/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/150508.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, May 8, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 92 Headlines 1051 MORRIS: "Estevez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages AARGON AGENCY: Court Signs Accord Dismissing "Moye" Suit ADVANCED MICRO: Judge Allows Securities Fraud Class Suit Proceed AIR CANADA: Halifax Law Firms to Tackle Crash Landing Suit AMERICAN GREETINGS: Parties to Submit Revised Accord by May 22 AMERICAN INTERCONTINENTAL: Has Sent Unsolicited Calls, Suit Says AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Settles 401(k) Plan Class Action APOTEX INC: Recalls APO-Fluoxetine Products Die to Safety Hazard ARIA ASIAN: Faces 1st "Zhang" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ARIA ASIAN: Faces 2nd "Zhang" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ARC PRESSURE: Faces "Lawton" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime BABIES "R" US: Faces Class Action Over Endless Earnings Program BARRICK GOLD: Loses Bid to Dismiss Shareholders' Class Action BHP BILLITON: Faces "Tamez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime BOIRON CANADA: Recalls Filix Mas Oral Drops BOSCH: May 28 Deadline for Claims in Front-Loading Machines Case BOULDER BRANDS: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in Colorado CADIZ INC: Sued in C.D. Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports CANADA: Veterans Await Impact of Reforms in Benefits Class Action CANADIAN CHOICE: Recalls Organic Virgin Coconut Oil CARDINAL OILFIELD: Faces "Prine" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT CBS CORP: Seeks Dismissal of Intern Class Action CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Denies Motion to Dismiss Racketeering Suit CHRYSLER: Recalls 1,514 Promaster Trucks, Vans Over Airbag Defect CITIGROUP INC: Faces "Lewis-Gursky" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT CRUISER RV: Recalls Viewfinder Models Due to Explosion Risk CSOS LLC: Faces "Medina" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages DANLIN INDUSTRIES: Faces "Gonzalez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT DOLLAR TREE: District Court's Class Action Remand Order Reversed DOUGLAS LABORATORIES: Recalls Ultra D-Tox Products EJ AMUSEMENTS: OT Suit Gets Conditional Class Certification EL BESO: "Esteves" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages EL MOLINO: Recalls Market Town Cabbage Rolls ELBO CONSTRUCTION: Faces "Arias" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ENTROPIC COMMUNICATIONS: Robbins Geller Files Class Action EURO-PRO OPERATING: Recalls Shark(R) Vacuum Cleaners FGC FOODS: Recalls Coleslaw with Greek Yogurt Due to Sunflowers FGC FOODS: Recalls Coleslaw with Greek Yogurt Due to Sunflowers FIRST NATIONAL: Illegally Collects Debt, "Wilkes" Suit Claims FOOGO: June 22 Deadline Set for Drinking Bottle Settlement Claims GENERAL MILLS: Recalls Nature Valley Dark Chocolate Nut Bars GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Cadillac CTS-V Cars Over Brake Hose GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Cadillac CTS-V Models GLAXOSMITHKLINE INC: Recalls Clavulin 400 Products GOOGLE INC: Parents Can't Proceed with In-App Purchase Class Suit GOOGLE INC: Stock Split May Cost Over $500 Million GRAND DESIGN: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models GREENWORLD FOOD: Recalls Baklava Mix Due to Undeclared Cashew GREENWORLD FOOD: Recalls Baklawa Mix Products Due to Cashews HARLEY-DAVIDSON: Recalls Multiple Motorcycle Models HARLEY-DAVIDSON: Recall Multiple Street Models HEINZ CANADA: Recalls Chicken with Broth Products HERSHEY CO: Judge Tosses Food Labeling Class Action HOMELITE CONSUMER: Recalls Electric Blowers & Vacuums HONDA: Recalls Multiple 2014-2015 Vehicles HOOKSETT PUBLIC: Director Faces Complaints From Subordinates HORIZON MUD: Sued in Texas Over Failure to Provide Layoff Notice HORIZONTAL WIRELINE: Fails to Pay Workers OT, "Janczak" Suit Says HULU LLC: Judge Tosses Facebook Privacy Class Action HYUNDAI: July 6 Deadline Set for Gas Mileage Settlement Claims INT'L BUSINESS: Labaton Sucharow Files Securities Class Action J-W WIRELINE: "Parrot" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages JACKSONVILLE GREYHOUND: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages JAYCO: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models Due to Crash Risk JIM SMITH: "Heavlin" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages JOHNS HOPKINS: To Vigorously Oppose Class Action Over STD Study K&B OILFIELD: Faces "Sanders" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime KNIGHT CAPITAL: July 1 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set LENOVO INC: Expands ThinkPad Notebook Battery Packs Recall LOS ANGELES, CA: Settles ADA Class Action MICHIGAN: Department of Corrections Faces ADA Class Action MITSUBISHI: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models Over Injury Risk MITSUBISHI: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models Over Blower Motor MIZUHO BANK: Judge Dismisses Yen Libor Class Action NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Appeals Court Reverses Class Action Ruling NAVISTAR: Recalls AE School Bus Models Due to Safety Hazard NAVISTAR: Recalls Multiple Bus Models Due to Safety Hazard NEBRASKA: Food-Benefit Applications Suit Get Class-Action Status NEW SUPERIOR TUB: Has Sent Unsolicited Fax Ads, Suit Says NEW YORK, NY: "Quota Board" to Take Center Statge in Class Action OIL INSPECTIONS: Faces 1st "Vanwagner" Suit Over Unpaid Overtime OIL INSPECTIONS: Faces 2nd "Vanwagner" Suit Over Unpaid Overtime OIL STATES ENERGY: Faces "Campos" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT OLIVIERO CAFE: "Zapata" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: June 5 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set PECCAR INC: Faces Class Action Over Defective Tractor-Trailers PETROBRAS: Executives Named as Defendants in Class Action PFIZER INC: Judge Tosses Centrum Multivitamin Class Action POLLO OPERATIONS: Amended Class Cert. Bid Must be File by May 28 PREMERA BLUE: Faces Five Data Breach Class Actions PREMERA BLUE: More People Join Data Breach Class Action PRIORITY ENERGY: Faces "Matthews" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT RED HAWK: Faces "Thibodeaux" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime RELIANCE PRESSURE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages RESONANT INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Action RICK'S CABARET: Settles Strippers' Wage Class Action for $15MM ROCKING 8: "Arnwine" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages S BROS INC: "Guzman" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages SALLIE MAE: 11th Cir. Revives Floyd Case, Remands to Dist. Court SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: Judge Rejects Securities Class Action SPOKEO INC: Wants Supreme Court to Uphold 9th Cir. Ruling SPRINT CORP: Settles Nextel Merger Class Action for $131 Million SUCCESS EXPRESS: Faces "Anger" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime TAKATA CORP: Three Canadian Law Firms File Airbag Class Action TARGET CORP: No Benefit Achieved in Data Breach Settlement TEX-STAR WATER: Faces "Prine" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime TOYOTA MOTOR: Stanley Firm Sues Over Car System Hacking Risk TRADER JOE'S: Attorney Plans to Extend Arsenic-Tainted Wine Suit TRIAD GUARANTY: Judge Rejects Securities Class Action TRINITY INFRASTRUCTURE: I-635 Residents File Class Action UNION PACIFIC: Deprives Landowners Property Rights, Suit Claims UNITED KINGDOM: High Court Strikes Out Hindraf's Class Action UNITED STATES: Suits Seek Removal of Commanders From Rape Cases UNITED STATES: Dist. Court Dismisses "Flores" Case as Frivolous VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Class Action Over Cold-FX Claims VIA FETUCCINI: Faces "Mendez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime VICTIM SERVICES: Response to Dismissal Bid Due Today WELLS FARGO: Faces "Hecht" Suit in N.Y. Over Mortgage Policies WELLS FARGO: Seeks Dismissal of Suit Over Foreclosure Fees WHOLE FOODS: Must Face Background Check Class Action WISCONSIN: Docketing Statement in Parenthood Case Signed * Bill to Push for Class Action Procedure for Health Sector * Insurance Companies Target for Class Actions * More Companies Require Workers to Arbitrate Claims Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ameren Corp. Had 70 Suits Pending at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Remy Int'l. Protected From GM Employee Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Unit Had 82 Fibro Claims at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Oral Argument in Suit vs. Crane Co. To Be Heard ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal in "Hellam" Suit vs. Crane Co. Is Pending ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Appeals in 2 Pa. Suit Remain Pending ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Peraica" Suit vs. Crane Co. Remains Pending ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Garvin" Suit vs. Crane Co. Remains Pending ASBESTOS UPDATE: "DeLisle" Suit vs. Crane Co. Remains Pending ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cal Water Continues to Defend Fibro Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Selective Insurance Has $23-Mil. A&E Reserves ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chubb Corp. Had $521-Mil. Fibro Claims Reserves ASBESTOS UPDATE: Quaker Chemical Unit Continues to Defend Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: W. R. Berkley Has $36-Mil. Net A&E Reserves ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cincinnati Financial Has $81-Mil. A&E Reserves ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l. Unit Has 7,730 Fibro Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hartford Fin'l Has $1.7-Bil. Fibro Reserves ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Order in Pa. PI Suit Affirmed ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insurer Wins Summary Judgment in "Wommack" Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mass. App. Flips Ruling in Reinsurance Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wis. App. Remands "Sorenson" Suit for Trial ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judge Recommends Dismissal of Cos. in PI Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal in "Hockler" Suit Withdrawn ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Dugas" Suit Partially Dismissed vs. UTC, et al. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 10th Circ. Affirms Dismissal of Inmates' Claims ********* 1051 MORRIS: "Estevez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Andres Estevez, Alejandro Gomez, Ramiro Hernandez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 1051 Morris Park Pizza Corp. d/b/a Emilio's Gourmet Pizza & Pasta and Ricardo Dinardo, Case No. 1:15-cv-03255 (S.D.N.Y., April 24, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, statutory penalties, and attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate Emilio's Gourmet Pizza & Pasta restaurant located at 1051 Morris Park Avenue, Bronx, New York 10461. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joaquin Ernesto Orellana, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF FAUSTO E. ZAPATA, JR., P.C. 277 Broadway New Year, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 766-9870 Facsimile: (212) 766-9869 E-mail: jorellana@jeolaw.com AARGON AGENCY: Court Signs Accord Dismissing "Moye" Suit -------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Miranda M. Du signed a stipulation on April 27, 2015, dismissing with prejudice the action captioned NATALIE MOYE, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AARGON AGENCY, INC. d/b/a/ AARGON COLLECTION AGENCY, Defendant, CASE NO. 14-CV-01352-MMD-GWF, (D. Nev.). The Court granted the parties' Stipulation to Dismiss the entire action. As stipulated by the parties, the action is dismissed with prejudice as to Plaintiff Natalie Moye, and dismissed without prejudice as to the putative class members, pursuant to FRCP 41(a)(1)(A(ii), with each party to bear their respective attorneys' fees and costs. A copy of the court-approved stipulation is available at http://is.gd/6ORsZMfrom Leagle.com. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC, Danny J. Horen -- danny@kazlg.com -- Las Vegas, Attorneys for Plaintiff. CARLSON & MESSER LLP, David J. Kaminski -- watkinss@cmtlaw.com -- Stephen A. Watkins -- kaminskd@cmtlaw.com -- Los Angeles, CA, Attorneys for Defendant, AARGON AGENCY, INC. d/b/a AARGON COLLECTION AGENCY. ADVANCED MICRO: Judge Allows Securities Fraud Class Suit Proceed ---------------------------------------------------------------- Neil McAllister, writing for The Register, reports that a US federal judge has given the green light for a class-action lawsuit accusing AMD of securities fraud over the chipmaker's alleged failure to inform investors of problems with its manufacturing. The suit, first filed in January 2014 and amended in June of that year, accuses AMD of willfully misleading investors by withholding information about low manufacturing yields for its "Llano" line of processors. Llano, a codename that AMD was tossing around as far back as 2008, was the first generation of AMD's accelerated processing units (APUs), a marketing term the company uses to describe chips that combine CPU and GPU cores on a single die. AMD's original plan was to get its APUs to market by 2009, but that idea quickly evaporated. It then said it would get them out by the end of 2010, but later pushed its target into the following year. Repeated delays meant retailers were eventually left stocking shelves with motherboards that could support Llano chips, but not the chips themselves. In a 121-page complaint, attorneys representing Babak Hatamian and other AMD shareholders allege that the firm's execs never properly explained the nature of these delays to investors. Instead, the suit claims, AMD execs gave repeated assurances that manufacturing problems at AMD's fabbing partner GlobalFoundries had been resolved, when in fact they had not. "The yield problems that plagued [GlobalFoundries] in 2010 had not been resolved," the lawyers assert in court filings, "and by the time of the Llano launch in June 2011, AMD was significantly supply-constrained such that AMD was only able to ship whatever meager supply of Llano it was able to generate to its top-tier OEM customers, leaving AMD's important channel customers without any supply of Llano at all." Famine to glut By the time AMD was able to manufacture Llano in quantity, the suit claims, the market had moved on. Demand for Llano had shifted to newer processors, and AMD was left saddled with as much as $100m in unsold inventory. "Despite these known problems," the suit alleges, "Defendants made statements throughout the Class Period that demand, particularly in the third party distribution channel (and in emerging markets where most channel sales occurred) was strong, that Llano was experiencing high customer adoption, and that sales were high." Once the full truth was revealed, the plaintiffs claim, AMD's stock plummeted, shedding nearly 74 per cent of its value between the period of March 27 and October 18, 2012. The chipmaker's share price has yet to fully recover. AMD had sought to have the plaintiffs' suit dismissed on grounds that its legal theory was insufficient, but in a ruling made public on April 1, US District Court Judge Yvonne Rogers of the Northern District of California denied that motion and ruled that the case would go forward. "The Court does not reach this conclusion lightly," Judge Rogers wrote in a 19-page ruling. "In so holding, the Court has considered possible non-culpable explanations for why defendants might have stated that yields were on track when they were later exposed as not having been." The judge found, however, that such explanations were "relatively less persuasive" than the plaintiffs' allegations and that the evidence presented in the complaint met the legal requirements for a valid lawsuit under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. What's more, court documents claim, "Lead Plaintiffs believe that substantial additional evidentiary support for the allegations herein exists and will continue to be revealed after Lead Plaintiffs have a reasonable opportunity for discovery." The lawsuit seeks damages in an amount to be proven at trial, plus interest and court costs. At press time, AMD had not responded to The Register's request for comment. AIR CANADA: Halifax Law Firms to Tackle Crash Landing Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Dan Arsenault, writing for Herald News, reports that The Wagners law firm of Halifax announced on April it will work with two Toronto law firms in a class action connected to the crash landing of Air Canada flight AC 624 at Halifax Stanfield International Airport. Wagners and the firms Rochon Geneva and Will Davidson have been contacted by some of the 133 passengers on board the Toronto to Halifax flight, which crash landed 335 meters short of the runway on March 29. More than 25 people were taken to hospital following the crash and the class action will seek damages for physical and psychological trauma. "The AC 624 incident fortunately resulted in no fatalities, but it reveals severe safety hazards which could have led to serious consequences for passengers and crew members," the statement from Wagners reads. "Aviation experts have identified in the media a number of possible safety failures, such as inadequate runway navigational systems, poor air navigation safety standards, and potential pilot errors." The release quotes lawyer Ray Wagner claiming that class actions are a tool to promote safety. "Behavior modification will cause substantive changes to a number of emergency and operational systems that appear to have failed the passengers of AC 624." The Supreme Court of Nova Scotia must approve and certify the proposed class action, according to the April 1 release. Wagners and Will Davidson worked together following the MK Airlines Ltd. crash in Halifax in 2004. Will Davidson was a co-lead counsel in a class action the followed an Air France crash in Toronto in 2005. Rochon Geneva has worked on a number of aviation litigation cases, the Wagners release said. AMERICAN GREETINGS: Parties to Submit Revised Accord by May 22 -------------------------------------------------------------- In AL SMITH, et al., Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN GREETINGS CORPORATION, Defendant, CASE NO. 14-CV-02577-JST, (N.D. Cal.), before the Court is Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the settlement and for certification of the settlement class. The matter came on for hearing on April 30, 2015. As stated at the hearing, the parties have agreed to make changes to their settlement agreement, and resubmit it for approval. The changes are: Cy pres: The agreement will be amended to provide that all funds will be distributed to participating class members, with the exception of funds allocated to, but not used for, settlement administration. Only this last category will be distributed to a cy pres recipient. Supplemental Notice: Having re-reviewed the notice provisions of the settlement agreement, the Court withdraws its comments at the hearing regarding the providing of supplemental notice to class members. The parties are not required to take further steps with regard to this item. This order supersedes Paragraph Two of the minutes from the April 30 hearing. Form of Notice: the parties will make these alterations in the form of notice: 1. At question 14 on the proposed notice form, ECF No. 42, Ex. 1 at 6, the parties will add the statement, "Class Counsel can provide additional information or answer questions you may have with regard to this settlement." This statement shall be included in the textual paragraph under question 14 before the sentence that begins "If you want to be represented by your own lawyer . . . ." 2. In the text under question 22 of the proposed notice form, ECF No. 42, Ex 1 at 8, the parties will add language to the paragraph after the phrase, "or by going in person to. . . ." The full phrase shall read "or by going in person to the office of the Clerk of the Court at any of the locations of the District Court for the Northern District of California [website], between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Court holidays." See Procedural Guidance for Class Action Settlements, available at http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/ClassActionSettlementGuidance (providing sample language). 3. The envelopes in which class members' notice packets are mailed "should be designed to enhance the chance that [they] will be opened." Id. Examples of envelopes that meet this requirement are available at the Federal Judicial Center website, www.fjc.gov, and specifically at http://www.fjc.gov/public/pdf.nsf/lookup/ClaAct03.pdf/$file/ClaAct 03.pdf.1 Opt-Out Procedures: The parties will also make these revisions to their suggested opt-out procedures: 1. Class members who wish to exclude themselves from the settlement need not provide their telephone numbers to Simpluris to do so. The language at question 12 of the proposed notice form, ECF No. 42, Ex. 1 at 5, 7, should be adjusted accordingly. 2. Class members who wish to object to the settlement will only be required to send their objections to the Clerk of this Court. See Procedural Guidance for Class Action Settlements, available at http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/ClassActionSettlementGuidance."All objections will be scanned into the electronic case docket and the parties will receive electronic notices of filing." 3. The parties will add a statement to the text under question 16 of the proposed notice form, ECF No. 42, Ex. 1 at 7, that instructs class members that the Court is unable to modify the settlement; the Court only has the power to approve or deny it. Sample language for this statement is available at http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/ClassActionSettlementGuidance. 4. In the text under question 16 of the proposed notice form, ECF No. 42, Ex. 1 at 7, the parties will remove this language: "if, but only if, you state in your objection (or separately timely file and send to the Settlement Administrator) a Notice of Intention to Appear at the Final Approval Fairness Hearing." The sentence from which that language is excised shall read, in its entirety, "If you make a timely objection, you may appear and be heard at the Final Approval Fairness Hearing, either in person or through an attorney of your choice (at your expense)." No class member shall be required to notify the parties or the Court that they will appear at the final fairness hearing. For the same reason, the text under question 20 of the proposed notice form, ECF No. 42, Ex. 1 at 8, shall be modified to read only: "If you object to the Settlement, you or your lawyer may speak in Court in support of that objection." All other language shall be omitted. The parties will submit a revised settlement agreement by May 22, 2015. A copy of District Judge Jon S. Tigar May 1, 2015 order is available at http://is.gd/4x4Wgxfrom Leagle.com. Al Smith, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin Francis Woodall -- kevin@kwoodalllaw.com -- Woodall Law Offices. Jeffrey Hourcade, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin Francis Woodall, Woodall Law Offices. American Greetings Corporation, an Ohio Corporation, Defendant, represented by Angela Joy Rafoth -- arafoth@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C., Arthur M. Eidelhoch -- aeidelhoch@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C., Jessica Xing Yun Rothenberg -- jrothenberg@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C. & Margaret Hart Edwards -- mhedwards@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C. AMERICAN INTERCONTINENTAL: Has Sent Unsolicited Calls, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jennifer Marie Lewis, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. American Intercontinental University, Inc., and Aiu Online, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-03646 (N.D. Ill., April 24, 2015), seeks to stop Defendants' practice of making unsolicited phone calls to the cellular telephones of consumers nationwide. The Defendants own and operate a private, for-profit online university. The Plaintiff is represented by: Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq. Ari J. Scharg, Esq. Alicia Hwang, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300 Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 589-6370 Facsimile: (312) 589-6378 E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com ascharg@edelson.com ahwang@edelson.com - and - W. Craft Hughes, Esq. Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq. HUGHES ELLZEY, LLP 2700 Post Oak Blvd., Ste. 1120 Galleria Tower I Houston, TX 77056 Telephone: (713) 554-2377 Facsimile: (888) 995-3335 E-mail: craft@hughesellzey.com jarrett@hughesellzey.com AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Settles 401(k) Plan Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ Jeffrey P. Cairns, Esq. of Stinson Leonard Street LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that in 2011, a group of current and former employees filed a class action lawsuit in the District Court of Minnesota claiming that Ameriprise Financial, Inc. and members of its 401(k) Plan fiduciary committee had breached their fiduciary duty to the Plan participants and engaged in self- dealing. The specific actions generating the lawsuit were the selection by the company's fiduciary committee of a number of Ameriprise mutual funds, then known as "RiverSource Funds" as investment options for its participants as part of the 401(k) Plan fund array when several of these funds (a) had no track record or (b) had a track record, but carried either one or two stars (out of a maximum four stars) on the Morningstar performance rating system. Reports note that in addition to the facts above, the company offered its participants target date mutual funds (often used as a default or a single asset allocation fund) which had internal management fees paid to a subsidiary of Ameriprise that were three times the management fee charged on a comparable Vanguard target fund group. It was announced that the plaintiffs and the company had agreed to dispense with the trial which was scheduled to begin on April 13, 2015 in exchange for certain stipulations regarding the selection of the record keeper and fund managers for the Plan and members of the fiduciary committee. In addition, there is a monetary payment from the company in the amount of $27.5 million and Ameriprise agrees to refund administrative fees from related funds in excess of actual costs. A reported 24,000 current and former participants will share in the settlement. Members of plan committees, trustees and other plan fiduciaries must exercise their duties in the sole interest of the plan participants and beneficiaries to provide benefits or to defray reasonable expense of administering the plan. While there are statutory exemptions for qualified employer securities, other transactions between an ERISA plan and the plan sponsor and its affiliates will be subject to additional scrutiny under the fiduciary standards to determine if the transactions are prohibited and/or amount to self-dealing and a breach of the prudent person rule. Plan fiduciaries can protect themselves by engaging an independent investment advisor to evaluate fund managers, make recommendations and benchmark fees. The motion for settlement was filed on March 26, in the office of federal district court Judge Susan Richard Nelson and must be approved by Judge Nelson before it becomes final. APOTEX INC: Recalls APO-Fluoxetine Products Die to Safety Hazard ---------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: April 17, 2015 Posting date: April 17, 2015 Type of communication: Drug Recall Subcategory: Drugs Hazard classification: Type II Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Product Safety Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals Identification number: RA-52993 The active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) used in the manufacturing of these lots may not meet the specification for impurity - isobutyl vinyl ketone (IBVK) A. APO-Fluoxetine DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM DIN 02216361 Dosage form: Capsule Strength: Fluoxetine (Fluoxetine hydrochloride) 20 mg Lot or serial number: Bottle of 100 Capsules: KT8932 KZ8595 ME3862 Bottle of 500 Capsules: KJ1893 Recalling Firm: Apotex Inc. 150 Signet Drive Toronto M9L 1T9 Ontario CANADA Marketing Authorization Holder: Apotex Inc. 150 Signet Drive Toronto M9L 1T9 Ontario CANADA ARIA ASIAN: Faces 1st "Zhang" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Xing Dong Zhang, individually and on behalf of all other employees similarly situated v. Aria Asian Corp. d/b/a Aria Asian Fusion, Huang Lin, John Doe and Jane Doe# 1-10, Case No. 1:15-cv-03238 (S.D.N.Y., April 24, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 385 Halstead Avenue, Harrison, New York 10528. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jian Hang, Esq. HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 136-18 39th Ave., Suite 1003 Flushing, NY 11354 Telephone: (718) 353-8588 E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com ARIA ASIAN: Faces 2nd "Zhang" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Xing Dong Zhang, individually and on behalf of all other employees similarly situated v. Aria Asian Corp. d/b/a Aria Asian Fusion, Huang Lin, John Doe and Jane Doe# 1-10, Case No. 7:15-cv-03238 (S.D.N.Y., April 24, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 385 Halstead Avenue, Harrison, New York 10528. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jian Hang, Esq. HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 136-18 39th Ave., Suite 1003 Flushing, NY 11354 Telephone: (718) 353-8588 E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com ARC PRESSURE: Faces "Lawton" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Opio Lawton and Tim Bennett, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. ARC Pressure Data, Inc., Glena Turner, Amy Turner, and Craig Turner, Case No. 3:15-cv-01279-N (N.D. Tex., April 24, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week. ARC Pressure Data, Inc. provides a range of oil and gas support services to various oilfield installations throughout the state of Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Derek Braziel, Esq. LEE & BRAZIEL LLP 1801 Lamar Blvd, Suite 325 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (214) 749-1400 Facsimile: (214) 749-1010 E-mail: jdbraziel@l-b-law.com BABIES "R" US: Faces Class Action Over Endless Earnings Program --------------------------------------------------------------- Legal Newsline reports that a popular baby supplies store was sued on March 16 over allegations its rewards program was misleading and misrepresented what consumers actually receive when purchasing something from its stores. Stacy Tongate filed the lawsuit against Babies "R" Us over its Endless Earnings program. The lawsuit alleged the program offers shoppers up to 10 percent back on registry items purchased in order to attract more customers to use the baby registry services. Ms. Tongate said the company launched the program in April 2014 and offered the benefits with no limits. The suit alleged that the rewards reflect only a fraction of the amount that consumers are contractually entitled to. The company allegedly offered five percent of the first $300 spent by consumers. After the first $300, consumers are bumped up to 10 percent. The lawsuit is seeking class status for those who made purchases during the Endless Earnings program's duration. The suit is also asking for approximately $5 million in damages plus court costs. Ms. Tongate is represented by Michael L. Silverman, Gregg M. Barbakoff and Matthew D. Savin, of Spirut, PC in Chicago. United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois case number 1:15-cv-02286 BARRICK GOLD: Loses Bid to Dismiss Shareholders' Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that Barrick Gold Corp has lost its bid to dismiss a U.S. lawsuit that accuses the world's largest gold producer of concealing problems at a troubled South American mine and of fraudulently inflating the company's market value by billions of dollars. U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin in Manhattan ruled on April 1 that shareholders can pursue class action claims that Barrick intended to deceive them about environmental problems afflicting its Pascua-Lama project on the border of Argentina and Chile. "Though plaintiffs have not alleged a motive, they have sufficiently alleged strong circumstantial evidence of conscious misbehavior or recklessness," the judge wrote in a 55-page decision. Judge Scheindlin also said shareholders can pursue claims that Barrick misled them about its accounting for the project. The judge dismissed claims alleging that Barrick intentionally misled them about costs and production delays. She also dismissed claims related to transactions conducted on the Toronto Stock Exchange, saying a key U.S. securities fraud law does not reach that far. Jim Hughes, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said in a phone interview: "It is a very good result for shareholders, and allows us to go forward on several very strong claims." Barrick bought the untapped Pascua-Lama mine in 1994, and had been counting on it to generate a large percentage of its overall gold production. But cost overruns, environmental issues, labor unrest, political opposition and falling bullion prices contributed to Barrick's decision on Oct. 31, 2013 to indefinitely halt the project, after it had already spent more than $5-billion. Investors who bought Barrick's common stock sued for losses covering the period from May 7, 2009, when Barrick said it would begin construction on Pascua-Lama, through Nov. 1, 2013. These investors said Barrick touted Pascua-Lama during this period as a "world-class project that will contribute low-cost ounces at double-digit returns," even as it became clear the project would fall short of expectations. Judge Scheindlin said the shareholders may amend their lawsuit, though it was "difficult to believe that plaintiffs will be able to plead additional facts that are not already included in their almost 200-page, 548-paragraph complaint." The case is In re: Barrick Gold Securities Litigation, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 13-03851. BHP BILLITON: Faces "Tamez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Tamez, Billy Tom Medlin, Gavin Reynolds, and James Clark, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated individuals v. BHP Billiton Petroleum (Americas), Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv- 00330-RP (W.D. Tex., April 24, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week. BHP Billiton Petroleum (Americas), Inc. is a foreign corporation and maintains its principal address in Houston, Texas. BHP is a producer of iron ore, coal, copper, and aluminum. The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul J. Lukas, Esq. Michele R. Fisher, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 4600 IDS Center 80 S. 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 256-3200 Facsimile: (612) 215-6870 E-mail: lukas@nka.com fisher@nka.com BOIRON CANADA: Recalls Filix Mas Oral Drops ------------------------------------------- Starting date: April 16, 2015 Posting date: April 20, 2015 Type of communication: Drug Recall Subcategory: Natural health products Hazard classification: Type I Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Product Safety Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals Identification number: RA-53015 Recall initiated following suspension of market authorisation by Health Canada. The oral use by self-medicating of the mother tincture ingredient Dryopteris filix-mas in the homeopathic product should not be authorized on the Canadian market due to unfavorable risks: benefits ratio and the fact that a "safe" dosage of Male fern cannot be determined. Depth of distribution: Practitioner A. Filix Mas DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM DIN-HM 80018123 Dosage form: Oral drops Strength: Mother tincture Lot or serial number: L14A020124. ref.TP2525 Recalling Firm: Boiron Canada Inc. 1300 Rene Descartes Saint-Bruno-de-Montarville J3V 0B7 Quebec CANADA Marketing Authorization Holder: Boiron Canada Inc. 1300 Rene Descartes Saint-Bruno-de-Montarville J3V 0B7 Quebec CANADA BOSCH: May 28 Deadline for Claims in Front-Loading Machines Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- Joe Ducey, writing for ABC15, reports that from gas mileage complaints to washing machines just not doing the job, new class action lawsuit settlements could put money in your pocket. One of them involves washing machines made by Bosch and Siemens. It involves front-loading machines. Scott Hardy with Topclassactions.com says complaints are that the machines left clothes stinky. "With front loaders, you have to do more maintenance than with a typical top loader where it drains automatically," he says. If you own one of the washers, file a claim by May 28th and you could get $55 from this settlement. The company did not claim any wrongdoing in settling the suit. BOULDER BRANDS: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in Colorado ------------------------------------------------------------- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on April 1 disclosed that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of purchasers of Boulder Brands, Inc. common stock during the period between December 23, 2013 and October 22, 2014. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from April 1, 2015. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Darren Robbins of Robbins Geller at 800-449-4900 or 619-231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the complaint as filed or join this class action online at http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/boulderbrands/ Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. The complaint charges Boulder and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Boulder is a company that markets and manufactures a wide array of consumer food products for sale primarily in the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose adverse facts concerning the Company's business and prospects. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose that the Company was having problems with its inventory management and the integration of recent acquisitions, and that the Company's ongoing mix shift to lower margin products made its previously announced margin improvements unattainable. As a result of defendants' false statements and omissions, Boulder stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of $17.94 per share on April 2, 2014. Then, on October 22, 2014, Boulder provided an update on its anticipated third quarter 2014 financial results and its outlook for the fourth quarter of 2014, disclosing that during "the third quarter, we faced a number of headwinds that impacted our financial results." The Company further disclosed that the "the mix shift of our fast-growing, lower margin Natural segment is significantly outpacing our higher margin Balance segment and is therefore putting increased pressure on our gross margins." In addition, the Company revealed it was "expecting lower shipments due to a normalizing of certain inventories at our largest customer." On this news, the price of Boulder stock collapsed 23%, falling from a closing price of $12.73 per share on October 21, 2014 to close at $9.62 per share on October 22, 2014, on volume of more than 9 million shares traded. The next day, Boulder's stock price dropped an additional 6%, closing on October 23, 2014 at $8.99 per share. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Boulder common stock during the Class Period. The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has expertise in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in actions involving financial fraud. With 200 lawyers in ten offices, Robbins Geller -- http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- represents U.S. and international institutional investors in contingency-based securities and corporate litigation. The firm has obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in history, including the largest securities class action judgment. CADIZ INC: Sued in C.D. Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports -------------------------------------------------------------- Nickolas Van Wingerden, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cadiz Inc., Scott S. Slater, Timothy J. Shaheen, and Keith Brackpool, Case No. 2:15-cv-03080-JAK-JEM (C.D. Cal., April 24, 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. Cadiz Inc. is a land and water resource development company headquartered in California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 785-2610 Facsimile: (213) 226-4684 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com CANADA: Veterans Await Impact of Reforms in Benefits Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Canadian Press reports that veterans at the centre of a class- action lawsuit against the federal government are waiting to see whether legislation introduced by the Harper government to improve benefits is the beginning, or the end, of reforms to the system. If it's the end, the lawyer for the ex-soldiers says the politically embarrassing court fight is, in all likelihood, back on. Don Sorochan says he will have to consult his clients, but his view is that the measures announced by the Harper government in February represent easy fixes and that more is to come. "If it is the end of it, I would think the answer would be pretty simple: It's not enough," he said. The lawsuit, which argues that modern-day soldiers are discriminated against compared with troops who fought the two world wars and Korea, was put on a hold earlier this year as the two sides entered settlement talks. Mr. Sorochan says it is possible the government, or the opposition parties, could promise more during the coming election campaign, but the ex-soldiers will have to make decisions based upon what's in front of them. The time-out in the lawsuit ends on April 15, but the two sides could elect to extend it if they believe there's value in continuing discussions. The lawsuit has been a black eye for the Conservatives, who pride themselves on supporting the troops and Mr. Sorochan says the government had been insisting that it be dropped immediately in light of the recent improvements. "We are certainly interested in continuing the talks, but we will have to reassess where we are in the lawsuit, given the reforms," said Mr. Sorochan. "We've already done some analysis, but the point is, these weren't supposed to be the end of the reforms." Since the beginning of March, the new veterans minister, Erin O'Toole, has announced a series of measures, including a new $70,000 pain and suffering award that appears aimed at the physically injured. There is also a new proposed retirement income security benefit for moderately and severely wounded soldiers without military pensions and new programs for caregivers. The government has also expanded access to the permanent impairment allowance, which gives the most severely disabled veterans up to $2,800 a month in tax-free income for life. In their statement of defense against the lawsuit, government lawyers offended veterans by saying the government has no extraordinary obligation towards soldiers and that the current government cannot be bound by political promises made by previous governments, notably by Prime Minister Sir Robert Borden during the First World War. The Conservatives pledged to include a recognition of that so- called "sacred obligation" in the preamble to the new legislation, which was tabled on March 30 in the House of Commons. Bill C-58 says its purpose "is to recognize and fulfill the obligation of the people and government of Canada to show just and due appreciation to members and veterans for their service to Canada. This obligation includes providing services, assistance and compensation to members and veterans who have been injured or have died as a result of military service and extends to their spouses or common-law partners or survivors and orphans." It also says legislation should be "liberally interpreted." CANADIAN CHOICE: Recalls Organic Virgin Coconut Oil --------------------------------------------------- Starting date: April 16, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Notification Subcategory: Microbiological - Non harmful (Quality/Spoilage) Hazard classification: Class 3 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Canadian Choice Wholesalers Ltd. Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Possibly National, Quebec Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 9787 Brand name Common name Size Code(s) UPC ---------- ---------- ---- on product --- ---------- Earth's Choice Organic Virgin 675 ml EXP: 29/05/2016 6 77403 Coconut Oil Lot: VCO15040B 51176 3 Earth's Choice Organic Virgin 350 ml EXP: 29/05/2016 6 77403 Coconut Oil Lot: VCO1504OC 51175 6 CARDINAL OILFIELD: Faces "Prine" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------ Kaine Prine, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cardinal Oilfield Services, LLC, Case No. 6:15-cv- 00445 (E.D. Tex., April 24, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek. Cardinal Oilfield Services, LLC is an oilfield services company proving well related services to oil companies and operators. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Andrew Josephson, Esq. FIBICH LEEBRON COPELAND BRIGGS JOSEPHSON 1150 Bissonnet St Houston, TX 77005 Telephone: (713) 751-0025 Facsimile: (713) 751-0030 E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com CBS CORP: Seeks Dismissal of Intern Class Action ------------------------------------------------ Dominic Patten, writing for Deadline, reports that some of the names have changed, but the aims have not -- and for CBS that means go hard. In a blunt, brisk and not really giving-an-inch response to the class-action-seeking complaint former CBS Radio intern Camille Demere first filed on January 26, the company said on March 31 it wants the whole thing tossed out. "Defendants respectfully request that this Court: (a) dismiss the Complaint in its entirety, with prejudice; (b) deny each and every request for relief set forth in the Complaint; (c) award Defendants their reasonable attorneys' fees and legal expenses; (d) award Defendants their costs and disbursements incurred in defense of this action; and (e) award Defendants any other relief that the Court deems just and proper," said CBS Radio Inc. and CBS Radio East Inc. in their joint answer on March 31 to Ms. Demere and her attorneys' amended complaint of February 27. Basically, other than acknowledging that CBS Radio Inc. and CBS Radio East are corporations set up under the laws of Delaware and based at W. 52nd St in NYC, the March 31 response is a long litany of denials of the various allegations the complaint makes about Ms. Demere's time as intern at CBS Radio from December 2009 to August 2010. Ms. Demere said in her original complaint against CBS Corporation and in her amended one against the radio units that the company broke NY labor laws by having "a policy and practice of wrongfully classifying the Named Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees as exempt from minimum wages" starting in January 2009 and continuing to this day. Ms. Demere also claimed that "CBS required the Named Plaintiff and members of the putative class to perform work on its behalf and for its benefit for which they were not compensated." Hitting back with the assertion that all this is irrelevant because the claims are barred by statute of limitations requirements among other objections, CBS adds that the "purported class members' claims are barred, in whole or in part, because they were not or are not employees and were exempt and/or not covered by minimum wage, overtime, and/or other provisions of the applicable law." Giving their clients some deft cover, CBS' lawyers also say that "if Defendants are found to have failed to compensate Plaintiff and/or putative class members as alleged in the Complaint, which Defendants deny, Defendants acted at all times on the basis of a good faith and reasonable belief that their actions were in compliance and conformity with all applicable federal and state laws and/or written administrative regulations, orders, rulings, guidance and/or interpretations, and therefore Defendants' actions were not willful or reckless or in reckless disregard of applicable law" -- i.e., if we did do the thing we say we never did, it wasn't our fault, sorry. That might not fly so high with Ms. Demere's attorneys of Virginia & Ambinder and Leeds Brown Law P.C., who are very experienced in these intern lawsuits. The NYC firm and the Carle Place-based Leeds Brown Law were the plaintiffs' lawyers in the interns lawsuit that Viacom settled for $7.2 million in March -- a deal that sees a potential $900,000 payout for the lawyers. Virginia & Ambinder also are handling the class action that former The Wendy Williams Show intern Anthony Tart filed on October 3 last year against Lionsgate and producers Debmar-Mercury. The firm is no fave of CBS. Virginia & Ambinder were the lawyers in the very short-lived David Letterman intern action against the company and the late-night host's Worldwide Pants last year. So, with a settlement likely not in the cards right now, the next step is to see what NY Supreme Court Justice Saliann Scarpulla does with all this. A preliminary conference was set for April 8. Elise Bloom -- ebloom@proskauer.com -- and Michelle Annese -- mannese@proskauer.com -- of NYC's Proskauer Rose LLP represent the CBS Radio units CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Denies Motion to Dismiss Racketeering Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Terrie Morgan-Besecker, writing for Citizens Voice, reports that a federal judge has denied Chesapeake Energy Corp.'s motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit that alleges the company conspired with subsidiaries it formed to overcharge leaseholders by artificially inflating the cost to gather natural gas extracted from Marcellus Shale drilling. U.S. District Judge Malachy Mannion on March 31 ruled the Suessenbach Family Limited Partnership had presented sufficient evidence at this state of the litigation to proceed with its lawsuit against Chesapeake and its subsidiary, Access Midstream Partners. The lawsuit, filed in June 2014 by attorney Robert Schaub of Wilkes-Barre, alleges Chesapeake formed Access Midstream in August 2010 to gather and transport natural gas from its drilling operations. The companies then conspired to have Access Midstream charge Chesapeake fees far above industry standards, which were passed on to leaseholders. Access Midstream then rebated a portion of the inflated fees to Chesapeake. The suit sought damages on several counts, including unjust enrichment, conversion and civil violations of the Racketeer Influence and Corrupt Organizations Act. The racketeering count was based on allegations the companies' actions constituted an ongoing fraud perpetrated against leaseholders. Chesapeake and Access Midstream sought to dismiss the racketeering case and other counts, but Judge Mannion denied the motion. The judge did dismiss one count of honest services fraud, finding that count could not stand because officials with the companies had no fiduciary duty to shareholders. The Suessenbach case is among at least three class action lawsuits filed in Pennsylvania that allege racketeering violations. Other similar suits were filed by the A&B Campbell Family LLC Trust in and James L. Brown, both of Wyalusing. Those cases are pending. A separate class action lawsuit filed on behalf of Demchak Partners, which does not include racketeering allegations, is currently before a federal judge, who must determine whether to approve a proposed $11 million settlement. Attorneys previously said the Demchak case, which focuses on allegations Chesapeake improperly deducted post production costs from leaseholders, will not impact the other class action lawsuits. CHRYSLER: Recalls 1,514 Promaster Trucks, Vans Over Airbag Defect ----------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: April 16, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Light Truck & Van Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Airbag Units affected: 1514 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015164TC ID number: 2015164 Manufacturer recall number: R19 On certain vehicles, the tape used to stow the airbag curtain at the A pillar position could negatively affect the deployment of the side impact curtain airbag, which could increase the risk of injury in a side impact and/or rollover event. Correction: Dealers will remove the tape on the side airbag inflated curtain. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- RAM PROMASTER 2015 CITIGROUP INC: Faces "Lewis-Gursky" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT --------------------------------------------------------------- Caroline Alana Lewis-Gursky, David R Rodriguez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Citigroup, Inc. and Judge Technical Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-03213-LTS (S.D.N.Y., April 23, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Citigroup, Inc. is a Delaware banking and financial services corporation with headquarters located in New York City. Judge Technical Services, Inc. is a staffing agency with its corporate headquarters located in West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania. The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam T. Klein, Esq. Christopher McNerney, Esq. Molly Anne Brooks, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN, LLP 3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 245-1000 Facsimile: (212) 977-4005 E-mail: atk@outtengolden.com cmcnerney@outtengolden.com mbrooks@outtengolden.com - and - David J. Cohen, Esq. KOLMAN ELY PC 414 Hulmeville Ave Penndel, PA 19047 Telephone: (215) 750-3134 Facsimile: (215) 750-3138 E-mail: dcohen@kolmanlaw.net - and - Ryan F. Stephan, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS LLP 205 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 233-1550 Facsimile: (312) 233-1560 E-mail: rstephan@stephanzouras.com CRUISER RV: Recalls Viewfinder Models Due to Explosion Risk ------------------------------------------------------------ Starting date: April 17, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Travel Trailer Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Accessories Units affected: 12 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015167TC ID number: 2015167 Manufacturer recall number: 11041 R On certain travel trailers, the liquid propane (LP) compartment in the slide room may not have been properly sealed from the interior of the trailer. If a leak were to occur in the liquid propane compartment, it could be dissipated into the interior of the trailer. A propane gas leak, in the presence of an ignition source, could result in a fire or an explosion, which could cause injury and/or property damage. Correction: Dealers will reinforce the metal compartment, and seal all sides that lead into the living portion of the trailer. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- CRUISER RV VIEWFINDER 2015 CSOS LLC: Faces "Medina" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Manuel Medina, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons v. CSOS, LLC f/k/a Cornell Solutions, LLC, Carlos I. Garza, III and Jorge Gomez, Case No. 2:15-cv-00187 (S.D. Tex., April 24, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week. The Defendants own and operate oil and gas production facilities in Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Josef Franz Buenker, Esq. THE BUENKER LAW FIRM 2030 North Loop W, Suite 120 Houston, TX 77018 Telephone: (713) 868-3388 Facsimile: (713) 683-9940 E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com DANLIN INDUSTRIES: Faces "Gonzalez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT --------------------------------------------------------------- Javier Gonzalez, individually and on behalf of other employees similarly situated v. Danlin Industries, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv- 00188 (S.D. Tex., April 24, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week. Danlin Industries, Inc. is a manufacturer of a rotary steerable drilling tool. The Plaintiff is represented by: Trang Q. Tran, Esq. TRAN LAW FIRM LLP 9801 Westheimer Road, Ste. 302 Houston, TX 77042 Telephone: (713) 223-8855 Facsimile: (713) 623-6399 E-mail: ttran@tranlawllp.com DOLLAR TREE: District Court's Class Action Remand Order Reversed ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Record reports that the court of appeals reversed a district court's remand order and remanded the action with instructions. The court held that the district court had Class Action Fairness Act subject-matter jurisdiction where a defendant filed a timely successive removal petition after a state trial court entered a class certification order that expanded the plaintiff's proposed class so as to place at least $5 million in controversy. Richard Reyes sued Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., in California state court. Mr. Reyes asserted Labor Code violations and unlawful business conduct arising from Dollar Tree's alleged denial of proper rest breaks to its employees. Mr. Reyes sought certification of a class and alleged that the amount in controversy was less than $5 million in aggregate. Invoking federal jurisdiction pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA), Dollar Tree removed the action to federal district court. In pertinent part, CAFA vests district courts with jurisdiction over civil actions in which the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $5,000,000. Dollar Tree maintained that some $5.5 million was in controversy based upon its estimate of the number of missed breaks that were implicated by Reyes's complaint. The district court disagreed, reasoning instead that the complaint restricted the scope of putative class members in a manner that kept the action below CAFA's $5 million jurisdictional threshold. The court thus remanded the action. Back in state court, the trial court tentatively ruled that the class framed by Reyes, namely assistant managers who worked alone, would not be ascertainable. The court instead certified a class comprised of all Dollar Tree assistant managers who did not receive proper breaks. Dollar Tree removed the action once more, citing the expanded class certified by the state trial court. The district court granted Reyes's motion to remand on the ground that the second removal was untimely because it was based on the same class definition that had been the subject of the first removal. Dollar Tree appealed. The court of appeals reversed, holding that the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction. The court of appeals equated the trial court's class certification order to an order permitting the amendment of pleadings to alter the class definition. The effect was the same, namely, the creation of CAFA jurisdiction for the first time. It did not matter that the result was achieved through a class certification order instead of an order permitting amendment of the complaint. By expanding the amount in controversy, the trial court's class certification order altered the circumstances of the case that bore on jurisdiction. That meant that Dollar Tree's successive removal petition was timely because the company removed the action within thirty days of the state trial court's class certification order. The court declared that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction because Dollar Tree offered an unchallenged, plausible assertion that the jurisdictional requirements of CAFA were met. The court remanded the action for the district court to exercise jurisdiction. DOUGLAS LABORATORIES: Recalls Ultra D-Tox Products -------------------------------------------------- Starting date: April 13, 2015 Posting date: April 16, 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-52949 Lead levels exceed acceptable daily limits when 2 or more capsules are taken. Depth of distribution: Retailers Ultra D-Tox DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM NPN 80035567 Dosage form: Capsule Strength: Allium sativum 20 mg Aloe vera 5 mg Apium graveolens var. dulce 5 mg Bentonite 300 mg Chlorella Pyrenoidosa 60 mg Hordeum vulgare 5 mg Lacobacillus acidophilus 250 million cfu Linum usitatissimum 5 mg Magnesium 18 mg Mentha x piperita 5 mg Pimpinella anisum 5 mg Plantago ovata 10 mg Prunus spp. 5 mg Stem bromelain 3 mg Vitamin C 30 mg Lot or serial number: 50029524 4073613 Recalling Firm: Douglas Laboratories of Canada (Importer) 490 Elgin Mills Road East Richmond Hill L4C 0L8 Ontario CANADA Marketing Authorization Holder: Douglas Laboratories of Canada (Importer) 490 Elgin Mills Road East Richmond Hill L4C 0L8 Ontario CANADA EJ AMUSEMENTS: OT Suit Gets Conditional Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------- Mark Tabakman, Esq. of Fox Rotschild reports that the workers, who have accused their amusement park employer of not paying proper overtime, have won class certification from the federal district court judge. Now, the entire tenor of the case has changed (and not for the better for the employer). The case is entitled Pilar Garcia et al. v. E.J. Amusements of NH Inc. and is in federal court in Massachusetts. The plaintiffs' motion for class certification has been granted; the class will cover employees who worked for the Company since 2010, but will exclude employees who have executed releases with the Company. Significantly, the Judge ruled that the workers can amend the Complaint to add a new lead plaintiff who executed a release but who seeks to challenge the validity of the releases on behalf of the workers who signed them. The judge put off ruling on the sanctions motion against the amusement park company's counsel on the allegations that it had improperly scripted settlement communications with class members. The suit alleged that about 200 workers were paid a flat rate based, for 40 hours, notwithstanding that they often worked seven days per week and up to 14 hours per day. The workers assembled, operated and broke down various amusement park rides at fairs and carnivals. The Takeaway Now, notice will go out to the people in the class and the matter will be complicated by the possible challenge to releases that have already been negotiated and payments made. If allegations of behind-the-back type dealings are sustained, this could lead to a finding of willfulness (extending the statute of limitations by one year). Maybe these employees should have been on Belo contracts or some other legally appropriate way of allowing them to work all those hours and yet being in compliance with the FLSA. EL BESO: "Esteves" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Eduardo Esteves, Eligio Mazaba, Alfredo Carmona, Jesus Rodriguez, and Gilberto Chacha Mendoza, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. El Beso Mexican Restaurante, LLC and Andreas Bouraxis, Case No. 15-cv-00484-NJ (E.D. Wis., April 24, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate El Beso Mexican Restaurante and Cantina located at 5030 S. 74th Street, in Greenfield, Wisconsin. The Plaintiff is represented by: Larry A. Johnson, Esq. HAWKS QUINDEL SC 222 E Erie St-Ste 210, PO Box 442 Milwaukee, WI 53201-0442 Telephone: (414) 271-8650 Facsimile: (414) 271-8442 E-mail: ljohnson@hq-law.com EL MOLINO: Recalls Market Town Cabbage Rolls -------------------------------------------- Starting date: April 16, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Notification Subcategory: Microbiological - Other Hazard classification: Class 3 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: El Molino Foods of Canada (1972) Ltd. Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Northwest Territories Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 9778 Brand name Common name Size Code(s) UPC ---------- ---------- ---- on product --- ---------- Market Town Cabbage Rolls 10 Best Before 0 57316 count 17 FEB 2016, 14466 9 25 FEB 2016 ELBO CONSTRUCTION: Faces "Arias" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------ Luis Rolando Arias, Juan Andres Chunchi, Andy Clausell, Rodrigo Flores, Jorge Panama, and Diego Arapi, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Elbo Construction LLC, Elie Deitsch, and Shlomo Silber, Case No. 1:15-cv-03220-JPO (S.D.N.Y., April 23, 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 construction company with a corporate office at 71-50 Parsons Boulevard, Flushing, New York, 11365. The Plaintiff is represented by: Louis Pechman, Esq. Vivianna Alexandra Morales, Esq. PECHMAN LAW GROUP PLLC 488 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 583-9500 Facsimile: (212) 308-8582 E-mail: pechman@pechmanlaw.com morales@pechmanlaw.com ENTROPIC COMMUNICATIONS: Robbins Geller Files Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on March 31 disclosed that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on behalf of holders of Entropic Communications, Inc. common stock on February 3, 2015, in connection with the proposed acquisition of Entropic by MaxLinear, Inc. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from March 31, 2015. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiffs' counsel, Darren Robbins of Robbins Geller at 800-449-4900 or 619-231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. The complaint charges Entropic, its Board of Directors, MaxLinear and certain of its subsidiaries with breach of fiduciary duty and/or violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the proposed sales of Entropic to MaxLinear. Entropic is a world leader in semiconductor solutions for the connected home. On February 3, 2015, Entropic and MaxLinear announced that they had entered into a definitive merger agreement under which Entropic would be acquired by MaxLinear in a cash and stock transaction in which the Company's stockholders will receive $1.20 per share in cash and 0.2200 of a share of MaxLinear common stock for each Entropic common share outstanding. The complaint alleges that defendants breached their fiduciary duties and/or aided and abetted breaches of fiduciary duty in connection with the Proposed Acquisition. In addition, the complaint alleges that in order to secure shareholder approval of the deal, defendants filed a materially false and misleading Form S-4 Registration Statement (the "S-4") with the SEC on March 12, 2015, which was subsequently amended on March 25, 2015. The S-4, which recommended that Entropic shareholders vote in favor of the Proposed Acquisition, omitted and/or misrepresented material information in contravention of Secs. 14(a) and 20(a) of the 1934 Act. Specifically, the S-4 contains materially misleading statements or otherwise fails to provide material information about the Proposed Acquisition, including, among other things: (i) the flawed and unfair sales process undertaken by the Board; (ii) the conflicts of interests that burdened the process; (iii) the data and key inputs underlying the financial analyses performed by Barclays Capital, Inc., Entropic's financial advisor; and (iv) certain financial projections prepared by Entropic's management and relied upon by Barclays in rendering its opinion as to the fairness of the Proposed Acquisition to the Company's public shareholders. The complaint alleges that the foregoing information is material to the impending decision of Entropic's shareholders whether or not to vote in favor of the Proposed Acquisition and/or whether to seek appraisal for their shares. Plaintiffs seek injunctive and equitable relief on behalf of holders of Entropic common stock on February 3, 2015. The plaintiffs are represented by Robbins Geller, which has expertise in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in actions involving financial fraud. With 200 lawyers in ten offices, Robbins Geller -- http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- represents U.S. and international institutional investors in contingency-based securities and corporate litigation. The firm has obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in history, including the largest securities class action judgment. EURO-PRO OPERATING: Recalls Shark(R) Vacuum Cleaners ---------------------------------------------------- Starting date: April 22, 2015 Posting date: April 22, 2015 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Household Items Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Electrical Hazard Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-53013 This recall involves certain models of Shark(R) brand Rotator(R) Powered Lift-Away(R) Series upright vacuum cleaners. They are maroon in colour and have a clear plastic middle section. Shark and Rotator are printed on the front of the vacuum cleaners. They measure approximately 114 centimetres tall (45 inches) and 30.5 centimetres wide (12 inches). The following model numbers are included in this recall: Model Number UPC Certification ------------ --- ------------- NV650W Not applicable ETL Certification Numbers as sold directly 4005850 or 4004022 to consumers NV652 622356537940 ETL Certification Numbers 4005850 or 4004022 The vacuums can be identified from the model number, manufacturing date codes, and an identifying mark. The model number is printed on a silver sticker located on the upper right-hand corner of the back of the unit. The date code is stamped permanently into the metal prong of the power plug and show the week and year of manufacture in the WWYY format. Recalled units have date codes beginning with the number 48 or lower and ending with 14. Vacuum cleaners marked with a dimple or green circle sticker on the outside of the plastic cuff that holds the aluminum wand have been inspected by the firm and are not included in this recall. The aluminum wand can disconnect from the vacuum cleaner's handle and remain energized with electricity, posing a risk of electric shock. Health Canada has not received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of these vacuum cleaners in Canada. Euro-Pro Operating LLC has received 62 reports in which the aluminum wand disconnected from the vacuum cleaner's handle. One incident occurred in Canada, and 61 incidents occurred in the United States. No injuries have been reported. Approximately 665 units were sold in Canada and approximately 142,000 units were sold in the United States. The recalled products were sold from August 2014 to March 2015. Manufactured in China. Manufacturer: Ecovacs Robotics Co., Ltd. Suzhou CHINA Manufacturer: KingClean Electric Co., Ltd. Suzhou CHINA Distributor: Euro-Pro Operating LLC Newton Massachusetts UNITED STATES Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled vacuum cleaners and contact Euro-Pro Operating LLC to receive a free replacement wand. For more information, consumers may contact the company's recall hotline toll-free at 1-877-593-5140, from 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. EST Monday to Saturday, and 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. EST on Sundays. Consumers may also visit the Shark's website. Consumers may view the release by the US CPSC on the Commission's website. 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/xO0RVc FGC FOODS: Recalls Coleslaw with Greek Yogurt Due to Sunflowers --------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: April 17, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Other Hazard classification: Class 3 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: FGC Foods Ltd. Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Saskatchewan Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 9772 Brand name Common name Size Code(s) UPC ---------- ----------- ---- on product --- ---------- Gourmet Chef Creamy Coleslaw 1.6 kg All codes 6 23580 with Greek where 10185 3 Yogurt sunflower seed is not declared. FGC FOODS: Recalls Coleslaw with Greek Yogurt Due to Sunflowers --------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: April 17, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Other Hazard classification: Class 3 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: FGC Foods Ltd. Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Saskatchewan Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 9772 Brand name Common name Size Code(s) UPC ---------- ----------- ---- on product --- ---------- Gourmet Chef Creamy Coleslaw 1.6 kg All codes 6 23580 with Greek where 10185 3 Yogurt sunflower seed is not declared. FIRST NATIONAL: Illegally Collects Debt, "Wilkes" Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Jacqueline Wilkes and Tiffany Tyler, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. First National Collection Bureau, Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv-01839-DMR (N.D. Cal., April 23, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's false, deceptive and unfair debt- collection practices. Specifically by sending mail based collection correspondence that fails to advise the consumers and debtors the statutes of limitations for filing legal claims for time-barred debts. First National Collection Bureau, Inc. is in the business of which the principal purpose is the collection of debts. 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 FOOGO: June 22 Deadline Set for Drinking Bottle Settlement Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Joe Ducey, writing for ABC15, reports that Foogo has settled a class action reusable drinking bottles. How about a thermos that doesn't do what it advertises? Scott Hardy with Topclassactions.com says the allegation is "it was designated as leak proof, and spill proof, although it did leak and spill." If you have a Foogo reusable drinking bottle you can either get $8 for each or a replacement depending on the proof you have. The deadline to file is June 22. The company did not claim any wrongdoing in settling the suit. GENERAL MILLS: Recalls Nature Valley Dark Chocolate Nut Bars ------------------------------------------------------------ Starting date: April 17, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Notification Subcategory: Extraneous Material Hazard classification: Class 3 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: General Mills Canada Corporation Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Ontario, Quebec Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 9779 Brand name Common name Size Code(s) UPC ---------- ----------- ---- on product --- ---------- Nature Valley Sweet & Salty 35 g 29SE2015 RB 0 65633 Dark Chocolate 50689 3 Nut Bars GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Cadillac CTS-V Cars Over Brake Hose ----------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: April 14, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Car Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Brakes Units affected: 205 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015157TC ID number: 2015157 Manufacturer recall number: 15149 On certain vehicles, originally sold, or currently registered in areas of heavy road salt usage during winter months (Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland & Labrador), the front brake hose fitting at the caliper may corrode. If the fitting corrodes significantly, the internal brake hose-tube interface may develop a leak or in some cases break, causing a sudden increase in braking distances which may lead to a crash causing injury and/or property damage. Correction: Dealers will replace both front brake hose assemblies. Note: This recall is an expansion of recall 2010-080. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- CADILLAC CTS-V 2004 GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Cadillac CTS-V Models --------------------------------------------- Starting date: April 14, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Car Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Brakes Units affected: 205 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015157TC ID number: 2015157 Manufacturer recall number: 15149 On certain vehicles, originally sold, or currently registered in areas of heavy road salt usage during winter months (Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland & Labrador), the front brake hose fitting at the caliper may corrode. If the fitting corrodes significantly, the internal brake hose-tube interface may develop a leak or in some cases break, causing a sudden increase in braking distances which may lead to a crash causing injury and/or property damage. Correction: Dealers will replace both front brake hose assemblies. Note: This recall is an expansion of recall 2010-080. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- CADILLAC CTS-V 2004 GLAXOSMITHKLINE INC: Recalls Clavulin 400 Products -------------------------------------------------- Starting date: April 17, 2015 Posting date: April 20, 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-53017 The bottle was inspected and it was confirmed that two pieces of glass 17x14x8 mm and 15x15x8 mm respectively were inside the bottle along with the reconstituted suspension. The bottle itself was intact indicating that the glass was introduced into the bottle. The Products are distributed in Wholesalers, Hospitals, Pharmacies and Patients. A. Clavulin 400 DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM DIN 02238830 Dosage form: Powder for solution Strength : Amoxicillin (Amoxicillin trihydrate) 400 mg / 5 mL Clavulanic Acid (Clavulanate Potassium) 57 mg / 5 mL Lot or serial number: (L) 710535 Recalling Firm: GlaxoSmithKline Inc. 7333 Mississauga Road Mississauga L5N 6L4 Ontario CANADA Marketing Authorization Holder: GlaxoSmithKline Inc. 7333 Mississauga Road Mississauga L5N 6L4 Ontario CANADA GOOGLE INC: Parents Can't Proceed with In-App Purchase Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Wendy Davis, writing for MediaPost, reports that Google has so far refunded $30 million to parents whose children made in-app purchases, the company says in new court papers. The company revealed that figure as part of an effort to convince U.S. District Court Judge Ronald Whyte in San Jose, Calif. to dismiss a potential class-action lawsuit by parents who say they were wrongly billed for in-app purchases by their children. Google says the parents can't proceed in court, because the company already settled a Federal Trade Commission complaint about the so-called "family fraud" charges. Google argues that the FTC settlement -- which requires the company to issue refunds -- already compensates any parents who would join in the class-action lawsuit. "Where each putative class member is entitled to receive full restitution from a government settlement, the government settlement is unquestionably superior to costly, duplicative class-action litigation," Google says in its most recent round of court papers, which were filed with Judge Whyte. The arguments are the latest turn in a lawsuit that dates to March of 2014, when New York resident Ilana Imber-Gluck alleged that one of her two young sons, both of whom were then under 6, purchased $65.95 worth of in-game currency shortly after she downloaded the 99-cent app "Run Jump Smash." Ms. Imber-Gluck said in her complaint that Google allows parents to purchase apps for their children, but doesn't adequately disclose that kids will be able to automatically purchase in-game currency for a period of 30 minutes. Other parents later joined in the case. The parents said in court papers filed earlier in March that they wished to proceed with a class-action regardless of the FTC settlement. Among other arguments, the parents contend that the FTC didn't require Google to adequately notify parents about the matter. "The FTC Settlement required Google to send only one email notice to consumers who had made prior in-app purchases. The subject line of the email does not mention unauthorized purchases by minors," the parents argued. "The notice does not mention that the FTC has accused of it violating the law, but rather, suggests that Google voluntarily decided to take action." Google counters in papers filed on March 27 that its notifications have been "remarkably effective." "As of March 23, 2015, Google had provided approximately $30 million in refunds to Google Play account holders pursuant to the refund process put in place under the FTC decision and order," the company argues. "The FTC has never suggested to Google that its notice does not comply with the decision and order or otherwise does not provide consumers with adequate information about the refund process." The company adds that its notices give consumers a simple way to submit refund claims. "The notice provides users a list of all Google Play purchases during the relevant time period and users need only 'check off' which purchases were unauthorized to make a claim," the company says. Judge Whyte scheduled a hearing on the matter for April 5. GOOGLE INC: Stock Split May Cost Over $500 Million -------------------------------------------------- Michael Liedtke, writing for Associated Press, reports that an unorthodox stock split designed to ensure Google CEO Larry Page and fellow co-founder Sergey Brin retain control of the Internet's most profitable company could cost Google more than half a billion dollars. Mr. Page, 42, and Mr. Brin, 41, have maintained control over Google since they started the company in a rented Silicon Valley garage in 1998. Their ideas and leadership have spawned one of the world's best known and most powerful companies with a market value of $375 billion and a payroll of about 54,000 employees. Yet many investors have become frustrated with Page's unwavering belief that Google should be spending billions on far-flung projects ranging from driverless cars to diabetes-controlling contact lenses that may take years to pay off and have little to do with the company's main business of search and digital advertising. The big spending is one reason Google's stock price is about 2 percent below where it stood at the end of 2013, while the Standard & Poor's 500 index has climbed 11 percent. To maintain the power to drive Google's direction, Messrs. Page and Brin initially accumulated virtually all of the company's class "B" shares, which have 10 votes for each "A" share. The duo, though, worried that control would erode as Google issued more "A" shares to pay for acquisitions and reward other workers. A year ago, Google split its stock to create a new category of "C" stock with no voting power that would allow more Google shares to be issued without undercutting Page and Brin. Class "A" shareholders were outraged, skewering the maneuver as a textbook example of shoddy corporate governance. Google argued there wouldn't be much difference between the price of "C" and "A'' shares because Page and Brin held majority control anyway with the "B" shares. To settle a class-action lawsuit challenging the split, Google agreed to compensate "C" shareholders if the average price of "C" stock fell more than 1 percent below "A" shares through the first year of trading. Google's theory proved wrong, said BGC Financial Partners Colin Gillis. The difference turned out to be between 1 percent and 2 percent, though the final gap won't be announced for up to 30 days as Google works with outside experts to determine the figures under a complex formula. "This shows the market does place a value on owning a voting stock," he said. Google disclosed in a recent regulatory filing that it would have owed about $593 million to class C stockholders had the calculations been done on Dec. 31. Based on that estimate, the class C stockholders would receive roughly $1.74 per share in cash or additional stock. Calculating the exact amount that Google Inc. owes will start after the stock market closes on April 2. The Mountain View, California, company has until early July to pay the money. It's something that Google can easily afford, given the company holds $64 billion in cash. And the damage could have been a lot worse: Google would have had to pay $7.5 billion, or about $22 per share, had the first-year spread between "A" and "C" shares was 5 percent or more. Class C shareholders should ask themselves if the money they are getting is enough to compensate for relinquishing their voting rights and ceding control to Messrs. Page and Brin, said Charles Elson, director of the University of Delaware's Weinberg center for corporate governance. Shareholders "are getting this cash for giving up their say in effective management," Mr. Elson said. "This could be a case of 'penny wise, pound foolish.'" Google declined to comment. GRAND DESIGN: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models --------------------------------------------- Starting date: April 14, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Travel Trailer Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Wheels Units affected: 9 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015154TC ID number: 2015154 On certain travel trailers, the wheel hubs may have been manufactured with improperly hardened wheel studs that may break, which could cause a complete separation of the wheel(s) from the travel trailer and a loss of vehicle control, increasing the risk of a crash causing injury and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers will inspect, and if necessary, replace the defective hubs. Make Model Model year(s) affected --- ----- ---------------------- GRAND DESIGN 2015, 2016, 2015, 2016, 2015, 2016 GREENWORLD FOOD: Recalls Baklava Mix Due to Undeclared Cashew ------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: April 15, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Tree Nut Hazard classification: Class 2 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Greenworld Food Express Inc. Distribution: National Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 9786 Brand name Common name Size Code(s) UPC ---------- ---------- ---- on product --- ---------- Rashad Baklawa Mix 1850 g All codes where None cashews are not declared on the label. GREENWORLD FOOD: Recalls Baklawa Mix Products Due to Cashews ------------------------------------------------------------ Starting date: April 10, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Tree Nut Hazard classification: Class 2 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Greenworld Food Express Inc. Distribution: National Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 9775 Brand name Common name Size Code(s) UPC ---------- ---------- ---- on product --- --------- Rashad Baklawa Mix 1000 g All codes None where cashews are not declared on the label. HARLEY-DAVIDSON: Recalls Multiple Motorcycle Models --------------------------------------------------- Starting date: April 22, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Motorcycle Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Powertrain Units affected: 1630 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015172TC ID number: 2015172 On certain motorcycles, the hydraulic clutch system may not be able to generate enough lift to disengage the clutch after being parked for an extended period of time, which could result to a loss of control of the vehicle when started in gear or when first shifted into gear. This could increase the risk of a crash causing injury and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers will inspect and affect the repairs accordingly. Make Model Model year(s) ---- ----- affected ------------- HARLEY-DAVIDSON POLICE ELECTRA GLIDE (FLHTP) 2014, 2015 HARLEY-DAVIDSON STREET GLIDE (FLHX) 2014, 2015 HARLEY-DAVIDSON ROAD GLIDE (FLTR) 2015 HARLEY-DAVIDSON ELECTRA GLIDE ULTRA CLASSIC 2014, 2015 (FLHTCU) HARLEY-DAVIDSON CVO STREET GLIDE (FLHXSE) 2014, 2015 HARLEY-DAVIDSON ULTRA LIMITED (FLHTK) 2014, 2015 HARLEY-DAVIDSON STREET GLIDE SPECIAL (FLHXS) 2014, 2015 HARLEY-DAVIDSON CVO ROAD KING (FLHRSE) 2014 HARLEY-DAVIDSON ELECTRA GLIDE ULTRA CLASSIC 2015 LOW HARLEY-DAVIDSON ULTRA LIMITED LOW 2015 HARLEY-DAVIDSON ROAD GLIDE SPECIAL 2015 HARLEY-DAVIDSON: Recall Multiple Street Models ---------------------------------------------- Starting date: April 13, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Motorcycle Notification type: Compliance Mfr System: Lights And Instruments Units affected: 381 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015151TC ID number: 2015151 Certain motorcycles may fail to comply with the requirements of CMVSS 108 - Lighting System and Retroreflective Devices. These motorcycles may have been built without a rear reflector assembly which could reduce conspicuity, increasing the risk of crash causing injury and/or damage to property. Correction : Dealers will install a rear reflector assembly. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- HARLEY-DAVIDSON STREET 500 (XG500) 2015 HARLEY-DAVIDSON STREET 750 (XG750) 2015 HEINZ CANADA: Recalls Chicken with Broth Products ------------------------------------------------- Starting date: April 15, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning Subcategory: Microbiological - Other Hazard classification: Class 2 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Heinz Canada Distribution: National Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 9741 Heinz Canada is recalling Heinz brand Chicken with Broth from the marketplace due to potential loss of seal, causing spoilage. Consumers should not consume the recalled product described below. Check to see if you have the product in your home. If the product is in your home, do not consume it. If an infant has been fed any of the Heinz brand Chicken with Broth described above, discontinue use and monitor for symptoms. Consumption of spoiled food may cause symptoms such as upset stomach, vomiting and diarrhea. If you have any concerns, please seek medical attention. There have been no reported illnesses associated with the consumption of this product. This warning 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 products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food Recall Warning. Brand name Common name Size Code(s) UPC ---------- ---------- ---- on product --- ---------- Heinz Chicken with 100 mL 2016SE26 and 0 571660 7 Broth 2016DE12 Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/YxZhAX HERSHEY CO: Judge Tosses Food Labeling Class Action --------------------------------------------------- Y. Peter Kang and Sindhu Sundar, writing for Law360, report that a California federal judge on March 31 tossed a putative consumer class action against The Hershey Co. alleging it misled customers about antioxidants in its chocolate and cocoa products, ruling that the evidence didn't show the labeling was likely to misinform a reasonable consumer. The court in May 2014 trimmed most of the claims in the suit, preserving only lead plaintiff Leon Khasin's claim under California's Unfair Competition Law that the statement "natural source of flavanol antioxidants" on some Hershey products is "false and misleading," according to court documents. Hershey argued that Mr. Khasin didn't prove he was deceived by the antioxidant statement on the label, and there was no evidence of classwide deception since the plaintiff didn't prove that reasonable consumers would likely have been misled by Hershey's statements. U.S. District Court Judge Edward J. Davila agreed with the defendant and granted the motion for summary judgment in favor of Hershey. "There is insufficient evidence that the 'natural source of flavanol antioxidants' statement on the challenged Hershey products was likely to mislead reasonable consumers and that the label statements were therefore unlawful on that basis," the judge wrote in the 12-page order. "Even if the court were to accept Khasin's personal logic to arrive at the conclusion that the phrase . . . misleads consumers because it appears to violate FDA regulations, 'not every regulatory violation amounts to an act of consumer fraud.'" Judge Davila said that under California law, Mr. Khasin can't obtain relief by arguing how consumers could react; he must show how consumers actually do react. "Without such proof, Mr. Khasin does not satisfy the UCL's 'reasonable consumer' test," the judge wrote. Mr. Khasin also didn't prove he lost money or property or demonstrate economic injury as required by the UCL, the judge said. "Khasin proffers no evidence to show economic injury, but rather claims that his purchases are 'legally worthless' because they are inaccurate representations of what he thought he was purchasing," Judge Davila said. The plaintiff's complaint, filed in April 2012, alleged that Hershey products he had purchased had unlawful representations on the packaging, including misleading antioxidant nutrient content claims, nutrient content claims without required disclosures, healthy diet claims, sugar-free claims, unlawful serving sizes, the listing of polyglycerol polyricinoleic acid as "PGPR" and failure to disclose vanillin, according to the order. In November 2012, the court dismissed claims for violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and the Song-Beverly Act while also rejecting Hershey's contention that the Ninth Circuit's ruling on Lanham Act claims in Pom Wonderful LLC v. The Coca-Cola Co. barred the state law claims, since the appeals court held private parties could not seek to enforce U.S. Food and Drug Administration labeling regulations. An attorney for the plaintiff told Law360 on March 31 they didn't agree with the decision. "While plaintiffs have the highest regard for Judge Davila, we believe this opinion to be in contrast to California and Ninth Circuit law," Richard Barrett said. "We are currently weighing our options." Mr. Khasin is represented by Richard R. Barrett of Law Offices of Richard R. Barrett PLLC and Ben F. Pierce Gore of Pratt & Associates. Hershey is represented by Steven A. Zalesin -- sazalesin@pbwt.com -- Travis J. Tu -- tjtu@pbwt.com - and Michelle W. Cohen of Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP and John W. Fowler of Bergeson LLP. The case is Leon Khasin v. The Hershey Co., case number 5:12-cv- 01862, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. HOMELITE CONSUMER: Recalls Electric Blowers & Vacuums ----------------------------------------------------- Starting date: April 16, 2015 Posting date: April 16, 2015 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Household Items Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Fire Hazard Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-52839 This recall involves the Homelite 12 amp electric blower/vacuum. The recalled products are red and black in colour. "Homelite BlowerVac 2 Speed Powerful 220 MPH" is printed on the side of the motor housing and on the black plastic blower tube. Model Number UPC Certification ------------ --- ------------- UT42120 046396552105 CSA Certification Number 218549 UT42120A 046396005397 CSA Certification Number 218549 UT42121 046396005397 UL Certification number E255524 The model numbers can be found on a label on the left side of the red motor housing. Note that the Homelite 12 amp electric blower/vacuum has been recalled previously. The Homelite 12 amp electric blower/vacuum can overheat, spark and catch on fire posing a fire and burn hazard to consumers. Neither Health Canada nor Homelite Consumer Products Inc has received any consumer reports of incidents or injuries related to the use of these products in Canada. In the United States, Homelite has received 1,369 reports of blower/vacuums sparking, arcing, smoking or burning, including one report of minor injury. Approximately 41,000 units were distributed in Canada and 823,000 units in the United States. The affected products were sold in Canada and the United States from January 2010 through March 2015 at Home Depot stores and online. Manufactured in China. Manufacturer: Changzhou Globe Tools Co., Ltd. CHINA Manufacturer: Cixi City Best Power Tools Co., Ltd. CHINA Importer: Homelite Consumer Products, Inc. Anderson South Carolina UNITED STATES Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/DxxEYi HONDA: Recalls Multiple 2014-2015 Vehicles ------------------------------------------ Starting date: April 16, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Motorcycle Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Suspension Units affected: 61 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015162TC ID number: 2015162 On certain motorcycles, the rear shock absorber may not have been manufactured correctly. The piston rod nut may have been tightened before the piston had the correct full metal-to-metal contact. This could result in the nut loosening, which would prevent proper rear suspension action, and could cause poor handling that may result in a crash causing injury and/or property damage. Correction: Dealers will repair/replace the rear shock absorber. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- HONDA 2014, 2015 HOOKSETT PUBLIC: Director Faces Complaints From Subordinates ------------------------------------------------------------ Mark Hayward, writing for New Hampshire Union Leader, reports that Hooksett Public Works Director Leo Lessard went on a paid administrative leave on March 27, according to the town administrator, who said town councilors will consider a host of complaints against him from his subordinates. The complaints, voiced a second time in late February by the union that represents Public Works employees, said Mr. Lessard frequently used obscene language to "verbally abuse, intimidate and bully" his subordinates. The union claimed Mr. Lessard referred to other town workers in a derogatory fashion and oversaw a steady departure of experienced workers. "My feeling is every time I went to work, at the end of the day I'd be pulling a knife out of my back," said Doug Urquart, the highway crew chief who quit earlier in March, after spending eight years with the department. Mr. Urquart, who is not in the union because of his management status, said Mr. Lessard hasn't changed in the 3« years he's been on the job. "He'd rather create turmoil, discontent and low morale," Mr. Urquart said. Over the past two years, the crew of 16 -- which includes highway, parks and building maintenance -- experienced 17 departures, according to a roster of workers that the town provided the New Hampshire Union Leader. In August, 12 members of Local 1580 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees filed a class-action grievance against Mr. Lessard. Town Administrator Dean Shankle said the union agreed to hold it in abeyance for six months. But in late February, the union voted on a resolution of no confidence against Mr. Lessard. In part, it faulted him for using vulgar and derogatory language against employees and town residents. "Lessard also uses derogatory terms related to sexual orientation to describe our union brothers and sisters in the Hooksett Fire Department," reads nine complaints against him. An effort to reach Mr. Lessard on March 30 through his administrative assistant was unsuccessful. Mr. Shankle said he notified town councilors of Mr. Lessard's administrative leave on March 30. He said he couldn't discuss the circumstances because of employee confidentiality laws. Diane Boyce, the superintendent of the transfer station and recycling operations, has been named acting director. "I am dealing with the issues, and we definitely want all of our employees to work where they feel safe and enjoy their jobs," Mr. Shankle said. He said he hoped the matter will be resolved by April 24, the next time the Town Council is scheduled to meet in public session. The April 8 meeting was called specifically to address the union grievance, and the council asked that no other action come before the board, Mr. Shankle said. Under provisions of the town charter, any department head has the right to appeal disciplinary actions to the town council. According to town records, Mr. Lessard started with the town in July 2011 and now makes $88,800. He assumed the job that had been held by Dale Hemeon, who was convicted of theft of town property that year and sentenced to six months in jail. Mr. Shankle credited Mr. Lessard with instituting modern record- keeping and information systems in the department. And he said "Leo was great in terms of getting things done." But his workers said they were yelled at, threatened with termination and subjected to disparaging remarks about fellow workers. "We're DPW guys; we can deal with jokes, but it's the context. I've got one of the worst mouths going, but I'm not disrespecting people, calling them pieces of . . .," said Jeffrey Lord Jr. Lord said he transferred out of the highway crew to the transfer station, where he works under Boyce. Chad Boyd of Epsom, who still works on the highway crew, said he takes antidepressants because of Mr. Lessard. He said Mr. Lessard's actions meant the staff was short of numbers and motivation when snowstorms hit in January. "Our plowing slowed down because I didn't want to be there anymore," he said. The two said Mr. Lessard gave a brief apology in August to address the class-action grievance. But workers sensed little change. Harriett Spencer, staff representative for the local, said Mr. Lessard appeared to retaliate against employees who signed the grievance. HORIZON MUD: Sued in Texas Over Failure to Provide Layoff Notice ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Dewbre, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Horizon Mud Company, Inc., Case No. 7:15-cv-00058 (W.D. Tex., April 24, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to provide 60 days' advance written notice in connection with recent a Mass Layoff and Plant Closing at the Defendant's Midland, Texas. Horizon Mud Company, Inc. is a well drilling contractor that maintains a principal place of business at 500 W. Wall Street, Midland, Texas 79701. The Plaintiff is represented by: Allen R. Vaught, Esq. BARON AND BUDD PC 3102 Oak Lawn Ave-Ste 1100 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 521-3605 Facsimile: (214) 520-1181 E-mail: avaught@baronbudd.com HORIZONTAL WIRELINE: Fails to Pay Workers OT, "Janczak" Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Grant A. Janczak, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Horizontal Wireline Services, LLC, Case No. 4:15-cv-01074 (S.D. Tex., April 24, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 in a single work week. Horizontal Wireline Services, LLC owns and operates a private equity firm with offices in Dallas and Houston, Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew Dunlap, Esq. Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq. FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON 1150 Bissonnet Houston, TX 77005 Telephone: (713) 751-0025 Facsimile: (713) 751-0030 E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com adunlap@fibichlaw.com litkin@fibichlaw.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) 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 HULU LLC: Judge Tosses Facebook Privacy Class Action ---------------------------------------------------- Joe Van Acker and Beth Winegarner, writing for Law360, report that Hulu LLC didn't know that Facebook Inc. could use the data the online video-streaming site provided to match individual users with specific videos they watched, according to a California federal judge's order granting Hulu's motion for summary judgment in a proposed class action on March 31. Judge Laurel Beeler, who hinted at her decision in February, said she couldn't find that Hulu knowingly violated the Video Privacy Protection Act because the data it sent to Facebook revealing users' identities and the videos they watched were transmitted in separate parcels, meaning Facebook would later have to combine the data to connect a user with a video. Scott Kamber, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said his clients are disappointed in the ruling, but look forward to an appellate review. "We are confident that the facts submitted by the plaintiffs in opposition to summary judgment were sufficient to demonstrate Hulu's knowledge that Facebook was able to identify its users and their video selections every time they watched a video," Mr. Kamber told Law360 on April 1. "We believe the VPPA provides important statutory privacy protections that would be undermined if this order were allowed to stand." The VPPA was passed in 1988 after the press gained access to the video store rental history of failed U.S. Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork. Judge Beeler said this case differed from a video store clerk's handing over a slip of paper with a name and a list of videotapes because of Hulu's separation of users' names and the videos they watched, even though Facebook had the capacity to link the two data sets with a special browser cookie. "In terms of this case, if Hulu did not actually know that Facebook might 'read' the c_user cookie and video title together (yielding something akin to the list of Judge Bork's videos), then there cannot be a VPPA violation," the judge said. The plaintiffs, who sued in 2011, had argued that Hulu's transmission of both pieces of data satisfied the law's requirements. But Judge Beeler said that the VPPA requires "mutual understanding that there has been a disclosure," and said depositions of Hulu employees proved that it had no knowledge of what Facebook would do with the data it received. Another important element of the case involved a "show faces" feature that allowed Facebook users' images to appear on webpages after they clicked the "like" button on Hulu's or any other company's website. The plaintiffs argued that the fact that users' images could appear on Hulu's pages show that the company knew Facebook was able to identify individuals and their video selections. Victor Jih, an attorney for Hulu, countered that the company had no idea how Facebook figured out how to show users' faces and said the plaintiffs had simply referenced email correspondence rather than source code to bolster their claims. Judge Beeler agreed with Mr. Jih that the plaintiffs came up short in attempting to definitively show what Hulu actually "knew" and instead relied on assertions made by an expert. The plaintiffs had also pointed to correspondence between Hulu and The Nielsen Co., which informed Hulu that services designed to determine the efficacy of Hulu's ad delivery would reveal users' demographics and identities to Facebook. The judge acknowledged that Nielsen's statements "probably" show that Hulu knew Facebook's cookies could be used to identify users but said that only related to ads tracked by Nielsen, not the "like" button. Mr. Jih told Law360 on April 1 that Hulu was pleased with the decision. "Hulu takes privacy very seriously and we are very happy it has been vindicated by the court," Mr. Jih said. "We are also grateful that the court took the time to make several important rulings to prevent this law from being misused in the future." The plaintiffs are represented by David C. Parisi and Suzanne Havens Beckman of Parisi & Havens LLP, Scott A. Kamber, David A. Stampley and Grace E. Tersigni of KamberLaw LLC, and Brian R. Strange and Gretchen Carpenter of Strange & Carpenter. Hulu is represented by Robert M. Schwartz -- rschwartz@omm.com -- Steven M. Dunst and Victor Jih of O'Melveny & Myers LLP along with Simon J. Frankel -- sfrankel@cov.com -- and Emily Johnson Henn -- ehenn@cov.com -- of Covington & Burling LLP. The case is In re: Hulu Privacy Litigation, case number 3:11-cv- 03764, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. HYUNDAI: July 6 Deadline Set for Gas Mileage Settlement Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Joe Ducey, writing for ABC15, reports that Hyundai has settled a class action gas mileage issues. If you're driving a Hyundai, how many miles are you getting per gallon? "They were promising Hyundai gets more gas mileage when in fact it doesn't or worse than what was projected," is the allegation says Hardy. If you owned or leased a Hyundai on or before November of 2012, you qualify. The options are a lump sum cash payment averaging $353, a dealer service debit card, or a new car rebate certificate. Or you could opt for lifetime reimbursement paid over time. It usually pays more depending on how long you have the car. The deadline is July 6, The company did not claim any wrongdoing in settling the suit. INT'L BUSINESS: Labaton Sucharow Files Securities Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Labaton Sucharow LLP on April 1 disclosed that it filed a securities class action lawsuit on April 1, 2015 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of all persons or entities who, between January 22, 2014 and October 17, 2014, inclusive, purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of International Business Machines Corporation. If you purchased or acquired publicly traded IBM securities during the Class Period as defined above, you are a member of the "Class" and may be able to seek appointment as Lead Plaintiff. Lead Plaintiff motion papers must be filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York no later than May 1, 2015. A lead plaintiff is a court-appointed representative for absent members of the Class. You do not need to seek appointment as lead plaintiff to share in any Class recovery in this action. If you are a Class member and there is a recovery for the Class, you can share in that recovery as an absent Class member. You may retain counsel of your choice to represent you in this action. If you would like to consider serving as lead plaintiff or have any questions about this lawsuit, you may contact Rachel A. Avan, Esq. of Labaton Sucharow, at (800) 321-0476 or (212) 907-0709, or via email at ravan@labaton.com IBM is a global information technology company based in Armonk, New York. The Company manufactures and sells computer hardware and software and offers a variety of technology services. Prior to October 20, 2014, IBM's operations included the Company's Microelectronics business that was primarily responsible for the design and production of microchips used in certain of the Company's server computers and other devices. The complaint charges IBM and certain of its officers and directors with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period Defendants made false and misleading statements and concealed material information relating to the true value of the Company's Microelectronics business and the segment's assets. Specifically, the complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, IBM concealed a substantial decline in value of the Microelectronics business and its assets, despite a history and outlook of severe operating losses. Instead, IBM reported values of approximately $2.4 billion relating to long- lived assets within the Microelectronics segment in the Company's financial statements throughout the Class Period. The truth regarding the value of IBM's Microelectronics business and its assets was revealed on October 20, 2014, when the Company announced an agreement to transfer this business to GlobalFoundries Incorporated along with a $1.5 billion incentive payment. IBM further disclosed that the Company's Microelectronics business had lost $700 million in 2013 and was projected to suffer a similar loss in 2014. In reaction to these disclosure, IBM's stock price fell $12.95 per share, or 7.11 percent, to close at $169.10 per share that day. The magnitude of IBM's overstatement of its assets during the Class Period was confirmed on October 28, 2014 when the Company filed its Form 10-Q for the third quarter of 2014. In this quarterly report, IBM recorded a $4.7 billion charge, more than half of which represented a total write-off of the entire $2.4 billion value of the long-lived property, plant, and equipment assets of the Microelectronics business. If you are a member of the Class, you can view a copy of the complaint online at http://www.labaton.com/en/cases/Newly-Filed-Cases.cfm The plaintiff is represented by Labaton Sucharow, which represents many of the largest pension funds in the United States and internationally with collective assets under management of more than $2 trillion. With nearly 60 full-time attorneys, Labaton Sucharow's litigation reputation is built on its in-house team of investigators, financial analysts, and forensic accountants. Labaton Sucharow -- http://www.labaton.com-- has been recognized for its excellence by the courts and peers, and it is consistently ranked in leading industry publications. Offices are located in New York, NY and Wilmington, DE. J-W WIRELINE: "Parrot" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Jeremy Parrott, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. J-W Wireline Company and J-W Energy Company, Case No. 5:15-cv-00329 (W.D. Tex., April 24, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate an energy development and energy services company specializing in natural gas compression, gathering, exploration and production, and well services with significant operations throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew Dunlap, Esq. Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq. FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON 1150 Bissonnet Houston, TX 77005 Telephone: (713) 751-0025 Facsimile: (713) 751-0030 E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com adunlap@fibichlaw.com litkin@fibichlaw.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) 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 JACKSONVILLE GREYHOUND: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Louis Platt, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Jacksonville Greyhound Racing, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv- 00524-BJD-PDB (M.D. Fla., April 23, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Jacksonville Greyhound Racing, Inc. is a Florida corporation that owns and operates a gambling center and casino. The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher J. Whitelock, Esq. WHITELOCK & ASSOCIATES, PA 300 SE 13th St Ft Lauderdale, FL 33316 Telephone: (954) 463-2001 Facsimile: (954) 463-0410 E-mail: cjw@whitelocklegal.com JAYCO: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models Due to Crash Risk -------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: April 15, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Travel Trailer Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Structure Units affected: 34 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015160TC ID number: 2015160 On certain travel trailers and fifth wheels, the Norco slide room mechanisms could be defective. The drive train that controls the inward and outward motion of the room could have been manufactured with incorrectly rated screws. If the screws were to fail, the slide room could extend while the vehicle is in motion, increasing the risk of crash causing injury and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers will replace the defective screws with correctly rated screws. JIM SMITH: "Heavlin" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Simon Heavlin, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Jim Smith Electric Service, Inc. and James F. Smith Case No. 2:15-cv-00258 (M.D. Fla., April 24, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post- judgment interest and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate an electrical services company in Lee County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Angeli Murthy Morgan & Morgan, PA Suite 400, 600 N Pine Island Rd Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (954) 967-5377 Facsimile: (954) 327-3016 E-mail: amurthy@forthepeople.com JOHNS HOPKINS: To Vigorously Oppose Class Action Over STD Study --------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah Gantz, writing for Baltimore Business Journal, reports that Johns Hopkins will vigorously oppose a $1 billion lawsuit filed on April 1 by more than 700 family members and research subjects who were infected by sexually transmitted diseases during 1940s and 1950s government experiments in Guatemala. The lawsuit filed in Baltimore City Circuit Court alleges that Hopkins, as a leading authority on venereal disease at the time, played a key role in a government study of syphilis and other sexually transmitted diseases in Guatemala. The suit, filed by Baltimore law firm Salsbury, Clements, Bekman, Marder & Adkins LLC on behalf of 774 plaintiffs, names Johns Hopkins Hospital, Johns Hopkins University, the School of Medicine, the School of Public Health and Johns Hopkins Health System. It also names the Rockefeller Foundation and Bristol- Meyers Squibb Co., a New York pharmaceutical company. Hopkins officials reject the suit's claims and say the institution did not conduct or pay for the government study. Hopkins doctors served on a government committee that oversaw funding for the study, officials said. Robert Mathias -- robert.mathias@dlapiper.com -- a lawyer with DLA Piper and Hopkins' lead counsel, described the suit as baseless and said he will likely move to dismiss the case on statute of limitations. "The study they're complaining about took place almost 70 years ago," Mr. Mathias said. "The doctors they name are all deceased." Paul D. Bekman, who is among the lawyers representing the case's plaintiffs, says he can prove Hopkins' involvement. "We can back up every single thing we have said in the complaint with facts and documents," Mr. Bekman said. "Hopkins and Rockefeller were involved in this up to their eyebrows." Details of the study became public during a 2011 federal bioethics review. A prior class action lawsuit against the U.S. government was dismissed in 2012. K&B OILFIELD: Faces "Sanders" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Leroy Sanders, III, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. K&B Oilfield Services, Inc., Case No. 6:15- cv-00447 (E.D. Tex., April 24, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week. K&B Oilfield Services, Inc. is an oilfield services company proving well related services to oil companies and operators. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Andrew Josephson, Esq. FIBICH LEEBRON COPELAND BRIGGS JOSEPHSON 1150 Bissonnet St Houston, TX 77005 Telephone: (713) 751-0025 Facsimile: (713) 751-0030 E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com KNIGHT CAPITAL: July 1 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ------------------------------------------------------ Saxena White P.A. on April 2 issued a statement in regards to the announcement of a proposed class action settlement. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY JUAN FERNANDEZ, Plaintiff, v. KNIGHT CAPITAL GROUP, INC., et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 12-cv-06760 (MCA) (SCM) TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED KNIGHT CAPITAL GROUP, INC. ("KNIGHT") SECURITIES BETWEEN MAY 10, 2011, AND AUGUST 1, 2012, INCLUSIVE. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY; YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (the "Court"), that the above-captioned litigation (the "Litigation") has been certified, for settlement purposes only, as a class action on behalf of the Settlement Class, as set forth in the full printed Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action (the "Notice"). YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that pursuant to an Order of the Court, a hearing will be held on July 1, 2015, at 10:00 a.m., before the Honorable Madeline Cox Arleo, United States District Judge, at the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, Martin Luther King Building & United States Courthouse, 50 Walnut Street, Newark, New Jersey 07101, for the purpose of determining (1) whether the proposed settlement of the Action for the sum of Thirteen Million Dollars ($13,000,000.00) in cash should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate, which would result in this Action being dismissed with prejudice against the Released Persons1 as set forth in the Settlement Agreement dated February 9, 2015; (2) whether the Plan of Allocation of settlement proceeds is fair, reasonable, and adequate and therefore should be approved; and (3) whether the application for fees and expenses in connection with this Action should be approved. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Knight securities, your rights may be affected by this Action and the settlement thereof. If you have not received a detailed Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action and a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release Form, you may obtain copies by writing to Knight Capital Group Securities Litigation, Claims Administrator, P.O. Box 3076, Portland, OR 97208-3076, or by downloading this information at www.knightsecuritieslitigation.com If you are a Settlement Class Member, in order to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and Release Form postmarked no later than June 29, 2015, establishing that you are entitled to a recovery. You will be bound by any judgment rendered in the Action unless you request to be excluded, in writing, to the above address, postmarked by June 2, 2015. Any objection to any aspect of the settlement must be filed with the Clerk of the Court no later than June 11, 2015, and received by the following no later than June 11, 2015: LESTER R. HOOKER SAXENA WHITE P.A. 5200 Town Center Circle, Suite 601 Boca Raton, FL 33486 Counsel for Lead Plaintiff KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP MATTHEW SOLUM 601 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 Counsel for Defendants If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may call 888- 593-4978 or contact Lead Plaintiff's Counsel at the address listed above. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT REGARDING THIS NOTICE. DATED: April 9, 2015 BY ORDER OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY LENOVO INC: Expands ThinkPad Notebook Battery Packs Recall ---------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: April 21, 2015 Posting date: April 21, 2015 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Electronics Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Product Safety Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-52947 This recall expansion involves Lenovo battery packs sold with the following ThinkPad notebook computers: the Edge 11, 13, 14, 15, 120, 125, 320, 325, 420, 425, 430, 520, 525 and 530 series; the X200, X201, X200S, X201S, X220, X220T, X100E, X120E, X121E and X130E series; the T410, T420, T510 and T520 series; and the W510, W520, L412, L420/421, L512, and L520 series. Recalled battery packs have one of the following part numbers starting with the fourth digit in a long series of numbers and letters printed on a white sticker below the bar code on the battery pack: 42T4695, 42T4711, 42T4798, 42T4804, 42T4812, 42T4816, 42T4828, 42T4834, 42T4868, 42T4874, 42T48880, 42T4890, 42T4954, 42T4958, 45N1012, and 45N1050. The battery packs measure between 20 to 28 centimetres (8 to 11 inches) long, 2.5 to 7.5 centimetres (1 to 3 inches) wide and about 2.5 centimetres (1 inch) high. Affected battery packs were also sold separately. The battery packs can overheat, posing a fire hazard. Health Canada has not received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries to Canadians related to the use of this product. Lenovo has received two reports in Canada and two reports in the United States of the battery pack overheating. An additional 14 similar incidents occurred outside of Canada and the United States. Approximately 17,700 units of the battery backs were distributed in Canada and about 148,800 units in the United States. The recalled products were sold from February 2010 to June 2012 at various retailers and online in Canada and the United States. Manufactured in China. Distributor: Lenovo (Canada) Inc. North York Ontario CANADA Consumers should immediately turn off their ThinkPad notebook computer, remove the battery pack and contact Lenovo for a free replacement battery pack. Consumers can continue to use their ThinkPad notebook without the battery pack by plugging in the AC adapter and power cord. For more information, consumers can contact Lenovo toll-free at 1- 800-426-7378 from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. EST Monday through Friday or Lenovo's website and select Support at the top of the page, then click on the link to the recall page in the News and Alerts section at the bottom right of the page for more information. Consumers may view the release by the US CPSC on the Commission's website. 