/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/150305.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, March 5, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 46 Headlines 3M COMPANY: Still Facing Respirator Mask/Asbestos Litigation 3M COMPANY: Parties in Environmental Case to Request Conference 3M COMPANY: Motion to Dismiss Ceradyne Class Action Denied ADVENT SOFTWARE: Being Sold to SS&C for Too Little, Class Says AES DRILLING: Faces "Campbell" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ALLSTATE CORP: Class Suit Challenges Insurance Price Increase AMERICAN SOCIETY: Court Certifies Class in Human Egg Donors Suit ANJDEV ENTREPRISES: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ANTHEM INC: Faces "Brock" Suit in Ind. Over Alleged Data Breach ANTHEM INC: Faces "D'Angelo" Suit in Georgia Over Data Breach ANTHEM INC: Faces "Peterman" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach ANTHEM BLUE: Allowed Hackers to Steal Personal Info, Suit Claims BANK OF THE WEST: Judge Denies Attorney Fees in App Patent MDL BLUE BIRD: Recalls 54 Buses Over Exhaust System Hanger Defect BLUE BIRD: Recalls 54 All American School Buses CALIFORNIA: Judge OKs Amendment to Solitary Confinement Suit CHEMOURS COMPANY: First Trial in Drinking Water Actions in Sept. CHEMOURS COMPANY: DuPont to Seek Dismissal of Amended TiO2 Suit CHRYSLER GROUP: Faces Suit Over Defective 160-Amp Alternators CLEAVER-BROOKS: Judge Slashes Damages Verdict to $30 Million COOK COUNTY, IL: Six-Figure Fine Is Unfair, Chicago Taxpayer Says COVISINT CORPORATION: Lead Plaintiff Filed Amended Complaint CETCO ENERGY: "Vidrine" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime DATASCOPE CORP: Recalls Intra-Aortic Balloon Pumps EPICOR SOFTWARE: Reported $0.8MM Income From Class Action Deal FERGUSON, MO: Jails Equated to Modern-Day Prison for Debtors FLAVOR RESTAURANT: Faces "Moore" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls 9,675 Cars Due to Steering Problem GENWEST TRANSPORTATION: Sued Over Consumer Report Policies GOOGLE INC: Judge Tosses Antitrust Class Action GOOGLE INC: Court Dismisses Class Suit by AdSense Participant GP STRATEGIES: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees, "Lester" Suit Says HABITAT FOR HUMANITY: "Allen" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC: Says Expense Attributable to Class Suit Deal HERBAL INSTINCT: Recalls Bentonite Due to High Lead Level HILLROM CORPORATION: Recalls Viking Patient Lifts HILTON HOTELS: Court Releases $75MM Bond in 17-Year-Old Action HOME DEPOT: Faces Navigant Credit Suit Over Alleged Data Breach HULU LLC: Seeks Dismissal of Privacy Class Action HYUNDAI MOTOR: Sued Over Models With Defective Electric System HYUNDAI MOTOR: Sued by Blue Link Customers Over Subscription Fees JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS: Psychiatrist Testifies in Risperdal Trial JB'S SAUSAGE: Recalls Sausage Products Due to Allergens JOY BURGER: "Villarreal" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages KIA MOTORS: Optima Cars Have Defective Door Locks, Suit Claims LENOVO INC: Sued Over Damages Caused by Pre-Installed Spyware LORILLARD INC: Trial Underway in 2 Engle Progeny Cases LORILLARD INC: Defendant in 6,228 Product Liability Cases LORILLARD INC: Tobacco Unit to Appeal Judgment in "Major" Case LORILLARD INC: 6 Product Liability Cases for Trial in 2015 LORILLARD INC: 3,792 Engle Progeny Cases Dismissed Since Jan 2010 LORILLARD INC: Verdicts Returned in 21 Engle Progeny Cases LORILLARD INC: Verdicts Returned in 132 Engle Progeny Trials LORILLARD INC: Severed IPIC Cases Not Subject to Trial Plan LORILLARD INC: One Flight Attendant Case Scheduled for Trial LORILLARD INC: Not a Defendant in 16 "Lights" Class Action Cases LORILLARD INC: Tobacco Unit a Defendant in 61 Filter Cases LORILLARD INC: Supreme Court Review Sought in Antitrust Case LORILLARD INC: Defendants in Merger Litigation Entered Into MOU LOS ANGELES, CA: Faces 3rd Class Suit Over Overcharged Bills MACK TRUCKS: Recalls 2015 LEU Models Due to Injury Risk MACK TRUCKS: Recalls 2014 CXU Models Due to Non-compliance MAJOR LEAGUE: Court to Decide if 11 Teams Will Be Part of Suit MAXWELL TECHNOLOGIES: Court Granted Final Approval to Settlement MCLACHLAN DRILLING: Faces "Stroman" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT MEL HARRIS: 2nd Cir. Upheld Sewer Service Classes Certification METROPOLITAN TEA: Recalls Flavored Tea Products Due to Milk MOLSON COORS: Named as Defendant in David Hughes Lawsuit MOTORS LIQUIDATION: Hearing on Threshold Issues Held in February NATIONWIDE STUDENT: Faces Class Suit Over Debt Consolidation Fees NESTLE PURINA: Faces Suit Alleging Beneful Dog Food Kills Pets NEW HAMPSHIRE: Admin. Services Sued Over FLSA Violations NEW YORK: Governor Called for Patience Over Rep. Grimm Issue NEWMAR: Recalls King Aire 2013 Models Due to Safety Risk NORTHERN TIER: Has Sent Spam Text Messages, "Soular" Suit Claims OFFICE DEPOT: Being Sold to Staples for Too Little, Suit Claims PATTERSON-UTI DRILLING: Sued in Tex. Over Failure to Pay OT Wages PENNER MANUFACTURING: Recalls Patient Stretchers PEOPLE'S STUDENT: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Fox" Suit Claims PERRY ELLIS: Misclassified Interns as Exempt, New York Suit Says PETSMART INC: March 2015 Hearing on Final Settlement Approval PETSMART INC: Motions Pending in "McKee" Class Action PETSMART INC: Deadlines in "Negrete" Action Stayed PETSMART INC: May 4 Final Approval Hearing in "Pace" Suit PETSMART INC: 8 Class Actions Filed Over BC Partners Transaction PHARMASCIENCE INC: Recalls PMS-Propofol Products PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Marshall Court Has Not Memorialized Decision PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Awaits Decision on Bid to Dismiss ERISA Claims PREIT ASSOCIATES: Sued Over Wheelchair-Inaccessible Parking Space PREMIUM PACKING: Accused of Not Paying OT to Agricultural Workers PROFESSIONAL DIRECTIONAL: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages RACING SERVICES: N.Dakota Must Return Money, 8th Cir. Says RJ REYNOLDS: Settles 400 Pending Tobacco Cases for $100MM ROCHE DIAGNOSTICS: Recalls INFORM HER2 DNA Probe Products SAFEWAY INC: Court Limits Class Suit Ruling to Certain Customers SCH CORP: 3rd Cir. Vacates District Court Ruling on NCG Deal SESAC LLC: Judge Awards $16MM Attorney Fees in Antitrust Suit SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Sued for Not Awarding Frequent Flier Passes ST. JOSEPH SERVICES: Court Junks Suit Arising From Data Breach STARSHIP ENTERPRISES: "Pippin" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages STOCKLOTS DISTRIBUTION: Recalls Boys Fleece Hooded Sweatshirts SUNSHINE MEDICAL: Faces "Sosa" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime TABOUN GRILL: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, Action Claims TAKATA CORP: Ordered by NHSA to Preserve Air Bag Parts in Probe TASTE OF COUNTRY: Recalls Chicken Pie Products Due to Milk TJX CANADA: Recalls Korma Simmer Sauce Products Due to Peanut TOTALLY GLUTEN: Recalls Pizza Products Due to Undeclared Mustard TRAVELERS COMPANIES: TPC Paid $579MM to Hawaii Action Plaintiffs UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Sued in Fla. for Employing Unlicensed Drivers USG CORP: To Pay Up to $48MM to Resolve Wallboard Purchaser Cases VIRTUS INVESTMENT: Sued in N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Reports VISION-SCIENCES: Named as Defendant in "Frustaci" Class Action WAL-MART STORES: Sued Over Misleading Herbal Supplement Ads WEATHERFORD INTERNATIONAL: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime WENDY'S OF LAS VEGAS: One Claim in Wage Class Action Survives WESTERN SCOTT FETZER: Recalls Valve Pressure Regulators WILLIAM COOK: Recalls Z. Alpha Thoracic Endo Grafts WOLFER LANDSCAPE: "Arango" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages WORLD FUEL: Motion to Bring Class Action Lawsuit Filed * NY Attorney General Targets Herbal Supplement Manufacturers * Transport Canada Recalls Certain Motorcycles Due to Injury Risk * Waiving Second Meal Break Violates California labor Code ********* 3M COMPANY: Still Facing Respirator Mask/Asbestos Litigation ------------------------------------------------------------ 3M Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that as of December 31, 2014, the Company is a named defendant, with multiple co-defendants, in numerous lawsuits in various courts that purport to represent approximately 2,220 individual claimants, compared to approximately 2,200 individual claimants with actions pending at December 31, 2013. The vast majority of the lawsuits and claims resolved by and currently pending against the Company allege use of some of the Company's mask and respirator products and seek damages from the Company and other defendants for alleged personal injury from workplace exposures to asbestos, silica, coal mine dust or other occupational dusts found in products manufactured by other defendants or generally in the workplace. A minority of the lawsuits and claims resolved by and currently pending against the Company generally allege personal injury from occupational exposure to asbestos from products previously manufactured by the Company, which are often unspecified, as well as products manufactured by other defendants, or occasionally at Company premises. The Company's current volume of new and pending matters is substantially lower than it experienced at the peak of filings in 2003. The Company expects that filing of claims by unimpaired claimants in the future will continue to be at much lower levels than in the past. Accordingly, the number of claims alleging more serious injuries, including mesothelioma and other malignancies, will represent a greater percentage of total claims than in the past. The Company has prevailed in all nine cases taken to trial, including seven of the eight cases tried to verdict (such trials occurred in 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003, 2004, and 2007), and an appellate reversal in 2005 of the 2001 jury verdict adverse to the Company. The ninth case, tried in 2009, was dismissed by the court at the close of plaintiff's evidence, based on the court's legal finding that the plaintiff had not presented sufficient evidence to support a jury verdict. The Company has demonstrated in these past trial proceedings that its respiratory protection products are effective as claimed when used in the intended manner and in the intended circumstances. Consequently the Company believes that claimants are unable to establish that their medical conditions, even if significant, are attributable to the Company's respiratory protection products. Nonetheless the Company's litigation experience indicates that claims of persons with malignant conditions are costlier to resolve than the claims of unimpaired persons, and it therefore believes the average cost of resolving pending and future claims on a per-claim basis will continue to be higher than it experienced in prior periods when the vast majority of claims were asserted by the unimpaired. 3M COMPANY: Parties in Environmental Case to Request Conference --------------------------------------------------------------- 3M Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the parties in an environmental litigation will request a status conference with the Morgan County court in the first half of 2015. A former employee filed a purported class action lawsuit in 2002 in the Circuit Court of Morgan County, Alabama, seeking unstated damages and alleging that the plaintiffs suffered fear, increased risk, subclinical injuries, and property damage from exposure to certain perfluorochemicals at or near the Company's Decatur, Alabama, manufacturing facility. The court in 2005 granted the Company's motion to dismiss the named plaintiff's personal injury- related claims on the basis that such claims are barred by the exclusivity provisions of the state's Workers Compensation Act. The plaintiffs' counsel filed an amended complaint in November 2006, limiting the case to property damage claims on behalf of a purported class of residents and property owners in the vicinity of the Decatur plant. Also, in 2005, the judge in a second purported class action lawsuit (filed by three residents of Morgan County, Alabama, seeking unstated compensatory and punitive damages involving alleged damage to their property from emissions of certain perfluorochemical compounds from the Company's Decatur, Alabama, manufacturing facility that formerly manufactured those compounds) granted the Company's motion to abate the case, effectively putting the case on hold pending the resolution of class certification issues in the first action, filed in the same court in 2002. Despite the stay, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint seeking damages for alleged personal injuries and property damage on behalf of the named plaintiffs and the members of a purported class. No further action in the case is expected unless and until the stay is lifted. In February 2009, a resident of Franklin County, Alabama, filed a purported class action lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Franklin County seeking compensatory damages and injunctive relief based on the application by the Decatur utility's wastewater treatment plant of wastewater treatment sludge to farmland and grasslands in the state that allegedly contain PFOA, PFOS and other perfluorochemicals. The named defendants in the case include 3M, Daikin America, Inc., Synagro-WWT, Inc., Synagro South, LLC, and Biological Processors of America. The named plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all persons within the State of Alabama who have had PFOA, PFOS, and other perfluorochemicals released or deposited on their property. In March 2010, the Alabama Supreme Court ordered the case transferred from Franklin County to Morgan County. In May 2010, consistent with its handling of the other matters, the Morgan County Circuit Court abated this case, putting it on hold pending the resolution of the class certification issues in the first case filed there. In May 2013, the court stayed the case due to co-defendant Synagro's bankruptcy filing. Pursuant to directions from the Morgan County court, on December 31, 2014, the parties reported that the Synagro Chapter 11 bankruptcy case was concluded and closed in September 2014. The parties will request a status conference with the Morgan County court in the first half of 2015. 3M COMPANY: Motion to Dismiss Ceradyne Class Action Denied ---------------------------------------------------------- 3M Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint in a class action was denied in January 2015. In October 2012, four plaintiffs filed purported class actions against Ceradyne, Inc., its directors, 3M, and Cyborg Acquisition Corporation (a direct wholly owned subsidiary of 3M) in connection with 3M's proposed acquisition of Ceradyne. Two suits were filed in California Superior Court for Orange County, and two were filed in the Delaware Chancery Court. The suits alleged that the defendants breached and/or aided and abetted the breach of their fiduciary duties to Ceradyne by seeking to sell Ceradyne through an allegedly unfair process and for an unfair price and on unfair terms, and/or by allegedly failing to make adequate disclosures to Ceradyne stockholders regarding the acquisition of Ceradyne. 3M completed its acquisition of Ceradyne in November 2012. In November 2012, the parties reached a settlement with the California plaintiffs for an amount that is not material to the Company, while the Delaware plaintiffs dismissed their complaints without prejudice. The settlement will bind all former Ceradyne shareholders and has received preliminary approval from the California court. A final approval hearing was held in July 2013, and the California court denied approval of the settlement. The plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the denial of approval of the settlement, which motion was denied by the California court. The plaintiffs then filed a motion for leave to amend their complaint, which motion was denied without prejudice in January 2014. By stipulation in February 2014, plaintiffs agreed to voluntarily dismiss claims against 3M and Cyborg Acquisition Corporation without prejudice. In March 2014, the court entered its Order dismissing 3M and Cyborg Acquisition Corporation from the action without prejudice. The lawsuit against Ceradyne, Inc., and its directors is proceeding. These defendants moved to dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint, which motion was denied in January 2015. ADVENT SOFTWARE: Being Sold to SS&C for Too Little, Class Says -------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that directors are selling Advent Software too cheaply through an unfair process to SS&C Technologies, for $2.3 billion, or $44.25 a share, shareholders claim in Delaware Chancery Court. AES DRILLING: Faces "Campbell" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Blake Campbell, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AES Drilling Fluids, LLC, Case No. 4:15-cv-00484 (S.D. Tex., February 20, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours a week. AES Drilling Fluids, LLC is a subsidiary of Canadian Energy Services. It is one of the largest drilling fluids companies in North America. 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 ALLSTATE CORP: Class Suit Challenges Insurance Price Increase ------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Allstate sets rates for Washington drivers "not on the risk presented by the policyholder but rather on the policyholder's willingness to tolerate a price increase," a class action claims in King County Court. AMERICAN SOCIETY: Court Certifies Class in Human Egg Donors Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- A federal judge certified in part a class of egg donors who claim the American Society for Reproductive Medicine and the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology fixed prices for human eggs, reports Katherine Proctor at Courthouse News Service. Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph Spero on Feb. 3 also denied the plaintiffs' motion to exclude the testimony of Dr. Insoo Hyun, and granted the defendants' motion to exclude the testimony of Dr. Hal Singer. The rulings came after a Jan. 23 hearing. In the antitrust class action filed in 2011, lead plaintiff Justine Levy claimed that the defendants established maximum compensation rules in violation of the Sherman Act, "in an effort to keep egg donor compensation artificially low and to retain more revenue." The Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology's 393 member clinics constitute 85 percent of those practicing assisted reproductive technology in the United States, according to the complaint. Levy also claimed that egg donors are paid the same hourly rate as sperm donors, though egg donation procedures are lengthy, painful and potentially dangerous, while sperm donations are not. Levy's complaint was merged with a similar complaint from Lindsay Kamakahi, the case's other lead plaintiff, in a consolidated amended complaint filed in 2012. The plaintiffs asked that the class be defined as all women who, from April 12, 2007 to the present, donated eggs to any SART member clinic or assisted-reproduction egg agency that agreed to follow the ASRM's maximum price rules. Spero granted this request, but denied the plaintiffs' request to certify a subclass for injunctive relief due to lack of a class representative with standing. Kamakahi and Levy also moved to exclude the opinion of Hyun, a bioethicist. The defendants submitted his report discussing principles of medical ethics and justifying maximum compensation guidelines by those principles. Hyun argued that "removing any upper limits on compensation for donors' burdens would make it very difficult to protect altruism from being pushed entirely aside inadvertently by market forces." The plaintiffs argued that Hyun's argument was irrelevant to issues of class certification and that his conclusions are not based on scientific method. But Spero ruled that "however inartfully presented, Dr. Hyun's report is sufficiently relevant and reliable to be admissible for the very limited purpose for which defendants seek to use it." The ASRM and SART moved to exclude the opinion of Singer, an expert economist whose report addresses compensation data from a single egg donation agency during periods when the agency agreed to comply with maximum compensation guidelines and periods when it did not. They claimed that Singer's reports are "both unreliable and irrelevant." Spero ruled that "to the extent that Dr. Singer can model the effects of the Guidelines only within the specific agencies that he examined, such models are irrelevant to class certification." Neither side could be reached for comment. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Bryan L. Clobes, Esq. CAFFERTY CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP 1101 Market Street, Suite 2650 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Telephone: (215) 864-2800 Facsimile: (215) 864-2810 E-mail: bclobes@caffertyclobes.com The Defendants are represented by: Megan Dixon, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 3 Embarcadero Center, Suite 1500 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 374-2300 Facsimile: (415) 374-2499 E-mail: megan.dixon@hoganlovells.com The Kamakahi case is captioned Lindsay Kamakahi v. American Society for Reproductive Medicine, et al., Case No. 3:11-cv-01781- JCS, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. ANJDEV ENTREPRISES: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Nelson Murillo Ambrosi, Lauro Benito Chillogalli, and Robelio Mendez, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Anjdev Entreprises, Inc. d/b/a Amma, Anju Sharma, and Devendra Sharma, Case No. 1:15-cv-01231 (S.D.N.Y., February 20, 2015), 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 an Indian restaurant located at 246 E. 51st Street, New York, New York 10022. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Antonio Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2020 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 E-mail: faillace@employmentcompliance.com ANTHEM INC: Faces "Brock" Suit in Ind. Over Alleged Data Breach --------------------------------------------------------------- Debra Brock, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Anthem, Inc. d/b/a Anthem Health, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-00289 (S.D. Ind., February 20, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to provide adequate security and protection for its computer systems containing patient's personally identifiable information and personal health information. Anthem Inc. is an Indiana corporation that owns and operates a managed health care company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Irwin B. Levin, Esq. Lynn A. Toops, Esq. Richard E. Shevitz, Esq. Scott D. Gilchrist, Esq. Vess Allen Miller, Esq. COHEN & MALAD LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 Facsimile: (317) 636-2593 E-mail: ilevin@cohenandmalad.com ltoops@cohenandmalad.com rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com sgilchrist@cohenandmalad.com vmiller@cohenandmalad.com - and - Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq. Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq. Stephanie A. Bartone, Esq. 733 Summer Street, Suite 304 Stamford, CT 06901 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (866) 367-6510 E-mail: shopkins@zlk.com nkulesa@zlk.com sbartone@zlk.com ANTHEM INC: Faces "D'Angelo" Suit in Georgia Over Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------------- Writing for Courthouse News Service, Courtney Walters reports that six Atlanta residents filed a class action against Anthem Inc. and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Georgia over a massive data breach that may affect as many as 80 million of the insurer's customers. Anthem, the parent company of co-defendant Blue Cross Blue Shield, announced on February 4 that hackers had accessed its computer system and made off with the account information for perhaps as many as 80 million individuals. The notice claimed that Blue Cross "was the target of a very sophisticated external cyber attack." It later stated that the companies own associates' personal information was also accessed during the breach. In a complaint filed in the Atlanta Federal Court, the plaintiffs -- Joseph D'Angelo III, Shawn Haggerty, Charity Latimer, Kurt McLaughlin, Tamara Nedlouf and John Thomas II -- allege the defendants failed in their duty to protect customers' personal and financial information. "Given that Anthem is the nation's second largest health insurer, this breach is potentially one of the largest data breaches in the history of the world," the plaintiffs state early on in the complaint. And they note, "This is not the first time that Anthem has failed to adequately protect the personal information of its customers." "For example, between 2011 and 2012, Anthem illegally exposed over 30,000 customer social security numbers and ended up settling the matter with the California Attorney General," the complaint says. "In 2013, Defendant Anthem agreed to pay $1.7 million to resolve allegations it left the information of more than 612,000 members available online because of inadequate safeguards." Further, they say, "The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services said that Defendant's security weaknesses in an online application database left names, birthdates, addresses, telephone numbers, Social Security numbers, and health data accessible to unauthorized users." The vulnerability of healthcare providers to hacking incidents is well known, the plaintiffs say, so much so that the FBI issued an industry-wide warning on it on April 8, 2014. "Unfortunately, Anthem did not take such warnings seriously and its lax data safeguards have caused damage to its customers yet again," the plaintiffs say. They seek actual statutory damages, restitution, and disgorgement of funds, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys fees on claims of negligence, breach of contract, bailment and violations of state data breach statutes. The Plaintiffs are represented by: E. Adam Webb, Esq. WEBB, KLASE & LEMOND, LLC 1900 The Exchange, S.E., Suite 480 Atlanta, GA 30339 Telephone: (770) 444-9325 Facsimile: (770) 444-0271 ANTHEM INC: Faces "Peterman" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------------- Wilma J. Peterman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Anthem, Inc., d/b/a Anthem Health, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-00250 (D. Conn., February 20, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to provide adequate security and protection for its computer systems containing patient's personally identifiable information and personal health information. Anthem Inc. is an Indiana corporation that owns and operates a managed health care company. The Plaintiff is represented by: David A. Slossberg, Esq. David L. Belt, Esq. Jeffrey P. Nichols, Esq. HURWITZ, SAGARIN, SLOSSBERG & KNUFF, LLC 147 North Broad Street Milford, CT 06460-0112 Telephone: (203) 877-8000 Facsimile: (203) 878-9800 E-mail: DSlossberg@hssklaw.com DBelt@hssklaw.com JNichols@hssklaw.com - and - Samuel K. Rosen, Esq. Robert I. Harwood, Esq. HARWOOD FEFFER LLP 488 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 935-1 400 Facsimile: (212) 753-3630 E-mail: srosen@hfesq.com rharwood@hfesq.com ANTHEM BLUE: Allowed Hackers to Steal Personal Info, Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Anthem Blue Cross allowed hackers to steal personal information from 80 million customers, a class action claims in Federal Court. Two such class actions were filed in Los Angeles February 5 and another in Birmingham, Ala. Federal Court, according to the Courthouse News database. Bloomberg News service and others reported that Anthem Blue Cross suspects Chinese hackers were responsible. The hackers are believed to want the information as a back-door way to spy on U.S. defense officials, corporations and others, according to wire reports. Personal information that was hacked includes names, Social Security numbers, birth dates, results of medical tests, billing information, lead plaintiff Samantha Kirby says in her Feb. 5 complaint. Kirby says the Anthem detected the "massive data breach" on January 29, and that it affects "approximately 80 million insureds." It informed customers of the data breach on Feb. 4. Kirby claims that a Web site Anthem set up to explain what happened contains only "a short and vague facts page." She claims, inter alia, that "Anthem does not provide any information as to when its systems were compromised, how long third parties had access to its systems or what measures have been taken to prevent further breaches." She adds: "Anthem does not definitely state that customers banking and medical information was not disclosed to third parties." The enormous data breach exposes customers to identity theft, fraud, credit card crimes, compromised banking account information, medical fraud, damaged credit ratings and other problems, Kirby claims. She seeks class certification, restitution and damages for unfair competition, privacy invasion, negligence, conversion, and violations of medical confidentiality. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Ahdoot, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 1016 Palm Avenue West Hollywood, CA 90069 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 E-mail: RAhdoot@ahdootwolfson.com BANK OF THE WEST: Judge Denies Attorney Fees in App Patent MDL -------------------------------------------------------------- Saranac Hale Spencer, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that the chief judge of the Western District of Pennsylvania has denied attorney fees to a bank that had been accused of violating another company's patent in its banking app. Bank of the West had been one of more than 25 parties that Maxim Integrated Products had accused of infringing on its patents -- those cases were consolidated into a multidistrict litigation that was sent to the Western District in 2012. They were assigned to U.S. District Judge Nora Barry Fischer, who recused herself the following year. The MDL was then transferred to U.S. District Chief Judge Joy Flowers Conti. In 2014, Maxim entered into a licensing agreement with Fiserv Inc., the developer of another banking app, which allowed Fiserv's clients to use all of the patents that were involved in the MDL. Bank of the West was one such client, as were other parties to the MDL, according to Conti's opinion. Bank of the West, referred to as BOTW in the opinion, filed a motion for attorney fees arguing that its case was exceptional and merited the award of attorney fees. "According to BOTW, this is an exceptional case because Maxim pursued 'objectively unreasonable' and 'substantively weak' infringement claims 'to pressure BOTW into paying Maxim an amount less than it would cost to try the case,'" Judge Conti said. The judge wasn't convinced and denied the motion. Referring to the original app that Bank of the West had used, developed by Monitise Americas, Conti said, "BOTW argues that Maxim's 'gamesmanship' is reflected in the fact that Maxim granted BOTW an unsolicited covenant not to sue related to the Monitise app only hours before BOTW's expert reports were due." However, the judge said later, that timing could well have been a coincidence. Maxim executed a covenant not to sue the day after it sealed the licensing agreement with Fiserv, according to the opinion. "Although this date happened to coincide with BOTW's submission of expert reports, there is no evidence to indicate that Maxim's issuance of the covenant not to sue was based upon that deadline instead of receipt of the executed Fiserv license agreement," Conti said. The judge looked to the U.S. Supreme Court's 2014 opinion in Octane Fitness v. ICON Health & Fitness for the standard on determining whether the case would qualify as being exceptional, which would merit attorney fees. There, the U.S. Supreme Court "held that an entitlement to fees must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence, instead of clear and convincing evidence, and that an 'exceptional case' is one 'that stands out from others with respect to the substantive strength of a party's litigating position (considering both the governing law and the facts of the case) or the unreasonable manner in which the case was litigated,'" Judge Conti said, quoting from Octane Fitness. Bank of the West argued the case was exceptional because Maxim's allegations were weak and unreasonable, indicating that they were meant to exact a nuisance settlement from the bank. "Maxim notes the inherent flaw in BOTW's argument that Maxim's infringement allegations were 'weak' and 'baseless' given that all except one of the OPs settled their claims in these MDL proceedings," Judge Conti said, referring to the other opposing parties, or OPs, in the MDL. Reviewing the claim of weakness about Maxim's allegations, Conti said, "The best argument that BOTW can make is that although Maxim asserted patent infringement claims with respect to BOTW's current Fiserv app that were strong enough to justify a license," since Fiserv signed a license agreement with Maxim, "Maxim's claims based upon BOTW's discontinued Monitise app were so weak that the entire case became exceptional." "Once the issue is properly framed, the court's holding with respect to whether this is an exceptional case becomes readily apparent," the judge said, later ruling that this is not an exceptional case that would warrant an award of attorney fees. Before finishing, though, Judge Conti addressed the merit-based arguments advanced by Bank of the West, but stressed the case was resolved at the end of fact discovery, before any dispositive pretrial motions had been handled. "As Maxim correctly notes, this MDL patent litigation, which at one time involved more than 25 OPs, has, with the exception of one party, been settled by way of license agreements," Judge Conti said. "These agreements cannot be ignored by this court, and are at least some objective indication that Maxim's infringement position may have had some overall merit. Although BOTW argues that these licenses were extorted from the OPs in order to avoid protracted or expensive patent litigation, there is no proof of this allegation." Robin McGrath -- robinmcgrath@paulhastings.com -- of Paul Hastings in Atlanta represented Bank of the West and couldn't be reached for comment. Matthew Powers -- matthew.powers@tensegritylawgroup.com -- of Tensegrity Law Group in Redwood Shores, Calif., represented Maxim and couldn't be reached for comment. BLUE BIRD: Recalls 54 Buses Over Exhaust System Hanger Defect ------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: February 4, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: School Bus Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Emissions Units affected: 54 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015050 TC ID number: 2015050 Manufacturer recall number: R15YB-C On certain school buses, the exhaust system hanger may fail, possibly causing damage to the Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) and Diesel Particulate Filter (DPF) housings. Should this occur, the housings could separate and become a road hazard, posing a risk to motorists and bystanders. Correction: Dealers will provide new bolted hanger assemblies and support cables. Affected products: Make Mode Model year(s) affected ---- ---- ---------------------- BLUE BIRD ALL AMERICAN SCHOOL BUS 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016 BLUE BIRD: Recalls 54 All American School Buses ----------------------------------------------- Starting date: February 4, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: School Bus Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Emissions Units affected: 54 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015051 TC ID number: 2015051 Manufacturer recall number: R15YB-C On certain school buses, the exhaust system hanger may fail, possibly causing damage to the Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) and Diesel Particulate Filter (DPF) housings. Should this occur, the housings could separate and become a road hazard, posing a risk to motorists and bystanders. Correction: Dealers will provide new bolted hanger assemblies and support cables. Affected products: Make Mode Model year(s) affected ---- ---- ---------------------- BLUE BIRD ALL AMERICAN SCHOOL BUS 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016 CALIFORNIA: Judge OKs Amendment to Solitary Confinement Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ A federal judge tentatively granted a motion by the Center for Constitutional Rights to file a supplementary complaint to its class action on behalf of hundreds of prisoners in prolonged solitary confinement at California's Pelican Bay prison, reports Katherine Proctor at Courthouse News Service. The May 2012 lawsuit claims that prolonged solitary confinement in state prisons Security Housing Units violates Eighth Amendment prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment, and that the prisons' lack of meaningful review for such placement violates Fifth Amendment guarantees of due process. The Center for Constitutional Rights defined prolonged solitary confinement as lasting more than 10 years. CCR president Jules Lobel said in the February 12 hearing that 240 Pelican Bay prisoners fall into this category. Lobel asked U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken for permission to amend the complaint to add a class of prisoners recently transferred under the state's Step Down Program from solitary confinement at Pelican Bay to solitary confinement at the state prison at Tehachapi. Adriano Hrvatin, of the state's justice department, represented the prison. He argued that the CCR's proposed class definition did not meet requirements of commonality and typicality, since "inmates are going to fall in and out of the class with the passage of time." Lobel responded that though prolonged solitary confinement is not always a permanent state, it "causes lasting, permanent damage to the person," and there must be a "procedural mechanism" to make prisoners' claims heard, even if they are transferred or released. He also argued that the class representatives, once designated, should be allowed to continue to represent the class even if they cease to be one of the class's members. Wilken responded that attorneys in similar past situations have simply found new class representatives. Wilken proposed that the trial be bifurcated -- a trial in December to determine whether the Pelican Bay prisoners' confinement was cruel and unusual, and if it was found to be so, the CCR would then file the supplementary complaint. The CCR intends to file for summary judgment on July 2. Pelican Bay is a "supermax" prison in Crescent City. CHEMOURS COMPANY: First Trial in Drinking Water Actions in Sept. