/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/141230.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, December 30, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 259 Headlines ACCRETIVE HEALTH: 7th Cir. Affirms $14-Mil. Settlement Approval ACTIONLINK LLC: Stay Order Vacated in "Cheung" Suit ALCOBRA LTD: Faces "Fialkov" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports AMERICAN EQUITY: Missouri High Court Upholds Case Dismissal ARROWHEAD RESEARCH: Motion for Lead Counsel Appointment Due BARRETTE OUTDOOR: "Nieberding" Case Stayed Pending Appeal BECTON DICKINSON: Pays $22MM to Settle Hospitals Antitrust Claims BECTON DICKINSON: Faces Suits Over Merger Plan with CareFusion BILL ME LATER: Plaintiffs Seek Final Approval of Class Settlement BROAD AND CASSEL: 10th Cir. Orders Removal of RICO Class Action BRP US: Recalls Ski-Doo and Can-Am Kids' Hoodies C&J ENERGY: Court Preliminarily Enjoins Merger for 30 Days CANADA: Veterans' Group Fights Class Action Appeal CARLYLE GROUP: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages CHICAGO MESSENGER: Faces "Perez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT COMFORT RESEARCH: Recalls Vinyl Bean Bag Chairs CONGREGATION OF CHRISTIAN: Suit Barred by Statute of Limitations CONVERSANT INC: Inks MoU to Settle Consolidated Shareholder Suit CRACKER BARREL: Still Faces FLSA Violations Suit in N.Y., Fla. DAIKIN INDUSTRIES: Recalls Air Purifiers Due to Fire Hazard DOLE FOODS: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Mislabeling Class Action DDP HOLDINGS: Faces "Feiertag" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime DREAM ON ME: Recalls Incredible Play Yards Due to Choking Hazard DUNE MANAGEMENT: Faces "Costello" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT DYCK O'NEAL: Faces Foreclosure Class Action in Florida E & L CONSTRUCTION: Faces "Menjiva" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT EATON CORP: Recalls Electrical Meter Breakers Due to Shock Hazard ENBRIDGE INC: Settles 2010 Oil Spill Class Action ESPN: Seeks Dismissal of College Athletes' Class Action ETHAN ALLEN: Recalls Floor Lamps Due to Electrical Shock FELT BICYCLES: Recalls Cyclocross Bicycles Due to Injury Risk FORD MOTOR: Kansas Court Narrows Claims in "Knopke" Suit GCI OUTDOOR: Recalls Stadium Seats Due to Injury Risk GIGGLES INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Animated Monkey Toy GILEAD SCIENCES: Chimicles & Tikellis Files Sovaldi Class Action GOAL ZERO: Recalls Battery Packs Due to Fire Hazard HI-TECH PHARMACAL: Settlement Okayed in Sinus Buster Lawsuit HOME INSTEAD: D. Colo. Judge Denied Class Certification HORIZON HOBBY: Recalls Super Cub S Radio-Controlled Aircraft HOWMEDICA OSTEONICS: Faces "Grayson" Suit Over Defective Product IEC ELECTRONICS: N.Y. Court Grants Motion to Dismiss Stock Suit INTERNATIONAL GAME: Cert. Sought in VLT Gaming Suit in Canada INTERNATIONAL GAME: Suits Over GTECH S.p.A. Merger Consolidated J & G TRANSPORT: Judge Refuses to Dismiss Truckers' Class Action K12 INC: Court Dismisses Securities Class Action KAISER PERMANENTE: Settlement Obtains Preliminary Court Approval KBR INC: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Fraud Class Action KEBAB GRILL: "Reyes" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages KIDDIE KORRAL: Recalls Girls Hoodies With Ponies LAMPS PLUS: Judge Grants Final Approval to Class Settlement LENOVO GROUP: Recalls Computer Power Cords Due to Fire, Burk Risk LESSEREVIL LLC: Falsely Marketed Chia Crisps Products, Suit Says LIBERTY SILVER: Settles Securities Class Action for $1 Million MALLINCKRODT PUBLIC: Dec. 2015 Jury Trial Set in Questcor Suit MALLINCKRODT PUBLIC: Denny v. Cadence Suit Voluntarily Junked MALLINCKRODT PUBLIC: Inks Agreement to Settle Suit Over Questcor MEADOWBROOK FINANCIAL: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages METROPOLITAN LIFE: Accused of Illegal Use of Shadow Insurance MICROSOFT CORP: School Board May Apply for Settlement Funds MIDWEST MEDICAL: Settles Class Action Over Medical Records MIGDALAS IP: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Kinard" Suit Says NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: Settles Faulty Brakes Class Action MODUSLINK GLOBAL: March 11 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Sued Over Violations of RESPA, FDCPA & ECOA NIX SPE: Faces "Russi" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages NORDSTROM INC: Recalls Open Vest Sweaters Due to Burn Hazard OW BUNKER: Danish Investors Mull Class Action Over Collapse PETROLEO BRASILEIRO: Faces Investor Class Action in New York PETROLEO BRASILEIRO: Gets Citation in New York Class Action POST HOLDINGS: Hearings in Antitrust Suit v. Michael Foods Set PRO ARMOR: Recalls Doors for Polaris RZR 800 and 900 Utility Cars RADIOSHACK CORP: Faces Class Action Over 401(K) Plan RAYMOND JAMES: No Class Yet in Suit by Regions Shareholders RAYMOND JAMES: Faces Class Lawsuit by Municipal Bond Holders RETROPHIN INC: Faces "Sandler" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports ROMAGICA CORP: "Lopez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime SALSA CYCLES: Recalls Bicycle Forks Due to Fall Hazard SANTA ROSA, CA: To Appeal Ruling in Suit Over Impounding Policies SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Class Action SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC: Recalls PowerPact J-Frame Circuit Breakers SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO: Morning Song Bird Food Litigation Continues SEAWORLD PARKS: Sued Over Automatic Annual Pass Renewals SEADRILL LTD: Abraham Fruchter Files Securities Class Action SHAPIRO BROWN: Faces "Burke" Suit Over Foreclosure Practices SHELL OIL: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Class Action SIGMA-ALDRICH CORP: Inks MoU to Settle Securities Litigations SKINNYGIRL MARGARITA: Judge Refuses to Certify False Ad Suit SMARTHEAT INC: Plans to File Summary Judgment in Securities Suit SONY COMPUTER: Fails to Dismiss "Ladore" Suit Over Killzone Game SONY CORP: Ex-Workers Express Frustration Over Data Leak Response ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MO: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Court Fees SYNGENTA CORP: Nebraska Farmers Join GMO Corn Class Action TAKATA CORP: Judge Stays Florida Airbag Class Action Proceeding TESCO PLC: Faces "Davidson" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports TESCO PLC: Bernstein Litowitz Files Securities Class Action TIBCO SOFTWARE: Court Denied Plaintiffs' Request to Enjoin Merger TOWER RESEARCH: Sued Over Illegal Manipulation Contracts Price UGI CORP: Antitrust Suits by Customers Transferred to Missouri UNITED STATES: Judge Certifies Immigration Class Action v. DHS US CENTURY: Settles Derivative Class Action for $4.5 Million US FOODSERVICE: Class Action Settlement Obtains Final Court Okay UVEX SPORTS: Recalls Bicycle Helmets Due to Head Injury Risk VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports VAM USA: "Durham" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages VELOCITY EXPRESS: Faces "Mejia" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages VESTAS WIND: Portland Court Approves Class Action Settlement WEATHERFORD INTERNATIONAL: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime WEGMANS: Recalls Moody Face Stress Balls Due to Choking Hazard WHIRLPOOL CORP: Judge Refuses to Certify Pollution Class Action WINDOWCRAFT INC: Recalls Custom Roller Shades Due to Injury Risk WINNCOMPANIES INC: Judge Remands "Perez" Suit to Kern County YALE ENFORCEMENT: "Jone" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages YAMAHA: Recalls YZ250 Competition Off-Road Motorcycles ZUFFA LLC: Illegally Monopolizes MMA Promotions, "Le" Suit Claims * Food & Beverage False Ad Class Actions to Face Cert. Hurdles ********* ACCRETIVE HEALTH: 7th Cir. Affirms $14-Mil. Settlement Approval --------------------------------------------------------------- Kurt Orzeck, writing for Law360, reports that the Seventh Circuit on Dec. 9 refused to block a $14 million settlement resolving a class action accusing Accretive Health Inc. of promoting a positive forecast to shareholders before allegations of unlawful collection tactics caused stock prices to plummet, after one of the class members objected. Affirming a district court's decision to approve the settlement, the appellate judges said that further litigation likely would have involved complex and lengthy discovery and expert testimony, that the counsel who negotiated the deal during mediation are highly experienced, and that the settlement was proposed by an experienced third-party mediator after an arm's-length negotiation. The suit was filed in April 2012 by investor Linda Wong, who argued that Mary A. Tolan, the company's CEO, and John T. Staton, the chief financial officer, repeatedly delivered deceptive statements that pumped up medical debt collector Accretive's stock price while concealing the fact that the firm was "violating health privacy laws, state debt collection laws and state consumer protection laws." In its September 2013 settlement with Wong, Accretive agreed to pay $14 million to all investors who owned common stock between Nov. 10, 2010, and Apr. 27, 2012. James J. Hayes, an experienced litigator who is representing himself pro se in his objection of the settlement, argued that an Illinois federal judge erroneously approved a plan of distribution that included class members not damaged by the alleged fraud. "He is mistaken," the Seventh Circuit replied on Dec. 9. "An examination of the formula used to calculate settlement distributions reveals that only those who can show loss causation, i.e., those that held their stock until March 29, 2012, will receive a distribution. The claim per share for those who sold before March 29, 2012 will always be zero." According to the complaint, the company was sending collectors into emergency rooms to arrange payment before treatment was rendered. When those tactics were publicized in a New York Times story, the company's stock declined from $24.06 per share to $10.86 from March through April. In December 2012, Accretive motioned to have the suit dismissed, arguing that the complaint was built by "cutting and pasting whole swaths" of unproven allegations from a putative class action filed in Minnesota by Attorney General Lori Swanson. Those allegations should not be considered, the motion said, because that suit was settled without an admission of wrongdoing. Accretive contended the company was not guilty of fraud for failing to mention the specifics of their day-to-day business. Accretive settled the Minnesota case in July 2012. It was assessed $2.5 million in restitution and barred from doing business in the state for a period of two to six years. Of the more than 34,200 potential class members in the instant suit, only Mr. Hayes filed an objection, according to court papers. In granting final approval to the settlement and plan of distribution, a district judge overruled Hayes' objection. Mr. Hayes argued on appeal that a district court lacks sufficient information to judge the fairness of a class action settlement prior to ruling on a motion to dismiss; that the Seventh Circuit should adopt a rule that attorneys' fees in class action settlements are deducted from each claim paid by the settlement fund at a set rate per share; and that the court should direct the district court on remand to replace the lead plaintiff, the Indiana State Police Benefit System, with the named plaintiff, Ms. Wong, and himself. But the Seventh Circuit decided on Dec. 9 that those three arguments are waived on appeal because Mr. Hayes failed to raise them at the trial level. James E. Barz -- jbarz@rgrdlaw.com -- of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, which is representing the plaintiffs, told Law360 on Dec. 9 that they are very pleased with the ruling. "In affirming, the Seventh Circuit recognized that Robbins Geller is 'highly experienced' in representing investors in these cases and that [Hayes], who courts have noted is a frequent objector to class settlements, was the only objector to an excellent recovery for the class," Mr. Barz said. Circuit Judges Joel M. Flaum, Daniel A. Manion and David F. Hamilton sat on the panel for the Seventh Circuit. Ms. Wong is represented by James E. Barz, Kevin K. Green, Robert Robbins and Bailie Heikkinen -- bheikkinen@rgrdlaw.com -- of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP. Mr. Hayes is representing himself. The defendants are represented by Leonid Feller -- leonid.feller@kirkland.com -- Andrew Clubok and Adam Humann -- adam.humann@kirkland.com -- of Kirkland & Ellis LLP. The case is Linda Wong et al. v. Accretive Health Inc. et al., case number 14-2191, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. A copy of the Seventh Circuit's Dec. 9 decision is available at http://is.gd/XQ7KIdfrom Leagle.com. ACTIONLINK LLC: Stay Order Vacated in "Cheung" Suit --------------------------------------------------- Judge Susan Illston of the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, vacated an order in the case entitled CATHLENE CHEUNG, JEFF KOENIG, CHRISTIAN SANTOS, and SCOTT SOBCZAK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ACTIONLINK, L.L.C., an Ohio Limited Liability Corporation, Defendant., Case No. 3:13-CV-01931-SI (N.D. Cal.) On May 13, 2014, the Parties filed, and the Court signed a Joint Stipulation and Proposed Order to Stay Proceedings. It provided that, a currently pending previously filed case in Sacramento Superior Court entitled Carl Adams, III, et al. v. ActionLink, LLC, et al. (the "Adams Action"), would also be stayed in order for the Stipulation and Order to be effective. The Stipulation and Order case provided, as a condition subsequent for the Stay of Proceedings and Certification Order in the Cheung Action to take effect, that there be a Stay in place in the Adams Action. There was no joint request to stay the Adams Action that was ever submitted or granted. The parties reached impasse over the class notice, they have not been able to come to agreement and do not anticipate being able to come to agreement over that issue in the Adams Action. In light of the failure of the occurrence of a material condition subsequent to the Stay in the Cheung case, the parties now submit the Joint Stipulation and Proposed Order to Vacate the Stay and Class Certification Order, and ask the Court to set a Case Management Conference. Accordingly, the Court vacated, in its entirety, the May 13, 2014 Joint Stipulation and Order and vacates the stay of all proceedings, and set the Case Management Conference on Dec. 12, 2014 at 3:00 p.m. The Class Certification of the subclasses and causes of action under Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) are granted. The named Plaintiffs Cathlene Cheung, Jeff Koenig, Christian Santos, and Scott Sobczak are appointed as class representatives. Craig Ackermann, Esq. from Ackermann & Tilajef, P.C, Julian Hammond from Hammond Law, PC and John Glugoski of Righetti Glugoski, P.C, class counsel in the parallel state court Adams case, are appointed as class counsel. All pending deadlines in this Action are vacated. The Parties shall file a Joint Status Update on or before March 18, 2015, regarding their plans for mediation, class notice dissemination and/or the setting of further deadlines, including a trial date, and they shall address at that point the outstanding issues related to the inter-relationship between the Cheung and the Adams cases. A copy of Judge Illston's order dated November 10, 2014 is available at http://is.gd/xPO6a8from Leagle.com. Diane Marie O'Malley -- domalley@hansonbridgett.com -- Dorothy S. Liu -- dliu@hansonbridgett.com -- Jennifer M. Martinez -- jmartinez@hansonbridgett.com -- at HANSON BRIDGETT LLP, for Defendant ACTIONLINK, LLC Julian A. Hammond -- jhammond@hammondlawpc.com - at HAMMOND LAW PC, Craig G. Ackermann -- cja@ackermanntilajef.com -- at ACKERMANN & TILAJEF, P.C., Attorneys for Plaintiffs. ALCOBRA LTD: Faces "Fialkov" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports --------------------------------------------------------------- Gail Fialkov, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Alcobra Ltd., Yaron Daniely, Tomer Berkovitz, and Ehud Gilboa, Case No. 1:14-cv-09906 (S.D.N.Y., December 16, 2014), alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Alcobra Ltd. is an emerging pharmaceutical company primarily focused on the development and commercialization of a proprietary drug candidate, MDX, to treat cognitive disorders including Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and Fragile X Syndrome. The Plaintiff is represented by: Deborah R Gross, Esq. LAW OFFICES BERNARD M GROSS, P.C. Suite 450, 100 Penn Square East Philadelphia, PA 19107 Telephone: (215) 561-3600 Facsimile: (215) 561-3000 E-mail: debbie@bernardmgross.com - and - Kenneth A. Elan, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF KENNETH A. ELAN 217 Broadway New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 619-0261 Facsimile: (212) 385-2707 E-mail: elanfirm@yahoo.com AMERICAN EQUITY: Missouri High Court Upholds Case Dismissal ----------------------------------------------------------- Chief Justice Mary R. Russell of the Supreme Court of Missouri upholds a trial court order dismissing a lawsuit against American Equity Mortgage Inc. The appellate case is, THOMAS BINKLEY, HARLENE J. BINKLEY, ROLAND E. STURHAHN, AND SUSAN J. STURHAHN, Appellants, v. AMERICAN EQUITY MORTGAGE, INC., Respondent, No. SC 94152 (Mo.) Appellants Thomas and Harlene Binkley and Roland and Susan Sturhahn are property owners who refinanced their residential mortgages through American Equity Mortgage. The property owners filed a class action petition against American Equity. They alleged that: (1) American Equity violated RSMo 2000 sections 484.010.2 and 484.020 when it procured or assisted in the drawing for a valuable consideration of legal documents, including deeds of trusts, notes, and/or a PUD rider; (2) that by engaging in law business, the mortgage company committed an unlawful practice in violation of the MMPA, and; (3) the property owners contended that American Equity was unjustly enriched because it charged for services it did not perform or did not perform lawfully. American Equity filed a motion for summary judgment and conceded, for the purposes of the motion only, that it procured legal documents within the meaning of section 484.010.2. It argued it was entitled to summary judgment, however, because it did not charge a separate, additional fee for document preparation. It also contended that because the MMPA and unjust enrichment claims were based on the same conduct underlying the property owners' sections 484.010.2 and 484.020 claim, those claims failed as a matter of law. The trial court granted American Equity judgment on all three counts. The property owners appealed. In affirming the trial court's decision, Chief Justice Russell said the property owners failed to demonstrate that they were charged a fee for the preparation of legal documents. As to their MMPA's claim, appellants failed to demonstrate that they suffered an ascertainable loss of money or property as a result of an unfair practice, and judgment in favor of American Equity was proper, and as to unjust enrichment claim, appellant presented no evidence countering American Equity's assertion that it did not charge for preparation of legal documents, there is no factual dispute regarding whether the property owners conferred a benefit to American Equity. The trial court did not err in granting judgment in favor of American Equity on the unjust enrichment claim. A copy of Chief Justice Russell's judgment dated November 12, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/Bv7UKLfrom Leagle.com. ARROWHEAD RESEARCH: Motion for Lead Counsel Appointment Due ----------------------------------------------------------- Motions for appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel were due December 9, 2014 in securities lawsuits filed against Arrowhead Research Corporation and pending before Hon. Consuelo B. Marshall, according to the company's Nov. 25, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014. The Company, Christopher R. Anzalone, and Bruce D. Given have been named as defendants in putative securities class actions filed in the Central District of California regarding certain public statements in connection with the Company's hepatitis B drug research. Two suits are currently pending: Wang v. Arrowhead Research Corp., et al., No. 2:14-cv-07890, filed October 10, 2014, and Eskinazi v. Arrowhead Research Corp., et al., No. 2:14-cv- 07911, filed October 13, 2014 (collectively, the "Securities Claims"). Both cases are assigned to the Hon. Consuelo B. Marshall. Both plaintiffs bring claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and seek damages in an unspecified amount. Motions for appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel are due December 9, 2014, pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. On November 20, 2014, a putative stockholder derivative action was filed in United States District Court for the Central District of California, alleging breach of fiduciary duty by the Company's Board of Directors in connection with the facts underlying the Securities Claims. The complaint, Weisman v. Anzalone et al., No. 2:14-cv- 08982, seeks unspecified damages and attorneys' fees. BARRETTE OUTDOOR: "Nieberding" Case Stayed Pending Appeal --------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Teresa J. James of the District of Kansas granted defendants' motion to stay in the case Jonathan Nieberding, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BARETTE OUTDOOR LIVING, INC and HOME DEPOT USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 12-2353-DDC-TJJ (D. Kan.) Plaintiffs filed a suit representing a class of purchasers of outdoor railing products against defendants Barrette Outdoor Living, Inc. and Home Depot USA, Inc. They alleged that the railing products included defective plastic brackets which harmed all members of the proposed class by causing them to pay more for the products that they were worth. Plaintiff filed before District Judge Daniel Crabtree a motion for class certification, which was later granted in part and denied in part. Defendants filed their respective petitions for permission to appeal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(f) and Fed. R. App. P. 5. Defendants filed a Motion to Stay Pending Rule 23(f) Appeal on October 7, 2014. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals granted Defendants' petitions for permission to appeal on October 10. Defendants then requested a stay of all further proceedings in the case until the Tenth Circuit rules on their appeal of the class- certification order. They argue that proceeding with in this case while their appeal is pending will require them to bear the significant burden and expense of providing class notice, conducting further discovery, and preparing for a class trial. They argue that these tasks will not only burden the parties; they also will require the expenditure of significant judicial resources, which could be unnecessary depending upon the outcome of the appeal. And, if the Tenth Circuit decertifies the class or alters the class definition in light of Defendants' appeal, Defendants argue that proceeding with this case will create substantial confusion among the class members. Judge James granted defendants' motion to stay pending Rule 23(f) Appeal. All proceedings in the case are stayed pending resolution of defendant's appeal of the class-action certification oreder before the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. The parties shall promptly notify the court of the action taken by the Tenth Circuit in relation to Rule 23(f) petition. A copy Judge James' Memorandum and Order dated November 10, 2014 is available at http://is.gd/4DjQskfrom Leagle.com. Jonathan Nieberding and Fredrick Aloysius Nieberding, Plaintiffs, represented by: Andrew J. Schermerhorn, Esq. John M. Klamann, Esq. THE KLAMANN LAW FIRM 4435 Main Street, Suite 150 Kansas City, MO 64111 Telephone: (816) 421-2626 Facsimile: (816) 421-8686 - and - Mark P. Schloegel, Esq. William Dirk Vandever, Esq. THE POPHAM LAW FIRM, PC 712 Broadway, Suite 100 Kansas City, MO 64105 Telephone: (816) 221-2288 - and - Ronald P. Pope, Esq. RALSTON, POPE & DIEHL LLC 2913 SW Maupin Lane Topeka, KS 66614-4139 Telephone: 785-273-8002 Facsimile: 785-273-0744 E-mail: ron@ralstonpope.com Barrette Outdoor Living, Inc., Defendant, represented by Gary T. Jansen, Esq., and Nicole D. Milos, Esq., at Cremer Spina Shaughnessy Jansen & Siegert, LLC; James C. Morrow, Esq., at Morrow, Willnauer, Klosterman & Church LLC. BECTON DICKINSON: Pays $22MM to Settle Hospitals Antitrust Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Becton, Dickinson and Company has paid $22 million in exchange for a release by all potential class members of the indirect purchaser claims in a consolidated antitrust suit by "Hospital Plaintiffs," according to the company's Nov. 26, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014. BD was named as a defendant in the following purported class action suits brought on behalf of indirect purchasers of BD's products, such as hospitals and retailers (the "Hospital Plaintiffs"), alleging that BD violated federal and state antitrust laws, resulting in the charging of higher prices for BD's products to the plaintiffs and other purported class members. Case: Jabo's Pharmacy, Inc., et al. v. Becton Dickinson & Company Court: U.S. District Court, Greenville, Tennessee Date Filed: June 3, 2005 Case: Drug Mart Tallman, Inc., et al. v. Becton Dickinson and Company Court: U.S. District Court, Newark, New Jersey Date: January 17, 2006 Case: Medstar v. Becton Dickinson Court: U.S. District Court, Newark, New Jersey Date Filed: May 18, 2006 Case: The Hebrew Home for the Aged at Riverdale v. Becton Dickinson and Company Court: U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York Date Filed: March 28, 2007 The plaintiffs in each antitrust class action lawsuits sought monetary damages. These antitrust class action lawsuits were consolidated for pre-trial purposes in a Multi-District Litigation in Federal court in New Jersey. Pursuant to a settlement agreement that BD entered into with the Hospital Plaintiffs on July 30, 2013 and following approval by the New Jersey District Court (on a preliminary basis in November 2013 and on a final basis in March 2014), BD has paid $22 million in exchange for a release by all potential class members of the indirect purchaser claims related to the products and acts enumerated in the complaint, and a dismissal of the case with prejudice. BECTON DICKINSON: Faces Suits Over Merger Plan with CareFusion -------------------------------------------------------------- Becton, Dickinson and Company is facing several lawsuits in the Delaware Court of Chancery and in the Superior Court of California, San Diego County over its plan to merge with CareFusion Corporation, according to BD's Nov. 26, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014. On October 5, 2014, CareFusion Corporation (CareFusion) and BD entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger that provides for the acquisition of CareFusion by BD. Under the terms of the merger agreement, a subsidiary of BD (the merger subsidiary) will merge with and into CareFusion, with CareFusion surviving the merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of BD. Several putative class action lawsuits have been filed against CareFusion, its directors, and BD and the merger subsidiary in the Delaware Court of Chancery and in the Superior Court of California, San Diego County. These lawsuits generally allege that the members of the board of directors of CareFusion breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the merger by, among other things, carrying out a process that the plaintiff alleges did not ensure adequate and fair consideration to CareFusion stockholders. The plaintiffs in these actions further allege that CareFusion and BD aided and abetted the individual defendants' breaches of their fiduciary duties. The plaintiffs seek, among other things, equitable relief to enjoin consummation of the merger, rescission of the merger and/or rescissory damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. BILL ME LATER: Plaintiffs Seek Final Approval of Class Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Sara L. Ellis of the Northern District of Illinois gave her stamp of approval on Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion and Memorandum In Support of Final Approval of Class Action Settlement in the case entitled MISTY MURRAY AND SHAUN MURRAY, individually and on behalf of a class similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs v. BILL ME LATER, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant., No. 12- CV-04789 (N.D. Ill.) Defendant Bill Me Later is a nationwide purveyor of consumer credit for merchandise purchased online and over the phone. It allowed consumers who want to make purchases online to make such purchases without a credit or debit card, and instead finance the payment of their purchases over several months. Unfortunately, the sheer size of Bill Me Later's business, coupled with the high risk of default of its customers along with periodic phone number inputting errors during the application process, have led Bill Me Later to repeatedly call consumers who are not its customers and to continue calling many of those non-customers long after they inform Bill Me Later of its error. The Class Representatives, Misty Murray any Shaun Murray, claimed that Bill Me Later started calling them. The Class Representatives tried repeatedly to get the calls to stop, despite the fact that neither Class Representative has ever been a Bill Me Later customer. Plaintiffs filed a Class Action Complaint against Bill Me Later and contemporaneously filed their Motion for Class Certification. Plaintiffs alleged that the autodialing technology used to call them constituted an "automatic telephone dialing system," that the calls were made using an artificial or prerecorded voice, and that they never provided Bill Me Later with their express consent to receive such calls. After some discovery efforts, settlement negotiations with the help of retired Chief Magistrate Judge Edward A. Infante resulted in a $9,900,000.00 cash settlement plan. Pursuant to the plan, each settlement class member who submits a valid claim form will be entitled to an equal share of the settlement fund, up to the full $500 statutory amount available under the TCPA, after payments are made for notice and administration costs, Court- approved attorneys' fees and expenses, and approved incentive payments to the Class Representatives. The total payment to each settlement class member will depend on the number of valid claim forms submitted. Direct notice was provided by first-class mail to approximately 308,807 consumers, and notice was provided by email to an additional approximately 34,256 consumers. 