruce Cobath, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Douglas L Wald, Gary L. Halling, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Mona Solouki, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP, James Landon McGinnis, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP & Tyler Mark Cunningham, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton. Samsung SDI Brasil Ltda., Defendant, represented by Bruce Cobath, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Douglas L Wald, Dylan Ian Ballard, Gary L. Halling, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Helen Cho Eckert, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Leo David Caseria, Sheppard Mullin Richter Hampton LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Mona Solouki, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP, James Landon McGinnis, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP & Tyler Mark Cunningham, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton. Shenzhen Samsung SDI Co. Ltd, Defendant, represented by Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Bruce Cobath, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Douglas L Wald, Dylan Ian Ballard, Gary L. Halling, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Leo David Caseria, Sheppard Mullin Richter Hampton LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Mona Solouki, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP, James Landon McGinnis, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP & Tyler Mark Cunningham, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton. Tianjin Samsung SDI Co., Ltd., Defendant, represented by Bruce Cobath, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Douglas L Wald, Gary L. Halling, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Mona Solouki, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP, James Landon McGinnis, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP & Tyler Mark Cunningham, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton. Hitachi Electronic Devices (USA), Inc., Defendant, represented by Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Barack Shem Echols, Kirkland Ellis LLP, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Douglas L Wald, Eliot A. Adelson, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, James Maxwell Cooper, Kirkland and Ellis LLP, James Mutchnik, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Katherine Hamilton Wheaton, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP & Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP. Beijing Matsushita Color Crt Company, LTD., Defendant, represented by Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP & Richard Sutton Snyder, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer US LLP. Hitachi America, Ltd, Defendant, represented by Eliot A. Adelson, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Barack Shem Echols, Kirkland Ellis LLP, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, James Maxwell Cooper, Kirkland and Ellis LLP, James Mutchnik & Katherine Hamilton Wheaton. Hitachi Asia, Ltd., Defendant, represented by Eliot A. Adelson, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Douglas L Wald, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, James Maxwell Cooper, Kirkland and Ellis LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP & Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP. Hitachi Displays, Ltd., Defendant, represented by Eliot A. Adelson, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Barack Shem Echols, Kirkland Ellis LLP, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Douglas L Wald, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP & James Maxwell Cooper, Kirkland and Ellis LLP. Hitachi Displays, Ltd., also known as Japan Display Inc, Defendant, represented by James Mutchnik. Hitachi Displays, Ltd., Defendant, represented by Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Katherine Hamilton Wheaton, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP & Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP. Hitachi Displays, Ltd., also known as Japan Display Inc, Defendant, represented by Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP. Hitachi Electronic Devices (USA), Defendant, represented by Eliot A. Adelson, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, James Maxwell Cooper, Kirkland and Ellis LLP, James Mutchnik, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, Katherine Hamilton Wheaton & Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP. Hitachi Ltd., Defendant, represented by Eliot A. Adelson, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Barack Shem Echols, Kirkland Ellis LLP, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Douglas L Wald, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, James Maxwell Cooper, Kirkland and Ellis LLP, James Mutchnik, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Katherine Hamilton Wheaton, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP & Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP. Koninklijke Philips N.V., Defendant, represented by Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Douglas L Wald, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Joseph A. Ostoyich, Howrey LLP, Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Stephen M. Ng, Baker Botts LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP, Tiffany B. Gelott, Baker Botts LLP, Charles M Malaise, & Erik T. Koons, Baker Botts LLP. LG Electronics USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Douglas L Wald, Miriam Kim, Munger, Tolles & Olson, William David Temko, Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Cathleen Hamel Hartge, Munger Tolles and Olson LLP, Hojoon Hwang, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jerome Cary Roth, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Jessica Barclay-Strobel, Munger, Tolles and Olson LLP, Xiaochin Claire Yan, Munger Tolles and Olson, LLP, Bethany Woodard Kristovich, Munger Tolles and Olson LLP, Jonathan Ellis Altman, Munger Tolles and Olson, Kim YoungSang, ARNOLD & PORTER LLP, Laura K Lin, Munger, Tolles and Olson LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP & YongSang Kim. MT Picture Display Co., LTD, Defendant, represented by Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, David L. Yohai, Weil, Gotshal, & Manges, LLP, Aldo A. Badini, Winston & Strawn LLP, Amy Lee Stewart, Rose Law Firm, Bambo Obaro, Weil, Gotshal and Manges, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Craig Y. Allison, Bunsow, De Mory, Smith & Allison LLP, Diana Arlen Aguilar, Weil, Gotshal and Manges, Douglas L Wald, Eva W. Cole, Winston & Strawn LLP, James F. Lerner, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jennifer Stewart, Winston and Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., John Selim Tschirgi, Winston and Strawn LLP, Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Kevin B. Goldstein, Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP, Lara Elvidge Veblen, Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP, Marjan Hajibandeh, Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP, Martin C. Geagan, Jr., Winston and Strawn LLP, Meaghan Thomas-Kennedy, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Molly Donovan, Winston & Strawn LLP, Ryan Michael Goodland, Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Sofia Arguello, Winston and Strawn LLP & Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP. Panasonic Corporation, Defendant, represented by David L. Yohai, Weil, Gotshal, & Manges, LLP, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Amy Lee Stewart, Rose Law Firm, Bambo Obaro, Weil, Gotshal and Manges, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Craig Y. Allison, Bunsow, De Mory, Smith & Allison LLP, Douglas L Wald, Eva W. Cole, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jennifer Stewart, Winston and Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Martin C. Geagan, Jr., Winston and Strawn LLP, Matthew Robert DalSanto, Winston and Strawn LLP, Meaghan Thomas-Kennedy, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Molly Donovan, Winston & Strawn LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Sofia Arguello, Winston and Strawn LLP & Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP. Panasonic Corporation of North America, Defendant, represented by David L. Yohai, Weil, Gotshal, & Manges, LLP, Amy Lee Stewart, Rose Law Firm, Bambo Obaro, Weil, Gotshal and Manges, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Craig Y. Allison, Bunsow, De Mory, Smith & Allison LLP, Diana Arlen Aguilar, Weil, Gotshal and Manges, Douglas L Wald, James F. Lerner, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jennifer Stewart, Winston and Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Lara Elvidge Veblen, Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP, Martin C. Geagan, Jr., Winston and Strawn LLP, Meaghan Thomas-Kennedy, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Sofia Arguello, Winston and Strawn LLP & Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP. Philips Electronics Industries (Taiwan), Ltd., Defendant, represented by Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P.. Philips Electronics North America, Defendant, represented by Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Joseph A. Ostoyich, Howrey LLP, Charles M Malaise, & Erik T. Koons, Baker Botts LLP. Philips da Amazonia Industria Electronica Ltda., Defendant, represented by Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P.. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Defendant, represented by David Kendall Roberts, O'Melveny and Myers LLP, Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP & James Landon McGinnis, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd, Defendant, represented by Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP & Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP. Samsung SDI (Malaysia) SDN BHD, Defendant, represented by Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Bruce Cobath, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Douglas L Wald, Gary L. Halling, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Helen Cho Eckert, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Leo David Caseria, Sheppard Mullin Richter Hampton LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP, Tyler Mark Cunningham, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton & James Landon McGinnis, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP. Samsung SDI America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Bruce Cobath, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Douglas L Wald, Dylan Ian Ballard, Gary L. Halling, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Helen Cho Eckert, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, James Landon McGinnis, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Leo David Caseria, Sheppard Mullin Richter Hampton LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Mona Solouki, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP & Tyler Mark Cunningham, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton. Samsung SDI Brasil LTDA, Defendant, represented by Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Bruce Cobath, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Douglas L Wald, Gary L. Halling, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Helen Cho Eckert, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Leo David Caseria, Sheppard Mullin Richter Hampton LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP, James Landon McGinnis, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP & Tyler Mark Cunningham, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton. Samsung SDI Co., Ltd., Defendant, represented by Bruce Cobath, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Douglas L Wald, Dylan Ian Ballard, Gary L. Halling, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Helen Cho Eckert, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Leo David Caseria, Sheppard Mullin Richter Hampton LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Mona Solouki, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP, James Landon McGinnis, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP & Tyler Mark Cunningham, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton. Samsung SDI Mexico S.A. de C.V., Defendant, represented by Bruce Cobath, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Douglas L Wald, Dylan Ian Ballard, Gary L. Halling, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Helen Cho Eckert, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Leo David Caseria, Sheppard Mullin Richter Hampton LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Mona Solouki, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP, James Landon McGinnis, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP & Tyler Mark Cunningham, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton. Samtel Color, Ltd., Defendant, represented by William Diaz, McDermott Will & Emery LLP. Shenzhen Samsung SDI Co. LTD., Defendant, represented by Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Bruce Cobath, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Douglas L Wald, Dylan Ian Ballard, Gary L. Halling, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Helen Cho Eckert, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Leo David Caseria, Sheppard Mullin Richter Hampton LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP, James Landon McGinnis, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP & Tyler Mark Cunningham, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton. Tianjin Samsung SDI Co., Ltd., Defendant, represented by Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Bruce Cobath, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Douglas L Wald, Dylan Ian Ballard, Gary L. Halling, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Helen Cho Eckert, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Leo David Caseria, Sheppard Mullin Richter Hampton LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Mona Solouki, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP, James Landon McGinnis, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP & Tyler Mark Cunningham, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton. Toshiba America Consumer Products, Inc., Defendant, represented by Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Samuel J. Sharp & William H. Bave, III. Toshiba America Electronics Components, Inc, Defendant, represented by Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Aya Kobori, White and Case LLP, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Dana E. Foster, White and Case LLP, Douglas L Wald, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jeremy Kent Ostrander, White & Case LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Lucius Bernard Lau, White & Case LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Samuel J. Sharp, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP, Tsung-Hui (Danny) Wu, White and Case LLP, William H. Bave, III, Charise Naifeh, White & Case LLP & Matthew Frutig, White & Case LLP. Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc., Defendant, represented by Aya Kobori, White and Case LLP, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Dana E. Foster, White and Case LLP, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Lucius Bernard Lau, White & Case LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Samuel J. Sharp, Samuel James Sharp, White and Case LLP, William H. Bave, III, Charise Naifeh, White & Case LLP & Matthew Frutig, White & Case LLP. Toshiba America, Inc, Defendant, represented by Aya Kobori, White and Case LLP, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Dana E. Foster, White and Case LLP, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Lucius Bernard Lau, White & Case LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Samuel J. Sharp, Samuel James Sharp, White and Case LLP, William H. Bave, III & Charise Naifeh, White & Case LLP. Toshiba Corporation, Defendant, represented by Aya Kobori, White and Case LLP, Dana E. Foster, White and Case LLP, Douglas L Wald, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Samuel J. Sharp, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP, William H. Bave, III, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, George L. Paul, White & Case LLP, Lucius Bernard Lau, White & Case LLP & Matthew Frutig, White & Case LLP. Mitsubishi Electric Corporation, Defendant, represented by Brent Caslin, Jenner & Block LLP, Terrence Joseph Truax, Jenner & Block LLC, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Gabriel A. Fuentes, Jenner & Block, LLP, Michael T. Brody, Jenner & Block LLP, Molly McGrail Powers, Jenner And Block LLP & Shaun M. Van Horn, Jenner And Block LLP. Thomson Consumer Electronics, Inc., Defendant, represented by Calvin Lee Litsey, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Jeffrey Scott Roberts, Faegre Baker Daniels, Kathy L. Osborn, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Ryan M Hurley, Ryan M. Hurley, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP & Stephen Michael Judge, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP. Thomson S.A., Defendant, represented by Calvin Lee Litsey, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Calvin L. Litsey, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Jeffrey Scott Roberts, Faegre Baker Daniels, Kathy L. Osborn, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Ryan M. Hurley, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP & Stephen Michael Judge, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP. PT.MT Picture Display Indonesia, Defendant, represented by Craig Y. Allison, Bunsow, De Mory, Smith & Allison LLP. Technologies Displays Americas LLC, Defendant, represented by Arthur Slezak Gaus, Dillingham Murphy, LLP, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Donald Arthur Wall, Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, Ellen Tobin, Curtis, Mallet-Provost, Colt Mosle LLP, Jeffrey Ira Zuckerman, Buris, Mallet Prevost, Colt Mosle LLP, Mark C. Dosker, Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP & Nathan Lane, III, Squire Sanders (US) LLP. Technicolor S.A, Defendant, represented by Calvin L. Litsey, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP & Calvin Lee Litsey, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP. Technicolor USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Calvin L. Litsey, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP & Calvin Lee Litsey, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP. Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V., Defendant, represented by Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP & Marc Howard Kallish, Freeborn Peters LLP. Mitsubishi Electric Visual Solutions America, Inc, Defendant, represented by Terrence Joseph Truax, Jenner & Block LLC, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Gabriel A. Fuentes, Jenner & Block, LLP, Michael T. Brody, Jenner & Block LLP, Molly McGrail Powers, Jenner And Block LLP & Shaun M. Van Horn, Jenner And Block LLP. Philips Taiwan Limited, Defendant, represented by Charles M Malaise,, Erik T. Koons, Baker Botts LLP, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P. & Joseph A. Ostoyich, Howrey LLP. Philips do Brasil Ltda., Defendant, represented by Charles M Malaise,, Erik T. Koons, Baker Botts LLP, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P. & Joseph A. Ostoyich, Howrey LLP. Mitsubishi Electric US, Inc., Defendant, represented by Michael T. Brody, Jenner & Block LLP & Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP. Alan Frankel, Respondent, represented by Norman T. Finkel, Schoenberg Finkel Newman Rosenberg LLC, Richard M. Goldwasser, Schoenberg Finkel Newman & Rosenberg LLC & Richard Marc Goldwasser, Schoenberg Finkel Newman Rosenberg LLC. Christopher Wirth, Movant, Pro Se. Mitsubishi Digital Electronics Americas, Inc., Interested Party, represented by Brent Caslin, Jenner & Block LLP, Michael T. Brody, Jenner & Block LLP & Terrence Joseph Truax, Jenner & Block LLC. Mitsubishi Electric & Electronics USA, Inc., Interested Party, represented by Brent Caslin, Jenner & Block LLP, Gabriel A. Fuentes, Jenner & Block, LLP, Michael T. Brody, Jenner & Block LLP, Molly McGrail Powers, Jenner And Block LLP, Shaun M. Van Horn, Jenner And Block LLP & Terrence Joseph Truax, Jenner & Block LLC. State of California, Interested Party, represented by Emilio Eugene Varanini, IV, State Attorney General's Office & Paul Andrew Moore, Attorney at Law. Douglas A. Kelley, Miscellaneous, represented by Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP & William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner. John R. Stoebner, as Chatper 7 Trustee for PBE Consumer Electronics, LLC and related entiMiscellaneous, represented by Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP & William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner. State of Illinois, Intervenor, represented by Blake Lee Harrop, Office of the Attorney General & Chadwick Oliver Brooker, Office of the Illinois Attorney General. State of Oregon, Intervenor, represented by Tim David Nord, Oregon Department of Justice. HOME DEPOT: "Marko" Suit Consolidated in Security Breach MDL ------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit styled Marko, et al. v. Home Depot USA, Case No. 3:14-cv-00981, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-03990-TWT to the proceeding. The case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation known as In re The Home Depot, Inc. Security Breach Litigation, MDL No. 1:14-md-02583-TWT. Generally, the Plaintiffs in the actions allege that Home Depot, the world's largest home improvement retailer, allowed computer hackers to gain access to its data network in approximately late April or early May 2014. The data network contained the personal financial information of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of consumers. The Plaintiffs contend that the ramifications of this security breach are severe because the thieves can use the financial information to create fake credit and debit cards that can be used to commit fraud and other crimes. The data breach was first reported on September 2, 2014 by a computer security blogger. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Francis J. Flynn, Esq. CAREY DANIS & LOWE 8235 Forsyth, Suite 1100 St. Louis, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 678-3400 Facsimile: (314) 678-3401 The Defendant is represented by: Russell K. Scott, Esq. GREENSFELDER, HEMKER & GALE, P.C. 12 Wolf Creek Drive, Suite 100 Swansea, IL 62226 Telephone: (618) 257-7308 Facsimile: (618) 257-7353 E-mail: rks@greensfelder.com HOMESTREET INC: Faces "Bushansky" Suit Over Merger Transaction -------------------------------------------------------------- Homestreet, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 13, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that a putative class action lawsuit related to the merger of Simplicity Bancorp with and into HomeStreet, captioned Bushansky vs. Simplicity Bancorp, Inc., et al. (Cause No. BC560508), was filed on or about October 10, 2014, in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, against Simplicity, each of Simplicity's directors and HomeStreet, Inc. The action, brought by a purported shareholder of Simplicity, seeks certification of a class of all holders of Simplicity common stock (except the defendants and their affiliates) and alleges, among other things, that Simplicity's directors breached their fiduciary duties by putting their personal interests ahead of those of Simplicity's shareholders and failing to take adequate measures to protect the interests of Simplicity's shareholders, and further alleges that HomeStreet aided and abetted such alleged breaches. The action seeks, among other things, an injunction against the merger and damages, as well as recovery of the costs of the action, including attorneys' and experts' fees. HomeStreet believes the claims alleged against it in the actions to be without merit and intends to defend against them vigorously. In addition, Simplicity has informed the Company that it also believes the allegations against it in the actions to be without merit, and that it intends to defend against the claims vigorously. HSBC BANK: Court Approves Force-Placed Insurance Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Heidi Turner, writing for LawyersandSettlements.com, reports that two more forced-place insurance lawsuits have been given final approval by the courts, putting an end to claims that mortgage lenders force-placed insurance with excessive costs on homeowners. Meanwhile, other financial institutions have announced that they're getting out of force-placed insurance (also known as lender insurance). In October, a federal judge in Florida granted final approval to a lawsuit on behalf of more than 250,000 homeowners against HSBC Bank and three insurance companies alleging illegal activities linked to the use of force-placed insurance. The settlement is worth around $32 million. The lawsuit was first filed in November 2012 and the settlement was granted preliminary approval earlier this year. Class members will receive cash refunds of 13 percent of the net annual premium. The insurance companies named in the lawsuit include Assurant Inc., American Security Insurance Co., and Standard Guaranty Insurance Co. The lawsuit is case number 1:13-cv-21104 in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Meanwhile, a lawsuit filed against Wells Fargo Bank and Assurant Inc. has also received final court approval. That lawsuit involved around 1.3 million Wells Fargo clients who alleged Wells Fargo charged inflated premiums on force-placed insurance policies because of kickbacks that were passed along to Assurant and then given back to Wells Fargo as commissions. That lawsuit is Fladell et al v. Wells Fargo Bank NA et al, case number 0:13-cv-60721 in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida. While some companies are settling force-placed insurance lawsuits, others are dropping force-placed insurance entirely. The Wall Street Journal (11/12/14) reports that Altisource Portfolio Solutions will stop offering force-placed insurance due to "uncertainties with industrywide litigation and the regulatory environment." Force-placed insurance is insurance placed by lenders on properties when the homeowner's insurance has lapsed or is considered inadequate. It is designed to protect the lender's financial interests. Concerns about force-placed insurance include that the premiums are much higher than on commercially available insurance policies, that lenders often force-place policies to cover a greater financial amount for the lender than is actually owed, that the policies offer less coverage than commercially available policies, that adequate insurance was already in place, that the coverage was applied retroactively to cover times that no insurance claim was made, and that the premiums are high because of illegal kickbacks disguised as commissions. These concerns have led to lawsuits filed by states, including New York, against companies involved in force-placed insurance, and class-action lawsuits filed by homeowners who often allege that they either paid too much because of kickbacks or that the force-placed insurance policy was unnecessary because they had adequate coverage. HUBSPOT INC: Settled Class Action for Immaterial Amount ------------------------------------------------------- HubSpot, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 13, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that a class action complaint was filed on November 13, 2013, alleging that the Company maintained a policy of not paying overtime to business development representatives for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The Company settled this litigation in November 2014 for an immaterial amount. ILLINOIS: Faces "Bailey" Suit Alleging Violations of ADA -------------------------------------------------------- Carol Bailey, and Similarly Situated Descendants of the African Holocaust of Slavery v. Region V of the Federal Government; Pat Quinn, State of IL Governor; Circuit Court of Cook County; City of Chicago; and Contractors and Sub Contractors, Case No. 1:14-cv- 10096 (N.D. Ill., December 16, 2014) alleges violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff is not represented by any law firm. INSTALLED BUILDING: Class Action Settlement Expenses Paid --------------------------------------------------------- Installed Building Products, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that all related expenses in a settlement of class actions were paid during the nine months ended September 30, 2014, and therefore no accrued expense remained as of September 30, 2014. The Company said, "A class action lawsuit was filed in February 2013 and an amended complaint was filed in May 2013 in the Superior Court of King County, Washington, involving Installed Building Products II, LLC, one of our subsidiaries, alleging violations of Washington State wage and hour laws for failure to pay prevailing and minimum wage and overtime wages. The plaintiffs were former insulation installers for Installed Building Products II, LLC in Washington who sought to represent all similarly situated workers. They sought all unpaid wages, along with litigation costs and fees." "A lawsuit was filed in July 2013 in federal court in the Middle District of Tennessee against one of our subsidiaries, TCI d/b/a Installed Building Products of Nashville, alleging unpaid overtime and failure to pay lawful wages under federal law and Tennessee common law and in unjust enrichment and in breach of an alleged contract. The named plaintiffs were former insulation installers in Nashville. The plaintiffs sought to have this case certified as a collective action under the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act and as a class action under Tennessee law. They sought reimbursement of the overtime wages for all time worked over forty hours each week, as well as liquidated damages and litigation costs and fees. "Both lawsuits were settled in January 2014 and approved by the court by April 2014 for a total cost of approximately $1,407,000. Approximately $1,200,000 of this cost was recorded as an accrued expense included in other current liabilities on our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as of December 31, 2013. All related expenses were paid during the nine months ended September 30, 2014, and therefore no accrued expense remained as of September 30, 2014." INTERCLOUD SYSTEMS: Lead Plaintiffs Intend to File Amended Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Intercloud Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 13, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the lead plaintiffs in a class action have advised the Company of their intention to file an amended complaint in January 2015. The Company said, "In March 2014, a complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against our company, our Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer, Mark Munro, The DreamTeamGroup and MissionIR, as purported securities advertisers and investor relations firms, and John Mylant, a purported investor and investment advisor. The complaint was purportedly filed on behalf of a class of certain persons who purchased our common stock between November 5, 2013 and March 17, 2014. The complaint alleges violations by the defendants (other than Mark Munro) of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and other related provisions in connection with certain alleged courses of conduct that were intended to deceive the plaintiff and the investing public and to cause the members of the purported class to purchase shares of our common stock at artificially inflated prices based on untrue statements of a material fact or omissions to state material facts necessary to make the statements not misleading. The complaint also alleges that Mr. Munro and our company violated Section 20 of the Exchange Act as controlling persons of the other defendants. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, attorney and expert fees, and other unspecified litigation costs." On November 3, 2014, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey issued an order appointing Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as lead plaintiffs' counsel and Cohn Lifland Pearlman Herrmann & Knopf LLP as liaison counsel for the pending actions. "The lead plaintiffs have advised us of their intention to file an amended complaint in January 2015," the Company said. "We intend to dispute these claims and to defend this litigation vigorously. However, due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, the ultimate outcome of this litigation is uncertain. An unfavorable outcome in this litigation could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations." IRADIMED CORPORATION: Lam Action in Early Stages of Litigation -------------------------------------------------------------- Iradimed Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 13, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Lam class action is presently in the very early stages of litigation. On September 10, 2014, a Civil Action was filed in the U.S. District Count for the Southern District of Florida ("Lam Civil Action"). The Lam Civil Action is a putative class action lawsuit brought against the Company and certain individuals who are officers and / or directors of the Company. The plaintiff is an alleged shareholder of the Company, and seeks relief on behalf of a class of persons who purchased the Company's common stock during the period from July 15, 2014 through September 2, 2014. The complaint alleges that the defendants failed to disclose material information concerning the Company's compliance with FDA regulations in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and that the putative class members suffered damages as a result. The complaint additionally alleges "control person" liability against the individual defendants under Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Lam Civil Action is presently in the very early stages of litigation. The Company disputes the plaintiff's allegations and theories of liability, and intends to defend the case vigorously. "We have not accrued for any loss related to this matter as we believe that any such loss is not probable or estimable," the Company said. J & G TRANSPORT: Conditional Certification Granted in FLSA Case --------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman granted the Plaintiffs' Amended Motion for Conditional Certification and Facilitation of Court- Authorized Notice in ENRIQUE COLLADO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. J. & G. TRANSPORT, INC. et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 14-80467- CIVGOODMAN (S.D. Fla.). Plaintiffs filed their Amended Complaint alleging that J & G Transport Inc. failed to pay them and other similarly situated employees a minimum wage and/or the overtime rate for hours worked over forty hours a week, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiffs stated in their affidavits that they worked for J & G Transport as truck drivers hauling either garbage, debris, mulch, molasses, and/or sugar within the State of Florida during the years of 2013 and/or 2014. Plaintiffs further seek conditional certification of the following class: All drivers which were employed by the Defendants from April 6, 2011 through April 6, 2014, who were not paid a minimum wage; and/or who were not paid proper overtime compensation. Defendants opposed to the Motion and argued that even the lapse of six months since the case was first filed, Plaintiffs failed to make a showing that anyone else wishes to join this action. Magistrate Goodman ruled that Plaintiffs have met the low burden required to show the existence of other similarly situated employees who would join a collective action and held that the existence of merely one other co-worker who desires to join in is sufficient to raise the Plaintiff's contention beyond one of pure speculation. A copy of the Order dated October 23, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/Tw6Oslfrom Leagle.com. KMART CORP: Sued by First NBC Bank in Illinois Over Data Breach --------------------------------------------------------------- First NBC Bank, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated financial institutions v. Kmart Corporation and Sears Holdings Corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-10088 (N.D. Ill., December 16, 2014) is brought on behalf of credit unions, banks, and other financial institutions that suffered injury as a result of a security breach beginning in early September 2014 that compromised the names, credit and debit card numbers, card expiration dates, card verification values, and other credit and debit card information of customers of the Defendants' Kmart brand retail stores. First NBC Bank is a Louisiana bank headquartered in New Orleans, Louisiana. Kmart Corporation is a Michigan corporation with a principal place of business located in Hoffman Estates, Illinois. Kmart operates a chain of retail stores that sell a wide variety of merchandise, including home appliances, consumer electronics, home goods, apparel, grocery & household, pharmacy and drugstore items. Kmart operates approximately 1,077 stores in the United States. Sears Holdings Corporation is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business located at in Hoffman Estates, Illinois. Sears Holdings Corporation is the parent company of Kmart and was formed in 2004 in connection with the merger of Kmart and Sears, Roebuck and Co. The Plaintiff is represented by: Marvin A. Miller, Esq. Lori A. Fanning, Esq. MILLER LAW LLC 115 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 2910 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 332-3400 Facsimile: (312) 676-2676 E-mail: mmiller@millerlawllc.com lfanning@millerlawllc.com - and - Arthur M. Murray, Esq. Stephen B. Murray, Esq. Korey A. Nelson, Esq. MURRAY LAW FIRM 650 Poydras Street, Suite 2150 New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 525-8100 Facsimile: (504) 584-5249 E-mail: amurray@murray-lawfirm.com smurray@murray-lawfirm.com knelson@murray-lawfirm.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 - and - Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq. Heidi M. Silton, Esq. Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P. 100 Washington Ave. S., Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 Facsimile: (612) 339-0981 E-mail: khriebel@locklaw.com hmsilton@locklaw.com kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com LIBERTY SILVER: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Liberty Silver Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 13, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Liberty Silver Parties have moved to dismiss a securities class action lawsuit. On September 12, 2013, the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors (the "Liberty Silver Parties") were named as defendants in a proposed securities class action lawsuit filed against Robert Genovese, certain individuals alleged to have collaborated with Mr. Genovese, and an offshore investment firm allegedly controlled by Mr. Genovese (the "Action," Case No. 9:13- cv-80923-KLR, Stanaford v. Genovese et al.). The action contains various claims alleging violations of the United States Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and rules thereunder relating to anomalous trading activity and fluctuations in the Company's share price from August through October 2012. The plaintiff purports to bring suit on behalf of all who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common shares from April 1, 2008, through and including October 5, 2012. An amended complaint was filed on September 27, 2013. On January 22, 2014, the Court appointed Jerald Todd Stanaford and Philip Hobel lead plaintiffs and approved Federman & Sherwood as Lead Counsel and Menzer & Hill, PA as Liaison Counsel. On March 24, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint. On May 8, 2014, the Liberty Silver Parties moved to dismiss the Complaint. The Liberty Silver Parties intend to vigorously defend the Action. It is not possible at this time to predict whether the Company will incur any liability as a result of the Action, or to estimate the damages, or the range of damages, if any, that the Company might incur in connection with the Action. LIN MEDIA: Class Action Plaintiffs Withdraw Motion to Expedite -------------------------------------------------------------- LIN Media LLC and LIN Television Corporation said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that plaintiffs in a consolidated class action sent a letter to the Court withdrawing a pending motion to expedite. The Company said, "On July 24, 2014, we filed a joint proxy statement/prospectus with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") which was mailed to the shareholders of LIN LLC in connection with a special meeting of the shareholders of LIN LLC to be held on August 20, 2014 for the purpose of voting on the proposal to adopt the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated March 21, 2014, with Media General, Inc., a Virginia corporation ("Media General"), Mercury New Holdco, Inc., a Virginia corporation ("New Holdco"), Mercury Merger Sub 1, Inc., a Virginia corporation and a direct, wholly-owned subsidiary of New Holdco ("Merger Sub 1"), Mercury Merger Sub 2, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and a direct, wholly owned subsidiary of New Holdco ("Merger Sub 2") (the "Merger Agreement")." "Following the announcement on March 21, 2014 of the execution of the Merger Agreement, three complaints were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery challenging the proposed acquisition of LIN LLC: Sciabacucchi v. Lin Media LLC, et al. (C.A. No. 9530) (the "Sciabacucchi Action"), International Union of Operating Engineers Local 132 Pension Fund v. Lin Media LLC, et al. (C.A. No.9538) (the "Pension Fund Action"), and Pryor v. Lin Media LLC, et al. (C.A. No. 9577) (the "Pryor Action"). The litigations are putative class actions filed on behalf of the public stockholders of LIN LLC and name as defendants LIN LLC, our directors, Media General, New Holdco, Merger Sub 1 and Merger Sub 2 and HM Capital Partners LLC and several of its alleged affiliates (Hicks, Muse, Tate & Furst Equity Fund III, L.P.; HM3 Coinvestors, L.P.; Hicks, Muse, Tate & Furst Equity Fund IV, L.P.; Hicks, Muse, Tate & Furst Private Equity Fund IV, L.P.; HM4EQ Coinvestors, L.P.; Hicks, Muse & Co. Partners, L.P.; Muse Family Enterprises, Ltd.; and JRM Interim Investors, L.P. (together with HM Capital Partners LLC and individual director defendant John R. Muse, which we collectively refer to as "HMC")). "On April 18, 2014, the plaintiff in the Pension Fund Action voluntarily dismissed that action without prejudice and, on April 21, 2014, the Court approved the dismissal. "On April 25, 2014, the plaintiff in the Sciabacucchi Action filed an amended complaint, and the plaintiffs in the Sciabacucchi and Pryor Actions each filed a motion for an expedited hearing on the plaintiff's (yet-to-be filed) motion for a permanent injunction to enjoin the Merger, requesting, among other things, that the Court set a permanent injunction hearing for September 2014. On April 30, 2014, the plaintiffs in the Sciabacucchi and Pryor Actions filed a stipulation to consolidate the two actions, which was approved by the Court on May 1, 2014. "The operative complaint generally alleges that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties in connection with their consideration and approval of the Merger, that the entity defendants aided and abetted those breaches and that individual director defendant Royal W. Carson III and HMC breached their fiduciary duties as controlling shareholders of LIN LLC by causing LIN LLC to enter into the Merger, which plaintiffs allege will provide disparate consideration to HMC. The complaint seeks, among other things, declaratory and injunctive relief enjoining the Merger. "On May 15, 2014, plaintiffs in the consolidated action sent a letter to the Court withdrawing the pending motion to expedite. "The outcome of the lawsuit is uncertain and cannot be predicted with any certainty. An adverse judgment for monetary damages could have a material adverse effect on our operations and liquidity. An adverse judgment granting permanent injunctive relief could indefinitely enjoin completion of the Merger." MEDTRONIC INC: Removes "Tierney" Suit to Tennessee District Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- The lawsuit captioned Tierney v. Medtronic, Inc., et al., Case No. CT-005254-14, was removed from the Circuit Court of Shelby County, Tennessee, for the Thirtieth Judicial District at Memphis, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv- 02993 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff alleges that he was injured by his physician's off- label use of Medtronic Defendants' Infuse Bone Graft/LT-CAGE Lumbar Tapered Fusion Device. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory J. Bubalo, Esq. Leslie M. Cronen, Esq. BUBALO GOODE SALES & BLISS PLC 9300 Shelbyville Road, Suite 215 Louisville, KY 40222 Telephone: (502) 753-1600 Facsimile: (502) 753-1601 E-mail: GBubalo@bubalolaw.com LCronen@bubalolaw.com - and - Laura Yaeger, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 223-5505 Facsimile: (813) 222-4796 E-mail: LYaeger@forthepeople.com The Defendants are represented by: Leo M. Bearman, Esq. Robert F. Tom, Esq. BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC First Tennessee Building 165 Madison Avenue, Suite 2000 Memphis, TN 38103 Telephone: (901) 526-2000 Facsimile: (901) 577-0818 E-mail: lbearman@bakerdonelson.com rtom@bakerdonelson.com - and - Andrew E. Tauber, Esq. MAYER BROWN, LLP 1999 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 263-3324 Facsimile: (202) 263-5324 E-mail: atauber@mayerbrown.com - and - Daniel L. Ring, Esq. MAYER BROWN, LLP 71 S. Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 701-8520 Facsimile: (312) 706-8675 E-mail: dring@mayerbrown.com - and - Sean P. Fahey, Esq. PEPPER HAMILTON, LLP 3000 Two Logan Square Eighteenth and Arch Streets Philadelphia, PA 19103-2799 Telephone: (215) 981-4000 Facsimile: (215) 981-4750 E-mail: faheys@pepperlaw.com METROPOLITAN LIFE: Plaintiffs Appeal Summary Judgment Order ----------------------------------------------------------- Metropolitan Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that plaintiffs have appealed that decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granting the Company's motion for summary judgment in the putative class actions, Keife, et al. v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (D. Nev., filed in state court on July 30, 2010 and removed to federal court on September 7, 2010); and Simon v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (D. Nev., filed November 3, 2011). The lawsuits, which have been consolidated, raise breach of contract claims arising from Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's use of the Total Control Accounts ("TCA") to pay life insurance benefits under the Federal Employees' Group Life Insurance program. On March 8, 2013, the court granted Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs have appealed that decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. METROPOLITAN LIFE: Faces "Owens" Class Action in N.D. Ga. --------------------------------------------------------- Metropolitan Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Company faces Owens v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (N.D. Ga., filed April 17, 2014), a putative class action lawsuit alleging that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's use of the Total Control Accounts ("TCA") as the settlement option for life insurance benefits under some group life insurance policies violates Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). As damages, plaintiff seeks disgorgement of profits that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company realized on accounts owned by members of the putative class. METROPOLITAN LIFE: Sales Practices Cases Against Sun Life Ongoing ----------------------------------------------------------------- Metropolitan Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that sales practices cases against Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada are ongoing. In 2006, Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada ("Sun Life"), as successor to the purchaser of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's Canadian operations, filed a lawsuit in Toronto, seeking a declaration that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company remains liable for "market conduct claims" related to certain individual life insurance policies sold by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and that were transferred to Sun Life. Sun Life had asked that the court require Metropolitan Life Insurance Company to indemnify Sun Life for these claims pursuant to indemnity provisions in the sale agreement for the sale of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's Canadian operations entered into in June of 1998. In January 2010, the court found that Sun Life had given timely notice of its claim for indemnification but, because it found that Sun Life had not yet incurred an indemnifiable loss, granted Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's motion for summary judgment. Both parties appealed but subsequently agreed to withdraw the appeal and consider the indemnity claim through arbitration. In September 2010, Sun Life notified Metropolitan Life Insurance Company that a purported class action lawsuit was filed against Sun Life in Toronto, Fehr v. Sun Life Assurance Co. (Super. Ct., Ontario, September 2010), alleging sales practices claims regarding the same individual policies sold by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and transferred to Sun Life. An amended class action complaint in that case was served on Sun Life in May 2013, again without naming Metropolitan Life Insurance Company as a party. On August 30, 2011, Sun Life notified Metropolitan Life Insurance Company that a purported class action lawsuit was filed against Sun Life in Vancouver, Alamwala v. Sun Life Assurance Co. (Sup. Ct., British Columbia, August 2011), alleging sales practices claims regarding certain of the same policies sold by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and transferred to Sun Life. Sun Life contends that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is obligated to indemnify Sun Life for some or all of the claims in these lawsuits. These sales practices cases against Sun Life are ongoing, and the Company is unable to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss arising from this litigation. METROPOLITAN LIFE: Final Approval Hearing Held in "Fauley" Case --------------------------------------------------------------- Metropolitan Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Court scheduled the final approval hearing for November 2014 to approve the settlement in Fauley case. In the cases C-Mart, Inc. v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., et al. (S.D. Fla., January 10, 2013); Cadenasso v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., et al. (N.D. Cal., November 26, 2013, subsequently transferred to S.D. Fla.); and Fauley v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., et al. (Circuit Court of the 19th Judicial Circuit, Lake County, Ill., July 3, 2014), Plaintiffs filed these lawsuits against defendants, including Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and a former MetLife financial services representative, alleging that the defendants sent unsolicited fax advertisements to plaintiff and others in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company has agreed to pay up to $23 million to resolve claims as to fax ads sent between August 23, 2008 and the date of the court's preliminary approval of the settlement. Following this agreement, the Fauley case was filed in Illinois, seeking certification of a nationwide class of plaintiffs and the C-Mart and Cadenasso cases were voluntarily dismissed. In August 2014, the Fauley court preliminarily approved the settlement, certified a nationwide settlement class, and scheduled the final approval hearing for November 2014. MINNESOTA: Class Action Over Sex Offender Program Pending --------------------------------------------------------- KSTP.com's Joe Augustine, citing a report by The Associated Press, said a man convicted of sexual assault in the early 1980's will become just the third person to be released from the state's controversial sex offender program. Robert Jeno was granted a provisional discharge from the Minnesota Sex Offender Program (MSOP) on Nov. 12 by a Supreme Court Appeal panel. He will live at an adult foster care facility in Le Center where alarms will be placed on his windows. A GPS tracker will also monitor his location 24 hours a day. Final arrangements for his release and public notices are still being made. Mr. Jeno was convicted of criminal sexual conduct in the fourth degree in June 1982. He was committed to MSOP in April 1992 as a Psychopathic Personality. In 2013, Mr. Jeno applied for a provisional discharge. Such requests are rarely granted by State Supreme Court appeal panels. Since 1994, only two other sex offenders have been granted such a release, according to MSOP. An MSOP client discharged in 2012 is currently living in the community under close monitoring and supervision. Another client's discharge was revoked several years ago for not complying with the terms of the release. The low release rate raised concerns about the constitutionality of the state's treatment of civilly committed sex offenders. A class action lawsuit was filed in Federal Court against MSOP and the Department of Human Services on behalf of all individuals committed to the sex offender program. There are currently 703 people being treated in the program, according to numbers posted on the MSOP website. The federal case is still pending. In a court order issued in June, District Judge Donovan Frank wrote "this case involves alleged systemic problems with MSOP". The judge also cited reports submitted to the court by the Sex Offender Commitment Advisory Task Force and the Office of the Legislative Auditor, which provided damning evaluations of the program. "There is broad consensus that the current system of civil commitment of sex offenders in Minnesota captures too many people and keeps many of them too long," the Task Force found in its report in 2013. The attorney for Robert Jeno believes a provisional discharge would not have been granted for his client if it were not for the class action lawsuit. "Without that federal court action, there would have been less willingness on a state level to consider release at this time," Stephen Ecker said by phone on Dec. 5. The Department of Human Services retained examiners and doctors from other states to partake in the evaluation process of Robert Jeno, a move Mr. Ecker also believes would not have happened without pressure created by the ongoing lawsuit. "I think the Department of Human Services would have been less likely to take that step unless there had been this federal involvement," Mr. Ecker said. MOTORS LIQUIDATION: 107 Class Actions Filed Over Vehicle Recall --------------------------------------------------------------- Motors Liquidation Company GUC Trust said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that as of September 30, 2014, 107 putative class actions have been filed in various federal and state courts seeking compensatory damages for economic losses allegedly resulting from one or more of the recalls announced this year and/or the underlying condition of vehicles covered by those recalls. Most of those 107 cases concern the Ignition Switch Recall, or the Ignition Switch Actions. In addition, since the announcement of the Ignition Switch Recall, various plaintiffs have filed actions (including putative class actions) against General Motors Company, formerly known as NGMCO, Inc. ("New GM") asserting (i) economic losses allegedly resulting from recalls of vehicles manufactured or sold prior to July 10, 2009 (or the underlying condition of those vehicles) other than the Ignition Switch Recall, or the Other Economic Loss Actions, and/or (ii) certain personal injury and other claims allegedly arising from accidents that occurred prior to the Closing Date, or the Personal Injury Actions. In June 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered that 15 of the then pending Ignition Switch Actions be transferred to and consolidated before a single court in the Southern District of New York, or the MDL Court, case number 14-MD-2543 (JMF). To date, more than 100 Ignition Switch Actions, Other Economic Loss Actions and Personal Injury Actions have been transferred and consolidated before the MDL Court. On August 11, 2014, the MDL Court ordered the plaintiffs in the pending Ignition Switch Actions concerning vehicles purchased prior to July 10, 2009 to file an amended and consolidated complaint with respect to the Ignition Switch Recall, which amended and consolidated complaint was filed on October 14, 2014. Concurrently with the proceedings before the MDL Court, New GM has taken steps in the Bankruptcy Court to enjoin the Ignition Switch Actions, the Other Economic Loss Actions and the Personal Injury Actions. In that respect, on April 21, 2014, New GM filed a motion with the Bankruptcy Court seeking to enjoin the Ignition Switch Actions and to enforce the Sale Order and Injunction entered on July 5, 2009, or the Sale Order (under which all product liability and property damage claims arising from accidents or incidents prior to the Closing Date were to remain with Old GM as general unsecured claims). If New GM is successful in enjoining the Ignition Switch Actions, plaintiffs in the Ignition Switch Actions could assert claims against the GUC Trust. On May 16, 2014, the Bankruptcy Court entered a scheduling order, which order was supplemented on July 11, 2014 and again on August 22, 2014, or (as supplemented) the Ignition Switch Scheduling Order, identifying a number of "threshold issues" for its resolution, including whether plaintiffs' procedural due process rights were violated in connection with the Sale Order, whether any or all of the claims asserted in the Ignition Switch Actions are claims against Old GM and/or the GUC Trust, and whether any such claims against Old GM and/or the GUC Trust should be dismissed as equitably moot. On August 1, 2014, New GM filed two additional motions with the Bankruptcy Court seeking to enforce the Sale Order and to enjoin the Other Economic Loss Actions and the Personal Injury Actions. If New GM is successful in enjoining the Other Economic Loss Actions and/or the Personal Injury Actions, plaintiffs in such actions could assert claims against the GUC Trust. On September 15, 2014, the Bankruptcy Court entered scheduling orders with respect to the Other Economic Loss Actions and the Personal Injury Actions, each of which provided that, with certain exceptions, the Ignition Switch Scheduling Order (including related briefing schedules) would apply to New GM's motions to enforce the Sale Order with respect to the Other Economic Loss Actions and the Personal Injury Actions. Briefing with respect to the New GM motions to enforce the Sale Order commenced on November 5, 2014. The GUC Trust has appeared as a party in interest with respect to New GM's motions to enforce the Sale Order and filed a brief in opposition thereto on November 5, 2014. The GUC Trust intends to vigorously defend its position that none of the claims of the plaintiffs in the Ignition Switch Actions, the Other Economic Loss Actions or the Personal Injury Actions may be properly asserted against Old GM or the GUC Trust. MULTIMEDIA GAMES: Faces "Eykyn" Class Action in W.D. Tex. --------------------------------------------------------- Multimedia Games Holding Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2014, for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2014, that David Eykyn and Mike Eykyn v. Multimedia Games Holding Company, Inc., et. al., a purported class action suit, was filed on October 3, 2014, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin District, against the Company, members of the Company's board of directors and others, relating to the Merger Agreement. An amended complaint was filed on October 28, 2014, that includes putative individual, class action, and shareholder derivative claims. The suit alleges that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the Merger with Global Cash Access Holdings, Inc., that the entities aided and abetted the individual defendants' alleged breaches of fiduciary duty, and that the proxy statement that the Company filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission relating to the Merger is materially incomplete and has misleading disclosures. The suit also alleges violations of Sections 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and violations of 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act against the individual defendants. The suit seeks (i) a declaration that the action be declared a class action with plaintiff certified as class representative, (ii) an injunction against the defendants from completing the Merger until certain conditions are met, (iii) rescission of the Merger; and/or (iv) resultant damages and costs. MULTIMEDIA GAMES: Faces "Coffman" Class Action in W.D. Tex. ----------------------------------------------------------- Multimedia Games Holding Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2014, for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2014, that Christopher Coffman v. Multimedia Games Holding Company, Inc., et. al., a purported individual, class action, and shareholder derivative suit, was filed on October 23, 2014, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin District, against the Company, members of the Company's board of directors, Global Cash Access Holdings, Inc., and Merger Sub, relating to the Merger Agreement. The suit alleges that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the Merger, and that the entities aided and abetted the individual defendants' alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The suit seeks (i) a declaration that the action be declared a class action with plaintiff certified as class representative, (ii) an injunction against the defendants from completing the Merger until certain conditions are met, (iii) rescission of the Merger; and/or (iv) resultant damages and costs. MULTIMEDIA GAMES: "Maciel" Class Action Dismissed ------------------------------------------------- Multimedia Games Holding Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2014, for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2014, that Jose Maciel v. Multimedia Games Holding Company, Inc., et. al., a purported individual and class action suit, was filed on October 23, 2014, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin District, against the Company, members of the Company's board of directors, Global Cash Access Holdings, Inc., and Merger Sub, relating to the Merger. The suit alleges that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the Merger, and that the entities aided and abetted the individual defendants' alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The suit seeks (i) a declaration that the action be declared a class action with plaintiff certified as class representative, (ii) an injunction against the defendants from completing the Merger until certain conditions are met, (iii) rescission of the Merger; and/or (iv) resultant damages and costs. On November 4, 2014, Mr. Maciel filed a notice of voluntary dismissal. The parties have filed an agreed motion to consolidate the remaining federal cases relating to the Merger Agreement. MULTIMEDIA GAMES: Faces "Lewis" Action in Travis County, Texas -------------------------------------------------------------- Multimedia Games Holding Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2014, for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2014, that Greggory Lewis v. Global Cash Access Holdings, Inc., et. al., No. D-1-GN-14-004324, a purported shareholder class and derivative action brought on behalf of the Company and a purported class action suit brought on behalf of similarly situated shareholders of the Company, was filed on October 15, 2014, in the District Court of Travis County, Texas, 201st Judicial District, against GCA, Merger Sub and members of the Company's board of directors, with the Company included as a nominal party, relating to the Merger Agreement. The suit alleges that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the Merger, and that GCA and Merger Sub aided and abetted the individual defendants' alleged breaches of fiduciary duty, and that the proxy statement that the Company filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission relating to the Merger is materially incomplete and has misleading disclosures. The suit seeks (i) a declaration that the plaintiff may maintain the action derivatively as a representative on behalf of the Company, (ii) a declaration that the defendants have breached their fiduciary duties owed to the Company, (iii) a declaration that the action is maintainable as a class action, , (iv) a declaration that the defendants have breached their fiduciary duties owed to the Company's shareholders, (v) an injunction against the defendants from completing the Merger until certain conditions are met, (vi) rescission of the Merger, (vi) resultant damages and costs and (vii) other equitable relief as the court may deem just and proper. MULTIMEDIA GAMES: Still Defending Against "Williams" Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Multimedia Games Holding Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2014, for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2014, that the Company continues to vigorously defend the case, Dollie Williams, et al., v. Macon County Greyhound Park, Inc., et al. Dollie Williams, et al., v. Macon County Greyhound Park, Inc., et al., a civil action, was filed on March 8, 2010, in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Eastern Division, against the Company and others. The plaintiffs, who claim to have been patrons of VictoryLand, allege that the Company participated in gambling operations that violated Alabama state law by supplying to VictoryLand purportedly unlawful electronic bingo machines played by the plaintiffs, and the plaintiffs seek recovery of the monies lost on all electronic bingo games played by the plaintiffs in the six months prior to the filing of the complaint under Ala. Code Sec. 8-1-150(A). The plaintiffs have requested that the court certify the action as a class action. On March 29, 2013, the court entered an order granting the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On April 12, 2013, the defendants jointly filed a petition with the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals seeking permission to appeal the court's ruling on class certification. On June 18, 2013, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals entered an order granting the petition to appeal. Following briefing and oral argument, on April 2, 2014 the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals entered an order reversing the district court's ruling on class certification and remanding the case to the district court. The Company continues to vigorously defend this matter. Given the inherent uncertainties in this litigation, however, the Company is unable to make any prediction as to the ultimate outcome. A finding in this case that electronic bingo was illegal in Alabama during the pertinent time frame could have adverse regulatory consequences for the Company in other jurisdictions. MULTIMEDIA GAMES: Still Defending Against "Hardy" Action -------------------------------------------------------- Multimedia Games Holding Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2014, for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2014, that the Company continues to vigorously defend the case, Ozetta Hardy v. Whitehall Gaming Center, LLC, et al. Ozetta Hardy v. Whitehall Gaming Center, LLC, et al., a civil action, was filed against Whitehall Gaming Center, LLC (an entity that does not exist), Cornerstone Community Outreach, Inc., and Freedom Trail Ventures, Ltd., in the Circuit Court of Lowndes County, Alabama. On June 3, 2010, the Company and other manufacturers were added as defendants. The plaintiffs, who claim to have been patrons of White Hall, allege that the Company participated in gambling operations that violated Alabama state law by supplying to White Hall purportedly unlawful electronic bingo machines played by the plaintiffs, and the plaintiffs seek recovery of the monies lost on all electronic bingo games played by the plaintiffs in the six months prior to the filing of the complaint under Ala. Code, Sec 8-1-150(A). The plaintiffs have requested that the court certify the action as a class action. On July 2, 2010, the defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division. The court has not ruled on the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Company continues to vigorously defend this matter. Given the inherent uncertainties in this litigation, however, the Company is unable to make any prediction as to the ultimate outcome. A finding in this case that electronic bingo was illegal in Alabama during the pertinent time frame could have adverse regulatory consequences to the Company in other jurisdictions. NUCOR CORP: 5 of 8 Defendants Reached Court-Approved Settlements ---------------------------------------------------------------- Nucor Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2014, for the quarterly period ended October 4, 2014, that five of the eight defendants in a class action against major steel producers have reached court approved settlements with the plaintiffs. Nucor has been named, along with other major steel producers, as a co-defendant in several related antitrust class-action complaints filed by Standard Iron Works and other steel purchasers in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The majority of these complaints were filed in September and October of 2008, with two additional complaints being filed in July and December of 2010. Two of these complaints have been voluntarily dismissed and are no longer pending. The plaintiffs allege that from April 1, 2005 through December 31, 2007, eight steel manufacturers, including Nucor, engaged in anticompetitive activities with respect to the production and sale of steel. The plaintiffs seek monetary and other relief. Five of the eight defendants have reached court approved settlements with the plaintiffs. "Although we believe the plaintiffs' claims are without merit, we will continue to vigorously defend against them, but we cannot at this time predict the outcome of this litigation or estimate the range of Nucor's potential exposure," the Company said. P.F. CHANG'S: Ill. Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Data Breach Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff John Lewert filed a class action Complaint against P.F. Chang's arising from a data breach involving the theft of customers' credit card and debit card data. Count I is a breach of implied contract claim on behalf of a national class. Count II is an Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. Plaintiff Lucas Kosner filed a class action Complaint against the Defendant alleging the same. Kosner's case was related to and consolidated with Lewert's. The Defendant moves to dismiss the Complaints pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Judge John W. Darrah of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted, without prejudice, the Defendant's motion, holding that because subject matter jurisdiction does not exist in this case, the case is dismissed. The cases are JOHN LEWERT, Plaintiff, v. P.F. CHANG'S CHINA BISTRO, INC., Defendant, and LUCAS KOSNER, Plaintiff, v. P.F. CHANG'S CHINA BISTRO, INC., Defendant, CASE NO. 14CV4787, NO. 14CV4923 (N.D. Ill.). A full-text copy of Judge Darrah's Decision is available at http://is.gd/YRQ2tEfrom Leagle.com. John Lewert, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph J Siprut, Esq. -- jsiprut@siprut.com -- Siprut PC, Gregg Michael Barbakoff, Esq. -- gbarbakoff@siprut.com -- at Siprut Pc & Gregory Wood Jones, Esq. -- gjones@siprut.com -- at Siprut Pc. P.F. Chang's China Bistro, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, represented by Thomas Alexander Lidbury, Esq. -- Thomas.Lidbury@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, Jon Peter Kardassakis, Esq. -- Jon.Kardassakis@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith Llp & Robert Geoffrey Cooper, Esq. -- Robert.Cooper@lewisbrisbois.com -- at Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard And Smith Llp. Lucas Kosner, Movant, represented by Katrina Carroll, Esq. -- kcarroll@litedepalma.com -- Lite DePalma Greenberg LLC, Kyle Alan Shamberg, Esq. -- kShamberg@litedepalma.com -- at Lite DePalma Greenberg, LLC & Richard R Gordon, Gordon Law Offices, Ltd.. PECCOLE RANCH: Homeowners Obtain Favorable Ruling in Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Sean Whaley, writing for Las Vegas Review-Journal, reports that a Las Vegas attorney on Dec. 5 said the Nevada Supreme Court gave a legal victory to homeowners associations and their residents when it ruled that "house flippers" who fully paid off liens to quickly sell their investments at huge profits cannot now recoup some of that money. "It is good news for homeowners associations," attorney Pat Reilly said. "It is also very good news for homeowners in the associations. If the associations had gotten tagged for the millions of dollars these lawsuits were seeking, the costs would have been passed on to the people who are paying their dues every month on time." Although the Dec. 4 ruling applied only to one property owner, there are more than 500 other claims involving similar circumstances that are part of a class action lawsuit against Peccole Ranch, he said. There are similar class action lawsuits underway on the same issue against other associations, Mr. Reilly said. Mr. Reilly, with the firm Holland &Hart, said the house flippers made huge profits after paying off the liens, which were worth only a few thousand dollars each. Mr. Reilly, who represented a collection agency, Nevada Association Services, in the case said the ruling should halt the lawsuits. But attorneys for the property owner and the other members of the class action disagreed that the ruling ends their legal efforts to recoup a portion of the payments. Instead, the issue of whether the payments to satisfy the liens were voluntary or made under duress now will have to be considered in District Court, attorney Puoy Premsrirut said. "Every one of our cases involved foreclosure proceedings and notices of default against the property owner," she said. "They did not have a meaningful choice." Attorney James Adams said it will be up to the associations as the case proceeds to show that the payments were voluntary. Property owners do not have to show they were involuntary, he said. The opinion, issued on Dec. 4, found that the "voluntary payment doctrine" precluded the purchaser of a residence in Peccole Ranch from attempting after the fact to recover fees it paid to the community association to obtain clear title to the property so it could be sold. The legal doctrine says that someone who makes a payment voluntarily cannot recover it later on the ground that there was no legal obligation to make the payment. The ruling went against Elsinore LLC, which purchased a home in the common interest community and paid off a lien to the association for back fees and associated collection costs. Elsinore then sought to recover assessments and fees it had paid to obtain clear title. The Supreme Court opinion limited itself to the one property owner and not all members of the class. According to filings in the Supreme Court case, Elsinore purchased the Storkspur Way residence for $149,000 in September 2008. The company then paid the association $2,580.70 to satisfy the lien for unpaid assessments and related costs. In December 2008 Elsinore sold the property for $225,000, making a $76,000 profit. Several years later Elsinore sought a return of a portion of the lien. The Supreme Court said the voluntary payment doctrine applied and ruled against the claim by Elsinore. While there are exceptions to the doctrine, they did not apply in the Elsinore case, Justice Nancy Saitta wrote for the court. PENFORD CORPORATION: Faces Class Action Over Ingredion Merger ------------------------------------------------------------- Penford Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 13, 2014, for the fiscal year ended August 31, 2014, that in early November 2014, the Company, its directors and others were served with a complaint purporting to institute a stockholder class action in the Superior Court of Washington, King County, in connection with the Agreement and Plan of Merger that the Company entered into with Ingredion Incorporated on October 14, 2014. The complaint alleges, among other things, breaches of fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed acquisition of the Company by Ingredion. The plaintiff seeks an injunction against the proposed transaction and unspecified damages. In addition to legal defenses, the Company believes that it has adequate insurance protection that is expected to provide coverage applicable to the defense of this matter. The case is David Pill, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Penford Corporation, Ingredion Incorporated, et al. PFIZER INC: Parkinson's Drug Side-Effect Sufferers Get Payout ------------------------------------------------------------- The Age reports that almost 200 Australians who developed gambling and sexual addictions after taking prescription drugs used to treat Parkinson's disease will be awarded compensation over alleged failures to warn them about side-effects. Drug manufacturer Pfizer this month agreed to settle with 160 Australians who took its drug Cabaser to treat tremors associated with Parkinson's disease or restless legs syndrome between 1996 and 2010. The agreement, ahead of a class action due to be heard in the Federal Court, follows a settlement last year for 32 people in a similar action against Aspen Pharmacare and Eli Lilly over their drug Permax. Patients are expected to share in millions of dollars' compensation, with some losing hundreds of thousands of dollars on gambling binges after taking the drugs despite not having prior gambling problems. Both Parkinson's disease and restless legs syndrome are neurological disorders caused by a lack of dopamine in the brain. "Dopamine agonists" mimic the effects of dopamine, in some cases restoring a person's ability to control their movements. But the chemical is also known to produce a "rush" which has been linked to risk-taking behaviors and addictions. The class actions alleged that drug companies were negligent in selling the medicines in Australia without any or adequate warnings about side-effects. Arnold Thomas & Becker partner Allanah Goodwin said this led people to go on "gambling and shopping binges and engage in bizarre hypersexual behavior, without realising it was a side effect" of the medicines. Clients who developed gambling addictions ranged from "a pensioner who might have lost a modest sum to professionals who had a lot more money to go through," she said. Pat Galea, 65, lost about $700,000 on poker machines after taking both Permax and Cabaser for about a decade for restless legs syndrome, which creates an urge for sufferers to move their legs. "I'd go any spare moment I was not working. If it was pay day I'd put most of it through and then realise I've got bills and rent and petrol to pay. As soon as I had any money it was gone," Mrs. Galea said. She separated from her husband and gambled away half the proceeds from the sale of their house, also selling her car to fund her addiction. It took years for evidence to emerge about the drugs' side-effects and as soon as Mrs. Galea stopped taking them, she lost the urge to gamble. She has since reunited with her husband and enjoys time with her three adult children and four grandchildren. Asked whether the settlement came close to repaying what was lost, she laughed. "It's a drop in the bucket. And that's just the money. What about years of life for my family? What about their suffering, let alone me?" she said. Salvation Army financial counselor Maria Turnbull was among the first to ask questions about a link between dopamine agonists and compulsive gambling after a bankrupt woman in her 60s came to her seeking food vouchers in 2006. The woman told Mrs. Turnbull that drugs she was taking for restless legs syndrome had led her to gamble, and she started looking into a possible link. Mrs. Turnbull has since met more than 100 people involved in the Australian class actions, including a man who developed compulsive sexual behavior and is now on the sex offenders register. He needs permission to see his grandchildren. "There are people I'm sure who have committed suicide over this. They haven't known it was the drug doing it. There are families that have been ripped apart," she said. A spokeswoman for Pfizer Australia said that while the parties had agreed on a proposed settlement, this was subject to Federal Court approval, and the drug company was therefore unable to provide further comment. PHOENIX FRAMING: Sued Over Defects in Condominium Development ------------------------------------------------------------- Selective Insurance Company of South Carolina v. Phoenix Framing; TCR NC Construction I Limited Partnership; 254 Seven Farms Drive Condominium Association, Inc.; Chris Champion, Charles Kern, Greg Turner, and all others similarly situated, Case No. 2:14-cv-04757- RMG (D.S.C., December 16, 2014) arises out of certain alleged construction defects involving the 254 Seven Farms Drive condominium development located in Charleston County, South Carolina. The Development consists of 13 buildings built between 2003 and 2005. Selective Insurance Company of South Carolina is an insurance company organized in Indiana. Selective issues insurance policies across the country, including in South Carolina. Phoenix Framing is a Tennessee corporation based also in Tennessee. TCR NC Construction I Limited Partnership is a North Carolina partnership headquartered in South Carolina. 254 Seven Farms Drive Condominium Association, Inc. is a nonprofit membership corporation, organized in South Carolina. Chris Champion, Charles Kern, Greg Turner, and all others similarly situated ("the Owners"), are residents of South Carolina, and are owners of condominiums in the 254 Seven Farm Drive condominium development. TCR acted as the general contractor on the Development. Phoenix contracted with TCR to perform certain construction services at the Development, which services included rough framing, erection of interior and exterior walls and floor systems, subflooring, applying exterior sheathing to the exterior of all exposed perimeter walls, and the installation of columns, beams, exterior siding, and roof truss. The Plaintiff is represented by: Phillip E. Reeves, Esq. Nicholas A. Farr, Esq. GALLIVAN, WHITE & BOYD, P.A. 55 Beattie Place, Suite 1200 Greenville, SC 29601 Telephone: (864) 271-9580 Facsimile: (864) 271-7502 E-mail: preeves@gwblawfirm.com nfarr@gwblawfirm.com PROPHASE LABS: Pre-Trial Discovery On-going in Weisblum Case ------------------------------------------------------------ ProPhase Labs, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 13, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that pre-trial discovery is on-going in the case Weisblum vs. ProPhase Labs, Inc. On May 19, 2014, a putative class action complaint was filed by a consumer (the "Complainant") against the Company, in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York. The lawsuit, which purports to be brought as a class action on behalf of purchasers of certain products sold by the Company, alleges that the Company engaged in false and misleading marketing, advertising and sales with respect to such products. The Complainant seeks, among other things, certification of the case as a class action, a judgment against the defendants for damages in an amount to be determined by the court and/or jury, and an award of fees and expenses to plaintiffs and their attorneys. The Company believes the claims set forth in the lawsuit are entirely without merit and intends to defend against the lawsuit vigorously. Pre-trial discovery is on-going and at this time, no prediction as to the outcome of this action can be made. QUEENS BORO: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Lourdes Perez, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Queens Boro Yang Cleaner, Inc., Kook Kim, and Tony Shfon, Case No. 1:14-cv-07310 (E.D.N.Y., December 16, 2014) alleges that, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Plaintiff is entitled to recover from the Defendants: (a) unpaid minimum wages, (b) unpaid overtime compensation, (c) liquidated damages, (d) prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and (e) attorneys' fees and costs. Queens Boro is a New York domestic business corporation based in Long Island City, New York. Queens Boro was incorporated through a prior owner by the name of Soo Ho Yang, whose are currently unknown. In September 2012, Soo Ho Yang sold defendant Queens Boro to the Individual Defendants. The Company still does business as "Queens Boro Yang Cleaners." The Individual Defendants are the owners, officers, directors, shareholders, proprietors, and managing agents of Queens Boro. The Plaintiff is represented by: Giustino (Justin) Cilenti, Esq. Peter Hans Cooper, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC 708 Third Avenue, 6th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 209-3933 Facsimile: (212) 209-7102 E-mail: jcilenti@jcpclaw.com pcooper@jcpclaw.com REMINGTON ARMS: Settles Class Suit Over Defective Rifle Triggers ---------------------------------------------------------------- Scott Cohn, writing for CNBC, reports that America's oldest gun manufacturer, Remington, has agreed to replace millions of triggers in its most popular product -- the Model 700 rifle. The company has been riddled for years with claims the gun can fire without the trigger being pulled, often with deadly results. A 2010 CNBC documentary, "Remington Under Fire: A CNBC Investigation," explored allegations that for decades the company covered up a design defect, which Remington continues to deny. But now, under a nationwide settlement filed on Dec. 5 in a federal court in Missouri, the company is agreeing to replace the triggers in about 7.85 million rifles. While insisting its action is not a recall of the iconic gun, Remington says in a statement that it is agreeing to make the changes "to avoid the uncertainties and expense of protracted litigation." The settlement involves a class action suit brought in 2013 by Ian Pollard of Concordia, Missouri, who claimed his Remington 700 rifle fired on multiple occasions without the trigger being pulled. The agreement also settles a similar class action case in Washington state. The Pollard suit accused Remington and its owners of negligence, breach of warranty, unfair and deceptive trade practices, and fraudulent concealment--some of it involving the company's formal response to the 2010 CNBC documentary. At least two dozen deaths and more than 100 serious injuries have been linked to inadvertent discharges of Remington 700 series rifles. In court filings, Remington denied the allegations, calling them "inaccurate, misleading, (and) taken out of context." And last year, a judge dismissed several of the claims, including negligence and fraudulent concealment. But by this July, the parties announced they were working out details of a "nationwide class settlement" involving the controversial gun. Under the settlement, which still must be approved by a judge, Remington has agreed to retrofit the rifles in question at no cost to the owner. Many users had new trigger mechanisms installed on their own, and Remington will reimburse them as part of the settlement. For guns that cannot be retrofitted, the company plans to offer vouchers for Remington products. The settlement covers more than a dozen models, specifically the Model 700, Seven, Sportsman 78, 673, 710, 715, 770, 600, 660, XP- 100, 721, 722 and 725. Remington's 700 series, which began with the Model 721 shortly after World War II, has been wildly popular not only with hunters and target shooters, but also with law enforcement and the U.S. military. The gun is prized for its accuracy and smooth operation, thanks to a unique trigger mechanism patented in the 1940s by Remington engineer Merle "Mike" Walker. But the CNBC investigation revealed that even before the gun went on the market, Mr. Walker himself had discovered a potential problem with the trigger he designed. In a 1946 memo, he warned of a "theoretical unsafe condition" involving the gun's safety -- the mechanism that's supposed to keep the rifle from firing accidentally. Subsequent memos during the testing process noted guns could be made to fire simply by switching off the safety or operating the bolt. "This situation can be very dangerous from a safety and functional point of view," said a 1947 inspection report. While Mr. Walker contended the issue had to do with the manufacturing process and not his design, critics including firearms experts and plaintiffs' attorneys have argued that the same aspects of the design that allow the gun to fire so smoothly also make it possible for internal parts of the trigger to become misaligned, rendering the gun unsafe. Specifically, they cite a tiny part called a "trigger connector," which they say can become clogged with rust or debris. Under the settlement, Remington plans to replace the triggers with "connectorless" mechanisms -- a similar fix to one Mr. Walker himself proposed in 1948. Mr. Walker died in 2013 at age 101. But he told CNBC in 2010 that he believed Remington's rejection of his proposal back then "had something to do with cost." A 1948 internal analysis obtained by CNBC estimated the cost of the change to be 5-1/2 cents per gun. Remington has always maintained the guns are safe, and that the documents obtained by CNBC are merely evidence of the company's attention to quality. The company claimed every accident was the result of user error. "The Model 700, including its trigger mechanism, has been free of any defect since it was first produced," Remington told CNBC in 2010. "And, despite any careless reporting to the contrary, the gun's use by millions of Americans has proven it to be a safe, trusted and reliable rifle." Customer complaints But CNBC uncovered thousands of customer complaints and more than 75 lawsuits alleging the gun is prone to firing without the trigger being pulled, sometimes with deadly results. Many of the lawsuits were settled out of court, typically with a provision that the terms be kept confidential. Among the deaths was nine-year-old Gus Barber of Montana, killed during a family hunting trip in 2000 when his mother switched off the safety on her Remington 700 rifle and the gun went off. Since then, Gus' father, Rich Barber, has been on what he calls a "crusade" to learn the truth about the rifle. "I went to the funeral home and looked Gus right square in the eye and said, 'Son, it ends here and now,' " Mr. Barber told CNBC in 2010. "I promised him I'd never be bought off and I'd never quit until I've effected change." Since then, Mr. Barber has compiled a huge trove of evidence, including thousands of Remington internal documents. He sued Remington, and in a settlement the company agreed to make design changes in the popular rifle, and to offer to modify -- for a fee -- older versions of the gun that required the user to switch off the safety in order to unload the gun. But the company refused to launch a full-blown recall, and in what Mr. Barber contends is a violation of the agreement, continued to sell some models with the controversial Walker trigger. Under the proposed settlement, Remington will offer to replace the Mr. Walker triggers with the replacement mechanism developed following the settlement with Mr. Barber. That trigger is known as the X-Mark Pro, but it has had issues of its own. Earlier this year, Remington recalled thousands of X-Mark Pro models manufactured since 2006, after determining that "excess bonding agent used in the assembly process" could cause the guns to unintentionally discharge. That voluntary recall will continue as part of the class action settlement. Mr. Barber is not a party in the latest class action cases, but has served as a paid consultant to the plaintiffs' attorneys. RETROPHIN INC: Faces "Shkreli" Class Action in New York ------------------------------------------------------- Retrophin, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 13, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that a purported shareholder of the Company filed on October 20, 2014, a putative class action complaint in federal court in the Southern District of New York against the Company, Martin Shkreli, Marc Panoff, and Jeffrey Paley (Kazanchyan v. Retrophin, Inc., Case No. 14-cv- 8376). The complaint asserts violation of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with public disclosures made during the period March 27, 2014 through September 30, 2014. The deadline for parties to file motions for lead plaintiff and lead counsel was December 19, 2014. The Company plans to vigorously defend against the claims advanced. At this time, the Company is unable to predict the timing or outcome of this litigation. SABRE CORP: To Appeal Final Judgment in San Antonio Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Sabre Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Company intends to appeal the final judgment in a class action lawsuit filed by the City of San Antonio to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. On April 4, 2013, the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas ("W.D.T.") entered a final judgment against Travelocity and other online travel agencies in a class action lawsuit filed by the City of San Antonio. The final judgment was based on a jury verdict from October 30, 2009 that the OTAs "control" hotels for purposes of city hotel occupancy taxes. Following that jury verdict, on July 1, 2011, the W.D.T. concluded that fees charged by the OTAs are subject to city hotel occupancy taxes and that the OTAs have a duty to assess, collect and remit these taxes. The Company said, "We disagree with the jury's finding that we "control" hotels, and with the W.D.T.'s conclusions based on the jury finding, and intend to appeal the final judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The verdict against us, including penalties and interest, is $4 million which we do not believe we will ultimately pay and therefore have not accrued any loss related to this case." SABRE CORP: Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint Denied ------------------------------------------------------------- Sabre Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that a judge denied plaintiffs' motion for leave to file an amended complaint in the Hotel Related Antitrust Proceedings. On August 20, 2012, two individuals alleging to represent a putative class of bookers of online hotel reservations filed a complaint against Sabre Holdings, Travelocity.com LP, and several other online travel companies and hotel chains in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging federal and state antitrust and related claims. The complaint alleges generally that the defendants conspired to enter into illegal agreements relating to the price of hotel rooms. Over 30 copycat suits were filed in various courts in the United States. In December 2012, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation centralized these cases in the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of Texas, which subsequently consolidated them. The proposed class period is January 1, 2003 through May 1, 2013. On June 15, 2013, the court granted Travelocity's motion to compel arbitration of claims involving Travelocity bookings made on or after February 4, 2010. While all claims from February 4, 2010 through May 1, 2013 are now excluded from the lawsuit and must be arbitrated if pursued at all, the lawsuit still covers claims from January 1, 2003 through February 3, 2010. Together with the other defendants, Travelocity and Sabre filed a motion to dismiss. On February 18, 2014, the court granted the motion and dismissed the plaintiff's claims without prejudice. The plaintiffs had moved for leave to file an amended complaint but the judge denied the motion on October 27, 2014. The plaintiffs will have an opportunity to appeal. "We deny any conspiracy or any anti-competitive actions and we intend to aggressively defend against the claims," the Company said. SABRE CORP: Suit in Tex. State Court Over Hotel Fees Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ Sabre Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that, "four consumer class action lawsuits have been filed against us in which the plaintiffs allege that we made misrepresentations concerning the description of the fees received in relation to facilitating hotel reservations. Generally, the consumer claims relate to whether Travelocity provided adequate notice to consumers regarding the nature of our fees and the amount of taxes charged or collected. One of these lawsuits was dismissed by the trial court and this dismissal was subsequently affirmed by the Texas Supreme Court; one was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs; one is pending in Texas state court, where the court is currently considering the plaintiffs' motion to certify a class action; and the last is pending in federal court, but has been stayed pending the outcome of the Texas state court action. We believe the notice we provided was appropriate." SEADRILL LTD: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in New York ----------------------------------------------------------- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Dec. 22 disclosed that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Seadrill Limited American Depository Receipts ("ADRs") during the period between July 10, 2014 and November 25, 2014. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from December 5, 2014. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiffs' counsel, Samuel H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld of Robbins Geller at 800-449-4900 or 619-231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the complaint as filed or join this class action online at http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/seadrill/ Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. The complaint charges Seadrill and certain of its senior executives with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Bermuda-based Seadrill is the world's largest offshore drilling contractor, providing offshore drilling services to the oil and gas industry worldwide. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants made false and misleading statements about the strength of the Company's business and prospects. Additionally, Seadrill has historically paid a large dividend, which it raised twice in early 2014 resulting in the Company paying a $1 per share quarterly dividend during the last two quarters of 2014. During the Class Period, defendants maintained that due to the Company's strong backlog and the strength of its balance sheet, despite any turbulence in the oil industry, the Company would not cut its $4 per share annual dividend. As a result of defendants' Class Period statements, Seadrill ADRs traded at artificially inflated prices, reaching a high of over $38 per ADR in July 2014. On November 26, 2014, before the markets opened, Seadrill reported disappointing third quarter 2014 financial results (for the period ended September 30, 2014), announcing that it had missed its profit targets. In addition, the Company disclosed that it was indefinitely suspending its dividend, citing the Company's need to pay down its debt to strengthen its balance sheet. The Company also disclosed that its Board of Directors had authorized the repurchase of up to 10% of its outstanding shares. On this news, the price of Seadrill ADRs fell from $20.71 per ADR to $15.99 per ADR on extremely heavy trading volume, a 58% decline from the ADRs' Class Period high. Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Seadrill ADRs during the Class Period. The plaintiffs are represented by Robbins Geller, which has expertise in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in actions involving financial fraud. With 200 lawyers in ten offices, Robbins Geller -- http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- represents U.S. and international institutional investors in contingency-based securities and corporate litigation. The firm has obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in history, including the largest securities class action judgment. SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Has More Time to Respond to Complaint ------------------------------------------------------------- Seaworld Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 13, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that a California court entered an Order Granting Joint Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Complaint in a securities class action lawsuit. The Company said, "On September 9, 2014, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit consisting of purchasers of the Company's common stock during the periods between April 18, 2013 to August 13, 2014, captioned Baker v. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., et al., Case No. 14-CV-02129-MMA (KSC), was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (the "Court") against the Company, the Chairman of our Board of Directors, certain of our executive officers and Blackstone (the "Defendants"). The complaint alleges that the prospectus and registration statements filed contained materially false and misleading information in violation of the federal securities laws and seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief." On October 10, 2014, the Court entered an Order Granting Joint Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Complaint (the "Order"). The Order provides that (i) the Defendants need not respond to the complaint until a lead plaintiff is appointed, lead plaintiff's counsel is approved, and the lead plaintiff files an amended complaint; (ii) within fifteen (15) days of the Court's appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel, counsel for the Defendants and counsel for the lead plaintiff shall meet and confer regarding scheduling; and (iii) within five (5) days of the meet and confer, the parties shall submit a joint motion for the Court's approval with the parties' proposed schedule for the filing of an amended complaint, and the filing of a motion to dismiss or other response to the amended complaint. The Company believes that the class action lawsuit is without merit and intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously; however, there can be no assurance regarding the ultimate outcome of this lawsuit. SHENGDATECH LIQUIDATING: No Trial Date Set in Securities Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Shengdatech Liquidating Trust said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that no trial date has been set in the ShengdaTech, Inc. Securities Litigation. On October 28, 2013, Plaintiffs Schaul and Yaw, through lead counsel Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd L.L.P., filed their third amended putative class action complaint (the "Third Amended Complaint") in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of ShengdaTech between May 6, 2008 and March 15, 2010, against (i) the Company, (ii) certain of the Company's former officers and directors including Messrs. Mudd and Saidman (the "Independent Directors"), and (iii) the Company's former auditor, KPMG HK. The Third Amended Complaint arises out of alleged misrepresentations in the Company's SEC filings and other public statements made during the class period and asserts a claim against the Company for the alleged violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereon. While Plaintiffs claim damages against the defendants in an amount to be determined at trial, Plaintiffs' concede that any recovery against the Company under the Plan is limited to available insurance coverage and proceeds. On November 25, 2013, the Independent Directors and KPMG HK moved to dismiss ("Motions to Dismiss") the Third Amended Complaint on the grounds, among others, that it failed to state cognizable claims against them. The Motions to Dismiss the Third Amended Complaint were fully briefed as of January 13, 2014. On July 1, 2014, the Court denied KPMG HK's Motion to Dismiss without prejudice to renewal. On August 12, 2014, the Court granted the Independent Directors' motion to dismiss the Third Amended and Consolidated Complaint. On October 24, 2014, Plaintiffs moved for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b)(1) and (2) and for leave to amend their complaint under Rule 15(a) and (d) against the Independent Directors. Defendants have until November 14, 2014 to respond to Plaintiffs' motion. On January 8, 2014, the Company filed its Answer to the allegations raised against it in the Third Amended Complaint. In its Answer, the Company denied all material allegations of wrongdoing against it and raised certain affirmative defenses. Discovery was stayed pending a decision on the Independent Directors motion to dismiss. No trial date has been set. SIZMEK INC: Reply in Support of Cross-Motion to Strike Due ---------------------------------------------------------- Sizmek Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 13, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that a class action plaintiff's reply in support of the cross-motion to strike was due on November 14, 2014. On January 14, 2014, a purported holder of common stock of Digital Generation, Inc. ("DG"), Equity Trading ("Plaintiff"), filed a complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, Equity Trading v. Scott K. Ginsburg, et al., No. 050112/2014, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, against DG, all directors of DG, Extreme Reach, Inc. ("Extreme Reach") and Dawn Blackhawk Acquisition Corp., a Delaware corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Extreme Reach ("Acquisition Sub"), alleging breaches of fiduciary duty in connection with the then pending Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of August 12, 2013, by and among Extreme Reach, Acquisition Sub and DG. The complaint sought an injunction barring the consummation of the transaction and unspecified monetary damages. On January 16, 2014, Plaintiff filed with the New York state court a request seeking an order (i) preliminarily enjoining the Merger, (ii) requiring expedited discovery and (iii) scheduling a post- discovery hearing to continue the injunction (Plaintiff's "Request"), and on January 17, 2014, the New York state court issued an order setting a briefing schedule and a hearing for January 30, 2014, on Plaintiff's Request. On January 27, 2014, the defendants removed this action from the New York state court to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, causing the matter to now be captioned Equity Trading v. Scott K. Ginsburg, et al., 14 Civ. 499 (RWS) (RLE). The defendants also submitted briefing in opposition to the Request. At a hearing held on January 30, 2014, the Court denied Plaintiff's Request. On February 4, 2014, the Court agreed to a Stipulation for Extension of Time and Order (the "Scheduling Order"), providing a proposed briefing schedule. On February 26, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Remand the action to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York. On March 12, 2014, the defendants stipulated to remand. On April 11, 2014, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, asserting the same causes of action as the initial complaint and adding certain additional factual allegations. On July 18, 2014, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint. On September 16, 2014, Plaintiff filed oppositions to the motions to dismiss and a cross-motion to strike exhibits to the motions to dismiss. On October 24, 2014, the defendants' filed replies in support of the motions to dismiss and an opposition to the cross-motion to strike. Plaintiff's reply in support of the cross-motion to strike was due on November 14, 2014. The Company believes Plaintiff's allegations are without merit and intends to defend this action vigorously. "We believe the purported claims and our defense costs will qualify for reimbursement under DG's and/or our insurance coverage, which are subject to the applicable deductible and the limits of the policies," the Company said. SKECHERS USA: Misrepresents Efficacy of Toning Shoes, Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Whitney Heller v. Skechers, U.S.A., Inc., Skechers, U.S.A., Inc., II and Skechers Fitness Group, Case No. 3:14-cv-00887-TBR (W.D. Ky., December 16, 2014) alleges that Skechers made numerous misrepresentations regarding the efficacy and health benefits of its toning shoes, including Shape-ups and Tone-ups. Skechers U.S.A., Inc., and Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II are Delaware corporations headquartered in Manhattan Beach, California. Skechers Fitness Group is a trademarked subsidiary of Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II also headquartered in Manhattan Beach. Skechers is a shoe company that manufactures toning shoes, including Skechers Shape-ups and Tone-ups. The shoes have a pronounced rocker bottom sole. Skechers markets and promotes its toning shoes as footwear that will provide countless health benefits including improved cardiac function and orthopedic benefits. The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard W. Schulte, Esq. WRIGHT & SCHULTE, LLC 812 E. National Road Dayton, OH 45377 Telephone: (937) 435-7500 Facsimile: (937) 435-7511 E-mail: rschulte@legaldayton.com SKECHERS USA: Sued for Misrepresenting Benefits of Toning Shoes --------------------------------------------------------------- Wendy Prince v. Skechers, U.S.A., Inc., Skechers, U.S.A., Inc., II, and Skechers Fitness Group, Case No. 3:14-cv-00931-TBR (W.D. Ky., December 16, 2014) alleges that Skechers made numerous misrepresentations regarding the efficacy and health benefits of its toning shoes, including Shape-ups and Tone-ups. Skechers U.S.A., Inc., and Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II are Delaware corporations headquartered in Manhattan Beach, California. Skechers Fitness Group is a trademarked subsidiary of Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II also headquartered in Manhattan Beach. Skechers is a shoe company that manufactures toning shoes, including Skechers Shape-ups and Tone-ups. The shoes have a pronounced rocker bottom sole. Skechers markets and promotes its toning shoes as footwear that will provide countless health benefits including improved cardiac function and orthopedic benefits. The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard W. Schulte, Esq. WRIGHT & SCHULTE, LLC 812 E. National Road Dayton, OH 45377 Telephone: (937) 435-7500 Facsimile: (937) 435-7511 E-mail: rschulte@legaldayton.com SOURCEFIRE INC: 4th Cir. Upheld Settlement Order in "Vukosa" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirms a district court order certifying a class in the complaint brought by Michael Vukosa, et al., against Sourcefire, Inc., et al., and approving a settlement agreement, thereby overruling Anand Daniell's objection to the settlement. The Fourth Circuit said it reviewed the record and found no reversible error. The Nov. 19, 2014 ruling, available at http://is.gd/RFhuQBfrom Leagle.com, was entered in consideration of the appeal filed by Anand Daniel. The case is NAND L. DANIELL, Appellant, v. MICHAEL VUKOSA, Individually on behalf Himself and All Others Similarly Situated; MICHAEL JOSENHANS, Individually on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated; ROBERT COLLIER, Individually on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated; SALLY LEBOW, Plaintiffs-Appellees, and SOURCEFIRE, INC.; JOHN C. BECKER; MARTIN F. ROESCH; STEVEN R. POLK; TIM A. GULERI; MICHAEL CRISTINZIANO; ARNOLD L. PUNARO; CHARLES E. PETERS, JR.; KEVIN M. KLAUSMEYER; CISCO SYSTEMS, INCORPORATED; SHASTA ACQUISITION CORP.; ACQUISITION CORP., Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 14-1482. Edward B. Gerard -- egerard@robbinsarroyo.com , Stephen J. Oddo -- soddo@robbinsarroyo.com , Justin D. Rieger -- jrieger@robbinsarroyo.com -- of ROBBINS ARROYO LLP, San Diego, California; Patrick Charles Smith -- psmith@dehay.com -- of DEHAY & ELLISTON, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland; Yelena Trepetin -- trepetin@browerpiven.com , Charles J. Piven -- piven@browerpiven.com , Charles Noah Insler, BROWER PIVEN, Stevenson, Maryland; Evan J. Smith -- esmith@brodsky-smith.com -- of BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC, Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania; Mark D. Gately -- mark.gately@hoganlovells.com -- of HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, Baltimore, Maryland; Joseph K. Kanada -- jkanada@mofo.com , Erik Jeffrey Olson -- ejolson@mofo.com -- of MORRISON & FOERSTER, LLP, Palo Alto, California; Thomas Matthew Buchanan -- tbuchanan@winston.com -- WINSTON & STRAWN, LLP, Washington, D.C.; J. Erik Connolly -- econnolly@winston.com , Robert L. Michels -- rmichels@winston.com , Dan K. Webb -- dwebb@winston.com , Andrew J. Yahkind -- ayahkind@winston.com -- of WINSTON & STRAWN, LLP, Chicago, Illinois, for Appellees. STOLLE MACHINERY: Factory Production Worker Seeks to Recover OT --------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Patton, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated v. Stolle Machinery Company, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-03392-WJM-KLM (D. Colo., December 16, 2014) is brought on behalf of similarly situated current or former Stolle factory production workers to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs owed to the Plaintiff and the class. Stolle Machinery Company, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business in Centennial, Colorado. Stolle is a business that manufactures and supplies machinery for the global beverage and food can-making industry. Stolle provides can-making machinery for a broad range of global customers and businesses. Stolle also builds customized container filling machines for the food processing industry. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert W. Cowan, Esq. BAILEY PEAVY BAILEY PLLC 440 Louisiana Street, Suite 2100 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 425-7100 Facsimile: (713) 425-7101 E-mail: rcowan@bpblaw.com TAKATA CORP: Faces "Tanner" Class Suit Over Defective Airbags ------------------------------------------------------------- Cathryn Tanner and Marita Murphy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Takata Corporation, TK Holdings, Inc., Highland Industries, Inc., Honda Motor Co., Ltd, Honda Motor Co., Inc., Ford Motor Company, BMW of North America LLC, BMW AG, BMW Manufacturing Co., LLC, Nissan North America, Inc., Nissan Motor Co., Ltd, Toyota Motor Corp., Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America, Inc., Chrylser Group, LLC, General Motors Co., Mazda Motor Corp., Mazda Motor of America, Inc., Mitsubishi Motors Corp., and Subaru of America, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-02407-SLB (N.D. Ala., December 16, 2014) arises from alleged defective airbags manufactured by Takata. The lawsuit is brought on behalf of all similarly situated persons in the United States, who purchased or leased certain vehicles manufactured, distributed, and sold by the Vehicle Manufacturers, with defective airbags manufactured by Takata. Takata is headquartered in Tokyo, Japan, with worldwide subsidiaries, and is a leading manufacturer of transportation- related safety devices, including airbags, seat belts, school bus seats, and child restraint systems. Takata is the manufacturer of all of the Defective Airbags at issue in this Complaint. To date, approximately 16 million motor vehicles with Takata- manufactured airbags have been recalled worldwide due to the alleged defects. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Richard S. Frankowski, Esq. THE FRANKOWSKI FIRM, LLC 231 22nd Street South, Suite 203 Birmingham, AL 35233 Telephone: (205) 390-0399 Facsimile: (205) 390-1001 E-mail: Richard@frankowskifirm.com - and - Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq. Joseph D. Cohen, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP The Chrysler Building 405 Lexington Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10174 Telephone: (212) 223-6444 Facsimile: (212) 223-6334 E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com jcohen@scott-scott.com - and - David R. Scott, Esq. Stephen J. Teti, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP 156 South Main Street P.O. Box 192 Colchester, CT 06415 Telephone: (860) 537-5537 Facsimile: (860) 537-4432 E-mail: david.scott@scott-scott.com steti@scott-scott.com TAKATA CORP: Faces Two Air Bag Defect Class Actions in Canada ------------------------------------------------------------- Joe Van Acker, writing for Law360, reports that two class action complaints filed in Canadian courts on behalf of at least 400,000 car owners nationwide echoed allegations that Takata Corp. and its subsidiaries sold dangerous, defective air bags despite knowing about the problem for years. The complaints, filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice and the Court of Queen's Bench for Saskatchewan, said Takata was aware of the defect well in advance of the waves of recalls initiated by automakers since 2008. The plaintiffs claimed Takata knew that the inflator components of its air bags were defective at least as early as 2001, when Isuzu Motors Ltd. was forced to recall vehicles with Takata air bags. "To be aware of danger and hide that danger is atrocious conduct," they said. "Takata intentionally disregarded the class members' rights and safety, and prioritized corporate profits over the quality of their air bags." The air bags' inflator component consists of an explosive compound inside a metal container that may burst due to excessive internal pressure, sending hot metal and plastic shrapnel into a vehicle's cabin, according to the complaints. Takata has been hit with a slew of lawsuits related to its air bags in the U.S., and both car owners and automakers have asked the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to consolidate those complaints. Both Canadian class actions said the defective air bags are present in vehicles from numerous car manufacturers, including BMW of North America, Ford Motor Co. and Honda Motor Co., which are not named as defendants. However, Tony Merchant -- merchant@merchantlaw.com -- of Merchant Law Group LLP, which filed both complaints, told Law360 on Dec. 5 that Canadian legislation allows the plaintiffs to hold car manufacturers accountable if Takata is found to have sold defective products. He said the plaintiffs would then have two years to file claims against companies that manufactured and sold vehicles containing the defective air bags. The plaintiffs said a 2004 incident involving an exploding air bag in a Honda Accord wasn't revealed to the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration until 2009, when the agency's recall management division pressed Honda on why it failed to broaden a 2008 recall to include more vehicles. The complaints said Honda claimed to have relied on information from Takata that indicated the defect stemmed from improper handling of the propellant during assembly of the inflator. In a report to the NHTSA in 2013, Takata admitted that defective inflators from its plants in Moses Lake, Washington, and Monclova, Mexico, may have absorbed excessive moisture that contributed to increased internal pressure, according to the complaints. The Ontario complaint requested no less than CA$500 million ($437 million) in general damages as well as CA$100 million in punitive damages, but did not provide the proposed number of class members. The Saskatchewan complaint did not request exact damages, but estimated a class of at least 400,000. A representative for Takata said the company does not comment on ongoing litigation. The plaintiffs are represented by E.F. Anthony Merchant, Roch Dupont -- rdupont@merchantlaw.com -- and Linh Pham -- lpham@merchantlaw.com -- of Merchant Law Group LLP. Counsel information for the defendants was not available. The cases are John Pham v. Takata Corp., case number CV-14-517190, in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, and Liesa Covill v. Takata Corp. et al, case number 2014 SKQB 256, in the Court of Queen's Bench for Saskatchewan. TARGET CORP: Customers Can Proceed With Negligence Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- According to Reuters' Alison Frankel, in a decision that could have important consequences for other corporations facing data breach cases, U.S. District Judge Paul Magnuson of St. Paul, Minnesota, ruled that financial institutions claiming to have spent billions of dollars replacing their customers' compromised credit and debit cards may proceed with a negligence class action against Target. Judge Magnuson's decision is a breakthrough for credit and debit card issuers, which often bear the brunt of costs arising from hacker attacks on retailers because issuers have to replace cards and respond to customers' concerns. "As I've previously reported, there's not much precedent on merchants' liability to the banks and credit unions that issue cards, and what there is previously seemed to favor Target's argument that it owed no duty to card issuers," Ms. Frankel said. Judge Magnuson, however, found that the banks were foreseeable victims of Target's allegedly negligent conduct -- precedent that will be "extraordinarily favorable" to banks in other data breach litigation, according to Charles Zimmerman of Zimmerman Reed, who represents the class of card-issuing banks suing Target. "This isn't an area where the laws are already broad and deep," Zimmerman said. Target's lawyers at Ropes & Gray and Faegre Baker Daniels had contended in their motion to dismiss the banks' class action that credit- and debit-card transactions are processed in three separate steps, with card issuers at one end of the chain and merchants at the other. Target had no contracts with card issuers, the company argued, and the banks' data wasn't stolen when hackers obtained information about 110 million Target shoppers last fall. The indirect relationship between issuers and merchants, according to Target, is too attenuated to saddle retailers with liability for the banks' losses. Target's brief urging Judge Magnuson to dismiss the case claimed no court has ever held that a third-party "special relationship" with card issuers imposes a common-law duty of care on merchants. But Judge Magnuson agreed with the banks' argument that their case is about plain old negligence, not third-party harm. The card issuers, he ruled, had offered adequate allegations that they were the foreseeable victims of Target's predictably risky actions. Importantly, Judge Magnuson said that imposing a duty of care on Target "will aid Minnesota's policy of punishing companies that do not secure consumers' credit- and debit-card information." He said he had reached that conclusion "despite Target's dire warnings about the burden of imposing such a duty." One factor in the judge's consideration -- and the basis of an additional count in the banks' case against Target -- is Minnesota's Plastic Card Security Act, which imposes liability for card issuers' costs on Minnesota businesses that have violated the law's restrictions on retaining customer data. The judge said the law showed state legislators' intent to broaden duties to safeguard credit and debit card data. He also refused to limit the scope of the Minnesota law to in-state transactions, as Target had argued. Class counsel Zimmerman said that part of Judge Magnuson's decision will help card issuers in future data breach cases against Minnesota-based companies or those that store data in the state, but plaintiffs in cases against data-breach defendants outside of the state will have to show that Minnesota law somehow should apply to their claims. The judge did dismiss the banks' negligent misrepresentation claims, finding that they hadn't shown they relied on Target's allegedly misleading statements about data protection. Judge Magnuson said the class could amend its complaint to fix the reliance problem but Zimmerman told me his clients haven't yet decided if they will. Target counsel Douglas Meal of Ropes & Gray didn't respond to my email request for comment. * * * In his Memorandum and Order dated Dec. 2, available at http://is.gd/plzanYfrom Leagle.com, Judge Magnuson said Plaintiffs have plausibly pled a claim for negligence, a violation of the PCSA, and negligence per se. Plaintiffs failed to plead reliance, however, and therefore their negligent-misrepresentation claim must be dismissed without prejudice. Accordingly, Judge Magnuson held that: 1. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Financial Institution Cases is granted in part and denied in part; 2. The negligent-misrepresentation claim (Count Four) is dismissed without prejudice; and 3. Plaintiffs shall have 30 days from the date of this Order to file an Amended Complaint sufficiently alleging the required elements of their negligent-misrepresentation claim, should they wish to do so. Meanwhile, Judge Magnuson issued a second Memorandum and Order dated Dec. 18, available at http://is.gd/nPJrwXfrom Leagle.com, in case. This time, he ruled on Target's Motion to Dismiss the Consumer Plaintiffs' First Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint in the Consumer Cases. Judge Magnuson said the majority of Plaintiffs' claims survive Target's Motion. He ruled that: 1. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated First Amended Class Action Complaint in the Consumer Cases is granted in part and denied in part. 2. Plaintiffs' claims under the Delaware Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, the Oklahoma Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and the Wisconsin Deceptive Trade Practices Act in Count I are dismissed with prejudice. In addition, Plaintiffs may not maintain a class action as to their claims under the consumer-protection statutes in Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Utah. 3. Plaintiffs have withdrawn their Count II data-breach notice statutory claims under Florida, Oklahoma, and Utah law, and their claims under Arkansas, Connecticut, Idaho, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, Rhode Island, and Texas law are dismissed with prejudice. 4. Plaintiffs' Count III negligence claims under Alaska, California, Illinois, Iowa, and Massachusetts law are barred by the economic loss rule and are dismissed with prejudice. 5. Count V, alleging breach of contract, is dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiffs shall have 30 days from the date of this Order to file an Amended Complaint sufficiently alleging the required elements of their breach-of-contract claim, should they wish to do so. 6. Count VI, alleging bailment, is dismissed with prejudice. 7. Count VII, alleging unjust enrichment, is granted as to Plaintiffs' "overcharge" theory and denied as to Plaintiffs' "would not have shopped" theory. UNIQUE VACATIONS: Dist. Ct. Won't Stay TCPA Suit Over FCC Order --------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge George Caram Steeh entered an order denying Unique Vacations, Inc.'s Motion for Reconsideration and alternatively Renewed Motion to Stay in the class action complaint brought by Around the World Travel, Inc. The lawsuit is AROUND THE WORLD TRAVEL, INC., a Michigan corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, Plaintiff, v. UNIQUE VACATIONS, INC. and JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 14-CV-12589, (E.D. Mich.) The Plaintiff alleged that Unique Vacations sent unsolicited fax advertisements to plaintiff and other customers without including the proper "opt-out" language, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 ("TCPA"), as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227, et seq. (the "Junk Fax Act"). Shortly after the lawsuit was filed, Unique Vacations filed an administrative petition with the Federal Communications Commissions asking the FCC to (1) confirm that its faxes sent with prior express permission (i.e. solicited faxes) "substantially comply" with the opt-out disclosure rules; and (2) clarify that the FCC's regulations requiring solicited faxes to contain opt-out notices exceed the FCC's rule-making authority. Unique Vacations initially moved the district court to stay the class action pending final merits disposition of its FCC petition. The district court denied the request. In its order, the FCC "den[ied] the request of those petitioners [including defendant] seeking a declaratory ruling that fax ads that 'comply substantially' with [the Junk Fax Act] do not violate any regulation promulgated under the Act, even if the opt-out notice included on the fax does not conform with all of the specified requirements of that rule." The order made clear that the waiver "does not affect the prohibition against sending unsolicited fax ads, which has remained in effect since its original effective date." Based on the FCC's order, Unique Vacations sought reconsideration, or, alternatively, renewed its motion to stay. Because the proposed class encompasses both unsolicited and solicited fax advertisements, defendant says that the class action should be stayed until completion of final appellate review of the FCC's decision. In his Nov. 19, 2014 ruling, Judge Steeh held, "There is no palpable defect with the court's order, nor is a stay warranted based on any changed circumstances. Despite defendant's consistent position that this case deals only with solicited faxes, defendant has not proffered any evidence in support of this position to contradict the allegations in the Complaint." The District Court's Opinion and Order is available at http://is.gd/3REZxTfrom Leagle.com. Around the World Travel, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Glenn L. Hara -- GHara@andersonwanca.com -- of Anderson Wanca; Jason J. Thompson, Sommers Schwartz, P.C.; Ryan M. Kelly -- RKelly@andersonwanca.com -- of Anderson & Wanca; & Brian J. Wanca -- BWanca@andersonwanca.com -- of Anderson & Wanca. Unique Vacations, Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew M. Mast -- amast@clarkhill.com -- of Clark Hill PLC; Jenice C. Mitchell Ford -- jmitchellford@clarkhill.com -- of Clark Hill PLC; Jennifer Glasser -- jennifer.glasser@akerman.com -- of Akerman LLP; Michael Constantine Marsh -- michael.marsh@akerman.com -- Akerman, LLP; & Reginald M. Turner, Jr. -- rturner@clarkhill.com -- of Clark Hill. UNITED STATES: VA Workers' Class Cert. Bid Granted in Part ---------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Francis Allegra partly granted Plaintiff's renewed motion for class certification in the case captioned ANNETTE E. JONES, et al., v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant (NO. 11-681C). Plaintiffs are current or former part-time employees of the Department of Veteran Affairs who seeks to certify a class of part-time government employees from any agency in the United States government, who were denied premium pay for regularly scheduled work on Sundays. Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint, for themselves and others similarly situated, requesting back pay and interest on the Sunday premium pay allegedly owed to them retroactive to May 26, 2003. They also seek class certification of part-time government employees who have not been paid Sunday premium pay. In his Opinion, Judge Francis M. Allegra cited Rule 23 of the Rules of the Court of Federal Claims (RCFC) which provides that a class may be certified if: (i) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (ii) there are questions of law or fact common to the class; (iii) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of those of the class; and (iv) the representative parties adequately will protect the interests of the class. These requirements are in the conjunctive; hence, the failure to satisfy any one of them is fatal to a class certification. He further states that Plaintiffs have failed to provide the court with any indication that the members in the putative class suffered the same sort of injury as alleged in the complaint. As such, the court cannot not simply assume as much, particularly as similar cases have been decided involving the same issues. Moreover, in the court's view, adding claimants from different agencies into the mix will likely create more problems than their association solves. Thus, the court grants, in part, and denies, in part, plaintiffs' motion. A copy of the Opinion dated October 20, 2014, is available at bit.ly/1087Xr0 from Leagle.com. UNITED STATES: Secret Service Faces Racial Discrimination Probe --------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Conroy, writing for Daily Beast, reports that as police departments face scrutiny over discrimination toward black Americans, several former agents are accusing the Secret Service of having a similar problem. The track record of the U.S. Secret Service in protecting President Barrack Obama has come under intense scrutiny in recent months due to several major security lapses, the most recent of which prompted the resignation in October of Secret Service Director Julia Pierson. A recently released Department of Homeland Security report about that incident determined that a number of "performance, organizational, technical and other" factors contributed to the security breach. What is not mentioned in that DHS report is another long-running issue within the Secret Service -- one which, according to several experts, creates the conditions for a breakdown in agency morale that could ultimately compromise the security of President Obama. That threat is embodied in a long- running lawsuit filed by a group of African-American Secret Service agents who allege the agency's culture is replete with racism. In September, a man with a knife scaled a fence and ran into the White House, making it as far as the East Room -- it was this incident that prompted the report by DHS, which oversees the Secret Service. That same month, however, in Atlanta, the media reported that an armed security contractor with an arrest record was somehow allowed to ride in the same elevator as President Obama. Those incidents echo an even more serious security breach that played out in 2011, when a gunman with a semiautomatic rifle managed to fire some seven bullets into the White House while one of the president's daughters was home and the other expected to return that same evening -- yet it allegedly took the Secret Service four days to determine the shots had been unleashed on the president's home. "If the black Secret Service agents' legal claims related to racism in the agency are true, then there is a threat to the president's security because he is a black man," says Matthew Fogg, a retired chief deputy U.S. Marshal who in 1998 won a multimillion-dollar jury verdict in a racial discrimination lawsuit filed against his agency. "If they are treating black people differently, then how can that not affect the president?" Mr. Fogg also is party to one of two pending class-action discrimination cases filed by black federal agents against the U.S. Marshals Service. The mere fact that the most qualified agents are not getting promoted within an agency due to racial factors -- as is alleged in both the Secret Service and U.S. Marshals litigation -- indicates, Mr. Fogg says, that race is an issue in the quality of protection being provided to individuals, including the president. Attorney Ronald Tonkin, a former federal prosecutor who now represents federal agents in whistleblower and employment- discrimination cases, says regardless of which side prevails in the Secret Service litigation, both the accused and accusers "are affected" by the resulting tension and polarization. "These agents are all professionals, but the question is whether their professionalism is dissipated by a perception that they are being treated badly," said Mr. Tonkin, who also serves as associate counsel for the National Association of Federal Agents. "It does, in my experience, have an effect on agency morale, and that affects performance at some level." The black Secret Service agents' litigation, certified as a class- action lawsuit last year, has been pending in federal court since 2000 due to numerous procedural delays. It alleges that black agents, as a group, have been systematically discriminated against in hiring, assignments, transfer, awards, promotions and discipline. "The Secret Service has failed to protect its African-American special agents from racial discrimination in virtually every aspect of their employment," the black agents' pleadings in the case allege. "Discrimination against African-American agents in the Secret Service has become part of the fabric of the agency and has spanned several decades." A complaint filed by the 10 black agents who are named plaintiffs in the class-action suit points to an event held in southeastern Tennessee called the "Good Ol' Boys Roundup," which was made public in the mid-1990s via media reports but had been staged annually since 1980. "The racist conduct that occurred at the Roundup included the posting of racist signs like 'Nigger checkpoint,' a simulated lynching of a black man from a tree, and a host of racist skits and songs," the complaint alleges. "Officials at the Secret Service knew about this event, and at least 30 Secret Service agents were documented attending the event. . . . Many of the white special agents who attended the Roundup were promoted to high-ranking positions in the Secret Service, including three agents who became SAICs [special agents in charge] of field offices . . . and two agents who were promoted to the Senior Executive Service level." Reginald Moore, special agent in charge of the Secret Service's Atlanta field office, and a party to the black agents' class- action lawsuit, declined to comment on the case or any potential threat to the president due to the alleged racism within the agency. Likewise, Angela Burns-Ramirez, a former Secret Service special agent who has an individual racial-discrimination complaint pending in federal court against the agency, declined to comment on the advice of her attorney. A primary allegation in her lawsuit, which mirrors claims raised in the Secret Service class-action litigation, is that she "has been treated differently and subjected to different terms and conditions of her employment due to her race (African American). "Despite being established in 1865, the first African-American female was not promoted to a GS-14 [supervisory] position until 2001," Mr. Burns-Ramirez' court pleadings state. "Only five African-American females hold a rank higher than GS-14 within the Secret Service." Brian Leary, a spokesman for the Secret Service, declined to discuss the black agents' class-action lawsuit or the impact their allegations might be having on the agency. "We aren't commenting due to the ongoing nature of the lawsuit," he said. Professor Richard Delgado, the John J. Sparkman Chair of Law at the University of Alabama School of Law, warns that it would be a mistake to discount the effect that racism can have on an institution and its ability to function effectively. Mr. Delgado is a leading scholar in the field of Critical Race Theory, which focuses on the ways in which racism is embedded historically in the nation's laws and legal system. When racist activity is claimed, "it creates a terrible environment for both sides of the color line," Mr. Delgado explained. "For the minority agents who feel discriminated against, they feel unappreciated and develop a defensive attitude at best," Mr. Delgado added. "Many of their white colleagues see the minority agents as troublemakers scheming to get ahead, talking to lawyers. "Both sides are certain they are right, and it's a recipe for morale problems or worse. It can lead to inattention on the job or even small acts of sabotage designed to make someone look bad." Mr. Delgado said he would not want to be "a federal official with an agency in that state charged with looking after my back." The solution in such a case, he said, isn't simply to ask people to set aside their animosities, because "that doesn't work." "The best course is to arrange a lot of contact early in life, so that blacks, whites and Latinos get to know each other and see we're all humans with a range of behaviors and character, some good and some bad," Mr. Delgado stressed. "And these agencies should be screening people early, before they are hired, to determine if they, regardless of color, have the right attitudes and ability to work well in diverse groups." VALEANT PHARMACEUTICAL: Faces Class Suit Alleging Insider Trading ----------------------------------------------------------------- Anthony Basile, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc., Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, AGMS, Inc., Pershing Square Capital Management, L.P., PS Management GP, LLC, PS Fund 1, LLC, William A. Ackman, and Does 1-10, Case No. 8:14-cv-02004-JLS-JCG (C.D. Cal., December 16, 2014) is brought on behalf of all persons and entities, who sold Allergan, Inc. common stock between February 25, 2014, and April 21, 2014. The Plaintiff asserts claims for, among other things, insider trading against the Defendants. Valeant International is a publicly-traded company incorporated in the Province of British Columbia, Canada, with its principal place of business in Laval, in Quebec, Canada. Valeant International manufactures and markets pharmaceuticals, over-the-counter products, and medical devices in the areas of eye health, dermatology, and neurology therapeutic classes. Valeant USA is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in New Jersey. Valeant USA actively and directly participated in the proposed offer made to Allergan employees and stockholders, and became a member of PS Fund 1 on April 6, 2014. AGMS is a Delaware Corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of Valeant International. Valeant is pursuing its tender offer through AGMS. Pershing Square is an investment adviser founded in 2003 and registered with the SEC under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as amended. Pershing Square manages a series of hedge funds. Pershing Square is a Delaware limited partnership with its principal place of business in New York City. PS Management serves as the sole general partner of Pershing Square. PS Management is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business in New York City. William A. Ackman is the founder and Chief Executive Officer of Pershing Square. Mr. Ackman, by virtue of his position with Pershing Square, at all relevant times controlled PS Fund 1. PS Fund 1 is a limited liability company formed by and among: Pershing Square; Pershing Square, L.P.; Pershing Square II, L.P.; Pershing Square International, Ltd.; Pershing Square Holdings, Ltd.; and nearly two months later, Valeant USA. PS Fund 1 was formed for the purpose of serving as the acquisition vehicle in the acquisition of Allergan stock. PS Fund 1 was formed in Delaware on February 11, 2014, and has its principal place of business in New York, New York. PS Fund 1 at all relevant times was controlled by Pershing Square, which was, in turn, controlled by Mr. Ackman. The Plaintiff does not know the names and identities of the Doe Defendants. The Plaintiff is represented by: Francis A. Bottini, Jr., Esq. Albert Y. Chang, Esq. Yury A. Kolesnikov, Esq. BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC. 7817 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102 La Jolla, CA 92037 Telephone: (858) 914-2001 Facsimile: (858) 914-2002 E-mail: fbottini@bottinilaw.com achang@bottinilaw.com ykolesnikov@bottinilaw.com - and - Joseph W. Cotchett, Esq. Mark C. Molumphy, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP San Francisco Airport Office Center 840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200 Burlingame, CA 94010 Telephone: (650) 697-6000 Facsimile: (650) 697-0577 E-mail: jcotchett@cpmlegal.com mmolumphy@cpmlegal.com - and - Joanna W. LiCalsi, Esq. 2716 Ocean Park Boulevard, Suite 3025 Santa Monica, CA 90405 Telephone: (310) 392-2008 Facsimile: (310) 392-0111 E-mail: jlicalsi@cpmlegal.com VIVINT SOLAR: Parties in California Action Engaged in Discovery --------------------------------------------------------------- Vivint Solar, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the parties in a class action lawsuit in Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the County of San Deigo are currently engaged in limited discovery and have agreed to participate in mediation. The Company said, "In December 2013, one of our former sales representatives, on behalf of himself and a purported class, filed a complaint for unspecified damages, injunctive relief and restitution in the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of San Diego against Vivint Solar Developer, LLC, one of our subsidiaries, and unnamed John Doe defendants. This action alleges certain violations of the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code based on, among other things, alleged improper classification of sales representatives and sales managers, failure to pay overtime compensation, failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to pay wages on termination and failure to reimburse expenses. The complaint also seeks penalties of an unspecified amount associated with the alleged violations, interest on all economic damages and reasonable attorney's fees and costs. In addition, the complaint requests an injunction, which would enjoin us from similar violations of California's Labor Code and Business and Professions Code, and restitution of costs to the plaintiff and purported class members under California's unfair competition law." "In January 2014, we filed an answer denying the allegations in the complaint and asserting various affirmative defenses. The parties are currently engaged in limited discovery and have agreed to participate in mediation. We have recorded a $0.4 million reserve related to this proceeding in our condensed consolidated financial statements." VIVINT SOLAR: Faces Class Suit by Former Installation Technicians ----------------------------------------------------------------- Vivint Solar, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that in September 2014, two of the Company's former installation technicians, on behalf of themselves and a purported class, filed a complaint for damages, injunctive relief and restitution in the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of San Diego against the Company and unnamed John Doe defendants. The complaint alleges certain violations of the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code based on, among other things, alleged improper classification of installer technicians, installer helpers, electrician technicians and electrician helpers, failure to pay minimum and overtime wages, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, and failure to provide wages on termination. "We believe that we have strong defenses to the claims asserted in this matter. Although we cannot predict with certainty the ultimate resolution of this suit, we do not believe it will have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, cash flows or financial condition," the Company said. VITAL RECOVERY: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act ------------------------------------------------------------- Maureen T. Riccio, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Vital Recovery Services, Inc. and John Does 1-25, Case No. 3:14-cv-07829-AET-LHG (D.N.J., December 16, 2014) accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph K. Jones, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH K. JONES, LLC 375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100 Fairfield, NJ 07004 Telephone: (973) 227-5900 E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com VOLTARI CORPORATION: Files Answering Brief in Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Voltari Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 13, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Company filed its answering brief in a putative securities class action. The Company said, "We previously announced that Joe Callan filed a putative securities class action complaint in the U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington at Seattle on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired common stock of Motricity, Inc. ("Motricity") between June 18, 2010 and August 9, 2011 or in Motricity's initial public offering. Motricity, which was our predecessor registrant, is now our wholly-owned subsidiary and has changed its name to Voltari Operating Corp. The defendants in the case were Motricity, certain of our current and former directors and officers, including Ryan K. Wuerch, James R. Smith, Jr., Allyn P. Hebner, James N. Ryan, Jeffrey A. Bowden, Hunter C. Gary, Brett Icahn, Lady Barbara Judge CBE, Suzanne H. King, Brian V. Turner; and the underwriters in Motricity's initial public offering, including J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc., Goldman, Sachs & Co., Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., RBC Capital Markets Corporation, Robert W. Baird & Co Incorporated, Needham & Company, LLC and Pacific Crest Securities LLC. The complaint alleged violations under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, (the "Securities Act") and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), by all defendants and under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act by Motricity and those of our former and current officers who are named as defendants. The complaint sought, inter alia, damages, including interest and plaintiff's costs and rescission." "A second putative securities class action complaint was filed by Mark Couch in October 2011 in the same court, also related to alleged violations under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act, and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. On November 7, 2011, the class actions were consolidated, and lead plaintiffs were appointed pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. On December 16, 2011, plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint which added a claim under Section 12 of the Securities Act to its allegations of violations of the securities laws and extended the putative class period from August 9, 2011 to November 14, 2011. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on May 11, 2012 and a second amended complaint on July 11, 2012. "On August 1, 2012, we filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, which was granted on January 17, 2013. A third amended complaint was filed on April 17, 2013. On May 30, 2013, we filed a motion to dismiss the third amended complaint, which was granted by the Court on October 1, 2013," the Company said. On October 31, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. "On April 25, 2014, the plaintiffs filed their opening appellate brief and on July 24, 2014 we filed our answering brief," the Company said. VOYA RETIREMENT: Court Approves $15MM Class Action Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- Voya Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that a court approved a $15.0 million settlement of a class action lawsuit. Litigation against the Company includes a case styled Healthcare Strategies, Inc., Plan Administrator of the Healthcare Strategies Inc. 401(k) Plan v. ING Life Insurance and Annuity Company (U.S.D.C. D. CT, filed February 22, 2011), in which sponsors of 401(k) Plans governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA") claim that ING Life Insurance and Annuity Company (now known as Voya Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company, "VRIAC") has entered into revenue sharing agreements with mutual funds and others in violation of the prohibited transaction rules of ERISA. Among other things, the plaintiffs seek disgorgement of all revenue sharing payments and profits earned in connection with such payments, an injunction barring the practice of revenue sharing and attorney fees. On September 26, 2012, the district court certified the case as a class action in which the named plaintiffs represent approximately 15,000 similarly situated plan sponsors. On April 11, 2014, the parties submitted to the court a motion for preliminary approval of a class-wide settlement agreement under which VRIAC, without admitting liability, would make a payment to the class of approximately $15.0 million and adopt certain changes in its disclosure practices. Final court approval will be required before the settlement becomes effective. On September 25, 2014, the court approved the settlement. WELLS FARGO: Goes to Trial Over Alleged Mortgage Overcharges ------------------------------------------------------------ Nate Raymond, writing for Reuters, reports that Wells Fargo & Co, the largest U.S. mortgage lender, was set to go to trial on Dec. 8 as homeowners seek to recoup about $629 million for alleged overcharges by a company once owned by Wachovia Corp. Jury selection is scheduled to begin in federal court in Manhattan in a long-running class-action lawsuit concerning HomEq Servicing, a subprime mortgage servicer. The lawsuit was filed in 2001 on behalf of borrowers whose mortgages were owned or serviced by HomEq or the lender whose loans it was established to manage, Money Store. Wachovia in 2006 sold HomEq to Barclays Plc, which in turn in 2010 sold the mortgage servicing business to Ocwen Financial Corp. Wells Fargo bought Wachovia at the end of 2008 and thus never owned HomEq, but a spokesman confirmed it remained liable for some claims raised in the lawsuit. Ocwen in a statement said it did not have similar liability. Barclays declined to comment. The lawsuit filed by Joseph Mazzei, a California resident, contends that HomEq kept charging borrowers monthly late fees even after their mortgages went into default, making the full amounts owed immediately due. It also said HomEq violated its contracts by charging attorneys' fees in foreclosure and bankruptcy and splitting them with a nonlawyer, specifically a unit of Fidelity National Information Services Inc. Sharing fees in this manner is illegal throughout the country, the lawsuit said. In an October court filing, a damages expert for the plaintiffs estimated damages at $59.3 million for late fees and $282.7 million for attorneys' fees, plus pre-judgment interest of $287.4 million. "We strongly disagree with and dispute the plaintiff's claims and legal arguments, which relate to acts that occurred at a legacy company more than a decade ago, and are prepared to present our case in court." Wells Fargo spokesman Tom Goyda said. Moshe Horn, a lawyer for the plaintiffs at Seeger Weiss, declined to comment. The case is Mazzei v. The Money Store, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 01-5694. WESTCONSIN CREDIT: Accused of Violating Driver's Privacy Act ------------------------------------------------------------ Bradley Eggen and Mary Eggen, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. WESTconsin Credit Union, Case No. 3:14-cv-00873 (W.D. Wis., December 16, 2014) is an action for damages, declaratory and injunctive relief due to the Defendants' alleged violations of the Plaintiffs' rights and protections under the Driver's Privacy Protection Act, the Wisconsin Consumer Act, Wisconsin's privacy statute and the Wisconsin Public Nuisance statute. WESTconsin Credit Union is engaged in the lending of money and subsequent collection of debt. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Thomas J. Lyons, Sr., Esq. LYONS LAW FIRM, P.A. 367 Commerce Court Vadnais Heights, MN 55127 Telephone: (651) 770-9707 Facsimile: (715) 246-1018 E-mail: tlyons@lyonslawfirm.com - and - Eric L. Crandall, Esq. CRANDALL LAW OFFICES, SC 1237 Knowles Avenue North PO Box 27 New Richmond, WI 54017 Telephone: (715) 246-1010 E-mail: consumerlaw@frontiernet.net - and - Thomas J. Lyons, Jr., Esq. CONSUMER JUSTICE CENTER P.A. 367 Commerce Court Vadnais Heights, MN 55127 Telephone: (651) 770-9707 E-mail: tommycjc@aol.com WESTPAC BANKING: Actions Over Exception Fees on Hold ---------------------------------------------------- Westpac Banking Corporation said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2014, for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2014, that Westpac has been served with three class action proceedings brought on behalf of customers seeking to recover exception fees paid by those customers. The first set of proceedings was commenced in December 2011 by certain named customers of the Westpac brand; the second was commenced in February 2012 by certain named customers of the St.George Bank and BankSA brands; the third was commenced in August 2014 on behalf of all other customers of Westpac Banking Group. Similar class actions have been commenced against several other Australian banks. Westpac has agreed with the plaintiffs to put the proceedings against Westpac on hold until at least December 2014, pending further developments in the litigation against one of those other banks. WESTPAC BANKING: Faces Class Action by Storm Financial Investors ---------------------------------------------------------------- Westpac Banking Corporation said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2014, for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2014, that Westpac has been served with a class action proceeding brought on behalf of Westpac customers who borrowed money to invest in Storm Financial- badged investments. Westpac intends to defend these proceedings. As the two named applicants have not quantified the damages that they seek, and given the preliminary nature of these proceedings, it is not possible to estimate any potential liability at this stage. WILHELMINA INTERNATIONAL: Parties Presently Involved in Mediation ----------------------------------------------------------------- Wilhelmina International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 13, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the parties in a class action are presently involved in court-ordered mediation. On October 24, 2013, a purported class action lawsuit brought by former Wilhelmina model Alex Shanklin and others (the "Shanklin Litigation"), naming the Company's subsidiaries Wilhelmina International and Wilhelmina Models, Inc. (the "Wilhelmina Subsidiary Parties"), was initiated in New York State Supreme Court (New York County) by the same lead counsel who represented plaintiffs in the prior, now-dismissed action brought by Louisa Raske (the "Raske Litigation"). The claims in the Shanklin Litigation include breach of contract and unjust enrichment and are alleged to arise out of matters relating to those matters involved in the Raske Litigation, such as the handling and reporting of funds on behalf of models and the use of model images. Other parties named as defendants in the Shanklin Litigation include other model management companies, advertising firms, and certain advertisers. On March 3, 2014, the judge assigned to the Shanklin Litigation wrote the Office of the New York Attorney General bringing the case to its attention, generally describing the claims asserted therein against the model management defendants, and stating that the case "may involve matters in the public interest." The judge's letter also enclosed a copy of his decision in the Raske Litigation, which dismissed that case. The Company believes the claims asserted in the Shanklin Litigation are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself and its subsidiaries. On January 6, 2014, the Wilhelmina Subsidiary Parties moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint in the Shanklin Litigation for failure to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted and other grounds, and other defendants also filed motions to dismiss. By Decision and Order dated August 11, 2014, the court denied the Wilhelmina Subsidiary Parties' motion to dismiss. In its Decision and Order, the court limited pre-class certification discovery to information relating to usages of the named plaintiffs' images agreed to by the defendant model management companies during the six-year period prior to the commencement of the lawsuit. The parties are presently involved in court-ordered mediation. WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE: Sued Over Deceptive Practices ----------------------------------------------------- Janies Reid, writing for Whidbey News-Times, reports that a class- action suit filed against two Whidbey Island real estate companies claims they did not disclose to buyers the dangers of jet noise. The lawsuit was filed against Windermere Real Estate and RE/MAX Acorn Properties. Filed Nov. 18 in Island County Superior Court, the lawsuit alleges that the real estate agents' "deceptive acts or practices have occurred in their trade or businesses and were and are capable of deceiving a substantial portion of the public." Only two plaintiffs are identified by name, but the class action suit asks for injunctive relief for anyone who purchased real estate located in the county's Airport Environs Mapped Impacted Areas on or after May 11, 1992. The plaintiffs named in the suit are Jonathan Deegan, who said in court documents he purchased his Coupeville home through RE/MAX in 2006, and Alice O'Grady, who said she purchased her Coupeville home through Windermere in 2011. Neither could be reached for comment by press time. "I have not seen the complaint yet, so I cannot comment on the specifics of this case, but I am aware that some off-island and out-of-state attorneys have been urging homeowners to sue Realtors, claiming they were not told about aircraft noise when they bought their homes," said Eric Mitten, spokesman for Windermere in Oak Harbor and Coupeville, in an emailed statement on Dec. 5. "In our company, we make sure prospective buyers are aware of the airplane noise. We talk about the airplane noise. We also use standard written disclosure forms printed by the Northwest Multiple Listing Service, which provides us with the forms most Realtors use in residential real estate transactions in the state. "I'm astonished that anyone who has spent any time on Whidbey Island would say they were not aware of the noise," Mr. Mitten said. Terri Neilon, owner of RE/MAX Acorn Properties, said she is afraid "the litigation could be divisive and help fuel efforts by those who want NAS Whidbey severely cut back or closed." "We care about our clients and certainly make sure they are aware of the noise," Ms. Neilon said. "We also tell clients to do their own due diligence -- check it out, talk to others and go to the property and listen to the planes flying overhead. Planes from NAS Whidbey are very effective at making people aware of their presence." Island County Realtors updated their version of Form 22W in January through the Northwest Multiple Listing Service. A long-used, one-paragraph noise disclosure was deemed incomplete by Island County Planning Director David Wechner, who issued a memo that spurred the change. In their lawsuit, both Deegan and Grady said they received only the "inadequate Form 22W" at the time they purchased their homes. The lawsuit was filed by the Seattle firm of Terrell, Marshall, Daudt & Willie, which sent a letter in May seeking possible plaintiffs. While only two people are named, the suit states that the class will be "in the hundreds or thousands." A contention of the litigation is that, even though the noise disclosure was updated to mirror Island County code, Realtors are allegedly still not providing buyers with the county's map of the impacted areas. The county's Airport and Aircraft Operations Noise Disclosure Ordinance, which contains the required language, also states that the impacted areas are identified on the "attached map." In a rough drawing, the county's map shows all of Whidbey Island north of Lake Hancock as the "impacted areas." It also includes areas surrounding the Camano and South Whidbey air parks. Failure to include both the map and the language "about the magnitude and timing of military flight operations as part of pre-sale notices" in real estate transactions is "unfair" and "offends public policy," the attorneys said in their lawsuit. The lawyers are asking a judge to approve their class action status, damages, a modification of the disclosure forms, attorneys fees and any other relief deemed proper. WISCONSIN ENERGY: Inks MOU to Settle Merger Class Actions --------------------------------------------------------- Wisconsin Energy Corporation said in its Form 8-K Current Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2014, counsel for Integrys Energy Group, Inc., the Integrys board of directors, Gale E. Klappa, and Wisconsin Energy entered into an MOU with counsel for plaintiffs in the Amo, Steiner and Collison, and Tri-State Actions pursuant to which Wisconsin Energy and Integrys have agreed to make the disclosures concerning the Merger. As announced on June 23, 2014, Wisconsin Energy Corporation, a Wisconsin corporation ("Wisconsin Energy") and Integrys Energy Group, Inc., a Wisconsin corporation ("Integrys") entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement"). Thereafter, WEC Acquisition Corp., a Wisconsin corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Wisconsin Energy ("Merger Sub"), and GET Acquisition Corp., a Wisconsin corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Wisconsin Energy ("Subsequent Merger Sub") became parties to the Merger Agreement by executing a joinder agreement. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub will merge with and into Integrys (the "Merger"), with Integrys continuing as the surviving corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Wisconsin Energy. Immediately thereafter, Integrys will merge with and into Subsequent Merger Sub, with Subsequent Merger Sub continuing as the surviving corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Wisconsin Energy. On October 14, 2014, Wisconsin Energy and Integrys each filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") a definitive joint proxy statement/prospectus (the "Definitive Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus") in connection with the Merger, which is included in the Registration Statement on Form S-4, file No. 333- 198096, filed by Wisconsin Energy with the SEC and declared effective by the SEC on October 6, 2014 (the "Registration Statement"). The Definitive Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus was first mailed to the shareholders of Wisconsin Energy and Integrys on or about October 21, 2014. Wisconsin Energy is making this filing in connection with the execution of a memorandum of understanding (the "MOU") regarding the settlement of certain litigation arising out of the announcement of the Merger Agreement. As disclosed in the Definitive Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus, since the June 23, 2014 announcement of the merger agreement, Integrys and its board of directors, along with Wisconsin Energy, were named defendants in ten class action lawsuits and/or derivative complaints brought by purported Integrys Energy Group shareholders challenging the proposed merger. Two lawsuits were filed in the Circuit Court of Milwaukee County, Wisconsin (the "Wisconsin Court"), Amo v. Integrys Energy Group, Inc., et al., (the "Amo Action") and Inman v. Schrock, et al., (the "Inman Action"). Three lawsuits were filed in the Circuit Court of Brown County, Wisconsin: Rubin v. Integrys Energy Group, Inc., et al.; Blachor v. Integrys Energy Group, Inc., et al.; Albera v. Integrys Energy Group, Inc., et al. (together with the Amo and Inman Actions, the "Wisconsin Actions"). Two lawsuits were filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Taxman v. Integrys Energy Group, Inc., et al., and Curley v. Integrys Energy Group, Inc., et al., (the "Illinois Actions"). Three lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the "Federal Court"), Steiner v. Budney, et al., and Collison v. Schrock, et al., (the "Steiner and Collison Actions"); and Tri- State Joint Fund v. Integrys Energy Group, Inc., et al., (the "Tri-State Action"). Each of the Wisconsin and Illinois Actions was either dismissed or consolidated with the Amo Action, and, with the exception of the Inman plaintiff--whose action was consolidated after the fact--the plaintiffs in the Wisconsin Actions joined Plaintiff Amo in filing an Amended Complaint on October 3, 2014. The Collison Action was consolidated with the Steiner Action. The Wisconsin Actions and Steiner and Collison Actions allege, among other things, that members of the Integrys board breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed transaction; that the merger agreement involves an unfair price; that it was the product of an inadequate sales process; that it contains unreasonable deal protection devices that purportedly preclude competing offers; that the members of the Integrys board were unjustly enriched at the expense of Integrys; and that the preliminary joint proxy statement/prospectus omits material information. The complaints further variously allege that Integrys, Wisconsin Energy, and/or its acquisition subsidiaries aided and abetted the purported breaches of fiduciary duty. The plaintiffs in these lawsuits seek, among other things, (i) a declaration that the merger agreement was entered into in breach of the Integrys directors' fiduciary duties, (ii) an injunction enjoining the Integrys board from consummating the merger, (iii) an order directing the Integrys board to exercise their duties to obtain a transaction which is in the best interests of Integrys' shareholders, (iv) an order granting the class members any benefits allegedly improperly received by the defendants, (v) a rescission of the merger or damages, in the event that it is consummated, (vi) disgorgement of benefits or compensation obtained as a result of the purported breaches of fiduciary duty, and/or (vii) an order directing additional disclosure regarding the merger. The Tri-State Action seeks to enjoin the proposed transaction and alleges that Integrys, its board, Wisconsin Energy, and Gale E. Klappa (the Chief Executive Officer of Wisconsin Energy) violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the 1934 Securities Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder. It alleges, among other things, that the Registration Statement misrepresented or omitted material facts, including material information about the allegedly unfair and conflicted sales process, the inadequate consideration offered in the proposed transaction, and Integrys' actual intrinsic value. On November 12, 2014, counsel for Integrys, the Integrys board of directors, Mr. Klappa, and Wisconsin Energy entered into an MOU with counsel for plaintiffs in the Amo, Steiner and Collison, and Tri-State Actions pursuant to which Wisconsin Energy and Integrys have agreed to make the disclosures concerning the Merger set forth below. The MOU also provides that, solely for purposes of settlement, the Wisconsin Court will certify a class consisting of all persons who were record or beneficial shareholders of Integrys at any time between June 23, 2014 and the consummation of the Merger (the "Class"). In addition, the MOU provides that, subject to approval by the Wisconsin Court after notice to the members of the Class (the "Class Members"), the Amo, Steiner and Collison, and Tri-State Actions will be dismissed with prejudice and all claims, including derivative claims, that the Class Members may possess with regard to the Merger will be released. In connection with the settlement, the plaintiffs' counsel has expressed its intention to seek an award of attorneys' fees and expenses. The amount of the award to the plaintiffs' counsel will ultimately be determined by the Wisconsin and/or Federal Courts. This payment will not affect the amount of merger consideration to be received by any Integrys shareholder in the Merger. There can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a definitive settlement agreement or that the Wisconsin Court will approve the settlement. In the absence of either event, the proposed settlement as contemplated by the MOU may be terminated. Integrys, the Integrys board of directors, Mr. Klappa, and Wisconsin Energy each have denied, and continue to deny, that they have committed or aided and abetted in the commission of any violation of law or breaches of duty or engaged in any of the alleged wrongful acts and Integrys, the Integrys board of directors, Mr. Klappa, and Wisconsin Energy expressly maintain that they diligently and scrupulously complied with their fiduciary, disclosure and other legal duties. Integrys, the Integrys board of directors, Mr. Klappa, and Wisconsin Energy are entering into the MOU and the contemplated settlement solely to eliminate the risk, burden and expense of further litigation. Nothing in the MOU, any settlement agreement or any public filing, including this Current Report on Form 8-K (this "Current Report"), is or shall be deemed to be an admission of the legal necessity of filing or the materiality under applicable laws of any of the additional information contained herein or in any public filing associated with the proposed settlement of the Amo, Steiner and Collison, and Tri-State Actions. Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Holdsworth" Suit v. Crane Co. Remains Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- An asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit filed by Lee Holdsworth against Crane Co. remains pending, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014. On July 31, 2013, a Buffalo, New York state court jury entered a $3.1 million verdict against the Company in the Lee Holdsworth 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 argues were excessive under New York appellate case law governing awards for non-economic losses and further were subject to settlement offsets. Post-trial motions were denied, and the court will set a hearing to assess the amount of damages. Plaintiffs have requested judgment in the amount of $1.1 million. The Company plans to pursue an appeal if necessary. 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: Crane Co. To Appeal Ruling in "Garvin" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Crane Co. plans to pursue an appeal, if necessary, from the ruling in the asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit filed by Lloyd Garvin, 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 September 11, 2013, a Columbia, South Carolina state court jury in the Lloyd Garvin claim entered an $11 million verdict for compensatory damages against the Company and two other defendants jointly, and also awarded exemplary damages against the Company in the amount of $11 million. The jury also awarded exemplary damages against both other defendants. The Company has filed post-trial motions seeking to overturn the verdict, to grant a new trial, or to reduce the damages. The Company plans to pursue an appeal if necessary. 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: Crane Co.'s Appeal in "DeLisle" Suit is Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Crane Co.'s appeal from a ruling in the asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit filed by Richard DeLisle remains pending, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014. On September 17, 2013, a Fort Lauderdale, Florida state court jury in the Richard DeLisle claim found the Company responsible for 16 percent of an $8 million verdict. The trial court denied all parties' post-trial motions, and entered judgment against the Company in the amount of $1.3 million. The Company has appealed. 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: Crane Co. Awaits Ruling in Bid to Flip Verdicts ---------------------------------------------------------------- Crane Co. is awaiting a ruling on its motion to overturn verdicts in a consolidated asbestos-related personal lawsuit, 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 June 16, 2014, a New York City state court jury entered a $15 million verdict against the Company in the Ivan Sweberg claim and a $10 million verdict against the Company in the Selwyn Hackshaw claim. The two claims were consolidated for trial. The Company filed post-trial motions seeking to overturn the verdicts, to grant new trials, or to reduce the damages, which the Company argues were excessive under New York appellate case law governing awards for non-economic losses and further were subject to settlement offsets. The Company plans to pursue appeals if necessary. 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: Crane Co. Had $88MM Est. Liability at Sept. 30 --------------------------------------------------------------- Crane Co. had an estimated $88 million for total asbestos liability, 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. With the assistance of Hamilton, Rabinovitz & Associates, Inc., effective as of December 31, 2011, the Company updated and extended its estimate of the asbestos liability, including the costs of settlement or indemnity payments and defense costs relating to currently pending claims and future claims projected to be filed against the Company through 2021. The Company's previous estimate was for asbestos claims filed or projected to be filed through 2017. As a result of this updated estimate, the Company recorded an additional liability of $285 million as of December 31, 2011. The Company's decision to take this action at such date was based on several factors which contribute to the Company's ability to reasonably estimate this liability for the additional period noted. First, the number of mesothelioma claims (which although constituting approximately 8% of the Company's total pending asbestos claims, have accounted for approximately 90% of the Company's aggregate settlement and defense costs) being filed against the Company and associated settlement costs have recently stabilized. In the Company's opinion, the outlook for mesothelioma claims expected to be filed and resolved in the forecast period is reasonably stable. Second, there have been favorable developments in the trend of case law which has been a contributing factor in stabilizing the asbestos claims activity and related settlement costs. Third, there have been significant actions taken by certain state legislatures and courts over the past several years that have reduced the number and types of claims that can proceed to trial, which has been a significant factor in stabilizing the asbestos claims activity. Fourth, the Company has now entered into coverage-in-place agreements with almost all of its excess insurers, which enables the Company to project a more stable relationship between settlement and defense costs paid by the Company and reimbursements from its insurers. Taking all of these factors into account, the Company believes that it can reasonably estimate the asbestos liability for pending claims and future claims to be filed through 2021. While it is probable that the Company will incur additional charges for asbestos liabilities and defense costs in excess of the amounts currently provided, the Company does not believe that any such amount can be reasonably estimated beyond 2021. Accordingly, no accrual has been recorded for any costs which may be incurred for claims which may be made subsequent to 2021. Management has made its best estimate of the costs through 2021 based on the analysis by HR&A completed in January 2012. Through September 30, 2014, the Company's actual experience during the updated reference period for mesothelioma claims filed and dismissed generally approximated the assumptions in the Company's liability estimate. In addition to this claims experience, the Company considered additional quantitative and qualitative factors such as the nature of the aging of pending claims, significant appellate rulings and legislative developments, and their respective effects on expected future settlement values. Based on this evaluation, the Company determined that no change in the estimate was warranted for the period ended September 30, 2014. Nevertheless, if certain factors show a pattern of sustained increase or decrease, the liability could change materially; however, all the assumptions used in estimating the asbestos liability are interdependent and no single factor predominates in determining the liability estimate. Because of the uncertainty with regard to and the interdependency of such factors used in the calculation of its asbestos liability, and since no one factor predominates, the Company believes that a range of potential liability estimates beyond the indicated forecast period cannot be reasonably estimated. A liability of $894 million was recorded as of December 31, 2011, to cover the estimated cost of asbestos claims now pending or subsequently asserted through 2021, of which approximately 80% is attributable to settlement and defense costs for future claims projected to be filed through 2021. The liability is reduced when cash payments are made in respect of settled claims and defense costs. The liability was $637 million as of September 30, 2014. It is not possible to forecast when cash payments related to the asbestos liability will be fully expended; however, it is expected such cash payments will continue for a number of years past 2021, due to the significant proportion of future claims included in the estimated asbestos liability and the lag time between the date a claim is filed and when it is resolved. None of these estimated costs have been discounted to present value due to the inability to reliably forecast the timing of payments. The current portion of the total estimated liability at September 30, 2014 was $88 million and represents the Company's best estimate of total asbestos costs expected to be paid during the twelve-month period. Such amount is based upon the HR&A model together with the Company's prior year payment experience for both settlement and defense costs. 