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/ernVyY LOS ANGELES, CA: Settles ADA Class Action ----------------------------------------- Southern California Public Radio reports that Los Angeles settled a giant class action lawsuit on April 1 brought on behalf of a quarter-million disabled city residents. They contended that L.A.'s broken sidewalks impaired their rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to move freely around the city. Now, Los Angeles' cracked and crumbling sidewalks are on track to get $1.4 billion in repairs, over the next 30 years. Quadriplegic resident Mark Willits sued the city in 2010, and his case was broadened to a class action. Lillibeth Navarro, a plaintiff, praised the settlement at a news conference with city leaders. "It's a major win for the disability community of Los Angeles," she said. Those with disabilities risk their lives and safety traversing miles and miles of inaccessible L.A. sidewalks," she said, and spoke of the frustration of trying to navigate broken paths in her wheelchair. In Chinatown, Andre Davidson uses a walker to help him stand. He said the city's broken sidewalks and slippery curb ramps need upgrades. "They are quite unsafe, you have a lot of cracks and dents, especially at the ramps, they are kind of dangerous," he said. How did we get here? A 1911 state law made sidewalk repairs the financial responsibility of adjoining property owners in most of California. But in the mid-70s, Los Angeles accepted a multi-million dollar federal grant for sidewalk repairs. In exchange for the money, the city took over financial responsibility for sidewalks damaged by trees. The money ran out within a few years, and the city fell behind in repairing sidewalks to the point that one city estimate said it would cost $1.5 billion to do the entire job. Sidewalk repairs have been close to non-existent in recent years, partly because the city was holding back spending while it waited for settlement with this case. A shortage of workers, and the lack of a clear policy over which paths were greatest priority led to further delays. City Attorney Mike Feuer said the settlement terms require the city to set aside $31 million a year (a base amount that would grow with inflation over time) and to spend at least $25 million annually on repairs. The city has already been paying out about $6.5 million dollars a year in injury claims stemming from broken sidewalks, Mr. Feuer said. But over the past two years, it has managed to still put aside as much as $27 million in funds for repairs. The money that was placed in the sidewalk repair trust fund will be the first monies applied toward the settlement. Mayor Eric Garcetti said the city's general fund, used to pay for many city services, will make up the rest of the funds. What will be repaired first The first year's spending calls for $5 million for installing curb ramps, the rest on sidewalks, Mr. Feuer said. Sidewalks adjacent to city land are the top priority for repairs, followed by sidewalks on the most used main streets. Over time, smaller residential streets will be fixed, but it could take years for some areas to see repair crews. Setting priorities for which residential sidewalks to fix will be a district-by-district decision, Mr. Garcetti said. The settlement must still be approved by a federal judge. MICHIGAN: Department of Corrections Faces ADA Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Covington & Burling LLP on March 31 disclosed that the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) unfairly discriminates against and denies equal treatment to prisoners who are deaf or hard of hearing in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, and the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States, according to a class action law suit filed in U.S. District Court on March 31 by Michigan Protection & Advocacy Service, Inc. (MPAS), Washington Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs, and the law firms Covington & Burling and Kitch Drutchas Wagner Valitutti & Sherbrook. The class action lawsuit, filed by three current prisoners housed within MDOC facilities, seeks injunctive and declaratory relief on behalf of a class of all deaf or hard of hearing persons who are, or will be, confined in Michigan's prisons. "The Michigan Department of Corrections has failed or refused to provide necessary accommodations and assistance in a consistent and comprehensive manner," said Chris Davis, MPAS Attorney. "As a result, it has violated the prisoners' rights by infringing on their ability to communicate with loved ones, participate in medical and mental health care as well as religious and various other programs." The lawsuit explains that, as a result of MDOC not providing adequate accommodations and assistance to deaf and hard of hearing inmates, the inmates are unable to adequately maintain contact with loved ones; have access to educational opportunities (including academic classes, vocational training, and other programs) offered to prisoners; access necessary medical care; participate in religious services; or access telephone and television services. The lawsuit further explains that deaf and hard of hearing inmates are improperly disciplined and their safety is jeopardized by MDOC. It emphasizes that as a result of MDOC's numerous legal violations, deaf and hard of hearing inmates are forced to serve their time largely isolated from, and are unable to effectively communicate with, other individuals. "Unfortunately, it is clear that Michigan's treatment of its deaf and hard of hearing prisoners violates federal law. Deaf prisoners should not be punished or prevented from communicating with their families because of their disability," Deborah M. Golden, Director, Prisoners' Rights Project, Washington Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs (WLC), and one of the legal co-counsel on the lawsuit stated. "While Michigan's mistreatment of deaf prisoners is not unique, as reflected by several cases filed by WLC around the country involving federal and state prisons, such litigation has produced progress in achieving fair treatment for deaf prisoners, and we are committed to working with co-counsel to remedy the violations in this case," Golden continued. The remedies sought in the current lawsuit, include: access to videophones as a necessary method to provide deaf inmates access to telecommunications; adequate visual notification of oral announcements concerning emergencies and other events; implementation of necessary policies, training, and monitoring to ensure equal treatment by prison officials; and adequate access to sign language interpreters and other auxiliary aids and services. "This lawsuit is consistent with Covington's long-standing commitment to pro bono service for important causes and vulnerable clients, regardless of location. Together with co-counsel, the firm is committed to ensuring that Michigan treats its deaf and hard of hearing prisoners fairly and equally," Andrew Lazerow -- alazerow@cov.com -- Partner at Covington, and co-counsel on the lawsuit, stated. "Unfortunately, it's clear from our investigation into the Michigan Department of Correction's treatment of its deaf and hard of hearing prison population, which involved interviewing inmates at multiple prisons throughout the state and reviewing numerous prison records, that Michigan unfairly punishes and discriminates against deaf and hard of prisoners in violation of federal law and the U.S. Constitution," stated Steve Bartenstein -- sbartenstein@cov.com -- Associate at Covington. Michigan Protection & Advocacy Service, Inc. (MPAS) is the independent, private, nonprofit organization designated by the governor of the State of Michigan to advocate and protect the legal rights of people with disabilities in Michigan. The Washington Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs (WLC) is a public interest legal organization with extensive experience in civil rights litigation, including with respect to deaf inmates across the country. In an increasingly regulated world, Covington & Burling helps clients navigate their most complex business problems, deals, and disputes. Founded in 1919, the firm has more than 850 lawyers in offices in Beijing, Brussels, London, Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco, Seoul, Shanghai, Silicon Valley, and Washington. Kitch Drutchas Wagner Valitutti & Sherbrook is a Michigan-based law firm with a long history of involvement in significant public questions relating to the health care field. In an increasingly regulated world, Covington & Burling LLP helps clients navigate their most complex business problems, deals, and disputes. Founded in 1919, the firm has more than 850 lawyers in offices in Beijing, Brussels, London, Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco, Seoul, Shanghai, Silicon Valley, and Washington. MITSUBISHI: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models Over Injury Risk ------------------------------------------------------------ Starting date: April 17, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Car, SUV Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Lights And Instruments Units affected: 27277 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015165TC ID number: 2015165 Manufacturer recall number: SR15-002 On certain vehicles, the ECU which controls the head lights, tail lights and windshield wipers may have been improperly manufactured. This could cause the voltage in the ECU to become unstable and cause the head lights and/or tail lights to turn off and/or the windshield wipers to become inoperable. This could affect driver visibility and decrease vehicle conspicuity, increasing the risk of a crash causing injury and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers will inspect and replace the affected ECU with an updated version. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- MITSUBISHI OUTLANDER 2009, 2010 MITSUBISHI LANCER EVOLUTION 2010 MITSUBISHI LANCER 2009, 2010 MITSUBISHI LANCER SPORTBACK 2009, 2010 MITSUBISHI: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models Over Blower Motor ------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: April 17, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Car, SUV Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Heater And Defroster Units affected: 32810 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015166TC ID number: 2015166 On certain vehicles, the blower motor may have been incorrectly manufactured. This could result in a premature failure of the blower motor which could affect the defroster performance resulting in reduced visibility, increasing the risk of a crash causing injury and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers will replace blower motor and the power transistor as needed. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- MITSUBISHI OUTLANDER 2009, 2010, 2011 MITSUBISHI LANCER EVOLUTION 2010 MITSUBISHI LANCER 2009, 2010, 2011 MITSUBISHI LANCER SPORTBACK 2009, 2010, 2011 MITSUBISHI RVR 2011 MIZUHO BANK: Judge Dismisses Yen Libor Class Action --------------------------------------------------- Evan Weinberger, Pete Brush and Jeff Sistrunk, writing for Law360, report that a New York federal judge on March 31 dismissed a pair of Japanese banks and a London-based markets operator from class action litigation alleging some of the world's banks fixed yen- denominated Libor rates, saying plaintiffs did not prove a direct link between the defendants and the United States. Federal District Judge George B. Daniels said that the plaintiffs did not prove that Mizuho Bank Ltd., Resona Bank Ltd. and ICAP PLC had sufficient contact with the Second Circuit specifically and the United States more broadly for the case to move forward given the U.S. Supreme Court's January 2014 ruling in Daimler AG v. Bauman. "There is no basis to conclude that any of the Stipulating Defendants, including ICAP, took actions 'expressly aimed' at the United States by passively connecting to the United States via Internet protocol addresses. To contend that this highly attenuated connection constitutes 'purposeful avail[ment]' is unreasonable," Judge Daniels wrote in a 14-page ruling. Counsel for the plaintiffs and the defendants could not immediately be reached for comment. The Supreme Court's landmark decision in Daimler limited U.S. jurisdiction over foreign defendants. Judge Daniels had appeared skeptical that the plaintiffs' argument that foreign defendants should be subject to trial in the U.S. following the Daimler decision at September oral arguments, despite the plaintiffs' argument that the banks were seeking to advance new arguments that they had previously not employed in a case that has lasted for more than two years. "If it's a new test, why can't they use it?" he asked at the hearing. A host of banks have attempted to use the Daimler decision to escape the U.S. Yen Libor rigging case, including Deutsche Bank AG. Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd., The Bank of Yokohama Ltd., Mitsubishi UFJ Trust and Banking Corp., The Norinchukin Bank, Shinkin Central Bank, the Shoko Chukin Bank Ltd., Sumitomo Mitsui Trust Bank Ltd. and Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corp. However, the March 31 ruling only applies to Mizuho, Resona and ICAP. Named plaintiff Jeffrey Laydon alleges he lost thousands of dollars shorting derivatives of Euroyen Tibor rates, which are allegedly influenced by Libor, in 2006. In a 300-page complaint replete with economic models, Mr. Laydon accused the banks that sit on Libor and Tibor panels of conspiring to fix these rates by submitting agreed-upon estimates. He claimed anti-competitive action, unjust enrichment and violations of the Commodity Exchange and Sherman acts. Judge Daniels trimmed the plaintiffs' case last March, dismissing antitrust, vicarious liability and unjust enrichment claims while allowing price manipulation and aiding and abetting allegations to survive. The plaintiffs are represented by Vincent Briganti -- vbriganti@lowey.com -- and Peter D. St. Phillip Jr. of Lowey Dannenberg Cohen & Hart PC. Resona Bank is represented by Paul B. Hewitt -- phewitt@akingump.com -- and C. Fairley Spillman -- fspillman@akingump.com -- of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. Mizuho is represented by Jeffrey Resetarits -- jeffrey.resetarits@shearman.com -- Jerome Fortinsky -- jfortinsky@shearman.com -- and John A. Nathanson -- john.nathanson@shearman.com -- of Shearman & Sterling LLP. ICAP is represented by Brian S. Fraser -- bfraser@rkollp.com -- H. Rowan Gaither IV -- rgaither@rkollp.com -- Katherine K.W. Harrington and Shari Brandt of Richards Kibbe & Orbe LLP. The case is Laydon v. Mizuho Bank et al., case number 1:12-cv- 03419, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Appeals Court Reverses Class Action Ruling --------------------------------------------------------------- The Recorder reports that the court of appeals reversed a judgment of the district court and remanded. The court held that a defendant timely removed a class action under the Class Action Fairness Act, where he acted within 30 days of ascertaining removability, notwithstanding his failure to timely remove on federal-question grounds. Laura Jordan obtained a loan to purchase a home. Jordan's loan was secured by a deed of trust of which Nationstar Mortgage LLC was the beneficiary. Under the terms of the deed of trust, Nationstar could enter Ms. Jordan's house and change the locks if she either failed to perform or abandoned the property. Ms. Jordan defaulted on the loan. Nationstar entered Jordan's home without notice, removed the existing locks, and installed a lockbox. Ms. Jordan was later permitted to re-enter the house to gather her personal belongings. Ms. Jordan filed a putative class-action against Nationstar in state court. She alleged claims that included violations of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The state court later certified the proposed class. On June 3, 2014, Jordan specified the amount in controversy in her responses to Nationstar interrogatories. On June 5, Nationstar noticed removal of Jordan's action to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). Ms. Jordan moved to remand the case to state court. Ms. Jordan argued that Nationstar's removal notice was untimely because it was filed more than two years after Jordan's initial complaint triggered federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331 of the FDCPA. The district court granted the motion, finding that the relevant removal date was the date on which the case itself became removable and not the date on which the case first became removable under the CAFA. Nationstar appealed, contending that the logic of (I)Durham v. Lockheed Martin Corp.(I), 445 F.3d 1247 (9th Cir. 2006), had to be extended to the CAFA context. The court of appeals reversed and remanded, holding that Nationstar's removal was timely under Sec. 1446 of the CAFA. The court determined as a matter of law that a defendant may remove a case from state court within 30 days of ascertaining that the action is removable under the CAFA, even if an earlier pleading, document, motion, order, or other paper revealed an alternative basis for federal jurisdiction. (I)Durham(I) held that under Sec. 1442(a)(1), the 30-day removal clock is reset when a defendant discovers that a case is removable on federal-officer grounds, even if the defendant was previously aware of a different basis for federal jurisdiction. The court noted that (I)Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens(I), 135 S. Ct. 547 (2014), makes clear "that no anti-removal presumption attends cases involving the CAFA." Further, (I)Dart Cherokee(I) noted the congressional intent in enacting the CAFA to strongly favor diversity jurisdiction of class actions that had interstate ramifications. Thus, the court agreed that the approach to federal-officer removal in (I)Durham(I) had to be extended to CAFA claims. NAVISTAR: Recalls AE School Bus Models Due to Safety Hazard ----------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: April 22, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: School Bus Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Electrical Units affected: 6 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015170TC ID number: 2015170 Manufacturer recall number: 15510 On certain school buses, a double battery (24 volt) jump start or electrical load dump could result in an overvoltage condition of the linear power module (LPM) which is used to control the heater/air conditioning blower motor speed. If this were to occur, this overvoltage condition could lead to the LPM overheating, causing smoke, and increase the risk of fire, which could result in injury and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers will replace the LPM with an upgraded LPM design. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- IC AE SCHOOL BUS 2014, 2015 NAVISTAR: Recalls Multiple Bus Models Due to Safety Hazard ---------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: April 22, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Bus Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Electrical Units affected: 8552 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015171TC ID number: 2015171 Manufacturer recall number: 15509 On certain buses, a double battery (24 volt) jump start or electrical load dump could result in an overvoltage condition of the linear power module (LPM) which is used to control the heater/air conditioning blower motor speed. If this were to occur, this overvoltage condition could lead to the LPM overheating, causing smoke, and increase the risk of fire, which could result in injury and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers will replace the LPM with an upgraded LPM design. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- IC HC COMMERCIAL 2013, 2014, 2015, 2014, 2015 BUS INTERNATIONAL PROSTAR 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 INTERNATIONAL LONESTAR 2013, 2014, 2015 INTERNATIONAL DURASTAR 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 INTERNATIONAL WORKSTAR 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 INTERNATIONAL TRANSTAR 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 INTERNATIONAL TERRASTAR 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 NEBRASKA: Food-Benefit Applications Suit Get Class-Action Status ---------------------------------------------------------------- KETV NewsWatch 7 reports that a judge has granted class-action status to a lawsuit alleging that Nebraska consistently failed to process food-benefit applications and renewals in a timely manner. The ruling allows all recipients affected by delays to challenge the state's practices. The 2014 lawsuit was filed on behalf of Tami Leiting-Hall, a single, working mother in Lincoln. Ms. Leiting-Hall is represented by the Lincoln-based Nebraska Appleseed and the National Center for Law and Economic Justice in New York. The plaintiffs allege the Department of Health and Human Services created unlawful delays for low-income residents who requested benefits through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Department officials have said they don't comment on pending lawsuits. Molly McCleery, a Nebraska Appleseed staff attorney, says the ruling recognizes that the problem isn't isolated to a few cases. NEW SUPERIOR TUB: Has Sent Unsolicited Fax Ads, Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------- Sky Management Corporation, a New York corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. New Superior Tub Refinish Corp., Estesan Gomez a/k/a Esteban Gomez, and John Does 1-10, Case No. 1:15-cv-03239-RA (S.D.N.Y., April 24, 2015), seeks to put an end on the Defendant's practice of faxing of unsolicited advertisements to persons who had not provided express invitation or permission. The Defendants own and operate a kitchen and bath contracting company in New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED & POSNER 225 West 34th St., Suite 705 New York, NY 10122 Telephone: (212) 494-0035 Facsimile: (212) 216-9049 E-mail: dan@shakedandposner.com NEW YORK, NY: "Quota Board" to Take Center Statge in Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- John M. Annese, writing for SILive.com, reports that a "quota board" hanging up inside a Staten Island NYPD stationhouse that purportedly assigns police officers points for each arrest made will likely take center stage in a class action lawsuit against the city. In a press conference on March 31, the National Latino Officers Association revealed the board's existence, saying that members of the 122nd Precinct's Anti-Crime Unit got one point for each misdemeanor arrest, and one-and-a-half points for each felony arrest. "That particular precinct will be part of a class action that we're putting together right now," association chairman Anthony Miranda told the Advance on April 1, contending that minority police officers typically end up disciplined for failing to hit their numbers. Officers need to make three points a month, and if they don't, they start at a deficit the next month, Mr. Miranda said. "These quotas are not only mandated for these police officers on patrol, but they're also mandated for these anti-crime specialty units . . . . If you didn't hit the numbers, they would remove you from the unit," Mr. Miranda said. He added that the board highlights a larger problem throughout the NYPD, and that the 122nd Precinct was bold enough to put the numbers up on the wall. "In that one precinct in particular, they actually put up a board highlighting the numbers, and they turned it into a game. It's illegal what they are doing. You can't create a competition amongst police officers so that they can stay in the unit." Board president Manny Gonzalez said he had heard from multiple people within the precinct concerned about the board. One police source said the whiteboard does, indeed, hang in the basement office of the precinct's anti-crime unit, but it doesn't represent any official policy. Rather, the source said, it's something the officers put up themselves, as a sort of friendly competition between each other. Mr. Miranda was incredulous at that idea. "Cops don't create boards," he said. "This was the one precinct in the world that this was allowable? . . . At least be honest about what you did." Mr. Miranda alleged that the points system, which he refers to as "unofficial discipline," also plays into who gets overtime shifts and vacation days, and who gets re-assigned to the department's "Sky Watch" towers. "There have been officers that have been put out because they haven't hit the numbers," said Mr. Miranda. When asked how many officers, he responded, "Mostly minority, I'll give you that." The NYPD denies such quotas exist. "There are no numerical enforcement quotas established by the NYPD. Performance evaluations are conducted for all department employees based on an assessment of their duties, responsibilities and specific conditions of their assignments," said Stephen Davis, the NYPD's deputy commissioner for public information. OIL INSPECTIONS: Faces 1st "Vanwagner" Suit Over Unpaid Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Vanwagner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Oil Inspections (U.S.A.) Inc. and Stephen Taylor, Case No. 4:15-cv-01089 (S.D. Tex., April 24, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants are in the business of providing cargo expediting operation services in the oil and petroleum industry. The Plaintiff is represented by: Galvin B. Kennedy, Esq. KENNEDY HODGES LLP 711 W Alabama Street Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 523-0001 E-mail: gkennedy@kennedyhodges.com - and - Beatriz Sosa-Morris, Esq. KENNEDY HODGES, LLP 711 W. Alabama Street Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 523-0001 Facsimile: (713) 523-1116 E-mail: Bsosamorris@kennedyhodges.com OIL INSPECTIONS: Faces 2nd "Vanwagner" Suit Over Unpaid Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Vanwagner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Oil Inspections (U.S.A.) Inc. and Stephen Taylor, Case No. 4:15-cv-01086 (S.D. Tex., April 24, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants are in the business of providing cargo expediting operation services in the oil and petroleum industry. The Plaintiff is represented by: Galvin B. Kennedy, Esq. KENNEDY HODGES LLP 711 W Alabama Street Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 523-0001 E-mail: gkennedy@kennedyhodges.com - and - Beatriz Sosa-Morris, Esq. KENNEDY HODGES, LLP 711 W. Alabama Street Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 523-0001 Facsimile: (713) 523-1116 E-mail: Bsosamorris@kennedyhodges.com OIL STATES ENERGY: Faces "Campos" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------- Jose E. Campos, et al. v. Oil States Energy Services, L.L.C, Case No. 6:15-cv-00022 (S.D. Tex., April 24, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act. Oil States Energy Services, L.L.C is in the oil well services business in the Southern District of Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Clark Woodson III, Esq. 601 East Myrtle Angleton, TX 77515 Telephone: (979) 849-6080 E-mail: clark@woodsonlaborlaw.com OLIVIERO CAFE: "Zapata" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- Edwin Zapata, on behalf of himself, and others similarly situated v. Oliviero Cafe, and Harry Hongki Kim, Case No. 1:15-cv-03237-ER (S.D.N.Y., April 24, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a located at 850 7th Avenue, New York, New York 10019. The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter Hans Cooper, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER, P.L.L.C. 708 Third Avenue, 6th Flr New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 209-3933 Facsimile: (212) 209-7102 E-mail: pcooper@jcpclaw.com OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: June 5 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set --------------------------------------------------------------- The following statement is being issued by Barrack, Rodos & Bacine and Branstetter, Stranch & Jennings, PLLC, regarding the OmniVision Technologies, Inc. Securities Litigation UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION In re OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION This Document Relates to: ALL ACTIONS Case No.: 5:11-cv-05235-RMW SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES TO: ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES THAT PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED SHARES OF OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES, INC. PUBLICLY TRADED COMMON STOCK IN THE OPEN MARKET DURING THE PERIOD FROM AUGUST 27, 2010 TO AND THROUGH NOVEMBER 6, 2011, AND WERE DAMAGED THEREBY ("SETTLEMENT CLASS"). YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, that a settlement between Lead Plaintiffs and OmniVision Technologies, Inc. ("OmniVision"), Shaw Hong, Anson Chan, and Aurelio "Ray" Cisneros (the "Individual Defendants" and collectively, with OmniVision, the "Defendants") in the amount of $12,500,000 has been proposed by the Settling Parties. A hearing will be held before the Honorable Ronald M. Whyte, United States District Judge, on June 5, 2015 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 6 of the United States Courthouse, 280 South 1st Street, San Jose, California 95113 for the purpose of determining, among other things, (i) whether the proposed Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate and should be approved; (ii) whether, thereafter, this Action should be dismissed with prejudice as set forth in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated as of December 30, 2014; (iii) whether the Plan of Allocation of the Net Settlement Fund is fair and reasonable and should be approved; and (iv) the reasonableness of the application of Plaintiffs' Counsel for the payment of attorneys' fees and expenses, with interest, incurred in connection with this Action. The Court has reserved the right to reschedule the hearing without further notice. If you are a member of the Settlement Class described above, your rights may be affected by this Action and the proposed Settlement thereof. If you have not received the detailed Notice of Pendency and Proposed Class Action Settlement and Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses (the "Notice") and Proof of Claim form, you may obtain them by contacting the Claims Administrator: OmniVision Technologies, Inc. Securities Litigation c/o Heffler Claims Group P.O. Box 150 Philadelphia, PA 19105-0150 Inquiries, other than requests for information about the status of a claim, may also be made to Co-Lead Counsel: BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE STEPHEN R. BASSER SAMUEL M. WARD One America Plaza 600 West Broadway, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92101 (619) 230-0800 www.barrack.com OmniVisionsettlement@barrack.com BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC J. GERARD STRANCH IV 227 Second Avenue North, Fourth Floor Nashville, TN 37201-1631 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 www.branstetterlaw.com OmniVisionsettlement@branstetterlaw.com If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to share in the Settlement proceeds, you must submit a Proof of Claim postmarked or received no later than August 30, 2015 establishing that you are entitled to recovery. As further described in the Notice, you will be bound by any judgment entered in the Action, regardless of whether you submit a Proof of Claim, unless you exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Notice, no later than May 15, 2015. Any objections to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or Plaintiffs' Counsel's request for attorneys' fees and expenses must be filed and served, in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Notice, such that they are received no later than May 15, 2015. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE ABOUT THIS NOTICE. DATED: MARCH 4, 2015 BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION PECCAR INC: Faces Class Action Over Defective Tractor-Trailers -------------------------------------------------------------- Aebra Coe, writing for Law360, reports that the nation's third- largest semitrailer maker was hit with a proposed class action on March 31 in New Jersey federal court for allegedly hawking defective tractor-trailers that lose power or stop on the road due to engine defects while touting their durability and quality. According to the complaint filed by two New Jersey trucking companies, PECCAR Inc. -- which makes and sells trucks under the Kenworth and Peterbilt brands -- developed a new, lower-emission engine in 2010 in order to comply with federal emissions standards and the trouble with its trucks soon began. The MX-13 diesel engine, they said, causes PECCAR's tractor-trailers to stall, forcing drivers to pull off to the side of the road and be towed to a repair shop. "The defendants have been aware for several years of the defective nature of the [trucks]. In particular, defendants have seen sharp increases in warranty repair work since the introduction of the engines beginning with the 2010 model year," the complaint said. "Meanwhile, defendants made numerous affirmative statements touting the high quality, durability and reliability of the vehicles, which . . . were false and misleading." The plaintiffs propose a class of all those who purchased or leased trucks with the allegedly defective engines in New Jersey. A similar, proposed nationwide class action has been filed against PACCAR in Seattle federal court and is currently pending. The trucking companies claim PECCAR has had a "longstanding knowledge" of the defects after a sharp increase in warranty repairs and online complaints once the new engine was incorporated in its fleet. Yet, they claim, the company failed to fulfill its obligation to tell consumers about the potentially dangerous defect. Instead, trucking companies have used their warranties for repairs and the manufacturer has only temporarily repaired the trucks by "replac[ing] a defective component with another equally defective and inherently failure-prone system, but has not remedied the defects," the complaint said. The suit alleges violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The proposed lead plaintiffs say their class would contain, at a minimum, thousands of members. A rough price estimate of $100,000 for such a truck could mean the proposed class spent more than $100 million on the vehicles. The plaintiffs, BK Trucking Co. and Santelli Trucking Inc., are represented by James C. Shah and Natalie F. Bennett of Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah LLP, John W. Trimble of Trimble & Armano, Theodore J. Leopold and Leslie M. Kroeger -- lkroeger@cohenmilstein.com -- of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC and James E. Cecchi and Lindsey H. Taylor of Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello PC. The case is BK Trucking Co. et al v. PACCAR Engine Co. et al, case number 1:15-cv-02282, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. PETROBRAS: Executives Named as Defendants in Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Folha de S.Paulo reports that fifteen executives of Petrobras and its foreign subsidiaries are named as defendants in the class action lawsuit against the Brazilian company in the US. Among them are two former presidents of the company, Jose Sergio Gabrielli and Gra‡a Foster, as well as former financial director Almir Barbassa, who stepped down this year. The complaint was filed on March 27 in a New York court by the lawyers of the investor who is leading the lawsuit, the British pension fund USS (Universities Superannuation Scheme). The goal of the lawsuit is to recover the losses of those who applied in ADRs (stock receipts on the New York Stock Exchange) or in Petrobras debt securities from January 2010 to March of this year. The claim of the collective action is that the company and its executives misled investors by disclosing incorrect financial information to the market, which did not consider the corruption scheme revealed by the Car Wash Operation. Independent auditor PwC (PricewaterhouseCoopers), which was responsible for approving the financial statement of Petrobras during that period, is also cited as a defendant, in addition to 15 banks responsible for distributing the company's debt securities in the market. Wanted, Gabrielli and Barbassa said they did not know the content of the class action lawsuit and, therefore, could not comment. Gra‡a Foster did not return phone calls. PwC said that it "does not know of any formal complaint yet." PFIZER INC: Judge Tosses Centrum Multivitamin Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Joe Van Acker, writing for Law360, reports that a New York federal judge on March 31 dismissed a proposed class action accusing Pfizer Inc. of duping consumers into thinking that its Centrum brand multivitamins provide a range of health benefits because studies cited by the plaintiffs didn't have anything to do with Centrum products. U.S. District Judge Roslynn R. Mauskopf said the plaintiffs cited studies concerning the impact of a range of health products on cancer, cardiovascular problems and cognitive function, but the company never claimed its multivitamins would have any impact on those conditions. "Simply put, these studies concerning specific medical conditions in no way correlate to, let alone contradict as plaintiffs allege, the unrelated claims made by Centrum about its health benefits," the judge said. "Such a stark disconnect between the scientific studies and the claims made about Centrum's benefits is fatal to plaintiffs' complaint." In their amended complaint filed in 2014, the plaintiffs targeted a range of products, including Centrum Silver and Centrum Adults, as well as products branded for men and women. They claimed the products' purported effects on immunity, metabolism, environmental stress and physical stress are "wholly contradicted" by scientific studies. In their opposition to Pfizer's motion to dismiss, the plaintiffs had urged the court not to narrowly interpret the results of the studies by Harvard Medical School and other sources cited in their complaint, claiming the studies proved that the benefits touted on Centrum labels actually just come from a normal diet. The plaintiffs said the studies proved that at most, the multivitamins provide no benefit and could even be harmful. But the court found that the plaintiffs had relied too heavily on an editorial piece from Annals of Internal Medicine called "Enough is Enough: Stop Wasting Money on Vitamin and Mineral Supplements" and had simply cited the same studies as the article's authors. Judge Mauskopf said the authors reached their conclusions about the studies by conducting "second-hand analysis" and that as an editorial, the article clearly provides opinions rather than scientific conclusions. The judge also noted that the studies didn't actually address multivitamins, but focused on "food, herbal preparations, packaged drinks" and other products. Further, Pfizer had only claimed that its Centrum products support the immune system, rather than improve it, and the company never made any specific claims that could be debunked by the studies the plaintiffs cited, the judge said. "Because of these 'mismatches,' and other issues, the science does not undercut Centrum's statements regarding its health benefits, and thus, plaintiffs have failed to raise a plausible claim that Centrum's representations are false, deceptive, or misleading," Judge Mauskopf concluded. A spokeswoman for Pfizer told Law360 on April 1 that the company approved of the ruling. "We are pleased with the court's decision to dismiss this case, finding that plaintiffs had failed to support their claims," Pfizer said. "Pfizer is committed to providing truthful information, and the packaging for Centrum contains an accurate and science-based description of the multivitamin." The plaintiffs are represented by Michael R. Reese and Kim E. Richman of Reese Richman LLP, as well as Clayton Halunen, Melissa W. Wolchansky and Susan M. Coler of Halunen & Associates. Pfizer is represented by John Beisner -- john.beisner@skadden.com -- Jessica Miller -- jessica.miller@skadden.com -- Thomas Fox, Geoff Wyatt and Milli Hansen of Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP. The case is Kardovich v. Pfizer Inc., case number 1:13-cv-07378, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. POLLO OPERATIONS: Amended Class Cert. Bid Must be File by May 28 ---------------------------------------------------------------- DAISY, INC., a Florida corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons Plaintiff, v. POLLO OPERATIONS, INC., EDWARD PRIORE and JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants, CASE NO. 2:14-CV-564-FTM-38CM, (M.D. Fla.) is before the Court on Daisy, Inc.'s motion for class certification and request for status conference. The Plaintiff moved the Court for class certification pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, however, on March 27, 2015, the Court dismissed the Plaintiff's Class Action Complaint due to lack of a factual basis to support the class claim. The Court granted leave to amend and provide a factual basis for the class claims. On April 2, 2015, the Plaintiff filed its Amended Complaint and Class Action Claim. Therefore, the instant Motion to Certify the Class is moot. The Plaintiff is given leave to file an amended claim for class certification which includes the amended factual basis included in its Amended Complaint. Accordingly, in an order entered April 28, 2015, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/XQNds2from Leagle.com, District Judge Sheri Polster Chappell ruled that Daisy, Inc.'s Motion for Class Certification and Request for Status Conference is denied as moot. The Plaintiff is given leave to file an Amended Motion for Class Certification. The Amended Motion for Class Certification is due on or before May 28, 2015. Daisy, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Roy W. Foxall, Law Office of Roy W. Foxall, PA, Brian J. Wanca -- BWanca@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson & Wanca & Ryan M. Kelly -- RKelly@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson & Wanca. Pollo Operations, Inc., Defendant, represented by Mary Leslie Smith -- mlsmith@foley.com -- Foley & Lardner, LLP, Catherine A. Miller, Freeborn & Peters, LLP, Jason L. Margolin -- jason.margolin@akerman.com -- Akerman LLP, Jeffrey J. Mayer -- jmayer@freebornpeters.com -- Freeborn & Peters, LLP & Marc H. Kallish -- mkallish@ralaw.com -- Roetzel & Andress, LPA. Edward Priore, Defendant, Pro Se. PREMERA BLUE: Faces Five Data Breach Class Actions -------------------------------------------------- Marianne Kolbasuk McGee, writing for Healthcare Info Security, reports that five class action lawsuits have been filed in federal court against Premera Blue Cross in the wake of a data breach that affected 11 million individuals across the country. Meanwhile, its CEO has provided answers to questions from a U.S. senator regarding the hacker attack. The five lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court in Seattle make similar allegations -- that the company failed to protect customers' confidential information, putting those affected at risk for identity theft. Among the complaints' allegations is that the data breach resulted from Premera's alleged "failures to follow HIPAA." Two of the suits also note that Premera was warned in an April 2014 draft audit report by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management that its IT systems "were vulnerable to attack because of inadequate security precautions". "That audit identified . . . vulnerabilities related to Premera's failure to implement critical security patches and software updates, and warned that 'failure to promptly install important updates increases the risk that vulnerabilities will not be remediated and sensitive data could be breached,'" notes one lawsuit, Tennielle Cossey, et al vs. Premera. That suit also states, "If the [OPM] audit were not enough, the events of 2014 alone should have placed Premera on notice of the need to improve its cyber security systems." The complaint notes that Community Health Systems in August 2014 also revealed a hacker breach that affected 4.5 million patients. "This prompted a 'flash warning' by the FBI to entities in the healthcare industry that it had observed 'malicious actors targeting health care related systems,'" the suit says. The suits are seeking unspecified damages, both "actual and statutory." Among the allegations in some of the suits are violations of the Washington Consumer Protection Act. A Premera spokeswoman declined to comment