/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/150511.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, May 11, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 93 Headlines ABM INDUSTRIES: Plaintiffs' Appeal in Augustus Case Due ABM INDUSTRIES: Oral Argument Not Scheduled in Bucio Case Appeal ACN TRUCKING: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Alleging Violations of FLSA AFNI INC: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act in N.Y. AGRESERVES INC: Removes "Rivera" Class Suit to E.D. California ALY CENTRIFUGE: "Mallett" Suit Moved From W.D. to S.D. Texas AMARIN CORPORATION: To Defend Against Securities Litigation AMEDISYS INC: Securities Class Action Returns to District Court AMEDISYS INC: Parties in Wage & Hour Case Pursue Mediation AMERICAN CORADIUS: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act B FRANK JOY: Accused of Retaliation, Illegal Discharge Under FLSA B&B COLLECTIONS: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims B&G FOODS: Class Actions Against Pirate Brands Dismissed B&G FOODS: "Alduey" Class Action Dismissed With Prejudice BARCLAYS PLC: Filed Motion to Dismiss Securities Class Action BARCLAYS PLC: MDL Court Wants Settlement Allocation Plan BARCLAYS PLC: Discovery to be Completed by Yearend in Fraud Case BARCLAYS PLC: Appellate Briefing to Be Done by Summer's End BARCLAYS PLC: JPY LIBOR Case Discovery Stayed Thru at Least May BARCLAYS PLC: EURIBOR Case Proceedings Stayed Thru at Least May BARCLAYS PLC: Defendants Move to Dismiss Amended ISDAfix Case BARCLAYS PLC: Gold Fix Civil Actions Consolidated for Pretrial BARCLAYS PLC: 2 Foreign Exchange Trading Civil Actions Dismissed BARCLAYS PLC: Amended Complaint Related to ADS in Discovery BIG HEART: Defending Against "Thomas" Class Action BIG HEART: Defending Against Gamez v. Del Monte Case BIG HEART: May 18 Final Settlement Hearing in "Montgomery" Case BIG HEART: Opposition to Class Cert. Bid Filed in "Miller" BIG HEART: Updates on Langone, Ruff, Funke and Mazur Cases BIG HEART: Cannot Estimate Exposure in Webster v. Del Monte BLATT HASENMILLER: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims BMW VEHICLE: RMBS Plaintiffs Win Dismissal of State Court Suit BOB EVANS: Seeks to Have Class in "Snodgrass" Case Decertified BP PLC: Deadline for Submitting Medical Benefits Claims Lapsed BP PLC: Trial of Securities Fraud Claims Set for January 2016 BP PLC: Plaintiffs in ERISA Case Filed Amended Complaint BP PLC: Briefing on Application in Canadian Action Concluded BP PLC: Briefing on Appeal in Dividend-Related Proceedings Done BP PLC: Amended Complaints in 15 Individual Securities Cases Due BRANDED LLC: Recalls Kaleidoscopes Due to Laceration Risk CALIX INC: Hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend Held CAREER EDUCATION: Court Stayed "Enea" Case Pending Appeal CAREER EDUCATION: Awaits Decision in "Surrett" Case Appeal CAREER EDUCATION: Summary Judgment Motions Due in "Wilson" Case CITIGROUP INC: Must Face Woori Bank's Suit Over CDO Fraud CITIZENS FINANCIAL: Defending Against TCPA Litigation CITIZENS FINANCIAL: Defending Against LIBOR Litigation COLLECTION BUREAU: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims DEUTSCHE BANK: Enters Into Settlement in LIBOR Manipulation Probe DIVERSIFIED ADJUSTMENT: Accused of Violating FDCPA in New York ELI LILLY: Faces "Courtney" Suit Arising From Cymbalta Injuries FELT BICYCLES: Recalls Felt Cruiser Bicycles Due to Crash Hazard FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE: Accused of Violating FDCPA in New York HY-VEE INC: Recalls Summer Fresh Pasta Salad Due to Listeria IKEA NORTH: Recalls Sultan and Vyssa Crib Mattresses INSYS THERAPEUTICS: Parties Filed Bid to Stay Pending Mediation KENT NUTRITION: Recalls Medicated Poultry Feeds Due to Salt LATTICE SEMICONDUCTOR: Facing Suits Over Silicon Image Merger LOS ALTOS BEACH: Judge Awards $4.5MM to Family in Bush Crash Suit LYFT INC: Removes "Bekele" Suit to Massachusetts District Court MICHAEL HARRISON: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act MICHAELS STORES: "Horton" Suit Moved From California to N.J. NASDAQ STOCK: Settles Facebook IPO Suit for $26.5 Million NAVISTAR INT'L: Status Hearing Stricken in MaxxForce Litigation NAVISTAR INT'L: Ruling Date in Shareholder Litigation Extended NEW YORK, NY: Faces Class Suit by Transport Workers Union NOMI TECHNOLOGIES: Settles FTC Charges Over Privacy Policy ORTOVOX CANADA: Recalls S1+ Avalanche Transceivers PINTY'S DELICIOUS: Recalls Pinty's Eatwell Brand Chicken Products POCO DOLCE: Recalls Individually Wrapped Tiles Due to Milk POLYPORE INTERNATIONAL: Defendant in Lax v. Toth Case POWERSECURE INTERNATIONAL: Dismissal of Securities Action Sought PRIME CONSULTING: Accused of Violating Fair Credit Reporting Act RANBAXY PHARMACEUTICALS: Recalls RAN-Gabapentin Products SABRE CORP: Class Suit Stayed Pending State Court Action Results SABRE CORP: Court Closed Hotel Related Antitrust Case SAFEWAY INC: Bid for Final Deal Approval to Be Filed Mid-2015 SENSO GROUP: Recalls Charcoal Products Due to Mislabeling SMITH & WESSON: Defendant in Eight Product Liability Cases ST. FRANCIS: Recalls All-Seasons Detox Kit Due to Excess Lead ST. FRANCIS: Recalls Bulklax V Products Due to Arsenic & Lead STATE AUTO: Proceedings in Schumacher Case Stayed STRATASYS LTD: Faces Class Actions in Minnesota & New York SUN RICH: Recalls Sliced Apple Products Due to Listeria TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS: Settles Actos Lawsuits for $2.4 Billion TECUMSEH PRODUCTS: Deal Okayed in Canadian Horsepower Label Case TIME WARNER: "Johnson" Suit Moved to S. Carolina District Court TORO COMPANY: Recalls Walk-Behind Power Mowers TRACER: Recalls Multiple Trailer Models Due to Crash Injury TREK BICYCLE: Recalls Bicycle With Front Quick Release Levers TROPHIC CANADA: Recalls Maximized Living 7 Day D-Tox Systems UPM MARKETING: Expands Line Voltage Thermostats Recall VECTOR GROUP: Four Class Actions Pending as of December 31 VECTOR GROUP: 13 Engle Progeny Cases for Trial Through Dec. 2015 VECTOR GROUP: Engle Payments Pegged at $3.5MM Per Year Thru 2028 VECTOR GROUP: Tobacco Product Liability Legal Costs Total $9.9MM VECTOR GROUP: Liggett Settled 155 Engle Progeny Cases VOLKSWAGEN: Recalls Golf, GTI and A3 Models WATERLOO INDUSTRIES: Recalls Husky(R) Securelock(TM) Bike Hooks WEIGHT WATCHERS: Made Settlement Payment in "Connolly" Case WEIGHT WATCHERS: To Defend Securities Litigation WINE GROUP: Faces "Bithorn" Suit Over Arsenic-Contaminated Wine YAMAHA: Recalls Multiple Motorcycle Models Due to Injury Risk * Court Urged to Approve LSAT Disability Accommodations Plan ********* ABM INDUSTRIES: Plaintiffs' Appeal in Augustus Case Due ------------------------------------------------------- ABM Industries Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended January 31, 2015, that plaintiffs' appeal in the Consolidated Cases of Augustus, Hall and Davis v. American Commercial Security Services, filed July 12, 2005, in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County were due on or before March 10, 2015. "The Augustus case is a certified class action involving allegations that we violated certain California state laws relating to rest breaks," the Company said. "The case centers around whether requiring security guards to remain on call during rest breaks violated Section 226.7 of the California Labor Code. On February 8, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment on the rest break claim, and on July 31, 2012, the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County (the "Superior Court"), entered judgment in favor of plaintiffs in the amount of approximately $89.7 million. Subsequently, the Superior Court also awarded plaintiffs' attorneys' fees of approximately $4.5 million in addition to approximately 30% of the $89.7 million common fund. We appealed the Superior Court's rulings to the Court of Appeals of the State of California, Second Appellate District (the "Appeals Court"). On December 31, 2014, the Appeals Court issued its opinion, reversing the judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and vacating the award of $89.7 million in damages and the attorneys' fees award. Plaintiffs requested rehearing of the Appeals Court's decision to reverse the judgment in favor of plaintiffs and vacate the damages award. On January 29, 2015, the Appeals Court denied the plaintiffs' request for rehearing, modified its December 31, 2014 opinion, and certified the opinion for publication. The Appeals Court opinion held that "on-call rest breaks are permissible" and remaining on call during rest breaks does not render the rest breaks invalid under California law. The Appeals Court explained that "although on-call hours constitute 