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Chemours Company, LLC (A Consolidated Subsidiary of E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company) said in an exhibit to its AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO FORM 10 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2015, that the first trial in the drinking water actions is scheduled to begin in September 2015, and the second in November 2015. In August 2001, a class action, captioned Leach v DuPont, was filed in West Virginia state court alleging that residents living near the Washington Works facility had suffered, or may suffer, deleterious health effects from exposure to perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) in drinking water. DuPont and attorneys for the class reached a settlement in 2004 that binds about 80,000 residents. In 2005, DuPont paid the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and expenses of $23 million and made a payment of $70 million, which class counsel designated to fund a community health project. Chemours, through DuPont, funded a series of health studies which were completed in October 2012 by an independent science panel of experts (the C8 Science Panel). The studies were conducted in communities exposed to PFOA to evaluate available scientific evidence on whether any probable link exists, as defined in the settlement agreement, between exposure to PFOA and human disease. The C8 Science Panel found probable links, as defined in the settlement agreement, between exposure to PFOA and pregnancy- induced hypertension, including preeclampsia; kidney cancer; testicular cancer; thyroid disease; ulcerative colitis; and diagnosed high cholesterol. In May 2013, a panel of three independent medical doctors released its initial recommendations for screening and diagnostic testing of eligible class members. In September 2014, the medical panel recommended follow-up screening and diagnostic testing three years after initial testing, based on individual results. The medical panel has not communicated its anticipated schedule for completion of its protocol. Through DuPont, Chemours is obligated to fund up to $235 million for a medical monitoring program for eligible class members and, in addition, administrative cost associated with the program, including class counsel fees. In January 2012, Chemours, through DuPont, put $1 million in an escrow account to fund medical monitoring as required by the settlement agreement. The court appointed Director of Medical Monitoring has established the program to implement the medical panel's recommendations. Under the program, notice has been given and the registration process, as well as eligibility screening, to participate in diagnostic testing has begun. At each of September 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, no money has been disbursed from the fund. In addition, under the settlement agreement, DuPont must continue to provide water treatment designed to reduce the level of PFOA in water to six area water districts, including the Little Hocking Water Association (LHWA), and private well users. Class members may pursue personal injury claims against DuPont only for those human diseases for which the C8 Science Panel determined a probable link exists. Class members began filings lawsuits alleging such claims in 2012. At September 30, 2014, there were approximately 2,545 lawsuits filed in various federal and state courts in Ohio and West Virginia, an increase of about 2,460 and 2520, respectively over December 31, 2013 and 2012. In accordance with a stipulation reached in the third quarter 2014 and other court procedures, these lawsuits have been or will be served and consolidated in multi-district litigation in Ohio federal court (MDL). The majority of the lawsuits allege personal injury claims associated with high cholesterol and thyroid disease from exposure to PFOA in drinking water. There are 18 lawsuits alleging wrongful death. In the third quarter 2014, six plaintiffs from the MDL were selected for individual trial. The first trial is scheduled to begin in September 2015, and the second in November 2015. Chemours, through DuPont, denies the allegations in these lawsuits and is defending itself vigorously. CHEMOURS COMPANY: DuPont to Seek Dismissal of Amended TiO2 Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The Chemours Company, LLC (A Consolidated Subsidiary of E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company) said in an exhibit to its AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO FORM 10 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2015, that DuPont will seek dismissal of the Amended Complaint filed by the plaintiffs in the Titanium Dioxide Antitrust Litigation. In February 2010, two suits were filed in Maryland federal district court alleging conspiracy among DuPont, of which Chemours, prior to the distribution, is a subsidiary, Huntsman International LLC (Huntsman), Kronos Worldwide Inc. (Kronos), Millennium Inorganics Chemicals Inc. (Millennium) and others to fix prices of titanium dioxide sold in the U.S. between March 2002 and the present. The cases were subsequently consolidated and in August 2012, the court certified a class consisting of U.S. customers that have directly purchased titanium dioxide since February 1, 2003. During the third quarter 2013, DuPont and plaintiffs agreed to settle this matter, subject to court approval. In connection therewith, Chemours has recorded charges of $72 million, within cost of goods sold, at December 31, 2013. The settlement explicitly acknowledges that DuPont denies all allegations and does not admit liability. The court entered the order granting final approval to the settlement on December 13, 2013. The settlement was paid in January 2014. In November 2013, Valspar, which opted out of the class action settlement, filed suit in federal court in Minnesota against DuPont, Huntsman, Kronos and Millennium making substantially similar claims to those made in the class action. The lawsuit was moved to Delaware federal court on DuPont's motion. In March 2013, a purported class action was filed against DuPont, Huntsman, Kronos and Millennium in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of "indirect purchasers" from more than 30 states that purchased products containing titanium dioxide. The settlement cannot be used to establish liability in the indirect purchaser case. In September 2014, the Court dismissed most of the claims in the original complaint. The plaintiffs have filed an Amended Complaint, limiting the purported class to indirect purchasers of architectural coating products containing titanium dioxide from 21 states. DuPont denies all allegations and will again seek dismissal of the Amended Complaint. Chemours, through DuPont, denies these allegations and is defending itself vigorously against the Valspar and indirect purchaser claims. While management believes a loss related to either matter is reasonably possible, any such loss would be immaterial. CHRYSLER GROUP: Faces Suit Over Defective 160-Amp Alternators ------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Chrysler, Dodge and Jeeps in model 2011-14 years may have defective 160-amp alternators that cause them to shut down and catch fire, a class action claims in California Superior Court. CLEAVER-BROOKS: Judge Slashes Damages Verdict to $30 Million ------------------------------------------------------------ Andrew Keshner, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that a judge in a special Manhattan court deeply slashed a jury's damages verdict in multi-plaintiff asbestos litigation, awarding almost $30 million after jurors said the plaintiffs were entitled to $190 million. Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Joan Madden, sitting in the New York City Asbestos Litigation part, refused to disturb the liability verdict against the two boiler companies, but reduced the damages award in the consolidated action by more than 80 percent on Feb. 5. When jurors reached the verdict after an 11-week trial, the plaintiffs' attorneys at Weitz & Luxenberg called it the largest- ever asbestos verdict in New York. But Justice Madden, although giving "great deference" to the jury's verdicts, "conclude[d] that in each of these five cases, the jury's verdict as to damages deviate from reasonable compensation" In re: New York City Asbestos Litigation, 190200/12. Madden said she would order a new trial on damages unless the plaintiffs notified her they accepted the reduced awards. The five plaintiffs, Robert Brunck, Cesar Serna, Raymond Vincent, Santos Assenzio and Paul Levy worked as steamfitters, plumbers and construction workers in the New York City area. They all developed mesothelioma; three died before trial. They sued manufacturers Burnham and Cleaver-Brooks, claiming the men were exposed to asbestos when using equipment made by the defendants. The men said they suffered periods of exposure in the 1960s and 1970s, though a few said they exposed before and after those dates. The men argued the companies were liable based on a failure to warn about the dangers of asbestos. Two of the men sued both companies and the other three either sued Cleaver-Brooks or Burnham. Justice Madden consolidated the cases in April 2013. The men also sued other companies, which settled before trial. Jurors found the defendants liable and also returned verdicts of recklessness. The jury allocated fault between Cleaver-Brooks, Burnham and other entities. The jury awards for the individual plaintiffs ranged between $20 million and $60 million. The defendants argued the verdict should be set aside because the plaintiffs failed to show that exposure from asbestos in defendant-manufactured boilers caused the mesothelioma or other asbestos-related diseases. They also complained the cases were improperly consolidated. The defendants asked, among other things, for reduced verdict or a new damages trial. In her 64-page decision, Justice Madden declined to overrule jury findings on matters like product exposure. For instance, Cleaver-Brooks argued that the boilers which plaintiff Assenzio said were made by Cleaver-Brooks did not describe the defendant's boilers. In support, they noted testimony from John Tornetta, a corporate representative who said the boilers did not fit the description. But Madden said Cleaver-Brooks did not support Mr. Tornetta's testimony with catalogs or records. It was "significant" that Mr. Tornetta had "no personal knowledge of Cleaver-Brooks products during the relevant time period." Justice Madden said "considering the evidence as a whole, there is no basis to set aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence, as the evidence did not preponderate in favor of Cleaver-Brooks such that the verdict 'could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence." Justice Madden said she did not abuse her discretion by consolidating the cases. "Common issues of law and fact predominated" and the joinder did not harm the defendants or deprive them of a fair trial, she said. She observed that appellate decisions in recent years have upheld remitted awards in mesothelioma cases ranging from $3 million to $18 million. Among the "most instructive" were remitted verdicts for decedents in a separate case, Ronald Dummitt and Dave John Konstantin. Justice Madden noted that Konstantin had a remitted award of $4.5 million for 33 months of past pain and suffering and $3.5 million for future pain and suffering of 18 months. Mr. Dummitt had a sustained award of $5.5 million for past pain and suffering of 27 months and $2.5 million for six months of future pain and suffering, she said. Justice Madden then downgraded the awards for the five plaintiffs in the current case. For instance, the jury awarded Mr. Assenzio $20 million for past pain and suffering. He died in March 2013 at age 83. Justice Madden said Mr. Assenzio suffered for about 20 months, as measured from the onset of his first serious symptoms. She said $5.5 million was reasonable compensation for Mr. Assenzio, considering the bone and liver cancer he endured, as well as the awards for Konstantin and Dummitt. The jury also gave Mr. Assenzio $10 million for loss of services, but Madden slashed it to $500,000. She noted another asbestos case where a loss of consortium award was reduced from $1.67 million to $260,000. Joseph Welter -- jwelter@goldbergsegalla.com -- a partner at Goldberg Segalla who is not involved in the case but does handle asbestos defense litigation, observed that Madden applied the analysis used by the First Department in the Konstantin and Dummitt cases. Her ruling was "certainly a step in the right direction, bringing the numbers closer to what the First Department said were the upper end of reasonable compensation." But those appellate rulings in Konstantin and Dummitt's case are on appeal before the state Court of Appeals, he said. "Right now, we're in flux and one battle is what the upper end" of mesothelioma awards will be in the New York City region. A Weitz & Luxenberg spokesperson said in a statement, "While we're disappointed with the amount of the remittiturs, we respect the court's ruling. We're discussing with our clients on how to proceed." Alani Golanski appeared for Weitz & Luxenberg. George Carpinello -- gcarpinello@bsfllp.com -- a partner at Boies, Schiller & Flexner and Teresa Monroe, counsel, are the post-trial and appeals counsel for Burnham. "We are gratified what we thought was a clearly unreasonable verdict was reduced. We think it should be reduced more. But we are obviously pleased the verdict was dramatically reduced," Mr. Carpinello said in an interview. He said he was "disappointed" the judge did not agree with the defense on other matters common in asbestos litigation, such as questions about causation, standards of recklessness, fault allocation and consolidation. He said he was discussing with his client whether to pursue an appeal. Cleaver-Brooks was represented post-trial by E. Leo Milonas -- eleo.milonas@pillsburylaw.com -- and David Keyko -- david.keyko@pillsburylaw.com -- partners at Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, and Kerry Brennan, then with the firm. Suzanne Halbardier -- SHalbardier@bmmfirm.com -- and Shawnette Fluitt -- SFluitt@bmmfirm.com -- of Barry, McTiernan & Moore also appeared for Cleaver-Brooks. COOK COUNTY, IL: Six-Figure Fine Is Unfair, Chicago Taxpayer Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- A man caught claiming homestead tax-exemptions on 10 Chicago properties says in court that the law subjecting him to a six- figure fine is unfair, reports Lisa Klein, writing for Courthouse News Service. The class action Daniel Cuevas filed Feb. 10 in Cook County Circuit Court takes aim at a statute that took effect in 2013, which allows the local assessor to "recover taxes reduced by exemptions for those persons claiming them on properties other than their principal place of residence." Cuevas says he received a notice of intent to record tax liens in 2014 on 10 Chicago properties he owns besides his residence, in the amount of $142,576.60, regarding erroneous homestead exemptions taken between 2006 and 2012. An administrative law judge found him liable for the taxes in December, according to the complaint. Cuevas challenges these interest and penalty charges, and the assessor's "retroactive application" of them, saying they violate uniform taxation and due process under state and federal law. He says Cook County would previously waive its right to lien properties or delinquent taxes if the taxpayer made a timely payment of the erroneously assessed taxes. Saying that the new law is unfair, Cuevas says it penalizes taxpayers "for not policing their own payments of taxes when the tax bills previously did not provide plaintiff and the class notice of the amount received from exemptions." He also points to counties that the act excludes based on population and an amnesty period that applies only to those who have less than three violations. People who sold property with erroneous exemptions prior to the act's passage meanwhile are "off the hook," the complaint states. Cuevas says the assessor "exceeded its authority" in charging penalties prior to the effective date of the statute, which "does not contain explicit language for it to apply retroactively." The act furthermore "does not allow for easy interpretation," and "it is not fair to shift the burden of assigning the qualifications for exemptions to the layman," according to the complaint. The Plaintiff is represented by: Larry D. Drury, Esq. LARRY D. DRURY LTD. 100 N La Salle St., # 1010 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 346-7950 - and - Marshal Perry Morris, Esq. LAW FIRM OF MARSHAL PERRY MORRIS, LLC 2519 Live Oak Lane Buffalo Grove, IL 60089 Telephone: (847) 634-2211 COVISINT CORPORATION: Lead Plaintiff Filed Amended Complaint ------------------------------------------------------------ Covisint Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2015, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2014, that beginning on May 30, 2014, two putative class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company, directors and certain officers at the time of the Company's initial public offering ("IPO") alleging violation of securities laws in connection with the Company's IPO and seeking unspecified damages. On August 15, 2014, the cases were consolidated with Charles Rankin appointed lead plaintiff. On October 15, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint. "We believe these lawsuits are without merit, and we intend to vigorously defend them. The Company currently has no other outstanding material litigation," the Company said. CETCO ENERGY: "Vidrine" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- David Vidrine, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cetco Energy Services Company, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv- 00092 (S.D. Tex., February 20, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, attorney fees, and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. Cetco Energy Services Company, LLC is an oilfield services company with locations throughout 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 DATASCOPE CORP: Recalls Intra-Aortic Balloon Pumps -------------------------------------------------- Starting date: February 4, 2015 Posting date: February 16, 2015 Type of communication: Medical Device Recall Subcategory: Medical Device Hazard classification: Type III Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Medical Devices Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals Identification number: RA-43739 Recalled Products: A) Maquet CARDIOSAVE Hybrid Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump (IABP) Since the commencement of commercialization of the CARDIOSAVE Hybrid Intra-Aortic Balloon Pumps (JABP) in December 2011, Maquet has received thirteen (13) power supply complaints that were determined to be related to suboptimal thermal management. It is important to note that none of the thirteen complaints identified any adverse patient events. Suboptimal thermal management of the power supply may result in the power supply not providing the correct output voltage to the CARDIOSAVE Hybrid JSBP console, and the inability to charge the batteries. Failure to provide the correct output voltage to the console will result in the unit not functioning from AC power, even when plugged into an active electrical outlet. Should a power supply malfunction occur, an on screen message will alert the healthcare provider that the CARDIOSAVE Hybrid JABP unit is operating on battery power. Affected products: A) Maquet CARDIOSAVE Hybrid Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump (IABP) Lot or serial number: CA216325I2 CA221162L2 CA221164L2 CA222640A3 CA237421K3 Model or catalog number: 0998-00-0800-XX Manufacturer: Datascope Corp. 1300 Macarthur Blvd. Mahwah, 07430, New Jersey UNITED STATES EPICOR SOFTWARE: Reported $0.8MM Income From Class Action Deal -------------------------------------------------------------- Epicor Software Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2015, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2014, that Other income, net was $0.3 million for the three months ended December 31, 2014 compared to $1.0 million for the three months ended December 31, 2013. Other income, net for the three months ended December 31, 2014 consisted primarily of $0.8 million related to a class action legal settlement, $0.4 million of interest income and $0.2 million of gains on marketable securities, partially offset by $1.1 million of foreign exchange losses. Other income, net for the three months ended December 31, 2013 consisted primarily of $0.7 million of foreign exchange gains as well as $0.2 million of gains on marketable securities and $0.1 million of interest income. FERGUSON, MO: Jails Equated to Modern-Day Prison for Debtors ------------------------------------------------------------ Joe Harris, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that jails in Ferguson, Mo., and nearby Jennings are little more than modern-day debtors' prisons for people so poor they can't afford to pay traffic tickets, 15 people claim in two federal class actions against the cities. Lead plaintiff Keilee Fant sued Ferguson with 10 other named plaintiffs. Fant also is a plaintiff in lead plaintiff Samantha Jenkins' lawsuit against Jennings. The plaintiffs call themselves "impoverished people" in both February 8 complaints. They claim they were jailed because they could not pay fines for traffic violations and other minor offenses. "Although the plaintiffs pleaded that they were unable to pay due to their poverty, each was held in jail indefinitely and none was afforded a lawyer or the inquiry into their ability to pay that the United States Constitution requires," the complaints state. "Instead, they were threatened, abused, and left to languish in confinement at the mercy of local officials until their frightened family members could produce enough cash to buy their freedom or until city jail officials decided, days or weeks later, to let them out for free." The plaintiffs say they languished in deplorable conditions inside the jails. "They are kept in overcrowded cells; they are denied toothbrushes, toothpaste, and soap; they are subjected to the constant stench of excrement and refuse in their congested cells; they are surrounded by walls smeared with mucus and blood; they are kept in the same clothes for days and weeks without access to laundry or clean underwear; they step on top of other inmates, whose bodies cover nearly the entire uncleaned cell floor, in order to access a single shared toilet that the city does not clean; they develop untreated illnesses and infections in open wounds that spread to other inmates; they endure days and weeks without being allowed to use the moldy shower; their filthy bodies huddle in cold temperatures with a single thin blanket even as they beg guards for warm blankets; they are not given adequate hygiene products for menstruation; they are routinely denied vital medical care and prescription medication, even when their families beg to be allowed to bring medication to the jail; they are provided food so insufficient and lacking in nutrition that inmates lose significant amounts of weight; they suffer from dehydration out of fear of drinking foul smelling water that comes from an apparatus on top of the toilet; and they must listen to the screams of other inmates languishing from unattended medical issues as they sit in their cells without access to books, legal materials, television, or natural light," the complaints state. "Perhaps worst of all, they do not know when they will be allowed to leave." Conditions in the Jennings jail are so bad that when groups of inmates are brought to court, courtroom staff "often walks down the hallway spraying Fabreze because the stench emanating from the inmates is unbearable," according to the 62-page complaint against Jennings. The plaintiffs claim that Ferguson issues more arrest warrants per capita than any Missouri city with more than 10,000 residents. In 2014, Ferguson issued an average of more than 3.6 arrest warrants per household and almost 2.2 arrest warrants for every adult, in cases mostly involving unpaid traffic tickets, according to the 55-page complaint. The plaintiffs say that if the rest of the St. Louis metropolitan area generated revenue from its courts at the rate Ferguson does, it would have made $1.3 billion in the past five years. The plaintiffs claim Jennings issued an average of more than 2.1 arrest warrants per household and almost 1.4 arrest warrants for every adult in 2014, mostly for unpaid traffic tickets. They say that if the rest of the St. Louis metropolitan area generated revenue from its courts at the rate Jennings does, it would have made $670 million in the past five years. The plaintiffs claim that the cities' practices "devastated the city's poor, trapping them for years in a cycle of increased fees, debts, extortion, and cruel jailings. The families of indigent people borrow money to buy their loved ones out of jail at rates set arbitrarily by jail officials, only for them later to owe more money . . . from increased fees and surcharges. Thousands of people like the plaintiffs take money from their disability checks or sacrifice money that is desperately needed by their families for food, diapers, clothing, rent, and utilities to pay ever increasing court fines, fees, costs, and surcharges." The plaintiffs claim the cycle of court-imposed poverty lasts weeks, months and even years. Complaints about municipal court abuses became an underlying theme during the protests sparked by the shooting death of Michael Brown on Aug. 9, 2014. Many protesters claimed that excessive charges and fees imposed by municipal courts in the area created a cycle of poverty and lack of opportunity. Ferguson denied it. "We believe this lawsuit is disturbing because it contains allegations that are not based on objective facts," Ferguson Mayor James Knowles III said in a statement February 9. "It is our hope that the suit will be handled according to the rule of law and the rules of procedure in the federal courts, and not through the media." Knowles said in the statement that since Aug. 19, 2010, Ferguson jail police requires that no prisoner be held for more than 72 hours; that the jail and holding facility be kept in a sanitary condition with adequate air circulation; that detainees have access to a toilet, wash basin and drinking water; that fire retardant bedding be provided to all detainees so long as the detainee is not suicidal; and that the facility be cleaned on a daily basis when occupied. The statement added that the Ferguson Police Department has undergone a $4.5 million renovation between April 2013 and January 2015, which included improvements to the jail. The city of Jennings had no comment. The complaints propose two classes -- a declaratory and injunctive class and a damages class. The declaratory and injunctive class consists of all people who owe or who or will incur debts from Ferguson and Jennings from fines, fees, costs, or surcharges from cases prosecuted by the cities. The damages class consists of all people who, from Feb. 8, 2010 until the present, were held in jail by the defendants because of nonpayment of a monetary sum required by the defendants. The plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief, stating that the defendants' practices are unconstitutional and a ruling prohibiting those practices. The lawsuits were filed by Alec Karakatsanis with Equal Justice Under Law in Washington D.C. in conjunction with the St. Louis- based ArchCity Defenders, a nonprofit group, and by St. Louis University School of Law. Ferguson and Jennings are working-class suburbs in north St. Louis County, about 10 miles northwest of the St. Louis city limits. Ferguson, which has become the epicenter of nationwide anti-police demonstrations since the Brown shooting, has a median household income of $36,121, which is 20 percent below the statewide median of $45,321, according to city-data.com. Almost 65 percent of Ferguson's population is African-American. Jennings has a median household income of $30,273, which is 33 percent below the statewide median. Almost 87 percent of Jennings' population is African-American. FLAVOR RESTAURANT: Faces "Moore" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------ Ashley M. Moore, Derrick L. Burns, Demarcus Brydie, on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated, known and unknown, v. Flavor Restaurant, Inc., Rochelle Kemp, and James Kemp, Case No. 1:15-cv-01566 (N.D. Ill., February 20, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 5091 Sauk Trail, Richton Park, IL 60471. The Plaintiff is represented by: Maureen Ann Salas, Esq. Sarah Jean Arendt, Esq. Zachary Cole Flowerree, Esq. Douglas M. Werman, Esq. WERMAN SALAS P.C. 77 W. Washington, Suite 1402 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 419-1008 E-mail: msalas@flsalaw.com sarendt@flsalaw.com zflowerree@flsalaw.com dwerman@flsalaw.com GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls 9,675 Cars Due to Steering Problem ---------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: February 4, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Car Notification type: Safety TC System: Steering Units affected: 9675 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015048TC ID number: 2015048 Manufacturer recall number: 14772 Certain vehicles equipped with electric power steering may experience a sudden loss of power steering assist that could occur at any time while driving. If the power steering assist is lost, a message is displayed on the Driver Information Centre and a chime sounds to inform the driver. Steering control can be maintained, as the vehicle will revert to a manual steering mode, but will require greater driver effort. The sudden change in steering may increase the risk of a crash causing injury and/or property damage. Correction: Dealers will replace the torque sensor assembly with a redesigned one. Note: This recall is an expansion of recalls 2012-331 and 2014-104. Vehicles having already been repaired under the previous campaigns do not require re- inspection. Affected products: Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- CHEVROLET MALIBU 2006 CHEVROLET MALIBU MAXX 2006 PONTIAC G6 2006 GENWEST TRANSPORTATION: Sued Over Consumer Report Policies ---------------------------------------------------------- Jeffrey Paramo, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Genwest Transportation, LLC, et al., Case No. 8:15-cv-00293 (C.D. Cal., February 19, 2015), arises out of the Defendants' unlawful policies and procedures by which it obtains and uses consumer reports of applicants seeking employment but fails to provide applicants with the statutorily required disclosures. Genwest Transportation, LLC manages and operates a transportation company in Santa Ana, California, and conduct business throughout the Western and Central United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Aaron A. Bartz, Esq. Ross E. Shanberg, Esq. Shane C. Stafford, Esq. SHANBERG STAFFORD AND BARTZ LLP 19200 Von Karman Avenue Suite 400 Irvine, CA 92612 Telephone: (949) 622-5444 Facsimile: (949) 622-5448 E-mail: abartz@ssbfirm.com rshanberg@ssbfirm.com sstafford@ssfirm.com GOOGLE INC: Judge Tosses Antitrust Class Action ----------------------------------------------- Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that plaintiffs lawyers accusing Google Inc. of illegally monopolizing the mobile search sector hit a roadblock on Feb. 20, when a federal judge tossed a proposed class action against the company. U.S. District Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the Northern District of California ruled that the lawyers had failed to show how consumers were harmed by Google's agreements with makers of Android smartphones to make its product their default search option. "There are no facts alleged to indicate that defendant's conduct has prevented consumers from freely choosing among search products or prevented competitors from innovating," she wrote in a Feb. 20 order granting Google's motion to dismiss. Judge Freeman will allow plaintiffs lawyers to file an amended complaint and suggested they might have an easier time making a case for injunctive relief than for monetary damages. The ruling is a win for Google's lawyers with Morgan, Lewis & Bockius and Williams & Connolly, who had argued consumers weren't prevented from switching to another search engine. Plaintiffs lawyers led by Steve Berman of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, who sued the company in May, claimed Google's monopoly drove up prices of smartphones that use the Android operating system, and reduced the search capability of those phones. Google struck deals with smartphone manufacturers that allowed them to preload devices with a suite of popular Google-owned apps, including Google Maps and YouTube, in exchange for making Google the default search engine. Plaintiffs lawyers argued that the arrangement prevented competing search engines from paying for default status, which would have resulted in cost savings for consumers. Judge Freeman ruled that link between Google's conduct and consumers' wallets is too fuzzy. She likened the theory to one rejected by the Southern District of California in Lorenzo v. Qualcomm, where plaintiffs were at least three levels removed from the alleged anticompetitive practices of a cell phone chip manufacturer. Judge Freeman also shot down Berman's argument that Google's monopoly limits consumer choice and prevents competing search engines from getting better, calling the assertion "entirely too conclusory and speculative." Judge Freeman wrote that "accepting plaintiffs' argument would permit any consumer of Internet search to have standing to sue for injunctive relief, as the proposed class of Android OS device consumers is no different from the Apple device user or the computer search user when it comes to innovation and choice in the market for Internet search products." Judge Freeman dismissed additional claims under the Clayton and Cartwright acts without leave to amend, ruling those laws do not cover markets for intangible commodities, such as software. Judge Freeman also dismissed claims under California's Unfair Competition Law, but gave the lawyers a second chance to plead the claims using a named plaintiff from California. GOOGLE INC: Court Dismisses Class Suit by AdSense Participant ------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Heuer, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that a federal judge February 12 dismissed without prejudice a class action accusing Google of denying payment to Web site owners, who participate in its AdSense revenue-sharing program. U.S. District Judge Beth Freeman dismissed claims that included breach of contract, bad faith, unjust enrichment and unfair competition. Free Range Content filed the class action in May 2014, claiming Google runs its AdSense program in a way that pays Web site owners nothing. But Judge Freeman said Free Range will have to "plead additional facts demonstrating defendant's alleged bad faith beyond that of simply exercising a contractual right to terminate accounts and withhold payment." Free Range also must demonstrate that it did not waive its right to payment by not disputing Google's payment withholding, as required by the AdSense terms of service, the judge wrote. Free Range, of San Francisco, claimed that Google intentionally closes AdSense accounts to deny full payment to Web site owners. Account terminations can cost Web site owners and publishers anywhere from a couple hundred dollars to tens of thousands of dollars each year in lost revenue, according to the complaint. In its motion to dismiss, Google said it had every right to close Free Range's AdSense account and that the company's