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: Crane Co. Had $155-Mil. Reimbursement Asset ------------------------------------------------------------ Crane Co.'s asset representing the probable insurance reimbursement for asbestos-related claims expected through 2021 was $155 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. Prior to 2005, a significant portion of the Company's settlement and defense costs were paid by its primary insurers. With the exhaustion of that primary coverage, the Company began negotiations with its excess insurers to reimburse the Company for a portion of its settlement and/or defense costs as incurred. To date, the Company has entered into agreements providing for such reimbursements, known as "coverage-in-place", with eleven of its excess insurer groups. Under such coverage-in-place agreements, an insurer's policies remain in force and the insurer undertakes to provide coverage for the Company's present and future asbestos claims on specified terms and conditions that address, among other things, the share of asbestos claims costs to be paid by the insurer, payment terms, claims handling procedures and the expiration of the insurer's obligations. Similarly, under a variant of coverage-in-place, the Company has entered into an agreement with a group of insurers confirming the aggregate amount of available coverage under the subject policies and setting forth a schedule for future reimbursement payments to the Company based on aggregate indemnity and defense payments made. In addition, with ten of its excess insurer groups, the Company entered into policy buyout agreements, settling all asbestos and other coverage obligations for an agreed sum, totaling $82.5 million in aggregate. Reimbursements from insurers for past and ongoing settlement and defense costs allocable to their policies have been made in accordance with these coverage-in-place and other agreements. All of these agreements include provisions for mutual releases, indemnification of the insurer and, for coverage-in- place, claims handling procedures. The Company has concluded settlements with all but one of its solvent excess insurers whose policies are expected to respond to the aggregate costs included in the updated liability estimate. That insurer, which issued a single applicable policy, has been paying the shares of defense and indemnity costs the Company has allocated to it, subject to a reservation of rights. There are no pending legal proceedings between the Company and any insurer contesting the Company's asbestos claims under its insurance policies. In conjunction with developing the aggregate liability estimate, the Company also developed an estimate of probable insurance recoveries for its asbestos liabilities. In developing this estimate, the Company considered its coverage-in-place and other settlement agreements, as well as a number of additional factors. These additional factors include the financial viability of the insurance companies, the method by which losses will be allocated to the various insurance policies and the years covered by those policies, how settlement and defense costs will be covered by the insurance policies and interpretation of the effect on coverage of various policy terms and limits and their interrelationships. In addition, the timing and amount of reimbursements will vary because the Company's insurance coverage for asbestos claims involves multiple insurers, with different policy terms and certain gaps in coverage. In addition to consulting with legal counsel on these insurance matters, the Company retained insurance consultants to assist management in the estimation of probable insurance recoveries based upon the aggregate liability estimate and assuming the continued viability of all solvent insurance carriers. Based upon the analysis of policy terms and other factors by the Company's legal counsel, and incorporating risk mitigation judgments by the Company where policy terms or other factors were not certain, the Company's insurance consultants compiled a model indicating how the Company's historical insurance policies would respond to varying levels of asbestos settlement and defense costs and the allocation of such costs between such insurers and the Company. Using the estimated liability as of December 31, 2011 (for claims filed or expected to be filed through 2021), the insurance consultant's model forecasted that approximately 25% of the liability would be reimbursed by the Company's insurers. While there are overall limits on the aggregate amount of insurance available to the Company with respect to asbestos claims, those overall limits were not reached by the total estimated liability currently recorded by the Company, and such overall limits did not influence the Company in its determination of the asset amount to record. The proportion of the asbestos liability that is allocated to certain insurance coverage years, however, exceeds the limits of available insurance in those years. The Company allocates to itself the amount of the asbestos liability (for claims filed or expected to be filed through 2021) that is in excess of available insurance coverage allocated to such years. An asset of $225 million was recorded as of December 31, 2011 representing the probable insurance reimbursement for such claims expected through 2021. The asset is reduced as reimbursements and other payments from insurers are received. The asset was $155 million as of September 30, 2014. The Company reviews the estimated reimbursement rate with its insurance consultants on a periodic basis in order to confirm its overall consistency with the Company's established reserves. The reviews encompass consideration of the performance of the insurers under coverage-in-place agreements and the effect of any additional lump-sum payments under policy buyout agreements. Since December 2011, there have been no developments that have caused the Company to change the estimated 25% rate, although actual insurance reimbursements vary from period to period, and will decline over time. Estimation of the Company's ultimate exposure for asbestos-related claims is subject to significant uncertainties, as there are multiple variables that can affect the timing, severity and quantity of claims and the manner of their resolution. The Company cautions that its estimated liability is based on assumptions with respect to future claims, settlement and defense costs based on past experience that may not prove reliable as predictors. A significant upward or downward trend in the number of claims filed, depending on the nature of the alleged injury, the jurisdiction where filed and the quality of the product identification, or a significant upward or downward trend in the costs of defending claims, could change the estimated liability, as would substantial adverse verdicts at trial that withstand appeal. A legislative solution, structured settlement transaction, or significant change in relevant case law could also change the estimated liability. The same factors that affect developing estimates of probable settlement and defense costs for asbestos-related liabilities also affect estimates of the probable insurance reimbursements, as do a number of additional factors. These additional factors include the financial viability of the insurance companies, the method by which losses will be allocated to the various insurance policies and the years covered by those policies, how settlement and defense costs will be covered by the insurance policies and interpretation of the effect on coverage of various policy terms and limits and their interrelationships. In addition, due to the uncertainties inherent in litigation matters, no assurances can be given regarding the outcome of any litigation, if necessary, to enforce the Company's rights under its insurance policies or settlement agreements. Many uncertainties exist surrounding asbestos litigation, and the Company will continue to evaluate its estimated asbestos-related liability and corresponding estimated insurance reimbursement as well as the underlying assumptions and process used to derive these amounts. These uncertainties may result in the Company incurring future charges or increases to income to adjust the carrying value of recorded liabilities and assets, particularly if the number of claims and settlement and defense costs change significantly, or if there are significant developments in the trend of case law or court procedures, or if legislation or another alternative solution is implemented; however, the Company is currently unable to estimate such future changes and, accordingly, while it is probable that the Company will incur additional charges for asbestos liabilities and defense costs in excess of the amounts currently provided, the Company does not believe that any such amount can be reasonably determined beyond 2021. Although the resolution of these claims may take many years, the effect on the results of operations, financial position and cash flow in any given period from a revision to these estimates could be material. 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: 15 Suits v. Transocean Ltd. Are Pending in Miss. ----------------------------------------------------------------- There were 15 asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits against Transocean Ltd. that were pending in Mississippi courts, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014. The Company states: "In 2004, several of our subsidiaries were named, along with numerous other unaffiliated defendants, in 21 complaints filed on behalf of 769 plaintiffs in the Circuit Courts of the State of Mississippi and which claimed injuries arising out of exposure to asbestos allegedly contained in drilling mud during these plaintiffs' employment in drilling activities between 1965 and 1986.The Circuit Courts subsequently dismissed the original 21 multi-plaintiff complaints and required each plaintiff to file a separate lawsuit. After certain individual claims were dismissed, 593 separate lawsuits remained, each with a single plaintiff. We have or may have direct or indirect interest in a total of 20 cases in Mississippi. The complaints generally allege that the defendants used or manufactured asbestos-containing drilling mud additives for use in connection with drilling operations and have included allegations of negligence, products liability, strict liability and claims allowed under the Jones Act and general maritime law. The plaintiffs generally seek awards of unspecified compensatory and punitive damages. In each of these cases, the complaints have named other unaffiliated defendant companies, including companies that allegedly manufactured the drilling- related products that contained asbestos. With the exception of cases pending in Jones and Jefferson counties, these cases are being governed for discovery and trial setting by a single Case Management Order entered by a Special Master appointed by the court to preside over the cases. Of the 20 cases in which we have or may have an interest, two have been scheduled for trial. During the year ended December 31, 2013, one of these two cases was resolved through a negotiated settlement for a nominal sum. In the other case, we were not named as a direct defendant, but the Special Master granted a Motion for Summary Judgment based on the absence of medical evidence in favor of all defendants. We have obtained a similar ruling on summary judgment dismissing three additional cases where we were a direct defendant. The resolution of these five cases leaves 15 remaining lawsuits in Mississippi in which we have or may have an interest. In 2011, the Special Master issued a ruling that a Jones Act employer defendant, such as us, cannot be sued for punitive damages, and this ruling has now been obtained in three of our cases. To date, seven of the 593 cases have gone to trial against defendants who allegedly manufactured or distributed drilling mud additives. None of these cases has involved an individual Jones Act employer, and we have not been a defendant in any of these cases." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Ltd. Has 20 Suits Pending in La. ------------------------------------------------------------ There were 20 asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits against Transocean Ltd. pending in Louisiana courts, 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: "During the year ended December 31, 2013, a group of lawsuits premised on the same allegations as those in Mississippi were filed in Louisiana. Four of the original cases were dismissed through early motions. As of September 30, 2014, 20 plaintiffs have claims pending against one or more of our subsidiaries in four different lawsuits in Louisiana. We intend to defend these lawsuits vigorously, although we can provide no assurance as to the outcome. We historically have maintained broad liability insurance, although we are not certain whether insurance will cover the liabilities, if any, arising out of these claims. Based on our evaluation of the exposure to date, we do not expect the liability, if any, resulting from these claims to have a material adverse effect on our consolidated statement of financial position, results of operations or cash flows." Transocean Ltd. (Transocean) is an international provider of offshore contract drilling services for oil and gas wells. The Company operates in two segments: contract drilling services and drilling management services. Contract drilling services, the Company's primary business, involves contracting its mobile offshore drilling fleet, related equipment and work crews primarily on a dayrate basis to drill oil and gas wells. Its drilling management services segment provides oil and gas drilling management services on either a dayrate basis or a completed- project, fixed-price (or turnkey) basis, as well as drilling engineering and drilling project management services. As of February 14, 2012, it owned or had partial ownership interests in and operated 134 mobile offshore drilling units. On October 4, 2011, the Company acquired Aker Drilling ASA (Aker Drilling). In February 2011, it sold the subsidiary that owns the High- Specification Jackup Trident 20. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Unit Has 881 PI Suits at Sept. 30 ------------------------------------------------------------- A subsidiary of Transocean Ltd. had approximately 881 personal injury 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. One of our subsidiaries was involved in lawsuits arising out of the subsidiary's involvement in the design, construction and refurbishment of major industrial complexes. The operating assets of the subsidiary were sold and its operations discontinued in 1989, and the subsidiary has no remaining assets other than the insurance policies involved in its litigation, with its insurers and, either directly or indirectly through a qualified settlement fund. The subsidiary has been named as a defendant, along with numerous other companies, in lawsuits alleging bodily injury or personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos. As of September 30, 2014, the subsidiary was a defendant in approximately 881 lawsuits, some of which include multiple plaintiffs, and we estimate that there are approximately 1,692 plaintiffs in these lawsuits. For many of these lawsuits, we have not been provided with sufficient information from the plaintiffs to determine whether all or some of the plaintiffs have claims against the subsidiary, the basis of any such claims, or the nature of their alleged injuries. The first of the asbestos- related lawsuits was filed against the subsidiary in 1990. Through September 30, 2014, the costs incurred to resolve claims, including both defense fees and expenses and settlement costs, have not been material, all known deductibles have been satisfied or are inapplicable, and the subsidiary's defense fees and expenses and settlement costs have been met by insurance made available to the subsidiary. The subsidiary continues to be named as a defendant in additional lawsuits, and we cannot predict the number of additional cases in which it may be named a defendant nor can we predict the potential costs to resolve such additional cases or to resolve the pending cases. However, the subsidiary has in excess of $1.0 billion in insurance limits potentially available to the subsidiary. Although not all of the policies may be fully available due to the insolvency of certain insurers, we believe that the subsidiary will have sufficient funding directly or indirectly from settlements and claims payments from insurers, assigned rights from insurers and coverage-in-place settlement agreements with insurers to respond to these claims. While we cannot predict or provide assurance as to the outcome of these matters, we do not believe that the ultimate liability, if any, arising from these claims will have a material impact on our consolidated statement of financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Transocean Ltd. (Transocean) is an international provider of offshore contract drilling services for oil and gas wells. The Company operates in two segments: contract drilling services and drilling management services. Contract drilling services, the Company's primary business, involves contracting its mobile offshore drilling fleet, related equipment and work crews primarily on a dayrate basis to drill oil and gas wells. Its drilling management services segment provides oil and gas drilling management services on either a dayrate basis or a completed- project, fixed-price (or turnkey) basis, as well as drilling engineering and drilling project management services. As of February 14, 2012, it owned or had partial ownership interests in and operated 134 mobile offshore drilling units. On October 4, 2011, the Company acquired Aker Drilling ASA (Aker Drilling). In February 2011, it sold the subsidiary that owns the High- Specification Jackup Trident 20. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Had 8,844 PI Claims at Sept. 30 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation's total pending asbestos claims were 8,844, 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. Claims have been asserted alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos-containing components historically used in some products of predecessors of the Corporation's Air & Liquid subsidiary. Those subsidiaries, and in some cases the Corporation, are defendants (among a number of defendants, often in excess of 50) in cases filed in various state and federal courts. For the nine months ended September 30, 2014, the Company's total pending claims were 8,844. A substantial majority of the settlement and defense costs was reported and paid by insurers. Because claims are often filed and can be settled or dismissed in large groups, the amount and timing of settlements, as well as the number of open claims, can fluctuate significantly from period to period. Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation operates in two segments: Forged and Cast Rolls, and Air and Liquid Processing. Forged and Cast Rolls segment is operated by Union Electric Steel Corporation and Union Electric Steel UK Limited. The Air and Liquid Processing segment includes Aerofin, Buffalo Air Handling and Buffalo Pumps, all divisions of Air & Liquid Systems Corporation. Aerofin produces highly-engineered heat-exchange coils for a variety of users, including electric utility, HVAC, power generation, industrial process and other manufacturing industries. Buffalo Air Handling makes custom-designed air handling systems for commercial, institutional and industrial building markets. Union Electric Steel Corporation produces forged hardened steel rolls used in cold rolling by producers of steel, aluminum and other metals throughout the world. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Had $97.471MM Fibro Receivable ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation's insurance receivable was $97,471,000, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014. In 2006, the Corporation retained Hamilton, Rabinovitz & Associates, Inc., a nationally recognized expert in the valuation of asbestos liabilities, to assist the Corporation in estimating the potential liability for pending and unasserted future claims for Asbestos Liability. Based on this analysis, the Corporation recorded a reserve for Asbestos Liability claims pending or projected to be asserted through 2013 as at December 31, 2006. HR&A's analysis has been periodically updated since that time. Most recently, the HR&A analysis was updated in 2012, and additional reserves were established by the Corporation as at December 31, 2012 for Asbestos Liability claims pending or projected to be asserted through 2022. The methodology used by HR&A in its projection in 2012 of the operating subsidiaries' liability for pending and unasserted potential future claims for Asbestos Liability, which is substantially the same as the methodology employed by HR&A in prior estimates, relied upon and included the following factors: * HR&A's interpretation of a widely accepted forecast of the population likely to have been exposed to asbestos; * epidemiological studies estimating the number of people likely to develop asbestos-related diseases; * HR&A's analysis of the number of people likely to file an asbestos-related injury claim against the subsidiaries and the Corporation based on such epidemiological data and relevant claims history from January 1, 2010 to December 20, 2012; * an analysis of pending cases, by type of injury claimed and jurisdiction where the claim is filed; * an analysis of claims resolution history from January 1, 2010, to December 20, 2012, to determine the average settlement value of claims, by type of injury claimed and jurisdiction of filing; and * an adjustment for inflation in the future average settlement value of claims, at an annual inflation rate based on the Congressional Budget Office's ten year forecast of inflation. Using this information, HR&A estimated in 2012 the number of future claims for Asbestos Liability that would be filed through the year 2022, as well as the settlement or indemnity costs that would be incurred to resolve both pending and future unasserted claims through 2022. This methodology has been accepted by numerous courts. In conjunction with developing the aggregate liability estimate, the Corporation also developed an estimate of probable insurance recoveries for its Asbestos Liabilities. In developing the estimate, the Corporation considered HR&A's projection for settlement or indemnity costs for Asbestos Liability and management's projection of associated defense costs (based on the current defense to indemnity cost ratio), as well as a number of additional factors. These additional factors included the Settlement Agreements then in effect, policy exclusions, policy limits, policy provisions regarding coverage for defense costs, attachment points, prior impairment of policies and gaps in the coverage, policy exhaustions, insolvencies among certain of the insurance carriers, and the nature of the underlying claims for Asbestos Liability asserted against the subsidiaries and the Corporation as reflected in the Corporation's asbestos claims database, as well as estimated erosion of insurance limits on account of claims against Howden arising out of the Products. In addition to consulting with the Corporation's outside legal counsel on these insurance matters, the Corporation consulted with a nationally-recognized insurance consulting firm it retained to assist the Corporation with certain policy allocation matters that also are among the several factors considered by the Corporation when analyzing potential recoveries from relevant historical insurance for Asbestos Liabilities. Based upon all of the factors considered by the Corporation, and taking into account the Corporation's analysis of publicly available information regarding the credit-worthiness of various insurers, the Corporation estimated the probable insurance recoveries for Asbestos Liability and defense costs through 2022. Although the Corporation believes that the assumptions employed in the insurance valuation were reasonable and previously consulted with its outside legal counsel and insurance consultant regarding those assumptions, there are other assumptions that could have been employed that would have resulted in materially lower insurance recovery projections. Based on the analyses, the Corporation's reserve at December 31, 2012 for the total costs, including defense costs, for Asbestos Liability claims pending or projected to be asserted through 2022 was $181,022,000, of which approximately 73% was attributable to settlement costs for unasserted claims projected to be filed through 2022 and future defense costs. The reserve at September 30, 2014 was $141,659,000. While it is reasonably possible that the Corporation will incur additional charges for Asbestos Liability and defense costs in excess of the amounts currently reserved, the Corporation believes that there is too much uncertainty to provide for reasonable estimation of the number of future claims, the nature of such claims and the cost to resolve them beyond 2022. Accordingly, no reserve has been recorded for any costs that may be incurred after 2022. The Corporation's receivable at December 31, 2012, for insurance recoveries attributable to the claims for which the Corporation's Asbestos Liability reserve has been established, including the portion of incurred defense costs covered by the Settlement Agreements in effect through December 31, 2012, and the probable payments and reimbursements relating to the estimated indemnity and defense costs for pending and unasserted future Asbestos Liability claims, was $118,115,000. The Corporation increased its receivable at September 30, 2013 by $16,340,000 to take into account the effect of the Settlement Agreements reached in August 2013. For the nine months ended September 30, 2014, the Company's insurance receivable was $97,471,000. The insurance receivable recorded by the Corporation does not assume any recovery from insolvent carriers or carriers not party to a Settlement Agreement, and a substantial majority of the insurance recoveries deemed probable was from insurance companies rated A - (excellent) or better by A.M. Best Corporation. There can be no assurance, however, that there will not be further insolvencies among the relevant insurance carriers, or that the assumed percentage recoveries for certain carriers will prove correct. The difference between insurance recoveries and projected costs is not due to exhaustion of all insurance coverage for Asbestos Liability. The Corporation and the subsidiaries have substantial additional insurance coverage which the Corporation expects to be available for Asbestos Liability claims and defense costs that the subsidiaries and it may incur after 2022. However, this insurance coverage also can be expected to have gaps creating significant shortfalls of insurance recoveries as against claims expense, which could be material in future years. The amounts recorded by the Corporation for Asbestos Liabilities and insurance receivables rely on assumptions that are based on currently known facts and strategy. The Corporation's actual expenses or insurance recoveries could be significantly higher or lower than those recorded if assumptions used in the Corporation's or HR&A's calculations vary significantly from actual results. Key variables in these assumptions include the number and type of new claims to be filed each year, the average cost of disposing of each such new claim, average annual defense costs, compliance by relevant parties with the terms of the Settlement Agreements, the resolution of remaining coverage issues with insurance carriers, and the solvency risk with respect to the relevant insurance carriers. Other factors that may affect the Corporation's Asbestos Liability and ability to recover under its insurance policies include uncertainties surrounding the litigation process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case to case, reforms that may be made by state and federal courts, and the passage of state or federal tort reform legislation. The Corporation intends to evaluate its estimated Asbestos Liability and related insurance receivables as well as the underlying assumptions on a regular basis to determine whether any adjustments to the estimates are required. Due to the uncertainties surrounding asbestos litigation and insurance, these regular reviews may result in the Corporation incurring future charges; however, the Corporation is currently unable to estimate such future charges. Adjustments, if any, to the Corporation's estimate of its recorded Asbestos Liability and/or insurance receivables could be material to operating results for the periods in which the adjustments to the liability or receivable are recorded, and to the Corporation's liquidity and consolidated financial position. Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation operates in two segments: Forged and Cast Rolls, and Air and Liquid Processing. Forged and Cast Rolls segment is operated by Union Electric Steel Corporation and Union Electric Steel UK Limited. The Air and Liquid Processing segment includes Aerofin, Buffalo Air Handling and Buffalo Pumps, all divisions of Air & Liquid Systems Corporation. Aerofin produces highly-engineered heat-exchange coils for a variety of users, including electric utility, HVAC, power generation, industrial process and other manufacturing industries. Buffalo Air Handling makes custom-designed air handling systems for commercial, institutional and industrial building markets. Union Electric Steel Corporation produces forged hardened steel rolls used in cold rolling by producers of steel, aluminum and other metals throughout the world. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Had 268 Fibro Cases at Sept. 30 ---------------------------------------------------------- Park-Ohio Holdings Corp., had 268 personal injury asbestos-related cases, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014. The Company states: "We were a co-defendant in approximately 268 cases asserting claims on behalf of approximately 611 plaintiffs alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos. These asbestos cases generally relate to production and sale of asbestos-containing products and allege various theories of liability, including negligence, gross negligence and strict liability, and seek compensatory and, in some cases, punitive damages. "In every asbestos case in which we are named as a party, the complaints are filed against multiple named defendants. In substantially all of the asbestos cases, the plaintiffs either claim damages in excess of a specified amount, typically a minimum amount sufficient to establish jurisdiction of the court in which the case was filed (jurisdictional minimums generally range from $25,000 to $75,000), or do not specify the monetary damages sought. To the extent that any specific amount of damages is sought, the amount applies to claims against all named defendants. "There are only seven asbestos cases, involving 26 plaintiffs, that plead specified damages. In each of the seven cases, the plaintiff is seeking compensatory and punitive damages based on a variety of potentially alternative causes of action. In three cases, the plaintiff has alleged compensatory damages in the amount of $3.0 million for four separate causes of action and $1.0 million for another cause of action and punitive damages in the amount of $10.0 million. In the fourth case, the plaintiff has alleged against each named defendant, compensatory and punitive damages, each in the amount of $10.0 million, for seven separate causes of action. In the fifth case, the plaintiff has alleged compensatory damages in the amount of $20.0 million for three separate causes of action and $5.0 million for another cause of action and punitive damages in the amount of $20.0 million. In the sixth case, plaintiffs have alleged compensatory and punitive damages in the amount of $10.0 million for each of the five counts and one count of $5.0 million for the sixth count. In the remaining cases, the plaintiffs have alleged against each named defendant compensatory and punitive damages, each in the amount of $50.0 million, for four separate causes of action. "Historically, we have been dismissed from asbestos cases on the basis that the plaintiff incorrectly sued one of our subsidiaries or because the plaintiff failed to identify any asbestos- containing product manufactured or sold by us or our subsidiaries. We intend to vigorously defend these asbestos cases, and believe we will continue to be successful in being dismissed from such cases. However, 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. Despite this uncertainty, and although our results of operations and cash flows for a particular period could be adversely affected by asbestos- related lawsuits, claims and proceedings, management believes that the ultimate resolution of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, liquidity or results of operations. Among the factors management considered in reaching this conclusion were: (a) our historical success in being dismissed from these types of lawsuits; (b) many cases have been improperly filed against one of our subsidiaries; (c) in many cases the plaintiffs have been unable to establish any causal relationship to us or our products or premises; (d) in many cases, the plaintiffs have been unable to demonstrate that they have suffered any identifiable injury or compensable loss at all or that any injuries that they have incurred did in fact result from alleged exposure to asbestos; and (e) the complaints assert claims against multiple defendants and, in most cases, the damages alleged are not attributed to individual defendants. Additionally, we do not believe that the amounts claimed in any of the asbestos cases are meaningful indicators of our potential exposure because the amounts claimed typically bear no relation to the extent of the plaintiff's injury, if any. "Our cost of defending these lawsuits has not been material to date and, based upon available information, our management does not expect its future costs for asbestos-related lawsuits to have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, liquidity or financial position." Park-Ohio Holdings Corp. (Holdings) conducts its business primarily through the subsidiaries owned by its direct subsidiary, Park-Ohio Industries, Inc. (Park-Ohio). The Company is an industrial supply chain logistics and diversified manufacturing business operating in three segments: Supply Technologies, Aluminum Products and Manufactured Products. Supply Technologies provides the Company's customers with Total Supply Management services for a range of specialty production components. The Company's Aluminum Products business manufactures cast and machined aluminum components, and the Company's Manufactured Products business is a manufacturer of engineered industrial products. In June 2014, Park-Ohio Holdings Corp announced that its Supply Technologies (ST) business acquires Apollo Aerospace Group (Apollo) headquartered in West Midlands, England, with operating locations in England, France, Poland, and India. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Magnetek Inc. Continues to Defend PI Lawsuits -------------------------------------------------------------- Magnetek, Inc., continues to defend itself against asbestos- related lawsuits associated with its previously acquired, but which are no longer owned business operations, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 28, 2014. The Company has been named, along with multiple other defendants, in asbestos-related lawsuits associated with business operations previously acquired by the Company, but which are no longer owned. During the Company's ownership, none of the businesses produced or sold asbestos-containing products. With respect to these claims, the Company believes that it has no such liability. For such claims, the Company is uninsured and either contractually indemnified against liability, or contractually obligated to defend and indemnify the purchaser of these former Magnetek business operations.The Company aggressively seeks dismissal from these proceedings. Management does not believe the asbestos proceedings, individually or in the aggregate, will have a material adverse effect on its financial position or results of operations. Given the nature of the issues, uncertainty of the ultimate outcome, and inability to estimate the potential loss, no amounts have been reserved for these matters. Magnetek, Inc. (Magnetek) is a provider of digital power control systems that are used to control motion and power primarily in material handling, elevator, and mining applications. The Company's products are sold directly or through manufacturers' representatives to original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) for incorporation into their products, to system integrators and value-added resellers for assembly and incorporation into end-user systems, to distributors for resale to OEMs and contractors, and to end users for repair and replacement purposes. The Company is an independent supplier of digital drives, radio controls, software, and accessories for industrial cranes and hoists, and it is also the supplier of digital direct current (DC) motion control systems for elevators. The Company's products consist primarily of programmable motion control and power conditioning systems used in the overhead cranes and hoists; elevators; and coal mining equipment. ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Hallum" Suit v. Andrea Electronics Dismissed -------------------------------------------------------------- Andrea Electronics Corporation has obtained dismissal of the asbestos-related lawsuit filed by John Hallum and Janet Hallum, 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 May 2014, John Hallum and Janet Hallum, filed a law suit in the County Court of Dallas County, Texas, against Alcatel-Lucent USA, Inc. and over 40 other defendants, including the Company, alleging that the Company processed, manufactured, designed, tested, packaged, distributed, marketed or sold asbestos containing products that contributed to the their contraction of asbestos- related mesothelioma and other asbestos-related pathologies. The Company retained legal counsel and a dismissal via a non-suit was obtained on July 11, 2014. Andrea Electronics Corporation (Andrea) is engaged in designing, developing and manufacturing microphone technologies and products for improving speech-based applications software and communications that require clear voice signals. The Company operates in two segments: Andrea DSP Microphone and Audio Software Products, and Andrea Anti-Noise Products. The Company's Andrea Digital Signal Processing (DSP) Microphone and Audio Software Products and Andrea Anti-Noise Products have been designed for applications that are controlled by or depend on speech across a range of hardware and software platforms. These products incorporate its DSP, noise cancellation (NC), active noise reduction (ANR) and active noise cancellation (ANC) microphone technologies, and are designed to cancel background noise in a range of noisy environments, such as homes, offices, factories and automobiles. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Andrea Electronics Gets Summary Judgment in Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Andrea Electronics Corporation has obtained summary judgment in the asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit filed by Wayne F. Jones and Roberta Jones, 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 May 2013, Wayne F. Jones and Roberta Jones, filed a law suit in the Superior Court of Providence County, Rhode Island, against 84 Lumber Company and over 120 other defendants, including the Company, alleging that the Company processed, manufactured, designed, tested, packaged, distributed, marketed or sold asbestos containing products that contributed to the their contraction of asbestos-related mesothelioma and other asbestos-related pathologies. The Company retained legal counsel and filed a response to the compliant. In February 2014, Andrea sought and was granted a Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion for Entry of Final Judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b). Andrea Electronics Corporation (Andrea) is engaged in designing, developing and manufacturing microphone technologies and products for improving speech-based applications software and communications that require clear voice signals. The Company operates in two segments: Andrea DSP Microphone and Audio Software Products, and Andrea Anti-Noise Products. The Company's Andrea Digital Signal Processing (DSP) Microphone and Audio Software Products and Andrea Anti-Noise Products have been designed for applications that are controlled by or depend on speech across a range of hardware and software platforms. These products incorporate its DSP, noise cancellation (NC), active noise reduction (ANR) and active noise cancellation (ANC) microphone technologies, and are designed to cancel background noise in a range of noisy environments, such as homes, offices, factories and automobiles. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Andrea Electronics Continues to Defend RI Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Andrea Electronics Corporation continues to defend itself against an asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit pending in a Rhode Island court, 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 December 2010, Audrey Edwards, Executrix of the Estate of Leon Leroy Edwards, filed a law suit in the Superior Court of Providence County, Rhode Island, against 3M Company and over 90 other defendants, including the Company, alleging that the Company processed, manufactured, designed, tested, packaged, distributed, marketed or sold asbestos containing products that contributed to the death of Leon Leroy Edwards. The Company received service of process in April 2011. The Company has retained legal counsel and has filed a response to the compliant. The Company believes the lawsuit is without merit and intends to file a Motion for Summary Judgment to that affect. Accordingly, the Company does not believe the lawsuit will have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position or results of operations. Andrea Electronics Corporation (Andrea) is engaged in designing, developing and manufacturing microphone technologies and products for improving speech-based applications software and communications that require clear voice signals. The Company operates in two segments: Andrea DSP Microphone and Audio Software Products, and Andrea Anti-Noise Products. The Company's Andrea Digital Signal Processing (DSP) Microphone and Audio Software Products and Andrea Anti-Noise Products have been designed for applications that are controlled by or depend on speech across a range of hardware and software platforms. These products incorporate its DSP, noise cancellation (NC), active noise reduction (ANR) and active noise cancellation (ANC) microphone technologies, and are designed to cancel background noise in a range of noisy environments, such as homes, offices, factories and automobiles. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tyco Int'l. Had 5,600 Fibro Claims at Sept. 26 --------------------------------------------------------------- Tyco International Ltd. had 5,600 pending asbestos-related claims, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended September 26, 2014. The Company and certain of its subsidiaries, including Yarway Corporation ("Yarway") and Grinnell LLC ("Grinnell"), along with numerous other third parties, are named as defendants in personal injury lawsuits based on alleged exposure to asbestos containing materials. Over 90% of cases pending against affiliates of the Company have been filed against Yarway or Grinnell, and have typically involved product liability claims based primarily on allegations of manufacture, sale or distribution of industrial products that either contained asbestos or were used with asbestos containing components. Claims filed against Yarway derive from Yarway's purported use of asbestos-containing gaskets and packing in the sale or distribution of steam valves and traps and from its alleged manufacture of asbestos-containing expansion joint packing. Yarway's alleged manufacture, distribution and/or sale of asbestos-containing materials ceased by 1988, and Yarway ceased substantially all of its manufacturing, distribution and sales operations in 2003. Claims filed against Grinnell typically allege that it manufactured, sold or distributed valves, gaskets, piping and sprinkler systems containing asbestos. As of September 26, 2014, the Company has determined that there were approximately 5,600 claims pending against it, which includes approximately 3,200 claims pending against Yarway. This amount reflects the Company's current estimate of the number of viable claims made against it and includes adjustments for claims that are not actively being prosecuted, identify incorrect defendants, are duplicative of other actions or for which the Company is indemnified by third parties. Additionally, as a result of the Yarway bankruptcy filing, claims against Yarway have been stayed since April 2013. For the year ended September 26, 2014, the Company's total net asbestos-related liability was $608 million. Tyco International Ltd. (Tyco) is a diversified company, which provides security products and services, fire protection and detection products and services, valves and controls, and other industrial products. It operates in five segments: ADT Worldwide, Flow Control, Fire Protection Services, Electrical and Metal Products, and Safety Products. During the fiscal year ended September 24, 2010, the Company's Flow Control segment acquired two Brazilian valve companies, including Hiter Industria e Comercio de Controle Termo-Hidraulico Ltda (Hiter), a valve manufacturer which serves a variety of industries, including the oil and gas, chemical and petrochemical markets. In May 2014, the Company announced that it has completed the sale of Tyco Fire & Security Services Korea Co. Ltd. and its subsidiaries that form and operate the South Korean security business to The Carlyle Group. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tyco Int'l. Estimates $538MM Fibro Liability ------------------------------------------------------------- Tyco International Ltd. had estimated gross asbestos liability of $538 million for pending and future claims and related defense costs, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended September 26, 2014. The Company continuously assesses the sufficiency of its estimated liability for pending and future asbestos claims and defense costs. On a quarterly basis, the Company evaluates actual experience regarding asbestos claims filed, settled and dismissed, amounts paid in settlements, and the recoverability of its insurance assets. If and when data from actual experience demonstrate an unfavorable discernible trend, the Company performs a valuation of its asbestos related liabilities and corresponding insurance assets including a comprehensive review of the underlying assumptions. In addition, the Company evaluates its ability to reasonably estimate claim activity beyond its current look-forward period in order to assess whether such period is appropriate. In addition to claims and litigation experience, the Company considers additional qualitative and quantitative factors such as changes in legislation, the legal environment, the Company's strategy in managing claims and obtaining insurance, including its defense strategy, and health related trends in the overall population of individuals potentially exposed to asbestos. The Company evaluates all of these factors and determines whether a change in the estimate of its liability for pending and future claims and defense costs or insurance assets is warranted. During the fourth quarter of fiscal 2014, the Company concluded that an unfavorable trend had developed in actual claim filing activity compared to projected claim filing activity established during the Company's most recent valuation. Accordingly, the Company, with the assistance of independent actuarial service providers, performed a revised valuation of its asbestos-related liabilities and corresponding insurance assets. As part of the revised valuation, the Company assessed whether a change in its look-forward period was appropriate, taking into consideration its more extensive history and experience with asbestos-related claims and litigation (including its experience with Yarway), and determined that it was now possible to make a reasonable estimate of the actuarially determined ultimate risk of loss for pending and unasserted potential future asbestos-related claims through 2056. In connection with the revised valuation, the Company considered a recent settlement with one of its insurers calling for the establishment of a qualified settlement fund, and the results of a separate independent actuarial consulting firm report conducted in the fourth quarter to assist the Company in obtaining insurance to fully fund all estimable asbestos-related claims (excluding Yarway claims) incurred through 2056. The independent actuarial service firm calculated a total estimated liability for asbestos-related claims of the Company, which reflects the Company's best estimate of its ultimate risk of loss to resolve all pending and future claims (excluding Yarway claims) through 2056, which is the Company's reasonable best estimate of the actuarially determined time period through which asbestos-related claims will be filed against Company affiliates. In conjunction with determining the total estimated liability, the Company retained an independent third party to assist it in valuing its insurance assets responsive to asbestos-related claims, excluding Yarway claims. These insurance assets represent amounts due to the Company for previously settled claims and the probable reimbursements relating to its total liability for pending and unasserted potential future asbestos claims and defense costs. In calculating this amount, the Company used the estimated asbestos liability for pending and projected future claims and defense costs, and it also considered the amount of insurance available, the solvency risk with respect to the Company's insurance carriers, resolution of insurance coverage issues, gaps in coverage, allocation methodologies, and the terms of existing settlement agreements with insurance carriers. As a result of the activity, the Company recorded a net charge of $240 million in Selling, general and administrative expenses in the Consolidated Statement of Operations during the quarter ended September 26, 2014. Although the Company's methodology established a range of estimates of reasonably possible outcomes, the Company recorded its best estimate within such range based upon currently known information. The Company's estimated gross asbestos liability, excluding Yarway, of $538 million was recorded within the Company's Consolidated Balance Sheet as a liability for pending and future claims and related defense costs, and separately as an asset for insurance recoveries of $245 million. The aforementioned total estimated liability is on a pre-tax basis, not discounted for the time-value of money, and includes defense costs, which is consistent with the Company's historical accounting practices. The effect of the change in our look-forward period reduced income from continuing operations before income taxes and net income by approximately $116 million and $71 million, respectively. In addition, the effect of the change decreased the Company's basic income from continuing operations and net income by $0.16 per share, and decreased the Company's diluted income from continuing operations and net income by $0.15 per share. The amounts recorded by the Company for asbestos-related liabilities and insurance-related assets are based on the Company's strategies for resolving its asbestos claims, currently available information, and a number of estimates and assumptions. Key variables and assumptions include the number and type of new claims that are filed each year, the average cost of resolution of claims, the identity of defendants, the resolution of coverage issues with insurance carriers, amount of insurance, and the solvency risk with respect to the Company's insurance carriers. Many of these factors are closely linked, such that a change in one variable or assumption will impact one or more of the others, and no single variable or assumption predominately influences the determination of the Company's asbestos-related liabilities and insurance-related assets. Furthermore, predictions with respect to these variables are subject to greater uncertainty in the later portion of the projection period. Other factors that may affect the Company's liability and cash payments for asbestos-related matters include uncertainties surrounding the litigation process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case to case, reforms of state or federal tort legislation and the applicability of insurance policies among subsidiaries. As a result, actual liabilities or insurance recoveries could be significantly higher or lower than those recorded if assumptions used in the Company's calculations vary significantly from actual results. During the third quarter of fiscal 2014, the Company resolved disputes with certain of its historical insurers and agreed that certain insurance proceeds will be used to establish and fund a qualified settlement fund ("QSF"), within the meaning of the Internal Revenue Code, which will be used for the resolution of asbestos liabilities of the Company, other than Yarway asbestos claims. It is intended that the QSF will receive future insurance payments and proceeds from third party insurers and, in addition, will fund and manage liabilities for certain historical operations of the Company. In addition, the Company expects to make cash contributions to the QSF structure within the next 12 months of approximately $275 million to purchase insurance that will be dedicated to, and is expected to fully fund, these liabilities. Tyco International Ltd. (Tyco) is a diversified company, which provides security products and services, fire protection and detection products and services, valves and controls, and other industrial products. It operates in five segments: ADT Worldwide, Flow Control, Fire Protection Services, Electrical and Metal Products, and Safety Products. During the fiscal year ended September 24, 2010, the Company's Flow Control segment acquired two Brazilian valve companies, including Hiter Industria e Comercio de Controle Termo-Hidraulico Ltda (Hiter), a valve manufacturer which serves a variety of industries, including the oil and gas, chemical and petrochemical markets. In May 2014, the Company announced that it has completed the sale of Tyco Fire & Security Services Korea Co. Ltd. and its subsidiaries that form and operate the South Korean security business to The Carlyle Group. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Meritor Has $20MM Charge on Fibro Liabilities -------------------------------------------------------------- Meritor, Inc., incurred a $20 million charge associated with the re-measurement of its asbestos liabilities, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended September 28, 2014. The Company states: "During the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2014, we incurred a $20 million charge associated with the re- measurement of our asbestos liabilities net of insurance recoveries at year end. The increase in our fiscal year 2014 liabilities is primarily due to increasing claim filings and higher projected defense costs. Management is actively trying to mitigate its exposure to asbestos related liabilities through renegotiated contracts with national and regional defense firms to lower costs and active litigation against insurers that are disputing coverage." Meritor, Inc. (Meritor) is a global supplier of a range of integrated systems and components to original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and the aftermarket for the commercial vehicle, transportation and industrial sectors. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Maremont Corp. Had 5,700 PI Claims at Sept. 30 --------------------------------------------------------------- Meritor, Inc.'s Maremont Corporation had 5,700 pending asbestos- related claims, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended September 28, 2014. Maremont Corporation, a subsidiary of Meritor, manufactured friction products containing asbestos from 1953 through 1977, when it sold its friction product business. Arvin Industries, Inc., a predecessor of the company, acquired Maremont in 1986. Maremont and many other companies are defendants in suits brought by individuals claiming personal injuries as a result of exposure to asbestos-containing products. Maremont had approximately 5,700 and 5,400 pending asbestos-related claims at September 30, 2014, and 2013, respectively. Although Maremont has been named in these cases, very few cases allege actual injury and, in the cases where actual injury has been alleged, very few claimants have established that a Maremont product caused their injuries. Plaintiffs' lawyers often sue dozens or even hundreds of defendants in individual lawsuits, seeking damages against all named defendants irrespective of the disease or injury and irrespective of any causal connection with a particular product. For these reasons, the total number of claims filed is not necessarily the most meaningful factor in determining Maremont's asbestos-related liability. Meritor, Inc. (Meritor) is a global supplier of a range of integrated systems and components to original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and the aftermarket for the commercial vehicle, transportation and industrial sectors. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Maremont Corp. Recognizes $73MM Fibro Liability ---------------------------------------------------------------- Meritor, Inc.'s Maremont Corporation recognized a liability for pending and future claims over the next ten years of $73 million, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended September 28, 2014. Maremont Corporation, a subsidiary of Meritor, engaged Bates White LLC (Bates White), a consulting firm with extensive experience estimating costs associated with asbestos litigation, to assist with determining the estimated cost of resolving pending and future asbestos-related claims that have been, and could reasonably be expected to be, filed against Maremont. Bates White advised Maremont that it would be possible to determine an estimate of a reasonable forecast of the probable settlement and defense costs of resolving pending and future asbestos-related claims, based on historical data and certain assumptions with respect to events that occur in the future. Bates White provided a reasonable and probable estimate that consisted of a range of equally likely possibilities of Maremont's obligation for asbestos personal injury claims over the next ten years of $73 million to $105 million. After consultation with Bates White, Maremont recognized a liability for pending and future claims over the next ten years of $73 million as of September 30, 2014 and 2013. The ultimate cost of resolving pending and future claims is estimated based on the history of claims and expenses for plaintiffs represented by law firms in jurisdictions with an established history with Maremont. Historically, Maremont has recognized incremental insurance receivables associated with recoveries expected for asbestos- related liabilities as the estimate of asbestos-related liabilities for pending and future claims changes. However, Maremont currently expects to exhaust the limits of its settled insurance coverage prior to the end of the ten-year forecasted liability period. Maremont believes it has additional insurance coverage, however, certain carriers have disputed coverage under policies they issued. Because no insurance receivable is recognized for these policies in dispute, Maremont recognized a $10 million and $9 million charge in the fourth quarter of fiscal years 2014 and 2013, respectively, associated with its annual valuation of asbestos-related liabilities. The following assumptions were made by Maremont after consultation with Bates White and are included in their study: * Pending and future claims were estimated for a ten-year period ending in fiscal year 2024; * Maremont believes that the litigation environment could change significantly beyond ten years and that the reliability of estimates of future probable expenditures in connection with asbestos-related personal injury claims declines for each year further in the future. As a result, estimating a probable liability beyond ten years is difficult and uncertain; * On a per claim basis, defense and processing costs for pending and future claims will be at the level consistent with Maremont's prior experience; * Potential payments made to claimants from other sources, including other defendants and 524(g) trusts, favorably impact Maremont's estimated liability in the future; and * The ultimate indemnity cost of resolving nonmalignant claims with plaintiff's law firms in jurisdictions without an established history with Maremont cannot be reasonably estimated. Maremont has insurance that reimburses a substantial portion of the costs incurred defending against asbestos-related claims including indemnity paid on those claims. The insurance receivable related to asbestos-related liabilities is $49 million and $58 million as of September 30, 2014 and 2013, respectively. The receivable is for coverage provided by one insurance carrier based on a coverage-in-place agreement. Maremont currently expects to exhaust the remaining limits provided by this coverage sometime in the next ten years. Maremont maintained insurance coverage with other insurance carriers that management believes covers indemnity and defense costs. Maremont has incurred liabilities allocable to these policies, but has not yet billed these insurance carriers, and no receivable has been recorded for these policies, as those carriers dispute coverage. During fiscal year 2013, Maremont reinitiated a lawsuit against these carriers, seeking a declaration of its rights to insurance for asbestos claims and to facilitate an orderly and timely collection of insurance proceeds. The difference between the estimated liability and insurance receivable is primarily related to exhaustion of settled insurance coverage within the forcasted period and proceeds from settled insurance policies. Certain insurance policies have been settled in cash prior to the ultimate settlement of the related asbestos liabilities. Amounts received from insurance settlements generally reduce recorded insurance receivables. The amounts recorded for the asbestos-related reserves and recoveries from insurance companies are based upon assumptions and estimates derived from currently known facts. All such estimates of liabilities and recoveries for asbestos-related claims are subject to considerable uncertainty because such liabilities and recoveries are influenced by variables that are difficult to predict. The future litigation environment for Maremont could change significantly from its past experience, due, for example, to changes in the mix of claims filed against Maremont in terms of plaintiffs' law firm, jurisdiction and disease; legislative or regulatory developments; Maremont's approach to defending claims; or payments to plaintiffs from other defendants. Estimated recoveries are influenced by coverage issues among insurers, and the continuing solvency of various insurance companies. If the assumptions with respect to the estimation period, the nature of pending and future claims, the cost to resolve claims and the amount of available insurance prove to be incorrect, the actual amount of liability for Maremont's asbestos-related claims, and the effect on the company, could differ materially from current estimates and, therefore, could have a material impact on our financial position and results of operations. Meritor, Inc. (Meritor) is a global supplier of a range of integrated systems and components to original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and the aftermarket for the commercial vehicle, transportation and industrial sectors. ASBESTOS UPDATE: ArvinMeritor Inc. Has 2,800 Fibro Claims --------------------------------------------------------- Meritor, Inc.'s ArvinMeritor, Inc., has 2,800 pending active asbestos claims, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended September 28, 2014. ArvinMeritor, Inc., a subsidiary of Meritor, along with many other companies, has also been named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos used in certain components of Rockwell International products many years ago. Liability for these claims was transferred to Meritor Automotive, Inc. at the time of the spin-off of the Rockwell automotive business from Rockwell in 1997. At September 30, 2014 and 2013, there were approximately 2,800 and 2,600 pending active asbestos claims in lawsuits that name AM, together with many other companies, as defendants at September 30, 2014 and 2013, respectively. A significant portion of the claims do not identify any of Rockwell's products or specify which of the claimants, if any, were exposed to asbestos attributable to Rockwell's products, and past experience has shown that the vast majority of the claimants will likely never identify any of Rockwell's products. Historically, AM has been dismissed from the vast majority of similar claims filed in the past with no payment to claimants. For those claimants who do show that they worked with Rockwell's products, management nevertheless believes it has meritorious defenses, in substantial part due to the integrity of the products involved and the lack of any impairing medical condition on the part of many claimants. We defend these cases vigorously. Meritor, Inc. (Meritor) is a global supplier of a range of integrated systems and components to original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and the aftermarket for the commercial vehicle, transportation and industrial sectors. ASBESTOS UPDATE: ArvinMeritor Inc. Had $48MM Fibro Liability ------------------------------------------------------------ Meritor, Inc.'s ArvinMeritor, Inc., recognized a liability for pending and future claims over the next ten years of $48 million, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended September 28, 2014. The Company states: "We engaged Bates White to assist with determining whether it would be possible to estimate the cost of resolving pending and future Rockwell legacy asbestos-related claims that have been, and could reasonably be expected to be, filed against the company. Bates White provided a reasonable and probable estimate that consisted of a range of equally likely possibilities of Rockwell's obligation for asbestos personal injury claims over the next ten years of $48 million to $62 million. After consultation with Bates White, management recognized a liability for pending and future claims over the next ten years of $48 million as of September 30, 2014 compared to $39 million as of September 30, 2013. The ultimate cost of resolving pending and future claims is estimated based on the history of claims and expenses for plaintiffs represented by law firms in jurisdictions with an established history with Rockwell. The increase in the estimated liability is primarily due to higher defense and processing costs, on a per claim basis, compared to the prior year. Rockwell recognized a $10 million charge in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2014 associated with its annual valuation of asbestos-related liabilities." The following assumptions were made by the Company after consultation with Bates White and are included in their study: * Pending and future claims were estimated for a ten-year period ending in fiscal year 2024; * The company believes that the litigation environment could change significantly beyond ten years, and that the reliability of estimates of future probable expenditures in connection with asbestos-related personal injury claims declines for each year further in the future. As a result, estimating a probable liability beyond ten years is difficult and uncertain; * On a per claim basis, defense and processing costs for pending and future claims will be at the level consistent with the company's prior experience; * Potential payments made to claimants from other sources, including other defendants and 524(g) trusts, favorably impact the company's estimated liability in the future; and * The ultimate indemnity cost of resolving nonmalignant claims with plaintiff's law firms in jurisdictions without an established history with Rockwell cannot be reasonably estimated. The insurance receivable related to asbestos-related liabilities is $11 million and $13 million as of September 30, 2014 and 2013, respectively. Included in these amounts are insurance receivables of $8 million and $9 million at September 30, 2014 and 2013, respectively, which are associated with policies in dispute. Rockwell has insurance coverage that management believes covers indemnity and defense costs, over and above self-insurance retentions, for most of these claims. The company has initiated claims against certain of these carriers to enforce the insurance policies, which are in various stages of the litigation process. The company expects to recover some portion of defense and indemnity costs it has incurred to date, over and above self- insured retentions, and some portion of the costs for defending asbestos claims going forward. The amounts recognized for policies in dispute are based on consultation with advisors, status of settlement negotiations with certain insurers and underlying analysis performed by management. The remaining receivable recognized is related to coverage provided by one carrier based on a coverage-in-place agreement. If the assumptions with respect to the estimation period, the nature of pending claims, the cost to resolve claims and the amount of available insurance prove to be incorrect, the actual amount of liability for Rockwell asbestos- related claims, and the effect on the company, could differ materially from current estimates and, therefore, could have a material impact on the company's financial condition and results of operations. Meritor, Inc. (Meritor) is a global supplier of a range of integrated systems and components to original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and the aftermarket for the commercial vehicle, transportation and industrial sectors. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tex. App. Affirms Ruling in Pepsi v. Mafco Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pepsi-Cola Metropolitan Bottling Company filed a lawsuit asserting various tort claims, including tortious interference with a 1988 stock purchase agreement, fraudulent transfer, and conversion of certain insurance assets against M&F Worldwide Corp., MCG Intermediate Holdings Inc., Mafco Worldwide Corporation, Mafco Consolidated Group LLC, and PCT International Holdings Inc. (the "Mafco Defendants"), and others. Pepsi also sued the Pneumo Abex Asbestos Claims Settlement Trust. Pepsi alleged that torts had been committed in whole or in part in Texas: "Through the Plan C Agreement, which was designed to interfere with Pneumo Abex's [contractual] indemnity and hold harmless obligations to [Pepsi], these defendants: (1) created and funded the Trust; (2) impaired or converted [Pepsi]'s rights to insurance proceeds and other insurance related and/or property rights, and transferred certain of those rights or property to the Trust; (3) engaged in conspiracies with Texas residents; and (4) committed all of these acts with the knowledge that the Trust and its agent (Integra) would pay for and administer thousands of [asbestos] Products Claims cases through Integra's offices and actions in Texas. As background to the suit, through a series of transactions and corporate transformations, Pepsi acquired certain indemnity rights associated with asbestos-related claims. A lower court denied the Mafco Defendants' special appearances after a December 2013 hearing. No findings of fact or conclusions of law were issued. The Mafco Defendants' filed an interlocutory appeal, which the Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourteenth District, Houston, denied in an opinion filed Dec. 18, 2014. The Court of Appeals, finding that the trial court did not err by denying the Mafco Defendants' special appearances and concluding that the trial court's denial of the Mafco Defendants' special appearances based on specific jurisdiction was proper, affirmed the lower court's decision. The appeals case is M & F WORLDWIDE CORP., MCG INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC., MAFCO WORLDWIDE CORPORATION, MAFCO CONSOLIDATED GROUP LLC, AND PCT INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS, INC., Appellants, v. PEPSI-COLA METROPOLITAN BOTTLING COMPANY, Appellee, NO. 141400045CV (Tex. App.). A full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/oxRAZAfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wash. Court Flips in Part Ruling in "Fagg" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Over the course of several decades, Ronald Fagg was exposed to various asbestos-containing products at work sites, during personal automotive repairs, during time vacationing and living in the Libby, Montana area. He was later diagnosed with asbestosis and asbestos related pleural disease. In an action, he seeks damages from a number of seller and manufacturer defendants, who he alleges are liable for his injuries under common law theories of negligence and strict liability. Two of the seller defendants, Pacific Water Works Supply, Inc., and CSK Auto, Inc., moved for summary judgment on the grounds that Fagg's common law claims against them were barred by the Washington Product Liability Act, ch. 7.72 RCW (WPLA). The trial court agreed and dismissed the claims as to both defendants. The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One, in an opinion dated Dec. 8, 2014, affirmed the trial court with respect to PWWS, but reversed with respect to CSK and remanded for further proceedings. The Court of Appeals, with respect to PWWS, found that Fagg's pre- WPLA exposure to transite sold by PWWS is insufficient to constitute "substantially all" of his exposure to that product. The Court of Appeals found that the trial court properly concluded that Fagg's claims arose under the WPLA and did not err in dismissing them. With respect to CSK, the Court of Appeals concluded that because substantially all of Fagg's exposure to CSK's asbestos-containing products occurred before July 26, 1981, the WPLA does not apply with respect to Fagg's claims against CSK. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals found that the trial court erred in entering summary judgment for CSK on this ground. The appeals case is RONALD FAGG, Appellant, v. BARTELLS ASBESTOS SETTLEMENT TRUST; CATERPILLAR, INC., CERTAINTEED CORPORATION; CNH AMERICA LLC; CSK AUTO, INC.; DUNN LUMBER COMPANY, INC.; E.J. BARTELL'S; EXXONMOBIL OIL CORPORATION; H. D. FOWLER COMPANY; MOBIL OIL CORPORATION PACIFIC WATER WORKS SUPPLY COMPANY, INC.; and FIFTH DOE through ONE HUNDREDTH DOE; Respondents, NO. 697196I (Wash. App.). A full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/04gYgQfrom Leagle.com. Meredith Boyden Good, Brayton Purcell LLP, 806 Sw Broadway Ste., 1100, Portland, OR, 972053333, Lloyd F. Leroy, Brayton Purcell LLP, 222 Rush Landing Road, Novato, CA, 949486169, Counsel for Appellants. Stephen Garrett Leatham, Esq. -- sgl@hpl-law.com -- at Heurlin Potter Jahn Leatham & Holtmann, 211 E Mcloughlin Blvd Ste., 100, Vancouver, WA, 98663, Kelly Patrick Corr, Esq. -- kcorr@corrcronin.com -- Corr Cronin Michelson Baumgardner & Pree, 1001 4th Ave Ste., 3900, Seattle, WA, 981541051, Anthony Todaro, Esq. -- atodaro@corrcronin.com -- Corr Cronin, 1001 4th Ave Ste., 3900, Seattle, WA, 981541051, Kelly H Sheridan, Esq. -- ksheridan@corrcronin.com -- at Corr Cronin Michelson Baumgardner Preece, 1001 4th Ave Ste., 3900, Seattle, WA, 981541051, Counsel for Respondents. ASBESTOS UPDATE: NC App. Affirms Ruling in "Richardson" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Defendant-employer PCS Phosphate Company, Inc., and defendant- carrier Broadspire appealed from an Amended Opinion and Award concluding that plaintiff James Richardson's "last injurious exposure" to asbestos occurred in 1995 while Broadspire was the carrier on the risk. On appeal, appellants contend that the Full Commission erred in concluding that the plaintiff's "last injurious exposure" occurred in 1995 because "the only competent evidence of record supports a finding of fact, and corresponding conclusion of law that the [plaintiff's] last exposure occurred in 1974" when he was working as a process engineer for PCS. In the alternative, appellants argue that should the Court conclude that the plaintiff's last exposure occurred in 1995, then the Full Commission erred in not finding that the plaintiff's last exposure occurred when he was working for the East Group since the plaintiff performed essentially the same work at the same jobsite. In an opinion dated Dec. 16, 2014, the Court of Appeals of North Carolina affirmed the Amended Opinion and Award, holding that there was competent evidence to support the findings that: (1) asbestos was present in various areas of the PCS facility during all periods of the plaintiff's employment; (2) while the plaintiff's jobs after 1974 did not require as much "handson" work in the mill department, he still visited those areas regularly and had contact with workers who had been exposed to asbestos; (3) even though the plaintiff and Gerald Seighman testified that they did not think the plaintiff was exposed to asbestos after 1974, Dr. Arthur Frank's expert testimony established that any exposure to asbestos, even one fiber, could causally contribute to the plaintiff's mesothelioma; and (4) since the plaintiff was still exposed to asbestos after 1974, those exposures, even small exposures, could contribute to his disease. In turn, these findings support the conclusion that the plaintiff's "last injurious exposure" occurred after 1974 because the plaintiff continued to be exposed to asbestos in his positions as mill superintendent and assistant to the mine manager. The appeals case is JAMES NORMAN RICHARDSON, Employee, Plaintiff, v. PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC. (fka ELF AQUITAINE, fka TEXAS GULF), Employer. ACE USA/ESIS, ZURICH NORTH AMERICAN INSURANCE CO., FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY/CHUBB GROUP, RSK CO., (k/n/a CAN), SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES and BROADSPIRE, Carriers, Defendants, NO. COA14615 (N.C. App.). A full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/i5GtX4from Leagle.com. Wallace and Graham, P.A., by Michael B. Pross, for plaintiff- appellee. Ward & Smith, P.A., by William A. Oden, III, Esq. -- wao@wardandsmith.com -- for defendants-appellants PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. and Broadspire. Lewis & Roberts, PLLC, by Winston L. Page, Jr. and J. Timothy Wilson, for defendant-appellee Zurich North America Insurance Co. Teague, Campbell, Dennis & Gorham, LLP, by Tracey L. Jones and Leslie P. Lasher, for defendant-appellee CNA Insurance Company. Cranfill Sumner & Hartzog, LLP, by Jaye E. Bingham, and J. Gregory Newton, for defendant-appellee ACE USA/ESIS. Hedrick Gardner Kincheloe & Garofalo, LLP, by Harmony Whalen Taylor and Lindsey L. Smith, for defendant-appellee Federal Insurance Company/Chubb Group. McAngus, Goudelock & Courier, PLLC, by John F. Morris and Jordan A Benton, for defendant-appellee Specialty Risk Services. ASBESTOS UPDATE: RI Court Bars T&N's Deposition of FMC Trust ------------------------------------------------------------ Maureen Gallagher and Constance Podedworny allege that their husbands' mesotheliomas were caused by exposure to Federal-Mogul's product, Limpet, when they worked for Narragansett Electric. Both Mr. Podedworny and Mr. Gallagher are now deceased. On the 12th and 14th of September 2011, the Federal Mogul Asbestos Personal Injury Trust filed the instant complaints against T&N entities on behalf of Mr. Podedworny's and Mr. Gallagher's estates. The Federal-Mogul Trust filed a Motion to Quash the Defendants' Notice of Deposition, while the Defendants filed a notice of deposition, seeking to depose the representative of the Federal Mogul Asbestos Personal Injury Trust. After due consideration of the arguments advanced by counsel, The Superior Court of Rhode Island, Providence, SC, found that good cause has been shown that a protective order should enter, barring the Defendants' deposition of the representative of the Federal Mogul Asbestos Personal Injury Trust. The Superior Court found that the requested deposition is unreasonably cumulative because the information may be obtained through other means which are less burdensome, expensive, and time consuming. The cases are CONSTANCE PODEDWORNY, Executor for the ESTATE of JOSEPH PODEDWORNY, by her agent, THE FEDERAL-MOGUL ASBESTOS PERSONAL INJURY TRUST Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN INSULATED WIRE CORP., T&N LIMITED, f/k/a T&N plc, TURNER & NEWALL PLC, and TURNER & NEWALL LIMITED, TAF INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, f/k/a TURNERS ASBESTOS FIBRES LIMITED and RAW ASBESTOS DISTRIBUTORS LIMITED, and JOHN DOE Defendants, and MAUREEN GALLAGHER, Executor for the ESTATE of DENNIS GALLAGHER, by her agent, THE FEDERAL-MOGUL ASBESTOS PERSONAL INJURY TRUST Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN INSULATED WIRE CORP., T&N LIMITED, f/k/a T&N plc, TURNER & NEWALL PLC, and TURNER & NEWALL LIMITED, TAF INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, f/k/a TURNERS ASBESTOS FIBRES LIMITED and RAW ASBESTOS DISTRIBUTORS LIMITED, and JOHN DOE Defendants, CONSOLIDATED WITH C.A. NO. PC115268, C.A. NO. PC115269 (R.I. Super.). A full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/kfVwkafrom Leagle.com. Vincent L. Greene, Esq., for Plaintiff. Lawrence G. Cetrulo, Esq.; Stephen T. Armato, Esq., for Defendant. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3d Cir. Affirms Dismissal Order in "Smiddy" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in an opinion filed Dec. 17, 2014, affirmed a lower court's decision dismissing Angie Smiddy's asbestos-related complaint with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to comply with Administrative Order No. 12. The appeals case is IN RE: ASBESTOS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (No. VI) relating to ANGIE SMIDDY, as daughter, next friend and representative of the Estate of Bobbie Jean Eledge Crawford, Decedent, Appellant, NO. 134423 (3d Cir.). A full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/rKXpdMfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Powell's Summary Judgment Bid in PI Suit Denied ---------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant The William Powell Company moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross-claims asserted against it by Milton Fordham, who alleged he was exposed to asbestos insulation associated with Powell pumps at several Long Island Lighting Company power generating stations. In a decision and order dated Dec. 3, 2014, Judge Sherry Klein Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York County, denied the motion after concluding that the Defendant has not unequivocally shown "that its product could not have contributed to the causation of plaintiff's injury." Judge Heitler also ruled that the Defendant has failed to establish, prima facie, that it had no duty to warn of the hazards associated with asbestos-containing aftermarket insulation applied to its products. The case is MACHELLE MONIQUE MORALES, as Administratrix for the Estate of MILTON L. FORDHAM, Plaintiff, v. ABB LUMMUS CREST, et al., Defendants, DOCKET NO. 190414/11, MOTION SEQ. NO. 010 (N.Y. Sup.). A full-text copy of Judge Heitler's Decision is available at http://is.gd/Ra92zlfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. App. Affirms Ruling in "Holloway" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Plaintiff, Carol Holloway, brought a negligence action against defendant, Sprinkmann Sons Corporation of Illinois, alleging that the defendant's asbestos-containing insulation had caused her to develop asbestosis. Alternatively, she sought to recover from defendant on a theory of spoliation of evidence. A jury returned a verdict in the defendant's favor, and the trial court denied the plaintiff's motion for a new trial. The Plaintiff appeals. The Appellate Court of Illinois, Fourth District, in an opinion dated Dec. 16, 2014, affirmed the trial court's judgment, saying it does not find the verdict to be against the manifest weight of the evidence, nor it does not find an abuse of discretion in the denial of the plaintiff's motion for a new trial. The case is CAROL HOLLOWAY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SPRINKMANN SONS CORPORATION OF ILLINOIS, Defendant-Appellee, NO. 4131118 (Ill. App.). A full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/VYrsu8from Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Affirms Ruling in Wrongful Discharge Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Robert O'Brien filed a complaint in the district court for Sarpy County against Bellevue Public Schools alleging that he was wrongfully discharged from his employment as a carpenter with BPS because he reported the presence, demolition, and disposal of asbestos and asbestos-containing materials to his superiors at BPS. BPS moved for summary judgment. After a hearing, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of BPS. O'Brien appealed, and in a memorandum opinion, the Nebraska Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the district court. The Supreme Court of Nebraska granted O'Brien's petition for further review. Because the Nebraska Supreme Court determined that BPS is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, it affirmed the lower court's ruling. The case is ROBERT O'BRIEN, APPELLEE, v. BELLEVUE PUBLIC SCHOOLS, APPELLANT, NOS. S12843, S13963 (Neb.). A full-text copy of the Decision dated Dec. 12, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/VoWMyJ from Leagle.com. Jeremy C. Jorgenson for appellant. Laura K. Essay, Kevin R. McManaman, and Michael W. Khalili, of Knudsen, Berkheimer, Richardson & Endacott, L.L.P., for appellee. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ocean View Facing $7.8MM Budget Over Fibro ----------------------------------------------------------- Nicole Knight Shine, writing for Huntington Beach Independent, reported that the Ocean View School District, in California, rocked by an asbestos cleanup that has closed schools and displaced students, now faces a budget shortfall of an estimated $7.8 million. "You went from being a stable district to a district that's facing insolvency," Wendy Benkert, assistant superintendent for business services at the Orange County Department of Education, told district trustees at their meeting. Benkert said the district has run through $2.9 million of $4.3 million in general fund emergency reserves and faces an additional $9.2 million in costs related to asbestos removal and a modernization project at 11 schools. Benkert sketched out worst-case scenarios should the district fail to close the $7.8 million shortfall. The district might need emergency funding from the state or wind up with the state taking over the district. "But I believe with prudent decisions you can turn this around," she said. Asbestos was detected in some classrooms during the modernization project that began in July. The cleanup has closed three schools and left many parents furious as they have watched their children -- more than 1,600 in all -- be temporarily bused to classes at eight schools in four districts. As the crisis has unfolded, district officials have remained in close contact with the Orange County Department of Education, which has oversight responsibility. Benkert laid out options for the board, such as scaling down or delaying some construction work or selling an unused school site. Such a sale, however, probably wouldn't happen quickly enough to shore up the district's deficit, she said. Also, legal requirements would force the district to offer any open space on an unused site to the city first for a below-market rate. "We have to start rethinking some of this stuff," Trustee Debbie Cotton said. "We need to be strategic about how we delay or cancel construction." Kris Meyer, the district's construction management contractor, told the board that construction is "like an aircraft carrier. You can't just turn on a dime and just stop." Meyer, a principal with Ledesma & Meyer Construction Co., which is handling the asbestos removal as well as the modernization, provided a construction update for Hope View, Lake View and Oak View elementary -- the schools closed for asbestos removal. He estimated that the cleanup at Hope View would be completed Dec. 29 and that construction might be done by mid-February. At Lake View, cleanup is expected to be completed by Jan. 23 and construction by mid-March. At Oak View, cleanup could begin Jan. 5, with construction finished by the end of March. All those dates, he said, are best-case scenarios. Last month, trustees approved about $9.2 million for asbestos cleanup and construction at the three schools. The spending was projected to put the district in the red by about $2.8 million, according to a staff presentation. The cost included modernization work such as new air conditioning, lights, flooring and ceilings, in addition to asbestos cleanup. The spending comes on top of the nearly $3 million the district had already spent as of Dec. 9, according to Bekert. She estimated the total shortfall of $7.8 million. Between Oct. 28 and Nov. 26, the district paid purchase orders totaling nearly $1.2 million to Ledesma & Meyer, according to a report available at the meeting. The architect working on Hope View, Lake View and Oak View received a purchase order of $343,320 in the same period. A special board meeting to discuss options to close the shortfall is scheduled at the district headquarters, 17200 Pinehurst Lane, Huntington Beach. When Hope View, Oak View and Lake View were built decades ago, asbestos was used as fireproofing on metal beams above the ceilings. Over time, asbestos dust began to fall from the beams and settle on classroom ceiling tiles, district records show. Parents became concerned in October that their children might have been exposed to asbestos dust in their classrooms while the district worked on the modernization project. In response, the district closed the three schools and began testing for airborne asbestos at all the campuses involved in the construction project. While asbestos that hasn't been disturbed isn't harmful to people, it can become a hazard when the dust becomes airborne. Inhaling high levels of asbestos over a long period can cause cancer and other lung disease, experts say. According to district documents, test results at Lake View showed airborne asbestos in two classrooms higher than levels set in the federal Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act, which regulates how much asbestos can be present in public buildings like schools. At Hope View, a sample taken in one classroom contained a single asbestos fiber. No air samples taken at Oak View were above the legal threshold, district documents show. Tests at eight other schools showed no significant level of asbestos in the air, the district said. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court OKs Deal to Resolve RPM Fibro Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- Eddie Staley, writing for Benzinga.com, reported that RPM International Inc. announced that the United States Bankruptcy Court in Delaware and the United States District Court in Delaware have confirmed the plan of reorganization for RPM's Specialty Products Holding Corp. (SPHC) subsidiary and related entities. SPHC originally filed for bankruptcy protection on May 31, 2010 to permanently resolve asbestos claims related to its Bondex International Inc. subsidiary. At closing of the plan of reorganization, which is expected to take place over the next several days, a trust will be established under Section 524(g) of the United States Bankruptcy Code for the benefit of current and future asbestos personal injury claimants. The trust will assume all liability and responsibility for these current and future asbestos claims, and SPHC and its related entities will have no further liability or responsibility for, and will be permanently protected from, the claims. At the same time, financial results of SPHC's operating subsidiaries, which have not been included in RPM's financial reports since the bankruptcy filing, will be reconsolidated with RPM's results for most of the second half of the company's fiscal year ending May 31, 2015 and subsequently. While RPM continued to own SPHC and its subsidiaries during the bankruptcy process, their financial results were not consolidated with RPM's during that time. RPM will review the financial impact of the reconsolidation during its second quarter earnings conference call on January 7, 2015. "We are pleased to bring finality to our legacy Bondex asbestos liability and welcome back into the RPM family an outstanding group of SPHC operating companies that are generating more than $400 million in sales on an annualized basis, along with strong operating income and cash flow," stated Frank C. Sullivan, RPM chairman and chief executive officer. SPHC operating subsidiaries include: * Chemical Specialties Manufacturing Corp., a producer of commercial cleaning products; * Day-Glo Color Corp., a leading manufacturer of fluorescent colorants and pigments; * Dryvit Systems, Inc., a leading manufacturer of exterior insulation finish systems; * Kop-Coat, Inc., a leading producer of wood treatments for lumber and coatings for the marine market; * RPM Wood Finishes Group (Mohawk Finishing Products, CCI and Guardian Protection Products, Inc.), a primary supplier of wood coatings to the furniture industry; * TCI, Inc., a leading producer of powdered metal coatings; and ValvTect Petroleum Products, a producer of fuel additives. The asbestos trust will be funded with $797.5 million in pre-tax contributions. The company estimates that the net after-tax present value of the contributions will be approximately $485.0 million. Contributions will be as follows: * $450.0 million in cash at closing, funded through RPM's revolving line of credit with a group of banks; * $102.5 million in cash, RPM stock, or a combination of the two, on or before the second anniversary of the plan's effective date; $120.0 million in cash, RPM stock, or a combination of the two, on or before the third anniversary of the plan's effective date; and * A final payment of $125.0 million in cash, RPM stock, or a combination of the two, on or before the fourth anniversary of the plan's effective date. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garlock Plaintiffs Suffer Another Setback ---------------------------------------------------------- Lalita Clozel, writing for The National Law Journal, reported that a federal judge has sided again with gasket maker Garlock in an asbestos bankruptcy case, declining plaintiffs' motion to reopen an estimation hearing that they said had lacked key evidence. Bankruptcy Judge George Hodges of the Western District of North Carolina ruled against the plaintiffs' request in In re: Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC. New information put forward by the plaintiffs "starkly contradicts assertions that figured prominently in Garlock's presentation in the estimation hearing," said Trevor Swett, an attorney for the plaintiffs committee, in an email. During discovery, Judge Hodges had allowed Garlock to investigate several settlements and jury verdicts made during the 2000s, when many of the so-called "big dusties" were filing for bankruptcy and Garlock's own litigation costs were on the rise. Garlock had found that claimants in 15 cases had underreported their exposure to other asbestos-containing products, as shown by later trust claims against other companies that had produced products with asbestos. In response to the alleged misrepresentation, Judge Hodges sided with Garlock's liability estimate, ruling in January that the company owed $125 million to present and future claimants. Plaintiffs' estimates ranged from $ 1 billion to $1.3 billion. Garlock in turn filed four law Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act suits against law firms involved in litigating these claims: Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett; Belluck & Fox; Shein Law Center; and Waters & Kraus. Plaintiffs lawyers have since argued that Garlock in fact had been aware of the undisclosed exposure information before discovery in this case, and moved to reopen the estimation proceeding in June. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Discovery Delays Memorial Garden Plans ------------------------------------------------------------- Lisa Reeves, writing for Alderley Edge, reported that plans for a memorial garden at Alderley Edge Cemetery, in Cheshire, England, have been delayed by the discovery of asbestos. Cheshire East Council is currently clearing the asbestos from some sheets which had been dumped at the cemetery. Cllr Melanie Connor informed her fellow councillors at the meeting that they have got to wait for it to be cleared and then the Council will come back with some plans which are being put together by a retired architect. Councillor David Marren, Chairman of Orbitas, Cheshire East Council's operating company for bereavement services, said: "Our bereavement operatives found the asbestos, which was concealed in undergrowth, while they were clearing an area in the cemetery for a new memorial garden. "The immediate area was fenced off with tape and two signs were put up warning of the presence of asbestos. "We immediately began to make arrangements for the waste to be taken away and we have been notified that a contractor will be removing it. "Nobody has been placed at risk as the material is in an area where no-one would normally have cause to go. "This waste was illegally tipped by persons unknown. We would encourage anyone who sees items being dumped to report it to the council as soon as possible so that we can find the people responsible and bring them to account." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Firm Says Modified Cells to Fight Mesothelioma --------------------------------------------------------------- Researchers at the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York have found that injecting mice with genetically modified white blood cells not only killed existing mesothelioma tumors, but also kept new tumors from forming, reports the mesothelioma law firm of Baron and Budd. The results of their work were published in the November 4, 2014 issue of Science Translational Medicine. "We are honored to fight for those who have been harmed due to the decisions of asbestos manufacturers to prioritize corporate profits over health." According to a November 5, 2014 article in the Los Angeles Times, the injected cells successfully fought off tumor cells that were re-introduced 200 days after the previous injection. The results, the article states, could lead to human clinical trials as early as 2015 if approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Mesothelioma is an almost-always fatal form of cancer that attacks the lining of the lungs. Approximately 3,000 people are diagnosed with the disease -- which is caused exclusively by inhalation or ingestion of asbestos fibers -- each year. Even though the fact that asbestos causes mesothelioma is irrefutable, the import and use of asbestos is still not fully banned in the United States. "We continue to be extremely encouraged with the incredible research being done around the world aimed at eliminating mesothelioma once and for all," said Russell Budd, president and managing shareholder of the mesothelioma law firm Baron and Budd. "We are honored to fight for those who have been harmed due to the decisions of asbestos manufacturers to prioritize corporate profits over health." A mesothelioma lawyer with Baron and Budd may be able to help if you or a loved one contracted the disease. Please call us at 1.866.844.4556 or e-mail info@baronandbudd.com to learn whether or not you may be able to pursue a mesothelioma lawsuit. About Baron & Budd The law firm of Baron & Budd, P.C., with offices in Dallas, Baton Rouge, Austin and Los Angeles, is a nationally recognized law firm with almost four decades of experience "Protecting What's Right" for people, communities and businesses harmed by negligence. Baron & Budd's size and resources enable the firm to take on exceptionally large and complex cases. The firm represents individuals, governmental and business entities in areas as diverse as PCB contamination in schools, FLSA (overtime) violations, pharmaceutical and medical implant injuries, water contamination, GM ignition problems, California Proposition 65 violations, mortgage and credit card fraud and asbestos-related illnesses such as mesothelioma. Contacts Baron & Budd, P.C. Susan Knape, 214-629-0596 sknape@baronbudd.com ASBESTOS UPDATE: ICG, Director Prosecuted for Disregarding Safety ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ed McConnelle, writing for Kent Online, reported that a construction company in Kent, England, and its managing director have been prosecuted after displaying a "shocking disregard" for workers' safety. Daniel Lautier and his firm, ICG Construction Management Services Ltd, both of Sevenoaks, were ordered to pay more than GBP4,000 at a hearing after pleading guilty to numerous safety breaches. Redhill Magistrates' Court heard how a Health and Safety Executive inspector visited the Surrey demolition site in June and immediately put a stop to demolition work after noting that staff were exposed to risks of falling from an unprotected roof and from the presence asbestos. The failings on the site in Chobham Road, Woking were spotted by the eagle-eyed HSE inspector as he drove past. Three workers were seen standing on the edge of the roof of a seven metre two-storey, part-demolished house despite no safety measures being in place. Roof tiles and masonry had also been thrown from the structure as it was being demolished. Lautier of Harrison Way, Sevenoaks, admitted two breaches of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 and the company pleaded guilty to one breach of the Act and a further breach of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012. Lautier was fined a total of GBP3,000 and ordered to pay costs of GBP1,044. No separate penalty was imposed for his company. After the hearing, HSE inspector Russell Beckett, who investigated, said: "The disregard for health and safety shown was shocking, and exposed workers and others to appalling risks. "The management of health and safety was non-existent even at the most basic level. "There were so many failures on site. Many were obvious but all contributed to making the site one of most inadequate and unprofessional I have ever seen. "Demolition of a property requires planning and that includes a survey to establish whether asbestos is present. "The demolition industry has vastly improved its health and safety record but Mr Lautier decided to cut corners and to try to do it himself. "If this demolition had been simply carried out using an excavator machine then there would have been very few risks involved." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Co. Owner Faces 5 Years for Fibro Removal ---------------------------------------------------------- Newsday reported that Gerald Cohen, 81, owner of Lawrence Aviation, a former airplane parts manufacturing plant in Port Jefferson Station, was charged on Dec. 11, 2014, with illegally removing asbestos from a building on the company's grounds in violation of the federal Clean Air Act, a felony. Cohen pleaded not guilty in federal court in Central Islip. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Odor Leads to Fibro Discovery in School -------------------------------------------------------- Mayra Moreno, writing for Kens5.com, reported that complaints about a funny smell and the sight of warning tape labeled "asbestos" caught the eye of elementary school parents in Dilley, Texas. Some brought their concerns to Eyewitness News. At first glance, a dumpster with warning tape labeled "asbestos" looks quite alarming. "I've heard from different people about some sort of smell," said one parent. A portion of Dilley Elementary will soon be demolished. Parents were told about this last year but some said they didn't know about this asbestos warning. "Should we get masks for our kids, should we not send them to school?" said another parent. Parents took their concerns to Eyewitness News and to social media after seeing photos of a school dumpster on Facebook. A parent, who asked to remain anonymous, decided to keep her two daughters home from school. "My daughter has asthma, that was the first main concern I had when I read lungs and respiratory," she said. Other parents were wondering if the smell is a hazard. "Just the safety of our children and their health," said another concerned parent. "I have two students as well that attend this campus, and I'm not going to do anything to put my students or anybody else's students in danger," explained the Dilley ISD Superintendent. The Dilley ISD Superintendent said he's returned dozens of calls from worried parents and that he is assuring them there is nothing to worry about. "Our certified asbestos company that is doing the removal has assured us that it is nontoxic," explained the superintendent. A letter that reached parents says in part: "The air that is exiting the buildings will have a smell, but the abatement company has filtered the air through three filters, these filters are replaced every four hours." The superintendent said the district is willing to talk with any parent with concerns about this project and the district wants to be transparent about what it's doing to keep students safe. ASBESTOS UPDATE: College Trustees to Hire Fibro Investigator ------------------------------------------------------------ Bridget Ortigo, writing for News-Journal, reported that the Board of Trustees of Kilgore College, in Texas, is considering hiring a third-party investigator to look into allegations of asbestos violations at the college. Trustee Will Roberson said he and board President James Walker will meet to set the board's meeting agenda and are considering the item. "We will discuss adding an option to the agenda for the trustees to vote on hiring an outside third party, someone who's an officer of the court, to look into Mr. (Dalton) Smith's accusations," Roberson said. "We thought it would be a good idea to have somebody who is trained in these matters and also an officer of the court who can find out and get better cooperation from FBI or EPA, if there is an investigation, so we're not stepping on each other's toes." In November, college Physical Plant Director Dalton Smith said people have been exposed to improperly handled asbestos in five buildings on campus and accused the college of covering up the carcinogenic material's existence over the past few years. Roberson said he has had multiple requests from fellow trustee Carlos "Scooter" Griffin Jr. to look into Smith's allegations of the college's mishandling of asbestos. He said that prompted the board's executive council -- which consists of Roberson and Walker -- to look at the possibility of hiring a third-party investigator. "What I requested was for Mr. Smith to come in and tell us his concerns," Griffin said. "Then we could also ask questions and get everything out on the table." The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality's Tyler Region is conducting an investigation and is coordinating with the Texas Department of Health Services for it. Smith has said he has been interviewed by agents from the FBI and EPA. Griffin and trustee Brian Nutt also have said they have been questioned by a federal investigator. "Unfortunately, with two and possibly four investigations going on right now, we don't think it would be good for the board to open up everything for discussion in public at the meeting," Roberson said. Roberson could not provide the name of the person the executive council is recommending conduct the investigation. Should the college choose to hire an attorney to investigate the allegations, the findings could be withheld from the public through attorney-client privilege. Smith said he welcomes any option that would involve getting to the "bottom of the matter" and reaching a resolution. The board is set to meet at at the college's McLaurin Administration Building in Kilgore. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Eynsham Car Worker Dies From Fibro Exposure ------------------------------------------------------------ Ben Holgate, writing for Oxford Mail, reported that a former car plant worker died of mesothelioma from asbestos exposure, a coroner has ruled. Martin Cross, 70, of Falstaff Close in Eynsham, England, was diagnosed with the fatal disease in July 2013 and died at Sobell House Hospice in Oxford on September 3, 2014, Oxfordshire Coroner's Court heard. His is one of at least eight cases of mesothelioma in Oxfordshire reported in the Oxford Mail this year. The inquest heard that Mr Cross, who was born in Headington, worked at the Cowley car plant from 1968 until 1992. In a witness statement made in November 2013 he said service pipes at the car plant "were all lined with asbestos". "I remember seeing dust particles in the air. Colleagues and I would have breathed it in." Mr Cross also recalled cleaning tunnels that contained asbestos. Consultant in respiratory medicine Dr Najib Rahman said in a statement Mr Cross had contracted mesothelioma. Coroner Darren Salter said: "I'm satisfied on the evidence available to me that Mr Cross was exposed to asbestos during his working life at Oxford as a factory assembly worker from the 1960s until about the 1980s. My conclusion is, therefore, industrial disease." Mini spokeswoman Rebecca Baxter said: "BMW Group took over Plant Oxford in 1994. Almost all of the asbestos exposures took place before this date. "As the current owner of the plant as much as possible has been done by the company to make sure that the insurance companies of the site's previous owners receive any claims as quickly as possible and will continue to do so." BMW acquired the Oxford car plant from Rover. British Leyland owned the plant from 1967 to 1986. The Health and Safety Executive has previously said it expects asbestos-related deaths in Oxfordshire to peak between 2015 and 2020, in line with other parts of the UK. Mesothelioma typically has a 30 to 40-year delay after exposure to asbestos. Legal firms bringing compensation claims say they have seen a rise in cases from Oxfordshire. This includes people who worked at the Cowley car plant, Didcot Power Station and Harwell's atomic energy plant between the 1950s and 1970s, as asbestos was prevalent in industrial buildings. Peter Lodge, a disease specialist at Festival Law, in Cheltenham, said after the hearing: "It is widely accepted that asbestos was used at that plant. "Clearly the employees were never made aware of the risks associated with such exposure in those years." ASBESTOS UPDATE: MDL Suggestion to Remand Damages Claims Opposed ---------------------------------------------------------------- Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported that several asbestos defendants in the asbestos multidistrict litigation court are opposing Judge Eduardo Robreno's recent suggestion to remand cases back to their transferor courts without severing punitive damages requests. According to the Nov. 24 suggestion of remand in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Judge Robreno suggested sending several maritime asbestos cases back to the Northern District of Ohio. These cases stand out from the numerous other cases previously remanded form the asbestos MDL court because this is the first time punitive damages have been remanded along with the asbestos action. On Nov. 12, Judge Robreno asked the plaintiffs to show cause why the court should discontinue its practice of severing claims for punitive damages and retaining these claims in the MDL court. The defendants responded by filing their own oppositions to the suggestion. "The MDL court acted to ensure the fair and equitable treatment of future claimants, securing the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation's authorization to sever punitive damages claims, and to retain jurisdiction over those claims even after associated compensatory damages claims had ben remanded to a transferor court for trial," defendant CBS Corporation stated in its Nov. 25 opposition. Defendant John Crane, Inc., or JCI, filed its opposition on Nov. 26 arguing that the court should continue its practice of severing and deferring plaintiffs' punitive damages claims. General Electric Company agreed in its Nov. 25 opposition that the court's longstanding practice of severing punitive damages has "aided the court in the timely in the timely and efficient disposition of a massive volume of cases." "The court's practice of retaining punitive damages claims does not reflect a lack of trust in transferor courts, but rather important public policy consideration that this court, due to its unique vantage point, is best-situated to safeguard," GE stated. JCI explains that in 1991, former Judge Charles Weiner, who was managing the docket at the time, chose to sever and retain jurisdiction over punitive damages claims while allowing liability and compensatory damages claims to proceed to trial. The Third Circuit agreed with this move, saying that "the sick and dying, their widow and survivors should have their claims addressed first." JCI claims severance and deferral of punitive damages aids in conserving the "limited" funds of money available to compensate future claimants. "Plaintiffs and defendants agree that asbestos litigation remains a zero sum game -- money spent on one claimant today may not be available for another claimant tomorrow," JCI states. "The prejudice to future asbestos claimants if punitive damages claims are allowed, is, therefore, palpable." CBS Corporation added that experience shows that "even separate and apart from the question of punitive damages, today's asbestos litigation does not tend to closely correlate liability and culpability, causing a disproportionate drain of valuable assets which might otherwise be available to compensate future claimants." "In short, this court's use of a procedure resting squarely within its discretion to protect future claimants is not improper 'judicial activism,' but its failure to do so would amount to a destructive form of 'judicial paralysis,' threatening MDL's hard- won legacy of 'responsible public policy," it added. JCI also argues that plaintiffs will not be prejudiced if the court continues to defer punitive damages claims, because they cannot be prejudiced by being deprived of something that they have no right to recover. "Plaintiffs' argument that continued severance and deferral of punitive damages claims somehow denies them a vested right to such damages is fundamentally flawed and should be rejected," JCI states. Furthermore, JCI argues that punitive damages claims will only lead to longer, more expensive trials. "The mere possibility of an award of punitive damages increases the time and money spent on pre-trial, trial and post-trial proceedings," JCI stated. When punitive damages are requested, JCI argues that defendants will pursue additional depositions and discovery/document requests, leading in longer trials as each party addresses allegations of willful and wanton misconduct. Furthermore, punitive damages claims will not encourage settlements. "Because the settlement value of a case often increases when punitive damages are at risk, plaintiffs will immediately raise their settlement demands regardless of the merit of his or her claim," JCI asserts. The defendants also argue that the two goals of punitive damages - - punishment and deterrence -- cannot be served in asbestos cases, because "in almost every case, the asbestos exposures that plaintiffs allege caused their disease occurred decades ago," JCI stated. "Awarding punitive damages now will not further discourage similar conduct in the future," it added. CBS explained that because asbestos products are no longer manufactured, there is no current or future conduct that could be deterred by punitive damages in today's asbestos litigation. It added that punitive damages claims pose a "multiple punishments problem," as a single defendant could be required to pay multiple punitive damages awards in order to punish the same "long-past" conduct. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manager Fined for Failing to Conduct Fibro Check ----------------------------------------------------------------- Elesha Edmonds, writing for Business Day, reported that a manager of a renovation company in Auckland, New Zealand, has been fined $40,000 after he failed to test ceilings at a worksite for asbestos. Peter Page, the manager of Apartment Renovation Company, was sentenced at Auckland District Court on charges laid by WorkSafe of not taking all practical steps to test a substance for asbestos. Shane Harris, a handyman employed by the company, raised concern after noticing Page did not test for asbestos before they began work on 10 units at a site in the Auckland suburb of Sandringham. Page told Harris he had tested the ceiling and had found there was no asbestos, but when Harris took his own sample it tested positive for the presence of asbestos. As a result of Page's actions, up to 15 contractors were potentially exposed to asbestos over three months. Asbestos dust can cause breathing difficulties or even lung cancer if it is inhaled. Page claimed he thought the textured ceilings were asbestos-free, as they did not have sparkling material visible to the eye. However Brett Murray, general manager of High Hazards and Specialist Services, said it was a recommended practice to test for asbestos. "Asbestos is often mixed with other material so it is virtually impossible to identify by eye," he said. "The only way to be certain that materials contain asbestos is to have them tested." Page was fined $40,000 under the Health and Safety in Employment Act and Health and Safety in Employment Regulations. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Find Halts Work at Housing Project --------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Watson, writing for The Courier, reported that an affordable housing project in a village in Fife, England, has been halted after the discovery of white asbestos. Work is suspended at the site on Station Road in Thornton, after the substance was detected by investigators on a recent visit. Although the material was not identified in test pits during preliminary inspections of the site, three samples of an asbestos cement product containing white asbestos were found on the surface of the ground. The project to construct 11 properties has already proven contentious with local residents, who are said to be concerned about traffic congestion in the area. Local SNP councillor Ross Vettraino told The Courier: "There has been a sign on-site for several years warning about the presence of asbestos and local residents are aware that asbestos had been removed in the past. "I assured local residents that the council would take every step to determine if the site was free now from asbestos and that is exactly what it has done. "As the site was not secure, gaps in the perimeter fencing of the site have already been closed. "A further and more detailed asbestos survey will be done and if, necessary, the site will be decontaminated." Letters are to be sent to residents, warning them of the find, although Fife Council admits that it cannot provide a timetable as to when any further work at the site can take place. Mike McArdle, lead professional, added: "I'd like to reassure everyone that there is no danger from this asbestos at the moment. "We are making arrangements to carry out an asbestos survey of the site to determine if there are any other asbestos products on site. "We have written to all nearby residents to keep them up to date with what's happening and to reassure them they are at no risk from this asbestos. "At this point, until a full survey has been carried out it is impossible to give an estimate of what will happen on the site and when." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Exposure Victim Awarded GBP61,000 -------------------------------------------------------- Gareth Tidman, writing for Manchester Evening News, reported that James Heneghan, 76, died after contracting the fatal illness -- his son Carl continued the legal fight started by his father when he was still alive. The family of a man who died of lung cancer following years of asbestos exposure at work have been awarded GBP61,600 against former employers. James Leo Heneghan, of Gloucester Road, Alkrington, Middleton, England, died aged 76 in January last year after contracting the fatal illness. His son, Carl, the executor of his estate and a professor of evidence-based medicine at Oxford University, continued the legal fight started by his father when he was still alive. The case was launched against six companies Mr Heneghan worked for between 1961 and 1974, when he was exposed to asbestos fibres which found their way onto his clothes and skin. In the first case of its kind, the family's lawyers argued that, although the six firms sued were not Mr Heneghan's only former employers, they should pay the full compensation of GBP175,000 he was entitled to on account of his illness. But, following a High Court hearing, Mr Justice Jay ruled the firms should only pay for the asbestos exposure they were responsible for -- about 35 per cent -- and therefore his family would only receive GBP61,600 -- just over a third of the total sum. Mr Heneghan worked on a number of sites, including Trafford Park, Withington Hospital, an oil refinery in Carrington and a hospital in Yorkshire. While all six former employers involved in the case accepted Mr Heneghan was exposed to asbestos, they argued they should only pay a portion of the compensation and not the full amount as it could not be proved this alone caused his illness. Mr Justice Jay said this issue had never previously been decided by a court in an asbestos case and therefore was of 'some difficulty and importance'. Agreeing with the defendants that they should only pay part of the damages, he added: "The claimant has demonstrated on the balance of probabilities that the deceased's lung cancer was not caused by non-occupational factors. "However, if the question is re-framed in these terms -- has it been proved that any of the defendants who have been sued caused the deceased's lung cancer? -- the answer must be in the negative." He concluded: "It follows that apportionment is the appropriate outcome in the present case and the claimant's recovery is limited to the sum of GBP61,600." ASBESTOS UPDATE: AM General Wins Delaware Fibro Case ---------------------------------------------------- Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported that a Delaware federal court has granted summary judgment to a defendant in an asbestos lawsuit, concluding the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence establishing that the decedent worked with the defendant's products. Judge Gregory M. Sleet filed the order granting summary judgment in favor of defendant AM General, LLC, on Dec. 9 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. Plaintiff Olga Pavlick originally filed the lawsuit in January 2010 in the Superior Court of Delaware on behalf of decedent John Pavlick, Jr., who was diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2008 from asbestos exposure and died later that year in November. The case made its way to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania's asbestos multidistrict litigation. It was later remanded to the Delaware District Court to resolve any outstanding issues. At the time, defendant AM General was one of two remaining defendants. The plaintiff alleges the decedent was exposed to asbestos in military trucks manufactured by AM General while he was deployed with the U.S. Army in Germany in the early 1970s. From 1971 to 1974, the decedent served with the Armored Calvary Regiment where he supervised repairs and maintenance of several of the vehicles. The decedent was allegedly exposed to asbestos while working with and near asbestos-containing automobile parts during his service and while working for a family business using the same auto materials. He was also allegedly exposed to asbestos while performing home improvement and renovation projects. The defendant is a known manufacturer and supplier of these truck types for the army. It filed for summary judgment in March. The court found that Pavlick failed to provide evidence that would allow a reasonable jury to conclude that the trucks in question were manufactured by the defendant. Therefore, there is no genuine dispute of material fact, and summary judgment is appropriate, the court ruled. Sleet explained that it is undisputed that AM General manufactured the vehicles at issue in this case, but there is no affirmative evidence establishing that the decedent worked with the defendant's products in Germany. Two witnesses who served with Pavlik submitted testimonies, but neither could identify whether any of the trucks there were produced by AM General. "The court does not see how a party could eliminate a genuine dispute of material fact by supplementing the record with additional evidence," the court concluded. Therefore, the district court determined that, aside from speculation and possibility, Pavlick failed to provide sufficient evidence that the decedent's exposure was the result of his work with AM General vehicles while in the army. "The plaintiff has therefore failed to carry her burden of production such that a reasonable jury could find in her favor at trial. The court grants AM General's motion for summary judgment," the order states. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Meriden School Closed Due to Possible Fibro Find ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jeff Gebeau, writing for Meriden Record-Journal, reported that the Connecticut Department of Public Health closed Maloney High School to those under 18 due to concerns about asbestos. The directive is in effect until further notice. A cartridge that monitors air samples became overloaded in the midst of the school's ongoing renovations, School Superintendent Mark Benigni said. The $107.5 million renovation project includes the construction of a new wing that will have two connections to the old building, demolition of parts of the old building and renovations to the interior and exterior of the building. It is not known whether the material detected by the cartridge was asbestos, but the building will cleaned and inspected over the weekend, he said. "It may impact the weekend schedule, but our hope is that the results will be positive, and we'll have folks back," he said. The closure forced the relocation of a boys basketball jamboree expedition featuring Maloney, Lyman Hall and Southington. The event was held at the Boys & Girls Club of Meriden. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crumbling Conneaut Building Contains Deadly Dust ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Todd, writing for Star Beacon, reported that a blighted building in downtown Conneaut, Ohio, that has drawn the ire of city officials contains asbestos, but the magnitude of the removal process won't be known until next year, according to John Williams, finance director and acting city manager. A technician with Monit-Air Group conducted tests inside the former Bunkhouse, 216 Main St. The examination found evidence of asbestos around piping and in some flooring, Williams said. Additional details are forthcoming, he said. "Full results won't be known for several weeks," Williams said. The final asbestos report will allow the city to seek quotes from companies that can remove the substance. "We won't know that cost until we go through the process, but I know it will be substantially more than the testing," Williams said. Monit-Air was paid $500 to conduct the analysis. At issue is a long-closed building, an old store last used as a night club, that began shedding bricks from its exterior walls early this year. Bricks fell from sections of its north- and west- facing walls, requiring the city to erect barriers to keep pedestrians and vehicles a safe distance away. This summer, crews from the city's Public Works Department removed the loose bricks, minimizing the threat of a wall collapse. The state of Ohio seized the building many months ago for unpaid taxes. The state has no problem with the city demolishing the structure if it is deemed a health or safety threat, officials have said. In November, Hugh Ingram, owner of NorthCoast Construction in Conneaut, offered to demolish the building free of charge if the city picked up the cost of asbestos removal and debris disposal. At the time, Ingram said he wanted to help the community. "Instead of complaining about stuff, let's do something about it," he said. The city is hoping to obtain a grant to help defray some of the cost of asbestos removal. Also, officials are exploring purchasing the ex-Bunkhouse property from the state to make it easier to market the future vacant lot. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crewkerne Woman Blames Cancer on Fibro Exposure ---------------------------------------------------------------- Western Gazette reported that a woman in Crewkerne, in Somerset, England, who is suffering a terminal form of lung cancer says her condition may have been caused by exposure to asbestos from her time working in a care home. Doreen Gain, 71, was diagnosed with mesothelioma -- a cancer of the lining of the lung which is widely linked to asbestos exposure -- in December 2012. Mrs Gain believes she may have been exposed to asbestos dust while working at the Bowhayes Lodge in Crewkerne between 1995 and 1998. Residents and staff at the home were offered reassurance there is no asbestos there. In March the Western Gazette reported Mrs Gain suspected that washing her husband's clothes may have triggered the disease. But an examination of her employment history by a law firm has recently opened up a new possible cause. Now Novum Law is appealing for more information. Doreen's condition has recently deteriorated to the point where she now requires an oxygen cylinder to breathe, and is being cared for at home by husband David and children Katrina and Jason. Speaking about her experiences at the Bowhayes Lodge, Mrs Gain said: "I remember the suspended ceiling with the asbestos ceiling tiles. Maintenance men had to move the tiles from time to time to access the service pipes behind the tiles and also to change the strip lights. I noticed that there were two maintenance men constantly working on the premises. "I also remember the maintenance men going in and out of the boiler house which is likely to have contained asbestos lagged pipework and asbestos dust and fibres could have been transported around the premises by the maintenance men." Bowhayes Lodge was owned by South Somerset District Council at the time Doreen worked there, before the building was transferred to Yarlington Housing Group in 1999. A spokesman for the council said that it does not hold any documentation in connection with asbestos and health and safety at the site due to its records being transferred with the change in ownership. Yarlington Housing has stressed the building is now free of asbestos and poses no risk to the health of existing residents and staff. Paul Bullows, the firm's facilities and health and safety manager, said: "After thorough testing in which many samples were taken the report concluded that no asbestos containing materials were found in the building. Therefore, there is no reason for residents to be concerned or worried that they are at risk from asbestos at Bowhayes Lodge." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro is Canada's Top Cause of Workplace Death --------------------------------------------------------------- Tavia Grant, writing for The Globe and Mail, reported that asbestos exposure is the single largest on-the-job killer in Canada, accounting for more than a third of total workplace death claims approved last year and nearly a third since 1996, new national data obtained by The Globe and Mail show. The 368 death claims last year alone represent a higher number than fatalities from highway accidents, fires and chemical exposures combined. Since 1996, almost 5,000 approved death claims stem from asbestos exposure, making it by far the top source of workplace death in Canada. The numbers come as the federal government -- long a supporter of the asbestos industry -- continues to allow the import of asbestos-containing products such as pipes and brake pads. A Globe and Mail investigation earlier this year detailed how Ottawa has failed to caution its citizens about the impact that even low levels of asbestos can have on human health. Canada's government does not clearly state that all forms of asbestos are known human carcinogens. Dozens of other countries including Australia, Britain, Japan and Sweden have banned asbestos. Canada was one of the world's largest exporters of asbestos for decades, until 2011, when the last mine in Quebec closed. The mineral's legacy remains, as it was widely used in everything from attic insulation to modelling clay in schools and car parts and in a variety of construction materials such as cement, tiles and shingles. Health experts warn long latency periods mean deaths from asbestos will climb further. "The indications are that we can expect an increase [in asbestos- related diseases] to continue for at least another decade or so. And that's assuming we as a nation ban it now. If we don't do that, we can expect it to continue to rise indefinitely, but perhaps at a lower rate," said Colin Soskolne, an Edmonton-based professor emeritus at the University of Alberta. In Australia, which banned asbestos in 2003, asbestos-related diseases continue to climb. The "responsible public-health action would be to ban the use of asbestos in Canada and other countries and replace it with substitutes," said Dr. Soskolne, who is also chair of the International Joint Policy Committee of the Societies of Epidemiology, adding that there is "no demonstrated safe way to use it in Canada." Asbestos-related diseases have a long latency period of typically 20 to 40 years. Many victims die of mesothelioma, an aggressive form of cancer caused almost exclusively by exposure to asbestos, and asbestosis, a fibrosis of the lungs. The data come from the Association of Workers' Compensation Boards of Canada and is typically updated every fall. For 2013, the most recent year for which annual data are available, it shows the single greatest cause of death was mesothelioma, with 193 fatalities. Asbestosis was a factor in 82 deaths. "There's some misconception that we banned it -- and we haven't," said Jim Brophy, former director of the Occupational Health Clinic for Ontario Workers in both Windsor and Sarnia. Canada now has "an enormous public-health tragedy, disaster on our hands." All commercial forms of asbestos including chrysotile, the type formerly mined and most commonly used in Canada, are classified as carcinogenic by the International Agency for Research on Cancer. Its evidence shows there is no "safe" form of asbestos nor a threshold that it considers safe. The agency's position is at odds with Health Canada, whose website continues to play down the risks of asbestos exposure. It never clearly states that all forms of asbestos cause cancer, but rather that chrysotile asbestos is "less potent" than other forms and that there "is no significant health risk" if the fibres are enclosed or tightly bound. "Asbestos poses potential health risks only when fibres are present in the air people breathe," Health Canada says. The problem is there's no way of ensuring that all products are always bound or enclosed. Brake pads wear down; renos stir up dust while pipes and tiles get sawed. Britain's national regulator for workplace health and safety informs its citizens that asbestos causes about 5,000 deaths per year -- but there is no comparable information on Health Canada's site. Health Canada told The Globe and Mail it has no plans to update its website, last revised in 2012. And while the World Health Organization bluntly says "all types of asbestos cause lung cancer, mesothelioma, cancer of the larynx and ovary, and asbestosis," Health Canada still says asbestos fibres "can potentially" cause asbestosis, mesothelioma and lung cancer "when inhaled in significant quantities." The potential link between exposure to asbestos and other types of cancers "is less clear," it adds. The workers' compensation numbers don't fully capture the total number of fatalities in Canada as not everyone is covered by workers' comp and not every claim is successful. Separate Statistics Canada data show almost 4,000 people died of mesothelioma alone in the decade to 2011. Heidi von Palleske says the numbers also don't capture wives and children who have been affected. She calls herself an asbestos orphan -- her father died in 2007, with asbestosis and lung and prostate cancer. He was a former worker at a plant run by Johns Manville, which made asbestos-fibre products. Her mother, who shook out and washed her husband's clothes for years, died of mesothelioma in 2011 and Ms. von Palleske's sister and brother have since been diagnosed with pleural plaque (a calcification of the lungs). "It's inexcusable," said Ms. von Palleske. She wants to see a ban and better supports for families affected by workplace exposure. Miners were among the first to be affected, but the range of occupations with workers exposed has expanded in recent decades. About 152,000 workers in Canada are currently exposed to asbestos, according to Carex Canada, a research project funded by the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer. The five largest groups are specialty-trade contractors, building construction, auto repairs and maintenance, ship and boat building and remediation and waste management. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tonnes of Fibro Dumped Near Queensland Highway --------------------------------------------------------------- The Australian Associated Press reported that tonnes of crushed asbestos have been illegally dumped near a highway west of Brisbane, a local councillor says. Ipswich councillor Paul Tully says large amounts of the deadly substance have been found just 200 metres off the Warrego Highway at Haigslea, along with about 80,000 dumped tyres. "It's crushed asbestos from buildings. It's not just sheeting. It's crushed, broken and lying out in the open and it's lying next to a major highway," Mr Tully told AAP. He said the material posed a serious health risk. The council or the state government would seek a court injunction to force the company responsible to safely remove the asbestos and tyres from the site on Haigslea Cemetery Road, he said. Mr Tully said the council had fined a company $60,000 for dumping the asbestos and tyres, but he would not name the firm due to the likelihood of further legal action. He said the 80,000 tyres dumped at Haigslea and 100,000 more found at a second site at Kholo, just outside the Ipswich city area, could be the largest illegal tyre dumps ever found in Queensland. The company involved appeared to have moved the tyres to the two sites after being ordered by the neighbouring Brisbane City Council to move them from a property at Pinkenba, Mr Tully said. He said the dumps posed environmental as well as health risks. "If these illegal dumps caught fire, they would cause major environmental damage with the Kholo dump near Lake Manchester posing an extra threat to the pristine lake area," he said. "Illegal tyre dumps are one of the greatest threats to urban communities with fires burning for weeks and each tyre releasing up to seven litres of oil into the atmosphere. It's time these environmental cowboys face the full weight of the law." AAP is seeking comment from the departments of health, and environment. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Exposure Causes Electrician's Death ---------------------------------------------------------- Southern Daily Echo reported that a man from Swanwick, in Hampshire, England, died after years of being exposed to asbestos, an inquest heard. George Brough, 89, died at the Countess Mountbatten House hospice in West End as a result of significant exposure to asbestos throughout his career at Southampton docks. The former electrician, who lived at Swanwick Shore Road, eventually gave in to bronchopneumonia on October 6. As well as working for Lancaster and Son foundry and the London Electricity Board alongside laggers, Mr Brough also worked aboard the Queen Elizabeth during the 1940s and 1950s. Recording a verdict of death due to industrial disease, senior coroner for south and central Hampshire, Grahame Short, said: "In the circumstances there's no doubt in my mind George Brough was exposed to asbestos for a prolonged period of his life in the 1940s-50s and he was diagnosed as suffering from plural plaques disease prior to his death. "It's clear from that medical report I've just read that he was identified as being at risk of death due to the asbestos exposure." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ky. Court Flips in Part Suit Dismissal Order ------------------------------------------------------------- HarrisMartin Publishing reported that a Kentucky appellate court has reversed in part an order dismissing an asbestos action with prejudice, finding that the case could not be dismissed with prejudice against non-moving parties. In the Dec. 12 decision, the Kentucky Court of Appeals further held that dismissal of the action with prejudice against the moving parties was not too harsh of a penalty since the plaintiffs failed to diligently pursue their claims but instead "hoped to leave open the door to future claims on the speculative hope that additional injuries would emerge." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Police Dept. Beset with Fibro Cancer Fears ----------------------------------------------------------- John Nickerson, writing for Stamford Advocate, reported that new asbestos warning signs posted throughout the police headquarters in Stamford, Connecticut, have led to scores of police officers filing notices with the state Worker's Compensation Commission. Since the jarring red signs went up declaring the building contains asbestos fibers that could cause cancer, 51 officers have filed notices that they may claim compensation for illnesses caused by asbestos, said Awilda Quesada, district administrator at the commission's office on High Ridge Road. Just after a young female police officer turned in her form, Quesada said officers had been streaming into her office and she expects many more to file the notices. She said the notices will be kept on record until a claim is made, which in the case of asbestos-related illnesses could take decades. Where the injury on the printed form is described it reads, "Member has been exposed to asbestos containing materials located at 805 Bedford Street which has been the Stamford police station since 1955." City officials say the new signs do not mean that asbestos is in the air in the 59-year-old building, but there is a danger if someone disturbs one of the 17 asbestos "hot spots" and asbestos particles are released. No work is currently permitted in those areas without federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration approval. The filings by officers are being made about six weeks after the city was fined $2,720 for failing to protect workers from asbestos or screen them for exposure to it. Stamford Police Association President Todd Lobraico said the asbestos problem, coupled with the lack of a police contract for four years and the developments in Ferguson, Mo., have driven morale among the city's 270 police officers to the lowest point he has seen in his 18 years behind a badge. "Clearly the signs make it evident there is a danger present. It is causing quite a stir with our membership. Not only do we have to worry about our safety on the street, we have to worry about our safety when we enter our place of work," he said. Lobraico said he suggested to his members that they file the notices, and he hopes the entire force will get them filed in the near future. He said one police officer pointed out that if signs like those pasted to walls and doors all over the department were in a school, parents would be furious. "And the same thing should apply to police officers," he said. Even with these problems, police officers are still holding the line against crime, he said. "Our police officers have been doing a phenomenal job closing cases and catching criminals, and while they are doing this, they have the asbestos to deal with and now the warning signs to deal with every time they walk into the building and their offices. Four years later we are still without a contract, yet they are still doing an outstanding job under all those conditions," he said. In the 12-page OSHA report issued near the end of October, the city was faulted for not informing housekeepers and contractors in the building about potential health risks of the presence of asbestos and not removing asbestos-containing materials in a manner to contain its spread. According to city documents, there are 17 hot spots with damaged asbestos that include the men's and women's locker rooms, weight- lifting room, lunchroom and lounge and major investigations department. Two signs were glued to doors in the public lobby warning of asbestos in the ceiling and floor tiles. In January, the city is set to begin quarterly air testing in the building and putting police officers through tests for pulmonary functioning and basic health, and chest X-rays are being considered. City Chief of Staff Michael Pollard said the search for a new building for the police department is a challenge. To name a few unique needs, he said a police department needs an extra-large records room, space for a firing range and a jail, three times the parking for an ordinary commercial facility, as well as a central location to ensure police response times don't suffer. Pollard said the city has checked out a few locations, but they were found lacking. "We are beginning to explore unconventional opportunities. We have no hesitation about wanting to get people out of the building, it is just a matter of finding the right location and facility," he said. Meanwhile, he said with the air tests already taken in the building, there is no concern with air quality or asbestos in the air. The signs were put up by order of OSHA, but as long as those areas are not disturbed and the asbestos is not allowed to become airborne, there is no danger, OSHA has told the city, he said. "This is a top priority. We have been looking diligently for months," said Pollard, adding the city is about to expand its search. Chief Jon Fontneau said he, too, was troubled by the signs that appear to put an exclamation point on the reports of asbestos in the building and he would not dispute Lobraico's claim about low morale in the building. Fontneau said most of the asbestos in the building is above the cosmetic ceiling tiles and at this point no one is allowed to open those tiles even if there is a leak in a pipe or a break in an Internet wire. "It's absurd. These are tough living conditions our officers are being subjected to as they work in this building day in and day out. As they walk into the building, they see the signs and as they walk out, they see the signs that this building is not safe," he said. "It certainly doesn't boost morale around here, and there is word that the officers are anxious to get out of this building. Me included." Although at first there OSHA set a March deadline to clear the asbestos out of the building, but the city has since had that order rescinded as long as they are working to find another place to move. Fontneau said the city has not been given a free pass and must work hard on getting its officers out of the building. "As long as the city is showing good faith and moving forward with a new place to move, we will be within OSHA guidelines. The city has to continue in good faith to keep looking and my understanding is that they are," he said. As a rule police officers don't talk on the record about police business, but many officers -- especially those that have been working in the building for decades -- are taking this personally. Sgt. Andrew Gallagher, who has been in the building for nearly 25 years said one of the hottest asbestos zones in the building was found to be in the gym ceiling tiles, right above his head, while he has been using the cross trainer and treadmill. He said he has been showering and brushing his teeth in water that may have lead deposits for as long. "The door to the office I go into every day now has an asbestos warning. Four feet away from where I sit, there are heating pipes wrapped with asbestos covers," he said. "I've worked very hard in the city for many years and I hope that just by coming into my office to do my job I don't get sick." Sgt. Peter diSpagna said from April of 1999 until two or three years ago he worked in the property crimes office that was then located on the first floor in the northeast corner of the building. When the OSHA report came out, that office was identified as having the highest concentration of asbestos than any other work area or office in the building. DiSpagna said that he filed his notice because he doesn't want an illness to catch up to him later on without having a notice filed in a timely manner for his own protection and to keep any future claim from being scuttled. "As a police officer and a Stamford taxpayer, I find this a despicable situation that the city should allow these conditions to exist with city employees. It is not the first time they knew about asbestos in the building," he said. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Scare Puts School District on Fin'l Brink ---------------------------------------------------------------- Nicole Knight Shine, writing for Los Angeles Times, reported that a small school district in Orange County, California, that was forced for close campuses and bus students elsewhere in the wake of an asbestos scare is now reeling under a multimillion-dollar budget shortfall. "You went from being a stable district to a district that's facing insolvency," Wendy Benkert, assistant superintendent for business services at the Orange County Department of Education, told trustees for Ocean View School District. Benkert said the district has run through $2.9 million of $4.3 million in general fund emergency reserves and faces an additional $9.2 million in costs related to asbestos removal and a modernization project at 11 schools. Should the Huntington Beach school district fail to close its $7.8-million shortfall, it might need emergency funding or could be taken over by the state, Benkert warned. "But I believe with prudent decisions you can turn this around," she said. Asbestos was detected in some classrooms during the modernization project that began in July. The cleanup has closed three schools and left many parents furious as they have watched their children -- more than 1,600 in all -- be temporarily bused to classes at eight schools in four districts. As the crisis has unfolded, district officials have remained in close contact with the Orange County Department of Education, which has oversight responsibility. Benkert proposed several options for school board members, such as scaling down or delaying some construction work or selling an unused school site. Such a sale, however, probably wouldn't happen quickly enough to shore up the district's deficit, she said. Also, legal requirements would force the district to offer any open space on an unused site to the city first for a below-market rate. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Found in Gabe's Tower ------------------------------------------------- Steve Vied, writing for Owensboro Messenger-Inquirer, reported that Bruce Jones, chief operating officer of Professional Hospitality Services, the Wisconsin company attempting to refurbish Gabe's Tower, announced that the project is moving forward and indicated that an asbestos abatement program will begin soon after an October inspection of the old hotel building confirmed the presence of the material. In a news release, Jones' company said Linebach Funkhouser Inc. was hired by the company to survey the building at 1926 Triplett St. for the presence of asbestos. City officials earlier confirmed that the company performed the asbestos inspection Oct. 28. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dumped Fibro in Queensland Poses "Low Risk" ------------------------------------------------------------ The Australian Associated Press reported that the risk posed by tonnes of crushed asbestos illegally dumped near a highway west of Brisbane, Australia, is low, health authorities say. THE Ipswich City Council says large amounts of the deadly substance have been found just 200 metres off the Warrego Highway at Haigslea, along with about 80,000 dumped tyres. Workplace Health and Safety officers have advised public health officials that the site poses a low risk for exposure. But efforts are underway at the site to further reduce that risk, the West Moreton Hospital and Health Service said. "There have been no concerns reported to the Public Health Unit relating to contact with the potential asbestos site," it said in a statement. The Department of Environment and Heritage Protection is investigating the dumping and has already ordered one unnamed company involved to clean up the site. "Failure to comply with a direction notice is an offence," a spokesperson for the department said. "Subject to the outcomes of further investigations, additional compliance action may be taken." The council has also moved against one unnamed company, fining it $60,000 for dumping the asbestos and tyres. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Companies Exposed Public to Fibro, DEQ Says ------------------------------------------------------------ Steve Law, writing for Portland Tribune, reported that the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality issued two fines after a contractor hired an unlicensed asbestos abatement company for a Southeast Portland home project. DEQ, which concluded the project likely caused the release of asbestos fibers into the air, fined Classic Image Homes $9,529 for allowing VIP Construction to perform asbestos abatement at a home on 3431 S.E. Rex St. VIP, an unlicensed subcontractor, was fined $11,200 for doing the project without a license from DEQ. The home project involved removing or disturbing asbestos-containing floor tile, paper duct insulation and popcorn ceiling texture and joint compound. DEQ charged the companies allowed construction waste from the project to accumulate outside the residence, potentially exposing the public to asbestos fibers. Asbestos fibers can cause lung cancer, mesothelioma and asbestosis. There is no known safe level of exposure. Classic Image Homes has appealed the penalty. VIP Construction had until Dec. 22 to file an appeal. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Release Puts Dutch City on Alert ------------------------------------------------------- PressTV reported that asbestos released by a fire has prompted a state of emergency in the Dutch city of Roermond. The marina on the Maas River was set ablaze destroying a lot of sailing boats in the city, which borders Germany. The fire released enormous amounts of asbestos into the air. Roermond's Mayor Peter Cammaert said, "It's everywhere, on the streets, roofs, in gardens." The approximate 57,000 residents were only allowed to leave or enter through special decontamination points. The Roermond train station and access roads have been blocked. Shops and two schools remained closed. Meanwhile, aid workers searched for asbestos residue and began cleanup efforts wearing protective apparels. Asbestos is a fibrous mineral that was once widely used for insulation because of its resistance to heat, fire, chemicals and electricity. The insulating substance is regarded carcinogenic and highly bio-hazardous. This carcinogenic substance has been banned in more than 50 countries. If inhaled, there would be a high risk of chronic lung inflammation and cancer. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lung Cancer Sufferer Has Fibro in House -------------------------------------------------------- Nigel Moffiet, writing for Auckland Now, reported that loose pieces of asbestos left in Collin Semmens' Housing New Zealand property for more than a year came as a shock just months after he was diagnosed with lung cancer. The Auckland man recently discovered his roof cavity was "covered" in the potentially deadly material when a contractor came to install a new kitchen range. After working above the ceiling the contractor came back down with a photo showing what Semmens described as "little bits of rubbish and little bits of tiles and nails covered in asbestos". "There's asbestos right through the roof and I said to him 'now you're covered in dust from that stuff' and he's only a young fella. I said 'if that gets into your lungs you've had it'." Semmens said the building scrap was left in the cavity after the old roof tiles were replaced last year. He and his partner Sandra Trueman are both invalids and have been living in the property for 10 years. He says HNZ offered to move them but weren't going to remove the material. "In the meantime if someone else moves in here they're not even going to know. If it breaks down that's it; it's a very dangerous chemical." Semmens is a smoker but doesn't know if the asbestos has affected his health. "You never know, it could have affected me and with my lung condition it's not very good. "It's a very dangerous chemical. I've had a cousin die from that." Housing NZ property services manager Marcus Bosch said testing confirmed the dangerous substance in the left-over scraps which were "about the size of a hand". "We are investigating why these small, solid asbestos-containing pieces were not removed when the whole roof was replaced, as they should have been. "However, the material left in the roof cavity is not considered a potential health risk because of the location and condition it is in. Nevertheless we will remove them as soon as possible." ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Finds Fibro in Stony Creek, Yarraville ----------------------------------------------------------- Bridie Byrne, writing for Herald Sun, reported that Melbourne Water has been issued with a clean-up notice to remove a stockpile of sediment that contains asbestos dredged from Stony Creek. The notice follows Environment Protection Authority sampling of sediment found traces of asbestos downstream of Somerville Rd in Yarraville. Routine sampling also found lead, zinc and hydrocarbons consistent with urban catchments. The detected asbestos wasn't in a respirable form and air monitoring confirmed it was below detectable limits. Independent testing has advised that the risk to human health was negligible to low. The results were similar in another stockpile found further downstream, south of Francis St. Both stockpiles are fenced and sign-posted to ensure no public access. Further testing upstream has returned no trace of asbestos. It is believed Melbourne Water is complying with EPA requirements to assess the stockpile and manage any risks associated with the use or disposal of the sediment. The EPA will continue testing and monitoring in the area. Concerns have also been raised by environmental groups over the stormwater run-off coming from a neighbouring industrial properties. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Arsenic, Fibro Found in Northstowe Ground ---------------------------------------------------------- Cambridge News reported that arsenic, asbestos and bombs from the Second World War are among the things lurking in the ground at Northstowe, England -- but the problems should all be solved come move-in day at one of the country's largest new towns. The remarkable findings at the former Oakington barracks site have been uncovered by engineers Hyder, as they investigate the full scale of the task to ensure the 10,000-home new development is safe to be lived on. Such findings are not unusual at former defence sites, while the environmental aspects of the town will have to be signed off by both the Environment Agency and South Cambs District Council. Contractors Hyder are also confident there will be nothing to worry about once it has done its work across the site, which will eventually cover an area the size of Newmarket. Paul Kitson, a senior project manager for the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA), which is developing phase two at Northstowe, said: "Housing development occurs on brownfield land, such as ex-military land, which contains localised contamination all the time. "Northstowe is a brownfield site and has some areas of localised contamination which were identified in a 2007 report, submitted with the phase one application in 2011 and more recently outlined in the HCA's remediation strategy, submitted as part of the phase two planning documents. "There is well-established science behind the identification and remediation of contaminants on brownfield land, like Northstowe, and ultimately the remediation must be signed off by the Environment Agency and council officers. The HCA has appointed suitable professionally qualified scientific advisors to support us on this. "Before any development can take place, we will carry out further investigation where contamination is identified. "And we would invite a planning condition to be imposed on the phase two application which would require further more detailed remediation strategies and action plan, these would need to be signed off by the Environment Agency and South Cambridgeshire District Council." Comparatively high levels of chemicals such as lead and vanadium have been discovered along with methane and carbon dioxide. Two 500lb bombs have also been uncovered and further work is underway with specialists to mitigate the dangers of any work going forward. There was better news, though, with no presence of mustard gas. Of eight broad identified risks, just two of them are thought to have a high risk during the site's development. Hyder has already identified some six pages of detailed work to prevent the contamination causing harm. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro-Laden NZ Bldg. to be Demolished ------------------------------------------------------ Nancy El-Gamel, writing for Waikato Times, reported that a 69- year-old building in New Zealand that contains asbestos is to be demolished to make way for a new supermarket. The building, on Peachgrove Rd in Hamilton, is covered in plastic to prevent neighbours from inhaling asbestos fibres and getting sick. George Asplet, project manager for the new Countdown supermarket, says that the company is going above and beyond what legislation requires of them to keep the risk minimal. "We have an asbestos consultant for independent testing and WorkSafe has been on the site three times. "They keep an eye on what we're doing and they're happy for the way the process is going." A WorkSafe New Zealand spokesperson said, "WorkSafe is satisfied at this stage that all systems are in place for a safe removal process." Two buildings on the old Mighty River Power site have been found to contain asbestos and have been covered in plastic to ensure no fibres escape while workers remove the offending material. Dr Richard Wall, medical officer of health, said that asbestos was only of concern when the material was inhaled. "[Asbestos] has sharp microscopic fibres that can penetrate the lung and can lead to cancer and a disease called asbestosis. "If they are doing it properly it shouldn't be a problem." Asbestos was commonly used in building materials because of its heat resistant properties and is only a risk when those materials start breaking down. "Generally asbestos in homes won't be a problem if it's in good condition. "As long as it's not crumbling or flaking away, it's not a risk," said Wall. Both the deadline and the budget for the new supermarket have not been significantly affected by the discovery of asbestos. ASBESTOS UPDATE: NSW Gov't to Knock Down Mr. Fluffy Homes --------------------------------------------------------- James Glenday, writing for ABC News, reported that the New South Wales Government is following the ACT's lead by committing to knock down all buildings insulated with potentially deadly loose- fill asbestos roughly 40 years ago. The substance was pumped into more than 1,000 houses across Canberra, and an unknown number of properties in NSW, by an operator that has become known as Mr Fluffy. While a clean-up operation costing about $1 billion is already underway in the ACT, fixing the same problem in NSW is likely to cost hundreds of millions of dollars and could affect more than 1,000 families in suburbs like Parramatta, Manly, Lithgow, Yass, Bungendore and Queanbeyan. "The only enduring solution is for these homes to be demolished," NSW Finance Minister Dominic Perrottet said. "There is no dollar figure you can place on the health and safety of citizens in New South Wales." Between 300 and 1,000 New South Wales homes are expected to be contaminated with the asbestos insulation, but only 57 have been identified. Most of the affected properties found so far are in Queanbeyan, just on the edge of the ACT. However, authorities are still searching for Mr Fluffy homes in 26 different council areas, predominantly in parts of Sydney and towns surrounding Canberra. Queanbeyan Mayor Tim Overall welcomed the announcement, and said it would give "a high level of certainty to affected home owners and residents". "Until now, many affected home owners and residents have been living on the edge of financial uncertainty and long-term health risk," he said. The State Government will provide a package for affected families that will include rental assistance, counselling, environmental cleaning and house inspections. The Loose Fill Asbestos Insulation Taskforce has also been established to look at the best way of demolishing or buying back the homes. The taskforce will report their findings in May. "Let's not pre-empt what that cost will be," Mr Perrottet said. "We are trying to work out, and will work out, over the course of this process the extent of the problem. "I think this is an issue that both NSW and the ACT have struggled to come to grips with for some time." Mr Fluffy's New South Wales legacy long overlooked The extent of the problem in New South Wales has long been a mystery. Residents across the border were not included in the unsuccessful mass clean-up of the substance in Canberra 20 years ago. Some community leaders have been calling for help to find the contaminated houses for decades, but say they have been repeatedly ignored by successive state governments. But the Government said it has learned from the recent experiences in the ACT. Mr Fluffy homes found in NSW will soon have identification tags to prevent tradespeople from coming into contact with the asbestos. Also, homes with the substance will not be able to be sold without full disclosure from the owners. But Mr Perrottet conceded that finding all the contaminated properties could take several years. "There's no doubt that could be the case," he said. "But what I'm really focused on at the moment is getting the facts on the table and that's what this taskforce in my view will achieve." The government has set up a website and hotline in a bid to encourage more people with contaminated homes to come forward. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Man Pleads Guilty for Improper Fibro Removal ------------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reported that a developer in Sioux City, Iowa, accused of improperly removing asbestos from a former YMCA building has pleaded guilty. Records show 54-year-old Larry Wolf, of Dakota City, Nebraska, entered his plea in federal court in Sioux City on one count of violating the work practice standards of the Clean Air Act. Wolf was accused of improperly removing asbestos from an old YMCA building between July 2009 and March 2011. He admitted during his plea hearing to knowing about the asbestos ahead of removing material from the building. Prosecutors say Wolf also removed asbestos-containing material wrappings from metals inside the building then sold the metals. It's unclear when Wolf will be sentenced. He remains free on bond. ASBESTOS UPDATE: HSE Prosecuting Council Over Town Hall Fibro ------------------------------------------------------------- Zoie O'Brien, writing for Guardian, reported that a court date has been set for the prosecution of the council in Waltham Forest, England, for breaching health and safety laws relating to asbestos. The authority has admitted it knew about the presence of the deadly substance at the town hall in Forest Road, Walthamstow. However, staff were not prevented from entering affected areas of the building between 1984 and 2012, with the council claiming it was believed the asbestos was within acceptable levels. A survey carried out in January 2012 ahead of major works revealed asbestos in the basement, boiler room, generator room, cable room, print room and lobby. Documents were also found covered with asbestos dust. The prosecution is being brought by the Health and Safety Executive. An initial hearing was scheduled for September 16, but this has now been adjourned. The council will appear in court on January 19 at Westminster Magistrates Court. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Dumped on Country Lane in Dunkirk ------------------------------------------------------------- Bess Browning, writing for Kent Online, reported that police cordoned off the area and the Ministry of Defence were called in after munitions and asbestos were found on an English country lane. Officers from Swale Borough Council were alerted to the fly- tipping in Dawes Road in Dunkirk between Faversham and Canterbury. Around 75 munitions and a huge amount of asbestos was found slung on the rural road. Police taped off the area, the road was closed and experts from the Ministry of Defence were brought in. Police Spokesman Alice Hemmings said: "Kent Police was called on December 17 to a report that a number of shells had been found at the side of the road in Dawes Road, Dunkirk. "The explosive ordnance disposal team attended and confirmed the shells were not live devices and there was no risk to public safety." Experts declared the site safe and the cordon has now been removed. To report fly-tipping to Swale Borough Council visit: www.swale.gov.uk/fly-tipping ASBESTOS UPDATE: Illinois Law Nixes Deadline for Fibro Suits ------------------------------------------------------------ The Associated Press reported that people exposed to asbestos now have more time to file lawsuits over related illnesses under a bill Gov. Pat Quinn has signed. The Democrat made the measure law on Dec. 19. It removes a 10- year time limit on filing civil action related to the use of asbestos in construction. Asbestos was an effective and popular fireproofing material until the 1970s. Regulators banned it because exposure to asbestos fibers has been linked to the aggressive cancer called mesothelioma (mess-oh-thee-lee-OH'-muh). But the previous law prevented anyone from filing a lawsuit against people involved in constructing buildings using asbestos after a decade. Proponents say mesothelioma takes at least 20 years to develop. Opponents complained the law is too broad, overly expanded liability and would hurt business. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Store Development to Require Fibro Removal ----------------------------------------------------------- Carl Rotenberg, writing for The Times Herald, reported that during the eighth zoning hearing for a convenience store with gasoline pumps in Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, environmental engineer William Schmidt described the environmental impact of a 24-hour, seven-day convenience store operation on the 1100 block of Fayette Street. Schmidt, an engineer at Pennoni Associates, said a building survey concluded building materials at the former auto dealership at 1109 Fayette St. contained asbestos that will require careful removal. A subcontractor scanned the underground areas and did not identify any unknown metal storage tanks. Schmidt said a Phase II environmental study completed in October 2013 concluded from 12 soil borings that three volatile organic compounds and two metals were found that "were above allowable limits." He said the contamination could be left in the ground and contained by concrete ground coverings. Lawyer Stephen Pollock, representing Conshohocken residents opposed to the store, questioned Schmidt about the differences in testing locations for a previous plan to build semidetached homes on the parcel. Under questioning by Pollock, Schmidt said one of the contaminated soil samples was taken from underneath Harry Street, which is beyond the property line of the proposed convenience store. Borough Solicitor John DiPietro asked Schmidt if he was aware that Harry Street was not part of the development project. Schmidt agreed that one sample was taken under Harry Street despite the fact the street is not part of the development application. Board Chairman Richard Barton asked how many additional soil borings would be taken if the property is developed as a residential project. Schmidt said 12 additional borings would be required for a housing project. "We talk about environmental concerns. I have nothing against this particular convenience store. All those cars with their engines running cause pollution," said a Conshohocken resident. "Think about that. Have there been any studies about that? We have a park next door where kids play." Last year, Provco Pineville Fayette (PPF) LP of Villanova unsuccessfully sought zoning changes for the 1.45-acre parcel from Conshohocken Borough Council. Local officials and a majority of residents living around the site are opposed to the development plans. PPF is proposing a 4,670-square-foot market at the former 1.45-acre E.F. Moore car dealership at 1109 Fayette St. The applicant seeks variances from front-yard rules, the size and number of signs, the presence of gasoline tanks on Fayette Street and the design of the retail store from the Conshohocken Zoning Hearing Board. At the November hearing, sound engineer Dave Shropshire explained his April 29 report found that the sound pressure levels (SPLs) would be between the low 40s and the upper 60s, as measured in decibels, at the proposed convenience store on Fayette Street. "The overwhelming sound on the property were the vehicles on Fayette Street," Shropshire said. "At the comparable site for sound measurement (a Quick Chek in Hazlet, N.J.) the SPLs were between 44.9 to 65.3. A morning reading was 49 to 62. The trash area is the area that generates the highest sound levels." Deliveries and trash collection were 57 to 75.6 decibels of "impulse" sound, a short "bang." "That is the worst-case scenario," he said. Pollock questioned Shropshire about the conclusions and the methodology of the study. "The closest single home is 250 feet from the convenience store in Hazlet," Shropshire said. "The site plan for Conshohocken has the proposed building blocking a direct line of sight to the nearest neighbor. "The primary source of high sound would be trash collection, then delivery trucks, then cars entering and exiting." he said. "Ambient sound comes from trucks and cars on Poole Avenue." Geologist Brian FitzPatrick, president of Synergy Environmental Inc. of Royersford, said construction of underground storage tanks has progressed over the years and additional regulations have been imposed to prevent accidental spills. Double walls for tanks, remote sensors, "sheer" valves on the above-ground pumps and cutoff valves on rubber hoses are now standard protection for new gasoline tank installations. "New construction has to have complete containment," FitzPatrick said. "Automatic tank gauges are fed by several sensors. Installers have to pass tests to make the tank installations." FitzPatrick said the developer's plan had four 15,000-gallon tanks with 10 pumping stations. The next zoning hearing on the convenience store will be held at 7 p.m. Jan. 29. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tobacco Co. Settles Fibro, Dividends Suits ----------------------------------------------------------- Marion Dakers, writing for The Telegraph, reported that British American Tobacco has paid $575 million (GBP367 million) to settle a legal case relating to asbestos claims and disputed dividends in the 1980s. The FTSE 100 tobacco producer said its Canadian subsidiary, Imperial Tobacco Canada, had settled the litigation brought by Flintkote, a US firm that formerly produced products containing asbestos. Flintkote was part of a firm that was later absorbed into what eventually became Imperial Tobacco Canada. The US company started a lawsuit in 2006 to recover dividends from 1986 and 1987 that were paid out during some of this corporate consolidation. Flintkote also wanted Imperial Tobacco Canada to take on some of its asbestos liabilities. Used in roofing and insulation in the last century, asbestos fibres have been found to cause several diseases including mesothelioma, a form of cancer. More than 2,500 people a year die from mesothelioma in the UK, according to government statistics, and claims from those affected have been passing through the courts since the 1970s. "The settlement agreement now provides closure on a legacy file, allowing Imperial Tobacco to focus on its current business by finally and completely resolving the existing Flintkote litigation and obtaining protections from potential future litigation related to Flintkote," said BAT in a statement. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Found on Rottnest Island ----------------------------------------------------- Lorraine Kember, writing for Asbestos.com, reported that the discovery of asbestos near vacation bungalows on Rottnest Island, an idyllic Western Australian tourist destination, and the local government's claim that the substance is "low risk" has raised red flags among activists, members of the medical community and other lawmakers. Dr. Michael Gannon, president of the Australian Medical Association (WA), said Rottnest Island authorities downplayed the severity of the asbestos health threat. "It's not zero risk, and it's time for the Rottnest Island Authority to have a look at this accommodation and try to make it zero risk," media reports show. President of the Asbestos Diseases Society of Australia Robert Vojakovic referred to officials' response about asbestos on the island as "patchwork" to save money. Fremantle MP Simone McGurk, whose district includes Rottnest Island, told Australian media the public deserves to know "where that material came from, what was the source of that material, and if there is risk that any other broken material could be buried on the island and then possibly arrive during storm activity." Asbestos is a naturally occurring mineral linked to the development of malignant mesothelioma, an often terminal cancer that affects the lining of the lungs, heart and abdominal cavity. How Was Asbestos Found on Rottnest Island? Rottnest Island (also known as Rotto) is renowned for its beautiful scenery and stunning coastline. It's one of Australia's hottest tourist destinations. A recent survey of the top 10 destinations in Australia listed Rottnest Island as the top vacation spot. Donovan Pryor, a building company owner staying in one of the Rottnest bungalows, alerted officials in September that he suspected there was blue asbestos -- the most toxic form of the mineral -- on the grounds outside the vacation units. Officials immediately fenced off the area and tested the substance. Rottnest Island Authority (RIA) Acting Chief Executive Greg Ellson later confirmed it was white asbestos, and it posed little threat to island visitors or residents. "White asbestos is very low risk, the material was intact and non- friable [difficult to break down] and was of very low risk to anyone staying in the units or passing by," Ellson said, according to Australian media reports. But the National Industrial Chemical Notification and Assessments Scheme (NICNAS), Australia's regulatory agency, disagrees with Ellson's statements about white asbestos, also known as chrysotile. "Breathing in chrysotile dust causes lung cancer, mesothelioma and asbestosis," the NICNAS website shows. "There may be no immediate signs of ill health from breathing in fibers of chrysotile. However, the damage caused to the lung can be fatal many years later." The agency also adds "there may be no safe exposure level for chrysotile, so all exposure should be avoided." Discovery of Asbestos Is Not an Isolated Incident In May 2013, a six-year-old girl vacationing with her family on Rottnest Island brought home a chunk of asbestos after collecting shells, rocks and other items from the tourist hot spot. "It's made me really anxious about letting my children frolic around and do what kids do, which is explore and pick up shells and things," the girl's mother told The Western Australian. "If there's a danger of them picking up asbestos, it ruins the family holiday." An RIA spokesperson at the time told the news agency that rain or a ground disturbance unearthed the asbestos, which could have been debris from a 2005 roof replacement. Australia's History with Asbestos Asbestos was extensively used in the building and textile industries in Australia between the 1950s and 1980s. Many parts of Australia were also mining towns, including Wittenoom, one of the continent's worst industrial disaster sites. Many homes and business built with materials containing asbestos are still standing today across Australia. Recently, officials discovered homes in Canberra still contained remnants of Mr. Fluffy, an insulation material composed of deadly asbestos. Although government efforts in the 1980s tried to eliminate the insulation from thousands of homes, many homeowners still are finding the material in their residences. The Australian government will buy those homes from Canberra residents and demolish them in the coming months. Many homes in Rottnest Island also contained asbestos, especially in the roofing materials. According to the RIA, all asbestos currently in the buildings on the island is inert and safe. Officials said August marked the most recent asbestos inspection on Rottnest Island. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Group Warns of Mesothelioma Risk in Pipes ---------------------------------------------------------- Surviving Mesothelioma says thousands of water pipes in the U.S. contain asbestos and EPA information indicates that these pipes can leach asbestos into drinking water as they age. According to the EPA, in addition to the erosion of natural asbestos deposits, decaying water mains made of asbestos cement are the major source of asbestos in drinking water. To protect consumers from mesothelioma, water providers are subject to routine monitoring to ensure that asbestos levels stay in the safe range, but if they rise, facilities have up to 30 days to let consumers know. "Because asbestos is so closely linked to malignant mesothelioma, we believe that it is important for the public, including workers called to work on these water mains, to be aware of the potential for asbestos contamination and to know their rights to protect themselves," says Alex Strauss, Managing Editor of Surviving Mesothelioma. The Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization estimates that millions of miles of pipes made of asbestos cement were in installed in the U.S. between the 1960s and the 1980s. According to Exponent, an engineering and scientific consulting firm, these pipes have a lifespan of about 70 years. To learn more about EPA guidelines for asbestos in drinking water, including where you can go for information about the safety of your own water supply, see Mesothelioma Risk from Aging Asbestos Water Pipes, now available on the Surviving Mesothelioma website. For nearly ten years, Surviving Mesothelioma has brought readers the most important and ground-breaking news on the causes, diagnosis and treatment of mesothelioma. All Surviving Mesothelioma news is gathered and reported directly from the peer- reviewed medical literature. Written for patients and their loved ones, Surviving Mesothelioma news helps families make more informed decisions. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Urban Demolitions in Turkey Spread Fibro --------------------------------------------------------- Today's Zaman, citing a report in the Taraf daily, said that as buildings are demolished all over Istanbul in the scope of various urban transformation projects, the proper measures are not being taken to prevent the spread of the cancerous material asbestos. Opposition Republican People's Party (CHP) deputy Haluk Eyidogan, who spoke with Taraf, submitted a parliamentary inquiry to the Ministry of Environment and Urban Planning. According to the response he received, the ministry is unable to obtain reliable information from the relevant municipalities regarding buildings with materials containing asbestos, and they are thereby unable to take the proper measures during demolitions. "When buildings are demolished they are sprayed with hoses, which allows the particles to spread throughout the city," said Eyidogan. A significant percentage of older apartment buildings in Istanbul were built using asbestos products. "Due to demolitions, it is unclear how much asbestos there is, to what extent it is spreading and how it is affecting people," said the opposition parliamentarian. However, the solution that is currently not being carried out by the Ministry of Environment and Urban Planning is a simple one, according to Eyidogan: "They are saying, 'How can we conduct inspections and take the proper measures without information?' Before a demolition, a team of experts could enter the building and examine all of its elements. They would determine whether or not there is asbestos, which is very easy to do. If there is, personnel wearing special masks would remove the asbestos and it would be transported to a waste disposal facility," said Eyidogan, adding, however, that he was not aware of any existing facility wherein asbestos could be safely stored. Asbestos, which is a naturally occurring mineral substance, is also commonly known as a harmful material that can lead to lung cancer and other respiratory diseases in those who are exposed to the fiber. It was used extensively as insulation material throughout the world, although many developed countries banned it decades ago. It was not banned in Turkey until 2010. Health experts earlier this year claimed that 500,000 people will die of cancer in Turkey within 30 years because of asbestos. A variety of urban transformation projects are occurring in many districts of Istanbul, in neighborhoods that are believed to be risk areas especially vulnerable to damage in the event of a major earthquake. It is generally believed that a major earthquake is highly likely to strike Istanbul in the coming years. Authorities believe that thousands of buildings cannot withstand the effects of a severe earthquake. Certain laws allow buildings in neighborhoods designated as risky areas to be demolished, even if the owner does not consent. Critics of this practice argue that the laws are sometimes used as a way to kick poor people out of neighborhoods located on high-value land. ********* 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 * * *