about the suits. She noted, however, that Premera "expected there would be class action lawsuits filed" against the company in the wake of the breach "because that's typically what happens." Attorney John Yanchunis of the Tampa-based law firm Morgan & Morgan, which is representing plaintiffs in one of the Premera class action suits, says he expects that the cases eventually will be consolidated into one case in the federal court. The Premera breach "is more egregious than the Home Depot or Target breaches because those [credit] cards can be cancelled," he says. "Unlike those other breaches, the information involved in the Premera breach can be used to file fraudulent tax returns and fraudulently secure healthcare in someone else's name." Congressional Scrutiny In addition to the lawsuits, Premera is also dealing with Congressional scrutiny in the wake of the breach. A March 20 letter to Premera CEO Jeffrey Roe, Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., on behalf of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, asked the company to answer 15 questions related to the breach and the company's information security practices. Those questions range from why Premera waited six weeks to publicly announce the breach after its discovery, to whether the hacking incident is related to the Anthem Inc. hacking breach, to steps Premera is taking to bolster its information security in the wake of the incident. In the March 27 response letter to Murray, which Premera provided to Information Security Media Group, Mr. Roe says the public announcement of the breach was delayed based on advice from Mandiant, a consulting firm it had hired to assist in the forensic investigation of the incident. "Mandiant warned Premera about the dangers of making any public announcement about the attack until the following steps could be taken: 1) Mandiant completed scanning all servers and workstations for areas of infection to identify all attack vectors; 2) systems were remediated in a concentrated time to lock the attackers out of system; and, 3) remediation was followed by scanning to verify that the all backdoors were eliminated," the letter states. Mr. Roe also describes in the letter some details about the breach: "Upon penetration of Premera's network, the attackers gained access to log-in credentials and then deployed other tools and tactics to gain broad access to Premera's network." He adds: "Mandiant's investigation to date has identified only intrusion but no exfiltration of information from Premera's systems. Mandiant has not conclusively determined the initial vector of compromise. That is, the [company doesn't] know if the malware came from a phishing email, a contaminated website, or another source of intrusion. The letter also notes that Mandiant "found no evidence that the cyberattack on Premera was the result of, or was related to, any of the items identified in the [2014] OPM [audit] report." Plus, Roe notes: "Premera is not in a position to opine about whether the Premera and Anthem attacks were connected or which attack occurred first. Because these attacks are the subject of active FBI investigations, Premera encourages your office to contact the FBI for additional information." Premera is implementing several Mandiant recommendations to bolster security moving forward, Mr. Roe says in the letter. In addition to removing all malware and backdoors from its IT systems in response to this cyberattack, Mr. Roe says Premera has implemented a number of system enhancements, including, among others: Deploying multiple-factor authentication for remote access to Premera's network; Scanning servers, desktops and laptops as a requirement for continued use of devices on the network; Installing enhanced monitoring tools to provide reports of any new attacks on our computer networks; Enhancing and expanding security and system event logging capabilities; and Engaging a service provider for advanced monitoring services. State Scrutiny Besides the lawsuits and the Congressional scrutiny, Premera is also facing a probe from insurance officials in three states -- Washington, Oregon and Alaska. Washington Insurance Commissioner Michael Kreidler said that the states will conduct a "market conduct examination" of Premera related to the breach. The examination will include on-site reviews of the insurer's financial books, records, transactions and how they relate to its activities in the marketplace, Kreidler explained in a statement. PREMERA BLUE: More People Join Data Breach Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Elisa Hahn, writing for KING 5 News, reports that the fallout from Premera's massive data breach continues as more people join the class action lawsuit against the largest insurer in our state. A Tacoma woman believes she's already dealing with the impact of that data breach. Maria Sullivan is one of hundreds of people who have signed on with a law firm handling a class action lawsuit against Premera. "That's very angering," said Ms. Sullivan. "Working like I do in the healthcare field I have to be so careful with what I even leave on my desk. That every paper is turned over. So they should be that careful." Ms. Sullivan works as an account representative for a local hospital. So she is well aware of the kind of private information that may have been exposed in Premera's data breach. Ms. Sullivan signed up with Pfau, Cochran, Vertetis, & Amala to join the class action lawsuit against Premera on March 31. She believes thieves obtained her private information through the insurer's cyber attack. Someone already filed a false tax return in her name. "Stressed! Stressed! And on top of my tax returns now I'm starting to receive stuff from China," said Ms. Sullivan. She showed us one of several small packages that started arriving in the mail, items she never ordered from companies she's never heard of. According to her attorney Darrell Cochran, the information hackers got their hands on has the potential to do a lifetime of damage. "Premera was warned it didn't have security safeguards in place, and that there were steps they could have taken to prevent this level of a cyber attack," said Mr. Cochran. Three weeks before the data breach in May of 2014, auditors from the federal Office of Personnel Management informed the insurer that network security patches were not being implemented in a timely manner, and that when it came to access control, Premera's data center did not contain controls they typically observe at similar facilities. According to the insurer, the breach went undetected until this past January, and Premera didn't tell its customers until mid-March when the problem was fixed. A spokesperson for Premera said he couldn't comment on pending litigation, but said their security consultant ". . . found no evidence that the cyber attack was related to issues in the federal audit." Cyber-security expert Brian Seely says Premera's offer for 2 years of free credit monitoring is twice as long than most data breach cases. But with birth dates and social security numbers stolen, it's likely not long enough. "Your information isn't just magically not going to be stolen," said Mr. Seely. "It's always going to be stolen and out there and someone has it, who is going to be even more irresponsible than Premera." At the time this article was written, about 166,000 customers had signed up for the free credit monitoring. PRIORITY ENERGY: Faces "Matthews" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------- Steven Matthews, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Priority Energy Services, LLC, Case No. 6:15-cv-00448-MHS (E.D. Tex., April 24, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week. Priority Energy Services, LLC offers flow-back, well testing, and other oilfield services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Andrew Josephson, Esq. FIBICH LEEBRON COPELAND BRIGGS JOSEPHSON 1150 Bissonnet St Houston, TX 77005 Telephone: (713) 751-0025 Facsimile: (713) 751-0030 E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com RED HAWK: Faces "Thibodeaux" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Bryan Thibodeaux, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Red Hawk Energy Services, LLC, Case No. 5:15-cv-00331 (W.D. Tex., April 24, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. Red Hawk Energy Services, LLC is an oilfield service company providing pressure control services to the oilfield with operations throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew Dunlap, Esq. Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq. FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON 1150 Bissonnet Houston, TX 77005 Telephone: (713) 751-0025 Facsimile: (713) 751-0030 E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com adunlap@fibichlaw.com litkin@fibichlaw.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) 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 RELIANCE PRESSURE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages --------------------------------------------------------------- Bryan Thibodeaux, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Reliance Pressure Control, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-00185 (S.D. Tex., April 24, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. Red Hawk Energy Services, LLC is an oilfield service company providing pressure control services to the oilfield with operations throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew Dunlap, Esq. Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq. FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON 1150 Bissonnet Houston, TX 77005 Telephone: (713) 751-0025 Facsimile: (713) 751-0030 E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com adunlap@fibichlaw.com litkin@fibichlaw.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) 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 RESONANT INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP on March 31 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit against Resonant, Inc. and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Central District of California, and docketed under 15-cv-02369, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased Resonant securities between August 14, 2014 and February 26, 2015, inclusive. This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you are a shareholder who purchased Resonant securities during the Class Period, you have until May 18, 2015 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, x237. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. Resonant is a development stage company, which focuses on creating filter designs for radio frequency ("RF") front-ends in the mobile device industry. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, prospects and performance. Specifically, during the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) there were errors in the valuation of warrant liabilities, weighted average shares outstanding and earnings per share, and the notes to the condensed consolidated financial statements for the three and six months ended June 30, 2014 and 2013; (2) the Company's disclosure controls and procedures were not effective as of June 30, 2014; (3) the Company would be unable to meet Milestone 4 pursuant to its development agreement in the first quarter of 2015; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial statements and statements concerning its business operations and prospects were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On October 8, 2014, the Company filed a Form 8-K with the SEC revealing that its previously issued unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements for the three and six month periods ended June 30, 2014 and 2013 included in its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2014 filed with the SEC on August 14, 2014 ("2014 2nd Quarter 10-Q") needs to be restated. The Company also revealed that it identified a material weakness in its internal controls as of June 30, 2014. On this news, shares of Resonant fell $0.13 per share from its previous closing price to close at $6.35 per share on October 9, 2014, damaging investors. On October 10, 2014, the Company filed an amended Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2014 with the SEC (the "Amended 2014 2nd Quarter 10-Q"), which restated its unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements and related disclosures for the three and six months ended June 30, 2014 and 2013. On this news, shares of Resonant fell $0.25 per share from its previous closing price to close at $6.05 per share on October 13, 2014, further damaging investors. On February 26, 2015, the Company announced that the completed duplexer design it delivered to its first customer for consideration did not meet all the specifications in the development agreement. On this news, shares of Resonant fell $5.07 per share, or over 32%, from its previous closing price to close at $10.40 per share on February 27, 2015, further damaging investors. With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and San Diego, The Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. RICK'S CABARET: Settles Strippers' Wage Class Action for $15MM -------------------------------------------------------------- Rich Calder, writing for New York Post, reports that the owners of Rick's Cabaret in Midtown avoided an upcoming trial by agreeing to set aside $15 million to settle a class-action lawsuit brought by strippers who claimed the jiggle joint wrongfully retained their tips and classified them as independent contractors -- not in- house employees -- to avoid paying minimum wage. The settlement comes after Manhattan federal Judge Paul Engelmayer in November ordered Rick's parent company, RCI Entertainment New York, to shell out $10.8 million in damages but noted RCI could be liable to pay current and former dancers millions of dollars more for other wage-law violations since 2005 should the case go to trial April 27. Complaints that the judge opted not to rule on included dancers being required to kick back $60 per shift to the "house" to strut their stuff. RCI president Eric Langan said the company believes the settlement "is in the best interest of shareholders to resolve this case now, to eliminate uncertainty and the ongoing cost of litigation." He estimated RCI will ultimately pay between $9.5 million and $12.5 million when the total class-action claims are known. The suit alleging the club violated federal and state labor laws was originally filed on behalf of 50 dancers; roughly 1,900 others are also in line to cash in. Instead of being paid wages by Rick's management, dancers said they were paid directly from customers -- including what the called "performance fees" for private lap dances. Rick's had contended in legal papers it "exercised minimal control" over the dancers, and the club had countersued while claiming dancers' "performance fees" should count towards any statutory wage obligation by Rick's. Reviewers on the Web site Yelp said that the club's bartenders may have been shady with their tips as well. "The bartender refused to give my friend his credit card back until they could see how much he was going to tip them," wrote Kenny C. "Real douchey." Others on the site raved about their $10 lunch specials. Judge Engelmayer previously ripped Rick's in a September decision, concluding honchos there "regulated almost every aspect of the dancers' behavior within the club," including forbidding cellphone use and gum chewing. ROCKING 8: "Arnwine" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Richard A. Arnwine, and Burnice R. Rusk, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Rocking 8 Transportation, Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv-01088 (S.D. Tex., April 24, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Rocking 8 Transportation, Inc. owns and operates a trucking and transportation business in the state of Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Austin W. Anderson, Esq. ANDERSON2X, PLLC 819 N. Upper Broadway Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 E-mail: austin@a2xlaw.com S BROS INC: "Guzman" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Margarito Guzman, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. S Bros. Inc. d/b/a S. Bros. Pharmacy, Jack Eaton, Jerry Gold, and Tsabikos Foutoulis, Case No. 1:15-cv-02347 (E.D.N.Y., April 24, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a pharmacy with a principal place of business at 176 Lee Avenue, Brooklyn, New York 11211. The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter Hans Cooper, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC 708 Third Avenue, 6th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 209-3933 Facsimile: (212) 209-7102 E-mail: pcooper@jcpclaw.com SALLIE MAE: 11th Cir. Revives Floyd Case, Remands to Dist. Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- In ROBERT D. FLOYD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SALLIE MAE, INC., JOHN DOE, Defendants-Appellees, NO. 13-13397, NON-ARGUMENT CALENDAR, Robert D. Floyd appealed the district court's order granting Sallie Mae, Inc.'s motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Floyd argued that the district court improperly found his case to be moot after he received and rejected an offer of judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68. The district court based its finding on an offer that would have provided him complete relief on his individual claims while giving no relief to the putative class. The United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, on May 4, 2015, reversed the order of dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and remanded for further proceedings. According to the Eleventh Circuit, in Stein v. Buccaneers Limited Partnership, 772 F.3d 698 (11th Cir. 2014), the named plaintiffs in a putative class action received offers of judgment under Rule 68 before moving for class certification. The plaintiffs did not accept those offers. This Court held that the unaccepted offers of judgment did not render the named plaintiffs' complaint moot. "Based on this precedent, we are bound to hold that Sallie Mae's offer of judgment did not render Floyd's complaint moot, and that the district court erred when it dismissed for lack of subject- matter jurisdiction," the Eleventh Circuit held in its opinion, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/ozrkpofrom Leagle.com. SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: Judge Rejects Securities Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Ben Conarck and Dan Ivers, writing for Law360, report that a Massachusetts federal judge on March 31 tossed a proposed putative securities class action accusing Sarepta Therapeutics Inc. of misleading investors over the chances of its muscular dystrophy drug eteplirsen hitting the market, saying that the biopharma company couched its optimistic statements with proper disclosures. The complaint had pointed to statements about the strength of U.S. Food and Drug Administration trials for the drug as misleading because the trials utilized a population of only 10 to 12 patients and held up statements about a purported benefit of the drug as misleading because they were skewed by the exclusion of two patients who lost ambulation entirely despite responding to the drug. U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani disagreed, saying that the statements were not misleading because Sarepta had repeatedly disclosed before and after the start of the class period that it had excluded data from those two patients. Judge Talwani mentioned that in October 2012, before the start of the class period, the company had disclosed the trial results and subsequent interpretations for both the intention-to-treat population and the modified intention-to-treat population, or mITT, the latter of which excluded the two patients. She said that the company had made disclosures that made clear that "the market and scientific community was informed that the company was basing its more favorable results on an mITT population. "That the company defended use of mITT population and cast its trial results in a positive light does not detract from this disclosure, as '[a] defendant does not have a duty to cast descriptions of its business in the most negative light,'" Judge Talwani said, referring to an earlier Massachusetts court decision. "Accordingly, claims that the company made material misstatements or omissions based on Sarepta's use of the mITT population must fail." Eteplirsen, aimed at improving muscle function in patients suffering from Duchenne muscular dystrophy, had been undergoing clinical trials since 2011, with the hopes of eventually gaining approval from the FDA, according to the suit. As part of the testing, muscular dystrophy patients were given a course of the drug, and administrators measured regression or stabilization trends in the patients' ability to walk for six minutes at a time. Judge Talwani also dismissed claims that Sarepta did not adequately disclose in a July 2013 press release that the FDA had raised concerns about the methodology behind the trials, again ruling that the allegations were undermined by disclosures made by the company. "Defendants were under no duty, at that time, to delve into the FDA's specific concerns over the sufficiency of eteplirsen's potential NDA application, at least absent their making of statements that would contradict such concerns," Judge Talwani said. "Moreover, the company's statements that it was encouraged by the feedback and believed its data would be sufficient for a filing constituted an expression of opinion, which as described above is not actionable unless plaintiff shows that these beliefs were not subjectively held." Christopher G. Green -- Christopher.Green@ropesgray.com -- of Ropes & Gray LLP, an attorney for Sarepta, told Law360 on April 1 that they are "gratified by the court's dismissal of this securities class action. "Our view, of course, is the court got this exactly right," Mr. Green said. "This decision represents another dismissal in a growing body of case law dismissing these actions against biotech companies [that] are navigating the FDA approval process." Sarepta Therapeutics Inc. is represented by Christopher G. Green, Mark D. Vaughn -- Mark.Vaughn@ropesgray.com -- Michael J. Vito and Alexia De Vincentis of Ropes & Gray LLP. The plaintiffs are represented by William B. Federman of Federman & Sherwood and Alan L. Kovacs of the Law Office of Alan L. Kovacs. The case is Corban v. Sarepta Pharmaceutical Inc. et al., case number 1:14-cv-10201, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. SPOKEO INC: Wants Supreme Court to Uphold 9th Cir. Ruling --------------------------------------------------------- National Law Review reports that in the closely-watched case of Spokeo, Inc. v Robins, the Solicitor General recently filed an amicus brief urging the Court to deny certiorari and leave in place the 9th Circuit's holding, which could encourage the rising tide of privacy class action litigation. The Solicitor General's brief -- co-authored by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau -- argued that the dissemination of inaccurate information in violation of a plaintiff's statutory right is a cognizable injury giving rise to Article III standing, even absent an allegation of any independent harm. As many privacy plaintiffs continue to rely on statutory violations to clear Article III's "case or controversy" threshold -- a prerequisite to bringing suit in any Federal Court -- any resulting opinion by the Supreme Court may have significant down-stream implications. In Spokeo, the defendant operated a directory website that compiles publicly-available information to create a profile on individuals. The Ninth Circuit found that under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the plaintiff had standing to sue the defendant for displaying allegedly inaccurate information, despite the plaintiff's failure to allege he had suffered any actual resulting harm. That is, the Fair Credit Reporting Act created a statutory right, the violation of which was sufficient to confer standing. Spokeo is currently seeking certiorari, arguing that Article III of the United States Constitution requires a concrete harm independent of any Congressionally-created right. And last October -- after Facebook, Google, eBay, the Chamber of Commerce, and others filed Amicus briefs -- the Supreme Court asked the Solicitor General whether it should grant certiorari, a move that often indicates the Court's increased willingness to consider a case. The Solicitor General's brief provides two new insights into how this case may unfold. First, in cases where the Supreme Court has asked the Solicitor General for an opinion, the Supreme Court has followed the Solicitor General's recommendation and denied certiorari about 80% of the time. See Margaret Meriwether Cordray & Richard Cordray, The Solicitor General's Changing Role in Supreme Court Litigation, 51 B.C. L. Rev. 1323, 1334 n.51 (2010) (collecting studies from 1998 through the present). Thus, at least as a statistical matter, the new filing significantly decreases the chance that the Court takes up this case. Second, the Solicitor General's brief attempts to reframe the question for the Court. While Spokeo seeks to review Congress's authority (or lack thereof) to create a justiciable controversy absent any actual, concrete harm, the Solicitor General focuses instead on the specific statutory right discussed in the Ninth Circuit's opinion -- the right to prevent the dissemination of inaccurate information, and particularly that right under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. If the Court accepts this formulation and nonetheless grants cert and hears the case, any holding would be significantly narrower and may have limited impact on other privacy and consumer protection statues that do not regulate the dissemination of inaccurate information. This is not the first time the Court has flirted with clarifying the Article III standing requirements in privacy class actions. As previously covered by Inside Privacy, in 2012, the Court granted certiorari but then later dismissed as improvidently granted a similar class action under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, First American Financial Corp. v. Edwards, even though neither plaintiff nor any member of the putative class could allege that he personally was overcharged because of defendant's conduct. Only time will tell whether Spokeo will put this issue to rest, but Inside Privacy will continue to monitor the case for new developments. SPRINT CORP: Settles Nextel Merger Class Action for $131 Million ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that Sprint Corp has agreed to a $131 million settlement of a class-action lawsuit accusing the third-largest U.S. wireless carrier of defrauding investors about problems dating back to its $36 billion merger with Nextel Communications Inc in 2005. The all-cash settlement made public on March 30 resolves claims that Sprint, former Chief Executive Gary Forsee and other officials fraudulently inflated the company's stock and bond prices between October 2006 and February 2008. Investors said the defendants falsely touted that Sprint was receiving billions of dollars of benefits from the merger and improving its subscriber base by tightening credit standards. Instead, investors said Sprint was struggling to integrate its cellular networks and was losing hundreds of thousands of subscribers, culminating in a $29.7 billion goodwill writedown in February 2008. All of the defendants denied liability in agreeing to settle the 6-year-old lawsuit, according to settlement papers filed with the federal court in Wichita, Kansas. The preliminary accord requires court approval. Sprint spokeswoman Stephanie Vinge said the Overland Park, Kansas- based company settled to avoid the cost and distraction of litigation. "Sprint has and will continue to operate in complete adherence with all federal securities laws," she added. Japan's SoftBank Corp now owns 80 percent of Sprint. The lead plaintiffs are the United Steelworkers' Pace Industry Union-Management Pension Fund, Skandia Life Insurance Co and the West Virginia Investment Management Board. Their lawyers, led by Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd and Motley Rice, said the payout represented 12.1 percent of the estimated $1.079 billion of damages, a percentage they called "very large." Tor Gronborg, a Robbins Geller partner, declined to comment. The plaintiffs' lawyers plan to seek legal fees of up to 22 percent of the settlement, plus up to $4 million for expenses, court papers show. The company has in recent months offered discounts to entice prospective subscribers to switch carriers. Its rivals include AT&T Corp and Verizon Communications Inc. The case is Bennett et al v. Sprint Nextel Corp et al, U.S. District Court, District of Kansas, No. 09-02122. SUCCESS EXPRESS: Faces "Anger" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jonas Anger v. Success Express Inc., Allan Weitman and John Does #1-10, Case No. 1:15-cv-03252-PKC (S.D.N.Y., April 24, 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 courier business located at 550 Eighth Avenue, Mezzanine, New York, N.Y. 10018. The Plaintiff is represented by: William Coudert Rand, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM COUDERT RAND 488 Madison Avenue, Suite 1100 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 286-1425 Facsimile: (646) 688-3078 E-mail: wcrand@wcrand.com TAKATA CORP: Three Canadian Law Firms File Airbag Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that airbag manufacturer Takata has seen its share of lawsuits filed in the U.S. alleging the airbags contain defects in the metal inflators that cause the airbags to explode into flying pieces of metal. Considering the U.S. is full of these lawsuits, Canadian law firms are now entering the rink with their own lawsuits representing residents of Canada. Three Canadian firms have filed lawsuits against Takata, and a fourth law firm is preparing to do the same. If the legal complaints are certified by a judge, it's likely all the lawsuits will be consolidated into one huge class-action suit. Three Ontario plaintiffs are seeking combined damages of $2.4 billion Canadian dollars on behalf of owners of vehicles equipped with Takata-made air bags. However, the numbers could change once Takata factors in the fiscal year's earnings forecast. One of the involved Canadian law firms is Merchant Law Group LLP, which has launched a class-action lawsuit against Takata that could include 400,000 vehicles in Canada. The lawsuit will ask for financial compensation or benefits for affected Canadians who own or lease one of the defective vehicles listed below. Acura 2002-2003 Acura CL and TL 2003-2006 Acura MDX 2005 Acura RL BMW 2000-2005 3-series sedan and wagon 2000-2006 3-series coupe and convertible 2001-2006 M3 coupe and convertible Chrysler 2005-2008 Chrysler 300 2007-2008 Aspen Dodge/Ram 2003-2008 Dodge Ram 1500 2005-2008 Ram 2500, Dakota, and Durango 2006-2008 Ram 3500 and 4500 2008 Ram 5500 Ford 2004 Ranger 2005-2006 GT 2005-2007 Mustang Honda 2001-2007 Accord 2001-2005 Civic 2002-2006 CR-V 2002-2004 Odyssey 2003-2011 Element 2003-2007 Pilot 2006 Ridgeline Infiniti 2001-2004 Infiniti I30/I35 2002-2003 Infiniti QX4 2003-2005 Infiniti FX35/FX45 2006 Infiniti M35/M45 Lexus 2002-2005 SC430 Mazda 2003-2007 Mazda 6 2006-2007 Mazdaspeed 6 2004-2008 Mazda RX-8 2004-2005 MPV 2004 B-series Mitsubishi 2004-2005 Lancer 2006-2007 Raider Nissan 2001-2003 Maxima 2001-2004 Pathfinder 2002-2006 Nissan Sentra Pontiac 2003-2005 Vibe Saab: 2005 9-2X Subaru 2003-2005 Baja, Legacy, Outback 2004-2005 Impreza, Impreza WRX, Impreza WRX STI Toyota 2002-2005 Toyota Corolla and Sequoia 2003-2005 Matrix, Tundra To learn more about the Merchant Law Group Takata airbag class- action lawsuit, visit www.MerchantLaw.com TARGET CORP: No Benefit Achieved in Data Breach Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------- Randy Maniloff, Esq. of White and Williams LLP, in an article for PropertyCasualty 360, reports that despite the several dozen class action-styled lawsuits filed against retailer Target, following the late-2013 discovery that hackers had stolen millions of customers' credit and debit card numbers and contact information, it was a certainty that one line was never going to be spoken in any courtroom: ladies and gentlemen of the jury. That the Target class actions would be resolved by settlement was as predictable as the outcome of an NCAA Basketball Tournament game between a number one and number 16 seed. So it could not have come as a surprise to anyone when, on March 19, just a little over a year after the first data breach lawsuits were filed, the announcement came from a Minnesota federal court: Target would be filling up a shopping cart with cash to put the matter behind it. The settlement, albeit subject to final approval in November, looks like this. Target will put $10 million into a fund to be used to pay its affected customers -- "guests" as it prefers to call them. The court will be asked to approve $6.75 million in attorney's fees on top of that. Target will also be saddled with several million dollars in administrative costs. In an Associated Press story, Vincent Esades, the lead counsel for the plaintiffs, stated that Target's total settlement costs could reach $25 million. The settlement calls for two types of recoveries. Those able to prove that they actually suffered financial losses, on account of their personal or financial information being compromised, can recover up to $10,000. Such losses could be for, among other things, unauthorized credit or debit card charges that were unreimbursed (that is, if a bank somehow did not remove an unauthorized charge), the time spent addressing such charges (up to two hours at $10 per hour), hiring someone to help correct their credit report, higher interest rates, purchasing credit monitor services, and so on. Surely there are people out there in this category -- but not many (especially if the claims are carefully scrutinized). Quantifiable losses? The vast majority of those eligible to make a claim will not have documentation that they suffered any of these types of losses, however. Because they didn't. The good news is that, despite how serious the data breach issue is portrayed, most people suffer no quantifiable losses on account of one. With no evidence of losses, those in this group will be able to sign a form, stating that they used a credit or debit card at Target during the three- week data breach period, and then be entitled to a recovery. Presto. Payments from the $10 million fund will first be made to those who can prove that they actually suffered financial losses. Then, all those people in the just-sign-your-name category will share equally in what's left. The more people who make claims, the less each claimant will receive. So don't tell your friends. One hundred million people could be eligible for the settlement. If 100 million people make claims, then each one will receive 10 cents. Bazooka Joe will be happy about that. In reality, based on statistics in other cases, just a few percent of the class members will make claims. Although, perhaps in this case, more will do so than usual, given how high-profile it has been. In any event, each claimant with a non-documented loss will probably receive about enough for somewhere between a latte and a pepperoni pizza. That's more than they deserve, but there is only so much that can be done to prevent such an unjustified payment in a settlement like this. The real problem with the Target settlement is not that it achieved no benefit. It did. People who can prove that they actually suffered financial losses, on account of their personal or financial information being compromised, have been provided with a simple means to recover up to $10,000. That seems fair. It's hard to begrudge them. But to achieve this worthwhile objective -- for so few -- will come at an enormous price: two years of litigation, the payment of nearly $7 million in legal fees, not to mention millions spent by Target on lawyers, millions of dollars in administrative costs and a boatload of money doled out to people who unquestionably suffered no losses whatsoever. Surely there was an easier and less expensive way to arrive at this outcome. This data suffers from a breach -- one of common sense. TEX-STAR WATER: Faces "Prine" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Kaine Prine, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Tex-Star Water Services, LLC, Case No. 6:15-cv-00446 (E.D. Tex., April 24, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek. Tex-Star Water Services, LLC is an oilfield services company proving well related services to oil companies and operators. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Andrew Josephson, Esq. FIBICH LEEBRON COPELAND BRIGGS JOSEPHSON 1150 Bissonnet St Houston, TX 77005 Telephone: (713) 751-0025 Facsimile: (713) 751-0030 E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com TOYOTA MOTOR: Stanley Firm Sues Over Car System Hacking Risk ------------------------------------------------------------ Doug Newcomb, writing for Forbes, reports that connected car technology faces no shortages of potential roadblocks, including industry standardization, data management, consumer acceptance and government regulation, just to name a few. Central among these are legal issues confronting not only automakers currently building and selling connected cars, but all stakeholders -- automotive suppliers, technology providers and also government officials -- involved and that view significant benefits to connecting cars to each other and to traffic infrastructure to reduce traffic, fuel consumption, emissions and, most importantly, the number of lives lost in car accidents. These legal challenges have now expanded to include what appears to be the first class action lawsuit brought against automakers for selling connected vehicles with "known defects" that could enable the cars to be hacked. The Stanley Law Group of Dallas, Texas, filed the suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against Toyota, Ford and GM. Lead attorney Marc Stanley said in a statement that the automakers have "deliberately hidden the dangers associated with car computer systems, misleading consumers." The suit alleges that the "defendants have known, their CAN [controller area network] bus-equipped vehicles for years have been (and currently are) susceptible to hacking, and their ECUs cannot detect and stop hacker attacks on the CAN buses. For this reason, defendants' vehicles are not secure, and are therefore not safe," the lawsuit states. The lawsuit also claims that car owners were charged "substantial premiums" for CAN bus-equipped vehicles and that automakers engaged in "fraudulent business practices" by failing to disclose security flaws" that produced "defective vehicles [that] are worth far less than . . . defect-free vehicles." This last claim is puzzling since the CAN bus has been the standardized electronic backbone of automotive safety, security, comfort and drivetrain systems for virtually all passenger vehicles around the world since 1996. Aside from highly publicized research-based efforts that could be better characterized as vehicle "tampering" rather than "hacking," there has been no worldwide malicious attempt to undermine CAN bus systems to date. The lawsuit tends to focus its language solely on CAN bus connectivity, and how this nearly 30-year-old proven automotive architecture is somehow the new-found source of hacking. The press release announcing the lawsuit mentions how the vulnerabilities of connected systems recently have become a high- level concern among lawmakers and a subject of media scrutiny. A recent vehicle security and driver privacy report commissioned by Sen. Edward Markey (D-MA) claims that most automakers have failed to address data security and driver privacy concerns as cars have become connected. The release of the report was preceded by a segment on 60 Minutes that showed correspondent Lesley Stahl losing control of a car that had been hacked in a controlled environment. While the 60 Minutes segment was mostly hype on the subject of connected cars, Senator Markey's concerns are well-founded and securing connected cars needs to be a priority for all involved. While automakers and other organizations are diligently working on the issue, the question now is whether this new lawsuit can succeed. Given that connected vehicles -- or for that matter all connected devices -- cannot be guaranteed 100-percent hack-free, such a lawsuit may ultimately have little merit. But it could set a dangerous precedent for this nascent technology and have a chilling effect. And serve as an unnecessary roadblock to the benefits that can come from connected cars. TRADER JOE'S: Attorney Plans to Extend Arsenic-Tainted Wine Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kyle Barnett, writing for The Louisiana Record, reports that a Reserve attorney who filed a class action lawsuit against a who's who list of discount wine producers and sellers says he is now planning a similar suit in Puerto Rico and looking forward to combining all similar lawsuits filed elsewhere into a nationwide action. Daniel Becnel -- dbecnel@becnellaw.com -- lead partner of Reserve- based Becnel Law Firm, filed suit against 100 discount wine makers and sellers for the arsenic content in their wines, which he claims can be harmful to consumers. The lawsuit is expected to be worth several million dollars in damages for what is described in the filing as several years of neglect and exposing consumers to dangerous levels of toxins. "It is all of the low end wines that have arsenic in them all. The big player, Trader Joe's, sells a lot of them and Franzia sells a lot of them," he said. Mr. Becnel said the danger in arsenic consumption is mainly for heavy wine drinkers, but even for moderate drinkers it poses a health risk. "All of the toxicologists and medical experts say it has a propensity to build up and can kill you ultimately, especially if you are some of these people like alcoholics that drink the stuff day and night," he said. The class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana on March 27 on behalf of lead plaintiff Laura Marvin, a Baton Rouge resident, and all similarly affected Louisiana residents. The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge James Brady. The lawsuit argues that by not providing a proper filtering process for their wines, the defendants were able to undercut competitors and sell their products at a lower price. However, The Wine Institute, a trade organization representing California wineries, issued a statement saying they stand by the quality of their members' wines. "Unfounded litigation has raised questions about the safety of California wine. We want to assure you that the health and safety of consumers is of the greatest importance to our wineries and that wine produced by our members is perfectly safe," the statement said. In fact, The Wine Institute maintains that arsenic is naturally occurring in many different types of foods and drinks, including drinking water, but has never been regulated in wines. "Arsenic is prevalent in the natural environment in air, soil and water and food. As an agricultural product, wines from throughout the world contain trace amounts of arsenic as do juices, vegetables, grains and other alcohol beverages and this is nothing new," The Wine Institute's statement said. The trade association noted that consumers would have to drink 14 glasses of wine per day, or nearly three bottles of wine, to equal the arsenic limit allowable in drinking water by the Environmental Protection Association. The legal action mirrors several other lawsuits that have been filed against the same wine producers and sellers across the country. Mr. Becnel said it is his hope the court will allow for all lawsuits to be combined into a multi-district litigation (MDL), which would allow for attorneys to provide representation on behalf of anyone nationwide who may have been exposed to arsenic thorough the defendants' products. "We are going to file for a motion for an MDL to concentrate all of the cases from all over the country. There have not been many filed. Some have been filed in state courts in California," he said. However, even before a motion to create an MDL can be heard, Mr. Becnel has indicated his law firm is going to pursue similar cases in other jurisdictions. "We are filing one in Puerto Rico, probably tomorrow, and there are a few others that are going to be filed around the country," he said. TRIAD GUARANTY: Judge Rejects Securities Class Action ----------------------------------------------------- Ben Conarck, writing for Law360, reports that a North Carolina federal judge on March 30 dismissed a proposed securities class action accusing officers of mortgage issuer Triad Guaranty Inc. of misleading investors over the soundness of its modified insurance pools and the inherent risks involved, saying that the complaint did not sufficiently plead scienter, among other deficiencies. U.S. District Judge N. Carlton Tilley Jr. went against the recommendation of a magistrate judge, ruling that the plaintiff's allegations as a whole did not sufficiently plead scienter to the extent that it was at least as compelling as any other inference one might draw from the alleged facts, and granted the motion to dismiss filed by individual defendants former Triad President and CEO Mark K. Tonnesen, who has since retired, and former Senior Vice President and CFO Kenneth W. Jones, who is now the CEO and principal finance officer of a Triad subsidiary, according to its website. "Instead, plaintiff's allegations support the more convincing inference that Triad, Tonnesen and Jones used their business judgment when it came to the company's pricing practices, were motivated to succeed in the changing mortgage insurance industry and, once aware that independent evaluators recommended immediate changes to bidding, revised the company's practices for doing so," Judge Tilley said. He continued, "In other words, the inference of scienter is not as strong as the opposing inference that defendants were conducting their business in an effort to build a stronger market share and, if anything, may have been at most negligent in some of their practices." Tilley also dinged the complaint for relying, improperly at times, on five confidential witnesses, all of whom were described as former high-ranking Triad officers or employees. The class period spans from the fall of 2006 to April 2008, during which time Triad insured mortgages through a "flow channel" on a one-by-one basis and a "bulk" channel, in which it underwrote mortgages packaged and pooled together into securities initiated by underwriters of mortgage-backed securities, mortgage lenders and mortgage investors such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, according to the second amended complaint. The complaint accused the defendants of manipulating Triad's insurance pricing models in order to underbid competitors, increase market share and artificially boost revenue, all while assuring investors that Triad's business practices were sound, its risk levels appropriate and its business properly capitalized for such risks. In early 2007, officers of the company began to raise red flags about the process Triad was using to assess risks, even going so far as to prepare a formal evaluation demonstrating that the risk was resulting in below market value insurance policies, the plaintiffs alleged in their complaint. The presentation led Triad to retain a consulting firm and, based on its cautioning advice, rein in its practices, the complaint said. Yet even as the housing market deteriorated, defendants painted a rosy picture and issued misleading statements, plaintiffs said, before market revelations beginning in August 2007 caused stock prices to drop sharply soon after. In addition to ruling that plaintiffs did not adequately plead scienter, Jude Tilley also defended many of the statements made by Triad as puffery, and therefore inactionable. The lead plaintiffs are represented by Jack Reise -- JReise@rgrdlaw.com -- Stephen R. Astley -- SAstley@rgrdlaw.com -- and Elizabeth A. Shonson of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP. The defendants are represented by William K. Davis of Bell Davis & Pitt PA and Richard A. Rosen -- rrosen@paulweiss.com -- and Robyn F. Tarnofsky -- rtarnofsky@paulweiss.com -- of Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP. The case is Phillips v. Triad Guaranty Inc. et al., case number 1:09-cv-00071, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. TRINITY INFRASTRUCTURE: I-635 Residents File Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Jeff Paul, writing for CBSDFW.COM, reports that residents in a north Dallas neighborhood have filed a class-action lawsuit after more than 20 homes and businesses claim construction along I-635 has severely damaged their homes. CBSDFW first reported the situation back in March of 2014. Several residents claimed several large cracks in their walls, ceilings and floors were caused by the LBJ Express Tollway project. "We're just scared of what's next. We don't know what's going to happen, if the roof is falling tomorrow," said Iveth Cazares. The home Ms. Cazares grew up in is slowing splitting apart. She said she can see the problem from the backyard. "When construction is going on, it's not just the noise and that we can't sleep at night. You can feel the shaking, the house shaking," said Ms. Cazares. One year after reporting the problem to the construction firm tasked with the project, Trinity Infrastructure, residents and business owners claim nothing has been done to fix their problems. "Their whole lives they've worked to pay this home off. And now that they've paid this home off, it's worth nothing?" questioned Ms. Cazares. The lawsuit claims the vibration from pile driving, deep excavation and heavy traffic loads caused the damages to the homes. When reached for comment, a spokesperson for Trinity Infrastructure released a statement: "Trinity Infrastructure is aware of the class action law suit, however we are unable to comment on pending litigation." "I just want them to think of themselves living here," said Ms. Cazares. "Would they feel safe?" When reached for comment, a spokesperson for TxDot did not want to discuss the matter because the agency was not named in the lawsuit. UNION PACIFIC: Deprives Landowners Property Rights, Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Lidia Rivera, Everardo Rivera, Enrique Molina, and Timothy Cook, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-01842 (N.D. Cal., April 23, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the landowners who were deprived of their property rights by concealing the construction of an oil and gas line within the subsurface of the railroad's right-of-way and without due notice or compensation to the Class Members for such use and occupancy. Union Pacific Railroad Company is a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business in Omaha, Nebraska. Union operates a railroad transportation system in 23 states west of the Mississippi river. The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew G. Giacomini, Esq. John T. Cu, SBN 207402 Geoffrey R. Pittman, Esq. HANSON BRIDGETT LLP 425 Market Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 777-3200 Facsimile: (415) 541-9366 E-mail: agiacomini@hansonbridgett.com jcu@hansonbridgett.com gpittman@hansonbridgett.com UNITED KINGDOM: High Court Strikes Out Hindraf's Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Free Malaysia Today reports that the London High Court on April 1 struck out an unprecedented class action lawsuit commenced by a group of descendants of indentured labourers of Indian origin led by the Hindu Action Rights Force (Hindraf) against the Government of the United Kingdom. Accepting arguments advanced by the UK's Foreign and Commonwealth Counsel Martin Chamberlain, QC, the Court held that the Queen had acted purely in her capacity as the Head of State of the United Kingdom under her statutory duties and that, accordingly, the claimants could not sustain their claim under UK's Crown Proceedings Act. In arriving at his decision, Judge Nicholas Blake, QC also held that Article 167 of the Constitution of the Federation of Malaya restricted the Queen's liability and that her responsibility towards the Government of Malaya ceased on or after Merdeka Day. In light of the above, the Judge found that essential elements which needed to be proved in the case, including the duties of care owed by the Crown to the claimants, the breach of those duties and the causation of loss and damage suffered were insurmountable obstacles which would prevent the claimants from succeeding, particularly because the claimants were not the indentured laborers who were brought into Malaya, but merely their descendants. Reacting to the decision, Hindu Action Force (Hindraf) Chairman P Waythamoorthy expressed his regret that the Judge failed to establish and recognize that the Indians in Malaya in 1957 were subjects of the Queen and thus deserved the protection of the Crown. Despite the unfavorable outcome, Mr. Waythamoorthy claimed that in the course of delivering the decision important observations were made by the Judge with regard to the "discriminatory" nature of Articles 8 (Equality), 12 (Rights in respect of education) and 153 (Reservations of quotas for Malays and natives) of the Constitution. He also claimed the Judge has suggested that the European Human Rights Convention may afford the claimants a possible recourse in dealing with such matters. Mr. Waythamoorthy said that Hindraf's leadership will be discussing the matter in detail with its legal representatives upon receipt of the written grounds of the Judge's decision before deciding on the next course of action. "This is just the beginning of a long march Hindraf wishes to undertake with other groups who really believe in equality, equal treatment of fellow citizens and fundamental human rights," he assured. UNITED STATES: Suits Seek Removal of Commanders From Rape Cases --------------------------------------------------------------- Patricia Kime, writing for Military Times, reports that four active-duty and former service women filed a lawsuit on March 31 in federal court to stop the Defense Department from putting commanders in charge of cases involving sexual assault in their units. Charging that commanders cannot be fair and impartial in such cases because they often know the alleged perpetrators or victims, the plaintiffs -- an Army first lieutenant stationed in Kuwait, a former Air Force technical sergeant, a former airman and veteran soldier -- have asked the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia for an injunction to halt such appointments. Instead, legal officers outside the unit chain of command should adjudicate the cases, the plaintiffs said. The case represents a legal maneuver to institute what has long been proposed by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., and is opposed by many within the Defense Department -- to strip some commanders of the authority to decide whether and how to prosecute a sexual assault case. Representing the plaintiffs, Baltimore lawyer Susan Burke said the court can order the Defense Department to use its power under the Uniform Code of Military Justice to appoint unbiased adjudicators. "We hope we can get the federal court to help make sure the department doesn't continue to let people who have known misogynistic and sexist tendencies to be the judges," Ms. Burke said during a news conference here. The case's sole active-duty plaintiff, Army 1st Lt. Celina Baldwin, was the alleged victim of sexual assault and harassment in a high-profile case involving the U.S. Military Academy rugby team in 2013. Ms. Baldwin discovered a cache of sexually explicit e-mails circulating among team members that discussed female cadets and other women. The e-mails eventually were turned over to West Point officials. The team was temporarily disbanded in mid-2013 as a result of the revelations and reorganized under a new coach. Disciplinary investigations were recommended, but no further punishment for those involved was discussed, according to a report released on March 27 by the Army to Military Times. The report noted that the Army recommended reviewing the chain of command for the rugby team and improved training for team members on hazing and sexual harassment awareness. But those involved remain in the Army and eventually may be in a position to oversee sexual assault cases, according to Burke. "This same pattern of investigating and then whitewashing the results are what . . . the plaintiffs have endured," she said. One plaintiff, former Tech. Sgt. Jennifer Smith, said she was sexually assaulted and later harassed by co-workers after complaining that she worked in a sexually hostile work environment. The 18-year Air Force veteran said pornography on government computers, as well as a fighter pilot songbook that includes offensive songs, including an expletive-laced, sexually explicit shanty about sado-masochism, violate Air Force policy and U.S. law and should be removed from offices. For her complaints, she was mocked, she said. "I filed a formal complaint," Ms. Smith said. "Six officers were punished in my case. All the officers received nothing more than a piece of paper reprimanding them for their behavior. All will still lead. All will oversee airmen and sexual assault claims." Ms. Burke has represented military personnel in several sexual assault lawsuits, including plaintiffs in two separate class- action suits against secretaries of defense and a female midshipman in a case involving three Naval Academy football players. Charges against two defendants were dropped in the Naval Academy case, and the third defendant was found not guilty. The class- action lawsuits against the Defense Department were dismissed. Ms. Burke said she is taking a different legal tack on the current case and believes she has a strong argument for the injunction. The plaintiffs are not seeking damages, she said. "The best justice is a blind justice. We know if you are asked to sit on a jury, you get excused if you know anybody," Ms. Burke said. "They are assigning someone who has an inherent bias." The Defense Department likely will ask the court to abstain from exercising jurisdiction in the case -- as has happened in Ms. Burke's previous cases -- she said. However, if they pass that hurdle, a hearing could be held as early as within six months, she said. As a matter of policy, the Defense Department does not comment on ongoing litigation, a Pentagon spokeswoman said. A report released in late 2014 found that the number of sexual assaults reported in the military has risen, from 3,604 in 2012 to 5,983 in 2014. But the number of estimated assaults is believed to be much higher since rape and sexual assault are underreported crimes. About 20,000 service members of 170,000 polled said they had experienced at least one incident of unwanted sexual contact in the past year, representing nearly 5% of all active-duty women and 1% of active-duty men, according to a 2014 survey. UNITED STATES: Dist. Court Dismisses "Flores" Case as Frivolous --------------------------------------------------------------- Senior District Judge Thomas B. Russell issued a memorandum opinion on April 30, 2015, dismissing the action captioned ERIC FLORES, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL et al., Respondents, CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:15-CV-85-TBR, (W.D. Ky.). Petitioner, Eric Flores, filed a pro se, in forma pauperis 64-page complaint entitled "Petition to Challenge the Constitutionality of the First Amendment." He recently filed the same complaint in many other district courts throughout the country. He names as Respondents the U.S. Attorney General, with an address in Washington, D.C., and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, with an address in Texas. Petitioner's address is also in Texas. None of the allegations in the complaint appear to have anything to do with the Western District of Kentucky. Petitioner states that he is proceeding in this matter on behalf of "a protected class of mexican american citizens of the United States that is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable." He names seventeen "parties of interest," some of whom are deceased. He alleges that "executive employees of the federal government" used "advanced technology with a direct signal to the satellite in outerspace that has the capability of calculateing genetic code to cause the petitioner[']s Uncle Jorge Salas severe heart pain for long durations" and then used their official capacity to influence the county forensic laboratory to "fabercate frivolous documents resembleing legitimate adtopysy reports" that his uncle died of natural causes. He also alleges that the "organized group of executive employees" used the direct signal of a satellite to cause him severe mental pain which impaired his thought process in order to prevent him from pursuing his appellate remedies. He further alleges that the "advanced technology with a direct signal to the satellite in outerspace that has the capability of calculateing a genetic code" to cause suffering and to control mental states has been used on various of his family members. In his memorandum, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/FLiv1Kfrom Leagle.com, Judge Russell determined that Petitioner's request for the Court to certify this action as a class action must be denied because as a pro se litigant, he lacks the qualifications to represent a class. Second, the Court found that the instant action must be dismissed as frivolous adding that an action has no arguable factual basis when the allegations are delusional or "rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible." Eric Flores, Petitioner, Pro Se. VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Class Action Over Cold-FX Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Tom Blackwell, writing for The StarPhoenix, reports that the makers of Canada's most successful naturalhealth product are battling a class-action lawsuit alleging they fraudulently misled customers into thinking Cold-FX could quickly relieve cold symptoms -- contrary to their own studies. The B.C. case is unusual among health-product class actions, charging not that the pills caused physical harm but that their benefits were misrepresented to the public. Previously confidential sales figures for Cold-FX, submitted as part of the case, indicate that more than $117 million worth of the ginseng-based product were sold in Canada as recently as 2011. Developed by an Alberta-based team, and marketed through endorsements by Don Cherry and other Canadian sports celebrities, the product has grown to be the bestselling cold and flu remedy in Canada. But much of those sales were built on false claims that the pills could bring "immediate relief" for cold and flu symptoms, alleges the lawsuit filed in B.C. Supreme Court. "They told people that the product does something that it doesn't, and that's a lie," said John Green, the Vancouver lawyer spearheading the case. "It's even more problematic where you have a product that is being sold and you're basing it on research." Don Harrison, the Vancouver Island retiree acting as the suit's "representative plaintiff," said he bought a bottle of Cold-FX at a local big-box store in 2011, convinced by the stated promise of fast relief from his respiratory bug. "I took it according to directions and nothing happened, nothing happened," the Ladysmith, B.C., resident said on March 30. "I don't think there's any doubt whatsoever that they were pulling the wool over our eyes." The drawn-out case is scheduled for another five days of hearings this spring on whether it should be "certified" -- the designation allowing a class action to head toward trial or settlement. In the meantime, a judge is also considering a request by the defendants to have the lawsuit tossed out. A lawyer for Valeant Pharmaceuticals Inc., which bought Cold-FX maker Afexa Life Sciences in 2011, said on March 30 he did not have authority to comment on the case. The company no longer seems to make claims about "immediate relief of cold and flu symptoms." And an affidavit from employee Tara McCrory states that the Cold-FX packages themselves never contained that phrase. The affidavit also cites the product's support on social media, including 24,000 likes of the Cold-FX Facebook page and 26,000 mentions on Twitter. Those include one in 2012 that said "Cold-FX is like some miracle pill," and another suggesting it "knocked my cold away." The court document also points to consumer research suggesting most users take Cold-FX when cold and flu symptoms first appear. The best evidence from an inconsistent series of clinical trials, however, offers no evidence that it would help in those circumstances, says the plaintiffs' expert witness. VIA FETUCCINI: Faces "Mendez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Christian Mendez and other similarly situated individuals v. Via Fetuccini Corp. d/b/a The Pasta Factory Company and Richard JJR Sanders, Case No. 1:15-cv-21534-JEM (S.D. Fla., April 24, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Miami-Dade County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Franklin Antonio Jara, Esq. JARA & ASSOCIATES, PA 1200 Brickell Avenue, 1450 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 372-0290 Facsimile: (305) 675-0383 E-mail: franklin@jaralaw.com VICTIM SERVICES: Response to Dismissal Bid Due Today ---------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Vince Chhabria signed on April 30, 2015, a stipulation and order extending briefing deadlines in KEVIN BREAZEALE, KAREN SOLBERG, KEVIN HIEP VU, NANCY MORIN, and NARISHA BONAKDAR, on their own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. VICTIM SERVICES, INC., d/b/a CorrectiveSolutions, NATIONAL CORRECTIVE GROUP, INC., d/b/a CorrectiveSolutions, and MATS JONSSON, Defendants, NO. 3:14-CV- 05266-VC, (N.D. Cal.). The parties have stipulated and requested that the Court extend the briefing deadlines for Defendants' Special Motion to Strike and Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiffs request a one-week extension of the time for them to respond to Friday, May 8, 2015. The parties have agreed that Defendants' replies should be due two weeks later, on Friday May 22, 2015. The motions are noticed for hearing on July 2, 2015. If the parties' requested extensions are granted, the motions will be fully briefed 41 days before the hearing date. Plaintiffs requested and Defendants agreed to an extension of time to respond because both motions are dispositive motions of significant substance. Plaintiffs are working diligently to respond to the motions but request an additional week to prepare their responses to the 47 pages of briefing filed by Defendants. The parties have agreed that Defendants should be granted an additional week to file their replies as well. The parties do not anticipate that the proposed extension of the briefing deadlines will require the Court to reset the hearing date for the motion or any other deadline. Accordingly, the parties' court-approved stipulation, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/sUAAdMfrom Leagle.com, provides that Plaintiffs' responses to Defendants' Special Motion to Strike and Motion to Dismiss are due today, Friday, May 8, 2015. Defendants' replies are due on Friday May 22, 2015. TERRELL MARSHALL DAUDT & WILLIE PLLC Beth E. Terrell -- bterrell@tmdwlaw.com -- Seattle, Washington, Paul Arons, LAW OFFICE OF PAUL ARONS, Friday Harbor, Deepak Gupta -- deepak@guptabeck.com -- GUPTA BECK PLLC, Attorneys for Plaintiffs. FREEDMAN & TAITELMAN, LLP, Michael A. Taitelman -- mtaitelman@ftllp.com -- Sean M. Hardy -- smhardy@ftllp.com -- Los Angeles, California, Attorneys for Defendants Victim Services, Inc., National Corrective Group, Inc., and Mats Jonsson. WELLS FARGO: Faces "Hecht" Suit in N.Y. Over Mortgage Policies -------------------------------------------------------------- Shea Hecht, individually on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Wells Fargo, N.A. d/b/a Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Gross Polowy Orlans, LLC, and Does 1 through 10, Case No. 1:15-cv-02338 (E.D.N.Y., April 23, 2015), alleges that the Defendants failed to provide mortgage modifications to struggling homeowners pursuant to Home Affordable Modification Program. Instead, they intentionally delay the processing of HAMP applications and extend trial modification periods in order to maximize their own revenue and fees at the expense of and by defrauding homeowners. Wells Fargo, N.A.is a national banking association chartered in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jean Sedlak, Esq. SULTZER LAW GROUP 77 Water St, 8th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (646) 722-4268 Facsimile: (888) 749-7747 E-mail: sedlakj@thesultzerlawgroup.com WELLS FARGO: Seeks Dismissal of Suit Over Foreclosure Fees ---------------------------------------------------------- Dena Aubin, writing for Reuters, reports that Wells Fargo and a former mortgage servicing unit of Barclays Bank have asked a federal judge in southern Ohio to toss claims that they engaged in misconduct during mortgage foreclosures by charging homeowners for an array of improper fees. In filings on March 27, lawyers for the banks at Ulmer & Berne and Treanor Pope & Hughes argued that the fees in dispute were authorized by the plaintiff's mortgage loan, and the banks are entitled to a judgment in their favor as a matter of law. WHOLE FOODS: Must Face Background Check Class Action ---------------------------------------------------- Michael A Logan, Esq., of Kane Russell Coleman & Logan PC, in an article for Lexology, report that one of those background check cases involving Whole Foods Market Group will continue past the motion to dismiss stage. On March 30, Senior Federal Judge Richard A. Lazzara in the Middle District of Florida (Tampa Division) refused to dismiss the case, based on the allegation in the Complaint. The Court held that "if the disclosure and the consent forms combined and read as one document with the waiver and release included simultaneously with the disclosure, the complaint states a claim for relief." WISCONSIN: Docketing Statement in Parenthood Case Signed -------------------------------------------------------- District Judge William M. Conley signed on April 6, 2015, a docketing statement in PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF WISCONSIN, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. BRAD D. SCHIMEL, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 13-C-465, (W.D. Wis.), a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/9uLxkHfrom Leagle.com. Defendants Brad D. Schimel, Ismael Ozanne, James Barr, Mary Jo Capodice, D.O., Greg Collins, Rodney A. Erickson, M.D., Robert Zondag, Suresh K. Misra, M.D., Carolyn Ogland, M.D., Michael J. Phillips, M.D., Kenneth B. Simons, M.D., Timothy Swan, M.D., Sridhar Vasudevan, M.D., Timothy W. Westlake, M.D., Russell Yale, M.D., and Dave Ross, their undersigned counsel, concurrent with their Notice of Appeal, submitted the Docketing Statement, which states that: Information Required By Seventh Circuit Rule 28(A)(1) The district court had federal question jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1331, over this civil case commenced by a complaint filed by Plaintiffs Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin, Inc., Susan Pfleger, M.D., Kathy King, M.D., and Milwaukee Women's Medical Services (collectively "Plaintiffs") in the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin on July 5, 2013. Plaintiffs pursued claims for declaratory and injunctive relief arising under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. This case is a class action, and the district court certified a class of 71 elected district attorneys pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2). Dane County District Attorney Ismael Ozanne has been designated as class representative. The Attorney General of Wisconsin (through the Wisconsin Department of Justice and its Assistant Attorneys General) is class counsel. Information Required By Seventh Circuit Rule 28(A)(2) The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1291, over this appeal by Defendants from the district court's March 20, 2015, Opinion and Order and March 25, 2015, Judgment declaring Section 1 of 2013 Wisconsin Act 37 -- the hospital admitting privileges requirement for abortion physicians -- to be unconstitutional and granting a permanent injunction, which was entered by the Honorable William M. Conley. The permanent injunction is as follows: (2) Defendants are hereby enjoined from enforcing Section 1 of 2013 Wisconsin Act 37, codified at Wis. Stat. Sec. 253.095. The Notice of Appeal was filed on April 6, 2015, along with a copy of the March 20, 2015, Opinion and Order and the March 25, 2015, Judgment. Defendants have timely filed their Notice of Appeal within 30 days after March 25, 2015. INFORMATION REQUIRED BY SEVENTH CIRCUIT RULE 28(A)(3) There are no claims that remain for disposition in the district court. The district court's March 20, 2015, Opinion and Order and March 25, 2015, Judgment granting a permanent injunction constitutes a final decision and judgment as to the claims that Plaintiffs have asserted under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The basis for appellate jurisdiction is not the "collateral order doctrine." The order and judgment sought to be reviewed does not remand a case to a bankruptcy judge or administrative agency. No issues remain before the district court. BRAD D. SCHIMEL, Attorney General, MARIA S. LAZAR, Assistant Attorney General, BRIAN P. KEENAN, Assistant Attorney General, CLAYTON P. KAWSKI, Assistant Attorney General, Attorneys for Defendants. * Bill to Push for Class Action Procedure for Health Sector ----------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Kadar, Esq. of Reed Smith, in an article for JDSupra, reports that class actions -- which are progressively becoming part of the legal landscape in France as "actions de groupe" -- will probably soon be extended to personal injury claims against health products manufacturers, suppliers or service providers using health products. On March 17, 2015, a new bill proposal was issued, advocating the creation of a class action procedure for the health sector. Plenary discussions at the French National Assembly will commence March 31, 2015, and will more precisely address the issue of compensation for personal injury in the framework of the proposed class action. Under the proposed framework -- similarly to other class actions already permitted in France -- patients and users' associations have a monopoly on bringing legal actions for damages for physical injury allegedly suffered by similarly-situated users of the health system. The class actions contemplated would be allowed for alleged breaches of statutory and/or contractual obligations of manufacturers or suppliers of health products. In a first phase, the judge will review the admissibility of the action and will decide over the liability of the defendant through an analysis of the cases brought forward by the association. The judge will then define the proposed class -- the group of patients that may seek to impose liability on the defendant -- and determine the criteria that patients must meet to be included into the group. One cornerstone issue will be how judges will deal with the heterogeneity of patients' personal injuries within the framework of a class action, as well as with compensation issues likely to arise. Regarding the latter, recent attempts to ease claims for compensation through an organized compensation system have had mixed results in France, and the proposed compensation often is, in general, lower than the amount a claimant could obtain in a separate lawsuit. As a consequence, many claimants have preferred to file an individual lawsuit rather than following a more global compensation program. This has been particularly the case for claims related to asbestos diseases. Finally, it must be noted that French class actions will not allow any form of punitive damages. * Insurance Companies Target for Class Actions ---------------------------------------------- Arthur D. Postal, writing for InsuranceNewsNet, reports that insurance companies have emerged as a significant target for class action lawsuits, according to an annual survey by a law firm that represents management. Data privacy is another issue that touches insurance companies, as well as advisors. The survey said data privacy emerged as the subject of a "significant volume" of class action lawsuits in 2014. According to the 2015 Carlton Fields Jorden Burt Class Action, 6 percent of all class action lawsuits filed in 2014 dealt with insurance; data privacy suits constituted 4.2 percent of the total. "While data privacy matters currently represent a small portion of class actions, when corporate counsel were asked what area they saw as the next wave, they most often identified data privacy," the report found. In addition, the report said, although class certification has been a stumbling block for plaintiffs in the area of data privacy, several factors "suggest data security matters are nonetheless poised for growth." These data security matters include increasing hacker activity, more frequent internal protocol and security lapses, "and ongoing consumer and business sensitivity regarding data sharing and use," the report said. In the life insurance area, Class action suits brought in the life insurance area involve disclosure issues on life and annuity product features, pricing methodology and revisions to contracts, suitability issues, long-term care policy adjustments, and asset management issues, according to James F. Jorden, senior partner in the Washington office of Carlton Fields Jorden Burt. "The actual theme of any particular suit will vary depending upon the nature of the sales practice or the policy," Mr. Jorden said. There also has been a spike in class action suits against property and casualty insurers, he said. The report said that corporate counsel also expect a wave of consumer fraud class actions, even though these constituted 29.6 percent of class action lawsuits in 2014. This is up from 26.6 percent of class action lawsuits in 2013. The survey results were compiled from 360 in-depth interviews with general counsel, chief legal officers and direct reports to general counsel. * More Companies Require Workers to Arbitrate Claims ---------------------------------------------------- Lauren Weber, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that companies are quietly eliminating a long-held employee privilege: the right to band together to take the boss to court. As employers try to stem the costs of lawsuits, more companies are requiring workers to bring serious complaints to arbitration and forbidding employees from participating in class actions. The percentage of companies using arbitration clauses to preclude class-action claims soared to 43% last year from 16% in 2012, according to a survey of nearly 350 companies conducted by management-side law firm Carlton Fields Jorden Burt LLP. Fueling the trend is a 2011 Supreme Court ruling that upheld such agreements. The result, say lawyers on both sides of the issue, has been a notable decline in actions that accuse corporations of wage theft, discrimination, and other systemic violations of labor laws. Employers prefer arbitration because it is usually less expensive and faster than litigation. Drugstore chain CVS Health Corp., which began an arbitration program for employees last year, maintains that it is a faster and better way to resolve issues. "In general, arbitration is less formal, more efficient and less time-consuming than the traditional court process," CVS spokesman Michael DeAngelis said. "Employees who choose to participate in the program have the ability to make the same claims and recover the same remedies." Employers also like it because it tends to go their way. A 2011 Cornell University study found that arbitrations favor employers more often than litigation does, and result in lower awards for employees. Joseph Otis signed a contract containing an arbitration clause and class-action waiver in 2012 when he enlisted with Arise Virtual Solutions Inc. to become a remote customer-service agent for the Miramar, Fla., company's corporate clients. As an independent contractor, Mr. Otis, of Marietta, Ga., paid about $1,500 for telephone and computer equipment, $239 for an unpaid three-month class on resolving problems for AT&T Inc. customers and even the $15 for Arise to conduct a background check on him. Over the course of a year, he started thinking the deck was stacked against Arise agents. They were subject to extensive control from the company, which recorded the calls and tracked their length, but they rarely, if ever, got the hours they were promised. In 2013, Mr. Otis and several other agents filed a class-action lawsuit against Arise, seeking reimbursement for their unpaid training time, among other things. The company challenged the workers' right to bring the class suit and won, forcing them to enter individual arbitrations. Arise said it doesn't comment on litigation. Sears Holding Corp.'s Sears and Kmart units, Nordstrom Inc., Uber Technologies Inc., and Halliburton Co. are among the large employers that require or ask workers to waive their right to sue as a class. Lawyers agree that a 2011 Supreme Court case, AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, gave employers confidence that courts would uphold class-action waivers. In the Concepcion case, the court ruled 5- 4, with conservative justices prevailing, that customers trying to sue the telecom over a sales-tax issue couldn't do so because they had forfeited the right in the fine print of their service contract. While that case involved consumers, corporations and lower courts have extended their interpretation of the ruling to cover employees as well. "This is a very live area right now," said Zachary Fasman, a management-side attorney with Proskauer Rose LLP. "Avoiding class actions is very attractive to the extent that employers can avoid the cost of litigation, the complexities of federal or even state litigation, to the extent they can avoid jury trials." Class actions are complex, expensive and lengthy, but they serve multiple purposes for enforcing labor laws, say plaintiffs' attorneys. They afford anonymity to individual workers who might be afraid to pursue a claim on their own. Damages can be significant, so lawyers have more incentive to take on the cases and also front the money for costly research and statistical studies. And they can lead to orders for injunctive relief, forcing companies to make broad changes to their labor practices rather than simply paying damages to a single victim. Arbitration claims can be brought on a class basis, though arbitrators have less discretion than judges over certain aspects of the process, such as calling witnesses. But when waivers leave even that type of class action unavailable, workers frequently abandon claims because individual damages are too small to interest attorneys. "If workers are forced to be atomized and alone, they won't be able to find a lawyer to pursue the case, so the cases will just disappear," said Paul Bland, director of Public Justice. The Carlton Fields survey found that the percentage of class- action lawsuits that address employment issues slipped to 23% in 2014 from 28% in 2011. Class-action suits from workers cost employers $462.8 million in 2014, down from $598.9 million in 2011, according to the survey. Before the Supreme Court's ruling, the vast majority of employers didn't require employees to waive their right to join a class action because lower courts routinely vacated such waivers. Employers are now confident the waivers will stand up to legal challenges, say lawyers for workers and companies. The National Labor Relations Board has ruled that class-action waivers violate the National Labor Relations Act. Recent decisions in two NLRB cases -- against gas station operator Murphy Oil USA Inc. and home builder D.R. Horton Inc. -- put it at odds with the Supreme Court. But the NLRB's argument has been challenged in circuit courts, which have ruled against it, upholding the Supreme Court's direction. Plaintiffs' lawyers are still arguing that the NLRB decision is a precedent, but the Supreme Court has refused to take several employment cases that might clear things up. Craig Becker, a member of the NLRB's majority in the Horton case and now general counsel at the AFL-CIO, says he sees no conflict because the Concepcion case didn't explicitly consider labor laws. "It's a lot scarier and the consequences are very different" than a consumer suing a product maker, he said. "Retaliation is much more likely. Requiring people to proceed individually is a much more serious threat to enforcement of the statutes." Under employment arbitration, parties go before a single person, usually a retired judge or attorney, who listens to evidence and issues a decision. Several private organizations, including the American Arbitration Association and JAMS, formerly known as Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services, offer the service. Shannon Liss-Riordan, Mr. Otis's lawyer, is trying to wear down Arise by bringing claim after claim from different contractors. An arbitrator in Texas ruled in favor of one Arise worker in February, awarding her full damages and requiring Arise to pay her legal fees. Ms. Liss-Riordan hopes the company will decide facing dozens of individual cases is no longer in its interests. Arise declined to comment. Lawyers also argue that the agreements and waivers exist on an unequal playing field, with workers either having no choice but to accept the clauses in order to work or having to embark on an arduous process to opt out, such as mailing a certified letter to company headquarters, usually within 30 days. "There's a fiction that workers' entry into these agreements is fully voluntary," said Joseph Sellers, a leading plaintiff-side attorney and a partner with Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll. Mr. Sellers recently represented a Spanish-speaking janitor named Jose Sanchez who signed an arbitration clause and class-action waiver in order to become a small franchisee -- essentially, an independent contractor -- with a commercial cleaning business called CleanNet USA Inc. The clause was part of a franchise agreement given to him only in English, with a representative from CleanNet explaining elements of the 41-page agreement in Spanish, Mr. Sanchez alleged; he said he was never told about the arbitration clause. After he sued CleanNet arguing that he and others should have been classified as employees, the company moved to compel him into arbitration and to drop his class claims. In January, a federal judge in Illinois sided with CleanNet. Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ameren Corp. Had 70 Suits Pending at Dec. 31 ------------------------------------------------------------- Ameren Corporation had a total of 70 pending asbestos-related lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. The Company states: "Ameren, Ameren Missouri, and Ameren Illinois have been named, along with numerous other parties, in a number of lawsuits filed by plaintiffs claiming varying degrees of injury from asbestos exposure at our present or former energy centers. Most have been filed in the Circuit Court of Madison County, Illinois. The total number of defendants named in each case varies, with 78 as the average number of parties as of December 31, 2014. Each lawsuit seeks unspecified damages that, if awarded at trial, typically would be shared among the various defendants. "As of December 31, 2014, there were a total of 70 pending asbestos-related lawsuits filed against the Ameren Companies. "At December 31, 2014, Ameren, Ameren Missouri, and Ameren Illinois had liabilities of $12 million, $5 million, and $7 million, respectively, recorded to represent their best estimates of their obligations related to asbestos claims. "Ameren Illinois has a tariff rider to recover the costs of IP asbestos-related litigation claims, subject to the following terms: 90% of the cash expenditures in excess of the amount included in base electric rates is to be recovered from a trust fund that was established when Ameren acquired IP. At December 31, 2014, the trust fund balance was $22 million, including accumulated interest. If cash expenditures are less than the amount in base rates, Ameren Illinois will contribute 90% of the difference to the trust fund. Once the trust fund is depleted, 90% of allowed cash expenditures in excess of base rates will be recovered through charges assessed to customers under the tariff rider. The rider will permit recovery from electric customers within IP's historical service territory." Ameren Corporation (Ameren) is a utility holding company. The Company's principal subsidiaries are Union Electric Company (Ameren Missouri) and Ameren Illinois Company (Ameren Illinois). The Company's segments include Ameren Missouri and Ameren Illinois. Ameren Missouri operates a rate-regulated electric generation, transmission and distribution business, and a rate- regulated natural gas transmission and distribution business in Missouri. Ameren Illinois operates a rate-regulated electric and natural gas transmission and distribution business in Illinois. AER consists of non-rate-regulated operations, including Ameren Energy Generating Company (Genco), Ameren Energy Resources Generating Company (AERG), Ameren Energy Resources Company and Ameren Energy Marketing Company (Marketing Company). Ameren's portfolio of natural gas supply resources includes firm transportation capacity and firm no-notice storage capacity leased from interstate pipelines. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Remy Int'l. Protected From GM Employee Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Remy International, Inc., was accorded protected party status, which requires that any future asbestos exposure claims by former General Motors employees be directed to an asbestos trust, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. The Company states: "We have historically been named as a defendant in a number of lawsuits alleging exposure to asbestos and asbestos-containing products by former GM employees. We were successful in getting these matters dismissed on the grounds that the plaintiffs were employees of GM, not our company, following the 1994 asset purchase of the Delco Remy Division of GM. We also received an indemnification from GM concerning costs associated with asbestos exposure claims involving former GM employees. "GM and certain of its direct and indirect subsidiaries filed on June 1, 2009 for protection under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. On July 10, 2009, a substantial portion of GM began operations under a new corporate legal structure, called new GM, which acquired substantially all of the assets of the pre- bankruptcy GM. Following GM's June 2009 filing for protection under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, the indemnification and certain other arrangements were disputed. However, we negotiated a settlement of these issues with new GM whereby, through an Order of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, we were accorded protected party status, which requires that any future asbestos exposure claims by former GM employees be directed to an asbestos trust, rather than brought against us directly." Remy International (formerly Delco Remy International) revs up cars and light- and heavy-duty trucks. The manufacturer and distributor offers starter motors, alternators, hybrid electric motors, and transmission components. Most parts are sold under the Delco Remy brand, which debuted in 1918. The company holds the top spot for remanufacturing starters and alternators for the automotive aftermarket in North America. Its roster of customers includes OEMs (General Motors is largest customer generating almost 25% of annual sales) and aftermarket businesses, such as Advance Auto Parts and AutoZone. Fidelity National, a title insurance company, owns 49% of Remy, which filed to go public in 2011. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Unit Had 82 Fibro Claims at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Duke Energy Corporation's subsidiary, Duke Energy Carolinas, had 82 asserted asbestos-related claims, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. Duke Energy Carolinas has experienced numerous claims for indemnification and medical cost reimbursement related to asbestos exposure. These claims relate to damages for bodily injuries alleged to have arisen from exposure to or use of asbestos in connection with construction and maintenance activities conducted on its electric generation plants prior to 1985. As of December 31, 2014, there were 54 asserted claims for non-malignant cases with the cumulative relief sought of up to $11 million, and 28 asserted claims for malignant cases with the cumulative relief sought of up to $7 million. Based on Duke Energy Carolinas' experience, it is expected that the ultimate resolution of most of these claims likely will be less than the amount claimed. Duke Energy Carolinas has recognized asbestos-related reserves of $575 million at December 31, 2014 and $616 million at December 31, 2013. These reserves are classified in Other within Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities and Other within Current Liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. These reserves are based upon the minimum amount of the range of loss for current and future asbestos claims through 2033, are recorded on an undiscounted basis and incorporate anticipated inflation. In light of the uncertainties inherent in a longer-term forecast, management does not believe they can reasonably estimate the indemnity and medical costs that might be incurred after 2033 related to such potential claims. It is possible Duke Energy Carolinas may incur asbestos liabilities in excess of the recorded reserves. Duke Energy Carolinas has third-party insurance to cover certain losses related to asbestos-related injuries and damages an aggregate self-insured retention of $476 million. Duke Energy Carolinas' cumulative payments began to exceed the self-insurance retention in 2008. Future payments up to the policy limit will be reimbursed by the third-party insurance carrier. The insurance policy limit for potential future insurance recoveries for indemnification and medical cost claim payments is $864 million in excess of the self-insured retention. Receivables for insurance recoveries were $616 million at December 31, 2014 and $649 million at December 31, 2013. These amounts are classified in Other within Investments and Other Assets and Receivables on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. Duke Energy Carolinas is not aware of any uncertainties regarding the legal sufficiency of insurance claims. Duke Energy Carolinas believes the insurance recovery asset is probable of recovery as the insurance carrier continues to have a strong financial strength rating. Duke Energy Corporation is electric power holding company. The Company is engaged in supplying and delivering energy to the United States customers. The Company produces electricity with nuclear and fossil fuels, and renewable hydropower. It has approximately 57,500 megawatts of electric generating capacity in the Carolinas, the Midwest and Florida and natural gas distribution services in Ohio and Kentucky in the United States. The Company conducts its operations in three business segments: Regulated Utilities, International Energy and Commercial Power. The Company also operates through its subsidiaries: Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Duke Energy Progress, Inc., Duke Energy Florida, Inc., Duke Energy Ohio, Inc., and Duke Energy Indiana, Inc. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Oral Argument in Suit vs. Crane Co. To Be Heard ---------------------------------------------------------------- Oral argument in the asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit filed by Gerald Suttner against Crane Co. will be heard this year, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. On October 23, 2012, the Company received an adverse verdict in the Gerald Suttner claim in Buffalo, New York. The jury found that the Company was responsible for four percent (4%) of plaintiffs' damages of $3 million. The Company filed post-trial motions requesting judgment in the Company's favor notwithstanding the jury's verdict, which were denied. The court entered a judgment of $0.1 million against the Company. The Company appealed, and the judgment was affirmed by order dated March 21, 2014. The Company sought reargument of this decision, which was denied. The Company sought review before the New York Court of Appeals, which was accepted in the fourth quarter of 2014. Oral argument will be heard in 2015. Crane Co. (Crane) is a manufacturer of engineered industrial products. The Company operates in four segments: Aerospace & Electronics, Engineered Materials, Merchandising Systems and Fluid Handling. Its primary markets are aerospace, defense electronics, non-residential construction, recreational vehicle (RV), transportation, automated payment and merchandising, chemical, pharmaceutical, oil, gas, power, nuclear, building services and utilities. The Aerospace & Electronics segment has two groups, the Aerospace Group and the Electronics Group. The Engineered Materials segment manufactures fiberglass-reinforced plastic panels. The Merchandising Systems segment consists of two businesses, Vending Solutions and Payment Solutions. The Fluid Handling segment is a provider of engineered fluid handling equipment. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal in "Hellam" Suit vs. Crane Co. Is Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- An appeal from a ruling in the asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit filed by James Hellam against Crane Co. remains pending, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. On November 28, 2012, the Company received an adverse verdict in the James Hellam claim in Oakland, CA. The jury found that the Company was responsible for seven percent (7%) of plaintiffs' non- economic damages of $4.5 million, plus a portion of their economic damages of $0.9 million. Based on California court rules regarding allocation of damages, judgment was entered against the Company in the amount of $1.282 million. The Company filed post-trial motions requesting judgment in the Company's favor notwithstanding the jury's verdict and also requesting that settlement offsets be applied to reduce the judgment in accordance with California law. On January 31, 2013, the court entered an order disposing partially of that motion. On March 1, 2013, the Company filed an appeal regarding the portions of the motion that were denied. The court entered judgment against the Company in the amount of $1.1 million. The Company appealed. By opinion dated April 16, 2014, the Court of Appeal affirmed the finding of liability against the Company, and the California Supreme Court denied review of this ruling. The Court of Appeal reserved the arguments relating to recoverable damages to a subsequent appeal that remains pending. Crane Co. (Crane) is a manufacturer of engineered industrial products. The Company operates in four segments: Aerospace & Electronics, Engineered Materials, Merchandising Systems and Fluid Handling. Its primary markets are aerospace, defense electronics, non-residential construction, recreational vehicle (RV), transportation, automated payment and merchandising, chemical, pharmaceutical, oil, gas, power, nuclear, building services and utilities. The Aerospace & Electronics segment has two groups, the Aerospace Group and the Electronics Group. The Engineered Materials segment manufactures fiberglass-reinforced plastic panels. The Merchandising Systems segment consists of two businesses, Vending Solutions and Payment Solutions. The Fluid Handling segment is a provider of engineered fluid handling equipment. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Appeals in 2 Pa. Suit Remain Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Crane Co.'s appeal from ruling in asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits before a Pennsylvania state court remain pending, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. On February 25, 2013, a Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, state court jury found the Company responsible for a 1/10th share of a $2.5 million verdict in the Thomas Amato claim and a 1/5th share of a $2.3 million verdict in the Frank Vinciguerra claim, which were consolidated for trial. The Company filed post-trial motions requesting judgments in the Company's favor notwithstanding the jury's verdicts or new trials, and also requesting that settlement offsets be applied to reduce the judgment in accordance with Pennsylvania law. These motions were denied. The Company has appealed. Crane Co. (Crane) is a manufacturer of engineered industrial products. The Company operates in four segments: Aerospace & Electronics, Engineered Materials, Merchandising Systems and Fluid Handling. Its primary markets are aerospace, defense electronics, non-residential construction, recreational vehicle (RV), transportation, automated payment and merchandising, chemical, pharmaceutical, oil, gas, power, nuclear, building services and utilities. The Aerospace & Electronics segment has two groups, the Aerospace Group and the Electronics Group. The Engineered Materials segment manufactures fiberglass-reinforced plastic panels. The Merchandising Systems segment consists of two businesses, Vending Solutions and Payment Solutions. The Fluid Handling segment is a provider of engineered fluid handling equipment. ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Peraica" Suit vs. Crane Co. Remains Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- The asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit filed by Ivo Peraica against Crane Co. remains pending, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. On March 1, 2013, a New York City state court jury entered a $35 million verdict against the Company in the Ivo Peraica claim. The Company filed post-trial motions seeking to overturn the verdict, to grant a new trial, or to reduce the damages, which the Company argues were excessive under New York appellate case law governing awards for non-economic losses and further were subject to settlement offsets. After the trial court remitted the verdict to $18 million, but otherwise denied the Company's post-trial motion, judgment also entered against the Company in the amount of $10.6 million (including interest). The Company has appealed. The Company has taken a separate appeal of the trial court's denial of its summary judgment motion. The Court has consolidated the appeals, which were heard in the fourth quarter of 2014. On July 31, 2013, a Buffalo, New York state court jury entered a $3.1 million verdict against the Company in the Lee Holdsworth claim. The Company filed post-trial motions seeking to overturn the verdict, to grant a new trial, or to reduce the damages, which the Company argues were excessive under New York appellate case law governing awards for non-economic losses and further were subject to settlement offsets. Post-trial motions were denied, and the court will set a hearing to assess the amount of damages. Plaintiffs have requested judgment in the amount of $1.1 million. The Company plans to pursue an appeal if necessary. Crane Co. (Crane) is a manufacturer of engineered industrial products. The Company operates in four segments: Aerospace & Electronics, Engineered Materials, Merchandising Systems and Fluid Handling. Its primary markets are aerospace, defense electronics, non-residential construction, recreational vehicle (RV), transportation, automated payment and merchandising, chemical, pharmaceutical, oil, gas, power, nuclear, building services and utilities. The Aerospace & Electronics segment has two groups, the Aerospace Group and the Electronics Group. The Engineered Materials segment manufactures fiberglass-reinforced plastic panels. The Merchandising Systems segment consists of two businesses, Vending Solutions and Payment Solutions. The Fluid Handling segment is a provider of engineered fluid handling equipment. ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Garvin" Suit vs. Crane Co. Remains Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ The asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit filed by Lloyd Garvin against Crane Co. remains pending, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. On September 11, 2013, a Columbia, South Carolina state court jury in the Lloyd Garvin claim entered an $11 million verdict for compensatory damages against the Company and two other defendants jointly, and also awarded exemplary damages against the Company in the amount of $11 million. The jury also awarded exemplary damages against both other defendants. The Company filed post-trial motions seeking to overturn the verdict, which were denied, except that the Court remitted the compensatory damages award to $2.5 million and exemplary damages award to $3.5 million. Considering settlement offsets, the Court further reduced the total damages award to $3.5 million. The Company plans to pursue an appeal if necessary. Crane Co. (Crane) is a manufacturer of engineered industrial products. The Company operates in four segments: Aerospace & Electronics, Engineered Materials, Merchandising Systems and Fluid Handling. Its primary markets are aerospace, defense electronics, non-residential construction, recreational vehicle (RV), transportation, automated payment and merchandising, chemical, pharmaceutical, oil, gas, power, nuclear, building services and utilities. The Aerospace & Electronics segment has two groups, the Aerospace Group and the Electronics Group. The Engineered Materials segment manufactures fiberglass-reinforced plastic panels. The Merchandising Systems segment consists of two businesses, Vending Solutions and Payment Solutions. The Fluid Handling segment is a provider of engineered fluid handling equipment. ASBESTOS UPDATE: "DeLisle" Suit vs. Crane Co. Remains Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- The asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit filed by Richard DeLisle against Crane Co. remains pending, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. On September 17, 2013, a Fort Lauderdale, Florida state court jury in the Richard DeLisle claim found the Company responsible for 16 percent of an $8 million verdict. The trial court denied all parties' post-trial motions, and entered judgment against the Company in the amount of $1.3 million. The Company has appealed. On June 16, 2014, a New York City state court jury entered a $15 million verdict against the Company in the Ivan Sweberg claim and a $10 million verdict against the Company in the Selwyn Hackshaw claim. The two claims were consolidated for trial. The Company filed post-trial motions seeking to overturn the verdicts, to grant new trials, or to reduce the damages, which were denied, except that the Court reduced the Sweberg award to $10 million, and reduced the Hackshaw award to $6 million. Plaintiffs subsequently requested judgments in the amount of $5.3 million in Sweberg and $2.9 million in Hackshaw. The Company plans to pursue appeals if necessary. Crane Co. (Crane) is a manufacturer of engineered industrial products. The Company operates in four segments: Aerospace & Electronics, Engineered Materials, Merchandising Systems and Fluid Handling. Its primary markets are aerospace, defense electronics, non-residential construction, recreational vehicle (RV), transportation, automated payment and merchandising, chemical, pharmaceutical, oil, gas, power, nuclear, building services and utilities. The Aerospace & Electronics segment has two groups, the Aerospace Group and the Electronics Group. The Engineered Materials segment manufactures fiberglass-reinforced plastic panels. The Merchandising Systems segment consists of two businesses, Vending Solutions and Payment Solutions. The Fluid Handling segment is a provider of engineered fluid handling equipment. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cal Water Continues to Defend Fibro Suits ----------------------------------------------------------- California Water Service Group and the ORA filed with the CPUC, a joint motion for approval of the asbestos litigation memorandum settlement on February 6, 2015, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. The Company states: "From time to time, the Company has been named as a co-defendant in asbestos-related lawsuits. Several of these cases against the Company have been dismissed without prejudice. In other cases, Company's contractors and insurance policy carriers have settled the cases with no effect on the Company's financial statements. As such, the Company does not currently believe there is any potential loss that is probable to occur related to these matters and therefore no accrual has been recorded. "On September 3, 2014, Cal Water filed an application with the California Public Utilities Commission ("CPUC") requesting an asbestos litigation memorandum account to record costs associated with current and future asbestos lawsuits against Cal Water. Cal Water and the CPUC's Office of Ratepayer Advocates ("ORA") engaged in mediation and reached a settlement. Cal Water and the ORA filed a joint motion for approval of the settlement with the CPUC on February 6, 2015." California Water Service Group is a holding company. The Company through its subsidiaries provides regulated and non-regulated water and wastewater utility services. Its business is conducted through six operating subsidiaries: California Water Service Company (Cal Water), New Mexico Water Service Company (New Mexico Water), Washington Water Service Company (Washington Water), Hawaii Water Service Company, Inc. (Hawaii Water) and CWS Utility Services and HWS Utility Services LLC are collectively called Utility Services. Cal Water, New Mexico Water, Washington Water, and Hawaii Water are regulated public utilities. Utility Services provides non-regulated services to private companies and municipalities The Company's business consists of the production, purchase, storage, treatment, testing, distribution and sale of water for domestic, industrial, public and irrigation uses, and for fire protection. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Selective Insurance Has $23-Mil. A&E Reserves -------------------------------------------------------------- Selective Insurance Group, Inc.'s total net losses and loss expense reserves for asbestos and environmental claims was $23.0 million, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. The Company states: "Our general liability, excess liability, and homeowners reserves include exposure to asbestos and environmental claims. Our exposure to environmental liability is primarily due to: (i) landfill exposures from policies written prior to the absolute pollution endorsement in the mid-1980s; and (ii) underground storage tank leaks mainly from New Jersey homeowners policies. These environmental claims stem primarily from insured exposures in municipal government, small non-manufacturing commercial risks, and homeowners policies. "The total carried net losses and loss expense reserves for these claims was $23.0 million as of December 31, 2014 and $25.2 million as of December 31, 2013. The emergence of these claims is slow and highly unpredictable. For example, within our Standard Commercial Lines book, certain landfill sites are included on the National Priorities List ("NPL") by the United States Environmental Protection Agency ("USEPA"). Once on the NPL, the USEPA determines an appropriate remediation plan for these sites. A landfill can remain on the NPL for many years until final approval for the removal of the site is granted from the USEPA. The USEPA has the authority to re-open previously closed sites and return them to the NPL. We currently have reserves for eight customers related to four sites on the NPL. ""Asbestos claims" are claims for bodily injury alleged to have occurred from exposure to asbestos-containing products. Our primary exposure arises from insuring various distributors of asbestos-containing products, such as electrical and plumbing materials. At December 31, 2014, asbestos claims constituted 32% of our $23.0 million net asbestos and environmental reserves, compared to 30% of our $25.2 million net asbestos and environmental reserves at December 31, 2013. ""Environmental claims" are claims alleging bodily injury or property damage from pollution or other environmental contaminants other than asbestos. These claims include landfills and leaking underground storage tanks. Our landfill exposure lies largely in policies written for municipal governments, in their operation or maintenance of certain public lands. In addition to landfill exposures, in recent years, we have experienced a relatively consistent level of reported losses in the homeowners line of business related to claims for groundwater contamination from leaking underground heating oil storage tanks in New Jersey. In 2007, we instituted a fuel oil system exclusion on our New Jersey homeowners policies that limits our exposure to leaking underground storage tanks for certain customers. At that time, existing customers were offered a one-time opportunity to buy back oil tank liability coverage. The exclusion applies to all new homeowners policies in New Jersey. These customers are eligible for the buy-back option only if the tank meets specific eligibility criteria. "Our asbestos and environmental claims are handled in our centralized and specialized asbestos and environmental claim unit. Case reserves for these exposures are evaluated on a claim-by- claim basis. The ability to assess potential exposure often improves as a claim develops, including judicial determinations of coverage issues. As a result, reserves are adjusted accordingly. "Estimating IBNR reserves for asbestos and environmental claims is difficult because of the delayed and inconsistent reporting patterns associated with these claims. In addition, there are significant uncertainties associated with estimating critical assumptions, such as average clean-up costs, third-party costs, potentially responsible party shares, allocation of damages, litigation and coverage costs, and potential state and federal legislative changes. Normal historically-based actuarial approaches cannot be applied to asbestos and environmental claims because past loss history is not indicative of future potential loss emergence. In addition, while certain alternative models can be applied, such models can produce significantly different results with small changes in assumptions. As a result, we do not calculate an asbestos and environmental loss range. Historically, our asbestos and environmental claims have been significantly lower in volume, with less volatility and uncertainty than many of our competitors in the commercial lines industry. Prior to the introduction of the absolute pollution exclusion endorsement in the mid-1980's, we were primarily a personal lines carrier and therefore do not have broad exposure to asbestos and environmental claims. Additionally, we are the primary insurance carrier on the majority of these exposures, which provides more certainty in our reserve position compared to others in the insurance marketplace. "Pension and Post-retirement Benefit Plan Actuarial Assumptions Our pension and post-retirement benefit obligations and related costs are calculated using actuarial methods, within the framework of U.S. GAAP. Two key assumptions, the discount rate and the expected return on plan assets, are important elements of expense and/or liability measurement. We evaluate these key assumptions annually. Other assumptions involve demographic factors, such as retirement age, mortality, turnover, and rate of compensation increases. In the fourth quarter of 2014, the Society of Actuaries issued their updated mortality table (RP-2014), which reflects increasing life expectancies in the United States. We adopted these mortality tables in the fourth quarter of 2014. "The discount rate enables us to state expected future cash flows at their present value on the measurement date. The purpose of the discount rate is to determine the interest rates inherent in the price at which pension benefits could be effectively settled. Our discount rate selection is based on high-quality, long-term corporate bonds. A higher discount rate reduces the present value of benefit obligations and reduces pension expense. Conversely, a lower discount rate increases the present value of benefit obligations and increases pension expense. We decreased our discount rate for the Retirement Income Plan for Selective Insurance Company of America and the Supplemental Excess Retirement Plan (jointly referred to as the "Retirement Income Plan" or the "Plan") to 4.29% for 2014, from 5.16% for 2013, reflecting lower market interest rates. We also decreased our discount rate for the life insurance benefit provided to eligible Selective Insurance Company of America ("SICA") employees (referred to as the "Retirement Life Plan") to 4.08% for 2014 from 4.85% for 2013. "The expected long-term rate of return on the plan assets is determined by considering the current and expected asset allocation, as well as historical and expected returns on each plan asset class. A lower expected rate of return on pension plan assets would increase pension expense. Our long-term expected return on the plan assets was lowered 65 basis points to 6.27% in 2014 as compared to 6.92% in 2013. This expected return is within a reasonable range considering the lower interest rate environment, as well as our actual 8.3% annualized return since the plan inception for all the plan assets. "At December 31, 2014, our pension and post-retirement benefit plan obligation was $337.4 million compared to $262.6 million at December 31, 2013. Volatility in the marketplace, changes in the discount rate assumption, and further changes in mortality assumptions could materially impact our pension and post- retirement life valuation in the future. Selective Insurance Group, Inc. is a New Jersey holding company that was incorporated in 1977. It has ten insurance subsidiaries, nine of which are licensed by various state departments of insurance to write specific lines of property and casualty insurance business in the standard market. The remaining subsidiary is authorized by various state insurance departments to write property and casualty insurance in the excess and surplus lines ("E&S") market. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chubb Corp. Had $521-Mil. Fibro Claims Reserves ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Chubb Corporation's gross loss reserves related to asbestos claims was $521 million, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. The Company states: "Asbestos remains the most significant and difficult mass tort for the insurance industry in terms of claims volume and dollar exposure. Asbestos claims relate primarily to bodily injuries asserted by those who came in contact with asbestos or products containing asbestos. Tort theory affecting asbestos litigation has evolved over the years. Early court cases established the "continuous trigger" theory with respect to insurance coverage. Under this theory, insurance coverage is deemed to be triggered from the time a claimant is first exposed to asbestos until the manifestation of any disease. This interpretation of a policy trigger can involve insurance policies over many years and increases insurance companies' exposure to liability. Generally, judicial interpretations and legislative actions have attempted to maximize insurance availability from both a coverage and liability standpoint. "New asbestos claims and new exposures on existing claims have continued despite the fact that usage of asbestos has declined since the mid-1970s. Many claimants were exposed to multiple asbestos products over an extended period of time. As a result, claim filings typically name dozens of defendants. The plaintiffs' bar has solicited new claimants through extensive advertising and through asbestos medical screenings. A vast majority of asbestos bodily injury claims have been filed by claimants who do not show any signs of asbestos related disease. New asbestos cases are often filed in those jurisdictions with a reputation for judges and juries that are sympathetic to plaintiffs. "Approximately 110 manufacturers and distributors of asbestos products have filed for bankruptcy protection as a result of asbestos related liabilities. A bankruptcy sometimes involves an agreement to a plan between the debtor and its creditors, including the creation of a trust to pay current and future asbestos claimants for their injuries. Although the debtor is negotiating in part with its insurers' money, insurers are generally given only limited opportunity to be heard. In addition to contributing to the overall number of claims, bankruptcy proceedings not only result in increased settlement demands against remaining solvent defendants, but also create the potential for recoveries from multiple trusts by the same claimant for the same alleged injuries. "There have been some positive legislative and judicial developments in the asbestos environment over the past several years: * Various challenges to the mass screening of claimants have occurred, which have led to higher medical evidentiary standards for asbestos and other exposure-type claims. * A number of states have implemented legislative and judicial reforms that focus the courts' resources on the claims of the most seriously injured. Those who allege serious injury and can present credible evidence of their injuries are receiving priority trial settings in the courts, while those who have not shown any credible disease manifestation are having their hearing dates delayed or placed on an inactive docket, which preserves the right to pursue litigation in the future. * A number of jurisdictions have adopted venue reform that requires plaintiffs to have a connection to the jurisdiction in order to file a complaint, although in more recent years, this type of reform has slowed. * In recognition that many aspects of bankruptcy plans are unfair to certain classes of claimants and to the insurance industry, these plans are being more closely scrutinized by the courts and rejected when appropriate. * A number of jurisdictions have passed or are considering legislation that will require fuller disclosure by plaintiffs of amounts received from asbestos bankruptcy trusts. "Our most significant individual asbestos exposures involve products liability on the part of "traditional" defendants who were engaged in the manufacture, distribution or installation of asbestos products. We wrote primary general liability and/or excess liability coverages for these insureds. While these insureds are relatively few in number, their exposure has been substantial due to the high volume of claims, the erosion of the underlying limits and the bankruptcies of target defendants. Our other asbestos exposures involve products and non-products liability on the part of "peripheral" defendants, including a mix of manufacturers, distributors and installers of certain products that contain asbestos in small quantities and owners or operators of properties where asbestos was present. Generally, these insureds are named defendants on a regional rather than a nationwide basis. As the financial resources of traditional asbestos defendants have been depleted, plaintiffs are targeting these viable peripheral parties with greater frequency and, in many cases, for large awards. "Asbestos claims against the major manufacturers, distributors or installers of asbestos products were typically presented under the products liability section of primary general liability policies as well as under excess liability policies, both of which typically had aggregate limits that capped an insurer's exposure. In recent years, a number of asbestos claims by insureds are being presented as "non-products" claims. In these instances, claimants contend that they came into contact with asbestos at premises owned or operated by our insureds and/or were exposed to asbestos during asbestos installation at a particular location. These non- products claims are presented under the premises or operations section of primary general liability policies. Unlike products coverage, the premises or operations coverages in these older policies typically had no aggregate limits on coverage, creating potentially greater exposure. Further, in an effort to seek additional insurance coverage, some insureds with installation activities who have substantially eroded their products coverage are presenting new asbestos claims as non-products operations claims or attempting to reclassify previously settled products claims as non-products claims to restore a portion of previously exhausted products aggregate limits. It is difficult to predict whether insureds will be successful in asserting claims under non- products coverage or whether insurers will be successful in asserting additional defenses. Accordingly, the ultimate cost to insurers of the claims for coverage not subject to aggregate limits is uncertain. "In establishing our asbestos reserves, we evaluate the exposure presented by each insured. As part of this evaluation, we consider a variety of factors including: the available insurance coverage; limits and deductibles; the jurisdictions involved; the number of claimants; the disease mix exhibited by the claimants; the past settlement values of similar claims; the potential role of other insurance, particularly underlying coverage below our excess liability policies; potential bankruptcy impact; relevant judicial interpretations; and applicable coverage defenses, including asbestos exclusions. "Various U.S. federal proposals to solve the ongoing asbestos litigation crisis have been considered by the U.S. Congress over the years, but none have yet been enacted. The prospect of federal asbestos reform legislation remains uncertain. As a result, in establishing our asbestos reserves, we have assumed a continuation of the current legal environment with no benefit from any federal asbestos reform legislation. "Our actuaries and claim personnel perform periodic analyses of our asbestos related exposures. The analyses performed in each of the past three years noted modest adverse developments mostly related to a small number of existing cases. The analyses also indicated a slower than expected decline in the number of insureds with first-time asbestos claim activity. Based on these developments, we increased our net loss reserves related to asbestos claims by $25 million in 2014, $51 million in 2013 and $28 million in 2012. "The Company's gross loss reserves related to asbestos claims for the year ended December 31, 2014, was $521 million. "At December 31, 2014, $321 million of the net loss reserves related to asbestos claims were IBNR reserves. "The Company had a total of 342 policyholders with open asbestos claims at December 31, 2014. "Significant uncertainty remains as to our ultimate liability related to asbestos related claims. This uncertainty is due to several factors including: * the long latency period between asbestos exposure and disease manifestation and the resulting potential for involvement of multiple policy periods for individual claims; * plaintiffs' expanding theories of liability and increased focus on peripheral defendants; * the volume of claims by unimpaired plaintiffs and the extent to which they can be precluded from making claims; * the volume of claims by severely impaired plaintiffs, such as those with mesothelioma, and the size of settlements and judgments received by those plaintiffs; * the volume of claims by plaintiffs suffering from other malignancies such as lung cancer and their ability to establish a causal link between their disease and exposure to asbestos; * the efforts by insureds to claim the right to non-products coverage not subject to aggregate limits; * the number of insureds seeking bankruptcy protection as a result of asbestos related liabilities; * the ability of claimants to bring a claim in a state in which they have no residency or exposure; * the impact of the exhaustion of primary limits and the resulting increase in claims on excess liability policies we have issued; * inconsistent court decisions and diverging legal interpretations; and * the possibility, however remote, of federal legislation that would address the asbestos problem. "These significant uncertainties are not likely to be resolved in the near future." The Chubb Corporation (Chubb) is a holding company for several, separately organized, property and casualty insurance companies referred to informally as the Chubb Group of Insurance Companies (the P&C Group). The P&C Group provides property and casualty insurance to businesses and individuals worldwide. The P&C Group operates through three business units: Chubb Personal Insurance, Chubb Commercial Insurance and Chubb Specialty Insurance. The Personal Insurance business offers personal insurance products to individuals and homeowners. The Commercial Insurance business offers underwriting business and commercial insurance to commercial entities. The Specialty Insurance business offers customized insurance products to variety of specialized professional liability products for privately held and publicly traded companies, financial institutions, professional firms, healthcare and not-for-profit organizations. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Quaker Chemical Unit Continues to Defend Suits --------------------------------------------------------------- An inactive subsidiary of Quaker Chemical Corporation continues to defend itself against numerous lawsuits alleging injury due to exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. The Company states: "An inactive subsidiary of the Company that was acquired in 1978 sold certain products containing asbestos, primarily on an installed basis, and is among the defendants in numerous lawsuits alleging injury due to exposure to asbestos. The subsidiary discontinued operations in 1991 and has no remaining assets other than the proceeds from insurance settlements received. As of December 31, 2014, the overwhelming majority of these claims have been disposed of without payment and there have been no adverse judgments against the subsidiary. Based on a continued analysis of the existing and anticipated future claims against this subsidiary, it is currently projected that the subsidiary's total liability over the next 50 years for these claims is less than $3,800 (excluding costs of defense). Although the Company has also been named as a defendant in certain of these cases, no claims have been actively pursued against the Company, and the Company has not contributed to the defense or settlement of any of these cases pursued against the subsidiary. These cases were previously handled by the subsidiary's primary and excess insurers who had agreed in 1997 to pay all defense costs and be responsible for all damages assessed against the subsidiary arising out of existing and future asbestos claims up to the aggregate limits of the policies. A significant portion of this primary insurance coverage was provided by an insurer that is now insolvent, and the other primary insurers have asserted that the aggregate limits of their policies have been exhausted. The subsidiary challenged the applicability of these limits to the claims being brought against the subsidiary. In response, two of the three carriers entered into separate settlement and release agreements with the subsidiary in 2005 and 2007 for $15,000 and $20,000, respectively. The proceeds of both settlements are restricted and can only be used to pay claims and costs of defense associated with the subsidiary's asbestos litigation. In 2007, the subsidiary and the remaining primary insurance carrier entered into a Claim Handling and Funding Agreement, under which the carrier agreed to pay 27% of defense and indemnity costs incurred by or on behalf of the subsidiary in connection with asbestos bodily injury claims for a minimum of five years. The agreement continues until terminated and can only be terminated by either party by providing the other party with a minimum of two years prior written notice. As of December 31, 2014, no notice of termination has been given under this agreement. At the end of the term of the agreement, the subsidiary may choose to again pursue its claim against this insurer regarding the application of the policy limits. The Company believes that, if the coverage issues under the primary policies with the remaining carrier are resolved adversely to the subsidiary and all settlement proceeds were used, the subsidiary may have limited additional coverage from a state guarantee fund established following the insolvency of one of the subsidiary's primary insurers. Nevertheless, liabilities in respect of claims may exceed the assets and coverage available to the subsidiary." Quaker Chemical Corporation develops, produces, and markets a range of formulated chemical specialty products, and offers chemical management services (CMS) for various heavy industrial and manufacturing applications in a global portfolio throughout its four regions: the North America region, the Europe, Middle East and Africa (EMEA) region, the Asia/Pacific region and the South America region. The products and services in the Company's portfolio include rolling lubricants, corrosion preventives, metal finishing compounds, machining and grinding compounds, forming compounds, hydraulic fluids, chemical milling maskants, construction products, specialty greases, die casting lubricants, technology for the removal of hydrogen sulfide in various industrial applications, and programs to provide chemical management services. ASBESTOS UPDATE: W. R. Berkley Has $36-Mil. Net A&E Reserves ------------------------------------------------------------ W. R. Berkley Corporation's net reserves relating to asbestos and environmental claims were $36 million, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. The Company states: "As of December 31, 2014, known asbestos and environmental claims at our insurance company subsidiaries have not had a material impact on our operations. These claims have not materially impacted us because these subsidiaries generally did not insure the larger industrial companies which were subject to significant asbestos or environmental exposures prior to 1986 when an absolute pollution exclusion was incorporated into standard policy language. "Our net reserves for losses and loss adjustment expenses relating to asbestos and environmental claims were $36 million at both December 31, 2014 and 2013. The Company's gross reserves for losses and loss adjustment expenses relating to asbestos and environmental claims were $56 million and $59 million at December 31, 2014 and 2013, respectively. Net incurred losses and loss expenses for reported asbestos and environmental claims increased by approximately $4 million, $5 million and $2 million in 2014, 2013 and 2012, respectively. Net paid losses and loss expenses for reported asbestos and environmental claims were approximately $3 million, $3 million and $2 million in 2014, 2013 and 2012, respectively. The estimation of these liabilities is subject to significantly greater than normal variation and uncertainty because it is difficult to make a reasonable actuarial estimate of these liabilities due to the absence of a generally accepted actuarial methodology for these exposures and the potential effect of significant unresolved legal matters, including coverage issues as well as the cost of litigating the legal issues. Additionally, the determination of ultimate damages and the final allocation of such damages to financially responsible parties are highly uncertain." W. R. Berkley Corporation (W. R. Berkley) is an insurance holding company. The Company operates in the three segments of the property casualty insurance business: Insurance-Domestic, Insurance-International and Reinsurance-Global. The Company's Insurance -Domestic operating units underwrite specialty risks within the excess and surplus lines market and on an admitted basis. The Company through its Insurance-International operating units writes business in almost 40 countries across the world, with branches or offices in 15 locations outside the United States, including the United Kingdom, Continental Europe, South America, Canada, Scandinavia, and Australia. The Company provides other insurance companies and self-insureds with assistance in managing their net risk through reinsurance on either a portfolio basis, through treaty reinsurance, or on an individual basis, through facultative reinsurance. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cincinnati Financial Has $81-Mil. A&E Reserves --------------------------------------------------------------- Cincinnati Financial Corporation has $81 million reserves for asbestos and environmental claims at December 31, 2014, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. The Company states: "We carried $81 million of net loss and loss expense reserves for asbestos and environmental claims and $51 million of reserves for mold claims at December 31, 2014, compared with $77 million and $51 million, respectively, at December 31, 2013. The asbestos and environmental claims amounts for each respective year constituted 2.0 percent and 1.9 percent of total net loss and loss expense reserves at these year-end dates. "We believe our exposure to asbestos and environmental claims is limited, largely because our reinsurance retention was $500,000 or below prior to 1987. We also were predominantly a personal lines company in the 1960s and 1970s. During the 1980s and early 1990s, commercial lines grew as a percentage of our overall business and our exposure to asbestos and environmental claims grew accordingly. Over that period, we included an asbestos and environmental exclusion in most policies or endorsed the exclusion to the policies. We have not engaged in any mergers or acquisitions through which such a liability could have been assumed. We continue to monitor our claims for evidence of material exposure to other mass tort classes such as silicosis, but we have found no such credible evidence as of December 31, 2014." Cincinnati Financial Corporation is an insurance holding company. The Company operates through its three subsidiaries: The Cincinnati Insurance Company, CSU Producer Resources Inc. and CFC Investment Company. The Company operates through five segments: Commercial lines property casualty insurance, Personal lines property casualty insurance, Excess and surplus lines property casualty insurance, Life insurance and Investments. Commercial Lines Property Casualty Insurance Segment includes the commercial lines premiums, which are written to provide accounts with coverages from over one of the Company's business lines. The personal lines property casualty insurance segment writes personal lines coverage in accounts. The excess and surplus lines property casualty segment generally covers business risks with unique characteristics. The life insurance segment supports the Company's agency-centered business model. The investments segment are primarily from net investment income. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l. Unit Has 7,730 Fibro Claims ---------------------------------------------------------- Albany International Corp.'s subsidiary, Brandon Drying Fabrics, Inc., was defending against 7,730 asbestos claims, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. Brandon Drying Fabrics, Inc. ("Brandon"), a subsidiary of Geschmay Corp., which is a subsidiary of the Company, is also a separate defendant in many of the asbestos cases in which Albany is named as a defendant. Brandon was defending against 7,730 claims as of December 31, 2014. The Company states: "We acquired Geschmay Corp., formerly known as Wangner Systems Corporation, in 1999. Brandon is a wholly owned subsidiary of Geschmay Corp. In 1978, Brandon acquired certain assets from Abney Mills ("Abney"), a South Carolina textile manufacturer. Among the assets acquired by Brandon from Abney were assets of Abney's wholly owned subsidiary, Brandon Sales, Inc. which had sold, among other things, dryer fabrics containing asbestos made by its parent, Abney. Although Brandon manufactured and sold dryer fabrics under its own name subsequent to the asset purchase, none of such fabrics contained asbestos. Because Brandon did not manufacture asbestos-containing products, and because it does not believe that it was the legal successor to, or otherwise responsible for obligations of Abney with respect to products manufactured by Abney, it believes it has strong defenses to the claims that have been asserted against it. As of December 31, 2014, Brandon has resolved, by means of settlement or dismissal, 9,875 claims for a total of $0.2 million. Brandon's insurance carriers initially agreed to pay 88.2% of the total indemnification and defense costs related to these proceedings, subject to the standard reservation of rights. The remaining 11.8% of the costs had been borne directly by Brandon. During 2004, Brandon's insurance carriers agreed to cover 100% of indemnification and defense costs, subject to policy limits and the standard reservation of rights, and to reimburse Brandon for all indemnity and defense costs paid directly by Brandon related to these proceedings. "For the same reasons with respect to Albany's claims, as well as the fact that no amounts have been paid to resolve any Brandon claims since 2001, we do not believe a meaningful estimate can be made regarding the range of possible loss with respect to these remaining claims. "In some of these asbestos cases, the Company is named both as a direct defendant and as the "successor in interest" to Mount Vernon Mills ("Mount Vernon"). We acquired certain assets from Mount Vernon in 1993. Certain plaintiffs allege injury caused by asbestos-containing products alleged to have been sold by Mount Vernon many years prior to this acquisition. Mount Vernon is contractually obligated to indemnify the Company against any liability arising out of such products. We deny any liability for products sold by Mount Vernon prior to the acquisition of the Mount Vernon assets. Pursuant to its contractual indemnification obligations, Mount Vernon has assumed the defense of these claims. On this basis, we have successfully moved for dismissal in a number of actions. "Although we do not believe, based on currently available information, that a meaningful estimate of a range of possible loss can be made with respect to such claims, based on our understanding of the insurance policies available, how settlement amounts have been allocated to various policies, our settlement experience, the absence of any judgments against the Company or Brandon, the ratio of paper mill claims to total claims filed, and the defenses available, we currently do not anticipate any material liability relating to the resolution of the aforementioned pending proceedings in excess of existing insurance limits. "Consequently, we currently do not anticipate, based on currently available information, that the ultimate resolution of the aforementioned proceedings will have a material adverse effect on the financial position, results of operations, or cash flows of the Company. Although we cannot predict the number and timing of future claims, based on the foregoing factors and the trends in claims against us to date, we do not anticipate that additional claims likely to be filed against us in the future will have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. We are aware that litigation is inherently uncertain, especially when the outcome is dependent primarily on determinations of factual matters to be made by juries." Albany International Corp., is an advanced textiles and materials processing company. The Company operates through two business segments: The Machine Clothing (MC) segment and The Albany Engineered Composites segment (AEC). The Machine Clothing (MC) segment includes paper machine clothing, engineered fabrics and belts used in the manufacture of paper and paperboard as well as engineered fabrics and belts used in many other industrial applications. The Company is engaged in design, manufacture, and market paper machine clothing for each section of the paper machine. The Albany Engineered Composites segment (AEC), including Albany Safran Composites, LLC (ASC), in which its customer SAFRAN Group owns a 10% noncontrolling interest, provides custom-designed advanced composite structures based on proprietary technology to customers in the aerospace and defense industries. AEC's largest development program relates to the LEAP engine being developed by CFM International. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hartford Fin'l Has $1.7-Bil. Fibro Reserves ------------------------------------------------------------ The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc., has $1.7 billion of net asbestos reserves, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2014. The Company states: "The Company continues to receive asbestos and environmental claims. Asbestos claims relate primarily to bodily injuries asserted by people who came in contact with asbestos or products containing asbestos. Environmental claims relate primarily to pollution and related clean-up costs. "The Company wrote several different categories of insurance contracts that may cover asbestos and environmental claims. First, the Company wrote primary policies providing the first layer of coverage in an insured's liability program. Second, the Company wrote excess policies providing higher layers of coverage for losses that exhaust the limits of underlying coverage. Third, the Company acted as a reinsurer assuming a portion of those risks assumed by other insurers writing primary, excess and reinsurance coverages. Fourth, subsidiaries of the Company participated in the London Market, writing both direct insurance and assumed reinsurance business. "Significant uncertainty limits the ability of insurers and reinsurers to estimate the ultimate reserves necessary for unpaid losses and expenses related to environmental and particularly asbestos claims. The degree of variability of reserve estimates for these exposures is significantly greater than for other more traditional exposures. "In the case of the reserves for asbestos exposures, factors contributing to the high degree of uncertainty include inadequate loss development patterns, plaintiffs' expanding theories of liability, the risks inherent in major litigation, and inconsistent emerging legal doctrines. Furthermore, over time, insurers, including the Company, have experienced significant changes in the rate at which asbestos claims are brought, the claims experience of particular insureds, and the value of claims, making predictions of future exposure from past experience uncertain. Plaintiffs and insureds also have sought to use bankruptcy proceedings, including "pre-packaged" bankruptcies, to accelerate and increase loss payments by insurers. In addition, some policyholders have asserted new classes of claims for coverages to which an aggregate limit of liability may not apply. Further uncertainties include insolvencies of other carriers and unanticipated developments pertaining to the Company's ability to recover reinsurance for asbestos and environmental claims. Management believes these issues are not likely to be resolved in the near future. "In the case of the reserves for environmental exposures, factors contributing to the high degree of uncertainty include expanding theories of liability and damages, the risks inherent in major litigation, inconsistent decisions concerning the existence and scope of coverage for environmental claims, and uncertainty as to the monetary amount being sought by the claimant from the insured. "The reporting pattern for assumed reinsurance claims, including those related to asbestos and environmental claims, is much longer than for direct claims. In many instances, it takes months or years to determine that the policyholder's own obligations have been met and how the reinsurance in question may apply to such claims. The delay in reporting reinsurance claims and exposures adds to the uncertainty of estimating the related reserves. "It is also not possible to predict changes in the legal and legislative environment and their effect on the future development of asbestos and environmental claims. "The Company believes the actuarial tools and other techniques it employs to estimate the ultimate cost of claims for more traditional kinds of insurance exposure are less precise in estimating reserves for certain of its asbestos and environmental exposures. For this reason, the Company principally relies on exposure-based analysis to estimate the ultimate costs of these claims and regularly evaluates new account information in assessing its potential asbestos and environmental exposures. The Company supplements this exposure-based analysis with evaluations of the Company's historical direct net loss and expense paid and reported experience, and net loss and expense paid and reported experience by calendar and/or report year, to assess any emerging trends, fluctuations or characteristics suggested by the aggregate paid and reported activity. "As of December 31, 2014 and 2013, the Company reported $1.7 billion of net asbestos reserves and $247 and $276 of net environmental reserves, respectively. The Company believes that its current asbestos and environmental reserves are appropriate. However, analyses of future developments could cause The Hartford to change its estimates and ranges of its asbestos and environmental reserves, and the effect of these changes could be material to the Company's consolidated operating results and liquidity." The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc., is a holding company for insurance and financial services subsidiaries that provide property and casualty and life insurance, as well as investment products to both individual and business customers in the United States. The Company conducts business in six segments, including Property & Casualty Commercial, Consumer Markets, Property & Casualty Other Operations, Group Benefits, Mutual Funds and Talcott Resolution, as well as a Corporate category. The Company includes in its Corporate category the Company's debt financing and related interest expense, as well as other capital raising activities, and purchase accounting adjustments related to goodwill and other expenses not allocated to the segments. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Order in Pa. PI Suit Affirmed --------------------------------------------------------------- On November 9, 2012, George C. Gutschall and Pamela M. Gutschall, husband and wife, commenced suit against several defendants contending that Mr. Gutschall contracted lung cancer as a result of being exposed to asbestos at various sites. With regard to Metropolitan Edison Company, the Gutschalls contend that Mr. Gutschall was exposed to asbestos while working as a boilermaker at MetEd's facilities located at Three Mile Island, Portland and Titus. MetEd and Pennsylvania Power & Light Co. filed motions for summary judgment, which the trial court granted. On June 3, 2014, the case settled as to all remaining defendants. On June 27, 2014, the Gutschalls filed a notice of appeal from the orders granting summary judgment in favor of MetEd and PP&L. In a memorandum dated May 1, 2015, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that, assuming arguendo that the Appellants established that Mr. Gutschall was exposed to asbestos on MetEd's premises, that showing alone would not be sufficient to survive summary judgment. Therefore, the Superior Court held, if it was to address the issue, it would not agree that the trial court abused its discretion in granting summary judgment in favor of MetEd. The case is GEORGE C. AND PAMELA M. GUTSCHALL, H/W, Appellants, v. METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY AND PENNSYLVANIA POWER & LIGHT CO., A/K/A PPL CORPORATION, Appellees, NO. 1973 EDA 2014 (Pa. Super.). A full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/MXTNuUfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insurer Wins Summary Judgment in "Wommack" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- National Farmers Union Property & Casualty Co. moved for summary judgment, claiming that it is not liable for Robert Wommack's occupational disease of asbestos-related disease on several theories, including: (1) under the 1973 and 1983 statutes, notice was not timely given, and the statute of repose barred recovery; (2) under the last injurious exposure rule, regardless of which Occupational Disease Act applies, it cannot be held liable for Wommack's OD; and (3) it was not the insurer at the time Wommack's asbestos-related disease was first diagnosed, and thus not liable pursuant to Section 39-72-303(2), MCA. Wommack opposes the motion but does not dispute that he was exposed to asbestos after September 30, 1985, when National Farmers Union ceased its workers' compensation coverage for his employer. Neither Respondent Nationwide Mutual Fire Ins. Co. nor Respondent Montana State Fund opposes the motion. Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co. is the sole insurer opposing National Farmers Union's motion. It does so for the purpose of proclaiming itself not liable for Wommack's OD, and that the 1997 ODA governs Wommack's claim. Judge David M. Sandler of the Workers' Compensation Court of Montana, in an order dated April 28, 2015, granted National Farmers Union's motion for summary judgment is granted, holding that "no party has presented any argument that National Farmers Union is or could be liable for Wommack's OD under Montana law. Neither Nationwide nor State Fund opposed National Farmers Union's motion for summary judgment, thereby tacitly agreeing that National Farmers Union is not liable for Wommack's OD. Liberty argues the 1997 WCA applies to this case and that it is not liable for Wommack's OD under the last injurious exposure rule because Wommack's last injurious exposure occurred before it became the insurer at risk. However, Liberty does not argue that National Farmers Union is or could be liable for Wommack's OD. Wommack, who has the burden of proving which insurer is liable, argues that he was exposed to asbestos during his entire 30 years of employment with Cenex and that "liability for [his] last injurious exposure lies among the insurers responsible for these time frames," but does not specifically argue that National Farmers Union is liable for his OD. National Farmers Union is therefore entitled to judgment as a matter of law in accordance with Section 39-72-303(1), MCA, In re Mitchell, and Nelson." The case is ROBERT WOMMACK, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL FARMERS UNION PROPERTY & CASUALTY, CO.; NATIONWIDE MUTUAL FIRE INS CO.; MONTANA STATE FUND; CHS INC.; LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INS. CO.; and DOES 1-5, inclusive Respondents/Insurers, WCC NO. 2015-3518 (WCC). A full- text copy of Judge Sandler's Decision is available at http://is.gd/vfaZTtfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mass. App. Flips Ruling in Reinsurance Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Resolute Management Inc. appeals from a judgment of dismissal entered in Superior Court following the allowance of Transatlantic Reinsurance Company's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint pursuant to Mass.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), 365 Mass. 754 (1974). The complaint asserted claims of tortious interference with contractual relations and violation of G. L. c. 93A. The Appeals Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk, in an opinion dated April 29, 2015, concluded that the judge correctly dismissed the claims of Resolute for tortious interference with contractual relations as Resolute is not a party to the contracts at issue. However, the Appeals Court concluded that the allegations of the complaint do not establish as a matter of law that the plaintiffs cannot maintain a cause of action under G. L. c. 93A, or whether New York or Massachusetts law should apply to the claims of National Indemnity Company for tortious interference with contractual relations. Accordingly, the Appeals Court reversed so much of the judgment as dismisses the plaintiffs' c. 93A claims and National's claims for tortious interference with contractual relations. National is an eligible surplus lines insurer and reinsurer in Nebraska whose business includes issuing reinsurance contracts and contracting to manage asbestos-related personal injury claims for Massachusetts-based insurers. National's business, in part, is to enter contracts with other insurers' clients, pursuant to which it (or Resolute, as National's agent) resolves claims against those other insurers and collects reinsurance. The case is RESOLUTE MANAGEMENT INC. & another vs. TRANSATLANTIC REINSURANCE COMPANY & another, NO. 14-P-573 (Mass. App.). A full- text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/97e1dafrom Leagle.com. Bryce L. Friedman, of New York (Kevin O'Connor with him) for the plaintiffs. John N. Thomas, of New York (Ben T. Clements with him) for the defendants. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wis. App. Remands "Sorenson" Suit for Trial ------------------------------------------------------------ George Sorenson's estate filed strict-products-liability and negligence claims, based upon a failure to warn, against Building Service Industrial Sales, Inc., a company that supplied asbestos insulation products to Sorenson's employers. Following a motion for summary judgment, the circuit court dismissed Sorenson's claims against BSIS, concluding that those claims were barred by the construction statute of repose, WIS. STAT. Section 893.89(2) (2013-14). Sorenson appeals, arguing that material issues of fact exist regarding whether BSIS was "a person involved in the improvement of real property." The Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District I, in an opinion dated April 28, 2015, agreed that a genuine issue of material fact exists and remanded the case back to the circuit court for trial. The case is RODNETTE SORENSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE ON BEHALF OF THE ESTATE OF GEORGE SORENSON, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. BUILDING SERVICE INDUSTRIAL SALES, INC., DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT, METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, OAKFABCO, INC. AND TRANE US, INC., DEFENDANTS, LOCAL 19 & 27 HEALTH & WELFARE FUND, SUBROGATED DEFENDANT, APPEAL NO. 2014AP964 (Wis. App.). A full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/lKe3rRfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judge Recommends Dismissal of Cos. in PI Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Sherry R. Fallon of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, recommended that the District Court grant summary judgment and dismiss with prejudice several defendants in an asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit after the plaintiffs filed a notice of non-opposition to the defendants' motions for summary judgment. The case is CHARLES D. MALONE and ELIZABETH MALONE, Plaintiffs, v. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION, et al. Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-406-SLR-SRF (D. Del.). A full-text copy of Magistrate Fallon's April 24, 2015, Report and Recommendation is available at http://is.gd/uYYPWpfrom Leagle.com. Charles D. Malone, Elizabeth Malone, Plaintiffs, represented by Michael L. Sensor, Lundy Law of Delaware, LLC & Charles E. Soechting, Jr. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross Claimant, represented by Barbara Anne Fruehauf, Wilbraham Lawler & Buba. Alfa Laval Inc., Defendant, Cross Claimant, Cross Defendant, represented by Amaryah K. Bocchino, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP, Jason A. Cincilla, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP, Jessica L. Reno, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP & Stephanie Elizabeth Smiertka, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP. Armstrong International Inc., Defendant, Cross Claimant, Cross Defendant, represented by Robert Alexander Ranieri, Dickie McCamey & Chilcote, P.C.. Blackmer Pump Company, Defendant, represented by Christopher C. Popper, Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC & Krista Reale Samis, Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC. Caterpillar Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross Claimant, represented by Eileen M. Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C. & Megan Trocki Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C.. CBS Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC & Shawn Edward Martyniak, Swartz Campbell LLC. Crane Co., Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Nicholas E. Skiles, Swartz Campbell LLC & Shawn Edward Martyniak, Swartz Campbell LLC. Crown Cork & Seal Company Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross Claimant, represented by Andrew G. Ahern, III, Joseph W. Benson, Esq.. Cummins Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross Claimant, represented by Barbara Anne Fruehauf, Wilbraham Lawler & Buba. Flowserve Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross Claimant, represented by Jessica L. Reno, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP & Nathan David Barillo, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP. Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC & Shawn Edward Martyniak, Swartz Campbell LLC. General Electric Company, Defendant, Cross Claimant, Cross Defendant, represented by Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC. Hopeman Brothers Inc., Defendant, Cross Claimant, Cross Defendant, represented by R. Stokes Nolte, Reilly Janiczek & McDevitt PC, Stephanie S. Levitsky, Reilly Janiczek & McDevitt PC & Mary Kathryn Hodges Harmon, Reilly Janiczek & McDevitt PC. Huntington Ingalls Industries Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC & Shawn Edward Martyniak, Swartz Campbell LLC. IMO Industries Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross Claimant, represented by Eileen M. Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C.. Ingersoll Rand Company, Defendant, Cross Claimant, Cross Defendant, represented by Jessica Lee Tyler, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Sally J. Daugherty, Salmon Ricchezza Singer & Turchi LLP. Nash Engineering Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross Claimant, represented by Eric Scott Thompson, McGivney & Kluger, P.C.. Pfizer Inc., Defendant, Cross Claimant, Cross Defendant, represented by Daniel Partick Daly, Kelley Jasons McGowan Spinelli & Hanna LLP. Riley Power Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross Claimant, represented by Joel M. Doner, Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC. Velan Valve Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Donald Robert Kinsley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC & Paul A. Bradley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC. William Powell Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross Claimant, represented by Anne Kai Seelaus, Barnard, Mezzanotte, Pinnie and Seelaus. York International Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross Claimant, represented by Peter S. Murphy, Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC. Zurn Industries LLC, Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross Claimant, represented by Daniel Partick Daly, Kelley Jasons McGowan Spinelli & Hanna LLP. Trane US Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin & Jessica Lee Tyler, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin. Atwood & Morrill Company Inc., Defendant, Cross Claimant, Cross Defendant, represented by Eric Scott Thompson, McGivney & Kluger, P.C.. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal in "Hockler" Suit Withdrawn --------------------------------------------------- The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department, allowed the withdrawal of an appeal, previously perfected for the June 2015 Term, filed in the lawsuit captioned IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to HOCKLER, v. 3M COMPANY -- AURORA PUMP COMPANY, MOTION NO. M-1424 (N.Y. App. Div.). A full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/Zb8h58from Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Dugas" Suit Partially Dismissed vs. UTC, et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Darryl S. Dugas and his wife Marsha Dugas filed a second amended complaint setting forth four causes of action: (1) negligence; (2) strict liability; (3) fraudulent concealment; and (4) loss of consortium. The gravamen of the SAC is that Darryl Dugas was exposed to asbestos fibers which led to his development of malignant mesothelioma. Mr. Dugas' exposure to asbestos came from his contact with asbestos-containing products during his tenure with the United States Navy. The products were either mined, processed, supplied, manufactured, or distributed by Defendants, or their predecessors. Following Mr. Dugas's filing of the SAC, Defendants 3M Company, United Technologies Corporation, Shell Oil Company, and IMO Industries, Incorporated, filed motions to dismiss arguing that the SAC fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and fails to plead fraudulent concealment with the requisite level of specificity. In an order dated April 27, 2015, Judge Brian J. Davis of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville Division, granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motions to dismiss. Judge Davis dismissed with prejudice the Plaintiffs' claims of fraudulent concealment against UTC, IMO and Shell. The case is DARRYL S. DUGAS and MARSHA DUGAS, his wife, Plaintiffs, v. 3M COMPANY, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 3:14-CV- 1096-J-39JBT (M.D. Fla.). A full-text copy of Judge Davis' Decision is available at http://is.gd/mbokKjfrom Leagle.com. Darryl S. Dugas, Plaintiff, represented by Alan M. Pickert, Terrell Hogan, PA, Case A. Dam, The Lanier Law Firm, H.W. Trey Jones, Lanier Law Firm & Mark A. Linder, Lanier Law Firm. Marsha Dugas, Plaintiff, represented by Alan M. Pickert, Terrell Hogan, PA, Case A. Dam, The Lanier Law Firm, H.W. Trey Jones, Lanier Law Firm & Mark A. Linder, Lanier Law Firm. 3M Company, Defendant, represented by Dara D. Mann, McKenna, Long & Aldridge, LLP, Monica L. Irel, McKenna, Long & Aldridge, LLP & Sada J. Baby, McKenna, Long & Aldridge, LLP. IMO Industries, Inc., Defendant, represented by Eduardo J. Medina, Bice Cole Law Firm, PL, Melanie E. Chung-Tims, Bice Cole Law Firm, PL, Neil Anthony Covone, Bice Cole Law Firm, PL & Susan J. Cole, Bice Cole Law Firm, PL. United Technologies Corporation, Defendant, represented by Eduardo J. Medina, Bice Cole Law Firm, PL, Melanie E. Chung-Tims, Bice Cole Law Firm, PL, Neil Anthony Covone, Bice Cole Law Firm, PL & Susan J. Cole, Bice Cole Law Firm, PL. Dexter Hysol Aerospace, LLC, Defendant, represented by Billie Jo Taylor, Esq. -- btaylor@boyd-jenerette.com -- Boyd & Jenerette, PA & Kristen M. Van der Linde, Esq. -- kvanderlinde@boyd- jenerette.com -- Boyd & Jenerette, PA. Henkel Corporation, Defendant, represented by Billie Jo Taylor, Boyd & Jenerette, PA & Kristen M. Van der Linde, Boyd & Jenerette, PA. Shell Oil Company, Defendant, represented by Evelyn Fletcher Davis, Hawkins & Parnell, LLP & Todd Carlton Alley, Hawkins Parnell Thackston & Young LLP. Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant, represented by Joseph C. Wilson, IV, Pierce, Herns, Sloan & Wilson, LLC. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 10th Circ. Affirms Dismissal of Inmates' Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed a district court's dismissal of claims filed by James Templeton and David Cowden under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. Messrs. Templeton and Cowden, inmates at the Fremont Correctional Facility, filed suit alleging that numerous prison officials violated their rights under the Eighth Amendment when they allowed the inmates to be exposed to mastic and asbestos within the premises of the correctional. The appeals case is JAMES TEMPLETON; DAVID COWDEN, Plaintiffs- Appellants, and ROBERT GALLOB; DAVID ALLEN, Plaintiffs, v. PETER ANDERSON; JEFF SMITH; JAMES CHANEY; TIMOTHY CREANY; JAN SYLVIA; STEVEN GALLEGOS; CHERI DRENNON; STEPHEN ENGLE; THOMAS MARTIN, Defendants-Appellees, NO. 14-1334 (10th Circ.). A full-text copy of the April 15, 2015 Decision penned by Judge Carlos F. Lucero is available at http://is.gd/qyVyLlfrom Leagle.com. ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Ma. Cristina Canson, Noemi Irene A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 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 * * *