complaint would "turn contract law on its head." "After enjoying the benefits of participating in the AdSense program for a year-and-a-half, plaintiff, by its own admission, breached several explicit terms of that contract," Google said in its motion to dismiss. "Google then did exactly what it said it would do in the contract -- it closed plaintiff's AdSense account, did not make a payment to plaintiff that, pursuant to numerous contract provisions, plaintiff had no right to receive, and refunded the withheld payment (along with Google's revenue share) to advertisers." Google AdSense pays Web site owners and publishers a percentage of revenue from ads that appear while people browse their sites. When visitors view the ads or click on them, Google is supposed to pay the Web site owners a portion of revenue from those ads. Freeman gave Free Range until March 5 to file an amended complaint. GP STRATEGIES: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees, "Lester" Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Suzanne Lester, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all other similarly situated employees v. GP Strategies Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-00488 (D. Md., February 20, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to properly compensate its employees for all wages due and owing. GP Strategies Corporation is a global performance improvement provider of sales and technical training, E-learning solutions, management consulting and engineering services headquartered in Columbia, Maryland. The Plaintiff is represented by: Judd Garrett Millman, Esq. LUCHANSKY LAW 606 Bosley Avenue, Suite 3B Towson, MD 21204 Telephone: (410) 522-1020 Facsimile: (410) 521-1021 E-mail: judd@luchanskylaw.com HABITAT FOR HUMANITY: "Allen" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT ------------------------------------------------------------- Selma Allen, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Habitat for Humanity Sarasota, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-00111 (M.D. Fla., February 19, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. Habitat for Humanity Sarasota, Inc. is a Non-Profit Corporation that provides a 0% interest home mortgage to qualified Sarasota families. The Plaintiff is represented by: Bill B. Berke, Esq. BERKE LAW FIRM, PA 4223 Del Prado Blvd. S. Cape Coral, FL 33904 Telephone: (239) 549-6689 Facsimile: (239) 549-3331 E-mail: Berkelaw@yahoo.com HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC: Says Expense Attributable to Class Suit Deal --------------------------------------------------------------- Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2015, that fourth quarter 2014 net income of $12.0 million was $1.2 million lower than the linked quarter and $0.2 million lower than the same quarter of 2013. Compared to the linked quarter of 2014, the $1.2 million net income decline was primarily driven by the following on an after-tax basis: * $1 million higher noninterest expense largely attributable to the settlement of a purported class action lawsuit related to overdraft fees on debit card transactions and costs related to the strategic designation of a new corporate campus in Honolulu; * $1 million higher provision for loan losses related to loan growth in the quarter; and * $1 million of higher net interest income primarily due to loan growth. In the exhibit, the Company reported 2014 year-end consolidated earnings. A copy of the exhibit is available at http://is.gd/ICWCMm HERBAL INSTINCT: Recalls Bentonite Due to High Lead Level --------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: January 30, 2015 Posting date: February 24, 2015 Type of communication: Drug Recall Subcategory: Natural health products Hazard classification: Type II Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Product Safety Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals Identification number: RA-43781 Recalled Products: Bentonite Reason: Lead levels are higher than the daily recommended dosage. Depth of distribution: Retail Affected products: Bentonite DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM NPN 80043197 Dosage form: Capsule Strength: Bentonite 400.0 mg Lot or serial number: 133301MNT Recalling Firm: Herbal Instinct 503 Mercy St., Selkirk, R1A 2B3, Manitoba CANADA Marketing Authorization Holder: Herbal Instinct 503 Mercy St., Selkirk R1A 2B3, Manitoba CANADA HILLROM CORPORATION: Recalls Viking Patient Lifts ------------------------------------------------- Starting date: January 30, 2015 Posting date: February 16, 2015 Type of communication: Medical Device Recall Subcategory: Medical Device Hazard classification: Type II Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Medical Devices Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals Identification number: RA-43699 A) Viking M Patient Lift B) Viking XL Patient Lift C) Viking L Patient Lift When doing a patient transfer, the lift arm unexpectedly dropped. Affected products: A) Viking M Patient Lift Lot serial number: Not applicable Model or catalog number: 2040005, 2040015, 2040035 Manufacturer: Hillrom Corporation 1069 State Route 46 East Batesville 47006 UNITED STATES B) Viking XL Patient Lift Lot or serial number: Not applicable Model or catalog number: 2040003 Manufacturer: Hillrom Corporation 1069 State Route 46 East Batesville 47006 UNITED STATES C) Viking L Patient Lift Lot or serial number: Not applicable Model or catalog number: 2040004 Manufacturer: Hillrom Corporation 1069 State Route 46 East Batesville 47006 UNITED STATES HILTON HOTELS: Court Releases $75MM Bond in 17-Year-Old Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Hilton has made enough progress toward the court-ordered reform of its retirement plan to warrant the release of a $75 million bond, a federal judge ruled, a signal that the nearly 17-year-old class action may wind down this month, reports Tim Hull at Courthouse News Service. After determining that the hotel giant had illegally back-loaded its retirement plan and failed to credit certain years of service, a Washington, D.C., federal judge ordered Hilton in 2011 to fix its plan, increase benefits, and award back payments to some 22,000 current and former employees. Hilton appealed to the D.C. Circuit, securing a stay of the lower court's order with a $75 million supersedeas bond. The D.C. Circuit affirmed the ruling in 2012, and a year later awarded class counsel 15 percent of the $140 million judgment. With her jurisdiction in the case set to end on Feb. 23, U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly agreed February 4 that Hilton could release the bond. Though the plaintiffs objected that Hilton had not done enough to comply with judgment, Hilton noted that about 11,000 class members have received $33 million from it to date. Roughly 20,000 class members also received a notice of increased benefits, and Hilton has paid class counsel $21.7 million in fees, the hotel giant told the court. Meanwhile lead plaintiff Jamal Kifafi, a Hilton employee who first noticed problems with the company's retirement plan and inspired the class action in 1998, received a $50,000 incentive award. While the plaintiffs argued that $33 million was "substantially lower than the $75.8 million in judgment liabilities Hilton estimated it would incur in the first year of implementing the judgment," Judge Kollar-Kotelly declined to measure Hilton's compliance "based on how close defendants have come to paying out $75.8 or $87 million or any other estimated amount in judgment liabilities because these amounts were clearly and simply estimates." Noting that the "provision of retirement benefits is a constantly evolving process," the judge found no "systemic problems or failures" with Hiton's compliance thus far, and ordered release of the supersedeas bond. "Defendants are generally taking reasonable steps to ensure that the most class members receive their benefits while also protecting privacy concerns and ensuring that benefits are actually dispersed to the proper payee," Kollar-Kotelly wrote. The case is Jamal J. Kifafi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Hilton Hotels Retirement Plan, et al., Case No. 98-1517 (CKK), in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. HOME DEPOT: Faces Navigant Credit Suit Over Alleged Data Breach --------------------------------------------------------------- Navigant Credit Union, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Home Depot USA, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00065 (D.R.I., February 20, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to provide adequate security and protection for its computer systems containing customers' financial and personal data. The Home Depot, Inc. operates a chain of retail stores that sell a wide variety of merchandise, including tools, home goods, and construction supplies. The Plaintiff is represented by: David J. Pellegrino, Esq. Steven E. Snow, Esq. PARTRIDGE, SNOW & HAHN LLP 40 Westminster Street, Suite 1100 Providence, RI 02903 Telephone: (401) 861-8200 Facsimile: (401) 861-8210 E-mail: djp@psh.com ses@psh.com HULU LLC: Seeks Dismissal of Privacy Class Action ------------------------------------------------- Ross Todd, writing for The Recorder, reports that Video streaming service Hulu LLC has had a tough time shaking a privacy suit that invokes a 1980s law aimed more at rental storefronts like Blockbuster than the current generation of entertainment technology. Last week, lawyers at Covington & Burling and O'Melveny & Myers were set to attempt to strike a final blow to the 2011 case. The question they're asking a judge to decide touches on issues like browser cookies, data-acquisitive social-networking websites and other elements of the online world not yet imagined when the Video Privacy Protection Act was passed in 1988. Hulu's lawyers claim plaintiffs can't show the company knew that placing a Facebook "Like" button on its video streaming pages would convey back information on users' viewing habits to the social-networking site. Plaintiffs -- represented by Parisi & Havens, Strange & Carpenter and KamberLaw -- say there's evidence, including email exchanges, that prove otherwise. Litigating the VPPA has proven to be frustrating so far for both defendants and plaintiffs. But although plaintiffs lawyers have had a tough time getting claims to stick against modern web streaming companies, the law's penalties of $2,500 per violation have kept them rolling the dice. "When [Congress] passed the VPPA, online tracking didn't exist and online streaming didn't exist," said Venkat Balasubramani, a lawyer at Internet and media boutique Focal in Seattle who writes about VPPA issues for the Technology and Marketing Law Blog. "I think the arguments on both sides are credible and I don't think the statute lends an easy answer," he said. Passed by Congress in 1988 after a Washington newspaper published the rental history of then-Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork, the VPPA makes it illegal to hand over "video tape rental or sale records." Though the past few years have seen a wave of suits filed under the statute in the Northern District of California, most of the litigation has sputtered. Earlier this month, plaintiffs in proposed privacy class actions against Netflix Inc. and Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC, both knocked out in the early stages, tried to persuade a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit panel to revive their claims. Reed Smith's Lisa Kim -- lkim@reedsmith.com -- called the VPPA an "idiosyncrasy." Members of Congress who passed it likely had no concept of the technologies to which it would apply and the scale of the potential damage awards it could create in the context of a class action, she said. "Fortunately for the companies and unfortunately for the plaintiffs, no cases are really leaning in their favor," said Ms. Kim, a senior associate in the firm's Los Angeles office. In the Hulu case, U.S. Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler of the Northern District of California has grappled with how to apply the outdated law to the company's services, hunting in a ruling last April for ways to analogize Hulu's alleged conduct to the world of videotapes and paper records. Early on Judge Beeler sided with plaintiffs in In re Hulu Privacy Litigation, 11-3764, that the company was a "video tape service provider" as defined by the VPPA and that the video privacy law did not demand a showing of actual harm for an award of statutory damages. Following those setbacks, Hulu bulked up its defense team, adding Covington as co-counsel with O'Melveny. Judge Beeler has since sided with Hulu on some issues, first knocking out claims related to the company's sharing of anonymized data with a metrics firm that tracked general viewing habits. In June, Judge Beeler went on to deny plaintiffs' first bid for class certification, concluding it would be too difficult to determine who should recover damages. At $2,500 per claimant, Beeler found the potential award "wildly disproportionate to any adverse effects the class members suffered, and it shocks the conscience." With class certification sidelined for now, Hulu's lawyers have taken aim at the plaintiffs lone remaining claim, arguing that Hulu did not knowingly transmit Facebook users' IDs and viewing choices back to Facebook. A hearing on the motion for summary judgment was scheduled for Feb. 19. According to plaintiffs, when Hulu installed the Facebook "Like" button on its viewing pages in 2010, the move resulted in the transmissions of unique user IDs, which were embedded in Facebook's browser cookie, and the title of videos, which at the time were spelled out in Hulu watch page URLs. Hulu's lawyers claim the company isn't liable because it didn't know what was happening. "The evidence demonstrates that Hulu did not know that Facebook's c_user cookies were transmitting Facebook User IDs to Facebook or what Facebook did, if anything, with these transmissions," Hulu's lawyers write. They contend the plaintiffs are conflating Hulu's decision to add the "Like" button to viewing pages with Facebook's tracking of its user's web activity. Plaintiffs argue that internal Hulu records show that the company knew that the "Like" Button identified users to Facebook. "Hulu's internal documents, which it dismisses with no analysis, provide at least circumstantial evidence that Hulu knew that it was transmitting personally identifying information," they write. Not surprisingly, the sides also differ on what it means under the statute to "knowingly" disclose personally identifiable information. Hulu argues the language means it must have "actual knowledge" of a disclosure to violate the law. The plaintiffs claim actual knowledge is not a requirement, and that they "need only demonstrate that Hulu voluntarily provided user-specific information and videos watched." Just what amounts to a "knowing" disclosure is "one of the more interesting and live VPPA issues" playing out in the courts today, Mr. Balasubramani says. Just one district court decision so far addresses the issue. The case, Mollett v. Netflix, was argued before the Ninth Circuit. HYUNDAI MOTOR: Sued Over Models With Defective Electric System -------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Hyundai 2010-13 models have a defective electric system which can make it shut down, a class action claims in California Superior Court. HYUNDAI MOTOR: Sued by Blue Link Customers Over Subscription Fees ----------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims that Hyundai did not inform customers that if they let their Blue Link Telematics (GPS) System paid subscription lapse, it would cost them $500 to replace or restart it. JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS: Psychiatrist Testifies in Risperdal Trial ------------------------------------------------------------------ P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that a pediatric psychiatrist testified in the Risperdal trial Feb. 13 that the drug was the best option for treating the plaintiff's autism-related outbursts and that the risks of gynecomastia were adequately stated in the drug's warning label. Dr. Adelaide Robb of the Children's National Medical Center testified on behalf of defendant Janssen Pharmaceuticals at the end of the trial's third week. The plaintiffs in the case, Austin Pledger and his mother, claimed that Risperdal caused elevated levels of the hormone prolactin in Pledger's system, leading to gynecomastia. Gynecomastia is a condition that causes males to grow female breast tissue. Dr. Robb told the court that she and her colleagues at the hospital frequently conduct clinical trials for drugs, including a trial for Risperdal. Janssen's counsel, Diane Sullivan of Weil, Gotshal & Manges, asked Dr. Robb why Pledger's doctor prescribed Risperdal. Dr. Robb replied that Pledger was hitting himself, acting out in class, and striking and pinching his classmates; some of the behavioral traits of autistic children. Ms. Sullivan also asked if there was any association between autism and weight gain. Dr. Robb responded that autistic children generally eat high-calorie foods that can cause weight gain, as well as tending to be less physically active than other children their age as they do not function well in sports or team settings. Dr. Robb then talked about a 2002 study on Risperdal funded by the federal government and conducted at Yale and Johns Hopkins universities. In that study, half the patients were given Risperdal and the others a placebo. "What they found is the behavior got a lot better in the kids taking the real medicine than with the sugar pill," Dr. Robb said. She went on to explain that other drugs were not good options for Pledger because of the increased weight gain and the requirement of frequent blood monitoring. Ms. Sullivan asked Dr. Robb whether she had to take risk information from the adult section of the drug's label prior to 2006, when Risperdal was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for use in children. As a prescribing child psychiatrist, Dr. Robb said, she would have discussions with parents about the drug's possible side effects. Dr. Robb said she would also inform parents that she did not know if those side effects could occur in children. Ms. Sullivan asked Dr. Robb if Janssen provided adequate information in the label about the potential for prolactin level increases. Dr. Robb said yes: "It was in the label." "Did Risperdal work for Mr. Pledger?" Ms. Sullivan asked. The lead plaintiffs attorney, Thomas R. Kline of Kline & Specter, objected. Presiding Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge Ramy I. Djerassi sustained the objection, reasoning, "It's a decision for this jury whether or not it worked." Ms. Sullivan rephrased, asking if Risperdal worked in terms of easing Pledger's behavioral symptoms. Robb said based on Pledger's doctor's and teacher's reports, it did. The discussion returned to weight gain with Ms. Sullivan asking how much extra weight children could gain on Risperdal. Dr. Robb replied that most children could gain up to an extra eight or nine pounds on top of their normal weight gain while on the drug. Sullivan then asked what caused Pledger to gain weight. "He was already overweight," Dr. Robb said, noting that Pledger did gain weight from the drug, but did so also because of poor diet and lack of exercise. However, Dr. Robb added that for a time while Pledger was on Risperdal, with a healthier diet and running on a treadmill, Pledger lost some weight. "What happened when he stopped taking Risperdal?" Ms. Sullivan asked. "His behavior deteriorated," Dr. Robb said, adding that Pledger had to transfer from school to home instruction because of his symptoms. "Do you agree with the decision to prescribe Risperdal?" Ms. Sullivan asked. Dr. Robb said yes. On cross-examination, Mr. Kline asked Dr. Robb if there was information in the 2002 Risperdal label that wasn't in the 2006 label. Dr. Robb agreed that there wasn't. Mr. Kline added that in 2002, the label said the rate of gynecomastia from Risperdal was 2.3 percent, or "rare," which in the clinical sense means less than one in 1,000. Mr. Kline said based on additional Janssen studies the rate of "symptoms hypothetically attributable to prolactin," or SHAP, was 5.1 percent. He further claimed that Dr. Robb knew this information during the clinical trials, and although the information was published in a psychiatric journal, a doctor like Pledger's neurologist would not have access to that information. "The fact of the matter is nothing like the real rate of gynecomastia would be known to a treating child neurologist" who wasn't reading the psychiatric literature, Kline said. Robb said Pledger's doctor could have always attended seminars where the subject was discussed. Mr. Kline asked Dr. Robb if she would agree that, if a risk is at least 23 times that which is printed in the label, a doctor is not fully informed. "I think we can agree that the rate in children is different than the rate in adults," Dr. Robb replied. JB'S SAUSAGE: Recalls Sausage Products Due to Allergens ------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: February 3, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Gluten, Allergen - Soy, Allergen - Wheat Hazard classification: Class 3 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: JB's Sausage Maker Supplies Ltd. Distribution: Saskatchewan Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 9583 JOY BURGER: "Villarreal" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Ramiro Villarreal and Roly Soto, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Joy Burger Bar, Inc. d/b/a Joy Burger Bar, Roy Ben Jacob, Tomer Tavokoli, Elizabeth Green, and Rohamim Kohan, Case No. 1:15-cv-01232 (S.D.N.Y., February 20, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, attorney fees, and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a bar and restaurant located at 361 61 Avenue, New York, NY 10014. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Antonio Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2020 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 E-mail: faillace@employmentcompliance.com KIA MOTORS: Optima Cars Have Defective Door Locks, Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Kia Optimas in model year 2001-06 have defective door locks that sometimes make it necessary for front-seat occupants to crawl over to the back seat to get out, a class action claims in California Federal Court. LENOVO INC: Sued Over Damages Caused by Pre-Installed Spyware ------------------------------------------------------------- Jessica N. Bennett, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lenovo (United States) Inc., and Superfish, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00368 (S.D. Cal., February 19, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of selling new computers with pre-installed harmful and offensive spyware and malware. Lenovo (United States) Inc. is a subsidiary of Lenovo Group Limited, a multinational computer technology company, which, through its subsidiaries including Lenovo, designs, develops, manufactures and sells personal computers, tablet computers, smartphones, workstations, servers, electronic storage devices and smart televisions. Superfish, Inc. is a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business in Palo Alto, California. It is an advertising company that develops various advertising-supported software products based on a visual search engine. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander M. Schack, Esq. Natasha A. Naraghi, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ALEXANDER M. SCHACK 16870 West Bernardo Drive, Suite 400 San Diego, CA 92127 Telephone: (858) 485-6535 Facsimile: (858) 485-0608 E-mail: alexschack@amslawoffice.com natashanaraghi@amslawoffice.com - and - Geoffrey J. Spreter, Esq. SPRETER LEGAL SERVICES, APC 601 3rd Street Coronado, CA 92118 Telephone: (619) 865-7986 E-mail: spreterlegalservices@gmail.com - and - E. Elliot Adler, Esq. ADLER LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Suite 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 531-8700 Facsimile: (619) 342-9600 E-mail: elliotadler@gmail.com LORILLARD INC: Trial Underway in 2 Engle Progeny Cases ------------------------------------------------------ Lorillard, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that as of February 6, 2015, trial was underway in two Engle Progeny Cases in which Lorillard Tobacco is a defendant: Caprio v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al. (State Court, Broward County, Florida) and Landau v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al. (Federal Court, Middle District, Jacksonville, Florida). Lorillard, Inc. is not a defendant in either of these trials. As of February 6, 2015, Lorillard Tobacco and Lorillard, Inc. are defendants in Engle Progeny Cases that have been placed on courts' 2015 trial calendars or in which specific trial dates have been set. Trial schedules are subject to change and it is not possible to predict how many of the Engle Progeny Cases pending against Lorillard Tobacco or Lorillard, Inc. will be tried in 2015. It also is not possible to predict whether some courts will implement procedures that consolidate multiple Engle Progeny Cases for trial. The case of Engle v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., et al. (Circuit Court, Dade County, Florida, filed May 5, 1994) was certified as a class action on behalf of Florida residents, and survivors of Florida residents, who were injured or died from medical conditions allegedly caused by addiction to smoking. The case was tried between 1998 and 2000 in a multi-phase trial that resulted in verdicts in favor of the class. In 2006, the Florida Supreme Court issued a ruling that, among other things, determined that the case could not proceed further as a class action. In February 2008, the trial court entered an order on remand from the Florida Supreme Court that formally decertified the class. The 2006 ruling by the Florida Supreme Court in Engle also permitted members of the Engle class to file individual claims, including claims for punitive damages. The Florida Supreme Court held that these individual plaintiffs are entitled to rely on a number of the jury's findings in favor of the plaintiffs in the first phase of the Engle trial. These findings included that smoking cigarettes causes a number of diseases; that cigarettes are addictive or dependence-producing; and that the defendants, including Lorillard Tobacco and Lorillard, Inc., were negligent, breached express and implied warranties, placed cigarettes on the market that were defective and unreasonably dangerous, and concealed or conspired to conceal the risks of smoking. Lorillard Tobacco is a defendant in approximately 3,611 cases pending in various state and federal courts in Florida that were filed by members of the Engle class (the "Engle Progeny Cases"), including 633 cases in which Lorillard, Inc. is a co-defendant. Lorillard, Inc. is a defendant in one Engle Progeny case in which Lorillard Tobacco is not a defendant. LORILLARD INC: Defendant in 6,228 Product Liability Cases --------------------------------------------------------- Lorillard, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that as of February 6, 2015, 7,209 product liability cases are pending against cigarette manufacturers in the United States. Lorillard Tobacco is a defendant in 6,228 of these cases. Lorillard, Inc. is a co- defendant in 636 pending cases, and is a defendant in one case in which Lorillard Tobacco is not a defendant. A total of 3,612 of these lawsuits are Engle Progeny Cases. In addition to the product liability cases, Lorillard Tobacco and, in some instances, Lorillard, Inc., are defendants in Filter Cases and Tobacco- Related Antitrust Cases. Pending cases against Lorillard are those in which Lorillard Tobacco or Lorillard, Inc. have been joined to the litigation by either receipt of service of process, or execution of a waiver thereof, and a dismissal order has not been entered with respect to Lorillard Tobacco or Lorillard, Inc. Certain Flight Attendant Cases that were dismissed for administrative reasons, but which may be reinstated pursuant to the settlement agreement in Broin v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc., et al. have been included in the count of pending cases. The table lists the number of certain tobacco-related cases pending against Lorillard as of the date listed: Total Number of Cases Pending against Lorillard as Type of Case of February 6, 2015 ------------ ---------------------------- Conventional Product Liability Cases 22 Engle Progeny Cases 3,612 West Virginia Individual Personal Injury Cases 38 Flight Attendant Cases 2,555 Class Action Case 1 Reimbursement Case 1 Filter Cases 62 Tobacco-Related Antitrust Case 1 Conventional Product Liability Cases. Conventional Product Liability Cases are brought by individuals who allege cancer or other health effects caused by smoking cigarettes, by using smokeless tobacco products, by addiction to tobacco, or by exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. Lorillard Tobacco is a defendant in each of the Conventional Product Liability cases listed, and Lorillard, Inc. is a co-defendant in three of the Conventional Product Liability Cases. Engle Progeny Cases. Engle Progeny Cases are brought by individuals who purport to be members of the decertified Engle class. These cases are pending in a number of Florida courts. Lorillard Tobacco is a defendant in 3,611 of the Engle Progeny Cases listed. Lorillard, Inc. is a co-defendant in 633 Engle Progeny Cases, and is a defendant in one case in which Lorillard Tobacco is not a defendant. The time period for filing Engle Progeny Cases expired in January 2008 and no additional cases may be filed. Some of the Engle Progeny Cases were filed on behalf of multiple class members. Some of the courts hearing the cases filed by multiple class members have severed these suits into separate individual cases. It is possible the remaining suits filed by multiple class members may also be severed into separate individual cases. West Virginia Individual Personal Injury Cases. In a 1999 administrative order, the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals transferred to the West Virginia Mass Litigation Panel a group of cases brought by individuals who allege cancer or other health effects caused by smoking cigarettes, smoking cigars, or using smokeless tobacco products (the "West Virginia Individual Personal Injury Cases"). The plaintiffs' claims alleging injury from smoking cigarettes were consolidated for trial. The plaintiffs' claims alleging injury from the use of other tobacco products were severed from the consolidated cigarette claims and have not been consolidated for trial. The time for filing a case that could be consolidated for trial with the West Virginia Individual Personal Injury Cases expired in 2000. Lorillard Tobacco is a defendant in each of the West Virginia Individual Personal Injury Cases listed. Lorillard, Inc. is not a defendant in any of the West Virginia Individual Personal Injury Cases. After the consolidated Phase I trial in 2013, judgment was entered for the defendants on all but one of the plaintiffs' claims. That judgment was affirmed by the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals in 2014. Lorillard Tobacco is not presently identified as a defendant against which the plaintiffs in any West Virginia Individual Personal Injury Case can proceed to a Phase II trial on causation and damages. Flight Attendant Cases. Flight Attendant Cases are brought by non- smoking flight attendants alleging injury from exposure to environmental smoke in the cabins of aircraft. Plaintiffs in these cases may not seek punitive damages for injuries that arose prior to January 15, 1997. Lorillard Tobacco is a defendant in each of the Flight Attendant Cases listed. Lorillard, Inc. is not a defendant in any of the Flight Attendant Cases. The time for filing Flight Attendant Cases expired in 2000 and no additional cases in this category may be filed. Class Action Cases. Class Action Cases are purported to be brought on behalf of large numbers of individuals for damages allegedly caused by smoking. Lorillard Tobacco but not Lorillard, Inc. is a defendant in the Class Action Case listed. Neither Lorillard Tobacco nor Lorillard, Inc. is a defendant in additional Class Action Cases that are pending against other cigarette manufacturers, including approximately 16 "lights" Class Action Cases and one Class Action Case seeking a court- supervised medical monitoring program. Reimbursement Cases. Reimbursement Cases are brought by or on behalf of entities seeking equitable relief and reimbursement of expenses incurred in providing health care to individuals who allegedly were injured by smoking. Plaintiffs in these cases have included the U.S. federal government, U.S. state and local governments, foreign governmental entities, hospitals or hospital districts, American Indian tribes, labor unions, private companies and private citizens. Included in this category is the suit filed by the federal government, United States of America v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., et al., ("Philip Morris"), that sought to recover profits earned by the defendants and other equitable relief. Lorillard Tobacco is a defendant in the case, and Lorillard, Inc. is not a party to this case. In August 2006, the trial court issued its final judgment and remedial order and granted injunctive and other equitable relief. The final judgment did not award monetary damages. In May 2009, the final judgment was largely affirmed by an appellate court. In June 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court denied review of the case. Some aspects of the relief granted in the 2006 remedial order are still being litigated and have not yet been implemented. Filter Cases. Filter Cases are brought by individuals, including former employees of a predecessor of Lorillard Tobacco, who seek damages resulting from their alleged exposure to asbestos fibers that were incorporated into filter material used in one brand of cigarettes manufactured by Lorillard for a limited period of time ending more than 50 years ago. Lorillard Tobacco is a defendant in 61 of the 62 Filter Cases listed. Lorillard, Inc. is a co- defendant in two of the 61 Filter Cases that are pending against Lorillard Tobacco. Lorillard, Inc. is also a defendant in one additional Filter Case in which Lorillard Tobacco is not a defendant. Tobacco-Related Antitrust Cases. In 2000 and 2001, a number of cases were brought against cigarette manufacturers, including Lorillard Tobacco, alleging that defendants conspired to set the price of cigarettes in violation of federal and state antitrust and unfair business practices statutes. Plaintiffs sought class certification on behalf of persons who purchased cigarettes directly or indirectly from one or more of the defendant cigarette manufacturers. Lorillard Tobacco is a defendant in one Tobacco- Related Antitrust Case. Lorillard, Inc. is not a defendant in this case. All of the other cases have been either successfully defended or voluntarily dismissed. LORILLARD INC: Tobacco Unit to Appeal Judgment in "Major" Case -------------------------------------------------------------- Lorillard, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Lorillard Tobacco noticed an appeal to the California Second District Court of Appeal from the final judgment awarding compensatory damages and the order granting in part trial court costs and pre-judgment interest in the case Major v. R.J. Reynolds. Plaintiff has also noticed an appeal from the order denying in part pre-judgment interest. On July 30, 2014, a verdict was returned in Major v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al. (California Superior Court, Los Angeles County), a case in which plaintiff alleged that the smoker's injuries were caused by asbestos fiber and tobacco smoke inhalation. Lorillard Tobacco was the sole defendant at trial. The jury awarded plaintiff $2,736,700 in economic compensatory damages and $15,000,000 in non-economic compensatory damages, for a total compensatory damages award of $17,736,700. Punitive damages were not at issue in this trial. The jury apportioned 50% of the fault for the smoker's injuries to the smoker, 17% to Lorillard Tobacco, and 33% to exposure to cigarettes manufactured by companies other than Lorillard Tobacco. The jury found that exposure to asbestos was not a substantial factor in the smoker's injuries. On August 25, 2014, the Court entered judgment awarding plaintiff $2,550,000 in non-economic damages (which represents Lorillard Tobacco's 17% share as found by the jury) and the amount of $1,368,350 in economic damages (under California law, Lorillard Tobacco is responsible for the amount of economic damages that the jury found was the fault of anyone other than plaintiff, not just its 17% share), for a total award against Lorillard Tobacco of $3,918,350. On September 17, 2014, Lorillard Tobacco filed a motion for a new trial and a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, which the Court denied on October 28, 2014. On November 17, 2014, the Court granted in part and denied in part plaintiff's motion for trial court costs and pre-judgment interest on the damages award, determining that pre-judgment interest accrued over an approximately five year