41,865 Claim Forms have been received by the Settlement Administrator, which makes it highly likely that the entire Settlement Fund, net of attorneys' fees, administrative expenses and incentive awards, will be distributed to the Settlement Class Members directly. After presenting a preliminary settlement plant, of which the same has been approved, pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Class Representatives Misty Murray and Shaun Murray, through Class Counsel, submit a motion for final approval of the proposed Settlement of this class action. The settlement administrator is Michael J. McMorrow of McMorrow Law, P.C. For settlement purposes only, the following counsel are appointed as Class Counsel: Myles McGuire, Esq. Evan M. Meyers, Esq. MCGUIRE LAW, P.C. 161 N. Clark St., 47th Floor Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 216-5179 Facsimile: (312) 275-7895 - and - Michael J. McMorrow, Esq. MCMORROW LAW P.C. One North LaSalle Street, 44th Floor Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 265-0708 E-mail: mike@mjmcmorrow.com A copy of Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion and Memorandum dated November 6, 2014 is available at http://is.gd/MrMIFZfrom Leagle.com. BROAD AND CASSEL: 10th Cir. Orders Removal of RICO Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that an appeals court ruled that three defendants should be removed from a RICO class action lawsuit. The three-judge panel said as the class certification decision pertains to Florida law firm Broad and Cassel, Ronald Gache and Carl Romano, it reversed the district court's decision to certify a class against them. The panel affirmed the district court's decision to certify the class against the other defendants, according to the Dec. 8 opinion filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Circuit judges Paul Joseph Kelly Jr., Timothy M. Tymkovich and Gregory A. Phillips voted in the majority, with Tymkovich authoring the opinion. "This case requires us to consider the certification of a proposed class action to pursue claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act," the opinion states. "A class primarily composed of real estate borrowers sued a group of lenders, claiming the lenders conspired to create a fraudulent scheme to obtain non-refundable up-front fees in return for loan commitments the lenders never intended to fulfill." The plaintiffs claimed the lenders misrepresented their ability and their objective to make good on the promises to meet certain financing obligations as part of a scheme to entice borrowers to pay the up-front fees. "In addition, the class intends to offer generalized proof that the lenders concealed the financial history of Sandy Hutchens, the principal defendant, and his use of pseudonyms, to preserve the superficial integrity of the operation," the opinion said. CGC Holding Company, Crescent Sound Yacht Club, Harlem Algonquin and James T. Medick filed the class action lawsuit on April 15, 2011, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. An order to dismiss the class action RICO lawsuit was filed on July 19, 2013. An appeal was filed shortly after. The lenders contend that each class member will have to demonstrate that it relied on the lenders' misrepresentations or omissions to satisfy RICO's causation element, making a single trial unwieldy and unworkable, according to the opinion. "The lenders are wrong, but not because plaintiffs benefit from a legal 'presumption' of reliance as identified by the district court," the opinion states. "As we explain, RICO class-action plaintiffs are not entitled to an evidentiary presumption of a factual element of a claim." The panel said it still agrees with the district court that a class can be certified in this context. "Exercising jurisdiction under Rule 23(f), we affirm the class certification decision on modified grounds," the opinion states. "We also reverse the district court's class certification decision as to the lenders' law firm and lawyers, Broad and Cassel, Ronald Gache and Carl Romano, and remand with instructions to dismiss the claims against those defendants." The defendants in the suit include Sandy Hutchens; Tanya Hutchens; Jennifer Hutchens; H. Jan Luistermans; 1681071 Ontario Inc.; Northern Capital Investments Ltd; 2800 North Flagler Drive Units 106-107 LLC; Estate of Judith Hutchens; 129 Laren Street Inc.; 3415 Errington Avenue Inc.; 367-369 Howey Drive Inc.; 3419 Errington Avenue Inc.; 17 Serpentine Street Inc.; 720 Cambrian Heights Inc.; 331 Regent Street Inc.; 789 Lawson Street Inc.; 110- 114 Pine Street Inc.; 15-16 Keziah Court Inc.; 193 Mountain Street Inc.; 625 Ash Street Inc.; 364 Morris Street Inc.; Santan Property Management Inc.; 101 Services Road Inc.; 146 Whitaker Street Inc.; Jbd Hutchens Family Holdings Inc.; JBD Holdings; 1697030 Ontario Inc.; 308 Elgin Street Inc.; 1539006 Ontario Inc.; First Central Holdings Inc.; First Central Mortgage Funding Inc.; Canadian Funding Corporation; Realty 1 Real Estate Services Ltd.; and Alvin Meisels. The plaintiff is represented by John F. Head of Head & Associates PC in Denver. The defendants are represented by James D. Kilroy -- jkilroy@swlaw.com -- and Jessica E. Yates -- jyates@swlaw.com -- of Snell & Wilmer LLP in Denver; Steven A. Klenda of Adroit Advocates LLC in Denver; and John M. Palmeri, Heather K. Kelly and Greg S. Hearing of Gordon & Rees LLP in Denver. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit case number: 13-1255 A copy of the Tenth Circuit's decision dated Dec. 8 is available at http://is.gd/yyhzoYfrom Leagle.com. BRP US: Recalls Ski-Doo and Can-Am Kids' Hoodies ------------------------------------------------ The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with BRP U.S. Inc., of Sturtevant, Wis., announced a voluntary recall of about 3,100 in the U.S. and 5,100 in Canada Kid's Hoodies. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The hoodies have a drawstring around the neck area which poses a strangulation hazard to children. Drawstrings can become entangled or caught on playground slides, hand rails, school bus doors or other moving objects, posing a significant strangulation and/or entanglement hazard to children. In February 1996, CPSC issued guidelines about drawstrings in children's upper outerwear. In 1997, those guidelines were incorporated into a voluntary standard. Then, in July 2011, based on the guidelines and voluntary standard, CPSC issued a federal regulation. CPSC's actions demonstrate a commitment to help prevent children from strangling or getting entangled on neck and waist drawstrings in upper outerwear, such as jackets and sweatshirts. There were no incidents that were reported. The recall involves 14 styles of Ski-Doo or Can-Am kids' hooded sweatshirts for boys and girls. They were sold in kids' sizes 2 through 12. The hoodies are cotton/polyester blend. There is a drawstring in the hood of the garment. Colors include raspberry, yellow, heather, charcoal gray and black. "Ski Doo" or "Can-Am" is printed on the front. Recalled style numbers include: 286485, 453215, 453265, 453320, 453321, 453375, 453376, 453464, 453618, 453658, 453660, 453661, 453707 and 453708. The style numbers indicating the different graphic treatments are printed on the white care label that is sewn into the neck and side of the garment. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/jwgwyN The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at BRP authorized dealerships nationwide and in the BRP online stores at www.can-am.brp.com and www.ski-doo.com from April 2007 through December 2014 for between $40 and $65. Consumers should immediately take the hoodie away from kids and remove the drawstring from the sweatshirt to eliminate the hazard or return it to an authorized BRP dealer for a full refund. C&J ENERGY: Court Preliminarily Enjoins Merger for 30 Days ---------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Chancery entered a bench ruling preliminarily enjoining C&J Energy Services, Inc. and Nabors Industries Ltd. from proceeding with a merger for a period of 30 days, according to C&J Energy's Nov. 25, 2014, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. C&J Energy Services, Inc., the members of the company's board of directors, including the company's management directors, together with Nabors Industries Ltd. ("Nabors") and its wholly owned subsidiary, Nabors Red Lion Limited ("Red Lion"), were sued in a putative shareholder class action in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Court of Chancery") by certain stockholders related to the company's entry into that certain Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of June 25, 2014, among Nabors, Red Lion and the Company (the "Merger Agreement"). The case is styled City of Miami General Employees' and Sanitation Employees' Retirement Trust, et al. v. C&J Energy Services, Inc., et al.; C.A. No. 9980-VCN. The complaint alleges that the company's directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement, and that all of the named defendants aided and abetted these alleged violations. The complaint seeks injunctive relief, including an injunction against the consummation of the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement, together with attorney's fees and costs. On November 10, 2014, plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. A hearing on plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunctive relief was held on November 24, 2014, and on that same day the Court of Chancery entered a bench ruling preliminarily enjoining the parties from proceeding with the merger for a period of 30 days, during which the company's board of directors was ordered to solicit competing proposals from other potential buyers. The manner in which the company will be required to solicit competing proposals has not yet been established by the Court of Chancery. On November 25, 2014, the company issued a press release announcing the ruling of the Court of Chancery. CANADA: Veterans' Group Fights Class Action Appeal -------------------------------------------------- Kristi Alexandra, writing for The New, reports that six veterans and their legal team, with the help of White Rock-based Equitas Society, are fighting an appeal by the federal government to throw out a class-action lawsuit the society filed in September 2013. The appellant case, which is now being heard in the B.C. Court of Appeal, began on Dec. 3. The veterans were fighting the enaction of the New Veterans Charter that was passed in 2006, which gave veterans of the post-911 Afghanistan war one-time lump sum payouts instead of the lifetime disability pensions they had been promised when going into war. "They (the federal government) asked the courts to strike down the action, saying that it's a frivolous complaint and action, and the BC Supreme Court did not agree with them and now they're rearguing it," Jim Scott, president of the Equitas Society, explained. Scott's son, Dan, is one of the six representative plaintiffs in the case, who received a one-time payout of C$41,500 for his injuries, which included a fractured rib, collapsed lung, and damage to his kidney, spleen and pancreas. "They're in the courts, they're getting the best advice and action available in Canada, and that's all we can guarantee them," Scott said of the veterans. "We cant guarantee they're going to win, we can't guarantee the government is going to change it. All we can say is that their rights are going to be represented." Veterans Affairs recently announced it would be pouring C$200 million into "expanded mental health initiatives" for veterans. According to Gerry Lenoski, vice-president of Equitas Society, it currently takes Veterans Affairs eight months to pair mentally- injured veterans with a case manager. That, he says, is a "glacial pace." As for the 14 recommendations that were made to the New Veterans Charter, which Veterans Affairs Minister Julian Fantino said the government accepts, Mr. Lenoski's "confidence is not strong." Both Scott and Lenoski, however, said they're not of the population calling for the resignation of Fantino, which NDP leader Thomas Mulcair has done. "We have no reason to believe that he doesn't have a soft spot for veterans," Mr. Lenoski said of Mr. Fantino. Mr. Scott also noted that Equitas would "not venture into making it personal." "When you make it personal, it makes it a lot harder to negotiate an actual settlement at a later date. You don't see lawyers usually go out and make inflammatory statements that, at one point, they're eventually going to have to sit across the table from. It's not in their clients' best interest," Mr. Scott said. Major Mark Campbell, another one of the six representative plaintiffs, recently made headlines when he came out about the loss of his two legs as well as his lifetime pension. Major Campbell flew into Vancouver for the appeal. "I heard from Mark Campbell, and it's not surprising, but (the veterans) are insulted that their government not only doesn't have their back with a fair shake, but that the government should be trying to throw out their earliest stage attempt to find out how society really wants to treat them," Mr. Lenoski said. The class action suit has not yet been certified, but Mr. Lenoski believes that Equitas is getting close to seeing the case proceed. "The government tried to throw out the whole idea of dealing with this in the first place and the court said, 'Let's get on with this.' This was two years ago," he said. If the federal government wins their appeal, Mr. Lenoski confirmed Equitas is prepared to fight that decision as well. CARLYLE GROUP: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages -------------------------------------------------------------- Brian Samson, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated employee v. The Carlyle Group, L.P., Case No. 1:14-cv-02124 (D.D.C., December 16, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wage and liquidated damages under the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Carlyle Group, L.P. is an American-based global asset management firm, specializing in private equity, based in Washington D.C. The Plaintiff is represented by: Neil Stuart Hyman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF NEIL S. HYMAN, LLC 4416 East West Highway, 4th Floor Bethesda, MD 20814 Telephone: (301) 841-7105 Facsimile: (301) 986-1301 E-mail: neil@neilhymanlaw.com CHICAGO MESSENGER: Faces "Perez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------ Jose Perez, Ivan Calderon, Tommy Epperson, Armando Bermudez, Alfredo Figueroa, Mario Parra, on behalf of themselves, and all other plaintiffs similarly situated, known and unknown v. Chicago Messenger Service, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-10082 (N.D. Ill., December 16, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Chicago Messenger Service, Inc. provides messenger and delivery services in the Chicago land area. The Plaintiff is represented by: Meghan A. Vanleuwen, Esq. John William Billhorn, Esq. BILLHORN LAW FIRM 120 S. State Street, Suite 400 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 513-9555 E-mail: mvanleuwen@billhornlaw.com jbillhorn@billhornlaw.com COMFORT RESEARCH: Recalls Vinyl Bean Bag Chairs ----------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Comfort Research, LLC, of Grand Rapids, Mich., announced a voluntary recall of about 125,000 Bean Bag Chairs. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The zippers on the bean bag chairs can be opened by children who can then crawl inside, become entrapped, suffocate or choke on the bean bag chair's foam beads. There were no incidents that were reported. The recall involves vinyl polystyrene-filled bean bag chairs with a single zipper on the exterior cover. The round vinyl bean bag chairs measure 88 and 98 inches in diameter. Colors and patterns included in the recall are black, hot pink, lime, purple, royal blue, ruby red, and baseball, basketball, football and soccer ball. A tag sewn into bean bag chair's cover seam reads "Made By Comfort Research" and "100% Polystyrene." Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/4brOOq The recalled products were manufactured in U.S. and China and sold at Burlington Coat Factory, Kroger, Meijer and other retail stores nationwide and online at Amazon, Bean Bag Company, Groupon, Kohls, Target, Toys R Us, Walmart, Wayfair and other online retailers between January 2010 and October 2013 for between $30 and $40. Consumers should immediately take the recalled bean bag chairs from children and check them for zippers that can be opened. Consumers can contact Comfort Research for instructions to permanently disable the zipper. CONGREGATION OF CHRISTIAN: Suit Barred by Statute of Limitations ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a federal appeals court has ruled that the plaintiffs' claims in a class action lawsuit against the Congregation of Christian Brothers were barred by the statute of limitations. Because the bulk of the plaintiffs' claims against CCB, the Order of the Sisters of Mercy Catholic Religious Order and Mercy International Association are no longer cognizable under the Alien Tort Statute, and the remaining federal claims are barred by the statute of limitations, the panel affirmed the district court's dismissal of the class action lawsuit, according to an opinion filed Dec. 8 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The appeal was argued on June 19, 2012. Circuit judges Guido Calabresi, Gerard E. Lynch and Raymond Lohier Jr. voted in the majority, with Lynch authoring the opinion. The three plaintiffs claimed as young children they were removed from their native lands and transported to Australia, where they were badly mistreated. Given the assumption that the ATS has a 10-year statute of limitations, the plaintiffs' human trafficking claim is untimely, the panel ruled. "The complaint makes plain that the actions allegedly constituting trafficking took place more than fifty years ago, when plaintiffs were transported from their homes in Europe to Australia," the opinion states. "Consequently, for plaintiffs' claim to be considered within the limitations period, plaintiffs must demonstrate that they did not discover their cause of action -- and could not have discovered it with due diligence -- until less than ten years before bringing suit." The plaintiffs argued that the release of the Australian Senate Report in 2001 was the triggering event that allowed them to discover their cause of action. "That argument is undermined, however, by the allegations in the complaint, which make clear that, at least by the time plaintiffs reached the age of majority, each of them knew that he or she had been abducted from his or her family, imprisoned, abused, forced to work for no pay and not provided any education," the opinion states. Two of the plaintifs, Valerie Carmack and Hazel Goulding, both returned to Australia as adults to investigate what had happened to them -- at the latest in the early 1990s, according to the opinion. "Plaintiffs contend that the court has jurisdiction under the Alien Tort Statute . . . because they are aliens or nonresidents of the United States who allege grave violations of the specific, universal and obligatory norms of customary international law," the opinion states. The panel states that the plaintiffs argue that it was not until 2001 when they had the information to reasonably discover their injury and causes of action against the defendants. "CCB denies any participation in the alleged child trafficking and forced labor scheme, as well as any minimum contacts with New York State," the opinion states. "OSM argues that it is not a legal entity and cannot be sued. Both maintain that the alleged claims are untimely; have no nexus to the United States; and did not violate international law when they occurred. If they are to be tried anywhere, they contend, Australia should be the trial site." Carmack, Goulding and Emmanuel Ellul initially filed the lawsuit on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated on Dec. 30, 2009, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiffs claim CCB, OSM and various unnamed Catholic religious orders violated customary international laws, including slavery and involuntary servitude, child trafficking, forced child labor and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment, as well as common law claims of conversion, unjust enrichment, constructive trust, accounting and breach of fiduciary or special duty. The defendants moved to dismiss or for summary judgment. On March 23, 2011, District Judge Paul A. Crotty dismissed the class action. The court held that it did not have personal jurisdiction over CCB because CCB had never been properly served. The district court also found, based on the allegations in the complaint and an affidavit submitted with OSM's motion, that OSM was not a legal entity capable of being sued; rather, "OSM" was a loose term for nine independent, autonomous regional organizations of nuns that all use the name "Sisters of Mercy." The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on April 25, 2011. "For the same reasons, the district court correctly dismissed plaintiffs' state common law claims, all of which have a limitations period shorter than ten years," the opinion states. The plaintiffs are represented by Neal DeYoung and H. Rajan Sharma of Sharma & DeYoung in New York. CCB is represented by Timothy James O'Shaughnessy and Matthew W. Naparty of Mauro Lilling Naparty LLP in Great Neck, N.Y. OSM is represented by Thomas Edward Wack -- tewack@bryancave.com -- and Michael Gordon Biggers -- mgbiggers@bryancave.com -- of Bryan Cave LLP in St. Louis. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit case number: 11-1682 CONVERSANT INC: Inks MoU to Settle Consolidated Shareholder Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The parties in In re Conversant, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, C.A. No. 10174-VCN entered into a memorandum of understanding regarding the settlement of the suit, according to the company's Nov. 28, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014. As previously disclosed in the definitive joint proxy statement/prospectus filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") by Alliance Data and Conversant on November 4, 2014 (the "joint proxy statement/prospectus"), three putative stockholder class actions lawsuits were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery and were consolidated under the caption In re Conversant, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, C.A. No. 10174-VCN (the "Consolidated Action"). Plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action name Conversant, members of the board of directors of Conversant, Alliance Data and Merger Sub as defendants. Plaintiffs generally allege that the Conversant director defendants breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty, due care and good faith owed to Conversant's stockholders by allegedly approving the merger agreement at an unfair price and through an unfair process, failing to conduct a reasonably informed evaluation of whether the merger was in the best interests of Conversant stockholders, failing to fully disclose all material information to stockholders, and agreeing to allegedly unreasonable deal protection devices. Plaintiffs also allege that Alliance Data and Merger Sub aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by Conversant's directors. On November 26, 2014, the parties to the Consolidated Action entered into a memorandum of understanding regarding the settlement of these putative stockholder class actions against Conversant, Conversant's directors, Alliance Data and Merger Sub. Conversant and the other defendants believe that the claims asserted in the Consolidated Action are without merit and that no further disclosure is required to supplement the proxy statement/prospectus under applicable laws. However, to avoid the risk that the putative stockholder class actions may delay or otherwise adversely affect the consummation of the merger and to minimize the expense of defending such action, Conversant has agreed, pursuant to the terms of the proposed settlement, to make certain supplemental disclosures related to the proposed merger. The memorandum of understanding contemplates that the parties will enter into a stipulation of settlement. The stipulation of settlement will be subject to customary conditions, including court approval following notice to Conversant's stockholders. In the event that the parties enter into a stipulation of settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at which the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware will consider the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the settlement. If the settlement is finally approved by the court, it will resolve and release all claims in all actions that were or could have been brought challenging any aspect of the proposed merger, the merger agreement, and any disclosure made in connection therewith (but excluding claims for appraisal under Section 262 of the Delaware General Corporation Law), among other claims, pursuant to terms that will be disclosed to stockholders prior to final approval of the settlement. In addition, in connection with the settlement, the parties contemplate that plaintiffs' counsel will file a petition in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses. Conversant will pay or cause to be paid any attorneys' fees and expenses awarded by the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. There can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware will approve the settlement even if the parties were to enter into such stipulation. In such event, the proposed settlement as contemplated by the memorandum of understanding may be terminated. CRACKER BARREL: Still Faces FLSA Violations Suit in N.Y., Fla. -------------------------------------------------------------- Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. continues to face several lawsuits alleging violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, according to the company's Nov. 25, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 31, 2014. On April 11, 2014, a putative collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York, Proper v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc., in which the named plaintiff is challenging the Company's classification of associate managers as being exempt from the minimum wage and overtime requirements and is asserting various New York state law wage notice claims. Two other putative collective action suits alleging claims under the FLSA, Hill and Hernandez v. Cracker Barrel and Perzan et al. v. Cracker Barrel, were filed in the United States District Courts for the Middle District of Florida in August 2014 and for the District of Massachusetts in September 2014, respectively. These lawsuits assert essentially duplicative claims under select state laws challenging the same exempt classification of associate managers. The plaintiffs in these lawsuits seek an unspecified amount of alleged back wages, liquidated damages, statutory damages and attorneys' fees. Unlike a class action, a collective action requires potential class members to "opt in" rather than "opt out". If any of these putative collection actions is conditionally certified, the Company would have an opportunity to seek to have the class de- certified and/or seek to have the case dismissed on its merits. DAIKIN INDUSTRIES: Recalls Air Purifiers Due to Fire Hazard ----------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Daikin AC (America) Inc. and Goodman Manufacturing Company L.P., of Houston, Texas, announced a voluntary recall of about 625 in the United States and 125 in Canada Daikin Streamer air purifiers. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The air purifier's circuit board can overheat and cause the air purifier to catch on fire. There were no incidents that were reported. The recall involves Daikin brand streamer portable air purifiers with model number MC75KSU. The air purifiers are portable and are designed to remove dust, particles and allergens from indoor air in the home or office. They are cream-colored and measure about 23 inches tall by 15 inches wide by 8 inches deep. "Daikin" is printed on the front of the units. The model number is located on a rating plate on the lower right side of the units. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/BBXSrm The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Goodman Manufacturing and other HVAC contractors to consumers and online at Amazon.com from December 2010 through October 2014 for about $540. Consumers should immediately unplug the recalled air purifiers and contact Daikin for a full refund or a free replacement air purifier. DOLE FOODS: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Mislabeling Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- David Siegel and Jeff Sistrunk, writing for Law360, report that a California federal judge handed a pretrial victory to Dole Foods Co. Inc. on Dec. 8 in a class action accusing the company of mislabeling its products as "all natural fruit," ruling that the labels are not likely to deceive consumers. Plaintiff Chad Brazil alleged that Dole misrepresented that its frozen berry and other mixed fruit products contain all natural ingredients -- both on the products' labels and on the company's website. Under U.S. Food and Drug Administration policies, use of the term "natural" on a food product's label means nothing synthetic or artificial has been added, but Dole uses artificial citric acid and ascorbic acid as chemical preservatives, according to Brazil's suit. Dole argued in a motion for summary judgment that its "all natural" labels refer only to the actual fruit used. It also claimed that all of its ingredient suppliers said they only used natural fermentation to make the additives in its fruit products, and that customers could reasonably expect citric and ascorbic acids to be included in foods purported to contain no synthetic ingredients. U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh agreed and granted Dole's motion for summary judgment, thus disposing of Brazil's claims. "Brazil has offered no evidence that citric acid and ascorbic acid, the two allegedly synthetic ingredients found in the challenged Dole products, 'would not normally be expected to be in' those products, as the FDA definition requires," Judge Koh said. "Absent any evidence that reasonable consumers would not normally expect citric acid and ascorbic acid to be found in the challenged Dole products, Brazil cannot rely on FDA's informal policy to show that those consumers were likely to have been misled." William Stern -- wstern@mofo.com -- of Morrison & Foerster LLP, who represents Dole, told Law360 that he thinks Judge Koh's decision could serve as a bellwether in similar suits involving "all natural" claims, noting that the same group of class counsel from the Brazil case has filed 48 cases in the Northern District of California. Mr. Stern said Judge Koh's ruling was the first time a judge made a decision on the merits in an "all natural" labeling case versus other cases that got past a motion to dismiss and were then settled. Manufacturers have paid tens of millions of dollars to settle these claims and to change their labels, Mr. Stern said, and it is rare today to find the term "all natural" on a label. "Brazil marks the first merits ruling defining exactly what it is that plaintiffs in these cases must prove," Mr. Stern said. "The bar Brazil sets is a high one." Mr. Stern said the hundreds of lawsuits in recent years over "all natural" labeling is the result of an ambiguity of the FDA's making because the agency espoused an informal "natural" policy two decades ago but never defined exactly what that term means. He added that manufacturers petitioned the FDA to clarify that meaning, but the agency declined. "Plaintiffs lawyers have exploited that ambiguity by trying to get courts to impose their meaning," Mr. Stern said. Judge Koh's ruling was the latest setback in Brazil's attempts to hold Dole accountable for the allegedly misleading labels. In November, Judge Koh decertified the damages class in the case, ruling that the damages model set forth by Brazil's expert Oral Capps can't measure only the damages attributable to Dole's alleged misbranding. As a result, the model "fails to provide a means of showing damages on a classwide basis through common proof," and Brazil hasn't satisfied Rule 23's requirement that common issues predominate over individual ones, Judge Koh held at the time. Brazil is represented by Charles Barrett of Charles Barrett PC, Brian Herrington of Barrett Law Group PA and Ben F. Pierce of Pratt & Associates. Dole is represented by William L. Stern, Claudia M. Vetesi -- cvetesi@mofo.com -- Kathleen B. Roney and Lisa A. Wongchenko -- lwongchenko@mofo.com -- of Morrison & Foerster LLP. The case is Brazil v. Dole Food Co. Inc. et al., case number 5:12- cv-01831, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. A copy of the Court's Dec. 8 Order is available at http://is.gd/S6Wj36from Leagle.com. DDP HOLDINGS: Faces "Feiertag" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Feiertag, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated employees nationwide, and on behalf of the Ohio Rule 23 Class v. DDP Holdings, LLC d/b/a Apollo Retail Specialists, LL, Case No. 2:14-cv-02643 (S.D. Ohio, December 16, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. DDP Holdings, LLC is a third party retail supplier in North America. The Plaintiff is represented by: Bruce H. Meizlish, Esq. Deborah R. Grayson, Esq. MEIZLISH & GRAYSON 830 Main Street, Suite 999 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 345-4700 E-mail: brucelaw@fuse.net drgrayson@fuse.net DREAM ON ME: Recalls Incredible Play Yards Due to Choking Hazard ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Dream On Me, of South Plainfield, N.J., announced a voluntary recall of about 10,000 Dream On Me Play Yards. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The play yard's rails can collapse, presenting a strangulation hazards to young children. There were no incidents that were reported. The recall includes Dream On Me Incredible two-level deluxe adjustable height play yards with model number starting with 436A, 436B, 436G, 436O, 436P and 436R. The play yards, made with a steel, powder-coated frame base with rolling, hooded casters, have a fabric and mesh covering that comes in a variety of colors. The play yard includes a changing top, a toy bar with soft toys for entertainment, a side pocket for storage and a carrying case. "Dream On Me" is printed on the bottom left-hand side outside of the product. The model number is printed on a label attached to the play yard's mattress. The play yard can be folded for storage. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/e5mvER The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold online at Amazon, Kohls, Toys R US, WalMart, Wayfair and other online retailers from March 2010 through January 2014 for about $60. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled play yards and contact Dream On Me to receive a free repair kit. DUNE MANAGEMENT: Faces "Costello" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------- 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. 1:14-cv-07307 (E.D.N.Y., December 16, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate resort hotels in New York State. The Plaintiff is represented by: Eli Z. Freedberg, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ELI FREEDBERG, P.C. 11 Broadway, Suite 615 New York, NY 10017 Facsimile: (212) 214-0799 Telephone: (347) 651-0044 DYCK O'NEAL: Faces Foreclosure Class Action in Florida ------------------------------------------------------ Kim Miller, writing for Palm Beach Post, reports that the lurking debt left after a foreclosure is hitting Florida residents hard this year as a private firm files to collect on so-called "deficiency judgments", which are often worth tens of thousands of dollars. But one homeowner is fighting back in a federal lawsuit seeking class action status on behalf of borrowers whose wages can be garnished and assets seized to pay off the leftover mortgage debt. In Palm Beach County, about 240 deficiency judgment lawsuits have been filed by the Texas-based firm Dyck O'Neal. The suits often come as a surprise to homeowners who thought their foreclosure battle ended when they saw their home sold at auction. A deadline change in state law triggered the mass of deficiency judgment filings this year. The lawsuit, filed in October by a former Jacksonville resident, says the collection firm is violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act in cases where suits are being filed in Florida, but the former homeowner now lives elsewhere. Danella Huthsing moved to St. Louis after a 2010 foreclosure. Her Jacksonville home was sold at auction July 15, 2010, but Dyck O'Neal is claiming she still owed $91,029 in unpaid debt. Four years later, Dyck O'Neal sued her in Florida seeking to collect on the debt. "Defendants' systemic conduct constitutes actual harm to thousands of individuals like (Huthsing), who are being forced to defend themselves in distant or inconvenient courts against an unanticipated and unfamiliar debt buyer," the lawsuit says. The lawsuit was filed by Jacksonville attorney Chip Parker of Parker & DuFresne law firm. It's his second attempt to go after Dyck O'Neal. He said he dismissed a similar lawsuit filed in August after evidence was produced that said the loan may not have been a consumer loan. "Danell Huthsing's loan is definitely a consumer loan, and to avoid protracted arguments on damages, Ms. Huthsing is only seeking statutory damages on behalf of class members," Mr. Parker said in an email. "Individual class members who suffer actual damages as a result of Dyck-O'Neal's illegal collection activity can still file individual federal cases for actual damages." E & L CONSTRUCTION: Faces "Menjiva" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT --------------------------------------------------------------- Tito E. Menjiva, Joan Cale, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated who consent to their inclusion in a collective action v. E & L Construction Service, LLC and Erick Hernandez, Case No. 6:14-cv-02057 (M.D. Fla., December 16, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants are in the business of providing residential and commercial painting services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Dennis A. Creed III, Esq. FELDMAN & MORGADO, PA 501 N. Reo St Tampa, FL 33609 Telephone: (813) 639-9366 Facsimile: (813) 639-9376 E-mail: dcreed@ffmlawgroup.com EATON CORP: Recalls Electrical Meter Breakers Due to Shock Hazard ----------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Eaton Corporation, of Moon Township, Pa., announced a voluntary recall of about 1,100 Electrical Meter Breakers. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The meter breaker's electrical components can be easily accessed, posing a shock hazard to consumers. There were no incidents that were reported. The recall involves MBED 3042 series residential meter breaker. The meter breakers are service entrance equipment systems that consist of a single meter socket and load center or a meter socket and main breaker combined in one enclosure. The meter breakers have gray metallic enclosures and measure about 14 1/4 inches wide by 42 1/2 inches high by 7 inches deep. The recalled units have catalog numbers MBED3042B200BF, MBED3042B200BF6, MBED3042B225PV or MBED3042PV200BF. The catalog number is located on the unit's packaging. The enclosures have a single warning label on the bottom of the lower right compartment door, which is secured with a latch and hasp at the bottom. Consumers should not open the meter breaker's enclosure. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/uJWUwo The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold at authorized distributors in California and Nevada from July 2014 through August 2014 from about $200. Only qualified electrical contractors should repair the product, and consumers should not open the meter breaker's enclosure. Electrical contractors should immediately contact their meter breaker distributor to determine if any of their units are included in this recall. Contractors will receive a free remedy kit, including shipping. Consumers should contact Eaton or the electrical contractor that installed the recalled meter breaker for the free installation of the repair kit. ENBRIDGE INC: Settles 2010 Oil Spill Class Action ------------------------------------------------- Dani Carlson and 24 Hour News 8 reports that Enbridge Inc. has agreed to settle a class action lawsuit brought against it in response to a 2010 spill that dumped more than 800,000 gallons of crude oil into the Kalamazoo River. The agreement will cover everyone who owns land or lives within 1,000 feet of the river between Talmadge Creek and the mouth of Morrow Lake. That's the area affected by the pipeline break that spilled some 840,000 gallons of crude oil into Talmadge Creek and the Kalamazoo River on July 26, 2010. Recent estimates place cleanup costs at $1.21 billion. Five people filed the class action against the company and a settlement was reached on Dec. 5. 24 Hour News 8 then went to the Village of Ceresco. The Kalamazoo River runs through the middle of town. Everyone who spoke with 24 Hour News 8 there had not heard anything about the suit or the settlement. Rick Frey, who has lived in Ceresco his entire life, was surprised by the settlement terms and said his family was not expecting or asking for anything from Enbridge. "We're not in it to try to be -- to take any more money away from Enbridge or anything else. We're quite content with what they have done as far as all the work and everything," said Mr. Frey. Mr. Frey said he hasn't forgotten what it was like after the spill -- far from it. "Terrible. Terrible," said Mr. Frey when asked what it was like immediately after the spill. "I couldn't hardly tolerate the smell . . . It was horrendous." But despite the initial frustration or problems the spill caused, Mr. Frey said he believes Enbridge has taken responsibility for its mistake. "It's not like it's nothing that they did this intentionally. Accidents happen everyday, and when it gets right down to it, they did what they needed to do," said Mr. Frey. "They abide by all the regulations that were issued to them. It's just a time- consuming project, but they've got it pretty much remedied." 24 Hour News 8 spoke to another man in the village who was not satisfied with how Enbridge handled the situation. The feeling was that a couple of hundred dollars wouldn't make much of a difference. That's likely what it would mean for most people affected by the agreement -- several hundred dollars. The settlement filed in Western District Federal Court in Grand Rapids on Dec. 5, Enbridge estimates it will pay about $6 million dollars to settle the class action lawsuit. Of that, about $2.2 million will be split among residents and land owners based on how close their property is to the affected waterways. People who live directly along the water will split an estimated $250,000. The dollar amount of the settlement falls the further someone's land is from the river and will be delivered in the form of a gift card able to be used at businesses in Calhoun and Kalamazoo counties. Those who lived 201-400 feet away will receive a $750 gift card, 401-600 feet will receive a $600 gift card, 601-800 feet will receive a $400 gift card and 801-1000 feet away will receive a $300 gift card. If the settlement agreement is approved by a federal judge, those affected will receive a notification. In order to receive any of the funds, people affected will have to fill out and send in a claim form. If someone doesn't send in a claim form or opt out of the settlement, that person will be held to the agreement but will not receive anything in exchange. Enbridge spokesperson Jason Manshum told 24 Hour News 8 over the phone on Dec. 8 that gift cards were the chosen method of payment for sums $750 and below so the money stay within Kalamazoo and Calhoun counties. Mr. Manshum then sent 24 Hour News 8 a written statement from Enbridge that states in part: "The settlement has positive outcomes for the local communities in Calhoun and Kalamazoo counties. We agreed to this settlement as part of our overall commitment to address the concerns of the community." The settlement agreement also calls for Enbridge to set aside $1.5 million for claims related to the spill. The money will reimburse people for expenses between July 26, 2010 and Aug. 31, 2010 linked to the spill -- things like hotel bills, relocation expenses, meals, gas or fuel, and lost wages. Enbridge will also cover requested well testing, an estimated to cost of about $50,000. A number of area public safety and conservation groups will get a share of a $150,000 donation fund set up under the settlement. ESPN: Seeks Dismissal of College Athletes' Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Ted Johnson, Senior Editor for Variety, reports that ESPN, major broadcasters, athletic conferences and WME Entertainment and IMG Worldwide are seeking dismissal of a class action lawsuit filed by 10 college athletes, claiming profits from game telecasts using their names and likenesses without their permission. A number of athletic conferences weighed in on Dec. 10, asking that the lawsuit be dismissed for a simple reason: The athletes don't have a right of publicity in sporting events. The student athletes "erroneously assume that game participants have a right of publicity with respect to broadcasts of sporting events, and to advertisements for those broadcasts," a group of athletic conferences, including the Southeastern Conference and the Big Ten, said in a brief filed in a federal court in Tennessee. "Apart from being inherently impractical (any single participant could hold out and prevent the broadcast), plaintiffs' position has been rejected repeatedly by controlling legal authorities." Broadcasters and sports licensing agencies were expected to file motions for dismissal later on Dec. 10. The athletes filed suit in October, claiming that the long list of defendants have "conspired with each other and the NCAA to promulgate, enforce, adopt, implement and/or enforce rules that are inherently anticompetitive" in forbidding the athletes from "competing in the marketplace for the value of their rights of publicity." The athletes include players Javon Marshall, Eric Samuels and Steven Clarke from Vanderbilt University, Sean Parker of the University of Washington, Patrick Miller of Tennessee State University, Rod Wilks, Byron Moore, Chaz Moore and Marlon Walls of the University of Tennessee and Chris Conner of the University of Maryland. They claim that a release form they are forced to sign as a condition of playing football or basketball is unenforceable. They contend that the defendants have violated antitrust and trademark laws. In addition to the athletic conferences, ESPN is named as a defendant along with CBS, ABC, NBC and Fox. WME and IMG were named along with a series of other licensing agents. The conferences contend that the athletes rely on the Tennessee Personal Rights Protection Act, even though it "specifies that participants have no publicity rights in broadcasts or advertisements for sporting events." They note that courts have recognized that the right to license a sporting event vests "exclusively in the promoter or producer of the event." "A right of publicity arises when a person's name, image or likeness is used to promote a product or service, not when that person simply appears in public," the conferences' brief states. They also reject the athletes' claims that they have a common law right of publicity that would cover the game broadcasts. The case for compensating college athletes got some fuel last summer, when a federal court ruled in favor of UCLA basketball star Ed O'Bannon and 19 others in their claim that the NCAA rules violated antitrust laws in blocking them from receiving compensation for the use of their images in videogames and certain types of broadcasts. The athletic conferences, however, said that when it came to game footage, the O'Bannon decision recognized only that there may be a limited right of publicity in at least one state of stock footage, and only if it was used for endorsements. "The creation of a requirement that every 'participant' in a sporting event be convinced to transfer his or her publicity rights would impose a substantial and unwarranted burden on staging sporting events," the conferences' brief stated. "Potential participants would include not only players, but substitutes who never enter the game, coaches, cheerleaders, referees, medical personnel and even spectators." The athletic conferences argue that because athletes have no right of publicity claim to the broadcasts, that negates their other claims, including those for antitrust violations. Update: ESPN and the broadcast networks also argue that there is no right of publicity for televised sporting events. "Plaintiffs cannot sue based on a violation of rights they do not have," the networks said in their brief. "Moreover, the network defendants merely purchase the rights to broadcast certain games played by college athletes. And although college athletes are subject to NCAA rules, the United States Supreme Court has described these very rules as procompetitive and critical to the viability of amateur college sports in our country." The rules, they added, "predate even the advent of national television broadcasting." They also argue that the First Amendment "bars restrictions on noncommercial speech such as sports broadcasting and related advertising." Licensing entities named in the lawsuit -- including IMG Worldwide, William Morris Endeavor and JMI Sports -- argue that the Supreme Court has "conclusively resolved" the antitrust issue in the players' lawsuit, holding that the NCAA amateurism rules do not violate the Sherman Antitrust Act. ETHAN ALLEN: Recalls Floor Lamps Due to Electrical Shock -------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Ethan Allen of Danbury, Conn., announced a voluntary recall of about 70 Harwood Floor Lamps. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. A defect in the line cord insulation poses a risk of electrical shock. One reported incident of electrical shock. The floor lamp is made of bronze-plated steel with a bronze finish. The lamp sits on a square metal base that is about 8 inches by 8 inches and has an adjustable bronze-plated metal post that goes up to 60 inches high. A second pole adjusts the tilt of the lamp. At the end of this second pole is a six-sided metal lamp shade about 6 inches in diameter and about 4 inches tall. On the underside of the base is a label with the name Ethan Allen, the item number 09-2562 and the date code 12/2013. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/PY0OGu The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Ethan Allen Design Centers between November 2013 and October 2014 for about $530. Consumers should unplug the lamp and return it to an Ethan Allen Design Center for a full refund, including delivery charges if shipped. FELT BICYCLES: Recalls Cyclocross Bicycles Due to Injury Risk ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Felt Bicycles, of Irvine, Calif., announced a voluntary recall of about 150 Felt Cyclocross Bicycles. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The frame of the bicycle could break, causing the rider to lose control, fall and suffer injuries. There were no incidents that were reported. The recall includes Felt Cyclocross bicycles 2015 models F65X and F85X. The 2015 F65X bicycle has a satin black aluminum frame with "Felt" printed in white letters and a diagonal wide white stripe next to a thin white stripe on the frame. The 2015 F85X bicycle has a dark red berry colored aluminum frame with diagonal stripes in black, mint green and yellow on the frame. The Felt logo is printed on the bike frame and the model number is printed on the chainstay of the bicycle frame. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/oadgrk The recalled products were manufactured in Taiwan and sold at Bicycle specialty stores nationwide from June 2014 through September 2014 for between $1,200 and $1,500. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled bicycles and contact their local Felt Bicycles dealer for a free inspection and frame replacement. FORD MOTOR: Kansas Court Narrows Claims in "Knopke" Suit -------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL KNOPKE, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 14-2225-JAR-JPO (D. Kan.), alleges that the throttle body component of the 2011 Ford Edge vehicle is defective, that Ford knew the throttle was defective yet concealed that information from consumers, and that Ford breached its warranties by denying any defect in the vehicle during the term of the extended warranty. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(B)(6) on these counts: -- Count II, which seeks a declaratory judgment that the durational limit of five years or 60,000 miles under Ford's New Vehicle Limited Warranty is unconscionable and therefore unenforceable; -- Count IV which alleges a claim under the Kansas Consumer Protection Act for unfair, deceptive, and unconscionable acts and practices; and -- the attorneys fees and civil penalties claims in Count III, which alleges that Ford breached the implied warranty of merchantability. Ford also filed a motion to Strike Nationwide Class Allegations. Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file Sur-Reply. District Judge Julie A. Robinson of the District Court of Kansas granted plaintiff's motion for leave to file sur-reply. Defendant's motion to dismiss count the complaint and to strike nationwide class allegations is granted, in part, and denied, in part. The motion to dismiss is granted as to count II and all others denied. In granting Count II, Judge Robinson said Plaintiff's factual allegations fall short of alleging a plausible claim for relief that the durational limitation of Ford's express warranty is unconscionable. In dismissing Count III and Count IV respectively, Judge Robinson opined that the motion to dismiss the civil penalty and attorneys' fees remedies in Count III is therefore denied without prejudice to re-filing after class certification is resolved and that KCPA governs deceptive acts and practices "in connection with a consumer transaction." And it prohibits "any unconscionable act or practice in connection with a consumer transaction whether it occurs before, during or after the transaction." Plaintiff need not show that Ford had knowledge of the defect before it was sold to the original purchaser to maintain his KCPA claim. In sum, the Court said Plaintiff has pled sufficient facts under Fed.R.Civ.Proc. Rule 9(b) to state a plausible claim for relief under the KCPA. A copy of Judge Robinson's Memorandum and Order dated November 10, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/awNce5from Leagle.com. Michael Knopke, Plaintiff, is represented by Blake P. Green -- blake@burgessandgreen.com -- Mitchell L. Burgess -- mitch@burgessandgreeen.com -- at Burgess & Green, PC; and Ralph K. Phalen - phalenlaw@yahoo.com -- at Ralph K. Phalen, Attorney at Law Ford Motor Company, Defendant, represented by J. Tracy Walker, IV -- twalker@mcguirewoods.com -- R. Kent Warren -- kwarren@mcguirewoods.com -- Richard C. Beaulieu -- rbeaulieu@mcguirewoods.com -- and Tennille J. Checkovich -- tcheckovich@mcguirewoods.com -- at McGuire Woods, LLP; Janet L. Conigliaro -- jconigliaro@dykema.com -- at Dykema Gossett PLLC; and Steven E. Ward -- sward@trdlp.com -- at Turner, Reid, Duncan, Loomer & Patton, PC GCI OUTDOOR: Recalls Stadium Seats Due to Injury Risk ----------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with GCI Outdoor, announced a voluntary recall of about 6,000 Stadium seats. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The backrest can fail, posing a risk of injury. GCI Outdoor has received a report of one incident where backrest support failed and the consumer fell to the ground from the top of a 4-foot tall bleacher and suffered neck and back injuries. The recall involves GCI Outdoor BleacherBack stadium seats. The seats are made of a powder-coated steel frame, a stitched fabric backrest and a fabric-covered padded bottom. The backrest has a mesh pocket on the back side. The seat bottom has a strap that runs from one side through two D rings on the upper part of the backrest and back down to the other side. The strap has a yellow buckle. The backrest and seat bottoms were sold in the colors black, green, maroon, navy blue, red and royal blue. When open, the seats measure 16 inches wide x 12 inches deep x 17.5 inches high. The backrest folds forward to a height of 4 inches. Recalled stadium seats have these purchase order (PO) numbers: 41223, 41269, 41273, 41332, 41348, 41367, 41371, 41371, 41379, 41380, 41390 41401 41515, 41520, 41537, 41538, 41539, 41540, 41541, 41542, 41627, 41628, 41629, 41630, 41631, 41632, 41633, 41634, 41635, 41636, 41639, 41640, 41641, 41642, 41643, 41644, 41645, 41646, 41647, 41648, 41649, 41668, 41715, 41716, 41717, 41718 The PO number is on a small white tag under the product information label sewn onto the back of the chair inside the pocket. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/xao0jK The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Academy Sports + Outdoors, Big 5 Sporting Goods, Dick's Sporting Goods, Sports Authority and other sporting goods retailers nationwide and online at GCIoutdoor.com and other online retailers from January 2013 to August 2014 for about $25. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled stadium chairs and contact GCI Outdoor for a free strap repair kit that includes installation instructions, an additional safety strap and a new warning sticker. GIGGLES INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Animated Monkey Toy -------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Giggles International Ltd., of Hong Kong, announced a voluntary recall of about 13,000 Animated toy. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The battery compartment can reach temperatures up to 230 degrees Fahrenheit, posing a burn hazard. Giggles International has received two reports of toys overheating and melting their battery compartments. The recall involves Giggles International Animated Sing-Along Monkey toys. The monkey is made of brown and beige plush material and is about 9 inches tall. The toy is designed to hold a song book titled "5 Little Monkeys" and to sing the song when activated. A red music note is on the bottom of the monkey's right foot and the face of a child with its hands covering its eyes are on the bottom of the money's left foot. Recalled sing- along monkeys were manufactured between 6/7/2014 and 7/5/2014 and have batch code GP1410028. The manufacture date in the M/D/YYYY format and batch code are printed on the bottom of a white fabric label attached near the base of the monkey's tail. The monkey toys came in a tan colored box with words "Animated Sing-Along Monkey," "Sing along with me!" and "I play peek-a-boo with you!" on the front. The age advisory "For ages 3+" and the warning that batteries are included are also on the front of the box. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/pc80ck The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold exclusively at Cracker Barrel Old Country Stores nationwide from September 2014 to October 2014 for about $25. Consumers should immediately take the animated monkey away from children, remove the batteries and return the toy to any Cracker Barrel Old Country Store or contact Giggles International for a full refund. GILEAD SCIENCES: Chimicles & Tikellis Files Sovaldi Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Chimicles & Tikellis LLP of Haverford, PA on Dec. 9 disclosed that it has filed a lawsuit on behalf of the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority ("SEPTA") in federal court in Philadelphia, PA against Gilead Sciences, Inc. related to the sale and pricing of its Hepatitis-C drug, Sovaldi(R). Sovaldi is the first drug approved by the Food and Drug Administration for certain types of Hepatitis-C infections that does not need to be injected. It can reportedly cure about 90 percent of patients with the most common form of Hepatitis-C in three to six months, and can do so with relatively minor side effects compared to earlier available treatments. Gilead has been selling a twelve week regimen of Sovaldi in the United States for approximately $84,000, or $1,000 per pill. This is significantly more than the original price projection for Sovaldi, and in sharp contrast to the prices at which the drug is being made available in other countries. Gilead recently announced its intention to make Sovaldi available in 91 developing countries at deeply discounted prices, and the drug is reportedly available in Egypt for 99% below the U.S. price. This obvious pricing paradox is under investigation by the Senate Finance Committee, which has questioned if the market for Sovaldi "is working efficiently and rationally," and whether "payors of health care . . . can carry such a load." While there are some orphan drugs that are similarly expensive, they are typically limited to rare conditions that affect only a very small patient population. In those instances, charging high prices may be necessary to recoup amounts invested in research and development. In the case of Sovaldi, however, there are between 2.7 and 5.2 million people in the United States infected with Hepatitis-C, and 185 million people worldwide. The complaint alleges that, if left unchecked, Gilead's exorbitant pricing scheme has the potential to bankrupt segments of the U.S. healthcare system. According to the complaint, Gilead's pricing practices have also had the effect of pricing certain consumers and government programs out of the Sovaldi market, thus preventing sick patients from obtaining this critical drug. The complaint also cites reports that Gilead's pricing scheme has had a disproportionately high impact on minorities and those in lower income brackets (demographics that have had historically higher incidents of Hepatitis-C infections). Meanwhile, Gilead has recorded an astounding $8.5 billion in Sovaldi sales through the first three quarters of 2014 alone. The complaint alleges that, under these extraordinary circumstances, Gilead's pricing cannot be justified by any patent rights it purports to have related to Sovaldi. The lawsuit seeks class action status on behalf of all persons and entities that have paid some or all of the purchase price of Sovaldi, and those who have been prevented from obtaining a needed Sovaldi regimen due to its excessive price. The complaint asserts causes of action for unjust enrichment, for violations of provisions in the Sherman Antitrust Act and Affordable Care Act, and based on a breach of contract theory. CONTACT INFORMATION: CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP Nicholas E. Chimicles Benjamin F. Johns Joseph B. Kenney One Haverford Centre 361 West Lancaster Avenue Haverford, PA 19041 Telephone: (610) 642-8500/(888) 805-7848 Fax: (610) 649-3633 E-mail: Nick@Chimicles.com BFJ@Chimicles.com JBK@Chimicles.com Web site: http://www.chimicles.com For over 30 years Chimicles & Tikellis has pursued hundreds of securities, consumer and shareholder rights cases and recovered billions of dollars for their clients. The firm is nationally recognized, and their litigators hold many professional honors and distinctions. GOAL ZERO: Recalls Battery Packs Due to Fire Hazard --------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Goal Zero LLC, of Bluffdale, Utah, announced a voluntary recall of about 10,000 in the U.S. and 110 in Canada Goal Zero Sherpa brand 50 and 120 rechargeable battery packs. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The battery packs can overcharge, overheat, bulge and melt the battery pack's enclosure, posing a fire hazard and risk of property damage. Goal Zero has received one report of a fire and two reports of property damage due to the battery packs overheating. One consumer reported becoming ill after breathing fumes from an overheated battery pack. The recall involves Goal Zero's Sherpa brand 50 and 120 rechargeable battery packs that are used to charge cell phones, tablets, laptops and other devices. The battery packs can be plugged into an A/C wall outlet, a 12 volt car charger or an attachable solar panel for recharging. The lithium ion iron phosphate battery packs are silver and black. Goal Zero and Sherpa 50 or 120 are printed on one side of the battery pack. The serial number is printed on the other side. Serial numbers that start with S/N 11002 or S/N 11102 are included in the recall. Sherpa 50 battery packs with serial numbers starting with S50 are not included in this recall. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/80zVXf The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at REI and other sporting goods stores nationwide and online at Amazon.com and Goalzero.com from March 2010 through November 2013 for between $200 and $400. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled battery packs and contact Goal Zero for a free replacement battery pack. HI-TECH PHARMACAL: Settlement Okayed in Sinus Buster Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------ District Judge Arthur D. Spatt of the Eastern District of New York approved the settlement agreement in the case IN RE SINUS BUSTER PRODUCTS CONSUMER LITIGATION, No. 12-CV-2429 (ADS)(AKT)(E.D.N.Y.) The Defendant Hi-Tech acquired Sinus Buster products that it continues to market and sell. Defendant SiCap is a limited liability company, which designed and developed Sinus Buster products. Defendant Wayne Perry is the creator and developer of the Sinus Buster products, and was, until 2010, the founder and CEO of Defendant SiCap. Defendant Dynova Laboratories Inc. acquired SiCap and its line of Sinus Buster products in 2008. The Plaintiffs filed a consolidated putative class action complaint, which asserted claims against the Defendants for violation of (i) the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 2301, et seq., (ii) for unjust enrichment, (iii) common law fraud, (iv) breach of express warranty, (v) breach of implied warranties of fitness and merchantability, (vi) the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, N.J.S.A. Section 58:8-1, et seq., (vii) the Minnesota private attorney general statute, Minn. Stat. Section 8.31, et seq., (viii) and the consumer fraud statutes of the fifty states. The thrust of these claims is that the Defendants misled consumers into believing that Sinus Buster products were approved by the FDA and that the Defendants mischaracterized the products as "homeopathic" solely to avoid FDA regulations. Settlement Class Counsel and counsel for Hi-Tech initiated settlement discussions. After arm's-length negotiations under the guidance of Magistrate Judge Tomlinson, Hi-Tech and Settlement Class Counsel agreed on the terms of a settlement to resolve the claims of individuals in the United States who purchased Sinus Buster products on or after March 7, 2012 and before February 20, 2014. The settlement provides the proposed class, among other things, (i) a full monetary refund of the actual purchase price of the Sinus Buster products that they purchased or, in the alternative, $5.00 per Sinus Buster product purchased up to two Sinus Buster products ($10.00 in total); (ii) certain remedial measures; (iii) attorneys' fees, costs and expenses in the amount of $250,000 that are independent of the common fund established for settlement; and (iv) an incentive award of $2,500 for each of the named Plaintiffs. At the Plaintiffs' behest, Judge Spatt approved the settlement agreement and granted the Settlement Class Counsel's application for attorneys' fees and costs of $250,000. A copy of Judge Spatt's memorandum of decision and order dated November 10, 2014 is available at http://is.gd/whQOhifrom Leagle.com Antonio Vozzolo, Esq. -- avozzolo@faruqilaw.com -- and Courtney Maccarone, Esq., at FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP, Co-Lead Interim Class Counsel Scott A. Bursor, Esq. -- scott@bursor.com -- and Joseph I. Marchese, Esq. -- marchese@bursor.com -- at BURSOR & FISHER, P.A., Of Counsel. Jeffrey N. Levy, Esq. -- jlevy@tgcllaw.com -- at TASHLIK GOLDWIN CRANDELL LEVY LLP, Of Counsel, Attorney for Defendant Hi-Tech Pharmacal, Inc. HOME INSTEAD: D. Colo. Judge Denied Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------- Chief Judge Krieger of the District of Colorado denied plaintiff's motion for class certification in the case entitled, TESHA SCOTT, on her own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HOME INSTEAD, INC. and MAGUIRE SENIOR SERVICES, INC., doing business as Home Instead Senior Care #365, Defendants, Civil Action No. 14-CV-00833-MSK-CBS (D. Colo.) Home Instead Inc. and Maguire Senior Services, Inc. employed Tesha Scott as a caregiver. Ms. Scott alleges that she routinely worked 50-60 hours per week and more than 12 hours per day, but was not paid time-and-a-half for overtime hours as required by federal and state law. She asserts two claims: (i) violation of Colorado's Minimum Wage Order, 7 C.C.R. Section 1103-1; and (ii) violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 209 U.S.C. Section 201 et seq. Ms. Scott seeks to pursue her state-law claim as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. She proposes that the class be defined as "All current and former caregiver employees of Defendants who worked on or after March 21, 2012." Judge Krieger denied Ms. Scott's motion to certify a class, without prejudice. The Court encouraged the parties to promptly move for a resolution of the legal question of whether Wage Order 30 permits "companions" to remain exempt if they perform "general household work" for up to 20% of their weekly hours. Should the Court ultimately resolve that question in Ms. Scott's favor, she may then seek certification of an appropriate class to litigate whatever issues remain under the state law claim. A copy of Chief Judge Krieger's opinion and order dated November 10, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/eYTGKsfrom Leagle.com. Tesha Scott, on her own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Brandt Powers Milstein -- Brandt@milsteinLawOffice.com -- at Milstein Law Office. Home Instead, Inc., Defendant, represented by Henry Laurence Wiedrich -- henry.wiedrich@huschblackwell.com -- Mary Hurley Stuart -- mary.stuart@huschblackwell.com -- Michaelle Lynn Baumert -- michaelle.baumert@huschblackwell.com -- at Husch Blackwell LLP; and Peter Francis Munger -- peter.munger@jacksonlewis.com -- at Jackson Lewis, P.C. Maguire Senior Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by Nicholas Anthony Murray -- Nicholas.Murray@jacksonlewis.com --; and Peter Francis Munger -- peter.munger@jacksonlewis.com -- at Jackson Lewis, P.C. HORIZON HOBBY: Recalls Super Cub S Radio-Controlled Aircraft ------------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Horizon Hobby LLC, of Champaign, Ill., announced a voluntary recall of about HobbyZone Super Cub S Ready-To-Fly and Super Cub S Bind-N-Fly Power Supply and Charger. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. Power supply units and chargers sold with the model aircraft can overcharge the battery, posing a risk of fire and property damage. There were no incidents that were reported. The recall involves the power supply and charger included exclusively with the HobbyZone Super Cub S Ready-To-Fly aircraft, model number HBZ8100 and the HobbyZone Super Cub S Bind-N-Fly model number HBZ8180. Aircraft model numbers are located on the packaging. The power supply is 2 1/2 inches by 1 3/4 inches by 1 1/4 inches and is black with a blue label that reads "HobbyZone" and model "HBZ1004." The DC auxiliary charger is 5 inches by 2 1/2 inches by 1 3/4 inches and is black with a blue label that reads, "HobbyZone" and model "HBZ1003." Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/BsU6RD The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold exclusively at Hobby stores nationwide and online at HorizonHobby.com from April 2014 through August 2014 for $170 for the Bind-N-Fly and $200 for the Ready-to-Fly.. Consumers should stop using the power supply and chargers immediately and contact Horizon Hobby for a replacement AC charger. HOWMEDICA OSTEONICS: Faces "Grayson" Suit Over Defective Product ---------------------------------------------------------------- Melanie L. Grayson, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Howmedica Osteonics Corp. d/b/a Stryker Orthopaedics, Stryker Corporation, and Stryker Sales Corporation, Case No. 1:14- cv-00158 (E.D. Ark., December 16, 2014), arises from the manufacturing defects of the Stryker Rejuvenate Modular Hip Stem that is designed and manufactured by the Defendants. The Defendants own and operate a company that designs, manufactures and marketed Rejuvenate Modular Hip System. The Plaintiff is represented by: Keith L. Grayson, Esq. GRAYSON & GRAYSON, P.A. 209 East Main Street Heber Springs, AR 72543 Telephone: (501) 206-0905 E-mail: graysonandgrayson@att.net IEC ELECTRONICS: N.Y. Court Grants Motion to Dismiss Stock Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court, Southern District of New York issued order granting the motion to dismiss a shareholder suit against IEC Electronics Corp., according to the company's Nov. 25, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2014. IEC Electronics Corp. restated its financial statements. In connection with the restatement, the Audit Committee conducted an independent review of the underlying facts and circumstances, and the Company is responding to a formal investigation by the staff of the SEC relating to the restatement and other matters. The Company is unable to predict what action, if any, might be taken in the future by the SEC or its staff as a result of the investigation or what impact the cost of responding to the SEC might have on the Company's financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. The previously reported amended complaint in the consolidated shareholder class action originally filed June 28, 2013 in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, against the Company and its CEO and former CFO seeking unspecified compensatory damages was dismissed in its entirety without right to replead. The Court's opinion and order granting the motion to dismiss was issued on September 11, 2014, and the judgment dismissing the complaint and closing the case was entered on September 12, 2014. INTERNATIONAL GAME: Cert. Sought in VLT Gaming Suit in Canada ------------------------------------------------------------- Representatives of a purported class of persons allegedly harmed by VLT gaming continue to seek class certification of the case from the Supreme Court of New Foundland and Labrador, according to International Game Technology's Nov. 25, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Sept. 30, 2014. On April 26, 2012, representatives of a purported class of persons allegedly harmed by VLT gaming filed an action in the Supreme Court of New Foundland and Labrador. Atlantic Lottery Corporation has impleaded VLC, Inc., IGT-Canada, Inc., International Game Technology and other third party defendants seeking indemnification for any judgment recovered against Atlantic Lottery Corporation in the main action. Plaintiffs filed a motion for class action certification on September 17, 2012. The Court has decided to address the motion for certification in two phases. Under Phase 1, the Court was to determine whether the Plaintiffs have pleaded a cause of action. Hearings on Phase 1 were held on June 6 and 7, 2013. In Phase 1 of the class action certification application, the Court ruled that the claim discloses arguable causes of action. Phase 2 of the certification application will determine whether there are sufficient common issues raised in the claim and whether a class proceeding is the preferable procedure. INTERNATIONAL GAME: Suits Over GTECH S.p.A. Merger Consolidated --------------------------------------------------------------- A district court consolidated lawsuits filed against International Game Technology over its pending merger transaction with GTECH S.p.A, according to International Game Technology's Nov. 25, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Sept. 30, 2014. Subsequent to the announcement of the Company's entry into a merger agreement with GTECH S.p.A., various putative shareholder class action complaints have been filed by purported shareholders of the Company. As of November 12, 2014, the Company had received the following complaints, each filed in the Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada for Clark County: Klein v. International Game Technology, et al., Case No. A-14-704058-B, filed July 18, 2014; Steinberg v. International Game Technology, et al., Case No. A-14-704098-C, filed July 21, 2014; Kanter v. International Game Technology, et al., Case No. A-14-704101-C, filed July 21, 2014; Tong v. International Game Technology, et al., Case No. A-14-704140-B, filed July 21, 2014; MacDougall v. International Game Technology, et al., Case No. A-14-704147-C, filed July 22, 2014; Longo v. International Game Technology, et al., Case No. A-14-704277-B, filed July 23, 2014; Kitchen v. International Game Technology, et al., Case No. A-14-704286-C, filed July 23, 2014; Gonzalez, et al. v. International Game Technology, et al., Case No. A-14-704288-C, filed July 23, 2014; Krol v. International Game Technology, et al., Case No. A-14- 704330-C, filed July 24, 2014; Irving Firemen's Relief & Retirement Fund v. International Game Technology, et al., Case No. A-14-704334-B, filed July 24, 2014; Neumann v. International Game Technology, et al., Case No. A-14-704393-B, filed July 25, 2014; Taber v. International Game Technology, et al., Case No. A-14- 704403-B, filed July 25, 2014; Aberman v. International Game Technology, et al., Case No. A-14-704454-B, filed July 27, 2014; Epstein, et al. v. International Game Technology, et al., Case No. A-14-704509-B, filed July 28, 2014; Lowinger v. International Game Technology, et al., Case No. A-14-704759-B, filed July 30, 2014; Lerman v. International Game Technology, et al., Case No. A-14- 704849-B, filed August 1, 2014; Braunstein v. International Game Technology, et al., Case No. A-14-704210-B, filed July 22, 2014; and Weston v. International Game Technology, et al., Case No. A- 14-704856-C, filed August 1, 2014. In addition, the following related complaints were filed in the Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada for Clark County, but have been voluntarily dismissed: Zak v. International Game Technology, et al., Case No. A-14-704095-C, filed July 21, 2014 and dismissed September 16, 2014; Lerman v. International Game Technology, et al., Case No. A-14-704287-C, filed July 23, 2014 and dismissed July 31, 2014; and Iron Workers District Council of Tennessee Valley & Vicinity Welfare, Pension & Annuity Plans v. International Game Technology, et al., Case No. A-14- 704409-C, filed July 25, 2014 and dismissed August 22, 2014. The complaints purport to be brought on behalf of all similarly situated shareholders of the Company and generally allege that the members of the IGT board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to IGT shareholders by approving the proposed merger transaction for inadequate consideration, entering into a merger agreement containing preclusive deal protection devices and failing to take steps to maximize the value to be paid to IGT shareholders. The complaints also allege claims against IGT and GTECH, and, in some cases, certain of GTECH's subsidiaries, for aiding and abetting these alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. The complaints seek preliminary and permanent injunctions against the completion of the transaction, or, alternatively, damages in favor of the plaintiffs and the class in the event that the transaction is completed. Certain of the complaints also seek, in the event that the transaction is completed, rescission of the transaction or rescissory damages in favor of the plaintiffs and the class. IGT intends to vigorously defend against the claims asserted in these lawsuits. On October 2, 2014, the District Court held a hearing and granted motions to consolidate the cases and appointed interim lead plaintiffs and lead and liaison plaintiffs' counsel. J & G TRANSPORT: Judge Refuses to Dismiss Truckers' Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lalita Clozel, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that a Florida federal judge refused to dismiss a putative class action when a transportation company offered the named plaintiffs -- two former truck drivers -- twice their claimed damages. Judge Jonathan Goodman of the Southern District of Florida said that the mootness standard did not apply to class actions. "In those cases, a named plaintiff preserves a personal stake in the litigation even where her own claim has been resolved because she has a stake in the claim for class certification," the judge wrote in his ruling. His decision comes on the heels of a recent Eleventh Circuit ruling that found an unaccepted offer of full relief could not suffice to moot a class action. In Stein v. Buccaneers Ltd. P'ship, U.S. District Judge Robert L. Hinkle, writing for the appeals court, cited a dissenting opinion from Justice Elena Kagan in Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk, which is also cited by Judge Goodman. "An unaccepted settlement offer -- like any unaccepted contract offer -- is a legal nullity, with no operative effect," she wrote in the 2013 decision. In the putative class action, Collado v. J. & G. TRANSPORT, INC et al, two truck drivers claim they were underpaid for overtime work and received less-than-minimum wage pay. The court had already granted them conditional class certification before J&G Transport filed its motion to dismiss based on its offer to pay the named plaintiffs twice their claimed damages plus legal costs. "Defendants attempt to accept a stale demand that Plaintiffs no longer wish to offer," wrote Judge Goodman. The judge also compelled J & G Transport to produce a list of truck drivers who could be included in the class. Plaintiffs are represented by the Law Offices Of Christopher F. Zacarias. The defendants are represented by Taylor & Associates, Attorneys At Law. K12 INC: Court Dismisses Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------ A federal court has struck down a class action securities lawsuit against the nation's largest virtual education provider because the allegations failed to show K12 or its officers made any false or misleading statements to the market. K12, Inc. a technology-based education company and leading provider of proprietary curriculum and online school programs for students in pre-K through high school, made the announcement and praised the court for its handling of the case and thorough review of the allegations. The lawsuit, which was filed in January by the Oklahoma Firefighters Pension & Retirement System, alleged that K12 committed corporate fraud in making public statements to investors about its business and financial prospects, but the court ruled that the statements the plaintiff alleged were fraudulent were not false or misleading. In a 25-page opinion released on November 5, U.S. District Court Judge Anthony Trenga examined each of the allegations and concluded that they amounted to nothing more than opinions and forecasts by K12 and its officers that could not be considered false or misleading under the federal securities laws. No appeal was filed by the plaintiffs by the appeal deadline of Dec. 5. Nate Davis, K12's Chairman and CEO, appreciated the Court's thorough review of the allegations and reaffirmed the company's commitment to the highest levels of professional integrity when providing quality education options for children across the nation. KAISER PERMANENTE: Settlement Obtains Preliminary Court Approval ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a federal judge has granted preliminary approval of a settlement in a class action lawsuit against Kaiser Permanente for sending unsolicited, pre-recorded messages to former customers' cell phones. Kaiser will pay $5.35 million to settle the class action lawsuit in which Rafael David Sherman claimed it violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by sending the messages to cell phones of former customers after they had canceled their health insurance plans with the company, according to the order filed Dec. 4 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. Class members can expect to receive a pro rata share of the settlement proceeds, and if all of the approximately 864,412 members file a claim, each will receive approximately $4, according to the settlement document. District Judge John A. Houston also approved class certification. "The court preliminarily finds that the lawsuit satisfies the applicable prerequisites for class action treatment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, for purposes of settlement only," Judge Houston's order states. If more than 1,000 class members opt out of the settlement, Kaiser has the right to terminate the settlement. The class action lawsuit was initially filed on April 24, 2013, in federal court. Mr. Sherman claimed Kaiser violated the TCPA when it called him after he canceled his health insurance plan with the company. Sherman filed a motion for settlement on Oct. 21. "The court preliminarily finds that the settlement of the lawsuit . . . is in all respects fundamentally fair, reasonable, adequate and in the best interests of the class members . . .," the order states. Attorneys fees will not exceed 25 percent of the settlement fund and an incentive award for Sherman will not exceed $1,500. The defendant denies that it committed any wrongful act or violated any law or duty, including that it lacked prior express consent to make the calls, according to the settlement document. A final approval hearing is scheduled for April 27. Mr. Sherman is represented by Joshua B. Swigart of Hyde & Swigart in San Diego; and Abbas Kazerounian and Jason A. Ibey of Kazerouni Law Group APC in Santa Ana, Calif. Kaiser is represented by Felicia Yu, and Janet M. Lee of Reed Smith LLP in Los Angeles. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California case number: 3:13-cv-00981 KBR INC: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Fraud Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Rebecca McCray and Dan Ivers, writing for Law360, report that KBR Inc. asked a Texas federal court on Dec. 5 to dismiss a consolidated class action complaint alleging securities fraud, saying its restatement of 2013 earnings does not qualify as fraud and that plaintiffs failed to prove intent to mislead investors. According to their motion to dismiss, the company was in the process of a share buyback at the time of the misstatement, and its failure to include over $150 million in pre-tax charges resulting from troubled Canadian contracts was not premeditated or fraudulent in nature. "KBR was actually buying back its stock when the plaintiffs allege the defendants were misleading the market and inflating the stock, which doesn't make sense," said counsel for KBR Michael Holmes, an attorney with Vinson & Elkins LLP in Houston. For KBR to initiate a share buyback program during the class period, when defendants allege the price of the company's stock was inflated, would be "economically irrational," the motion said. This illogical action, it contends, negates the possibility that the defendants could have intentionally mislead investors. Lead plaintiff Arkansas Public Employees Retirement System is a public pension fund that purchased 79,700 shares of the former Halliburton subsidiary's stock, according to their consolidated complaint. APERS is joined by numerous workers' unions as well as non-union investors, comprising a class the October 2014 complaint estimates includes hundreds of thousands of members. The trouble for KBR investors began with the misrepresentation of troubled contracts managed by its Canadian subsidiary, KBR Industrial Canada Co. The company repeatedly showcased its Canadian business during investor conferences in 2013, as misinformed analysts touted its "strong growth," according to the complaint. By underestimating the value of its contracts, plaintiffs say KBR inflated its stock value, which dropped by nearly 7 percent after the company rescinded its 2013 earning statement. "Defendants' motion didn't challenge our allegations that they materially misstated the company's financial results and that these misstatements caused investors to suffer losses. Their arguments on scienter are incorrect, and we look forward to responding to them in our opposition brief," said counsel for plaintiffs John Rizio-Hamilton of Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP in an email to Law360. But KBR says plaintiffs' claims are hollow and fail to prove that named defendants William P. Utt, Brian K. Ferraioli, Susan K. Carter and Dennis S. Baldwin were aware of bad information related to the Canadian contracts. "There are no allegations that the individual defendants should have paid particular attention to the accounting for the Canadian contracts or to the revenue figures coming out of KBR's Canadian subsidiary," the motion said. Plaintiffs are represented by Thomas Robert Ajamie -- tajamie@ajamie.com -- of Ajamie LLP and Laura Asserfea -- laura.asserfea@blbglaw.com -- Avi Josefson, John Rizio-Hamilton and Gerald Silk -- jerry@blbglaw.com -- of Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, as well as Thomas A. Dubbs -- tdubbs@labaton.com -- Louis Gottlieb -- lgottlieb@labaton.com -- Matthew Belz, and Ross Kamhi -- rkamhi@labaton.com -- of Labaton Sucharow LLP. KBR and individual defendants are represented by Michael Holmes -- mholmes@velaw.com -- Jeffrey Johnston and Amy Tankersley -- atankersley@velaw.com -- of Vinson & Elkins LLP. The case is Arkansas Public Employees Retirement System et al. v. KBR et al., case number 4:14-cv-01287, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. KEBAB GRILL: "Reyes" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Martin Reyes Bonilla and Jose D. Reyes Bonilla, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Kebab Grill, Inc. d/b/a Wild Fig, WF Grill, Inc. d/b/a Wild Fig, Pideria, Inc. d/b/a Wild Fig, WFMG, Inc. d/b/a Wild Fig, Ali Ugan a/k/a Alex Ugan and Gwen Ugan a/k/a Wendy Ugan, Case No. 2:14-cv-07315 (E.D.N.Y., December 16, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate restaurants in New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven John Moser, Esq. Steven J. Moser, PC 3 School Street, Suite 207B Glen Cove, NY 11542 Telephone: (516) 671-1150 Facsimile: (516) 882-5420 E-mail: smoser@moseremploymentlaw.com KIDDIE KORRAL: Recalls Girls Hoodies With Ponies ------------------------------------------------ The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Kiddie Korral, Dallas, TX, announced a voluntary recall of about 2,300 Pink Pony Hoodies. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. A drawstring through the hood of the hoodies can pose a strangulation hazard to children. Drawstrings can become entangled or caught on playground slides, hand rails, school- bus doors or other moving objects, posing a significant strangulation and/or entanglement hazard to children. In February 1996, CPSC issued guidelines about drawstrings in children's upper outerwear. In 1997, those guidelines were incorporated into a voluntary standard. Then, in July 2011, based on the guidelines and voluntary standard, CPSC issued a federal regulation. CPSC's actions demonstrate a commitment to help prevent children from strangling or getting entangled on neck and waist drawstrings in upper outerwear, such as jackets and sweatshirts. There were no incidents that were reported. The recall involves Kiddie Korral girl's pink hooded sweatshirts with red ponies and a drawstring through the hood. The zippered front hoodies have two front pockets, are made of 100% polyester and were sold in sizes 2 through 12. A label sewn into the garment's neck seam reads "Kiddie Korral" and a label sewn into the side seam has RN#117026 and style number 327. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/XdjOQO The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Children's boutiques, gift shops and other specialty retail stores nationwide from December 2012 through November 2014 for about $25. Consumers should immediately take the hoodies from children and remove the drawstring to eliminate the hazard. Consumers can return the hoodies to the place of purchase for a full refund. LAMPS PLUS: Judge Grants Final Approval to Class Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Josephine L. Staton of the Central District of California gave final approval to the settlement in the case ANNIE DUNHAM, LORI ALVES AND TOM ALLIE, individuals; and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. LAMPS PLUS, INC., Defendant., Case No. SACV 12-1190-JLS (ANX) (C.D. Cal.) Pursuant to the Court's Order issued on October 21, 2014, granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, the Court certifies the following class: "All current and former employees of Defendant who, from July 21, 2005 up to and including the date of preliminary approval, worked as a retail store manager, assistant manager, manager in training or regional assistant in California." Westrup & Associates is appointed as Class Counsel in the Action. Class Counsel is awarded attorneys' fees in the amount of $23,000, and reasonably incurred litigation costs in the amount of $10,000, to be deducted and paid from the Gross Settlement Amount, as final payment for and complete satisfaction of any and all attorneys' fees and costs incurred by and/or owed to Class Counsel and any other person or entity related to the Action. The award of attorneys' fees and costs shall be administered pursuant to the Amended Stipulation of Class Action Settlement. The Enhancement Awards to each Class Representative in the amount of $2,500 are fair and reasonable in light of the time and effort expended and the risk assumed by them in prosecuting this action, and shall be paid from the Gross Settlement Amount pursuant to the Amended Stipulation of Class Action Settlement. Rust Consulting, Inc. is appointed Claims Administrator. Administration expenses incurred by the Claims Administrator in the amount of $5,000 are approved and shall be paid from the Gross Settlement Amount pursuant to the Amended Stipulation of Class Action Settlement. A copy of Judge Staton's judgment dated November 7, 2014 is available at http://is.gd/4H9epzfrom Leagle.com. Plaintiffs, and on behalf of all those similarly situated, represented by: Cat-Tuong N Bulaon, Esq. Lawrence R Cagney, Esq. Phillip R Poliner, Esq. R Duane Westrup, Esq. WESTRUP KLICK LLP 444 West Ocean Boulevard, Suite 1614 Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: 562-432-2551 Facsimile: 562-435-4856 Lamps Plus Inc, a California corporation, Defendant, represented by: Max C Fischer, Esq. Erica C Parks, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 555 West Fifth Street Los Angeles, CA 90013 Telephone: 213-896-6000 Facsimile: 213-896-6600 Email: mfischer@sidley.com eparks@sidley.com LENOVO GROUP: Recalls Computer Power Cords Due to Fire, Burk Risk ----------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Lenovo Inc., of Morrisville, N.C., announced a voluntary recall of about 500,000 in the U.S. and 44,000 in Canada AC power cords. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The AC power cord can overheat, posing fire and burn hazards. There were no incidents that were reported in the U.S. or Canada. Lenovo has received reports from outside the U.S. of 15 incidents involving overheating, sparking, melting and burning. No injuries were reported. The recall involves Lenovo's LS-15 AC power cord manufactured from February 2011 to December 2011. The power cords were distributed with IdeaPad brand B-, G-, S-, U-, V- and Z-series laptop computers and Lenovo brand B-, G- and V-series laptop computers. The recalled power cords are black in color and have the "LS-15" molded mark on the AC adapter end. The manufacture date code in the format REV: 00 YYMM is on a label attached to the cord. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/YeXyzv The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Laptop computers with the AC power cords were sold at computer and electronics stores, authorized dealers and online at lenovo from February 2011 through June 2012 for between $350 and $1,500. Consumers should immediately unplug and stop using the recalled power cords and contact Lenovo for a free replacement. Consumers can continue to use the computer on battery power. LESSEREVIL LLC: Falsely Marketed Chia Crisps Products, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Elizabeth Crane, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Lesserevil, LLC, Case No. 0:14-cv-62854 (S.D. Fla., December 16, 2014), seeks to redress the Defendants pervasive pattern of fraudulent, deceptive, false, and otherwise improper advertising, sales, and marketing practices of its Chia Crisps products. Lesserevil, LLC makes innovative & tasty snack food with healthier ingredients. The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Rhead Shepherd, Esq. Nathan C. Zipperian, Esq. SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH LLC 1640 Town Center Circle, Suite 216 Weston, FL 33326 Telephone: (954) 515-0123 Facsimile: (954) 515-0124 E-mail: sshepherd@sfmslaw.com nzipperian@sfmslaw.com LIBERTY SILVER: Settles Securities Class Action for $1 Million -------------------------------------------------------------- Liberty Silver Corp. on Dec. 8 disclosed that it has reached a settlement in principle regarding the consolidated securities class action filed in September 2013 in U.S. federal court in the Southern District of Florida pertaining to anomalous trading activity and fluctuations in the Company's share price from August through October 2012. The settlement, which is subject to final documentation as well as review by the court, provides for a payment of $1 million cash, to be paid by the Company's D&O insurance coverage. This settlement, without in any way acknowledging any fault or liability, would lead to a full and final dismissal with prejudice of all claims against Liberty Silver, Geoffrey Browne, and William Tafuri in the litigation. Although defendants continue to deny plaintiffs' allegations, the Company believes it is in the best interests of its stockholders to focus its attention on its business and put the matter behind it. The settlement is subject to approval by the Court. About Liberty Silver Corp. Liberty -- http://www.libertysilvercorp.com-- is focused on exploring and advancing mineral properties located in North America. MALLINCKRODT PUBLIC: Dec. 2015 Jury Trial Set in Questcor Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Central District of California set a jury trial for December 1, 2015 in In re Questcor Securities Litigation, No. CV 12-01623 DMG (FMOx), according to Mallinckrodt Public Limited Company's Nov. 25, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Sept. 26, 2014. On September 26, 2012, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against Questcor and certain of its officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, captioned John K. Norton v. Questcor Pharmaceuticals, et al., No. SACvl2-1623 DMG (FMOx). The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of shareholders who purchased Questcor common stock between April 26, 2011 and September 21,2012. The complaint generally alleges that Questcor and certain of its officers and directors engaged in various acts to artificially inflate the price of Questcor stock and enable insiders to profit through stock sales. The complaint asserts that Questcor and certain of its officers and directors violated sections l0(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, (the "Exchange Act"), by making allegedly false and/or misleading statements concerning the clinical evidence to support the use of Acthar for indications other than infantile spasms, the promotion of the sale and use of Acthar in the treatment of MS and nephrotic syndrome, reimbursement for Acthar from third-party insurers, and Questcor's outlook and potential market growth for Acthar. The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount and equitable relief against the defendants. This lawsuit has been consolidated with four subsequently-filed actions asserting similar claims under the caption: In re Questcor Securities Litigation, No. CV 12-01623 DMG (FMOx). On October 1, 2013, the District Court granted in part and denied in part Questcor's motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. On October 29, 2013, Questcor filed an answer to the consolidated amended complaint. Discovery is currently ongoing. The Court set a jury trial for December 1, 2015. MALLINCKRODT PUBLIC: Denny v. Cadence Suit Voluntarily Junked ------------------------------------------------------------- The shareholder suit Denny v. Cadence Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice, according to Mallinckrodt Public Limited Company's Nov. 25, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Sept. 26, 2014. Several purported class action lawsuits have been filed in February 2014 and March 2014 by purported holders of Cadence common stock in connection with the Cadence Acquisition, including in the Delaware Court of Chancery (consolidated under the caption In re Cadence Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Stockholders Litigation), and in California State Court, San Diego County (Denny v. Cadence Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Militello v. Cadence Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., and Schuon v. Cadence Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.). The actions bring claims against, and generally allege that, the board of directors of Cadence breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the the Cadence Acquisition by, among other things, failing to maximize shareholder value, and the Delaware and Schuon actions further allege that Cadence omitted to disclose allegedly material information in its Schedule 14D-9. The lawsuits also allege, among other things, that the Company aided and abetted the purported breaches of fiduciary duty. The lawsuits seek various forms of relief, including but not limited to, rescission of the transaction, damages and attorneys' fees and costs. On March 7, 2014, following expedited discovery, the parties in the consolidated Delaware action entered into a Memorandum of Understanding ("the MOU"), which sets forth the parties' agreement in principle for a settlement of those actions. The settlement contemplated by the MOU will include, among other things, a release of all claims relating to the Cadence Acquisition as set forth in the MOU. The settlement is subject to a number of conditions, including, among other things, final court approval following notice to the class. There have been no substantive proceedings in any of the California actions. On July 29, 2014, the Militello case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. On September 8, 2014, the Denny case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. MALLINCKRODT PUBLIC: Inks Agreement to Settle Suit Over Questcor ---------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants in a consolidated suit over the merger of Mallinckrodt Public Limited Company and Questcor Pharmaceuticals, Inc. reached an agreement in principle that contemplates a stipulation of settlement, according to Mallinckrodt's Nov. 25, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Sept. 26, 2014. Since the announcement of the merger with Questcor on April 7, 2014, several putative class actions have been filed by purported holders of Questcor common stock in connection with the Company's acquisition of Questcor (Hansen v. Thompson, et al., Heng v. Questcor Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Buck v. Questcor Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Ellerbeck v. Questcor Pharmaceuticals, Inc, et al., Yokem v. Questcor Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Richter v. Questcor Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Tramantano v. Questcor Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Crippen v. Questcor Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Patel v. Questcor Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., and Postow v. Questcor Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.). The actions were consolidated on June 3, 2014. The consolidated complaint names as defendants, and generally alleges that, the directors of Questcor breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the acquisition by, among other things, agreeing to sell Questcor for inadequate consideration and pursuant to an inadequate process. The consolidated complaint also alleges that the Questcor directors breached their fiduciary duties by failing to disclose purportedly material information to shareholders in connection with the merger. The consolidated complaint also alleges, among other things, that the company aided and abetted the purported breaches of fiduciary duty. The lawsuit seeks various forms of relief, including but not limited to, rescission of the transaction, damages and attorney's fees and costs. On July 29, 2014, the defendants reached an agreement in principle with the plaintiffs in the consolidated actions, and that agreement is reflected in a memorandum of understanding. In connection with the settlement contemplated by the memorandum of understanding, Questcor agreed to make certain additional disclosures related to the proposed transaction with the Company, which are contained in the Company's Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on July 30, 2014. Additionally, as part of the settlement and pursuant to the memorandum of understanding, the Company agreed to forbear from exercising certain rights under the Merger Agreement with Questcor, as follows: the four business day period referenced in Section 5.3(e) of the Merger Agreement will be reduced to three business days. The memorandum of understanding contemplates that the parties will enter into a stipulation of settlement. MEADOWBROOK FINANCIAL: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Brenda Adams, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Meadowbrook Financial Mortgage Bankers Corp. and Donato Nicolo, Case No. 2:14-cv-07323 (E.D.N.Y., December 16, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours per week. The Defendants owns and operates a financial services company located at 825 East Gate Boulevard #200, Garden City, NY 11530 The Plaintiff is represented by: Jose G. Santiago, Esq. THE SANTIAGO LAW FIRM, P.C. 201 Moreland Road, Suite 10 Hauppauge, NY 11788 Telephone: (631) 240-4355 Facsimile: (631) 406-4911 E-mail: jose@santiagolawfirm.com METROPOLITAN LIFE: Accused of Illegal Use of Shadow Insurance ------------------------------------------------------------- Maria Del Carmen Robainas, Giovanni Valladares, Jose A. Capablanca, Modesto Martin, Jacqueline J. Russ, Allen Perez and Gregory Truitt v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and Metlife, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-09926 (S.D.N.Y., December 16, 2014), alleges that the Defendants' use of shadow insurance constituted a misrepresentation of the financial condition of MetLife, and the adequacy of the reserves and reserve system upon which MetLife operates. Metlife, Inc. is a life insurance company organized and existing under the laws of the state of New York, with its principal place of business located at 200 Park Avenue, New York, New York 10166. The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter B. Katzman, Esq. MAZZEO SONG & BRADHAM LLP 444 Madison Avenue, 4th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 599-0700 Facsimile: (212) 599-8400 E-mail: pkatzman@mazzeosong.com - and - William R. Scherer Jr., Esq. Albert F. Frevola Jr., Esq. Joshua D. Clark, Esq. CONRAD & SCHERER, LLP 633 South Federal Highway, 8th Floor Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 462-5500 Facsimile: (954) 463-9244 E-mail: Wscherer@conradscherer.com afrevola@conradscherer.com iclark@conradscherer.com MICROSOFT CORP: School Board May Apply for Settlement Funds ----------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Wind, writing for WCFCourier.com, reports that the Waterloo Community School Board is considering to apply for Microsoft settlement funds that are the result of a class-action lawsuit brought by Iowa consumers and businesses concerning some of the company's software. MIDWEST MEDICAL: Settles Class Action Over Medical Records ---------------------------------------------------------- Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit against Midwest Medical Records Association Inc. Class members who alleged they paid more for copies of medical records will be eligible for a refund, according to a settlement document filed in Cook County Circuit Court in Chicago. Class counsel will receive $1 million in attorneys fees and $75,000 in costs and expenses. Virginia Solon and Cynthia Zaletel will each receive an incentive award of $1,500, according to the settlement document. "The defendants have vigorously denied and continue to deny each and all of the claims and contentions alleged by plaintiffs and the class, including all claims that any of their conduct constitutes wrongdoing or gives rise to any legal liability" the settlement document states. The defendants assert that the general per-page rates of the code during the class period did not govern the copying of electronic or digital medical records, according to the settlement document. "Nonetheless, the defendants wish to settle and compromise the litigation to avoid further substantial expense and the inconvenience and distraction of protracted and burdensome litigation," the settlement document states. The class action lawsuit was initially filed in 2004 in Cook Circuit Court. The plaintiffs claimed from Oct. 1, 2001, through Dec. 31, 2007, Midwest charged excessive per-page fees for copying electronic or digital medical records that exceeded the specified per-page rates permitted by Illinois Code of Civil Procedure. Under the settlement, each class member who submits a valid and timely claim form may be entitled to a refund equal to 70 percent of the amount each class member paid in excess of the amount the class member would have paid if the amount billed by Midwest had equaled the amount at the general per-page rates. The plaintiffs are represented by Arthur Loevy, Michael Kanovitz, Jon Loevy, Roshna Bala Keen, Scott Rauscher and Edward M. Burnes of Loevy and Loevy in Chicago. Midwest is represented by Alan R. Borlack -- aborlack@bbn-law.com -- of Bailey Borlack Nadelhoffer LLC in Chicago. John Cardone, Mark Protus and William Jackson were represented by Richard J. Mikuta of Kendle Mikuta Fenstermaker in Chicago. All opt-outs, objection and claim forms must be postmarked by Jan. 19. Cook Circuit Court case number: 04-CH-7119 MIGDALAS IP: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Kinard" Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Demario Kinard, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Migdalas IP Holding, LLC d/b/a "Migs" and Kess, LLC d/b/a Migs of Newberry, Case No. 8:14-cv-04740 (D.S.C., December 16, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay proper overtime compensation. The Defendants own and operate 7 restaurants in South Carolina. The Plaintiff is represented by: Janet Elizabeth Rhodes, Esq. CALLISON TIGHE AND ROBINSON PO Box 1390 Columbia, SC 29202-1390 Telephone: (803) 404-6900 Facsimile: (803) 404-6901 E-mail: JanetRhodes@callisontighe.com NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: Settles Faulty Brakes Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Caroline Simson, writing for Law360, reports that Nissan North America Inc. will pay vehicle owners up to $800 each under a proposed deal ending a class action alleging that the braking system in certain Nissan trucks and SUVs is prone to sudden failure, according to a motion filed by the plaintiffs in California federal court on Dec. 5. Under the deal, current and former owners of approximately 350,000 2004-2008 Nissan Titans, Armadas and Infiniti QX56 vehicles across the country will be able to file claims seeking reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses they incurred to repair or replace a defective delta stroke sensor, which is a component of the faulty braking system. Nissan will offer redress starting at $20 for owners of vehicles that had more than 120,000 miles at the time of the repair, and up to $800 for vehicles that had less than 48,000 miles at the time of repair, according to the motion. "There can be little doubt that the proposed settlement is 'within the range of possible approval.' The settlement addresses the safety defect that was alleged in this lawsuit and provides a fair mechanism for reimbursement of the cost of repairing or replacing [delta stroke sensor] parts that have failed," the plaintiffs said. The motion pointed to the uncertainty of proceeding with the suit, noting that Nissan denies it had engaged in any wrongful conduct or that it had known about the defect. The automaker also claimed that it wasn't obligated to disclose the defect because the alleged defect didn't involve a material safety issue. The plaintiffs asked the court to certify a nationwide proposed class of consumers who owned or formerly owned the affected vehicles and were forced to replace the faulty sensor. Those plaintiffs with personal injury claims relating to the affected vehicles are excluded from the class, according to the motion. The court had previously certified a class of California consumers in the suit in December 2013, and the class proposed in the Dec. 5 motion is an expansion of that, the plaintiffs said. The instant suit incorporates a related class action filed by Tom West, now a class representative in this suit, in Miller County, Arkansas, in 2011. The agreement, which was the result of three mediation sessions and months of "dedicated" negotiations, also sets aside $3.4 million for attorneys' fees and expenses and $5,000 for each of the four class representatives, according to the motion. The proposed attorneys' fees are below class counsel's lodestar, the plaintiffs said. Notice will be distributed to the class via direct mail and to addresses obtained through Nissan or public records utilizing vehicle identification numbers, the motion says. Class members will be directed to a website and a toll-free number maintained by the settlement administrator that will provide information concerning the settlement, including, if requested, a copy of the long form notice. Originally filed by Brandon and Erin Banks in April 2011, the complaint alleged that the affected vehicles posed a serious safety threat to consumers because the delta stroke sensor, an electronic component of the affected vehicles that controls critical safety aspects of braking, was prone to failure. The defect caused drivers to be suddenly unable to stop their vehicles within a reasonably safe time and distance, or at all, according to the suit. Furthermore, the complaint said, the automaker knew about the defect but hid it from consumers "to [Nissan's] significant financial gain." The plaintiffs are represented by Clifford L. Carter and Kirk J. Wolden of Carter Wolden Curtis LLP; Michael F. Ram -- mram@rocklawcal.com -- and Karl Olson -- kolson@rocklawcal.com -- of Ram Olson Cereghino & Kopczynski LLP; and F. Jerome Tapley and Hirlye R. "Ryan" Lutz III or Cory Watson Crowder & Degaris PC. Nissan is represented by Timothy W. Loose -- tloose@gibsondunn.com -- and G. Charles Nierlich -- gnierlich@gibsondunn.com -- of Gibson Dunn. The case is Banks et al v. Nissan North America, Inc. et al, case number 4:11-cv-02022, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. MODUSLINK GLOBAL: March 11 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ---------------------------------------------------------- Saxena White P.A. on Dec. 8 issued a statement in regards to the announcement of a proposed class action settlement. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS IN RE MODUSLINK GLOBAL SOLUTIONS, INC. CASE NO. 1:12-CV-11044 SECURITIES LITIGATION SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION, CERTIFICATION OF SETTLEMENT CLASS, AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED THE PUBLICLY TRADED COMMON STOCK OF MODUSLINK GLOBAL SOLUTIONS, INC. ("MODUSLINK") FROM SEPTEMBER 26, 2007 THROUGH JUNE 8, 2012, INCLUSIVE (THE "SETTLEMENT CLASS") PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (the "Court"), that the above-captioned litigation (the "Litigation") has been certified, for settlement purposes only, as a class action on behalf of the Settlement Class, as set forth in the full printed Notice of (I) Pendency of Class Action, Certification of Settlement Class, and Proposed Settlement; (II) Settlement Fairness Hearing; and (III) Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses (the "Notice"). YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED pursuant to an Order of the Court, that a hearing will be held on March 11, 2015, at 2:00 p.m., in Courtroom 11, 5th Floor before the Honorable Denise J. Casper at the United States District Court, District of Massachusetts, 1 Courthouse Way, Boston, Massachusetts 02210, to determine whether: (1) a proposed settlement (the "Settlement") of claims in the above- captioned lawsuit (the "Litigation") in exchange for a payment of $4,000,000, as set forth in the October 23, 2014 Stipulation of Settlement ("Stipulation"), should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) the Litigation should be dismissed with prejudice as set forth in the Stipulation; (3) the plan for distributing the proceeds of the Settlement (the "Plan of Allocation") is fair, reasonable and adequate; and (4) the applications for fees and expenses should be approved. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be entitled to share in the Settlement Fund. If you have not yet received the Notice and a Proof of Claim Form, you may obtain copies of these documents by contacting the Claims Administrator at In re: ModusLink Global Solutions, Inc. Securities Litigation, c/o Epiq Systems, Inc., P.O. Box 3967, Portland, OR 97208-3967; 877-835-1237. Copies of the Notice and Proof of Claim Form can also be downloaded from the website maintained by the Claims Administrator, www.moduslinksecuritieslitigation.com If you purchased or otherwise acquired ModusLink common stock during the period between September 26, 2007 through June 8, 2012, inclusive, your rights may be affected by the Settlement. You may obtain copies of the Stipulation, the Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action (the "Notice") and the Proof of Claim and Release by writing to ModusLink Global Solutions, Inc. Securities Litigation, Claims Administrator, PO Box 3967, Portland, OR 97208-3967, or downloading them at www.moduslinksecuritieslitigation.com You must submit a valid Proof of Claim and Release postmarked no later than March 9, 2015 to be eligible for any payment from the Settlement proceeds. You may request to be excluded from the Settlement Class by following the instructions in the Notice. Any class member who does not timely and validly request exclusion by February 9, 2015 will be bound by any judgment entered in the Litigation pursuant to the Stipulation. You may object to the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, or the applications for fees and expenses by sending (a) a written statement identifying your name, address, and telephone number, and, if represented by counsel, your counsel's name and contact information; (b) proof of ownership of ModusLink common stock during the Settlement Class Period, including the number of ModusLink shares and the date or dates of purchase; (c) a statement explaining your objection and your reasons for such objection; and (d) any supporting documentation. You must send these materials by first class mail to the following addresses so they are received by February 25, 2015: The Court Clerk of the Court UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS - Boston 1 Courthouse Way Boston, MA 02210 Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel Lester R. Hooker Saxena White P.A. 5200 Town Center Circle, Suite 601 Boca Raton, Florida 33486 Counsel for Defendants ModusLink and Steven Crane James W. Prendergast Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP 60 State Street Boston, MA 02109 Counsel for Defendant Joseph C. Lawler Thomas P. Cimino, Jr. Vedder Price P.C. 222 North LaSalle Street Chicago, Illinois 60601 If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may call 877- 835-1237 or contact Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel at the address listed above. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING THIS NOTICE. DATED: December 8, 2014 BY ORDER OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS SOURCE: Saxena White P.A. Saxena White P.A. Lester R. Hooker, 561-206-6708 lhooker@saxenawhite.com NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Sued Over Violations of RESPA, FDCPA & ECOA ---------------------------------------------------------------- Floyd Ronald Burke, on behalf himself and others similarly situated v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, Everbank, Everbank Financial Corporation, Everhome Mortgage, LLC, Case No. 3:14-cv-00837 (E.D. Va., December 16, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the Real Estate and Settlement Procedures Act, Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC is a foreign limited liability company doing business as a mortgage originator and servicer. Everbank Financial Corporation is a Delaware corporation doing business as a bank, as well as mortgage investor, originator and servicer. The Plaintiff is represented by: Leonard Anthony Bennett, Esq. Susan Mary Rotkis, Esq. CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES 763 J Clyde Morris Boulevard, Suite 1A Newport News, VA 23601 Telephone: (757) 930-3660 Facsimile: (757) 930-3662 Email: lenbennett@clalegal.com srotkis@clalegal.com - and - Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq. Andrew J. Guzzo, Esq. KELLY & CRANDALL PLC 4084 University Drive, Suite 202A Fairfax, VA 22030 Telephone: (703) 424-7572 Facsimile: (703) 591-0167 Email: kkelly@kellyandcrandall.com aguzzo@kellvandcrandall.com - and - Brandon Snodgrass, Esq. Matthew Felty, Esq. SNODGRASS LAW FIRM, P.L.C 380 Porterfield Highway, P.O. Box 1417 Abingdon, VA 24212-1417 Telephone (276) 676-2660 Facsimile (276) 676-2667 NIX SPE: Faces "Russi" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Linda A. Russi, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated V. Nix SPE, LLC, and Nix Hospitals System, LLC, d/b/a Nix Healthcare System, Case No. 5:14-cv-01094 (W.D. Tex., December 16, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week. The Defendants own and operate a hospital and healthcare system in San Antonio, Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lawrence Morales II, Esq. Allison Sarah Hartry, Esq. THE MORALES LAW FIRM 115 E. Travis, Suite 1530 San Antonio, TX 78205 Telephone: (210) 225-0811 Facsimile: (210) 225-0821 E-mail: lawrence@themoralesfirm.com ahartry@themoralesfirm.com NORDSTROM INC: Recalls Open Vest Sweaters Due to Burn Hazard ------------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Nordstrom Inc., of Seattle, Wash., announced a voluntary recall of about 2,030 Open Vest Sweaters by Leith. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The sweaters fail to meet the federal flammability standard for wearing apparel, posing a burn injury hazard to consumers. There were no incidents that were reported. The recall involves Leith brand women's textured open vest sleeveless sweaters. The sweaters are 35 1/2 inches long. They were sold in black and cream, and in sizes extra small - XS, small - S, medium - M, large - L and extra large - XL. Care labels sewn into the garments read, "Leith," "Made in China," "83% cotton" and "17% nylon." Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/KjMAEh The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Nordstrom stores nationwide and online at Nordstrom.com from August 2014 through September 2014 for about $70. Consumers should immediately stop wearing the recalled sweaters and contact Nordstrom to return them for a full refund. OW BUNKER: Danish Investors Mull Class Action Over Collapse ----------------------------------------------------------- Rachel Fixsen, writing for Investment & Pensions Europe, reports that a group of Danish institutional investors including seven pension funds has launched an investigation into the collapse of shipping fuel company OW Bunker -- which is set to cost them hundreds of millions of kroner in investment losses. Statutory pension fund ATP and labour-market funds PFA, AP Pension, DIP, Industriens Pension, JOP and PensionDanmark, as well as companies SEB and Maj Invest, said in a joint statement they had initiated an investigation into the company, which filed for bankruptcy in early November. The statement said: "The purpose of the investigation is to understand the events leading up to the bankruptcy and to obtain information that can be used to determine whether there are grounds for asserting legal liability." The investors described the demise of OW Bunker as "a significant, extraordinary and highly negative event" in the Danish stock market. ATP has said it invested around DKK150 million (EUR20.1 million) in OW Bunker. Engineers' pension fund DIP said it stood to lose DKK16 million because of the collapse, and lawyers and economists' pension fund JOP put its exposure to the failed company at DKK9 million. Meanwhile, Industriens Pension said it had lost DKK15 million from the collapse -- equivalent to an average of DKK35 per scheme member. The group of investors said there was an strong need to understand events leading up to the collapse, as well as to determine who was responsible. They had a duty to members and clients to find out whether they could recover some of the losses, they said. The investigation will be carried out by law firms Accura and Bruun & Hjejle, and assisted by audit firm EY, the investors said. It will cover not only the events leading up to the bankruptcy but also those surrounding the IPO in March this year. "The investigation will especially focus on errors and flaws in the prospectus prepared in connection with OW Bunker's IPO, liability in connection with the offering and sale of shares in OW Bunker, as well as the management's liability for OW Bunker's operations in the period from the IPO until the bankruptcy," the investors said. They said each participating investor would decide what course of action to take, based on the findings of the investigation. OW Bunker, whose main business was to supply fuel to ships, was the second largest Danish company in terms of turnover in 2013. Its shares were listed on the Copenhagen stock exchange on March 28 this year, with new shares being issued and those of its main shareholder, Swedish investment fund Altor, being sold. In early November, OW Bunker said it discovered a fraud in its Singapore subsidiary and that preliminary findings suggested it could lose around $125 million (EUR100 million) from the crime. However, it also said that, separately, it had discovered a "significant risk-management loss" of around $150 million. It said it was forced to file for bankruptcy after banks failed to provide financing for a restructuring. PETROLEO BRASILEIRO: Faces Investor Class Action in New York ------------------------------------------------------------ Jeb Blount, writing for Reuters, reports that state-controlled oil company Petroleo Brasileiro SA and its top executives face a class-action lawsuit in a federal court in New York over an alleged contract fixing, bribery and kickback scheme that lawyers say inflated the value of the company's assets. The suit was filed by law firm Wolf Popper LLP in the Southern District of New York on Dec. 8 on behalf of investors who bought U.S.-traded shares of the Brazilian company, commonly known as Petrobras, between May 20, 2010, and Nov. 21, 2014. The case, which will require a judge to certify that a class action can proceed in civil court, seeks a jury trial and as yet unspecified damages. The complaint alleges that Rio de Janeiro-based Petrobras "made false and misleading statements by misrepresenting facts and failing to disclose a culture of corruption at the company that consisted of a multi-billion dollar money-laundering and bribery scheme embedded in the company since 2006." During the period covered by the lawsuit, Petrobras' market value dropped to about $60 billion from about $150 billion, even though the company sold nearly $70 billion in new shares in September 2010 in what was then the world's largest-ever offering of stock. A copy of the suit filed with the court on Dec. 8 says Wolf Popper is working with Brazilian firm "Almeida Advogado." "U.S. securities law is a significant factor in deterring this kind of behavior," Robert C. Finkel -- rfinkel@wolfpopper.com -- a Wolf Popper attorney working on the case, said in a telephone interview from New York. "The only way you can deter this kind of behavior is by fining executive officers liable for securities fraud." Mr. Finkel is confident he will be able to enforce judgment on Petrobras and its executives if he wins. Investors interested in becoming lead plaintiffs have until Feb. 6 to file a motion with the court, a Wolf Popper statement said. "There is a good track record for dealing with cases related to the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act," he said. "They registered their securities here, they are subject to U.S. law." The suit said investors were harmed because Petrobras over valued its assets, the result of a scheme in which Petrobras and contractors inflated the cost of contracts. According to Brazilian investigators, much of the over-charging was passed on to political parties and politicians in the form of campaign contributions and bribes. PETROLEO BRASILEIRO: Gets Citation in New York Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Anthony Boadle, writing for Reuters, reports that Brazil's state- controlled oil company Petroleo Brasileiro SA received a citation on Dec. 9 in the class-action lawsuit filed in a New York court over billions of dollars in investor losses stemming from an alleged bribe and money-laundering scheme. The citation came from an investor who claims the company, commonly known as Petrobras, made misleading statements to the market, the company said in a securities filing. The investor, whose name is Peter Kaltman, is suing for compensation for share price losses and is seeking to represent all investors who bought depositary receipts of the Rio de Janeiro-based company, the statement said. POST HOLDINGS: Hearings in Antitrust Suit v. Michael Foods Set -------------------------------------------------------------- Hearings on class certification in an antitrust suit against Michael Foods, Inc. were scheduled for December 2014 for direct purchaser plaintiffs and February 2015 for indirect purchaser plaintiffs, according to Post Holdings, Inc.'s Nov. 28, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2014. In late 2008 and early 2009, some 22 class-action lawsuits were filed in various federal courts against Michael Foods, Inc. and approximately 20 other defendants (producers of shell eggs, manufacturers of processed egg products, and egg industry organizations), alleging violations of federal and state antitrust laws in connection with the production and sale of shell eggs and egg products, and seeking unspecified damages. Plaintiffs seek to represent nationwide classes of direct and indirect purchasers, and allege that defendants conspired to reduce the supply of eggs by participating in animal husbandry, egg-export and other programs of various egg-industry associations. In December 2008, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered the transfer of all cases to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for coordinated and/or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Between late 2010 and early 2012, a number of companies, each of which would be part of the purported class in the antitrust action, brought separate actions against defendants. These "tag-along" cases, brought primarily by various grocery chains and food companies, assert essentially the same allegations as in the main action. All but one of the tag-along cases were either filed in or transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania where they are being treated as related to the main action. Fact discovery concluded on April 30, 2014. The class-certification phase of the case is currently in process. Hearings on class certification are scheduled for December 2014 for direct purchaser plaintiffs and February 2015 for indirect purchaser plaintiffs. Michael Foods received a Civil Investigative Demand ("CID") issued by the Florida Attorney General on November 27, 2008, regarding an investigation of possible anticompetitive activities "relating to the production and sale of eggs or egg products." The CID requested information and documents related to the pricing and supply of shell eggs and egg products, as well as Michael Foods' participation in various programs of United Egg Producers. Michael Foods has fully cooperated with the Florida Attorney General's Office to date. Further compliance is suspended pending proceedings in the civil antitrust litigation. PRO ARMOR: Recalls Doors for Polaris RZR 800 and 900 Utility Cars ----------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with LSI Products Inc. dba Pro Armor, Riverside, Calif., announced a voluntary recall of about 300 utility vehicle doors. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The latch pin can disengage from the latch and allow the door to open while the vehicle is moving, posing a risk of ejection of an unrestrained rider and impact or laceration hazards. Pro Armor has received 23 reports of the latch pin disengaging. No injuries have been reported. The recall involves Pro Armor doors sold as accessories for model year 2010 through 2014 Polaris RZR 800 and RZR 900 models. The doors have a black powder coated finish and have four major components: a large square sheet metal panel, a smaller triangular sheet metal panel, a tubular metal frame and a latch. The panels are interchangeable and come in two styles. One style has cutout vents along the top and the other style has none. The smaller panel has a white Pro Armor logo below the cutouts. The door frame has the logo and "Pro Armor" on the top tube. The latch is silver with a black locking mechanism that attaches to the vehicle frame and a handle that attaches to the door. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/Syv3Cz The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold at Powersports dealers and online nationwide from June 2014 through October 2014 for about $550 to $600 for the set of doors. Consumers should immediately stop using vehicles with these doors and contact Pro Armor for a free repair kit. RADIOSHACK CORP: Faces Class Action Over 401(K) Plan ---------------------------------------------------- Legal Newsline reports that a RadioShack employee sued the company on Dec. 5 over allegations that it breached its financial duties when managing retirement plans. Jeffrey Snyder is seeking class status for employees who participated in RadioShack's 401(k) plan, which included investments in the company's stock. The lawsuit alleges the managers of the retirement plan violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act after RadioShack's stock fell significantly over the last few years and the company continued to offer it as an investment option to employees. On Dec. 5, 2011, RadioShack's stock stood at $11.44 per share. About a month later, the stock ended the year at $9.29 per share. By March 2013, the stock stood at $3.39 per share. The lawsuit said even if outside investors bought stock, the managers of the 401(k) still had a duty under the law not to take "excessive risk" with the investments. Mr. Snyder is represented by Roger L. Mandel -- rlm@lhlaw.net -- of Lackey Hershman, LLP; Gerald D. Wells and Robery J. Gray, of Connolly Wells & Gray, LLP; and Steven L. Rovner, of Rovner, Allen, Rovner, Zimmerman and Nash. United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas- Forth Worth Division case number 4:14-cv-00978. RAYMOND JAMES: No Class Yet in Suit by Regions Shareholders ----------------------------------------------------------- No class has been certified yet in a suit filed on behalf of shareholders of Regions Financial Corporation and investors who purchased shares of certain mutual funds in the Regions Morgan Keegan Fund complex, according to Raymond James Financial Inc.'s Nov. 25, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014. Certain of the Morgan Keegan entities, along with Regions, have been named in class-action lawsuits filed in federal and state courts on behalf of shareholders of Regions and investors who purchased shares of certain mutual funds in the Regions Morgan Keegan Fund complex (the "Regions Funds"). The Regions Funds were formerly managed by Morgan Asset Management ("MAM"), an entity which was at one time a subsidiary of one of the Morgan Keegan affiliates, but an entity which was not part of the company's Morgan Keegan acquisition The complaints contain various allegations, including claims that the Regions Funds and the defendants misrepresented or failed to disclose material facts relating to the activities of the funds. In August 2013, the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee approved the settlement of the class action and the derivative action regarding the closed end funds for $62 million and $6 million, respectively. No class has been certified. Certain of the shareholders in the funds and other interested parties have entered into arbitration proceedings and individual civil claims, in lieu of participating in the class action lawsuits. RAYMOND JAMES: Faces Class Lawsuit by Municipal Bond Holders ------------------------------------------------------------ MK & Co. is facing a certified class suit by holders of certain municipal bonds that it underwrote according to Raymond James Financial Inc.'s Nov. 25, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014. The states of Missouri and Texas are investigating alleged securities law violations by MK & Co. in the underwriting and sale of certain municipal bonds. An enforcement action was brought by the Missouri Secretary of State in April 2013, seeking monetary penalties and other relief. In November 2013, the state dismissed this enforcement action and refiled the same claims as a civil action in the Circuit Court for Boone County, Missouri. Civil actions were brought by certain investors of the bonds beginning in March 2012, seeking a return of their investment and unspecified compensatory and punitive damages. A punitive class action was brought on behalf of purchasers of the bonds on September 4, 2012, seeking unspecified compensatory and punitive damages. This action was certified as a class action representing all purchasers of the bonds between July 23, 2010 and September 30, 2011. These actions are in various stages of litigation. RETROPHIN INC: Faces "Sandler" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports ----------------------------------------------------------------- Justin Sandler, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Retrophin, Inc., Martin Shkreli, Marc L. Panoff, and Jeffrey Paley, Case No. 1:14-cv-09915 (S.D.N.Y., December 16, 2014), alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Retrophin, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company that focuses on the development, acquisition, and commercialization of therapies for the treatment of serious, catastrophic, or rare diseases. The Plaintiff is represented by: Francis Paul McConville, Esq. Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: fmcconville@pomlaw.com jalieberman@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick Vincent Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com ROMAGICA CORP: "Lopez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------ Segundo Angel Yamba Lopez, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated employees v. Romagica Corp. d/b/a Celeste Restaurant, and Carmine Mitroni, Case No. 1:14-cv-09914 (S.D.N.Y., December 16, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate Celeste restaurant located at 502 Amsterdam Avenue, New York, New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter Hans Cooper, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER, P.L.L.C. 708 Third Avenue, 6th Flr New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 209-3933 Facsimile: (212) 209-7102 E-mail: pcooper@jcpclaw.com SALSA CYCLES: Recalls Bicycle Forks Due to Fall Hazard ------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Salsa Cycles, a wholly-owned brand of Quality Bicycle Products Inc., of Bloomington, Minn., announced a voluntary recall of about 2,500 Salsa Bearpaw Bicycle Forks. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The bicycle fork can bend or break, posing a fall hazard to the rider. There were no incidents that were reported. The recall involves all aluminum Salsa Bearpaw forks sold separately and on Mukluk bicycles. The forks have date code 20130524, 20130710 or 20130826 stamped on the fork steerer, followed by "CWI2201BAN2" and a Salsa compass graphic on the bend of the fork blades. Consumers or the dealer will need to disassemble the front of the bicycle to access the steerer tube with the date code and model information. The forks were sold in "tequila lime" with black paint, "metallic gold," red and black. The bikes were sold in sizes x-small, small, medium, large and x- large. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/MSeRs2 The recalled products were manufactured in Taiwan and sold at Sold at Bicycle stores nationwide and online at various websites from September 2013 through November 2014 for about $250 separately and for between $1,850 and $4,400 for the bicycles. Consumers should immediately stop using bicycles equipped with the recalled Salsa Bearpaw forks and contact a Salsa dealer for a free inspection and replacement fork. SANTA ROSA, CA: To Appeal Ruling in Suit Over Impounding Policies ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kevin McCallum, writing for The Press Democrat, reports that Santa Rosa plans to appeal a federal judge's ruling that police violated the constitutional rights of an unlicensed driver by impounding his truck for 30 days without a warrant. If it stands, the ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Thelton Henderson could have statewide implications because many law enforcement agencies have similar impound policies. "It's a big deal that the judge found that they have been seizing vehicles without a warrant in violation of the constitution," said Alicia Roman, one of the attorneys representing plaintiff Simeon Ruiz. City Attorney Caroline Fowler agreed that the ruling represents a "case of first impression" that could have sweeping implications on impound policies of law enforcement agencies around the state. "We would like a ruling from a higher court to clarify this important public policy issue," Ms. Fowler said. A ruling on the issue is important because other courts have held that impoundments in nearly identical situations are legal, and because it could impact the scope of the class-action status being pursued in the case, Ms. Fowler said. The vehicle impound policies of law enforcement agencies have been a flashpoint in the immigration debate in Sonoma County. Critics contend police have misused DUI checkpoints to seize the vehicles of sober but unlicensed drivers, primarily undocumented immigrants who cannot obtain a driver's license under California law. Others argue that unlicensed drivers are inherently more dangerous than licensed ones, as evidenced by studies and local accidents, including one in 2011 that killed a 4-year-old boy in a West Ninth Street crosswalk. Judge Henderson ruled that the city's justifications for impounding Mr. Ruiz's vehicle -- that it was allowed by state law, that doing so cleared the vehicle from the road and that Mr. Ruiz was a dangerous driver -- were not compelling enough to merit taking away his only mode of transportation without a warrant. "For many people, the use of a car is essential for such necessary activities as getting to work and purchasing food; the loss of a vehicle for 30 days can cause significant disruption in a person's life," Judge Henderson wrote. Mr. Ruiz, a local vineyard worker, was stopped at a DUI/license checkpoint in September 2011. He didn't have a California license and he previously had been cited several times for driving without a license. Ms. Roman declined to comment on his immigration status, but immigration rights advocates have said the impound policies disproportionately impact undocumented immigrants. Police impounded Mr. Ruiz's Silverado pickup even though he had a friend with a valid license who could have taken possession of it. His request to get his truck back several days later was denied. Because he didn't have a vehicle, Mr. Ruiz lost out on a week of work. He also had to pay a hefty storage fee of about $2,200 to get his truck back, Ms. Roman said. A state law passed later in 2011 set tighter restrictions on how sobriety checkpoints are run, with an eye toward making it easier for undocumented immigrants to keep their vehicles. The city argued that its 30-day impound policy was legal because it was allowed by state law. The judge ruled that being allowable by state law does not mean it does not violate the Fourth Amendment right around unreasonable search and seizure. The city also argued that the impound was valid under the "community caretaking" exception, which allows police to remove vehicles from the street without a warrant "when the vehicle poses an obstacle to the flow of traffic or otherwise jeopardizes public safety." That might justify impounding a car for a short period, but not 30 days, the judge found. Finally, the city argued that Ruiz's previous violations for driving without a license showed he was unsafe. Mr. Ruiz had previously had a driver's license in Mexico, and the city offered "virtually no evidence Ruiz himself was unsafe." "None of these arguments are convincing," Judge Henderson wrote. The City Council voted 4-2 last month to appeal the ruling. The city has since asked Henderson to suspend the federal case to allow them to appeal his ruling to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Sonoma County is a defendant in the same lawsuit for a nearly identical circumstance, but a ruling on the legality of the county's impound policy is on hold while it appeals a different legal issue in the case, Fowler said. SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP representing investors of Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. on Dec. 8 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of a class comprising purchasers of Sarepta securities between April 21, 2014 and October 27, 2014, inclusive. Please contact Lesley Portnoy or Casey Sadler at (888) 773-9224 or (310) 201-9150, or at shareholders@glancylaw.com to discuss this matter. If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased. Sarepta is engaged in the discovery and development of RNA-based therapeutics for the treatment of rare and infectious diseases. The Company's lead product candidate is eteplirsen, which is in clinical development for the treatment of Duchenne muscular dystrophy. The Complaint alleges that defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose to investors that: (1) the Company failed to provide sufficient data for its New Drug Application ("NDA") submission for marketing approval of eteplirsen; (2) as a result, the Company's NDA for eteplirsen would likely be filed in mid-2015, rather than the end of 2014; and (3), the Company's statements about Sarepta's business, operations and prospects, including statements about eteplirsen's prospects for FDA approval for the treatment of Duchenne muscular dystrophy, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. On October 27, 2014, the Company announced a regulatory update concerning discussions with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration related to Sarepta's NDA for eteplirsen. According to the Company, following a Pre-NDA meeting in September 2014, the FDA provided updated guidance regarding additional data required as part of, or at the time of, the NDA submission, including: (i) minimum duration of safety in new patients exposed to eteplirsen; (ii) patient-level natural history data from independent academic institutions; and (iii) MRI data from a recent study conducted by an independent academic group. Following this news, Sarepta shares declined more than 32%, or $7.65 per share, to close at $15.91 per share on October 27, 2014, on volume of more than 15 million shares. If you are a member of the Class described above, you may move the Court no later than 60 days from the date of this Notice to serve as lead plaintiff, if you meet certain legal requirements. To be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Lesley Portnoy, Esquire, or Casey Sadler, Esquire, of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067, at (310) 201-9150, by e-mail to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at http://www.glancylaw.com If you inquire by email, please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased. SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC: Recalls PowerPact J-Frame Circuit Breakers -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Schneider Electric USA Inc., of Columbia, Mo., and Tlaxcala, Mexico, announced a voluntary recall of about 62,500 Circuit breakers. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The circuit breaker will not trip during an overload condition, posing a risk of fire, burns and electrical shock. There were no incidents that were reported. The recall involves PowerPact J-frame molded case circuit breakers with thermal-magnetic trip units. The circuit breakers are made of black plastic and have a three-position breaker handle that indicates whether the breaker is off, on or tripped. The recalled circuit breakers are rated for 150 to 250 amps, have interruption ratings of D, G, J, L and R. They were manufactured in two pole and three pole configurations with either lug-in/lug-out or plug- in (I-Line) style connectors. Brand name "Schneider Electric" or "Square D" is on a yellow sticker above the breaker handle and on the top of a label on the side of the circuit breaker. A label on the front of the circuit breaker to the left of the breaker handle has the catalog number at the top. The number also appears on a label on the side of the breaker. Schneider Electric catalog numbers begin with "NJ" and Square D catalog numbers begin with "J." A label on the front of the circuit breaker to the right of the breaker handle has the date code in the lower right corner. Recalled circuit breakers were manufactured from March 24, 2014 through Sept. 26, 2014 and have date codes 14131 through 14395. The date codes are in the YYWWD format (example: 14131 = year 2014, week 13, day of the work week 1/ Monday). Breakers with these catalog numbers are being recalled: Catalog Number Breaker Type -------------- ------------ (N)JDX26XXX 2 Pole (N)JGX26XXX 2 Pole (N)JJX26XXX 2 Pole (N)JLX26XXX 2 Pole (N)JDX36XXX 3 Pole (N)JGX36XXX 3 Pole (N)JJX36XXX 3 Pole (N)JLX36XXX 3 Pole (N)JRX36XXX 3 Pole Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/E6DsK8 The recalled products were manufactured in USA and Mexico and sold at authorized Schneider Electric distributors, original equipment manufacturers and in factory assembled panel boards from March 2014 through September 2014 for between $2,900 and $11,200. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled circuit breakers and contact Schneider Electric for either a free replacement circuit breaker and a credit of up to $300 per address to cover labor costs for installation by a certified electrician or a handle update kit and a credit of up to $150 per address to cover labor costs for installation by a certified electrician. SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO: Morning Song Bird Food Litigation Continues --------------------------------------------------------------- In re Morning Song Bird Food Litigation, Lead Case No. 3:12-cv- 01592-JAH-RBB continues in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, according to The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company's Nov. 25, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014. In connection with the sale of wild bird food products that were the subject of a voluntary recall in 2008, the Company has been named as a defendant in four putative class actions filed on and after June 27, 2012, which have now been consolidated in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California as In re Morning Song Bird Food Litigation, Lead Case No. 3:12-cv-01592-JAH-RBB. The plaintiffs allege various statutory and common law claims associated with the Company's sale of wild bird food products and a plea agreement entered into in previously pending government proceedings associated with such sales. The plaintiffs allege, among other things, a purported class action on behalf of all persons and entities in the United States who purchased certain bird food products. The plaintiffs assert hundreds of millions of dollars in monetary damages (actual, compensatory, consequential, punitive, and treble); reimbursement, restitution, and disgorgement for benefits unjustly conferred; injunctive and declaratory relief; pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; and costs and attorneys' fees. SEAWORLD PARKS: Sued Over Automatic Annual Pass Renewals -------------------------------------------------------- Legal Newsline reports that SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment was sued on Dec. 3 over allegations that it automatically renewed annual passes without consumers' consent and didn't follow the wording of its own contract when confronted with excessive charges. A class action lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida details the allegations of lead plaintiff Jason Herman, a Florida resident who purchased a one-year adult EZPay to SeaWorld in Orlando and Busch Gardens in Tampa. Mr. Herman expected his initial payment of $35.40 on March 18, 2013 to be followed by 11 additional monthly charges of the same amount. However, payments continued to be charged to his credit card through Sept. 18, he said. A SeaWorld customer service representative later told Mr. Herman the wording on the contract stated that any pass not paid for in less than 12 months would renew automatically on a month-to-month basis, the complaint says. The lawsuit contends that this wording was not included in confirming emails, receipts, tickets or passes, and that Mr. Herman's request for a refund was declined. The lawsuit claims that two separate telephone conversations with SeaWorld customer service representatives failed to provide access to a contract with that wording. He later found it online. The suit further claims that despite SeaWorld's allegedly hidden contract, the company was still not authorized to automatically renew the passes. In Mr. Herman's example, his pass was purchased on March 18, 2013, and the 11th subsequent payment was charged to his credit card on Feb. 18 -- fully paying off the cost of the annual pass in 11 months. The lawsuit proposes a class of SeaWorld customers from Florida, Texas, Virginia and California who continued to be charged for their EZpay passes after fully paying for them in less than 12 months. SeaWorld operates 11 theme parks in the United States and hosted 23.4 million guests in 2013 with more than $1.4 billion in revenues. Attorney Paul R. Fowkes and Ryan C. Hasanbasic are representing the plaintiffs. U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida case number 8:14-cv-03028 SEADRILL LTD: Abraham Fruchter Files Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP on Dec. 8 disclosed that it has filed a securities fraud class action against SeaDrill Limited and certain of its senior executives in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The case alleges that the defendants made materially false or misleading statements with respect to the Company's commitment and ability to continuing to pay a dividend to the exclusion of other opportunities and needs for the same capital. A November 26, 2014, press release by the Company brought these facts to light by announcing that the Company had decided to suspend payment of its dividend. The lawsuit is brought on behalf of a class of investors who purchased shares of SeaDrill between July 10, 2014 and November 25, 2014, inclusive. If you are a member of the Class and wish to serve as a lead plaintiff, then you must move the Court no later than February 3, 2015. You are, however, under no obligation to move for appointment as lead plaintiff. If you would like to discuss this investigation, or if you have any questions concerning your rights as a potential lead plaintiff, you may contact: Jeffrey S. Abraham or Philip T. Taylor of Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP toll free at (800) 440-8986, or via e-mail at jabraham@aftlaw.com or ptaylor@aftlaw.com Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP, which is based in New York and has an office in California, concentrates its practice in shareholder and securities class action cases. SHAPIRO BROWN: Faces "Burke" Suit Over Foreclosure Practices ------------------------------------------------------------ Floyd Ronald Burke, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Shapiro, Brown & Alt, LLP and Professional Foreclosure Corporation, Case No. 3:14-cv-00838 (E.D. Va., December 16, 2014), alleges that the Defendants engaged in a systemic practice of law skirting and deception designed for the dual purposes of speeding up consumer foreclosures and ensuring that their business model had the lowest cost structure that they could construct. Shapiro, Brown & Alt, LLP owns and operates a debt collection company located at is located at 236 Clearfield Avenue, Suite 215, Virginia Beach, Virginia 23462. Professional Foreclosure Corporation is engaged in the business of collecting delinquent debts and conducting foreclosure sales. The Plaintiff is represented by: Leonard Anthony Bennett, Esq. Susan Mary Rotkis, Esq. CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES 763 J Clyde Morris Boulevard, Suite 1A Newport News, VA 23601 Telephone: (757) 930-3660 Facsimile: (757) 930-3662 Email: lenbennett@clalegal.com srotkis@clalegal.com - and - Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq. Andrew J. Guzzo, Esq. KELLY & CRANDALL PLC 4084 University Drive, Suite 202A Fairfax, VA 22030 Telephone: (703) 424-7572 Facsimile: (703) 591-0167 Email: kkelly@kellyandcrandall.com aguzzo@kellvandcrandall.com - and - Brandon Snodgrass, Esq. Matthew Felty, Esq. SNODGRASS LAW FIRM, P.L.C 380 Porterfield Highway, P.O. Box 1417 Abingdon, VA 24212-1417 Telephone (276) 676-2660 Facsimile (276) 676-2667 SHELL OIL: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ David O. Klein, Esq. of Klein Moynihan Turco LLP, in an article for Mondaq, reports that the United States District Court for the District of Oregon recently denied a motion to dismiss a putative nationwide class action brought against Shell Oil for alleged breach of contract, false advertising and an array of state consumer protection allegations. In the action captioned Kearney v. Equilon Enterprises, LLC d/b/a Shell Oil Products US, 14CV254, Shell Oil moved to dismiss the putative class action complaint. While the court dismissed several state law statutory claims, the court refused to dismiss plaintiffs' nationwide breach of contract claim. The Shell Oil Advertisement: A Contract with Consumers? Specifically, the advertisement at issue in the action was part of Shell's "Ski Free" promotion and, according to Plaintiffs, promised: "Buy 10 gallons of fuel, get a voucher for a free lift ticket." In reality, once Plaintiffs purchased ten gallons of fuel, they received a "two for one" coupon that allowed applicable consumers the right to obtain a free lift ticket only after purchasing a lift ticket at full price at a participating ski resort. The only advertisement that the Plaintiffs saw was a sign promising a free ski lift ticket if they purchased ten gallons of fuel. The Court held that the "clear offer in the advertisement established a unilateral contract, and Plaintiffs accepted the offer through performance by purchasing ten gallons of fuel at a Shell station participating in the 'Ski Free' promotion." From the clear language of the advertisement, the Court held that it was reasonable for a consumer to believe that if he or she purchased ten gallons of fuel at a participating Shell gas station, he or she would get a free lift ticket. Therefore, the Court denied Shell's motion to dismiss the breach of contract cause of action and allowed the false advertising class action to proceed. The Importance of Truth in Advertising The Federal Trade Commission and the plaintiffs' class action bar closely scrutinize the truth (or deceptiveness) of all types of advertising and marketing materials. Large settlements and court judgments have been entered against advertisers and retailers that fail to follow applicable state and federal advertising rules and regulations. As such, it is critical for marketers to secure seasoned advertising counsel in connection with prospective marketing campaigns or risk facing a false advertising investigation or lawsuit. SIGMA-ALDRICH CORP: Inks MoU to Settle Securities Litigations ------------------------------------------------------------- Sigma-Aldrich Corporation entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the plaintiffs in the Litigation providing for the settlement of the St. Louis Litigation and the dismissal of the St. Louis Litigation and the Delaware Litigation upon entry of a final order by the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis approving the settlement, according to the company's Nov. 25, 2014, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. On September 22, 2014, Sigma-Aldrich Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the "Company" or "Sigma-Aldrich"), entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement"), by and among Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany, a German corporation with general partners ("Parent"), Mario II Finance Corp., a Delaware corporation and an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent ("Merger Sub"), and the Company, providing for, subject to the satisfaction or waiver of specified conditions, the acquisition of the Company by Parent at a price of $140.00 per share in cash pursuant to a merger (the "Merger") of Merger Sub with and into the Company. As previously disclosed, two purported stockholders of Sigma- Aldrich each filed a putative class action complaint in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Missouri on behalf of a purported class of stockholders naming Sigma-Aldrich, each director of Sigma-Aldrich, Parent and Merger Sub as defendants. Those lawsuits have been consolidated (the "St. Louis Litigation"). In addition, as previously disclosed a purported stockholder of Sigma-Aldrich filed a putative class action complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Delaware Litigation" and, together with the St. Louis Litigation, the "Litigation"). On November 25, 2014, Sigma-Aldrich, Parent and Merger Sub entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the plaintiffs in the Litigation providing for the settlement of the St. Louis Litigation and the dismissal of the St. Louis Litigation and the Delaware Litigation upon entry of a final order by the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis approving the settlement. In the Memorandum of Understanding, Sigma-Aldrich agreed to make certain supplemental disclosures to the definitive proxy statement of Sigma-Aldrich dated November 3, 2014 relating to the Merger and the Merger Agreement (the "Proxy Statement"). Sigma-Aldrich believes that no additional disclosure is required to supplement the Proxy Statement under applicable laws. However, to avoid the risk that the Litigation may delay or otherwise adversely affect the consummation of the Merger, and to minimize the expense of defending the Litigation, Sigma-Aldrich has agreed, pursuant to the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding, to make certain supplemental disclosures to the Proxy Statement. The supplemental disclosures to the Proxy Statement. The Memorandum of Understanding contemplates that, subject to completion of certain confirmatory discovery by counsel to the plaintiffs, the parties will enter into a stipulation of settlement. The settlement contemplated by the parties will be subject to customary conditions, including consummation of the merger, certification of the class, and court approval following notice to Sigma-Aldrich's stockholders. In the event that