period, excluding an approximately six year period during which the case was dismissed prior to re- filing. On November 26, 2014, Lorillard Tobacco noticed an appeal to the California Second District Court of Appeal from the final judgment awarding compensatory damages and the order granting in part trial court costs and pre-judgment interest. Plaintiff has also noticed an appeal from the order denying in part pre-judgment interest. LORILLARD INC: 6 Product Liability Cases for Trial in 2015 ---------------------------------------------------------- Lorillard, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that as of February 6, 2015, there were six conventional product liability cases scheduled for trial in 2015. As of February 6, 2015, neither Lorillard Tobacco nor Lorillard, Inc. is a defendant in any of these cases. Trial dates are subject to change. Since January 1, 2010, verdicts have been returned in eleven Conventional Product Liability Cases against cigarette manufacturers, in addition to the Major case. Lorillard Tobacco was the only defendant in one of these eleven trials, Evans v. Lorillard Tobacco Company (Superior Court, Suffolk County, Massachusetts). Lorillard Tobacco paid $79 million in compensatory damages and interest to fully satisfy the Evans judgment in October 2013. Neither Lorillard Tobacco nor Lorillard, Inc. was a defendant in the ten other trials since January 1, 2010. Juries found in favor of the plaintiffs and awarded compensatory damages in four of these trials and also awarded $4.0 million in punitive damages in one of these trials. Defendants appealed the verdicts in three of these trials. The verdict in the first case was affirmed on appeal in July 2013; judgment was satisfied and this case is concluded. As of February 6, 2015 the appeal in the second case remains pending. In September 2013, an agreement was reached between the parties in the third case and no further appellate review will be taken. Satisfaction of judgment has been filed and this case is concluded. The verdict in the fourth case was affirmed on appeal in January 2015, and the defendant has satisfied the judgment. The plaintiff in another case was awarded $25 million in punitive damages in a retrial ordered by an appellate court in which the jury was permitted to consider only the amount of punitive damages to award. Defendant's appeal of the judgment in this case remains pending. Juries found in favor of the defendants in the five other trials. Three of these five cases have concluded. Plaintiffs in two of the cases did not pursue appeals. Plaintiff in the third case noticed an appeal, which was affirmed in February 2013, and then did not seek any further review. Plaintiff in the fourth case filed a notice of appeal to the Alaska Supreme Court from the order denying plaintiff's motion for a new trial and that appeal remains pending. Plaintiff in the fifth case noticed an appeal and the appellate court reversed the defense verdict and ordered the case returned to the trial court for a new trial. In rulings addressing cases tried in earlier years, some appellate courts have reversed verdicts returned in favor of the plaintiffs in whole or in part, while other judgments that awarded damages to smokers have been affirmed on appeal. Manufacturers have exhausted their appeals and have been required to pay damages to plaintiffs in sixteen individual cases since 2001. Punitive damages were paid to the smokers in six of these cases. Neither Lorillard Tobacco nor Lorillard, Inc. was a party to any of these matters. LORILLARD INC: 3,792 Engle Progeny Cases Dismissed Since Jan 2010 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Lorillard, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that since January 2010 and through February 6, 2015, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida has dismissed a total of approximately 3,792 Engle Progeny cases. In 2006, the Florida Supreme Court issued a ruling in Engle v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., et al., which had been certified as a class action on behalf of Florida residents, and survivors of Florida residents, who were injured or died from medical conditions allegedly caused by addiction to smoking. During a three-phase trial, a Florida jury awarded compensatory damages to three individuals and approximately $145 billion in punitive damages to the certified class. In its 2006 decision, the Florida Supreme Court vacated the punitive damages award, determined that the case could not proceed further as a class action and ordered decertification of the class. The Florida Supreme Court also reinstated the compensatory damages awards to two of the three individuals whose claims were heard during the first phase of the Engle trial. These two awards totaled $7 million, and both verdicts were paid in February 2008. Lorillard Tobacco's payment to these two individuals, including interest, totaled approximately $3 million. The Florida Supreme Court's 2006 ruling also permitted Engle class members to file individual actions, including claims for punitive damages. The court further held that these individuals are entitled to rely on a number of the jury's findings in favor of the plaintiffs in the first phase of the Engle trial. The time period for filing Engle Progeny Cases expired in January 2008 and no additional cases may be filed. In 2009, the Florida Supreme Court rejected a petition that sought to extend the time for purported class members to file an additional lawsuit. Engle Progeny Cases are pending in various Florida state and federal courts. Some of the Engle Progeny Cases were filed on behalf of multiple plaintiffs. Various courts have entered orders severing the cases filed by multiple plaintiffs into separate actions. In 2009, one Florida federal court entered orders that severed the claims of approximately 4,400 Engle Progeny plaintiffs, initially asserted in a small number of multi- plaintiff actions, into separate lawsuits. In some cases, spouses or children of alleged former class members have also brought derivative claims. In 2011, approximately 500 cases that were among the 4,400 cases severed into separate lawsuits in 2009, filed by family members of alleged former class members, were combined with the cases filed by the smoker from which the family members' claims purportedly derived. On August 1, 2013, Judge William G. Young of the District of Massachusetts took over responsibility for the Engle cases in the Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville Division. Judge Young issued an order that day that called for three groups of cases to be prepared for trial on the following schedule: approximately 50 cases to be made trial ready by January 2, 2014, approximately 107 cases to be made trial ready by May 2014, and approximately 120 cases to be made trial ready by September 2, 2014. On January 17, 2014, Judge Young issued an order calling for an additional three groups of cases to be prepared for trial on the following schedule: approximately 200 cases to be made trial ready by January 2, 2015, approximately 150 cases to be made trial ready by April 1, 2015, and approximately 150 cases to be made trial ready by July 1, 2015. On June 23, 2014, Judge Young issued an order calling for an additional three groups of cases to be prepared for trial on the following schedule: approximately 146 cases to be made trial ready by January 4, 2016, approximately 144 cases to be made trial ready by May 1, 2016, and approximately 139 cases to be made trial ready by September 1, 2016. On November 4, 2014, 27 additional remaining cases were given September 1, 2016 trial readiness dates. Since the issuance of these orders, 543 of the cases to be prepared for trial have been dismissed in their entirety, and Lorillard Tobacco has been dismissed from an additional 77 cases involving other defendants. These cases have been voluntarily dismissed, resolved, or involuntarily dismissed for lack of prosecution or failure to comply with court orders. On October 31, 2014, the Court assigned a magistrate judge with the responsibility of exploring the possibility of a global settlement of the remaining federal Engle Progeny Cases. The magistrate judge has the authority to hold hearings and conduct mediation sessions, however, the magistrate judge's orders will not alter the current case management scheduling orders. Since January 2010 and through February 6, 2015, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida has dismissed a total of approximately 3,792 cases. In some instances, the plaintiffs whose cases were dismissed also were pursuing cases pending in other courts. In other instances, the attorneys who represented the plaintiffs asked the court to enter dismissal orders because they were no longer able to contact their clients. In January 2013, the Court granted a motion by defendants and dismissed approximately 520 cases in which the plaintiffs were deceased at the time their personal injury lawsuits were filed. Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of these 520 cases to the United States Court of Appeal for the Eleventh Circuit. In June 2013, the Court dismissed an additional approximately 440 cases for a variety of reasons. Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of approximately 70 of these cases, in which the plaintiffs were deceased at the time their personal injury lawsuits were filed or where the cases were barred by the statute of limitations. The Court granted plaintiffs' motion to consolidate the appeals from the January and June orders dismissing these groups of federal cases. On September 10, 2014, the United States Court of Appeal for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissals in these consolidated appeals. On July 7, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit from an order dismissing 14 cases for failure to produce signed authorizations, and that appeal remained pending, as of February 6, 2015. Other courts, including state courts, have entered orders dismissing additional cases. LORILLARD INC: Verdicts Returned in 21 Engle Progeny Cases ---------------------------------------------------------- Lorillard, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that as of February 6, 2015, verdicts had been returned in 21 Engle Progeny Cases in which Lorillard Tobacco was a defendant. Lorillard, Inc. was a defendant in one of these 21 cases at the time of verdict. Juries awarded compensatory damages to the plaintiffs in sixteen of these cases. In four of the sixteen cases in which juries awarded compensatory damages, plaintiffs were awarded punitive damages from Lorillard Tobacco. In another case, the court entered an order following trial that awarded plaintiff compensatory damages. The 21 cases in which Lorillard Tobacco was a defendant are listed in the order in which the verdicts were returned: * In Rohr v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al. (Circuit Court, Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County, Florida), a jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants, including Lorillard Tobacco, in October 2010. Plaintiff in Rohr did not pursue an appeal and the case is concluded. * In Mrozek v. Lorillard Tobacco Company (Circuit Court, Fourth Judicial Circuit, Duval County, Florida), the jury awarded plaintiff a total of $6 million in compensatory damages and $11.3 million in punitive damages in March 2011. The jury apportioned 35% of the fault for the smoker's injuries to the smoker and 65% to Lorillard Tobacco. The final judgment entered by the trial court reflected the jury's verdict and awarded plaintiff $3,900,588 in compensatory damages and $11,300,000 in punitive damages plus the applicable statutory rates of annual interest. In December 2012, the Florida First District Court of Appeal affirmed the final judgment awarding compensatory and punitive damages and Lorillard Tobacco's motion for rehearing of the appellate court opinion was denied in February 2013. In March 2013, Lorillard Tobacco filed a notice with the Florida Supreme Court seeking review of the appellate court decision. On February 13, 2014, the Florida Supreme Court declined to grant review of this case. In March 2014, Lorillard Tobacco amended the bond necessary to maintain a stay on payment of the final judgment. On March 28, 2014, Lorillard Tobacco filed a petition with the United States Supreme Court, seeking review of the due process issue, and requested that the petition be held and resolved in the same manner as the Duke, Walker, and Brown cases, also pending before the United States Supreme Court. On June 9, 2014, the United States Supreme Court denied the petitions seeking review. The trial court announced on June 25, 2014 that it had granted Lorillard Tobacco's motion to determine the applicable rates of post-judgment interest that were in dispute. On June 27, 2014, Lorillard Tobacco made a payment of $17,500,197 to satisfy the final judgment awarding compensatory and punitive damages and post-judgment interest. On July 25, 2014, the court entered an order confirming satisfaction of judgment. On July 28, 2014, plaintiff appealed the order determining the rate of post-judgment interest payable on the final judgment, and that appeal remained pending as of February 6, 2015. The Florida First District Court of Appeal provisionally granted plaintiff's motion for intermediate appellate court attorneys' fees, ruling that the trial court is authorized to award appellate fees if the trial court determines entitlement to attorneys' fees. In June 2013, the trial court granted plaintiff's motion for entitlement to trial court attorneys' costs and fees and also determined that plaintiff was entitled to intermediate appellate court attorneys' fees. As of February 6, 2015, the trial court had not determined the amount of trial court or intermediate appellate court fees to award. On February 13, 2014, the Florida Supreme Court provisionally granted plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees in connection with the appeal to the Florida Supreme Court, in the amount of $2,500, conditioned on the trial court's determination of entitlement. * In Tullo v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al. (Circuit Court, Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County, Florida), the jury awarded plaintiff a total of $4.5 million in compensatory damages, in April 2011. The jury assessed 45% of the fault to the smoker, 5% to Lorillard Tobacco and 50% to other defendants. The jury did not award punitive damages to the plaintiff. The court entered a final judgment that awarded plaintiff $225,000 in compensatory damages from Lorillard Tobacco plus 6% annual interest. On October 16, 2013, defendants noticed an appeal from the final judgment to the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal. In August 2013, the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the final judgment. Defendants filed a notice with the Florida Supreme Court seeking review of the appellate court decision. On March 10, 2014, the trial court entered an order confirming that Lorillard Tobacco had satisfied the judgment awarding compensatory damages and post-judgment interest for an amount totaling approximately $263,400. On March 18, 2014, Lorillard Tobacco filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of their petition seeking review of the Florida Supreme Court and the Court entered an order dismissing the petition for review as to Lorillard Tobacco on May 21, 2014. The Florida Supreme Court declined to accept review of the petition as to the other defendants. Plaintiff is not entitled to recover trial or appellate fees from Lorillard Tobacco. As of February 6, 2015, the trial court had not determined the amount of trial or appellate court costs to award. * In Sulcer v. Lorillard Tobacco Company, et al. (Circuit Court, First Judicial Circuit, Escambia County, Florida), in April 2011, the jury awarded $225,000 in compensatory damages to the plaintiff and it assessed 95% of the fault for the smoker's injuries to the smoker with 5% allocated to Lorillard Tobacco. The jury did not award punitive damages to the plaintiff. The court entered a final judgment that incorporated the jury's determination of the parties' fault and awarded plaintiff $11,250 in compensatory damages. Lorillard Tobacco paid approximately $246,000 to resolve the verdict, costs and fees, as well as all post-trial motions and any potential appeal by the plaintiff. Following this payment, Sulcer was concluded. * In Jewett v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al. (Circuit Court, Fourth Judicial Circuit, Duval County, Florida), the jury awarded the estate of the decedent $692,981 in compensatory damages and awarded the plaintiff $400,000 for loss of companionship in May 2011. The jury assessed 70% of the responsibility for the decedent's injuries to the decedent, 20% to R.J. Reynolds and 10% to Lorillard Tobacco. The jury did not award punitive damages to the plaintiff. The final judgment entered by the trial court reflected the jury's verdict and awarded plaintiff a total of $109,298 from Lorillard Tobacco plus 6% annual interest. In June 2012, an agreement was reached between the parties as to the amount of trial court costs and attorneys' fees incurred, should the judgment be upheld on appeal, and plaintiff's motion for costs and attorneys' fees was withdrawn. In November 2012, the Florida First District Court of Appeal reversed the judgment awarding compensatory damages and ordered the case returned to the trial court for a new trial. In January 2013, the appellate court denied a motion filed by the plaintiff for rehearing of the decision reversing the judgment. Both the plaintiff and defendants filed notices with the Florida Supreme Court seeking review of the appellate court decision. On February 14, 2014, the Florida Supreme Court declined to grant review of this case. As of February 6, 2015, a new trial date had not been set. * In Weingart v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al. (Circuit Court, Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County, Florida), in July 2011, the jury determined that the decedent did not sustain any compensatory damages from the defendants, including Lorillard Tobacco, and it returned a verdict for the defendants that punitive damages were not warranted. The jury assessed 91% of the fault for the decedent's injuries to the decedent, 3% to Lorillard Tobacco and 3% to each of the other two defendants. Following trial, the court granted in part a motion filed by the plaintiff to award damages and it awarded plaintiff $150,000 in compensatory damages. The court entered a final judgment that applied the jury's comparative fault determinations to the court's award of compensatory damages. The final judgment awarded plaintiff $4,500 from Lorillard Tobacco. Defendants noticed an appeal to the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal from the order that awarded compensatory damages to the plaintiff and amended their notice of appeal to address the final judgment. On February 13, 2013, the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the final judgment awarding compensatory damages. Defendants filed a notice with the Florida Supreme Court seeking review of this decision. In March 2012, the trial court entered a judgment against the defendants for costs with Lorillard Tobacco's share amounting to $43,081 plus 4.75% annual interest. Defendants noticed an appeal from this costs judgment. In June 2013, all defendants satisfied both the final judgment awarding compensatory damages and the costs judgment, with Lorillard Tobacco's share amounting to approximately $50,000. Defendants' petition for Florida Supreme Court review and the appeal from the costs judgment have been dismissed. This case is concluded. * In Sury v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al. (Circuit Court, Fourth Judicial Circuit, Duval County, Florida), in November 2011, the jury awarded plaintiff $1,000,000 in compensatory damages and assessed 60% of the responsibility for the decedent's injuries to the decedent, 20% to Lorillard Tobacco and 20% to R.J. Reynolds. The jury returned a verdict for the defendants regarding whether punitive damages were warranted. In March 2012, the court entered a final judgment against defendants in the amount of $1,000,000, jointly and severally, plus 4.75% annual interest, declining to apply the jury's comparative fault findings to causes of action alleging intentional conduct. On June 24, 2013, the Florida First District Court of Appeal affirmed the final judgment. Defendants' motion for rehearing of this decision with the Florida First District Court of Appeal was denied in August 2013. The Florida Supreme Court declined review of the intermediate appellate court decision in January 2014. On March 28, 2014, defendants filed a petition with the United States Supreme Court, seeking review of the due process issue, and requested that the petition be held and resolved in the same manner as the Duke, Walker, and Brown cases, also pending before the United States Supreme Court. On June 9, 2014, the United States Supreme Court denied the petitions seeking review. On June 19, 2014, Lorillard Tobacco made a payment of $1,659,674 to satisfy the final judgment awarding compensatory damages plus post judgment interest, trial level attorneys' fees and costs, and Florida Supreme Court fees. The Court entered an order confirming satisfaction of judgment on July 24, 2014. In June 2013, the First District Court of Appeal determined that plaintiff was entitled to attorneys' fees in connection with the appeal to the First District Court of Appeal and directed the trial court to determine the amount. As of February 6, 2015, the trial court had not determined the amount. * In Alexander v. Lorillard Tobacco Company, et al. (Circuit Court, Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Miami-Dade County, Florida), the jury awarded plaintiff $20,000,000 in compensatory damages and $25,000,000 in punitive damages in February and March 2012. Lorillard Tobacco is the only defendant in this case. The jury apportioned 20% of the fault for the smoker's injuries to the smoker and 80% to Lorillard Tobacco. In March 2012, the court entered a final judgment that applied the jury's comparative fault determination to the court's award of compensatory damages, awarding the plaintiff $16,000,000 in compensatory damages and $25,000,000 in punitive damages from Lorillard Tobacco. In May 2012, the court granted a motion by Lorillard Tobacco to lower the amount of compensatory damages and reduced the amount awarded to $10,000,000 from Lorillard Tobacco. Other post-trial motions challenging the verdict were denied. The court entered an amended final judgment that applied the jury's comparative fault determination to the court's award of compensatory damages, awarding the plaintiff $8,000,000 in compensatory damages and $25,000,000 in punitive damages. The court also awarded plaintiff post-judgment interest (based on a statutory rate) on the compensatory and punitive damages. Lorillard Tobacco noticed an appeal from the amended final judgment to the Florida Third District Court of Appeal. On September 4, 2013, the Florida Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the amended final judgment. Lorillard Tobacco's motion for rehearing of this decision with the Florida Third District Court of Appeal was denied in October 2013. Lorillard Tobacco filed a petition with the Florida Supreme Court seeking review of the intermediate appellate court decision in November 2013, and this petition was denied on September 9, 2014. On September 23, 2014, Lorillard Tobacco made a payment of $38,960,916 to resolve all damages, costs and fees and post- judgment interest. Plaintiff filed a satisfaction of judgment on September 29, 2014 and the Court confirmed satisfaction of judgment on October 3, 2014. This case is concluded. * In Calloway v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al. (Circuit Court, Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County, Florida), the jury awarded plaintiff and a daughter of the decedent a total of $20,500,000 in compensatory damages in May 2012. The jury apportioned 20.5% of the fault for the smoker's injuries to the smoker, 27% to R.J. Reynolds, 25% to Philip Morris, 18% to Lorillard Tobacco, and 9.5% to Liggett. The jury awarded $12,600,000 in punitive damages from Lorillard Tobacco and $42,250,000 from the other defendants, for a total punitive damages award of $54,850,000. In August 2012, the court granted a post-trial motion by the defendants and lowered the compensatory damages award to $16,100,000. The court also ruled that the jury's finding on the smoker's percentage of comparative fault would not be applied to reduce the compensatory damage award because the jury found in favor of the plaintiff on her claims alleging intentional conduct. In August 2012, the court entered final judgment against defendants in the amount of $16,100,000 in compensatory damages, jointly and severally, and $54,850,000 ($12,600,000 from Lorillard Tobacco) in punitive damages. The court also awarded plaintiff post-judgment interest (based on a statutory rate) on the compensatory and punitive damages, which totaled approximately $2.0 million as of February 6, 2015 based on the jury-apportioned fault for Lorillard Tobacco. The final judgment also granted plaintiff's application for trial court costs and attorneys' fees, but as of February 6, 2015, the trial court had not awarded an amount. Defendants have noticed an appeal from the final judgment to the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal. On March 31, 2014, plaintiff filed a motion with the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal seeking attorneys' fees in connection with the appeal to the Fourth District. As of February 6, 2015, the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal had not ruled on this motion. * In Evers v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al. (Circuit Court, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Hillsborough County, Florida), the jury awarded plaintiff and the estate of the decedent a total of $3,230,000 in compensatory damages in February 2013. The jury apportioned 31% of the fault for the smoker's injuries to the smoker, 60% to R.J. Reynolds and 9% to Lorillard Tobacco. The jury found that punitive damages against Lorillard Tobacco were not warranted and awarded $12,362,042 in punitive damages from R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company. The Court granted a post-trial motion by R.J. Reynolds for a directed verdict on punitive damages and, as a result, the jury's punitive damages award was set aside. The Court denied a motion filed by the plaintiff to reconsider the directed verdict. At a post-trial hearing, the plaintiff waived entitlement to the jury's loss of services award which amounted to $280,000 of the total compensatory damages award. In May 2013, the court entered a final judgment that applied the jury's comparative fault determinations and awarded plaintiff and the estate of the decedent $2,035,500 in compensatory damages ($265,500 from Lorillard Tobacco), plus the statutory rate of interest. Plaintiff and defendants have both appealed the final judgment to the Florida Second District Court of Appeal. Plaintiff also filed a motion for entitlement to trial attorneys' fees and costs. As of February 6, 2015, the trial court had not ruled on this motion. On May 23, 2014, plaintiff filed a motion with the Florida Second District Court of Appeal seeking attorneys' fees in connection with the appeal to the Second District. As of February 6, 2015, the Florida Second District Court of Appeal had not ruled on this motion. * In Cohen v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al. (Circuit Court, Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County, Florida), the jury awarded plaintiff and the estate of the decedent a total of $2,055,050 in compensatory damages in May 2013. The jury apportioned 40% of the fault for the smoker's injuries to the smoker, 30% to R.J. Reynolds, 20% to Lorillard Tobacco, and 10% to Liggett. The jury found that punitive damages were not warranted against any of the defendants. On May 6, 2013, the Court entered final judgment against defendants in the amount of $1,233,030 ($411,010 from Lorillard Tobacco) plus 4.75% annual interest. On July 10, 2013, the Court entered an order granting defendants' motion for a new trial based on the plaintiff's improper arguments during closing. This order effectively vacated the final judgment. Plaintiff and defendants have both appealed the order granting the motion for new trial to the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal. * In LaMotte v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al. (Circuit Court, First Judicial Circuit, Escambia County, Florida), the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants in May 2013. The Court entered final judgment in favor of the defendants in May 2013. Plaintiff has agreed to waive any post-trial or appellate review of the verdict and judgment, and defendants have agreed not to seek to recover costs or fees. This case is concluded. * In Ruffo v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al. (Circuit Court, Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Miami-Dade County, Florida), the jury awarded plaintiff $1,500,000 in compensatory damages in May 2013. The jury apportioned 85% of the fault for the smoker's injuries to the smoker, 12% to Philip Morris, and 3% to Lorillard Tobacco. Defendants' post-trial motions challenging the verdict were denied. On October 4, 2013, the Court entered a final judgment against defendants that applied the jury's comparative fault determinations and awarded plaintiff $225,000 in compensatory damages ($45,000 from Lorillard Tobacco) plus the statutory rate of interest. Defendants noticed an appeal from the final judgment to the Florida Third District Court of Appeal. On May 12, 2014, the trial court entered an order confirming that Lorillard Tobacco had satisfied the judgment awarding compensatory damages and post-judgment interest for an amount totaling $46,857. On May 9, 2014, the Florida Third District Court of Appeal entered an order recognizing Lorillard Tobacco's voluntary dismissal of their appeal to the final judgment. On November 19, 2014 the Florida Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the final judgment as to Philip Morris. Plaintiff filed a motion with the trial court seeking entitlement to attorneys' costs and fees. In April 2014, the trial court denied this motion. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the Florida Third District Court of Appeal from the order denying attorneys' fees and costs. On November 19, 2014, the Florida Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's order denying attorneys' fees and costs. This case is concluded. * In Gafney v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al. (Circuit Court, Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County, Florida), the jury awarded plaintiff a total of $5,800,000 in compensatory damages in September 2013. The jury apportioned 34% of the fault for the smoker's injuries to the smoker, 33% to R.J. Reynolds, and 33% to Lorillard Tobacco. Lorillard, Inc. was also a defendant in this trial but damages and comparative fault were not assessed separately for Lorillard, Inc. Because the jury found in favor of the defendants on the claims alleging intentional conduct, the plaintiff was not entitled to punitive damages. On September 26, 2013, the Court entered a final judgment that applied the jury's comparative fault determinations and awarded the plaintiff a total of $3,828,000 in compensatory damages ($1,914,000 from Lorillard Tobacco), plus the statutory rate of interest. Defendants' post- trial motions challenging the verdict were denied in November 2013. Defendants have noticed an appeal from the final judgment to the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal. Plaintiff has filed a motion with the trial court seeking entitlement to attorneys' fees and costs. As of February 6, 2015, the trial court had not ruled on this motion. On January 13, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion with the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal seeking attorneys' fees in connection with the appeal to the Fourth District. As of February 6, 2015, the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal had not ruled on this motion. * In Jacobson v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al. (Federal Court, Southern District, Miami, Florida), the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants on October 29, 2013. The Court entered final judgment in favor of the defendants on October 30, 2013. Plaintiff filed a motion for new trial which was denied in January 2014. On February 10, 2014, the Court entered an order granting Lorillard's motion for attorneys' fees and costs. Lorillard has agreed not to enforce its right to fees and costs in exchange for plaintiff's agreement not to pursue an appeal of the verdict. This case is concluded. * In Chamberlain v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al. (Federal Court, Middle District, Jacksonville, Florida) the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants on November 15, 2013. The Court entered final judgment in favor of the defendants on November 20, 2013. Plaintiff's motion for new trial was denied on April 25, 2014. On June 27, 2014, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal from the final judgment with the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. On December 3, 2014, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal from the final judgment, ruling that the filing date was past the deadline to appeal. * In Burkhart v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al. (Federal Court, Middle District, Jacksonville, Florida), the jury awarded plaintiff a total of $5,000,000 in compensatory damages on May 15, 2014. The jury apportioned 50% of the fault for the smoker's injuries to the smoker, 25% to R.J. Reynolds, 15% to Philip Morris, and 10% to Lorillard Tobacco. The jury awarded $500,000 in punitive damages from Lorillard Tobacco and $2,000,000 from the other defendants for a total punitive damages award of $2,500,000. The Court ruled that the jury's finding on the plaintiff's percentage of comparative fault would not be applied to reduce the compensatory damage award because the jury found in favor of the plaintiff on her claims alleging intentional conduct. On June 11, 2014, the Court entered a final judgment against defendants in the amount of $5,000,000 in compensatory damages, jointly and severally, and $2,500,000 ($500,000 from Lorillard Tobacco) in punitive damages, plus the statutory rate of interest. The Court denied defendants' post-trial motions challenging the verdict. On October 10, 2014, defendants filed a notice of appeal from the final judgment with the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The final judgment also granted plaintiff entitlement to trial court costs, but as of February 6, 2015, the trial court had not awarded an amount. Plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees and prevailing party costs was denied. * In Harris v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al. (Federal Court, Middle District, Jacksonville, Florida), on July 31, 2014, the jury found that one of the smoker's alleged Engle qualifying diseases did not manifest prior to the cut-off period for membership in the Engle class, and that the smoker's other alleged Engle qualifying disease was not caused by the smoker's addiction to cigarettes containing nicotine. However, the jury awarded compensatory damages on plaintiff's survival and wrongful death claims in the total amount of $1,726,650. The jury apportioned 60% of the fault for the smoker's injuries to the smoker, 15% to Philip Morris, 15% to R.J. Reynolds, and 10% to Lorillard Tobacco, in connection with plaintiff's survival claims. The jury apportioned 70% of the fault for the smoker's injuries to the smoker, 10% to Philip Morris, 10% to R.J. Reynolds, and 10% to Lorillard Tobacco, in connection with plaintiff's wrongful death claims. Because the jury found in favor of the defendants on the claims alleging intentional conduct, the plaintiff was not entitled to punitive damages. On August 13, 2014, defendants filed a motion for entry of judgment in favor of all defendants, arguing that the jury's findings establish that the smoker was not an Engle class member. On December 17, 2014, the Court denied defendants' motion. On December 18, 2014, the Court entered final judgment, awarding $1,726,650 in compensatory damages in a lump sum against all defendants. The jury's comparative fault determinations were not applied despite the jury's finding in favor of the defendants on the claims alleging intentional conduct. On January 15, 2015, defendants filed additional post- trial motions challenging the verdict and the final judgment. Plaintiff does not oppose applying the jury's comparative fault determinations to the final judgment. As of February 6, 2015, the Court had not ruled on these motions. On January 2, 2015 the plaintiff filed a motion for attorneys' fees and costs, which defendants have opposed. As of February 6, 2015, the Court had not ruled on this motion. * In Irimi v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al. (Circuit Court, Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County, Florida), the