the parties enter into a stipulation of settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at which the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis will consider the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the settlement. If the settlement is finally approved by the presiding court, such settlement will resolve and release all claims that were, or could have been, brought in any of the actions challenging any aspect of the Merger, the Merger Agreement, and any disclosure made in connection therewith (but excluding claims for appraisal made by stockholders of Sigma-Aldrich in accordance with Section 262 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware), pursuant to terms that will be disclosed to stockholders of Sigma-Aldrich prior to final approval of the settlement. There can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis will approve the settlement even if the parties were to enter into such stipulation. If the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis does not approve the settlement, such proposed settlement, as contemplated by the Memorandum of Understanding, may be terminated. SKINNYGIRL MARGARITA: Judge Refuses to Certify False Ad Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Eat Drink Better reports that an Illinois judge refused to certify a class action lawsuit alleging that Skinnygirl Margarita, a pre- mixed alcohol beverage sold by Skinnygirl Cocktails, is guilty of false advertising because the beverage is labeled as "all natural" despite containing the non-natural preservative sodium benzoate. According to Lexology.com, this most recent class action lawsuit was denied because "the court identified several shortcomings with the proposed class." Those shortcomings appear to be technicalities rather than proof that Skinnygirl Margaritas are "all-natural" -- which they are not. Back in November 2013, Skinnygirl cocktails made the news when Whole Foods Markets pulled the beverages from it shelves upon discovering that they contained sodium benzoate, an additive linked to aging and cancer. In this case, the technicalities cited by the court include the fact that "the plaintiff failed to offer a valid method to identify the purchasers." Another technicality cited was the apparent conflict of interest caused by the personal relationship between the plaintiff and lead counsel (the plaintiff's father, an attorney, had in other cases served as co-counsel with the lead attorney representing the plaintiff). But, most alarming is that the court agreed that the evidence showed "the materiality of the misleading marketing," yet the judge denied to certify the case because "the plaintiff failed to show that any other potential class members were actually harmed because they had purchased the product." In other words, the court believed Skinnygirl consumers aren't harmed by not knowing -- and don't even care -- if there are small amounts of sodium benzoate in Skinnygirl Margartitas. SMARTHEAT INC: Plans to File Summary Judgment in Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Smartheat Inc. indicated to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York that it plans to file a summary judgment motion in a securities suit filed against it, according to the company's Nov. 25, 2014, Form 10-Q/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014. On August 31, 2012, a putative class action lawsuit, Steven Leshinsky v. James Wang, et al., which purported to allege federal securities law claims against the Company and certain of its former officers and directors, was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Thereafter, two plaintiffs filed competing motions to be appointed lead plaintiff in the proceeding. A lead plaintiff was appointed and an amended complaint was filed on January 28, 2013, by the Rosen Law Firm. The amended complaint included Oliver Bialowons, the company's President, and Michael Wilhelm, the company's former Chief Financial Officer, as defendants in the proceeding though they were not officers of the Company during the alleged class period. A second amended complaint was filed on April 8, 2013, under the caption Stream Sicav, Dharanendra Rai et al. v. James Jun Wang, SmartHeat, Inc. et al., removing Messrs. Wilhelm and Bialowons as defendants. The second amended complaint alleges two counts against the Company, both asserting violations of the federal securities laws arising from alleged insider sales or management sales of securities and alleged false disclosures relating to those sales. On May 8, 2013, the company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint which was denied. On March 17, 2014 the court, denied, the lead plaintiff's motion for class certification, without prejudice. On August 6, 2014, the lead plaintiff once again filed a motion for class certification. On September 19, 2014, the company filed an opposition to the lead plaintiff's motion for class certification, to which plaintiff filed a response on October 20, 2014. The company have also indicated to the Court that the company plan to file a summary judgment motion and have requested a conference (as required by the Court) to discuss this motion. The Court has indicated that it will schedule a conference regarding the summary judgment motion after the Court has decided the class certification motion. The pleadings and court orders are publicly available. SONY COMPUTER: Fails to Dismiss "Ladore" Suit Over Killzone Game ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit accusing Sony Computer Entertainment of embellishing how good the graphics are in its "Killzone: Shadow Fall" videogame will proceed, reports Arvin Temkar at Courthouse News Service, citing a federal court ruling. In the class action filed this past August, lead plaintiff Douglas Ladore claims that Sony's "Killzone: Shadow Fall" videogame -- pitched by the company as a "crowning achievement in the videogame industry" -- was advertised to have multiplayer mode graphics in full 1080p high-definition resolution, but didn't meet that bar. "Gamers quickly noticed and complained that Killzone's multiplayer graphics were blurry to the point of distraction," Ladore's complaint alleges. Sony moved to dismiss the complaint on several grounds. The company argued that its representations about the graphics weren't false, that Ladore didn't adequately plead reliance on any alleged misrepresentation, that the game doesn't fall under the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act and that the "economic loss rule" bars Ladore's tort claim for negligent misrepresentation. But on December 16, U.S. District Judge Edward Chen denied all but one of Sony's arguments, holding the company's motion was "premised on an unduly narrow reading of plaintiff's complaint." "The substantial majority of the arguments Sony raises in its motion to dismiss can be rejected for two simple reasons -- either Sony's arguments ignore important factual allegations that are well pleaded in Ladore's complaint, or Sony's arguments require this court to construe the complaint in the light most favorable to Sony, rather than Ladore, who is entitled to the benefit of all reasonable inferences at this stage of the proceedings," Chen wrote. On Ladore's negligent misrepresentation cause of action, however, Chen found the claim inadequately pleaded under the economic loss rule since Ladore hadn't asserted any non-economic losses stemming from his purchase of the game. Ladore has 30 days to file an amended complaint. The case is Douglas Ladore, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Sony Computer Entertainment America, LLC, Case No. 3:14-cv-03530-EMC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Schedules Reset In November, Judge Chen allowed the parties to reset schedules in the case. On November 3, 2014, the parties conferred and Plaintiff indicated that, due to the availability of counsel, he requires additional time to prepare and file his responses to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Request for Judicial Notice. The parties also agreed that scheduling issues pertaining to the upcoming Thanksgiving holiday necessitate further adjustments to the briefing and hearing schedule on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Request for Judicial Notice. Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Request for Judicial Notice were due November 12, 2014 and Defendant's reply in support of its Motion to Dismiss and Request for Judicial Notice were due on November 19, 2014 with a hearing scheduled on December 11, 2014 at 1:30 pm before Judge Edward M. Chen in Courtroom 5. The parties agreed to modify hearing date and briefing schedule follows: 1) Request that the hearing on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss be moved to December 18, 2014; 2) Plaintiff's time in which to file his Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Request for Judicial Notice be extended to November 26, 2014 and; 3) Defendant's time in which to file its reply be extended to December 10, 2014. In a November 10, 2014 Order available at http://is.gd/BOmI6Xfrom Leagle.com, Judge Chen set the hearing on the case on December 18, and directed the parties to file opposition on November 26; file a reply on December 8. The case management conference was reset from Nov. 20 to December 18. The Joint CMC Statement due on December 11, 2014. Samuel Lasser -- sam@samlasserlaw.com -- at LAW OFFICE OF SAMUEL LASSER -- Jay Edelson -- edelson@edelson.com -- Rafey S. Balabanian --rbalabanian@edelson.com -- Benjamin S. Thomassen -- bthomassen@edelson.com -- Amir Missaghi -- amissagi@edelson.com - at EDELSON PC, Attorneys for Plaintiff Douglas Ladore and the Putative Class. Luanne Sacks -- lsacks@srclaw.com -- Michele D. Floyd -- mfloyd@srclaw.com -- at SACKS, RICKETTS & CASE LLP, Attorneys for Defendant SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT AMERICA, LLC. SONY CORP: Ex-Workers Express Frustration Over Data Leak Response ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hollie McKay, writing for Fox411, reports that the Sony hacking nightmare is getting darker by the day -- with the fallout expected to continue for some time. According to several former employees who had their private details disclosed online, the company's response has been unacceptable, and a class-action lawsuit is brewing. "Employees are currently investigating class action options as it seems there was reason to believe there was gross negligence on behalf of the company. We're all worried about our identities, privacy and our families and Sony so far hasn't done much to address the situation," one former Sony worker, whose passport, visa, social security number and contracts, have all been leaked, told FOX411. "Sony has not contacted ex-employees directly and we have been frustrated with the slow response from them. We've also largely been left in the dark about the matter." Another long-term employee, who left Sony earlier this year, concurred that class action suits are coming and that many persons have already been contacted by a major law firm. Former employees have also started a private Facebook group -- that now counts more than 2,000 members -- which enables them to exchange updates and advice. The former employee also claims that the company has failed to be proactive and "decided to make it the responsibility of former employees to reach them," and claims phone calls and emails to Sony have still not been returned. "Others have received automated replies stating that they were working on confirming the former employees' identity, but I'm not sure what this means," noted the ex-employee. "The studio has told current employees that they'll cover one year of ID protection, presumably they will include former employees too. Unless the Internet disappears over the next 12 months, it amounts to nothing. This is something we'll all be dealing with now for the rest of our lives." According to California attorney Leo Terrell of CleartheCourt.com, the basis of a potential suit will depend on the nature of the claims and if Sony acts negligently regarding the hacking. "We don't have knowledge right now as to whether or not Sony could have avoided this problem, or their (policies) were sloppy which allowed the hacking to occur," Mr. Terrell said. "Sony is under obligation now to protect the privacy rights of their employees as well as stars. The hackers have promised more damage." While many former workers are expressing their frustrations, it seems Sony is taking steps to keep current employees in the loop. FOX411 obtained a memo sent to current employees from Michael Lynton, Chairman and CEO, Sony Pictures Entertainment on Dec. 8 addressing the "highly sophisticated attack" and assuring all that the FBI has dedicated its senior staff to this investigation. Jason Glassberg, co-founder of Casaba Security and an ethical hacker routinely hired to break into the networks of Fortune 500 companies and major banks, as well as work with Asian businesses and Hollywood studios, said that Sony may have lost upwards of 100 terabytes of data -- but to-date only 40 gigabytes has been unveiled. "The hits keep coming and coming and show no sign of slowing, so there will definitely be more bad news ahead. This is an attack of historic proportions," Mr. Glassberg said. "Whoever did this wanted Sony to suffer, and suffer big time. They were not out to steal for profit. They were out to destroy." The entertainment and electronics conglomerate endured another blow on Dec. 8, with its PlayStation store suddenly becoming inaccessible to a number of users. The Tokyo-based computer entertainment division didn't refer to the incident as a hack, but said the matter was being investigated. It has been broadly speculated that North Korea is behind the mass hack because Sony is preparing to release the James Franco/Seth Rogan film "The Interview" which satirizes the nation's leader Kim Jong-un. However, in a statement over the weekend North Korean officials denied responsibility for the attack, indicating that it may have been orchestrated by an individual or group in support of the country. Conservative estimates suggest that Sony has lost around $170 million in revenue from the security breach, with tens of millions being lost with each passing day, particularly with the dissemination of stolen versions of key holiday films and the high possibility that stars will back away from the studio for future projects over security concerns. "Lawyers, accountants and business managers will demand from Sony additional safeguards to protect their clients' privacy rights," Terrell noted. Sony did not respond to a request for comment. But experts caution that it is not just other movie studios now need to be on high alert in the wake of the hack, but all U.S. businesses. "The cyber-attack is an incredibly important weapon going forward," Mr. Glassberg added. "Most of the time, cyber-attacks are definitely economic warfare." ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MO: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Court Fees ---------------------------------------------------------------- Brandie Piper and Christina Coleman, writing for KSDK-TV report that seven class action lawsuits have been filed against St. Louis County cities by a team of attorneys from three law offices, because they say the cities have charged illegal fees in municipal court. The lawsuits were filed against Ferguson, Beverly Hills, Fenton, Jennings, Pine Lawn, Wellston, and Velda City and claim warrant fees were not authorized by state law. The lawsuits were filed on Dec. 8 electronically, so some city officials may not even know that they're facing a lawsuit just yet. Attorneys from Saint Louis University Legal Clinics, Arch City Defenders, and Campbell Law are representing the plaintiffs in the lawsuits. They want defendants who had to pay the fees to avoid going to jail to be reimbursed. Ferguson City Council recently approved three laws that would ensure court fine revenues stay at or below 15 percent of the city's overall revenue, repeal a "failure to appear" offense as well as eliminate administrative and other fees for towing and failure to appear. The municipalities are expected to be served with the formal summons within the next few days. Lawsuits against additional cities may be filed. SYNGENTA CORP: Nebraska Farmers Join GMO Corn Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Russell Hubbard, writing for World-Herald News Service, reports that about 20 Nebraska farmers have recently joined the legal fray against seed company Syngenta, filing lawsuits over genetically modified corn. The lawsuits, filed in U.S. District Court in Omaha, say the Minnesota-based ag company sold seeds with gene-modified traits that are unacceptable to buyers in China, which the suits say did not approve the crops for import. The suits say even Nebraska farmers who didn't use the Syngenta Viptera and Duracade seeds have suffered losses because the Syngenta corn has contaminated "farmland, farming equipment, storage facilities, harvesting equipment, and transportation facilities," resulting in wholesale rejection of U.S. shipments by China. U.S. corn exports to worldwide buyers almost tripled in the 12 months ended Sept. 30, according to U.S. Agriculture Department statistics. But exports to China fell 85 percent in the early part of 2014, according to the National Grain and Feed Association. Nebraska is the nation's third-largest corn producer, after Iowa and Illinois. "It is difficult to isolate once it gets in the system," said John Hansen, president of the Nebraska Farmers Union. "It is also reckless and irresponsible to release genetically modified seed prior to approval" of major trading partners. Syngenta Seeds, a unit of Switzerland-based agribusiness giant Syngenta AG, said in a statement the suits are without merit and that growers should have the right to use new seeds that increase productivity and profitability. The Viptera seed, Syngenta said, has been approved for cultivation in the United States since 2010. "Syngenta also obtained import approval from major corn importing countries," the company said. The Syngenta seeds have a genetically modified protein that allegedly makes the corn plant more resistant to insects and other pests, the suits say. The recent Nebraska suits are not the only ones citing Syngenta. Earlier, suits seeking class-action status were filed in Nebraska, Minnesota, Illinois, Iowa, Missouri and Kansas. Genetically modified crop seeds are common in Nebraska, with 98 percent of farmers using them, according to the Nebraska Department of Agriculture. TAKATA CORP: Judge Stays Florida Airbag Class Action Proceeding --------------------------------------------------------------- Bloomberg reports that consumers can't immediately pursue a lawsuit against Takata Corp. and multiple carmakers claiming loss of vehicle value tied to airbag recalls while awaiting a decision that would combine more than 50 cases before one judge. U.S. District Judge James Lawrence King on Dec. 8 stayed proceedings in a proposed class action filed in Miami federal court and denied a plaintiffs' request for immediate disclosure of evidence. A panel of federal judges will decide after a Jan. 29 hearing whether the Florida case will be combined with the others and, if so, which judge would oversee the lawsuits. Waiting for the panel to combine the cases is more "efficient" than handling motions in individual suits, King said at a hearing in Miami on Dec. 8. The lawsuits were spurred by a series of recalls, now up to more than 10 million vehicles in the U.S. equipped with Takata airbags. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has said Takata's air-bag inflators may malfunction if exposed to consistently high humidity by deploying with too much force, shooting metal pieces into drivers and passengers. Four deaths in the U.S. and one in Malaysia have been linked to air-bag shrapnel. Vehicle value Takata is facing more than 55 proposed class actions in the U.S. by customers seeking payment for alleged losses in vehicle value connected to the recalls. Honda Motor Co. is named in almost all of them. Other defendants named in multiple suits include Ford Motor Co., Toyota Motor Corp., Chrysler, BMW and General Motors Co. Plaintiffs' lawyers and the defendants are seeking to have all the suits combined in one federal court. The plaintiffs have suggested federal courts in cities including Miami, Detroit, New Orleans, Houston and Los Angeles as possible sites for the multidistrict litigation. Honda and the other automakers said in a Nov. 26 filing that Pittsburgh would be the "most logical venue" because two principle Takata subsidiaries and all the U.S. defendants have headquarters or operations nearby. Coordination of the cases before one judge is "plainly warranted," lawyers for the carmakers said. At least nine cases have been filed this year in U.S. courts claiming deaths or personal injuries caused by exploding Takata airbags. Two of these claims involved deaths, one over a California man who died in 2013, the other of a Florida woman who died in October. Some of these death and injury suits may be combined for evidence- gathering before the federal court selected to oversee economic loss claims, attorney Peter Prieto said in an interview before the Dec. 8 hearing. TESCO PLC: Faces "Davidson" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports -------------------------------------------------------------- Stephen M. Davidson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Tesco Plc, Philip Clarke, and Laurie McIlwee, Case No. 1:14-cv-09927 (S.D.N.Y., December 16, 2014), alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Tesco Plc is a multinational grocery and general merchandise retailer headquartered in Cheshunt, Hertfordshire, England, United Kingdom. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory Mark Nespole, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 270 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 545-4657 Facsimile: (212) 545-4693 E-mail: nespole@whafh.com TESCO PLC: Bernstein Litowitz Files Securities Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP on Dec. 10 disclosed that it has filed a securities class action lawsuit on behalf of the Chester County Employees Retirement Fund against Tesco PLC, as well as certain of the Company's officers and directors ("Defendants"). The action asserts claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") on behalf of investors in Tesco American Depositary Receipts ("ADRs") during the period of April 17, 2013 through October 22, 2014, inclusive (the "Class Period"). A copy of the Complaint filed in the action, captioned Chester County Employees Retirement Fund v. Tesco PLC, No. 1:14- cv-9757 (S.D.N.Y.), is available on BLB&G's website at www.blbglaw.com The Complaint expands the class period that was asserted in a related action against Tesco, captioned Irving Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund v. Tesco PLC, No. 14-cv-8495-RMB (S.D.N.Y.) ("Irving"), which is the first-filed securities class action in this matter and is presently pending before the Honorable Richard M. Berman. Pursuant to the notice published on October 23, 2014 in connection with the filing of the Irving action, as required by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, investors wishing to serve as lead plaintiff are required to file a motion for appointment as lead plaintiff by no later than December 22, 2014. In addition, Judge Berman entered an order on November 25, 2014 stating that motions seeking appointment as lead plaintiff must be filed by December 22, 2014. The filing of the Complaint by BLB&G does not alter that deadline. The Complaint alleges that beginning on April 17, 2013 and throughout the Class Period, Tesco and certain of its senior executives violated provisions of the Exchange Act by disseminating false and misleading press releases, financial statements, and statements during investor conference calls. As alleged in the Complaint, throughout the Class Period, Tesco and certain of its senior executives misrepresented Tesco's financial results and operations by, among other things, improperly recognizing commercial income and delaying the accrual of costs under the Company's arrangements with its U.K. suppliers. On September 22, 2014, Tesco disclosed that the Company had identified a "serious" accounting issue and had overstated profits for the first half of the year by at least œ250 million ($400 million) by improperly and prematurely recognizing revenue and delaying accrual of costs. Tesco also disclosed that it had suspended a number of senior executives and announced that it had hired an external auditor to investigate the accounting manipulations. On October 23, 2014, Tesco disclosed that the size of the misstatement was actually at least œ263 million ($420 million), that similar improper accounting practices had impacted its reported financial results in prior periods, and that the Company's chairman was resigning. In the wake of these disclosures, Tesco securities have plunged in value, with the Company's ADRs losing over half of their value in the past year. The action asserts claims under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act against the Defendants, and asserts claims under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against certain of the Company's officers and directors. The deadline for filing a motion for appointment as lead plaintiff is December 22, 2014. Any member of the proposed Class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain a member of the proposed Class. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact Avi Josefson of BLB&G at 212-554-1493, or via e-mail at avi@blbglaw.com Since its founding in 1983, BLB&G -- http://www.blbglaw.com-- specializes in securities fraud, corporate governance, shareholders' rights, employment discrimination, and civil rights litigation, among other practice areas, BLB&G prosecutes class and private actions on behalf of institutional and individual clients worldwide. TIBCO SOFTWARE: Court Denied Plaintiffs' Request to Enjoin Merger ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware issued a memorandum opinion in the consolidated class action In re TIBCO Software Inc. Stockholders Litigation on November 25, 2014, according to the company's Nov. 28, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014. Among other things, the Court of Chancery denied plaintiff's request to enjoin the pending merger between TIBCO Software Inc. and an affiliate of Vista Equity Partners. TOWER RESEARCH: Sued Over Illegal Manipulation Contracts Price -------------------------------------------------------------- Myun-Uk Choi, Jin-Ho Jung, Sunghun Jung, Sung-Hee Lee, and Kyungsub Lee, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Tower Research Capital LLC and Mark Gorton, Case No. 1:14-cv-09912 (S.D.N.Y., December 16, 2014), alleges that the Defendants used fictitious trades and other spoofing techniques to manipulate the price of KOSPI 200 Futures contracts traded on the CME Globix for their own profit. Tower Research Capital LLC is a financial services firm headquartered at 377 Broadway, New York, NY. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Stephen Sommers, Esq. John Douglas Richards, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Avenue, N.W. Suite 500, West Tower Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 Facsimile: (202) 408-4699 E-mail: dsommers@cohenmilstein.com drichards@cohenmilstein.com - and - Michael Benjamin Eisenkraft, Esq. Richard A. Speirs, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL P.L.L.C. 88 Pine Street, 14th, Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 838-7797 Facsimile: (212) 838-7745 E-mail: meisenkraft@cohenmilstein.com rspeirs@cohenmilstein.com UGI CORP: Antitrust Suits by Customers Transferred to Missouri -------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred purported class action cases filed against UGI Corporation by certain direct and indirect customers to the Western Division of the Western District of Missouri, according to the company's Nov. 28, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2014. On or about November 4, 2011, the General Partner received notice that the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") had initiated an antitrust and consumer protection investigation into certain practices of the Partnership relating to the filling of portable propane cylinders. On February 2, 2012, the Partnership received a Civil Investigative Demand from the FTC that requested documents and information concerning, among other things, (i) the Partnership's decision, in 2008, to reduce the volume of propane in cylinders it sells to consumers from 17 pounds to 15 pounds, and (ii) cross-filling, related service arrangements and communications regarding the foregoing with competitors. The Partnership responded to that subpoena and cooperated with subsequent requests for information. On March 27, 2014, the FTC issued an administrative complaint against the Partnership and UGI alleging that the General Partner and one of its competitors colluded in 2008 to persuade its common customer, Walmart Stores, Inc., to accept the cylinder fill reduction from 17 pounds to 15 pounds. The complaint does not seek monetary remedies. The Partnership and UGI filed their answer to the complaint on April 18, 2014. On August 25, 2014, the parties entered into an Agreement Containing Consent Orders, and on August 27, 2014, the FTC issued an Order Withdrawing Matter from Adjudication for the Purpose of Considering a Proposed Consent Agreement. Following the issuance of the FTC's administrative complaint, more than 35 class action lawsuits were filed in multiple jurisdictions against the Partnership/UGI Corporation and a competitor by certain of their direct and indirect customers. The class action lawsuits allege that the Partnership and its competitor colluded in 2008 to reduce the fill level and combined to persuade its common customer, Walmart Stores, Inc., to accept that fill reduction, resulting in increased cylinder costs to retailers and end-user customers in violation of federal and certain state antitrust laws. The claims seek treble damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs on behalf of the putative classes. On October 16, 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred all of these purported class action cases to the Western Division of the Western District of Missouri. UNITED STATES: Judge Certifies Immigration Class Action v. DHS -------------------------------------------------------------- Brooke Self, writing for Daily Press, reports that a detainee inside the U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement Facility in Adelanto is one of the lead names in a class-action lawsuit filed against the Department of Homeland Security on behalf of thousands seeking asylum. The case was recently certified by a federal court judge after the government motioned to dismiss the suit involving plaintiffs who are held for months while awaiting screening interviews that allow them to proceed on their claims for protection in U.S. immigration courts. Marco Antonio Alfaro Garcia, an El Salvadorian national, waited for at least two months for a "reasonable fear" screening or interview to determine the level of persecution or torture he might encounter by returning to his home country. "These are individuals who seek protection in the United States but are forced to languish in detention waiting to move forward on their cases, simply because the Department (of Homeland Security) has ignored its own regulation mandating the prompt processing of these claims," Michael Kaufman, a staff attorney with the ACLU Foundation of Southern California, said in a written statement. "At a time of some progress in the immigration system, this ruling highlights a troubling trend that has been left unaddressed by the President's executive action." The lawsuit was filed in April in the federal District Court of Northern California by ACLU Foundation of Southern California, ACLU of Northern California and Heartland Alliance's National Immigrant Justice Center on behalf of the thousands of individuals each year who receive summary removal orders but express a fear of return to their home countries. During Alfaro Garcia's prolonged detention, his family has struggled financially, according to an ACLU news release. Prior to his detention, he worked as a welder and was the sole breadwinner for his wife and children. Though a regulation requires the Department of Homeland Security to conduct the screening interviews within 10 days, the government routinely delays conducting interviews for months and, in some cases, over a year -- during which time these individuals remain detained. In the Nov. 21 ruling, the court found that "the agency appears to have ignored the regulatory deadline altogether." In rejecting the government's motion to dismiss, the court held that "the (regulation) does require the agency to complete reasonable fear determinations within 10 days as a general matter," and that "the agency cannot unilaterally disregard the requirements" of the regulation. The court also granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification, and certified a class of all noncitizens who are subject to the "reasonable fear" process nationwide -- a total of several thousand people each year. "We are eager to push forward with the case," said Julia Harumi Mass, a senior staff attorney at the ACLU of Northern California, "and obtain relief for thousands of asylum seekers who suffer prolonged detention and stalled protection from persecution because of interview delays throughout the country." US CENTURY: Settles Derivative Class Action for $4.5 Million ------------------------------------------------------------ Nathan Hale, writing for Law360, reports that U.S. Century Bank signed a $4.5 million settlement agreement on Dec. 9 resolving a shareholder derivative class action against the Miami-area bank and four related lawsuits, a day after a state appeals court refused to stay the trial judge's order for it to do so, according to court records. The signing of the agreement ends several weeks of resistance from the bank and resolves the cases Silva et al. v. U.S. Century Bank and Tome et al. v. U.S. Century Bank, which sought to bring direct claims for shareholders against the bank, and three cases involving the bank's insurers. Florida Circuit Judge John W. Thornton dismissed the Tome case in October, and the parties requested that an appeal be remanded to him for dismissal pursuant to the settlement. U.S. Century Bank became the largest undercapitalized bank in the country, and minority shareholders' investments lost 98 percent of their value, according to the class action complaint, filed as a derivative suit in November 2012 and a class action in January 2013. Judge Thornton denied the bank's objection to the settlement in an Oct. 30 ruling, but the bank refused to sign the settlement agreement based on opposition from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp, with which it previously entered into a consent decree. The bank reiterated its resistance to signing the settlement at a Nov. 10 final fairness hearing. Bank counsel Andres Rivero of Rivero Mestre LLP threw himself at the mercy of the court, saying that federal regulators continued to threaten sanctions. "I am worried about your clients if they don't sign it," Judge Thornton told Rivero, saying he would issue a show cause order if they did not and noting that in six years on the civil court bench, he has never thrown anyone in jail, but that the defendants faced that risk. An order to show cause was filed Nov. 21, according to court records. At the fairness hearing, plaintiffs' counsel Gonzalo Dorta -- grd@dortalaw.com -- of Dorta Law also urged the court not to allow the continued objection and further litigation to result in any delays to the funding of his clients' recovery. In an emergency motion for stay filed in the Third District Court of Appeal as part of its appeal of Judge Thornton's order, U.S. Century Bank said the FDIC had informed the bank in an August letter that the bank was not authorized to execute the proposed settlement agreement and that it would consider it a violation of the consent order if it did so without proper permission. The regulatory body threatened possible civil money penalties against the bank and members of its board of directors, the bank said. "The bank faces the impossible situation of having to choose between withstanding the FDIC's imposition of civil monetary penalties (and the risk of becoming insolvent or worse, being shutdown for violating of the consent order), or this court's imposition of criminal contempt," the bank said in its motion. On the morning of the final fairness hearing, the Florida Office of Financial Regulation, also party to the consent order, informed the bank that exercising a "stock option" in the settlement would violate state law limiting its issuance of shares. On Dec. 8, however, the Third District denied the bank's motion, and vacated its temporary stay entered Nov. 26, according to court records. The $4.5 million recovery, which represents 40 percent of plaintiffs' anticipated recovery from a trial, will come from insurance coverage, counsel said during the fairness hearing. In addition to that, shareholders secured some unusual provisions allowing them to retain their interest in the company and ability to police it, and also to make an additional 10 percent investment that will allow them to share in the profits in the likelihood the bank is sold. The plaintiffs claimed that insiders, including the bank's directors, received loans at special rates and that the bank rented directors' properties for bank branches at exaggerated lease rates. At the peak of the insider lending scheme, U.S. Century Bank had about $111.9 million in outstanding loans to its own officers and directors, exceeding 94 percent of the bank's equity capital, according to the complaint. In 2009, the bank received $50.2 million through the federal Troubled Asset Relief Program -- the largest grant in Florida -- but squandered that money on more insider loans to finance construction projects, the plaintiffs said. The plaintiffs are represented by Gonzalo R. Dorta of Dorta Law and by Elisabeth M. Culmo of Silva & Silva PA. U.S. Century Bank is represented by Andres Rivero and G. Raemy Charest -- rcharest@riveromestre.com -- of Rivero Mestre LLP. The individual defendants are represented by Marty Steinberg -- msteinberg@bilzin.com -- Mitchell Widom and Justin Brenner -- jbrenner@bilzin.com -- of Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod LLP. The cases are Silva et al. v. U.S. Century Bank et al., case number 2012-44522-CA-40, and Tome et al. v. U.S. Century Bank et al., case number 2013-987-CA-40, both in the Circuit Court for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida. US FOODSERVICE: Class Action Settlement Obtains Final Court Okay ---------------------------------------------------------------- On December 9, 2014, U.S. District Judge Alvin W. Thompson granted final approval of a $297 million settlement between plaintiffs in a multidistrict class action and defendant U.S. Foodservice, Inc. and its former Dutch parent company, Koninklijke Ahold, N.V. "We are pleased with the Court's grant of final approval and entry of judgment. We appreciate the court's recognition of the many years of hard work that have gone into achieving this noteworthy result for the class." Richard L. Wyatt Jr., partner and co-leader of Hunton & Williams' litigation department, who led the firm's legal team on behalf of the plaintiff class -- which includes restaurants, hospitals, universities and other food service providers across the United States -- had several comments: "We are pleased with the Court's grant of final approval and entry of judgment. We appreciate the court's recognition of the many years of hard work that have gone into achieving this noteworthy result for the class." "The settlement has been very well received in the food service industry. Many in the industry have been vocal with their support, and the Court did not receive a single objection to the settlement." "The settlement funds are very substantial, and we look forward to distributing them to the class, including the many hospitals and restaurant operators across the country who are among some of the largest customers of U.S. Foodservice." This agreement is believed to be one of the largest civil RICO class action settlements in recent history and was reached on behalf of a class of customers, primarily hospitals, restaurant operators, universities and other food service providers, who purchased products from U.S. Foodservice under cost-plus arrangements between 1998 and 2005. The class claimed that it was defrauded by U.S. Foodservice when it created six companies that it controlled to inflate the "cost component" of the products that were subject to the arrangement. The parties entered into settlement talks when the United States Supreme Court declined to review a federal appeals court opinion affirming certification of a nationwide class of plaintiffs for RICO and breach of contract violations against U.S. Foodservice. The Court on Dec. 9 found the settlement to be a "fair, adequate and reasonable" resolution of the plaintiffs' claims. Class members can file claims to recover their damages at www.usfoodservicepricinglitigation.com until December 19, 2014. The Hunton team representing the plaintiffs-class of customers was led by Richard L. Wyatt Jr. and included Torsten M. Kracht, Ryan P. Phair, Carter T. Coker, Rachel E. Mossman and Christopher J. Dufek. Plaintiffs were also represented by R. Laurence Macon -- lmacon@akingump.com -- of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, LLP, James E. Hartley, Jr. of Drubner Hartley & Hellman, LLC, Joseph R, Whatley, Jr. -- jwhatley@whatleykallas.com -- of Whatley Kallas, LLP, Celeste T. Jones -- cjones@mcnair.net -- of The McNair Law Firm, P.A., Mr. Gray of Gray and White, LLP and Robert Foote -- rmf@fmcolaw.com -- of Foote, Mielkie, Chavez and O'Neil, LLC. U.S. Koninklijke Ahold, N.V (also known as Royal Ahold) and U.S. Foodservice were represented by White & Case LLP and Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP. About Hunton & Williams LLP Since its establishment more than a century ago, Hunton & Williams -- http://www.hunton.com-- has grown to 800 lawyers serving clients from 19 offices worldwide. With an industry focus on energy, financial services, consumer products and retail, and real estate, the firm's global experience extends to legal disciplines including corporate transactions and securities law, intellectual property, international and government relations, regulatory law, privacy and cybersecurity, and commercial litigation. UVEX SPORTS: Recalls Bicycle Helmets Due to Head Injury Risk ------------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Uvex Sports GmbH & Co. KG, Germany, announced a voluntary recall of 46,800 UVEX Bicycle Helmets. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The anchor for the helmet's chinstrap can fail, causing the helmets to slide off the head, posing a head injury hazard. The bicycle helmets also do not comply with the impact requirements of the CPSC safety standards for bicycle helmets. There were no incidents that were reported. The recall involves seven models of UVEX helmets. The helmets come in a variety of colors with different colored chin straps. The helmets have a model number inside the helmet under the fitting pad on the top right side. The affected helmet model numbers are XB017, XB022, XB025, XB027, XB032, XB036 and XB038. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/sOqXFZ The recalled products were manufactured in Germany and sold at Sporting goods and bicycle specialty stores nationwide from September 2009 through June 2014 for about $100 to $260. Consumers should stop using the helmets and contact UVEX for a free compliant helmet or a refund of the purchase price. VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports --------------------------------------------------------------- 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. 2:14-cv-09629 (C.D. Cal., December 16, 2014), alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. The Defendants own and operate a pharmaceutical company that manufactures and markets pharmaceuticals, over-the-counter products, and medical devices in the areas of eye health, dermatology, and neurology therapeutic classes. 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 VAM USA: "Durham" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Scott Durham and Eric Young, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Vam USA, LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-00488 (S.D. Tex., December 16, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. Vam USA, LLC manufactures and markets connection solutions for the oil and gas industry worldwide. The Plaintiff is represented by: William Clifton Alexander, Esq. SICO WHITE HOELSCHER & BRAUGH LLP 900 Frost Bank Plaza 802 N Carancahua Ste 900 Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 653-3300 Facsimile: (361) 653-3333 E-mail: calexander@swhhb.com VELOCITY EXPRESS: Faces "Mejia" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- William Mejia, on his own behalf, and on behalf of those similarly situated v. Velocity Express, LLC, Transforce, Inc., Vincent A. Wasik, Arlene Jordan, and "John Does #1-100, Case No. 1:14-cv- 09900 (S.D.N.Y., December 16, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week. Velocity Express, LLC provides customized, same day regional delivery services across the United States and Western Canada. The Plaintiff is represented by: Eli Zev Freedberg, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ELI FREEDBERG P.C. 11 Broadway, Suite 615 New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (347) 651-0044 Facsimile: (212) 214-0799 E-mail: efreedberg@ezf-law.com VESTAS WIND: Portland Court Approves Class Action Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------ On March 21, 2011, Vestas disclosed that a lawsuit had been filed as a class action in a US court against Vestas Wind Systems A/S, its US subsidiary and certain officers and directors, ref. company announcement No. 8/2011 of March 21, 2011. In company announcement No. 25/2014 of June 26, 2014, Vestas disclosed that a conditional settlement of this dispute had been reached. As part of this settlement, the claims against the individual officers and directors were also dropped. The settlement consists of a cash payment of USD5 million to the plaintiffs, and this amount will be paid in its entirety by Vestas' insurer. The United States District Court, Portland Division, has now approved the proposed settlement. This settlement will become final 30 days after the court approval unless the approval is appealed. One of the allegations raised by the plaintiffs was that Vestas' share price had been inflated during the class period due to misstatements and omissions in relation to the company's accounting for supply-and-installation contracts under IFRIC 15. Vestas expressly denies all allegations in the lawsuit and maintains that its disclosures to the public were appropriate at all times. Vestas therefore does not concede any wrongdoing or liability in relation to the claims raised against it. Nevertheless, it has been deemed desirable for Vestas to resolve the claims in order to end the substantial expenses, burdens and uncertainties associated with continued litigation in the USA. The settlement relates only to purchases of American Depositary Receipts and ordinary shares bought in US domestic transactions during the US class period commencing February 11, 2009 and ending February 9, 2012. The settlement does not affect other transactions or the lawsuit that was filed in the City Court of Aarhus by 87 shareholders in August 2013, ref. company announcement No. 35/2013 of 16 August 2013. WEATHERFORD INTERNATIONAL: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------ Wayne King, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Weatherford International, LLC, Case No. 4:14-cv-03584 (S.D. Tex., December 16, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of forty 40 hours in a single workweek. Weatherford International, LLC is one of the largest oilfield services companies in the world. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. FIBICH, HAMPTON, LEEBRON, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON, LLP 1150 Bissonnet St Houston, TX 77005 Telephone: (713) 751-0025 Facsimile: (713) 751-0030 E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com WEGMANS: Recalls Moody Face Stress Balls Due to Choking Hazard -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Gift Craft, of Williamsville, NY, announced a voluntary recall of 7,000 Gift Gallery Moody Face Stress Balls. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. These rubber stress balls can break into pieces when squeezed, posing a choking hazard to young children. The Gift Gallery Moody Face Stress Balls are solid rubber balls that you can squeeze in your hand. These stress balls were sold in five colors: blue, green, orange, red and yellow and have black eyes and mouth as a smiley face printed on the front with pink, orange or yellow yarn hair on top. The balls measure about 2.5 inches in diameter. The stress balls were packaged in a clear bag with a white square label that has the "Gift Gallery" logo, model number 205617 and UPC code 0-67103-30053-6. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/M3Qeub The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Wegmans in Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania and Virginia during September 2014 for about $1. Consumers should immediately stop using these stress balls and return them to any Wegmans service desk for a full refund. WHIRLPOOL CORP: Judge Refuses to Certify Pollution Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that a federal judge in Arkansas says he won't certify a complaint against Whirlpool Corp. as a class- action lawsuit because he is not sure whether residents of a polluted Arkansas neighborhood or the company is the driving force behind it. The Southwest Times Record reported that U.S. District Judge P.K. Holmes III rejected a joint motion seeking class-action status and approval of a proposed settlement. "It seems the parties have only engaged in settlement negotiations" rather than conducting discovery or otherwise pressing their sides of the lawsuit, Judge Holmes wrote. The proposed settlement would see Whirlpool give an "incentive payment" to people pressing the lawsuit for the entire group. Judge Holmes said such language is present in "adversarial proceedings," but said that's not the case in the current lawsuit. "The incentive clause raises questions about vigorous prosecution," Holmes wrote. A degreasing solvent, trichloroethylene, leaked into groundwater near the plant between the late 1960s and early 1980s, reducing property values. Benton Harbor, Mich.-based Whirlpool closed the plant in 2012. Whirlpool requested a ban on new water wells near the plant in 2013, renewing concerns that contamination had spread, and a lawsuit was filed in state court in May 2013. It was moved to federal court a month later, and in July this year plaintiffs and the company asked Holmes to OK a settlement. Judge Holmes singled out a lawyer whose "goal from the beginning was to compromise for less than the damages he believes are available, even though that attorney also assumed that liability for the TCE plume would not be hotly contested (by Whirlpool)." The judge questioned whether a class action was necessary at all and didn't address the proposed settlement, which included: -- Payments to property owners nearest the plant equal to their decrease in property values; -- $5,000 payments to property owners farther away; -- A ban on new wells in the area. WINDOWCRAFT INC: Recalls Custom Roller Shades Due to Injury Risk ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Windowcraft Inc. dba. WindowTex, of Garden City Park, NY, announced a voluntary recall of about 6,800 Roller Window Shades. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. A steel pin inserted into the idler on the shades can become dislodged and cause the shade to fall from the mounting bracket, posing a risk of injury from impact to the consumer. WindowTex has received six reports of steel pins becoming dislodged from the window shade idler, causing some of the shades to fall. No injuries have been reported. The recall involves WindowTex custom-made fabric roller window shades that are raised and lowered by a side-mounted chain. The recalled shades have an idler with steel pin inserted into one end of the roller tube. The steel pin is used to connect the window shade to the metal mounting bracket. Roller shades included in this recall have idlers with model number D15T, used with a 1 1/2 inch roller tube, and model number D20T, used with a 2 inch roller tube. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/9AU35f The recalled products were manufactured in USA and sold at WindowTex authorized dealers nationwide from April 2014 through June 2014 for between $100 and $500. Consumers with the recalled window shades should immediately contact the place of purchase for instructions on how to schedule a service call for free replacement idlers. Consumers can also contact WindowTex for help identifying their authorized dealer. Authorized dealers are contacting all known purchasers. WINNCOMPANIES INC: Judge Remands "Perez" Suit to Kern County ------------------------------------------------------------ Plaintiff Paul Perez alleged that he was employed by defendants WinnCompanies, Inc., and Winn Management Group in a salaried on- site-position but the latter misclassified him as exempt and paid him on a salary basis. Plaintiff seeks to represent a class defined as: "All current and former California-based (i.e., currently 'residing' in California with the intent to remain in California indefinitely) salaried on-site employees employed by any of the Defendants within the State of California at any time during the period from four years preceding the filing of this Complaint to final judgment. Plaintiff raises nine causes of action for wage and hour violations against Defendants: (1) violation of California Labor Code Sections 510 and 1198 (unpaid overtime); (2) violation of California Labor Code Sections 226.7 and 512(a) (unpaid meal period premiums); (3) violation of California Labor Code Section 226.7 (unpaid rest period premiums); (4) violation of California Labor Code Sections 201 and 202 (final wages not timely paid); (5) violation of California Labor Code Section 204 (wages not timely paid during employment); (6) violation of California Labor Code Section 226(a) (non-compliant wage statements); (7) California Labor Code Section 1174(d) (failure to keep requisite payroll records; (8) violation of California Labor Code Sections 2800 and 2802 (unreimbursed business expenses) and (9) violation of California Business & Professions Code Sections 17200, et seq. (unfair competition/unfair business practices). Defendants filed a Notice of Removal asserting the Court has diversity jurisdiction over the action. Plaintiff filed a motion to remand. Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston of the Eastern District of California granted plaintiff's motion to remand the case to the Kern County Superior Court. All remaining motions are terminated as moot. The case is entitled PAUL PEREZ, individually and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. WINNCOMPANIES, INC., and WINN MANAGEMENT GROUP, Defendants, Case No. 1:14-Cv-01497-LJO-JLT (E.D. Cal.). A copy of Judge Magistrate Judge Thurston's order dated November 7, 2014 is available at http://is.gd/uCRsAlfrom Leagle.com. Paul Perez, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Arby Aiwazian -- at The Aiwazian Law Firm -- Edwin Aiwazian -- edwin@lfjpc.com -- and -- Jill Jessica Parker -- jill@lfjpc.com -- at Lawyers for Justice, PC Winncompanies, Inc., an unknown business entity and Winn Management Group, an unknown business entity, Defendants, represented by Hillary Mari Thornton -- hthornton@laborlawyers.com -- and -- Mark Jarrod Jacobs -- mjacobs@laborlawyers.com -- at Fisher & Phillips, LLP YALE ENFORCEMENT: "Jone" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Gregory Jones, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Yale Enforcement Services, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv- 02831 (E.D. La., December 16, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. Yale Enforcement Services, Inc. is located at 3867 Plaza Tower Drive, 1st Floor, Baton Rouge, LA, 70816. The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher L. Williams, Esq. WILLIAMS LITIGATION, L.L.C. 1055 St. Charles Ave., Suite 300 New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 308-1438 Facsimile: (504) 308-1446 E-mail: chris@williamslitigation.com YAMAHA: Recalls YZ250 Competition Off-Road Motorcycles ------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Yamaha, announced a voluntary recall of about 875 off-road motorcycles. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The engine can lock up during operation, causing a rider to lose control of the vehicle and crash, resulting in injuries and death. There were no incidents that were reported. The recall involves model year 2015 Yamaha competition off-road motorcycles with model numbers YZ250FFL and YZ250FFW. The recalled motorcycles are blue and white, and white and red. The model number is on left and right side of the fuel tank cowling. The vehicle identification number (VIN) is stamped on the frame near the steering stem. The letter F in the 10th position of the VIN number indicates that the unit was made in the 2015 model year. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/OKxNwr The recalled products were manufactured in Japan and sold at Yamaha motorcycle dealers nationwide from May 2014 through November 2014 for about $7,600. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled motorcycles and contact their local Yamaha dealer to schedule a free repair. Yamaha is contacting all registered owners directly. ZUFFA LLC: Illegally Monopolizes MMA Promotions, "Le" Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Cung Le, Nathan Quarry, Jon Fitch, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Zuffa, LLC, d/b/a Ultimate Fighting Championship and UFC, Case No. 5:14-cv-05484 (N.D. Cal., December 16, 2014), arises out of the Defendant's overarching anticompetitive scheme to maintain and enhance its monopoly power in the market for promotion of live Elite Professional mixed martial arts bouts, and monopsony power in the market for live Elite Professional MMA Fighter services. The Defendants are engage in the business of promoting professional MMA events for live audiences as well as live television, Internet and PPV broadcasts, and licenses, markets, sells and distributes UFC Licensed Merchandise and/or Promotional Materials including. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph R. Saveri, Esq. Joshua P. Davis, Esq. Andrew M. Purdy, Esq. Kevin E. Rayhill, Esq. JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, INC. 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 625 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 500-6800 Facsimile: (415) 395-9940 E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com jdavis@saverilawfirm.com apurdy@saverilawfirm.com krayhill@saverilawfirm.com - and - Benjamin D. Brown, Esq. Hiba Hafiz, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC 1100 New York Ave., N.W., Suite 500, East Tower Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 Facsimile: (202) 408 4699 E-mail: bbrown@cohenmilstein.com hhafiz@cohenmilstein.com - and - Eric L. Cramer, Esq. Michael Dell'Angelo, Esq. BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 E-mail: ecramer@bm.net mdellangelo@bm.net * Food & Beverage False Ad Class Actions to Face Cert. Hurdles -------------------------------------------------------------- Scott Elder, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that surveying the class certification opinions from 2014 in cases involving alleged false advertising of food and beverage products demonstrates the continued difficulty in certifying these class actions. The U.S. Supreme Court's analysis of proposed classwide damages models in Comcast v. Behrend has proven to be a particularly high hurdle. In response, some courts have moved increasingly toward the certification of liability-only classes, deferring the damages issues and effectively continuing to pressure defendants to settle cases in which there are significant questions regarding whether the class can satisfy the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for class actions -- specifically, Rule 23. Next year is sure to bring more attention to the viability of liability-only classes, both in food and beverage and other potential class actions. COMCAST'S COLLATERAL DAMAGE In most cases, simpler damage theories such as a "full refund" model or "price premium/benefit of the bargain" model failed to support class certification. Neither theory appropriately calculated the restitutionary relief to which plaintiffs were entitled under the governing false-advertising law. "Full refund" models, in which plaintiffs seek the product's entire purchase price, typically failed because the models ignored that plaintiffs received some benefit from their purchase. "Price premium" models, in which plaintiffs seek the difference in price between the offending product and a comparable product without a deceptive label, failed to account for the fact that a price premium may exist for reasons other than the allegedly misleading label, such as brand loyalty or type of packaging. Satisfying Comcast typically required the use of a more complex regression analysis, which refers to a statistical process for estimating relationships between variables such as the relationship between the label and the purchase price. But, reliance on more complicated damage models did not guarantee certification. In fact, in food and beverage cases, a regression analysis typically supported certification only if the proposed model compared data on identical products before the label statement was introduced and after the alleged label misrepresentation appeared. Regression models generally fail to meet the strictures of Comcast where the expert fails to adequately explain the methodology behind the model or where it is clear that proposed model does not measure the difference between the product as labeled and the product the plaintiff actually received. Moreover, preliminary certification of a damages class does not guarantee continued certification, and the appropriateness of the model can change as discovery progresses. For example, the Northern District of California initially certified a class because a plaintiffs' expert alleged that he could compare data on identical products before and after defendant placed the phrase "All Natural Fruit" on the label. However, discovery revealed that the labels on the relevant products actually had not changed over the class period, rendering this comparison impossible. In response to the motion for decertification, a plaintiffs' expert maintained that he could still tie plaintiffs' damages to their theory of liability by comparing the defendant's products to competitors' products, but the court disagreed and decertified the damages class, leaving only a class for injunctive relief. CIRCUMVENTING COMCAST Several courts have dealt with Comcast issues by simply avoiding the problem until later in the case. In Lilly v. Jamba Juice, for example, the court declined to certify a damages class, but nevertheless certified a class for the sole purpose of determining liability pursuant to Rule 23(c)(4). The court followed several recent post-Comcast decisions from the U.S. courts of appeals for the Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Ninth circuits (In re Deepwater, In re Whirlpool, Butler v. Sears and Jiminez v. Allstate) certifying liability-only classes and finding that class damages issues can be addressed after class liability questions are resolved. Relying on these circuit courts, the Lilly court opined that "some of the difficulties in determining individual damages may fall away after liability is determined, depending upon which claims (if any) are successful, and which type of relief the class is entitled to." These 2014 food and beverage class actions suggest that defendants should continue to create a robust factual record at the class certification stage that provides a developed basis for challenging plaintiffs' damages model. Moreover, even after preliminary certification, a defendant should continue to explore the potential pitfalls of the plaintiffs' model given preliminary certification does not guarantee continued certification. However, defendants should also anticipate a potential course correction. It seems unlikely that the nation's most permissive courts will continue to decertify, or not certify at all, putative class actions solely on Comcast grounds. Practitioners should anticipate other courts in food and beverage cases deciding to bifurcate liability and damages issues under Rule 23(c)(4) with the hope that individual damages issues will fall away either through settlement or additional factual development before damages questions become ripe for adjudication. ********* 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 * * *