jury awarded plaintiff a total of $3,123,437 in compensatory damages on August 28, 2014. The jury apportioned 70% of the fault for the smoker's injuries to the smoker, 14.5% to Lorillard Tobacco, 14.5% to R.J. Reynolds, and 1% to Liggett. Because the jury found in favor of the defendants on the claims alleging intentional conduct, the plaintiff was not entitled to punitive damages. Defendants filed post-trial motions challenging the verdict and plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial on the issue of entitlement to punitive damages. On December 18, 2014, the Court entered a final judgment that applied the jury's comparative fault determinations and awarded the plaintiff a total of $937,031 in compensatory damages ($452,898 from Lorillard Tobacco), plus the statutory rate of interest. On January 27, 2015, the Court entered an order granting defendants' motion for a new trial based on improper jury selection procedures, which effectively vacates the final judgment. Plaintiff filed a motion for rehearing on February 4, 2015. * In Lourie v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al. (Circuit Court, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Hillsborough County, Florida), the jury awarded plaintiff and a son of the decedent a total of $1,371,549 in compensatory damages on October 10, 2014. The jury apportioned 63% of the fault for the smoker's injuries to the smoker, 27% to Philip Morris, 7% to Lorillard Tobacco, and 3% to R.J. Reynolds. The jury found that punitive damages were not warranted against any of the defendants. The Court denied defendants' post-trial motions challenging the verdict. On November 6, 2014, the Court entered a final judgment that applied the jury's comparative fault determinations and awarded plaintiff and a son of the decedent a total of $507,473 in compensatory damages ($96,008 from Lorillard Tobacco), plus the statutory rate of interest. Defendants have noticed an appeal from the final judgment to the Florida Second District Court of Appeal. On November 10, 2014, plaintiff filed a motion for attorneys' fees and costs. As of February 6, 2015, the Court had not ruled on this motion. * In Perrotto v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al. (Circuit Court, Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County, Florida), the jury awarded plaintiff a total of $4,087,339 in compensatory damages on November 21, 2014. The jury apportioned 49% of the fault for the smoker's injuries to the smoker, 25% to Philip Morris, 20% to R.J. Reynolds, 6% to Lorillard Tobacco, and 0% to Liggett. Because the jury found in favor of the defendants on the claims alleging intentional conduct, the plaintiff was not entitled to punitive damages. On December 4, 2014, the Court entered a final judgment that applied the jury's comparative fault determinations and awarded the plaintiff a total of $2,084,545 in compensatory damages ($245,240 from Lorillard Tobacco), plus the statutory rate of interest. Defendants have filed post-trial motions challenging the verdict, and the plaintiff has filed a post-trial motion seeking a new trial on entitlement to punitive damages. Plaintiff also filed a motion for attorneys' fees and costs. As of February 6, 2015, the Court had not ruled on these motions. On December 31, 2014, the plaintiff filed a petition with the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal seeking to disqualify the trial judge from further consideration of this case. LORILLARD INC: Verdicts Returned in 132 Engle Progeny Trials ------------------------------------------------------------ Lorillard, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that as of February 6, 2015, verdicts have been returned in 132 Engle Progeny trials since the Florida Supreme Court issued its 2006 ruling that permitted members of the Engle class to bring individual lawsuits in which neither Lorillard Tobacco nor Lorillard, Inc. was a defendant at trial. Juries awarded compensatory damages and punitive damages in 44 of the trials. In 43 of those 44 trials, the amount of punitive damages awarded has totaled approximately $862.1 million and ranged from $20,000 to $244 million. In July 2014, punitive damages of $23.6 billion were awarded in one of these cases. In that case, the Court granted in part a post-trial motion filed by the defendant and reduced the punitive damages to approximately $17 million. As of February 6, 2015, this award was subject to challenge through post-trial motions and the appellate process. In 36 of the trials, juries' awards were limited to compensatory damages. In the 52 remaining trials, juries found in favor of the defendants. Post-trial motions challenging the verdicts in some cases and appeals from final judgments in some cases are pending before various Florida circuit and intermediate appellate courts. As of February 6, 2015, one verdict in favor of the defendants and four verdicts in favor of the plaintiff have been reversed on appeal and returned to the trial court for a new trial on all issues. In ten cases, the appellate courts have ruled that the issue of damages awarded must be revisited by the trial court. Motions for rehearing of these appellate court rulings are pending in some cases. In June 2009, Florida amended the security requirements for a stay of execution of any judgment during the pendency of appeal in Engle Progeny Cases. The amended statute provides for the amount of security for individual Engle Progeny Cases to vary within prescribed limits based on the number of adverse judgments that are pending on appeal at a given time. The required security decreases as the number of appeals increases to ensure that the total security posted or deposited does not exceed $200 million in the aggregate. This amended statute applies to all judgments entered on or after June 16, 2009. The plaintiffs in some cases challenged the constitutionality of the amended statute. These motions were denied, withdrawn or declared moot. In January 2012, the Florida Supreme Court agreed to review one of the orders denying a challenge to the amended statute. In August 2012, the Florida Supreme Court dismissed the appeal as moot because the defendant had satisfied the judgment. LORILLARD INC: Severed IPIC Cases Not Subject to Trial Plan ----------------------------------------------------------- Lorillard, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that as of February 6, 2015, the severed West Virginia Individual Personal Injury Cases and the Severed IPIC Cases were not subject to a trial plan. The West Virginia Individual Personal Injury Cases (the "IPIC Cases") were brought by individuals who alleged cancer or other health effects caused by smoking cigarettes, smoking cigars, or using smokeless tobacco products. In September 2000, there were approximately 1,250 IPIC Cases, and Lorillard Tobacco was named in all but a few of them. Lorillard, Inc. was not a defendant in any of the IPIC Cases. Plaintiffs in most of the IPIC Cases alleged injuries from smoking cigarettes, and the claims alleging injury from smoking cigarettes were consolidated for a multi-phase trial. The order that consolidated those claims for trial limited the consolidation to cases that were filed by September 2000. Approximately 645 IPIC Cases were dismissed in their entirety before trial. Lorillard Tobacco was dismissed from approximately 565 additional IPIC Cases because those plaintiffs did not submit evidence that they used a Lorillard Tobacco product. At the time the Phase I trial began, Lorillard Tobacco was a defendant in 31 of the then-pending IPIC Cases. The first phase of the consolidated trial began April 15, 2013, and ended with a Phase I verdict returned by the jury on May 15, 2013. In its verdict, the jury found against plaintiffs on their claims for design defect, negligent design, failure to warn, intentional concealment and breach of express warranty. The jury found for plaintiffs on their claim that all ventilated filter cigarettes manufactured and sold by the defendants between 1964 and July 1, 1969 were defective because of a failure to instruct, but found that defendants' conduct was not willful or wanton. In pleadings filed before trial, no plaintiff in an IPIC Case that was part of the Phase I trial claimed to have smoked a ventilated filter cigarette manufactured and sold by Lorillard Tobacco between 1964 and July 1, 1969. On September 16, 2013, the court entered a judgment on the jury's Phase I verdict and entered a separate order denying the parties' post-trial motions. Plaintiffs filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment on September 24, 2013. In a telephone conference on October 7, 2013 (memorialized in an order entered October 28, 2013), the court informed the parties that, on its own authority, it was vacating the September 16, 2013 judgment and order. On October 28, 2013, the court entered a new judgment and order. The judgment recited that: 1) ventilated filter cigarettes the defendants manufactured and sold between 1964 and July 1, 1969, were found to be defective due to a failure to instruct consumers as to their use; 2) all other cigarettes manufactured and sold by defendants were not found to be defective; 3) defendants' conduct did not justify an award of punitive damages; 4) the claims of the individual plaintiffs remain to be decided consistent with the Phase I verdict, and 5) there is no just reason for delay in permitting any appellate rights of the parties to be perfected as to the verdict rendered and this order. The order: 1) denied the parties' post-trial motions; 2) entered final judgments against the plaintiffs in the approximately 645 IPIC Cases that were dismissed before trial; and 3) stated that those dismissal orders are now final and available for the proper application of the appellate process. On November 26, 2013, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from the judgment and order in the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. The defendants did not file a separate notice of appeal. On April 2, 2014, plaintiffs perfected their appeal by filing their brief and appendix. Defendants filed their brief on June 16, 2014. Plaintiffs served their reply brief on July 2, 2014. On November 3, 2014, the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals issued a Memorandum Decision affirming the Phase I judgment and order. On November 26, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a petition for rehearing asking the Court to reconsider its ruling on one of the six grounds the plaintiffs had raised on appeal. The defendants filed their opposition on December 10, 2014. On January 8, 2015, the Supreme Court of Appeals refused the petition for rehearing, and on January 15, 2015, the Court issued its mandate. On December 17, 2014, in response to a request from the Mass Litigation Panel, the defendants identified the 30 IPIC Cases that they believe could be eligible to proceed to a Phase II trial on causation and damages in the remaining failure to instruct claim. The defendants did not identify Lorillard as a defendant against which the plaintiffs in those cases could proceed in a Phase II trial. None of the plaintiffs in the IPIC Cases included in the Phase I trial asserted that he or she smoked a Lorillard ventilated filter cigarette during the relevant time period. The trial court severed from the consolidated proceedings those claims in the IPIC Cases that alleged injury from the use of tobacco products other than cigarettes, including smokeless tobacco and cigars (the "Severed IPIC Claims"). The Severed IPIC Claims involve 30 plaintiffs. Twenty-eight of these plaintiffs have asserted both claims alleging that their injuries were caused by smoking cigarettes as well as claims alleging that their injuries were caused by using other tobacco products. The former claims were included in the consolidated trial of the IPIC Cases, while the latter claims are included in the Severed IPIC Claims. Lorillard Tobacco is a defendant in seven of the Severed IPIC Claims. Lorillard, Inc. is not a defendant in any of the Severed IPIC Claims. Two plaintiffs alleged only that their injuries were caused by using tobacco products other than cigarettes, and no part of their cases was included in the consolidated trial of the IPIC Cases (the "Severed IPIC Cases"). Neither Lorillard Tobacco nor Lorillard, Inc. is a defendant in the Severed IPIC Cases. As of February 6, 2015, the Severed IPIC Claims and the Severed IPIC Cases were not subject to a trial plan. None of the Severed IPIC Claims or the Severed IPIC Cases was scheduled for trial as of February 6, 2015. LORILLARD INC: One Flight Attendant Case Scheduled for Trial ------------------------------------------------------------ Lorillard, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that one of the Flight Attendant Cases was scheduled for trial as of February 6, 2015. Lorillard Tobacco and three other cigarette manufacturers are the defendants in each of the pending Flight Attendant Cases. Lorillard, Inc. is not a defendant in any of these cases. These suits were filed as a result of a settlement agreement by the parties, including Lorillard Tobacco, in Broin v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc., et al. (Circuit Court, Miami-Dade County, Florida, filed October 31, 1991), a class action brought on behalf of flight attendants claiming injury as a result of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. The settlement agreement, among other things, permitted the plaintiff class members to file these individual suits. These individuals may not seek punitive damages for injuries that arose prior to January 15, 1997. The period for filing Flight Attendant Cases expired in 2000 and no additional cases in this category may be filed. The judges who have presided over the cases that have been tried have relied upon an order entered in October 2000 by the Circuit Court of Miami-Dade County, Florida. The October 2000 order has been construed by these judges as holding that the flight attendants are not required to prove the substantive liability elements of their claims for negligence, strict liability and breach of implied warranty in order to recover damages. The court further ruled that the trials of these suits are to address whether the plaintiffs' alleged injuries were caused by their exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and, if so, the amount of damages to be awarded. Lorillard Tobacco was a defendant in each of the eight Flight Attendant Cases in which verdicts have been returned. Defendants have prevailed in seven of the eight trials. In one of the seven cases in which a defense verdict was returned, the court granted plaintiff's motion for a new trial and, following appeal, the case has been returned to the trial court for a second trial. The six remaining cases in which defense verdicts were returned are concluded. In the single trial decided for the plaintiff, French v. Philip Morris Incorporated, et al., the jury awarded $5.5 million in damages. The court, however, reduced this award to $500,000. This verdict, as reduced by the trial court, was affirmed on appeal and the defendants have paid the award. Lorillard Tobacco's share of the judgment in this matter, including interest, was approximately $60,000. As of February 6, 2015, one of the Flight Attendant Cases was scheduled for trial. Trial dates are subject to change. LORILLARD INC: Not a Defendant in 16 "Lights" Class Action Cases ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lorillard, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that neither Lorillard Tobacco nor Lorillard, Inc. is a defendant in the approximately 16 class action cases in which plaintiffs' claims are based on the allegedly fraudulent marketing of "light" or "ultra-light" cigarettes. Classes have been certified in some of these cases. In one of these cases, Craft v. Philip Morris USA (Circuit Court, City of St. Louis, Missouri, filed February 29, 2000), trial began in September 2011. In November 2011, the court ordered a mistrial when the jury was unable to reach a verdict. The retrial of this case commenced January 8, 2014, but was postponed until February 22, 2015. In another of the "lights" Class Action Cases, Good v. Altria Group, Inc., et al. , the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in December 2008 that neither the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act nor the Federal Trade Commission's regulation of cigarettes' tar and nicotine disclosures preempts (or bars) some of plaintiffs' claims. In 2009, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated various federal court "lights" Class Action Cases pending against Philip Morris USA or Altria Group and transferred those cases to the U.S. District Court of Maine (the "MDL cases"). The court denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification filed in four of the MDL Cases, and a federal appellate court declined to review the class certification order. Following the appellate court's ruling, plaintiffs dismissed thirteen of the MDL Cases, including Good v. Altria Group, Inc., et al. In April, 2012, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation entered an order transferring the four MDL cases that remained pending to the courts in which each originated. These four cases have since been dismissed. On September 23, 2013, in the "Lights" Class Action Case Brown v. The American Tobacco Company, Inc., et al. (Superior Court, San Diego County, California), the Court issued a Statement of Decision that granted judgment in favor of the defendant. The Court held that the defendant misrepresented the health benefits of its "light" cigarette but that plaintiffs were not entitled to restitution or injunctive relief. Final judgment was entered in favor of the defendant on October 15, 2013. In December 2013, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the final judgment, and the appeal remains pending. On April 29, 2014, in the "lights" Class Action Case Price, et al v. Philip Morris Incorporated (Circuit Court, Madison County, Illinois), the Fifth Judicial District of the Appellate Court of Illinois reversed the trial court's denial of plaintiffs' petition for relief from judgment and reinstated a 2003 verdict awarding damages. The defendant in this case filed a petition for leave to appeal in the Supreme Court of Illinois and on September 24, 2014, the Illinois Supreme Court agreed to hear the appeal. LORILLARD INC: Tobacco Unit a Defendant in 61 Filter Cases ---------------------------------------------------------- Lorillard, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that as of February 6, 2015, Lorillard Tobacco was a defendant in 61 Filter Cases. Claims have been brought against Lorillard Tobacco and Lorillard, Inc. by individuals who seek damages resulting from their alleged exposure to asbestos fibers that were incorporated into filter material used in one brand of cigarettes manufactured by a predecessor to Lorillard Tobacco for a limited period of time ending more than 50 years ago. As of February 6, 2015, Lorillard Tobacco was a defendant in 61 Filter Cases. Lorillard, Inc. was a defendant in three Filter Cases, including two that also name Lorillard Tobacco. Since January 1, 2012, Lorillard Tobacco has paid, or has reached agreement to pay, a total of approximately $38.1 million in settlements to finally resolve 147 claims. Since January 1, 2012, verdicts have been returned in the following three Filter Cases: McGuire v. Lorillard Tobacco Company and Hollingsworth & Vose Company, tried in the Circuit Court, Division Four, of Jefferson County, Kentucky; Couscouris v. Hatch Grinding Wheels, et al., tried in the Superior Court of the State of California, Los Angeles; and DeLisle v. A.W. Chesterton Company, et al., tried in the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida. Pursuant to the terms of a 1952 agreement between P. Lorillard Company and H&V Specialties Co., Inc. (the manufacturer of the filter material), Lorillard Tobacco is required to indemnify Hollingsworth & Vose for legal fees, expenses, judgments and resolutions in cases and claims alleging injury from finished products sold by P. Lorillard Company that contained the filter material. In McGuire v. Lorillard Tobacco Company and Hollingsworth & Vose Company, tried in the Circuit Court, Division Four, of Jefferson County, Kentucky in 2012, the Kentucky Supreme Court is still considering plaintiff's motion for discretionary review. The jury in the McGuire case returned a verdict for Lorillard Tobacco and Hollingsworth & Vose, and the Court entered final judgment in May 2012. On February 14, 2014, the Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed the final judgment in favor of Lorillard Tobacco and Hollingsworth & Vose and on April 3, 2014, the Court of Appeals denied plaintiff's petition for rehearing. On May 2, 2014, plaintiff moved for discretionary review in the Kentucky Supreme Court. Lorillard Tobacco filed its responsive brief on May 30, 2014. On October 4, 2012, the jury in the Couscouris case returned a verdict for Lorillard Tobacco and Hollingsworth & Vose, and the court entered final judgment on November 1, 2012. On June 17, 2013, the California Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District entered an order dismissing the appeal of the final judgment pursuant to plaintiffs' request, but plaintiffs' appeal of the cost judgment remained pending. However, plaintiffs abandoned their appeal on June 2, 2014, and on June 4, 2014, the appeal was dismissed. On September 13, 2013, the jury in the DeLisle case found in favor of the plaintiffs as to their claims for negligence and strict liability, and awarded $8 million. Lorillard Tobacco is responsible for 44%, or $3.52 million. Judgment was entered on November 6, 2013. Lorillard Tobacco filed its notice of appeal on November 18, 2013. Lorillard Tobacco filed its initial brief on January 6, 2015. As of February 6, 2015, 23 Filter Cases were scheduled for trial or have been placed on courts' trial calendars. Trial dates are subject to change. LORILLARD INC: Supreme Court Review Sought in Antitrust Case ------------------------------------------------------------ Lorillard, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that plaintiffs in the indirect purchaser antitrust suits filed a petition for review by the Kansas Supreme Court. Approximately 30 antitrust suits were filed in 2000 and 2001 on behalf of putative classes of consumers in various state and federal courts against cigarette manufacturers. The suits all alleged that the defendants entered into agreements to fix the wholesale prices of cigarettes in violation of state antitrust laws which permit indirect purchasers, such as retailers and consumers, to sue under price fixing or consumer fraud statutes. More than 20 states permit such suits. Lorillard Tobacco was a defendant in all but one of these indirect purchaser cases. Lorillard, Inc. was not named as a defendant in any of these cases. Four indirect purchaser suits, in New York, Florida, New Mexico and Michigan, thereafter were dismissed by courts in those states. All other actions, except for a state court action in Kansas, were either voluntarily dismissed or dismissed by the courts. In the Kansas case, the District Court of Seward County certified a class of Kansas indirect purchasers in 2002. In November 2010, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, and plaintiffs filed a cross motion for summary judgment in July 2011. In March 2012, the District Court of Seward County granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment dismissing the Kansas suit. Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration was denied. On July 18, 2012, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals for the State of Kansas. Briefing on plaintiff's appeal was completed and argument in the Court of Appeals was held on December 11, 2013. On July 18, 2014, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the suit. The plaintiffs filed a petition for review by the Kansas Supreme Court on August 18, 2014. Defendants filed a response on August 29, 2014, and plaintiffs filed their reply brief on September 11, 2014. LORILLARD INC: Defendants in Merger Litigation Entered Into MOU --------------------------------------------------------------- Lorillard, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the defendants in the merger-related litigation entered into a memorandum of understanding regarding the settlement of the Delaware Actions. On July 15, 2014, the Company, Reynolds American Inc., a North Carolina corporation ("RAI"), and Lantern Acquisition Co., a Delaware corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of RAI ("Merger Sub"), entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement"), pursuant to which, subject to the satisfaction or waiver of certain conditions, Merger Sub will merge with and into the Company (the "Merger"), with the Company surviving as a wholly owned subsidiary of RAI. At the effective time of the Merger, each share of Company common stock (other than treasury stock held by the Company or owned by a subsidiary of the Company, RAI or Merger Sub and shares owned by shareholders of the Company who have properly made and not withdrawn a demand for appraisal rights) will be converted into the right to receive a unit consisting of (i) $50.50 per share in cash and (ii) 0.2909 fully paid and non- assessable shares of common stock of RAI. On January 28, 2015, the Company's shareholders adopted the Merger Agreement, and RAI's shareholders approved the issuance of RAI common stock in the Merger. The transaction remains subject to regulatory approval and the additional customary closing conditions contained in the Merger Agreement. Although no assurance can be given if and when the transaction will be completed because it remains subject to regulatory approval and other customary closing conditions, the transaction is expected to close in the first half of 2015. In connection with the Merger Agreement, on July 15, 2014, RAI and Lignum-2, L.L.C., a wholly owned subsidiary of Imperial Tobacco Group PLC ("Imperial"), which subsequently changed its name to ITG Brands, LLC ("Imperial Sub"), entered into an asset purchase agreement, pursuant to which Imperial Sub has agreed to purchase, immediately following the completion of the Merger, the Kool, Salem, Winston, Maverick and blu eCigs brands and certain other assets for a total consideration of $7.1 billion in cash (subject to certain adjustments). Also, on July 15, 2014, in connection with the asset purchase, the Company and Imperial Sub entered into a Transfer Agreement, pursuant to which Imperial Sub agreed to acquire certain assets owned by the Company, including its manufacturing and R&D facilities in Greensboro, N.C., and approximately 2,900 employees. On January 28, 2015, the shareholders of Imperial approved the asset purchase. The Company, the members of the Company's board of directors, RAI and British American Tobacco p.l.c. have been named as defendants in putative class action lawsuits brought in the Delaware Court of Chancery by shareholders of the Company challenging the proposed merger with RAI (the "Delaware Actions"). The complaints generally allege, among other things, that the members of the Company's board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to shareholders of the Company by authorizing the proposed merger of the Company with RAI. The complaints also allege that RAI and BAT aided and abetted the breaches of fiduciary duty allegedly committed by the members of the Company's board of directors. On November 25, 2014, the court granted a motion for consolidation of the lawsuits into a single action captioned In re Lorillard, Inc. Stockholders Litigation , C.A. No. 9904-CB and appointment of lead plaintiffs and lead counsel. On December 11, 2014, lead plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction and a motion to expedite. Plaintiffs filed their opening brief in support of their motion for a preliminary injunction on January 9, 2015. The Company and RAI believe that these lawsuits are without merit; however, to eliminate the burden, expense and uncertainties inherent in such litigation, on January 15, 2015, the defendants entered into a memorandum of understanding (the "Memorandum of Understanding") regarding the settlement of the Delaware Actions. The Memorandum of Understanding outlines the terms of the parties' agreement in principle to settle and release all claims which were or could have been asserted in the Delaware Actions. In consideration for such settlement and release, the parties to the Delaware Actions agreed, among other things, that the Company and RAI would make certain supplemental disclosures to their joint proxy statement/prospectus dated December 22, 2014, all of which are set forth in a subsequent filing. The Memorandum of Understanding contemplates that the parties will negotiate in good faith to agree upon a stipulation of settlement to be submitted to the court for approval as soon as practicable. The stipulation of settlement will be subject to customary conditions, including approval by the court, which will consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of such settlement. There can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the court will approve the settlement even if the parties were to enter into such stipulation. In such event, or if the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement are not consummated for any reason, the proposed settlement will be of no force and effect. The outcome of this litigation will not, in the opinion of management, materially affect Lorillard's results of operations or equity. LOS ANGELES, CA: Faces 3rd Class Suit Over Overcharged Bills ------------------------------------------------------------ Writing for Courthouse News Service, Matt Reynolds reports that the city of Los Angeles has been hit with another class action lawsuit claiming it overcharged thousands of customers by estimating meter readings after the botched roll out of its new billing system. Customer Hayley Fontaine filed the complaint against the city and the L.A. Department of Water and Power on February 5. The plaintiff claims the department ignored state and municipal laws by imposing rate hikes on customers based on inaccurate readings, and threatened to cut off customers' electricity and water if they did not pay the bills. The latest complaint follows a January state court class action which made similar allegations against the department. In December, two other plaintiffs also filed a lawsuit over excessive billing, the Los Angeles Times reported last month. Fontaine estimates several thousand customers have been affected. As the largest municipal utility provider in the nation, the Department of Water and Power serves more than 3.8 million people and employs 8,800 workers. "Despite its size and vast workforce," over the last year the department has failed to bill customers accurately for their water and electricity use, according to the Feb. 5 lawsuit. In response, the department said teething problems with the new billing system rolled out in September 2013 caused the overcharges. "Early on in our billing system roll out, the system did estimate some bills," the department says on its Web site. "Estimated bills found not to be accurate were canceled and we re-billed those customers according to the physical meter data. We have been very forthright about the problems with our new customer billing system and we have taken significant steps to fix them." Under city and state laws, Fontaine says, the department should invoice customers and read meters every billing period. "Instead, defendants either sent no bill for the services used, or guessed what the meter readings might look like or billed based on those estimates until months in the future when they read the customers' meters and then sent one huge bill several billing cycles later," the lawsuit says. "To make matters worse," the complaint adds, customers were placed in "more expensive" tiers in the department's rates system. There is no way for customers to appeal the charges, leaving them with no choice but to "set up a payment plan to pay the excessive and exorbitant charges," Fontaine says. "Defendants have also threatened to shut off plaintiff and the class members' electricity and water -- their basic needs to sustain life -- if they do not pay LADWP's excessive charges," the 17-page filing states. In a report, the department blamed the botched roll out on an "inadequate" project management team. The vendor hired to implement the new system, PricewaterhouseCoopers, also "lacked the necessary experience to manage a task of such complexity," the department said. "This gap, combined with the lack of November 18, 2014 effective project management from the department, resulted in critical missed deadlines and frequent warning signs that were ignored," the department said. According to the utility provider its customer service representatives were unprepared for the volume of inquires after the new system was put in place. It says it has since hired 200 customer service representatives and meter readers, and decreased estimated bills from 21 percent to 5 percent. Fontaine seeks a declaration that the city and department are violating its rules, codes and laws. She also wants the court to enjoin the defendants from billing customers at the more expensive rates. The Plaintiff's attorney did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The Plaintiff is represented by: Barbara A. Rohr, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI LLP 10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1470 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (424) 256-2884 Facsimile: (424) 256-2885 E-mail: brohr@faruqilaw.com MACK TRUCKS: Recalls 2015 LEU Models Due to Injury Risk ------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: January 30, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Truck - Med. & H.D. Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Structure Units affected: 56 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015045TC ID number: 2015045 Manufacturer recall number: SC0388 On certain vehicles, the door latches may fail and prevent the driver and/or passenger from opening the door from inside the cab. If this were to occur, the driver and/or passenger(s) may not be able to quickly exit the vehicle in an emergency, which could increase the risk of injury. Correction: Dealers will replace affected door latches. Affected products: Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- MACK LEU 2015 MACK TRUCKS: Recalls 2014 CXU Models Due to Non-compliance ---------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: January 30, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Truck - Med. & H.D. Notification type: Compliance Mfr System: Brakes Units affected: 10 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015044TC ID number: 2015044 Manufacturer recall number: SC0389 Certain vehicles fail to comply with the requirements of Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 121 - Air Brake Systems. These vehicles were built with insufficient air tank reserve capacity, which may provide an insufficient air supply to properly operate the brakes during repetitive brake applications. This may result in reduced braking performance which could result in a vehicle crash. Correction: Dealers will install a bigger air tank to increase air reservoir capacity. Affected products: Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- MACK CXU 2014 MAJOR LEAGUE: Court to Decide if 11 Teams Will Be Part of Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- A federal judge heard arguments in February on whether 11 Major League Baseball teams should be part of a class action accusing the league of underpaying minor league players, reports Arvin Temkar at Courthouse News Service. The hearing stems from a February 2014 lawsuit from lead plaintiff Aaron Senne, who played for the Miami Marlins organization from 2010 to 2013. Senne claims that Major League Baseball violates state and federal laws by paying players very low wages, often less than $7,500 for an entire season. Many amateurs receive small signing bonuses, of around $2,500, but by agreeing to a uniform player contract are bound to an MLB team for seven years. That team can assign the player's rights to any other team or terminate the agreement for any reason. Since players can't leave voluntarily to play for another team, they have little contractual mobility, Senne says. A consolidated complaint names all 30 MLB clubs as defendants, as well as the Office of the Commissioner of Baseball dba Major League Baseball, and Commissioner Bud Selig. In November 2104, 10 teams filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit against them, because their minor league players don't play games in California. The Baltimore Orioles filed a similar, separate motion to dismiss, also on jurisdictional grounds. The other 10 teams are the Atlanta Braves, the Boston Red Sox, the Chicago White Sox, the Cleveland Indians, the Detroit Tigers, the New York Yankees, the Philadelphia Phillies, the Pittsburgh Pirates, the Tampa Bay Rays and the Washington Nationals. They claim that their limited contacts with California "do not come remotely close to satisfying" the court's standard for personal jurisdiction. "The moving defendants cannot be said to have approximated a physical presence in California . . . simply because they play a handful of Major League Baseball games in California during the baseball season or because a small fraction of their individual employees are based in or travel to California," the teams say in their motion to dismiss. The Defendants are represented by: Elise Bloom, Esq. PROSKAUER ROSE LLP Eleven Times Square Eighth Avenue & 41st Street New York, NY 10036-8299 Telephone: (212) 969-3000 Facsimile: (212) 969-2900 E-mail: ebloom@proskauer.com MAXWELL TECHNOLOGIES: Court Granted Final Approval to Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Maxwell Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the court has granted final approval of the settlement in a securities class action. The Company said, "From March 13, 2013 through April 19, 2013, four purported shareholder class actions were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California against us and certain of our current and former officers. These actions were entitled Foster v. Maxwell Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 13-cv-0580 (S.D. Cal. filed March 13, 2013), Weinstein v. Maxwell Technologies, Inc., et al., No. 13-cv-0686 (S.D. Cal. filed March 21, 2013), Abanades v. Maxwell Technologies, Inc., et al., No. 13-cv-0867 (S.D. Cal. filed April 11, 2013), and Mebarak v. Maxwell Technologies, Inc., et al., No. 13-cv-0942 (S.D. Cal. filed April 19, 2013). The complaints alleged that the defendants made false and misleading statements regarding our financial performance and business prospects and overstated our reported revenue. The complaints purported to assert claims for violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 on behalf of all persons who purchased our common stock between April 28, 2011 and March 7, 2013, inclusive. The complaints sought unspecified monetary damages and attorneys' fees and costs." On May 13, 2013, four prospective lead plaintiffs filed motions to consolidate the four actions and to be appointed lead plaintiff and, on October 24, 2013, the court issued a written order consolidating the case under the heading In re Maxwell Technologies, Inc., Securities Litigation. On January 16, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated and amended complaint which slightly adjusted the class period to April 29, 2011 to March 19, 2013. "In response, we and the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which the lead plaintiff opposed. On May 5, 2014, the court granted us motion to dismiss but granted the lead plaintiff leave to amend its complaint. The lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on June 4, 2014, adding an additional claim under Section 10(b) alleging that the defendants were involved in a scheme to violate federal securities laws. We and individual defendants filed motions to dismiss on July 10, 2014," the Company said. On October 6, 2014, the parties executed a stipulation of settlement, which included an all-in settlement value of $3.3 million. On November 3, 2014, the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement. At a hearing on February 5, 2015, the court granted final approval of the settlement. "Based on this settlement, we have an accrued liability recorded of $3.3 million, which is included in "accounts payable and accrued liabilities," as of December 31, 2014. As our insurance carrier would cover this potential settlement, we have a corresponding receivable from our insurance carrier recorded in the amount of $3.3 million, which is included in "trade and other accounts receivable," as of December 31, 2014," the Company said. MCLACHLAN DRILLING: Faces "Stroman" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT --------------------------------------------------------------- Stanley Stroman, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated individuals v. McLachlan Drilling Company, Case No. 2:15- cv-00237 (W.D. Pa., February 19, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek. McLachlan Drilling Company I headquartered in Evart, Michigan and a provider of services to the liquid-solid separation industry used for petroleum drilling. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michele R. Fisher, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 80 South 8th Street, 4600 IDS Center Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 338-1919 E-mail: fisher@nka.com MEL HARRIS: 2nd Cir. Upheld Sewer Service Classes Certification --------------------------------------------------------------- Debt collectors must face a class action by more than 100,000 people decrying their business model as a "sewer service," the 2nd Circuit said February 10, touching on but not dictating the reach of federal anti-racketeering law, reports Adam Klasfeld at Courthouse News Service. Bronx resident Monique Sykes brought the class action four years ago, alleging that a debt-buying company, a law firm, a process- service company and others conspired to hoodwink debtors and New York administrative law judges. Buying debt for pennies on the dollar, the companies failed to serve a complaint on the debtors and then filed false affidavits claiming that the notice has been served, according to the lawsuit. Sykes said judges awarded tens of thousands of judgments on this basis, violating the RICO statute, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and New York General Business Law. She wants tens of thousands of defaulted cases reopened en masse. Mel S. Harris Associates LLC and its co-defendants have attacked the lawsuit so far mostly on procedural grounds, arguing that litigation on these issues would be better served under different statutes in New York state court. Affirming a federal judge's certification of two classes in 2013, the 2nd Circuit ruled 2-1 on February 10 that the debt collectors cannot demand that "their alleged widespread fraudulent behavior be dealt with in a piecemeal fashion." "In the first place, there is no basis to assert that plaintiffs' claims even could be heard as a class in the New York City civil court," Judge Rosemary Pooler wrote for the majority. "These courts have jurisdiction only over those actions in which the value of the controversy is $25,000 or less." Judge Guido Calabresi joined in the 66-page majority opinion. "While individual plaintiffs might seek to bring their actions in such a court based on this amount-in-controversy limitation, there is no basis to conclude that plaintiffs could proceed as a class there," the opinion states. Dissenting Judge Dennis Jacobs agreed on this point but added that "class litigation is not an end in itself." "It is simply a 'device to vindicate the rights of individuals class members,'" he wrote. Believing New York court to be "superior in every way," Jacobs called the Sykes case "class litigation for the sake of nothing but class litigation." Jacobs concluded his scathing dissent with a prediction. "Certification of this misbegotten class will generate grinding of gears and spinning of wheels for years to come, notwithstanding an effective, superior, and immediately available remedy in state court," he wrote. Court watchers also have followed the Sykes case as a key battleground in an arcane controversy over the reach of federal anti-racketeering law. Miguel Estrada, a Washington-based partner for Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, representing the debt collector Leucadia National Corp., wrote a brief arguing that the RICO statute does not allow a judge to issue the injunction the debtors wanted. This position directly contradicted that of Gibson Dunn's other client Chevron, which won an injunction under the RICO statute last year blocking a $9.5 billion verdict against the company in Ecuador. No matter which side the 2nd Circuit took on this controversy, one of Gibson Dunn's client would have lost. To the likely relief of both of Gibson Dunn's clients, the 2nd Circuit majority declined to resolve this issue until the District Court decides it. The case is Monique Sykes, et al. v. Mel S. Harris & Associates, LLC, et al., Case No. 13-2742-cv, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. METROPOLITAN TEA: Recalls Flavored Tea Products Due to Milk ----------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: February 3, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Milk, Allergen - Sulphites Hazard classification: Class 3 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: The Metropolitan Tea Company Ltd. Distribution: National Extent of the product distribution: Hotel/Restaurant/Institutional CFIA reference number: 9611 Affected products: Brand name Common name Size Code(s) on product --------- ----------- ---- UPC --- None - Selected Forest Flavored 0.5 kg, All codes where and packed by The Black Tea 2 kg, milk is not Metropolitan Tea 16 kg declared on the Company Black label. 7 71541 44027 2, 7 71541 34027 5, 7 71541 64027 6 None - Selected Pecan Tart 0.5 kg, All codes where and packed by The Flavored 2 kg, milk is not Metropolitan Tea Black Tea 16 kg declared on the Company label. 7 71541 44132 3, 7 71541 34132 6, 7 71541 64132 7 None - Selected French Vanilla 0.5 kg, All codes where and packed by The Pu-Erh Flavored 2 kg milk is not Metropolitan Tea Pu-Erh Tea declared on the Company label. 7 71541 54046 0, 7 71541 94046 8 None - Selected Night of the 0.5 kg, All codes where and packed by The Iguana 2 kg, milk is not Metropolitan Tea Chocolate 16 kg declared on the Company Chai Tea label. 7 71541 52127 8, 7 71541 92127 6, 7 71541 62127 5 None - Selected White Chocolate 0.5 kg, All codes where and packed by The Mousse Flavored 2 kg, milk is not Metropolitan Tea Black Tea 16 kg declared on the Company label. 7 71541 44139 2, 7 71541 34139 5, 7 71541 64139 6 None - Selected Strawberry 0.5 kg, All codes where and packed by The Daiquiri 2 kg, sulphites are not Metropolitan Tea Flavored Black 16 kg declared on the Company Tea label. 7 71541 44143 9, 7 71541 34143 2, 7 71541 64143 3 None - Selected Hawaiian Colada 0.5 kg, All codes where and packed by The Flavored 2 kg, sulphites are not Metropolitan Tea Rooibos Tea 16 kg declared on the Company label. 7 71541 43030 3, 7 71541 93030 8, 7 71541 63030 7 None - Selected Island Coconut 0.5 kg, All codes where and packed by The Flavored 2 kg, sulphites are not Metropolitan Tea Black Tea 16 kg declared on the Company label. 7 71541 44105 7, 7 71541 34105 0, 7 71541 64105 1 None - Selected Caramel Flavored 0.5 kg, All codes where and packed by The Black Tea 2 kg, sulphites are not Metropolitan Tea 16 kg declared on the Company label. 7 71541 44104 0, 7 71541 34104 3, None - Selected Caramel Cherry 0.5 kg, All codes where and packed by The Cheesecake 2 kg, sulphites are not Metropolitan Tea Flavored Black 16 kg declared on the Company Tea label. 7 71541 44087 6, 7 71541 34087 9, 7 71541 64087 0 None - Selected Ethiopian Mocha 0.5 kg, All codes where and packed by The Pu-Erh Flavored 2 kg, sulphites are not Metropolitan Tea Pu-Erh Tea 16 kg declared on the Company label. 7 71541 54170 2, 7 71541 94170 0 None - Selected White Swiss 0.5 kg, All codes where and packed by The Truffle Rooibos 2 kg, sulphites are not Metropolitan Tea Flavored Rooibos 16 kg declared on the Company Tea label. 7 71541 43153 9, 7 71541 33153 2, 7 71541 63153 3 None - Selected Pina Colada 0.5 kg, All codes where and packed by The Flavored Black 2 kg, sulphites are not Metropolitan Tea Tea 16 kg declared on the Company label. 7 71541 44030 2, 7 71541 34030 5, 7 71541 64030 6 MOLSON COORS: Named as Defendant in David Hughes Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------- Molson Coors Brewing Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a notice of action captioned David Hughes and 631992 Ontario Inc. v. Liquor Control Board of Ontario, Brewers Retail Inc., Labatt Breweries of Canada LP, Molson Coors Canada and Sleeman Breweries Ltd. No. CV- 14-518059-00CP was filed on December 12, 2014, in Ontario, Canada. Brewers' Retail Inc. ("BRI") and its owners, including Molson Coors Canada, as well as the Liquor Control Board of Ontario ("LCBO") are named as defendants in the action. The plaintiffs allege that The Beer Store (retail outlets owned and operated by BRI) and LCBO improperly entered into an agreement to fix prices and market allocation within the Ontario beer market to the detriment of licensees and consumers. The plaintiffs seek to have the claim certified as a class action on behalf of all Ontario beer consumers and licensees and, among other things, damages in the amount of Canadian Dollar ("CAD") 1.4 billion. "Although we are at an early stage of the proceedings, we note that The Beer Store operates according to the rules established by the Government of Ontario for regulation, sale and distribution of beer in the province. Additionally, prices at The Beer Store are independently set by each brewer and are approved by the LCBO on a weekly basis. Accordingly, we intend to vigorously assert and defend our rights in this lawsuit," the Company said. MOTORS LIQUIDATION: Hearing on Threshold Issues Held in February ---------------------------------------------------------------- Motors Liquidation Company GUC Trust said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2015, for the quarterly report ended December 31, 2014, that a hearing on the threshold issues related to the General Motors Vehicle Recalls was set for February 17, 2015. In its annual report on Form 10-K filed February 4, 2015, New GM disclosed that, since the beginning of 2014, New GM had recalled approximately 2.6 million vehicles to repair ignition switches or to fix ignition lock cylinders, or the Ignition Switch Recall, and had recalled an additional 33.4 million vehicles to address certain electrical and other safety concerns, including approximately 12.1 million vehicles to rework or replace ignition keys. New GM does not consider any of these 12.1 million vehicles to be a part of the Ignition Switch Recall. Many of the vehicles affected by the foregoing recalls were manufactured or sold prior to July 10, 2009, or the Closing Date, the date on which the sale of substantially all of the assets of Old GM pursuant to the MSPA was completed. In its annual report on Form 10-K filed February 4, 2015, New GM also disclosed that, as of January 30, 2015, 108 putative class actions have been filed against New GM in various federal and state courts seeking compensatory and other damages for economic losses allegedly resulting from one or more of the recalls announced in 2014 and/or the underlying condition of vehicles covered by those recalls. Certain of these 108 cases concern the Ignition Switch Recall, or the Ignition Switch Actions, certain other cases concern recalls other than the Ignition Switch Recall, or the Other Economic Loss Actions, and yet other cases concern both the Ignition Switch Recall and one or more other recalls. In addition, New GM disclosed that, as of January 30, 2015, 104 putative class actions have been filed against New GM in various federal and state courts seeking compensatory and other damages for personal injury and other claims allegedly arising from accidents that occurred as a result of the underlying condition of the vehicles subject to the recalls initiated by New GM, or the Personal Injury Actions. Since June 2014, 156 Ignition Switch Actions, Other Economic Loss Actions and Personal Injury Actions (collectively, the Recall- Related Actions) have been transferred to the United States District Court of the Southern District of New York, or the MDL Court, and have been consolidated into a single case, case number 14-MD-2543 (JMF), or the MDL Proceeding. On October 14, 2014, the plaintiffs in certain Recall-Related Actions filed two amended and consolidated complaints in the MDL Proceeding that concern vehicles designed, manufactured or sold prior to the Closing Date. Concurrently with the proceedings before the MDL Court, New GM has taken steps in the Bankruptcy Court to enjoin the Recall-Related Actions that concern vehicles designed, manufactured or sold prior to the Closing Date, except for Personal Injury Actions related to accidents that occurred after the Closing Date (collectively, the "Subject Recall-Related Actions"). In that respect, beginning on April 21, 2014, New GM filed a series of motions with the Bankruptcy Court seeking to enjoin the Subject Recall-Related Actions and to enforce the Sale Order and Injunction entered on July 5, 2009, or the Sale Order (under which all product liability and property damage claims arising from accidents or incidents prior to the Closing Date were to remain with Old GM as general unsecured claims). Beginning on May 16, 2014, the Bankruptcy Court entered a series of scheduling orders, which identified a number of "threshold issues" to be resolved by the Bankruptcy Court, including whether plaintiffs' procedural due process rights were violated in connection with the Sale Order, whether any or all of the claims asserted in the Subject Recall-Related Actions are claims against Old GM and/or the GUC Trust, and whether any such claims against Old GM and/or the GUC Trust should be dismissed as equitably moot. The scheduling orders also established a briefing schedule on those "threshold issues," which has now been completed. A hearing on the threshold issues was set for February 17, 2015. The GUC Trust has appeared as a party in interest with respect to New GM's motions to enforce the Sale Order and has filed briefs in opposition thereto. The GUC Trust intends to vigorously defend its position that none of the claims of the plaintiffs in the Subject Recall-Related Actions may be properly asserted against Old GM or the GUC Trust. If, however, New GM is successful in enjoining any of the Subject Recall-Related Actions or certain claims asserted therein, plaintiffs in such Subject Recall-Related Actions could seek permission from the Bankruptcy Court to assert claims against the GUC Trust. NATIONWIDE STUDENT: Faces Class Suit Over Debt Consolidation Fees ----------------------------------------------------------------- A federal class action claims that Nationwide Student Relief charges people $39 per month for its debt consolidation services, after customers tell them to stop, reports Courthouse News Service. NESTLE PURINA: Faces Suit Alleging Beneful Dog Food Kills Pets -------------------------------------------------------------- Nestle Purina's Beneful dog food has killed or sickened thousands of dogs, a class action claims in California Federal Court, reports Arvin Temkar at Courthouse News Service. Lead plaintiff Frank Lucido claims defendant Nestle Purina Petcare Company has received more than 3,000 online complaints about dogs becoming ill or dying after eating Beneful in the past four years. He blames the problems on the presence of propylene glycol, an automotive antifreeze component, and grains with fungus that produce mycotoxins. Nestle Purina has sold Beneful since 2001. "The dogs show consistent symptoms, including stomach and related internal bleeding, liver malfunction or failure, vomiting, diarrhea, dehydration, weight loss, seizures, bloat, and kidney failure," according to the complaint. Lucido claims that after he bought his first bag of Beneful, one of his three dogs died, another became "violently ill," and the other has been "unwell . . . and is currently undergoing medical testing." Dozer, the dog that died, was found to have signs of internal bleeding and lesions on his liver, according to the complaint. Lucido seeks punitive damages for breach of warranty, negligent misrepresentation, strict products liability, consumer law violations, unfair competition and false advertising. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey B. Cereghino RAM, OLSON, CEREGHINO, & KOPCZYNSKI 555 Montgomery Street, Suite 820 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 433-4949 Facsimile: (415) 433-7311 E-mail: jbc@rocklawcal.com NEW HAMPSHIRE: Admin. Services Sued Over FLSA Violations -------------------------------------------------------- Cheryl Riggas and Rafila Stoi, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. The State of New Hampshire, Department of Administrative Services, Case No. 1:15-cv-00061 (D.N.H., February 19, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The State of New Hampshire, Department of Administrative Services, is an executive agency of the State of New Hampshire located at 25 Capitol Street, Concord, New Hampshire 03301. The Plaintiff is represented by: C. Kevin Leonard, Esq. DOUGLAS LEONARD & GARVEY PC 14 South St, Ste 5 Concord, NH 03301 Telephone: (603) 224-1988 E-mail: kleonard@nhlawoffice.com NEW YORK: Governor Called for Patience Over Rep. Grimm Issue ------------------------------------------------------------ Convening a special election to replace the disgraced U.S. Rep. Michael Grimm is my call to make, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo told a federal judge, reports Nick Divito at Courthouse News Service. The argument comes in response to a class action filed in the first week of February by voters who say they are being disenfranchised and lack representation in Congress after Grimm tendered his resignation to Speaker of the House John Boehner on the heels of pleading guilty to a federal tax-evasion charge. In papers filed in the second week of February, Cuomo's attorneys say the governor has discretion on when to issue a proclamation for the special election that would, under state law, trigger a special election no more than 80 days later. "The New York state Legislature has not mandated any time period within which the Governor must call a special election," Attorney John Schwartz wrote for New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman. In fact, the state says, the governor recently said that he's in the process of deciding when to call for a special election. "Failing to call for a special election within the arbitrary 30- day deadline proposed by plaintiffs is simply not the same thing as refusing to call for such an election altogether," according to the February 12 memorandum. Grimm's guilty plea involved underreported earnings and hiring illegal immigrants at a Manhattan health-food restaurant he once owned. The lawsuit by eight Staten Island and Brooklyn residents claims that Cuomo failed to uphold his duties to call for a special election within 30 days of the congressman's resignation. Grimm, a former FBI agent, Marine and businessman, at first vehemently denied the counts against him, then recanted, copped guilty and ultimately resigned. The case is Rosie Rossito-Canty, et al. v. Andrew M. Cuomo, Case No. 1:15-cv-00568-JBW-RML, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. NEWMAR: Recalls King Aire 2013 Models Due to Safety Risk -------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: February 4, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Motor home Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Steering Units affected: 5 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015049TC ID number: 2015049 On certain vehicles, the castle nuts for the steering linkage ball joint fasteners, which mount to the bell cranks, may have been improperly tightened during assembly. If the castle nuts were to come completely loose, the steering linkage may separate from the bell cranks without warning. This could result in a loss of steering control, increasing the risk of a crash causing injury and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers will inspect the castle nuts, and if necessary, tighten them to the proper specification. Affected products: Make Models Model year(s) affected --- ------ ---------------------- NEWMAR KING AIRE CLASS A MOTORHOME 2013 NORTHERN TIER: Has Sent Spam Text Messages, "Soular" Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Alex Soular, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Northern Tier Energy, LP, et al., Case No. 0:15-cv- 00556 (D. Minn., February 20, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of sending spam text messages to the Plaintiff's and Class members' cellular telephones. Northern Tier Energy, LP owns and operates a total of 164 convenience stores under their Super America brand. The Plaintiff is represented by: David M. Cialkowski, Esq. J. Gordon Rudd Jr., Esq. June Pineda Hoidal, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED, PLLP 1100 IDS Center, 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 341-0400 Facsimile: (612) 341-0844 E-mail: david.cialkowski@zimmreed.com gordon.rudd@zimmreed.com june.hoidal@zimmreed.com OFFICE DEPOT: Being Sold to Staples for Too Little, Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that directors are selling Office Depot too cheaply through an unjust process to Staples, for $6.3 billion, or $7.25 in cash and 0.2188 shares in Staples for each Office Depot share, a class action claims in Delaware Chancery Court. PATTERSON-UTI DRILLING: Sued in Tex. Over Failure to Pay OT Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Donald Phillips, Jr., Paul Dillion Luna, Jr. and Jeff Walls, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Patterson-UTI Drilling Company LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-00242 (E.D. Tex., February 20, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Patterson-UTI Drilling Company LLC owns and operates a drilling facility located in Tyler, Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: William S Hommel Jr., Esq. WILLIAM S. HOMMEL JR. PC 1404 Rice Road, Ste 200 Tyler, TX 75703 Telephone: (903) 596-7100 Facsimile: (469) 533-1618 E-mail: bhommel@hommelfirm.com PENNER MANUFACTURING: Recalls Patient Stretchers ------------------------------------------------ Starting date: January 30, 2015 Type of communication: Medical Device Recall Subcategory: Medical Device Hazard classification: Type III Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Medical Devices Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals Identification number:RA-43837 Recalled products: Patient Stretcher/Transfer Lift System The device manual was updated with an additional warning statement. Hospitals advised to never allow the resident to sit on either wing, only squarely on the center section of the stretcher lift. Affected products: A. Patient Stretcher/Transfer Lift System Lot or serial number: More than 10 lots, please contact the manufacturer. Model or catalog number: 391000-1 392000-1 Manufacturer: Penner Manufacturing, Inc. 102 Grant Street Aurora 68818, Nebraska UNITED STATES PEOPLE'S STUDENT: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Fox" Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Ann Fox, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. People's Student Loan Relief Center, Case No. 2:15-cv- 01234 (C.D. Cal., February 20, 2015), seeks to recover the Defendant's practice of making unsolicited calls. People's Student Loan Relief Center provides document processing services that helps consumers find appropriate Department of Education (DOE) programs and then compiles, processes and submits to the DOE all of the required documentation. The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Suren N. Weerasuriya, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 324 S. Beverly Dr., #725 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com sweerasuriya@attorneysforconsumers.com abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com PERRY ELLIS: Misclassified Interns as Exempt, New York Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Perry Ellis Menswear misclassified interns as exempt from minimum wage law since 2009, a class action claims in New York County Supreme Court. PETSMART INC: March 2015 Hearing on Final Settlement Approval ------------------------------------------------------------- PetSmart Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2015, that a hearing on the final approval of the settlement in the case Moore, et al. v. PetSmart, Inc., et al., is scheduled for March 2015. The Company said, "In May 2012, we were named as a defendant in Moore, et al. v. PetSmart, Inc., et al., a discrimination and wage-and-hour lawsuit, which was originally filed in the California Superior Court for the County of Alameda. PetSmart removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint brings both individual and class action claims, first alleging that PetSmart failed to engage in the interactive process and failed to accommodate the disabilities of four current and former named associates. The complaint also alleges on behalf of current and former hourly store associates that PetSmart failed to provide pay for all hours worked (including overtime pay for service performed in excess of 40 hours per week), failed to properly reimburse associates for business expenses, failed to properly calculate and pay vacation, failed to provide suitable seating, and failed to provide timely and uninterrupted meal and rest periods. The lawsuit seeks compensatory damages, statutory and civil penalties, and other relief, including attorneys' fees, costs, and injunctive relief." "In January 2014, the parties entered a proposed settlement agreement to resolve this matter in line with reserves that were established for this case in the first and second quarters of 2013. The motion for preliminary approval of the settlement was filed on January 31, 2014. In March 2014, the court heard oral arguments on the motion for preliminary approval of the proposed settlement. In May 2014, the court approved the motion. Notices were mailed to potential class members in November 2014. In November 2014, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation regarding modifications to the settlement agreement which included among other things, an additional class representative, Jeanette Negrete, who has a related case pending, and her counsel as additional class counsel. A hearing on the final approval of the settlement is scheduled for March 2015." PETSMART INC: Motions Pending in "McKee" Class Action ----------------------------------------------------- PetSmart Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2015, that in the case McKee, et al. v. PetSmart, Inc., the Company's motion for summary judgment, the plaintiffs' motion for final certification, and the Company's motion for decertification are fully briefed and remain pending. The Company said, "In September 2012, a former associate named us as a defendant in McKee, et al. v. PetSmart, Inc., which is currently pending before the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The class action seeks to assert a Fair Labor Standards Act collective action on behalf of PetSmart's operations managers nationwide. The complaint alleges that PetSmart has misclassified operations managers as exempt and as a result failed to pay them overtime for hours worked in excess of forty hours per week. The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, liquidated damages, and other relief, including attorneys' fees, costs, and injunctive relief. The plaintiffs filed a motion for conditional certification in September 2013, which was granted. The court conditionally certified a collective action consisting of all current and former operations managers employed by PetSmart at any time in the preceding three-year period. Notices were sent to potential class members in February 2014, and the 60-day period within which recipients may consent to join the lawsuit closed in April 2014. Several individuals joined the case as party- plaintiffs. Discovery is closed." "On November 17, 2014, we filed a motion for summary judgment. On November 20, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a motion for final certification and we filed a motion for decertification. All three motions are fully briefed and remain pending." PETSMART INC: Deadlines in "Negrete" Action Stayed -------------------------------------------------- PetSmart Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2015, that all deadlines in the Negrete action have been stayed until the case management conference scheduled in February 2015. The Company said, "in September 2012, a former groomer filed a lawsuit against us captioned Negrete, et al. v. PetSmart, Inc. in the California Superior Court for the County of Shasta. The plaintiff seeks to assert claims on behalf of current and former California groomers, alleging that PetSmart failed to provide pay for all hours worked, failed to properly reimburse associates for business expenses, failed to provide proper wage statements, failed to properly calculate and pay vacation, and failed to provide timely and uninterrupted meal and rest periods. The lawsuit seeks compensatory damages, statutory and civil penalties, and other relief, including attorneys' fees, costs, and injunctive relief." "On June 14, 2013, we removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California and subsequently filed a motion to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. On November 1, 2013, the court deemed the Negrete and the Moore actions related and the Negrete action was reassigned to the same judge overseeing the Moore action. All deadlines have been stayed until the case management conference, which is currently scheduled for February 2015." PETSMART INC: May 4 Final Approval Hearing in "Pace" Suit --------------------------------------------------------- PetSmart Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2015, that a final approval and fairness hearing of the settlement in the case Pace v. PetSmart, Inc. is scheduled for May 4, 2015. On February 20, 2013, a former groomer in California filed a complaint in the Superior Court of California for the County of Orange captioned Pace v. PetSmart, Inc. PetSmart removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The plaintiff sought to certify a class of all former PetSmart employees in California since February 20, 2010, who were not paid all wages owed within 72 hours of their separations. The plaintiff challenges PetSmart's use of pay cards for separation payments and seeks waiting time penalties, attorneys' fees, and other relief. The plaintiff also asserts claims under California's Private Attorney General Act as well as individual claims for wrongful termination and disability discrimination. The plaintiff filed a motion for class certification on January 31, 2014, and a hearing was held in March 2014. In June 2014, the court granted the motion in part and certified a class of associates from February 2010 to the present who elected to receive their pay through check or direct deposit but received their final wages in a pay card kit. The court declined to certify the larger proposed class of associates who were purportedly paid wages more than 72 hours after their last date of employment. Notices were mailed to potential class members in July 2014. In December 2014, the parties entered a settlement agreement to resolve this matter in line with previously established reserves. The motion for preliminary approval of the settlement was filed on January 12, 2015 and the court granted the motion for preliminary approval of the settlement on January 14, 2015. Notices are expected to be mailed to potential class members in February 2015. A final approval and fairness hearing is scheduled for May 4, 2015. PETSMART INC: 8 Class Actions Filed Over BC Partners Transaction ---------------------------------------------------------------- PetSmart Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2015, that following the December 14, 2014 announcement that PetSmart entered into an agreement to be acquired by a consortium led by BC Partners, eight putative class action lawsuits were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery challenging the transaction. The cases are captioned Soffer v. Lenhardt, et al., C.A. No. 10482-VCN, Sharkey v. PetSmart, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10496-VCN, Lipovich v. PetSmart, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10504-VCN, Wayne County Employees' Retirement System v. BC Partners, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10514-VCN, City of Atlanta Firefighters Pension Plan v. Lenhardt et al., C.A. No. 10527-VCN, Levine v. PetSmart et al., C.A. No. 10516-VCN, Seawell et al. v. PetSmart Inc. et al., C.A. No. 10541-VCN, and Mardossian v. PetSmart et al., No. 10607-VCN. PetSmart is a named defendant in six of the eight lawsuits. The complaints generally allege, among other things, that the PetSmart board of directors breached their fiduciary duties by agreeing to the transaction at an inadequate price and through an inadequate process and by agreeing to deal terms that allegedly prevent a superior offer for PetSmart. The complaints also allege that PetSmart and/or some or all of the other entity defendants aided and abetted the directors' alleged breaches of duty. The complaints seek, among other things, to enjoin the transaction or to rescind the transaction if consummated and attorney's fees and other costs. PHARMASCIENCE INC: Recalls PMS-Propofol Products ------------------------------------------------ Starting date: January 30, 2015 Posting date: February 2, 2015 Type of communication: Drug Recall Subcategory: Drugs Hazard classification: Type I Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Product Safety Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals Identification number: RA-43615 Recalled Products: PMS-Propofol Reason: This lot is being recalled due to an out-of specification result on the globule size test. Depth of distribution: Retailers and Healthcare Professionals Affected products: PMS-Propofol DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM DIN 02244379 Dosage form: Emulsion Strength: Propofol - 10 mg/mL Lot or serial number: A040877 Recalling Firm: Pharmascience Inc. 6111 Royalmount Ave., Suite 100 Montreal, H4P 2T4, Quebec CANADA Marketing Authorization Holder: Pharmascience Inc. 6111 Royalmount Ave., Suite 100 Montreal, H4P 2T4, Quebec CANADA PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Marshall Court Has Not Memorialized Decision ------------------------------------------------------------- Pilgrim's Pride Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 28, 2014, that the Marshall Court has not memorialized its decision in writing related to the Grower Claims and Proceedings. The Company said, "On June 1, 2009, approximately 555 former and current independent contract broiler growers, their spouses and poultry farms filed an adversary proceeding against us in the Bankruptcy Court styled "Shelia Adams, et al. v. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation." In the adversary proceeding, the plaintiffs assert claims against us for: (i) violations of Sections 202(a), (b) and (e), 7 US C. Sec. 192 of the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921 (the "PSA"); (ii) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (iii) violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act ("DTPA"); (iv) promissory estoppel; (v) simple fraud; and (vi) fraud by nondisclosure. The case relates to our Farmerville, Louisiana; Nacogdoches, Texas; and the El Dorado, De Queen and Batesville, Arkansas complexes. "The plaintiffs also filed a motion to withdraw the reference of the adversary proceeding from the Bankruptcy Court to the U.S. District for the Eastern Court of Texas ("Marshall Court"). The motion was filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas-Fort Worth Division (the "Fort Worth Court"). The Bankruptcy Court recommended the reference be withdrawn, but that the Fort Worth Court retain venue over the action to ensure against forum shopping. The Fort Worth Court granted the motion to withdraw the reference. We filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims. The Fort Worth Court granted in part and denied in part our motion, dismissing the following claims and ordering the plaintiffs to file a motion to amend their lawsuit and re-plead their claims with further specificity or the claims would be dismissed with prejudice: (i) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (ii) promissory estoppel; (iii) simple fraud and fraudulent nondisclosure; and (iv) DTPA claims with respect to growers from Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Louisiana. The plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend on October 7, 2009. Plaintiffs' motion for leave was granted and the plaintiffs filed their Amended Complaint on December 7, 2009. Subsequent to the Fort Worth Court granting in part and denying in part our motion to dismiss, the plaintiffs filed a motion to transfer venue of the proceeding from the Fort Worth Court to the Marshall Court. We filed a response to the motion, but the motion to transfer was granted on December 17, 2009. On December 29, 2009, we filed our answer to plaintiffs' Amended Complaint with the Marshall Court. A bench trial commenced on June 16, 2011. The trial concluded as to the El Dorado growers on August 25, 2011. On September 30, 2011, the Marshall Court issued its Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Judgment finding in favor of the Company on each of the grower claims with exception of claims under 7 U.S.C. Sec. 192(e), and awarding damages to plaintiffs in the aggregate of approximately $25.8 million. Afterward, the Company filed post-judgment motions attacking the trial court's findings of fact and conclusions of law, which, on December 28, 2011, were granted in part and resulted in a reduction of the damages award from $25.8 million to $25.6 million. On January 19, 2012, the Company appealed the findings of fact and conclusions of law and decision concerning the post-judgment motions to the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Oral argument occurred on December 3, 2012. On August 27, 2013, the Fifth Circuit reversed the judgment, and entered a judgment in favor of the Company. Plaintiffs thereafter filed a petition for rehearing en banc. Plaintiffs' petition for rehearing was denied on October 15, 2013. On January 13, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari requesting the Supreme Court of the United States to accept their case for review. Plaintiff's petition for a Writ of Certiorari was denied on February 24, 2014. The Fifth Circuit's decision and prior favorable trial court rulings regarding the El Dorado growers' claims suggest that the likelihood of any recovery by growers remaining in the case is too remote to maintain the previously-recorded loss accrual. Therefore, the Company reversed the accrual on September 1, 2013. "As for the remaining chicken grower claims, the bench trial relating to the allegations asserted by the plaintiffs from the Farmerville, Louisiana complex began on July 16, 2012. That bench trial concluded on August 2, 2012, but the Marshall Court postponed its ruling until the appeals process regarding the allegations asserted by the El Dorado growers was exhausted. The bench trial relating to the claims asserted by the plaintiffs from the Nacogdoches, Texas complex began on September 12, 2012, but was also postponed until the appeals process regarding the allegations asserted by the El Dorado growers was exhausted. The remaining bench trial for the plaintiffs from the De Queen and Batesville, Arkansas complexes was scheduled for October 29, 2012, but that trial date was canceled. Following the denial by the Supreme Court of the United States for a Writ of Certiorari related to the claims asserted by the plaintiffs from the El Dorado, Arkansas complex, the Marshall Court requested briefing on the allegations asserted by the plaintiffs from the Farmerville, Louisiana complex and scheduled trial proceedings for allegations asserted by the plaintiffs from the Nacogdoches complex on August 25, 2014 and allegations asserted by the plaintiffs from the De Queen and Batesville, Arkansas complexes on October 27, 2014. Prior to commencing the trial proceedings on the allegations asserted by the plaintiffs from the De Queen and Batesville, Arkansas complexes, the Marshall Court announced it would enter judgment in PPC's favor on all remaining federal causes of action, and plaintiffs from the De Queen and Batesville complexes were given additional time to brief Arkansas state law claims. The court-imposed deadline passed with no briefs filed by plaintiffs. At this time, the Marshall Court has not memorialized its decision in writing." PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Awaits Decision on Bid to Dismiss ERISA Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Pilgrim's Pride Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 28, 2014, that the parties in the ERISA Claims and Proceedings are awaiting a decision on the motion to dismiss. The Company said, "On December 17, 2008, Kenneth Patterson filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, against Lonnie "Bo" Pilgrim, Lonnie Ken Pilgrim, Clifford E. Butler, J. Clinton Rivers, Richard A. Cogdill, Renee N. DeBar, our Compensation Committee and other unnamed defendants (the "Patterson action"). On January 2, 2009, a nearly identical suit was filed by Denise M. Smalls in the same court against the same defendants (the "Smalls action"). The complaints in both actions, brought pursuant to section 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), 29 US C. Sec. 1132, alleged that the individual defendants breached fiduciary duties to participants and beneficiaries of the Pilgrim's Pride Stock Investment Plan (the "Stock Plan"), as administered through the Pilgrim's Pride Retirement Savings Plan (the "RSP"), and the To-Ricos, Inc. Employee Savings and Retirement Plan (the "To-Ricos Plan") (collectively, the "Plans") by failing to sell the common stock held by the Plans before it declined in value in late 2008. Patterson and Smalls further alleged that they purported to represent a class of all persons or entities who were participants in or beneficiaries of the Plans at any time between May 5, 2008 through the present and whose accounts held our common stock or units in our common stock. Both complaints sought actual damages in the amount of any losses the Plans suffered, to be allocated among the participants' individual accounts as benefits due in proportion to the accounts' diminution in value, attorneys' fees, an order for equitable restitution and the imposition of constructive trust, and a declaration that each of the defendants have breached their fiduciary duties to the Plans' participants." "On July 20, 2009, the Court entered an order consolidating the Smalls and Patterson actions. On August 12, 2009, the Court ordered that the consolidated case will proceed under the caption "In re Pilgrim's Pride Stock Investment Plan ERISA Litigation, No. 2:08-cv-472-TJW." "Patterson and Smalls filed a consolidated amended complaint ("Amended Complaint") on March 2, 2010. The Amended Complaint names as defendants the Pilgrim's Pride Board of Directors, Lonnie "Bo" Pilgrim, Lonnie Ken Pilgrim, Charles L. Black, Linda Chavez, S. Key Coker, Keith W. Hughes, Blake D. Lovette, Vance C. Miller, James G. Vetter, Jr., Donald L. Wass, J. Clinton Rivers, Richard A. Cogdill, the Pilgrim's Pride Pension Committee, Robert A. Wright, Jane Brookshire, Renee N. DeBar, the Pilgrim's Pride Administrative Committee, Gerry Evenwel, Stacey Evans, Evelyn Boyden, and "John Does 1-10." The Amended Complaint purports to assert claims on behalf of persons who were participants in or beneficiaries of the RSP or the To-Ricos Plan at any time between January 29, 2008 through December 1, 2008 ("the alleged class period"), and whose accounts included investments in the Company's common stock. "Like the original Patterson and Smalls complaints, the Amended Complaint alleges that the defendants breached ERISA fiduciary duties to participants and beneficiaries of the RSP and To-Ricos Plan by permitting both Plans to continue investing in the Company's common stock during the alleged class period. The Amended Complaint also alleges that certain defendants were "appointing" fiduciaries who failed to monitor the performance of the defendant-fiduciaries they appointed. Further, the Amended Complaint alleges that all defendants are liable as co-fiduciaries for one another's alleged breaches. Plaintiffs seek actual damages in the amount of any losses the RSP and To-Ricos Plan attributable to the decline in the value of the common stock held by the Plans, to be allocated among the participants' individual accounts as benefits due in proportion to the accounts' alleged diminution in value, costs and attorneys' fees, an order for equitable restitution and the imposition of constructive trust, and a declaration that each of the defendants have breached their ERISA fiduciary duties to the RSP and To-Ricos Plan's participants. The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on May 3, 2010. On August 29, 2012, the Magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation to deny the Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint on grounds that the complaint included too many exhibits. Defendants filed objections with the District Court, and on October 29, 2012, the District Court adopted the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and entered an order denying Defendants' motion to dismiss. On November 11, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. The motion is fully briefed and was argued to the Court on February 28, 2013. The parties are awaiting a decision on the motion. PREIT ASSOCIATES: Sued Over Wheelchair-Inaccessible Parking Space ----------------------------------------------------------------- Joseph Snyder, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Preit Associates, LP, Case No. 2:15-cv-00233 (W.D. Pa., February 19, 2015), arises out of the excessive slopes in the Defendant's parking spaces and adjacent access aisles that makes them inaccessible to, and not independently usable by individuals who use wheelchairs. Preit Associates, LP owns and operates a retail shopping malls and power centers in Philadelphia. The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Bruce Carlson, Esq. Benjamin J. Sweet, Esq. Stephanie Goldin, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH SWEET & KILPELA LLP PNC Park 115 Federal Street, Suite 210 Pittsburgh, PA 15212 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 Facsimile: (412) 231-0246 E-mail: www.carlsonlynch.com bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com bsweet@carlsonlynch.com sgoldin@carlsonlynch.com PREMIUM PACKING: Accused of Not Paying OT to Agricultural Workers ----------------------------------------------------------------- Salinas-based Premium Packing stiffed agricultural workers for overtime and violated a host of other labor laws for more than a decade, workers claim in a class action in Monterey County Court, reports Courthouse News Service. PROFESSIONAL DIRECTIONAL: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Brent Peterson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Professional Directional, Ltd., Case No. 4:15-cv-00473 (S.D. Tex., February 20, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 in a single work week. Professional Directional, Ltd. is an oilfield service company with significant operations in every major United States shale basin. 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 RACING SERVICES: N.Dakota Must Return Money, 8th Cir. Says ---------------------------------------------------------- The state of North Dakota, the North Dakota Racing Commission, and three special funds administered by the commission took an appeal from a district court decision reversing the bankruptcy court's grant of summary judgment to the state against PW Enterprises, Inc. (PWE), the largest non-governmental creditor of Racing Services, Inc. (RSI), formerly a state-licensed horse racing simulcast service provider. After RSI filed bankruptcy, PWE derivatively brought the suit on behalf of all creditors to recover the money the state collected from RSI as taxes on parimutuel account wagering. On appeal, the district court concluded "[t]he money collected from RSI in the form of taxes on account wagering must be returned to the bankruptcy estate" because North Dakota law did not authorize the state "to collect taxes on account wagering during the time period in question." In a Feb. 20, 2015 order available at http://is.gd/yiMNjSfrom Leagle.com, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court and remanded to the bankruptcy court for the calculation of the amount of unauthorized taxes the state must return to the bankruptcy estate. The appeals case is In re: Racing Services, Inc. Debtor. PW Enterprises, Inc., a Nevada corporation Appellee v. State of North Dakota, a governmental entity; North Dakota Racing Commission, a regulatory agency; North Dakota Breeders Fund, a special fund; North Dakota Purse Fund, a special fund; North Dakota Promotions Fund, a special fund Appellants, Case No. 14-1077. Racing Services filed a voluntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition (Bankr. D. Del. 04-_____) on Feb. 3, 2004. On Feb. 12, 2004, the case was transferred to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of North Dakota (Bankr. N.Dak. Case No. 04-30236). On June 15, 2004, RSI's bankruptcy case was converted from Chapter 11 to Chapter 7, and Kip Kaler was appointed as the Chapter 7 trustee. RJ REYNOLDS: Settles 400 Pending Tobacco Cases for $100MM --------------------------------------------------------- Curt Anderson, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a $100 million settlement has been reached between three major tobacco companies and hundreds of people who sued them for smoking-related deaths and illnesses in Florida federal court. The tentative agreement announced on Feb. 25 involves R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Philip Morris USA Inc. and Lorillard Tobacco Co. The deal resolves about 400 cases pending before a federal judge in Jacksonville, Florida, but does not affect thousands of other lawsuits pending in Florida state courts. "With respect to the cases pending in state court, we will continue to defend them vigorously, which includes appealing adverse verdicts," said Jeff Raborn, vice president and assistant general counsel for R.J. Reynolds, based in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. The lawsuits stemmed from a 2006 Florida Supreme Court decision, known as Engle v. Liggett Group, which threw out a $145 billion class-action verdict against cigarette makers. That decision let stand findings that the companies knowingly sold dangerous products and hid smoking hazards, meaning future juries could consider that as proven fact. But the ruling also required smokers and their families to pursue individual wrongful death and personal injury lawsuits based on cigarette use. The settlement on Feb. 25, which requires final approval from a federal judge, would end the federal cases that would have taken years had they gone to trial. "Whenever people are suffering, we always welcome serious, fair offers that may more quickly resolve their claims and help them move on with their lives as best they can," said Joe Rice, co- founder of the South Carolina-based Motley Rice law firm and a chief negotiator for the plaintiffs. Under the deal, R.J. Reynolds and Richmond, Virginia-based Philip Morris would each pay $42.5 million and Lorillard, based in Greensboro, North Carolina, would contribute $15 million. Each individual plaintiff who agrees to the settlement can share in the funds, but any that do not may negotiate further. The goal, Mr. Rice said, is for full participation. "We've committed to try to get 100 percent of the cases resolved, and if we don't we'll go back to the table," he said. The settlement does not affect those federal cases that have already been tried or are on appeal. It will use a model formula based on past trials and rulings to determine how much money each plaintiff could receive, subject to approval by U.S. District Judge William G. Young. Still, the companies and plaintiff lawyers were optimistic the federal lawsuits are near an end. "We are pleased to have these federal Engle cases behind us," said Ronald Milstein, Lorillard's executive vice president and general counsel. "This settlement will provide immediate compensation to our clients, many of whom are very elderly," said attorney Robert J. Nelson of the San Francisco-based Lief Cabraser law firm. ROCHE DIAGNOSTICS: Recalls INFORM HER2 DNA Probe Products --------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: February 2, 2015 Type of communication: Medical Device Recall Subcategory: Medical Device Hazard classification: Type III Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Medical Devices Audience: Hospitals, General Public, Healthcare Professionals Identification number:RA-43833 Recalled products: INFORM HER2 DNA Probe The method sheet (Version E) of the INFORM HER2 DNA probe was missing from the Ventana website under the Canada section, as indicated on the reagent kit. Affected products: A. INFORM HER2 DNA Probe Lot or serial number: All lots Model or catalog number: 780-4332 Manufacturer: Roche Diagnostics GmbH Sandhofer Strasse 116 Mannheim, 68305 GERMANY SAFEWAY INC: Court Limits Class Suit Ruling to Certain Customers ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action ruling against Safeway applies only to customers who registered on the grocery chain's Web site as of 2006, a federal judge said February 12, reports Arvin Temkar at Courthouse News Service. U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar amended his partial summary judgment in a case accusing the company of marking up prices for home- delivered groceries purchased online. The amendment was in response to a motion to reconsider Safeway filed after the original partial summary judgment was granted on Dec. 10, 2014. Lead plaintiff Michael Rodman claimed that Safeway's terms of agreement for online purchases said that customers will pay the same prices as in a brick and mortar store. But he claimed that the company overcharged by at least 10 percent for most home- delivered items. Tigar sided with Rodman in December, ruling the company breached its contract. But Safeway argued that the judge's order erroneously stated that it had breached its contract with all the class members. Safeway said the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment referred only to a contract on Safeway's Web site posted in 2006. While Rodman did submit versions of the contract that Safeway posted before 2006, they "were not placed before the court by plaintiff's initial motion for summary judgment and defendant thus did not have sufficient notice that plaintiff sought summary judgment that Safeway breached the contract with class members who registered prior to 2006," Tigar ruled. He also granted Safeway's claim regarding damages. Though the initial summary judgment concluded that the "aggregate amount of the online mark-up" was the appropriate measure of damages, the plaintiff did not adequately argue that point. "Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment did not make any argument as to why the aggregate amount was the appropriate measure of damages, beyond the conclusory statement that 'Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to recovery the full aggregate amount of the charged markup by Safeway,'" the judge wrote. The plaintiffs may still seek summary judgment on the measure and amount of damages in the future. SCH CORP: 3rd Cir. Vacates District Court Ruling on NCG Deal ------------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, for the second time, addressed an appeal filed by the "CFI Claimants" with respect to post-confirmation bankruptcy proceedings arising out of the Chapter 11 bankruptcy of Debtors SCH Corp., American Corrective Counseling Services, Inc., and ACCS Corp. The District Court had affirmed the order of the Bankruptcy Court granting the motion filed by appellee Carl Singley, the Debtors' disbursing agent, litigation designee, and responsible officer, to approve the settlement he reached with the plan funder, National Corrective Group, Inc. (NCG). On review, the Third Circuit held that the purported settlement really constituted a plan modification governed by 11 U.S.C. Sec. 1127. Accordingly, the Third Circuit held that it will vacate the District Court's order and remand with instructions for the District Court to vacate the Bankruptcy Court's order and to direct the Bankruptcy Court to consider the purported settlement as a request for a plan modification pursuant to Sec. 1127. The case is In re: SCH CORP., et al., Debtors. v. CFI CLASS ACTION CLAIMANTS, Appellant, Case No. 14-2888. A copy of the Third Circuit's Feb. 24, 2015 Opinion is available at http://is.gd/7fH8GSfrom Leagle.com. Counsel for Appellant: Irv Ackelsberg, Esq. Howard I. Langer, Esq. LANGER, GROGAN & DIVER 1717, Arch Street, Suite 4130 The Bell Atlantic Tower Philadelphia, PA 19103 - and - Christopher D. Loizides, Esq. LOIZIDES 1225, King Street, Suite 800 Wilmington, DE 19801 E-mail: iackelsberg@langergrogan.com hlanger@langergrogan.com Counsel for Appellee: Thomas H. Kovach, Esq. Anthony M. Saccullo, Esq. A.M. Saccullo Legal 27, Crimson King Drive Bear, DE 19701 E-mail: ams@saccullolegal.com - and - John D. McLaughlin, Jr., Esq. CIARDI, CIARDI & ASTIN 1204 North King Street Wilmington, DE 19801 SESAC LLC: Judge Awards $16MM Attorney Fees in Antitrust Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Scott Flaherty, writing for The Litigation Daily, reports that when Weil, Gotshal & Manges litigators get tapped for an antitrust class action, you can usually assume the firm is playing defense. But a bit of role-reversal paid off for Weil last week, when a judge awarded the firm $16 million in class counsel fees and signed off on a $58.5 million settlement it negotiated with the performance rights organization SESAC LLC. On Feb. 18 U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer in Manhattan granted final approval to the settlement, which resolves claims that Weil brought on behalf of a group of network television affiliates. The deal caps more than five years of litigation over claims that SESAC violated federal antitrust law through its practice of issuing blanket, all-or-nothing copyright licenses to local stations. Judge Engelmayer awarded Weil a little more than $16.1 million, or about 27 percent of the entire settlement amount, to cover legal fees and expenses it racked up as counsel for the plaintiffs. Local TV stations that want to air syndicated shows, commercials and sporting events typically negotiate licenses with performing rights organizations like SESAC. Weil's team, including Steven Reiss -- steven.reiss@weil.com -- and R. Bruce Rich -- bruce.rich@weil.com -- alleged that SESAC made all-or-nothing licenses the only viable choice for local TV broadcasters, allowing it to jack up prices and force the stations to pay for music they'd never actually use. SESAC was originally represented in the case by lawyers from Jenner & Block but later turned to Joseph Hage Aaronson. After losing a bid to dismiss the case in 2010, SESAC moved for summary judgment in 2013, arguing that the stations lacked sufficient evidence in support of their antitrust claims. Judge Engelmayer, who inherited the case in September 2011, denied the summary judgment bid, though he did agree to narrow the scope of the case. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Sued for Not Awarding Frequent Flier Passes --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action claims that Southwest Airlines fails to award frequent flier program companion passes by applying points to the incorrect year, reports that David Lee, writing for Courthouse News Service. Cory Couch, of Arizona, sued the Dallas-based airline in Federal Court on Feb. 2. He claims the terms of Southwest's Rapid Rewards program "state repeatedly" that points for the companion passes are earned on Southwest-branded credit card purchases made during the calendar year. Couch claims the airline does not disclose that points earned on purchases after the close of a customer's December billing cycle are actually applied to the next calendar year. Couch says that his December billing cycle ended on Dec. 8, 2014. Southwest's companion pass is a coveted perk for frequent fliers, as it allows a designated companion to fly for free for a full year as long as the primary flier purchases a ticket for each flight taken. "Plaintiff and other class members rushed to complete purchases using the Rapid Rewards credit cards on the mistaken belief that the points from such purchases would count, for companion pass purposes, for the calendar year in which the purchases were made," the 25-page complaint states. "Southwest denies companion passes to members who have made purchases sufficient to earn the required 110,000 points during the calendar year. Hundreds if not thousands of members have been wrongfully denied their companion passes despite spending the required sums on purchases." For each dollar spent on the Southwest-branded credit cards, one point is awarded. Two points are awarded for each dollar spent directly with the airline or with its hotel and car rental partners. Couch says he made more than $10,800 in additional purchases on his Southwest Rapid Rewards credit card after Dec. 8, 2104, believing the earned points would be credited to the 2014 calendar year. "At best, Southwest's Rapid Rewards Program terms are unclear and ambiguous with respect to how points are earned and the timing of when they are earned for the purposes of issuing companion passes," the complaint states. "To the extent the terms are unclear, ambiguous, and/or susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation, then they must be construed against Southwest as the drafter. Members have no authority to negotiate any of the program barrage of terms." Couch claims that a program member's monthly point accumulation tally "gives the impression" that points can be transferred multiple times during the month. He claims Southwest did "nothing to indicate that the earning period has reset" on December 8, and that points earned after that date would not count for that calendar year. Southwest spokesman Thais Conway said the airline is reviewing the lawsuit. He said the company "takes pride" in its customer service and loyalty programs. "Our focus on the customer has earned us multiple recognitions, including a 2014 Freddie Award for Best Loyalty Credit Card and Best Customer Service by InsideFlyer," Conway said February 9. Couch seeks class certification and damages for breach of contract, breach of the faith, promissory estoppel and unjust enrichment. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert B. Kleinman, Esq. KLEINMAN LAW FIRM PLLC 404 W. 7th Street Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 299-5329 Facsimile: (512) 628-3390 ST. JOSEPH SERVICES: Court Junks Suit Arising From Data Breach -------------------------------------------------------------- The "heightened risk of future identity theft" is not enough to establish standing for a woman to sue a hospital system that let hackers compromise her private data, reports Cameron Langford at Courthouse News Service, citing a federal court ruling. St. Joseph Health System, a Texas hospital and health clinic operator, said in February 2014 that hackers had breached its computer system two months earlier, gaining access to the private data of 405,000 patients and employees. Though St. Joseph said it was not aware that the breach had led to any identity thefts, it paid for a year of credit monitoring and identity theft protection for all the potential victims. But St. Joseph's cleanup efforts did not allay the fears of patient Beverly Peters. She filed a class action against St. Joseph in March 2014. As with all its patients, the hospital system stored Peters' Social Security number, birth date, address, medical records and bank account information on its computer network. Peters claimed the hackers put her data on the Internet for third parties to use as they pleased. She said she tracked the hack to a fraudulent purchase on her Discover card, an effort to gain access to her Amazon account, a daily barrage of telephone solicitations by medical products and service companies, and spam sent from her compromised Yahoo email account. St. Joseph sought to dismiss the case, claiming Peters had not suffered an injury traceable to the data breach, and that even if she established causation she had not proved any quantifiable damage or loss from the hack. U.S. District Judge Kenneth Hoyt took St. Joseph's side on February 11 and dismissed the lawsuit. Hoyt said that Peters' identity-theft issues had been resolved. "Discover never charged her for the fraudulent purchase identified in the complaint and closed her account to prevent future fraud," Hoyt wrote. "Upon discovery that her Yahoo email account had been compromised, Peters changed her password. The complaint contains no allegations that her email contacts continue to receive voluminous spam email from her account since she took this proactive measure." Hoyt cited the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Clapper v. Amnesty International USA. In it, reporters, attorneys and the human rights group challenged part of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 that allows the U.S. government to intercept communications from foreigners outside the States. Those plaintiffs said they feared that their sources, colleagues and clients would be targets of U.S. government surveillance, and the threat would force them to take expensive security measures to keep their communications private. The Clapper plaintiffs argued: "There [was] an objectively reasonable likelihood that their communication with their foreign contacts will be intercepted under [FISA] at some point in the future." The Supreme Court tossed the case, finding the plaintiffs had not established the threat of government surveillance was "certainly impending." Hoyt relied on that reasoning in rejecting Peters' claims. "Under Clapper, Peters must at least plausibly establish a 'certainly impending' or 'substantial' risk that she will be victimized. The allegation that risk has been increased does not transform that assertion into a cognizable injury," Hoyt wrote in a 15-page order. He dismissed Peters' federal claims with prejudice. He dismissed her state law claims without prejudice and gave her 30 days to amend them in state court. Peters' attorney was not immediately available to comment. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason Webster, Esq. THE WEBSTER LAW FIRM 6200 Savoy Drive, Suite 640 Houston, TX 77036 Telephone: (713) 396-5197 The case is Beverly T. Peters v. St. Joseph Services Corporation d/b/a St. Joseph Health System, et al., Case No. 4:14-CV-2872, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. STARSHIP ENTERPRISES: "Pippin" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Eugenia Pippin, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated v. Starship Enterprises of Atlanta, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00507 (N.D. Ga., February 19, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, obtain declaratory relief, and reasonable attorney's fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standard Act. Starship Enterprises of Atlanta Inc. is a Georgia Profit Corporation that owns and operates a gift, novelty, and souvenir shops. The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew R. Frisch, Esq. Morgan & Morgan, P.A Suite 400, 600 N. Pine Island Road Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (954) 318-0268 Facsimile: (954) 333-3515 E-mail: AFRISCH@FORTHEPEOPLE.COM STOCKLOTS DISTRIBUTION: Recalls Boys Fleece Hooded Sweatshirts -------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: February 2, 2015 Posting date: February 2, 2015 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Children's Products, Clothing and Accessories Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Strangulation Hazard Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-43531 McGordon's Boys Printed Fleece Top with full zip and hood, style KBB-1552. The drawstring is found around the hood of the garment Health Canada has determined that drawstrings on children's upper outerwear can become caught on playground equipment, fences or other objects and result in strangulation, or in the case of a vehicle, the child being dragged. Neither Stocklots Distribution nor Health Canada has received reports of consumer incidents or injuries to Canadians related to the use of these products. Approximately 1512 Boys fleece hooded sweatshirt with full zip and hood were sold. The recalled products were sold from October, 2012 to January, 2015. Manufactured in Philippines. Distributor: Stocklots Distribution/4283147Canada Inc. Montreal CANADA Consumers should immediately remove the drawstrings from the hood to eliminate the hazard. Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given away in Canada. Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any health or safety incidents related to the use of this product or any other consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the Consumer Product Incident Report Form. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/Rp7BCP SUNSHINE MEDICAL: Faces "Sosa" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jose M. Gonzalez Sosa, Laura Janice Cruz Melendez, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. Sunshine Medical Network II, Inc., 8th Street Medical Center, Inc., Roberto E. Cruz, Case No. 1:15-cv-20713 (S.D. Fla., February 20, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek. The Defendants own and operate a Health Insurance company doing business in Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jamie H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, PA 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Telephone: (305) 865-6766 Facsimile: 865-7167 E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM TABOUN GRILL: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, Action Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ Joel Rodriguez-Martinez, individually and on behalf of other employees similarly situated v. Taboun Grill 2, LLC, Hershie Weingarten, and Anat Trace, Case No. 1:15-cv-01574 (N.D. Ill., February 20, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work more than 40 hours in a week. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Cook County, Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: Valentin Tito Narvaez, Esq. CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC 6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200 Chicago, IL 60646 Telephone: (312) 878-1302 Facsimile: (888) 270-8983 E-mail: vnarvaez@yourclg.com TAKATA CORP: Ordered by NHSA to Preserve Air Bag Parts in Probe --------------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that U.S. safety regulators have ordered Japanese air bag maker Takata Corp. to preserve air bag parts from recalled cars for government investigators and attorneys who are suing the company. The order issued on Feb. 25 by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration covers air bag inflator mechanisms that can explode with too much force, spewing metal shrapnel into drivers and passengers. At least six people have been killed and 64 others injured from the problem. Ten different automakers have recalled about 17 million cars and trucks in the U.S., and recovered inflators have been sent to Takata. The order stops Takata from destroying inflators except when they are tested and requires the company to set aside 10 percent of them for testing by plaintiffs' lawyers. Takata also has to come up with a plan, to be approved by the government, for gathering and preserving the inflators. And the company must make inflators available to the 10 automakers, who are close to hiring an outside company and a leader for their own investigation of the air bag problems. Takata, in a statement on Feb. 25, said it worked with NHTSA on the evidence preservation order and will support efforts by the agency and automakers to find the cause of the problem. "Determining the root cause of the inflator issues has been and remains our top priority," the statement said. Takata uses ammonium nitrate to create a small explosion that quickly inflates its air bags. But government investigators say the chemical can burn faster than designed if exposed to prolonged airborne moisture. That can cause it to blow apart a metal canister meant to contain the explosion. Automakers, Takata and the government all want to find out just how much humidity and time it takes to cause the problem, both of which are unknown. So far, automakers have recalled about 22 million cars globally due to Takata inflators. There could be as many as 30 million vehicles with Takata air bags across the U.S. At least 70 lawsuits have been filed over the air bag malfunctions in courts across the nation, according to NHTSA. The Feb. 25 order comes less than a week after NHTSA began fining Takata $14,000 per day for failing to cooperate fully in the investigation, an allegation that Takata denies. The cooperation still isn't sufficient, the agency said, so the fines grew to $84,000 as of Feb. 25. TASTE OF COUNTRY: Recalls Chicken Pie Products Due to Milk ---------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: February 4, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Milk Hazard classification: Class 1 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Taste of Country Distribution: Ontario Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 9618 Taste of Country is recalling Taste of Country brand Chicken Pie from the marketplace because it contains milk which is not declared on the label. People with an allergy to milk should not consume the recalled product described below. Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalled products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they were purchased. If you have an allergy to milk, do not consume the recalled product as it may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction. There have been no reported reactions associated with the consumption of this product. This recall was triggered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's (CFIA) inspection activities. The CFIA is conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings. The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product from the marketplace. Affected products: Brand name Common name Size Code(s) on product UPC ---------- ----------- ---- ------------------ --- Taste of Chicken Pie 6 X 125 g All codes where milk None Country is not declared on the label Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/ZC84E4 TJX CANADA: Recalls Korma Simmer Sauce Products Due to Peanut ------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: February 2, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Peanut Hazard classification: Class 3 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: TJX Canada Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, Saskatchewan Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 9601 Affected product: Brand name Common name Size Code(s) on product UPC ---------- ----------- ---- ---------------------- Masala Maza Korma Simmer Sauce 355 ml 28614 6 48253 10101 5 TOTALLY GLUTEN: Recalls Pizza Products Due to Undeclared Mustard ---------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: February 3, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Mustard Hazard classification: Class 2 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Totally Gluten Free Bakery Distribution: Alberta Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 9614 Affected products: Brand name Common name Size Code(s) on product UPC ---------- ----------- ---- ------------------ --- Totally Gluten Ham & Salami 7" All products where None Free Bakery Pizza mustard is not declared on the label. Totally Gluten Ham & Salami 10" All products where None Free Bakery Pizza mustard is not declared on the label. Totally Gluten Meat Lovers 7" All products where None Free Bakery Pizza mustard is not declared on the label. Totally Gluten Meat Lovers 10" All products where None Free Bakery Pizza mustard is not declared on the label. Totally Gluten Ham, Salami, 7" All products where None Free Bakery Mushroom Pizza mustard is not declared on the label. Totally Gluten Ham, Salami, 10" All products where None Free Bakery Mushroom Pizza mustard is not declared on the label. Totally Gluten Pepperoni 7" All products where None Free Bakery Pizza mustard is not declared on the label. Totally Gluten Pepperoni 10" All products where None Free Bakery Pizza mustard is not declared on the label. Totally Gluten Barbecued 7" All products where None Free Bakery Chicken Pizza mustard is not declared on the label. Totally Gluten Barbecued 10" All products where None Free Bakery Chicken Pizza mustard is not declared on the label. Totally Gluten Ham, 7" All products where None Free Bakery Pepperoni, mustard is not Gr. Pepper declared on the Pizza label. Totally Gluten Ham, 10" All products where None Free Bakery Pepperoni, mustard is not Gr. Pepper declared on the Pizza label. Totally Gluten Deluxe Pizza 7" All products where None Free Bakery mustard is not declared on the label. Totally Gluten Deluxe Pizza 10" All products where None Free Bakery mustard is not declared on the label. TRAVELERS COMPANIES: TPC Paid $579MM to Hawaii Action Plaintiffs ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Travelers Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a bankruptcy court entered an order directing Travelers Property Casualty Corp. to pay $579 million to the plaintiffs in the Statutory and Hawaii Actions and the Common Law Claims actions, and the Company has made that payment. In October 2001 and April 2002, two purported class action suits (Wise v. Travelers and Meninger v. Travelers) were filed against Travelers Property Casualty Corp. (TPC), a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, and other insurers (not including The St. Paul Companies, Inc. (SPC), which was acquired by TPC in 2004) in state court in West Virginia. These and other cases subsequently filed in West Virginia were consolidated into a single proceeding in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia. The plaintiffs alleged that the insurer defendants engaged in unfair trade practices in violation of state statutes by inappropriately handling and settling asbestos claims. The plaintiffs sought to reopen large numbers of settled asbestos claims and to impose liability for damages, including punitive damages, directly on insurers. Similar lawsuits alleging inappropriate handling and settling of asbestos claims were filed in Massachusetts and Hawaii state courts. These suits are collectively referred to as the Statutory and Hawaii Actions. In March 2002, the plaintiffs in consolidated asbestos actions pending before a mass tort panel of judges in West Virginia state court amended their complaint to include TPC as a defendant, alleging that TPC and other insurers breached alleged duties to certain users of asbestos products. The plaintiffs sought damages, including punitive damages. Lawsuits seeking similar relief and raising similar allegations, primarily violations of purported common law duties to third parties, were also asserted in various state courts against TPC and SPC. The claims asserted in these suits are collectively referred to as the Common Law Claims. In response to these claims, TPC moved to enjoin the Statutory Actions and the Common Law Claims in the federal bankruptcy court that had presided over the bankruptcy of TPC's former policyholder Johns-Manville Corporation on the ground that the suits violated injunctions entered in connection with confirmation of the Johns- Manville bankruptcy (the 1986 Orders). The bankruptcy court issued a temporary restraining order and referred the parties to mediation. In November 2003, the parties reached a settlement of the Statutory and Hawaii Actions, which included a lump-sum payment of up to $412 million by TPC, subject to a number of significant contingencies. In May 2004, the parties reached a settlement resolving substantially all pending and similar future Common Law Claims against TPC, which included a payment of up to $90 million by TPC, subject to similar contingencies. After the parties reached the settlements of the Statutory and Hawaiian Actions and the Common Law Claims (collectively "the Settlements"), numerous proceedings took place in the bankruptcy, district and appellate courts concerning the approval of the Settlements and their effect on other parties. As a result of certain rulings in those proceedings, TPC concluded that it was not obligated to go forward with the Settlements because certain conditions precedent to the Settlements had not been met. The plaintiffs in the Statutory and Hawaii Actions and the Common Law Claims actions thereafter filed motions in the bankruptcy court to compel TPC to make payment under the settlement agreements, arguing that all conditions precedent to the Settlements had been met. On December 16, 2010, the bankruptcy court granted the plaintiffs' motions and ruled that TPC was required to fund the Settlements. The court entered judgment against TPC on January 20, 2011 in accordance with this ruling and ordered TPC to pay the Settlements plus prejudgment interest. The bankruptcy court's judgment was reversed by the district court on March 1, 2012, the district court having found that the conditions to the Settlements had not been met. The plaintiffs appealed the district court's March 1, 2012 decision to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. On July 22, 2014, the Second Circuit issued an opinion reversing the district court's decision and reinstating the bankruptcy court's January 20, 2011 order which ordered TPC to pay the Settlements plus prejudgment interest. On August 5, 2014, TPC filed a Petition for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc with the Second Circuit, which was denied on January 5, 2015. At December 31, 2014, the amount of the Company's payment was recognized in the Company's consolidated financial statements in the amount of $579 million, comprising the $502 million settlement amount, plus pre-judgment and post- judgment interest totaling $77 million. On January 15, 2015, the bankruptcy court entered an order directing TPC to pay $579 million to the plaintiffs, and the Company has made that payment. UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Sued in Fla. for Employing Unlicensed Drivers ---------------------------------------------------------------- App-based transportation services Uber and Lyft should be fined and not allowed to continue servicing Miami because their drivers are unlicensed, a class claims in court, reports Kevin Lessmiller at Courthouse News Service. Christopher Davis, CEO of Professional Chauffeur Transportation Services, sued Miami-Dade County, Fla., Uber Technologies Inc. and Lyft Inc. in Miami-Dade County Court, on behalf of all for-hire transportation companies in the county and the public at large. He says their drivers are not in compliance with local ordinances and regulations. Under Miami-Dade County code, public transportation companies need chauffeurs registrations for each driver, licenses, vehicle inspections, liability insurance, background checks and "adherence to established payment rates," according to the complaint. "The defendants Uber and Lyft are rogue companies that are operating 'for hire transportation services' by the use of a telephonic app system by which they direct unlicensed drivers who are operating their own unmarked personal vehicles to pick up fares for delivery to specific destinations including but not limited to the Miami International Airport and the Miami Port Authority aka PortMiami," the lawsuit states. Davis says Uber and Lyft are attempting to monopolize the local market by charging less than companies like his. "Uber and Lyft are knowingly, illegally and intentionally violating the aforesaid ordinances and are therefore violating the law set out by Miami-Dade County, Florida for the sole purpose of profit, causing monetary loss (loss of legitimate fares) to the plaintiff transportation companies which are regulated by said ordinance and to the detriment of the unwitting riding public and public at large," according to the complaint. Their lower fares are an attempt to hurt competition and force traditional chauffeurs and taxi drivers out of the market, Davis claims. He says an attempt to monopolize a market is against state law. Davis also blames the county for not enforcing its ordinances. He alleges the county has arrested Uber and Lyft drivers in the past but generally turns a blind eye to their services. "The defendant county has known of the continuing illegal violations of its code of ordinances by defendants Uber and Lyft for some time, but has refused to enforce its code of ordinances against said defendants, which perpetuates the criminal violations of their drivers, the loss of revenue by the plaintiffs, and the loss of protection to the riding public and public at large," the complaint states. "If defendant county enforced its codes against defendants Uber and Lyft, their drivers will lose the fares that said defendants provide and therefore defendants Uber and Lyft would be out of their illegal transportation services or suffer the consequences." The lawsuit's class consists of licenses chauffeurs and taxi drivers as well as the general public in Miami-Dade County. Davis seeks a cease and desist order, restitution and punitive damages. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ronald S. Guralnick, Esq. RONALD S. GURALNICK PA 100 SE 2nd St., Suite 2600 Miami, FL 33131-2118 Telephone: (305) 373-0066 Facsimile: (305) 373-1387 E-mail: rgacquit@bellsouth.net USG CORP: To Pay Up to $48MM to Resolve Wallboard Purchaser Cases ----------------------------------------------------------------- USG Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that USG will pay a maximum of $48 million to resolve U.S. direct and indirect purchaser cases. USG Corporation, United States Gypsum Company, and CGC Inc. have been named as defendants in class action lawsuits alleging that North American wallboard manufacturers conspired to fix the price of wallboard sold in the United States and Canada. The Company said, "In October 2014, we entered into a settlement agreement in principle with the attorneys representing the direct and indirect purchaser plaintiff classes in the U.S. wallboard pricing lawsuits, which name USG Corporation and United States Gypsum Company as defendants. In the first quarter of 2015, we executed final settlement agreements. We will file the final settlement agreements with the Court for its approval." "Assuming the settlements are approved by the Court, USG will pay a maximum of $48 million to resolve the U.S. direct and indirect purchaser cases. We recorded a $48 million charge in the third quarter of 2014 related to this settlement. If we are unable to settle the U.S. litigation under the terms set forth in the settlement agreements, or at all, there can be no assurance that the outcome of these lawsuits will not have a material effect on our business, financial condition, operating results or cash flows. "The settlement does not include the Canadian lawsuits to which CGC is a party. At this stage of the Canadian lawsuits, we are not able to estimate the amount, if any, of any reasonably possible loss or range of reasonably possible losses. We believe, however, that these Canadian lawsuits will not have a material effect on our results of operations, financial position, or cash flows." VIRTUS INVESTMENT: Sued in N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Reports ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tom Cummins, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Virtus Investment Partners Inc., George R. Aylward, Michael A. Angerthal, Francis G. Waltman and Mark S. Flynn, Case No. 1:15-cv-01249 (S.D.N.Y., February 20, 2015), 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 financial services company with an office in New York, New York that provides investment products and solutions primarily through its subsidiary investment managers. The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward H. Glenn Jr., Esq. Jacob H. Zamansky, Esq. ZAMANSKY & ASSOCIATES, L.L.C. 50 Broadway, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 742-1414 Facsimile: (212) 742-1177 E-mail: eglenn@zamansky.com jake@zamansky.com VISION-SCIENCES: Named as Defendant in "Frustaci" Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Vision-Sciences, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2015, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2014, that a putative class action complaint was filed on January 7, 2015, in the District Court, Fourth Judicial District, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, by a purported shareholder of Uroplasty under the caption Joseph J. Frustaci vs. Uroplasty, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 27-cv-15-305. The Company said, "The complaint names as defendants us, Uroplasty, Merger Sub and the members of the Uroplasty board of directors. The complaint asserts various causes of action, including, among other things, that the members of the Uroplasty board of directors breached their fiduciary duties owed to Uroplasty's shareholders in connection with entering into the merger agreement and approving the merger. The complaint further alleges that we, Uroplasty and Merger Sub aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the Uroplasty board of directors. The plaintiff is seeking, among other things, injunctive relief enjoining or rescinding the merger and an award of attorneys' fees and costs. We believe that this lawsuit is without merit and intend to contest it vigorously." WAL-MART STORES: Sued Over Misleading Herbal Supplement Ads ----------------------------------------------------------- Walgreens, GNC, Target and Wal-Mart misled consumers on store- brand herbal supplements such as ginkgo biloba that do not contain the ingredients they advertise, a federal class led by Victoria Shahrashian alleges. The case is Shahrashian v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Case No. 2:15- cv-00978, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. WEATHERFORD INTERNATIONAL: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------ Christopher Sanford, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Weatherford International, LLC, Case No. 4:15-cv-00475 (S.D. Tex., February 20, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for all hours worked in excess of 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: Richard J. Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com - and - 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 WENDY'S OF LAS VEGAS: One Claim in Wage Class Action Survives ------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Heuer at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal judge dismissed with prejudice three of four claims in a class action against a Wendy's franchise whose workers accuse it of minimum wage violations. Workers said in a May 2014 class action that Wendy's paid less than minimum wage by claiming that substandard health insurance benefits enabled it to pay $7.50 to 7.75 per hour instead of the Nevada minimum wage of $8.25. Many class members were parents raising young children. In an amended complaint, the workers accused Wendy's of violating three sections of the Nevada Constitution and a state wage law. Wendy's sought dismissal, saying the workers did not state an actionable claim. U.S. District Judge Gloria M. Navarro on February 4 agreed with Wendy's on three of the four claims, and dismissed them with prejudice. But the state's Minimum Wage Amendment explicitly provides for a private action against an employer, Navarro said, in refusing to dismiss that element. Wendy's of Las Vegas owns 31 franchise and non-franchise fast-food restaurants in Clark County. State voters in 2006 amended the Nevada Constitution to establish a minimum wage of $8.25 per hour for employers who do not provide qualifying health insurance benefits. The minimum wage is $7.25 per hour for those who do. The plaintiffs claim that Wendy's of Las Vegas falsely claims the health-insurance benefits underwritten by Aetna comply with the state law defining acceptable health insurance benefits to qualify for the lower state minimum wage. They say the amount they have to spend on health insurance premiums exceeds what state law allows. The workers say their health insurance premiums are much higher than the state's qualifying threshold and do not provide coverage for deductible health care costs. The Nevada Constitution allows employers to qualify for the reduced minimum wage only when the cost of premiums for health insurance benefits equals no more than 10 percent of workers' annual gross taxable income. The benefits also must pay for health care costs that employees can deduct on their federal income tax returns. The case is Latonya Tyus, et al. v. Wendy's of Las Vegas, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-00729-GMN-VCF, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada. WESTERN SCOTT FETZER: Recalls Valve Pressure Regulators ------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: January 31, 2015 Posting date: February 2, 2015 Type of communication: Medical Device Recall Subcategory: Medical Device Hazard classification: Type I Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Medical Devices Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals Identification number: RA-43563 Recalled Products: OxyTOTE Style Valve Integrated Pressure Regulators Western decided to initiate this recall based on reports of ignition events involving OxyTOTE valve integrated pressure regulators (VIPRs) and the subsequent investigations into those events. Based on the investigations, Western has become aware of the possibility of ignition and rupture (i.e., explosion) of the compressed gas oxygen cylinder, which can cause serious injury and/or death. Affected products: OxyTOTE Style Valve Integrated Pressure Regulators Lot or serial number: More than 10 numbers, contact manufacturer. Model or catalog number: MNR-600 MNS-603 MTR-500 MTR-700 MTS-501 MTS-502 MTS-503 Manufacturer: Western / Scott Fetzer Co. 875 Bassett RD., Westlake, 44145, Ohio UNITED STATES WILLIAM COOK: Recalls Z. Alpha Thoracic Endo Grafts --------------------------------------------------- Starting date: January 30, 2015 Type of communication: Medical Device Recall Subcategory: Medical Device Hazard classification: Type III Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Medical Devices Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals Identification number: RA-43811 Recalled products: Z.Alpha T. Endo Graft proximal component Z.Alpha thor.endo.graft proximal tapered Zenith Alpha thor.endo.graft distal component Field safety notice advising users of updates to the IFU that are being made to emphasize best practices in response to a few recent findings of distal Type I endoleak, migration and aneurysm growth during on-going longer term follow up of patients enrolled in the multi-national clinical investigation of the device. Affected products: A. Z.Alpha T. Endo Graft proximal component Lot or serial number: All lots Model or catalog number: More than 10 numbers, contact manufacturer. Manufacturer: William Cook Europe APS Sandet 6, Bjaeverskov 4632 DENMARK B. Z.Alpha thor. endo. graft proximal tapered Lot or serial number: All lots Model or catalog number: More than 10 numbers, contact manufacturer. Manufacturer: William Cook Europe APS Sandet 6, Bjaeverskov 4632 DENMARK C. Zenith Alpha thor.endo.graft distal component Lot or serial number: All lots Model or catalog number: More than 10 numbers, contact manufacturer. Manufacturer: William Cook Europe APS Sandet 6, Bjaeverskov 4632 DENMARK WOLFER LANDSCAPE: "Arango" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jaime Arango v. Wolfer Landscape Services, Inc., a Florida Profit Corporation, and Sean A. Wolfer, Case No. 0:15-cv-60362 (S.D. Fla., February 20, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a landscaping service compant with its main place of business located in Broward County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: K. Brian Roller, Esq. SCHWARTZ ZWEBEN ROBINS BURNETTE & ROLLER 3876 Sheridan Street Hollywood, FL 33021 Telephone: (954) 966-2483 Facsimile: (954) 374-6974 E-mail: broller@szalaw.com WORLD FUEL: Motion to Bring Class Action Lawsuit Filed ------------------------------------------------------ World Fuel Services Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a motion was filed in Quebec Superior Court to authorize the bringing of a class-action lawsuit seeking economic, compensatory and punitive damages, as well as costs against the Company, certain of its subsidiaries, along with a number of other third parties. The Company, on behalf of DPTS Marketing LLC ("DPM"), a crude oil marketing joint venture in which the Company owned a 50% membership interest, purchased crude oil from various producers in the Bakken region of North Dakota. Dakota Petroleum Transport Solutions, LLC ("DPTS"), a crude oil transloading joint venture in which the Company also owned a 50% membership interest, arranged for the transloading of the crude oil for DPM into tank cars at the joint venture's facility in New Town, North Dakota. The Company leased the tank cars used in the transloading from a number of third party lessors and subleased these tank cars to DPM. The Company, on behalf of DPM, contracted with Canadian Pacific Railway ("CPR") for the transportation of the tank cars and the crude oil from New Town, North Dakota to a customer in New Brunswick, Canada. CPR subcontracted a portion of that route to Montreal, Maine and Atlantic Railway ("MMA"). On July 6, 2013, the freight train operated by MMA with tank cars carrying approximately 50,000 barrels of the crude oil derailed in Lac- M‚gantic, Quebec. The derailment resulted in significant loss of life, damage to the environment from spilled crude oil and extensive property damage. The Company said, "various lawsuits have been filed against us and other third parties related to the Lac-Megantic incident. In 2013, we, certain of our subsidiaries, DPM and DPTS, along with a number of third parties, including MMA and certain of its affiliates, as well as several manufacturers and lessors of tank cars, were named as defendants in twenty complaints filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. The complaints generally allege wrongful death and negligence in the failure to provide for the proper and safe transportation of crude oil and seek economic and compensatory damages, as well as costs. The actions were removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the "IL District Court") and subsequently reassigned to a single judge in the IL District Court (other than one action that was remanded to state court prior to reassignment and another that was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs)." "The plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion to have these actions remanded to state court. We filed a motion in the United States District Court for the District of Maine (the "ME District Court"), where MMA's bankruptcy is pending, to transfer all of these actions to that court. On March 21, 2014, the ME District Court granted the transfer motion. On April 4, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the order granting the transfer motion and a motion requesting the ME District Court abstain from exercising jurisdiction over the cases. The motion for reconsideration was denied and the motion for abstention remains pending. On May 1, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a notice stating their intention to appeal the order granting the transfer motion to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. On June 17, 2014, the ME District Court entered a consent order staying proceedings in the transferred cases pending the appeal. On November 11, 2014, the Bankruptcy Trustee and plaintiffs moved to amend the consent order staying proceedings in the transferred cases to allow plaintiffs to file additional cases in other jurisdictions. We and other parties opposed this motion which is currently pending before the court. We believe the plaintiffs' claims against us, certain of our subsidiaries, DPM and DPTS are without merit and intend to vigorously defend against such claims and pursue any and all defenses available. "In 2013, we, certain of our subsidiaries, DPM and DPTS, along with a number of other third parties, including CPR, MMA and certain of its affiliates, several manufacturers and lessors of tank cars, as well as the intended purchaser and certain suppliers of the crude oil, were named as defendants in a motion filed in Quebec Superior Court to authorize the bringing of a class-action lawsuit seeking economic, compensatory and punitive damages, as well as costs. "The motion generally alleges wrongful death and negligence in the failure to provide for the proper and safe transportation of crude oil. We believe these claims against us, certain of our subsidiaries, DPM and DPTS are without merit and intend to vigorously defend against such claims and pursue any and all defenses available." * NY Attorney General Targets Herbal Supplement Manufacturers ------------------------------------------------------------- Mary Esch, writing for The Associated Press, reports that, after ordering four major retailers to pull store-brand herbal supplements off their shelves following DNA tests that found little or none of the listed herbs, New York's attorney general is targeting manufacturers of the popular products. Attorney General Eric Schneiderman sent letters on Feb. 23 to four manufacturers, in Long Island, California and Utah, demanding detailed ingredient and quality control information on every herbal supplement they sell in New York state. The companies' products include the store-brand supplements Mr. Schneiderman ordered off the shelves at Walmart, Walgreen's, Target and GNC stores in New York state. Letters were sent to Pharmavite LLC, of Mission Hills, California, maker of the Nature Made brand; NBTV Inc. of Ronkonkoma, New York, maker of Sundown Naturals, Nature's Bounty, Vitamin World and other brands; Nature's Way Products Inc. of Lehi, Utah, maker of Nature's Way brand; and Nutraceutical Corp. of Park City, Utah, maker of Herbs for Kids and other brands. None of the companies initially responded to requests for comment. "The scientific community, public health officials, and others have raised serious doubt about the steps taken to ensure the safety and efficacy of the herbal dietary supplements taken daily by millions of Americans," Mr. Schneiderman said in his letter. "As part of a broader investigation, NYAG is reviewing the sufficiency of the measures manufacturers and retailers are taking to independently assess the validity of their representations and advertising in connection with the sale of herbal supplements." Earlier in February, Mr. Schneiderman announced that DNA barcoding tests commissioned by his office on six popular herbal supplements found that of hundreds of bottles tested, 4 out of 5 contained none of the herbs listed on the labels. The supplements included ginseng, touted as an energy booster; Echinacea, marketed as a cold remedy; St. John's Wort, used for depression; and ginkgo biloba, used for memory problems. Consumer groups focused on exposing fraud in the supplement industry criticized Mr. Schneiderman's use of DNA tests without additional chemical analysis, saying many products that use extracts of a plant's active ingredients would not test positive for DNA but could still be effective. The same criticism was leveled by dietary supplement industry groups. The information requested from the manufacturers could provide more definitive evidence of what's really in the pills and capsules. Among other things, Mr. Schneiderman wants documentation of: -- The name, concentration, country of origin, and any extraction method used for each component of the supplement; -- A description of analytic testing used to confirm the content and quality of any ingredient as well as the finished product; -- A detailed description of measures taken to ensure quality across the supply chain from farm to factory; -- Testing done to substantiate label claims such as "gluten free" or "hypoallergenic;" -- Copies of all documents related to adverse health consequences, including allergic reactions. The attorney general wants the information by March 13. "It's important for both retailers and manufacturers to verify the contents of the products they sell so consumers can be protected against deceptive claims on packaging, and against potentially dangerous reactions to undisclosed ingredients," Mr. Schneiderman's spokesman Matt Mittenthal said. About 65,000 dietary supplements are on the market, consumed by more than 150 million Americans, according to a 2013 Canadian government study. The American Botanical Council estimates U.S. sales of herbal supplements came to $6 billion that year. Daniel Fabricant, executive director of the Natural Products Association, an industry trade group, said the information requested by Mr. Schneiderman is available to the Food and Drug Administration when it inspects these firms. "I don't know why the taxpayers of New York think it's a good idea for their attorney general devote resources to something that's already covered by the federal government," said mr. Fabricant, former director of the division of supplement programs at the FDA. "I can tell you, I was there, they weren't shy about taking action." According to the FDA website, there is no regulation that requires a firm to disclose to FDA or consumers the information they have about the safety or purported benefits of their dietary supplement products. The manufacturer is responsible for ensuring the ingredient list is accurate. The FDA can take action against supplements only after they are proven to be unsafe. Mr. Schneiderman says lax oversight of supplements can have serious public health consequences, noting a 2013 hepatitis outbreak traced to a tainted diet supplement and the death of a baby at a Connecticut hospital after doctors gave the child a probiotic supplement later found to be contaminated with yeast. * Transport Canada Recalls Certain Motorcycles Due to Injury Risk ----------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: February 3, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Motorcycle Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Power train Units affected: 123 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015047TC ID number: 2015047 On certain motorcycles, the screw holding the drive sprocket onto the output gear shaft may become loose. This could cause the rear wheel to lockup momentarily or completely, increasing the risk of a crash causing injury and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers will inspect the output shaft and replace if found to be out of specification. * Waiving Second Meal Break Violates California labor Code ---------------------------------------------------------- Marlisse Silver Sweeney, writing for Law.com, reports that a word of warning to employers in the health care sector, especially to those in California: A recent decision from the California Court of Appeal said that the commonly followed practice of allowing workers on 12-hour shifts or longer to waive their second meal period is in violation of the California Labor Code. In a recent post by Veronica Gray of Nossaman -- vgray@nossaman.com -- examining the case, she notes that three health care workers were suing their hospital employer for labor code violations. Section 512(a) of the code necessitates two meal periods for workers on shifts longer than 12 hours, but an Industrial Welfare Commission wage order allows employees in health care to waive one of those two periods. The court said the IWC order exceeded its authority and was in direct conflict with the California Labor Code. With the exception of the order that the hospital pay the plaintiffs' premium wage claims, the court refused to consider liability for violations before this decision. Ms. Gray says that "employers (especially those in the health care industry) should review their meal and rest period policies." ********* 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 2015. 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 * * *