'hours worked,' remaining available to work is not the same as performing work. . . . Section 226.7 proscribes only work on a rest break." If the plaintiffs choose to appeal this decision to the California Supreme Court, their petition for review will be due on or before March 10, 2015." ABM INDUSTRIES: Oral Argument Not Scheduled in Bucio Case Appeal ---------------------------------------------------------------- ABM Industries Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended January 31, 2015, that oral argument relating to the appeal has not been scheduled in the Consolidated Cases of Bucio and Martinez v. ABM Janitorial Services filed on April 7, 2006, in the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco (the "Bucio case"). The Bucio case is a purported class action involving allegations that we failed to track work time and provide breaks. On April 19, 2011, the trial court held a hearing on plaintiffs' motion to certify the class. At the conclusion of that hearing, the trial court denied plaintiffs' motion to certify the class. On May 11, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a motion to reconsider, which was denied. The plaintiffs have appealed the class certification issues. The trial court stayed the underlying lawsuit pending the decision in the appeal. On August 30, 2012, the plaintiffs filed their appellate brief on the class certification issues. We filed our responsive brief on November 15, 2012. Oral argument relating to the appeal has not been scheduled. ACN TRUCKING: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Alleging Violations of FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jose Raul Rodriguez, Individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. ACN Trucking Corp. d/b/a American Foods, Angelo Natoli, Nicole Natoli, John Doe and Jane Doe, Case No. 1:15-cv-03052-PGG (S.D.N.Y., April 20, 2015) seeks relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Antonio Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2020 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 E-mail: faillace@employmentcompliance.com AFNI INC: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act in N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------------- Elia Kassab, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. AFNI, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-02242 (E.D.N.Y., April 20, 2015) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Zelman, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ALAN J. SASSON 1669 East 12th Street Brooklyn, NY 11229 Telephone: (347) 526-4093 Facsimile: (347) 244-7178 E-mail: yzelman@gmail.com AGRESERVES INC: Removes "Rivera" Class Suit to E.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Rivera v. AgReserves, Inc., et al., Case No. S-1500-CV-284358-SPC, was removed from the Kern County Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California (Fresno). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-00613-AWI-JLT to the proceeding. The lawsuit arose from labor-related issues. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory N. Karasik, Esq. KARASIK LAW FIRM 11835 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 1275 Los Angeles, CA 90064 Telephone: (310) 312-6800 E-mail: greg@karasiklawfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Richard D. Marca, Esq. Jamie E. Wrage, Esq. Jeff T. Olsen, Esq. GRESHAM SAVAGE NOLAN & TILDEN 3750 University Avenue, Suite 250 Riverside, CA 92501 Telephone: (951) 684-2171 Facsimile: (951) 684-2150 E-mail: Richard.Marca@GreshamSavage.com Jamie.Wrage@greshamsavage.com jeff.olsen@greshamsavage.com ALY CENTRIFUGE: "Mallett" Suit Moved From W.D. to S.D. Texas ------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit titled Mallett, et al. v. Aly Centrifuge, Inc. aka Aly Energy Services, Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv-00085, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Houston). The Southern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:15-cv-01026 to the proceeding. The lawsuit seeks to recover unpaid wages and other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christopher Edwin McJunkin, Esq. 2842 Lawnview Corpus Christi, TX 78404 Telephone: (361) 882-5747 Facsimile: (361) 882-8926 E-mail: cmcjunkin@stx.rr.com - and - Richard J. Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com - and - Adam Poncio, Esq. PONCIO LAW OFFICES PC 5410 Fredericksburg Rd., Suite 109 San Antonio, TX 78229 Telephone: (210) 212-7979 Facsimile: (210) 212-5880 E-mail: salaw@msn.com The Defendant is represented by: Mario Kenny Castillo, Esq. Daniel N. Ramirez, Esq. MONTY & RAMIREZ LLP 150 W Parker Road, Third Floor Houston, TX 77076 Telephone: (281) 493-5529 Facsimile: (281) 493-5983 E-mail: mcastillo@montyramirezlaw.com dramirez@montyramirezlaw.com AMARIN CORPORATION: To Defend Against Securities Litigation ----------------------------------------------------------- Amarin Corporation plc said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company will vigorously defend against this class action suit, Amarin Corporation plc, Securities Litigation. On November 1, 2013, a purported investor of Amarin filed a putative class action lawsuit captioned Steven Sklar v. Amarin Corporation plc et al., No. 13-cv-6954 (D.N.J. Nov. 1, 2013) in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. Substantially similar lawsuits, captioned Bove v. Amarin Corporation plc, Civ. No. 13-07882 (AT) (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 5, 2013), Bentley v. Amarin Corporation plc, Civ. No. 13-08283 (AT) (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 20, 2013) and Siegel v. Amarin Corporation plc, No. 3:13-cv-07210 (D.N.J. Nov. 27, 2013), were subsequently filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey and U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. On December 9, 2013, the cases filed in the Southern District of New York were transferred to the District of New Jersey and all such cases are now consolidated as In re Amarin Corporation plc, Securities Litigation, No. 3:13-cv-06663 (D.N.J. Nov. 1, 2013). The plaintiffs assert claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and allege that Amarin and certain of its current and former officers and directors made misstatements and omissions regarding the FDA's willingness to approve Vascepa's ANCHOR indication and related contributing factors and the potential relevance of data from the ongoing REDUCE-IT trial to that approval. The lawsuit seeks unspecified monetary damages and attorneys' fees and costs. "We believe that we have valid defenses and we will vigorously defend against this class action suit, but cannot predict the outcome. We are unable to reasonably estimate the loss exposure, if any, associated with the claims. We have insurance coverage that is anticipated to cover any significant loss exposure that may arise from this action after payment by us of the associated deductible obligation under such insurance coverage," the Company said. AMEDISYS INC: Securities Class Action Returns to District Court --------------------------------------------------------------- Amedisys, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the securities class action complaint now returns to the District Court for further proceedings. On June 10, 2010, a putative securities class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana (the "District Court") against the Company and certain of our current and former senior executives. Additional putative securities class actions were filed in the Court on July 14, July 16, and July 28, 2010. On October 22, 2010, the District Court issued an order consolidating the putative securities class action lawsuits and the Federal Derivative Actions for pre-trial purposes. In the same order, the District Court appointed the Public Employees Retirement System of Mississippi and the Puerto Rico Teachers' Retirement System as co-lead plaintiffs (together, the "Co-Lead Plaintiffs") for the putative class. On December 10, 2010, the District Court also consolidated the ERISA class action lawsuit with the putative securities class actions and Federal Derivative Actions for pre-trial purposes. On January 18, 2011, the Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended, consolidated class action complaint (the "Securities Complaint") which supersedes the earlier-filed securities class action complaints. The Securities Complaint alleges that the defendants made false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose material facts about our business, financial condition, operations and prospects, particularly relating to our policies and practices regarding home therapy visits under the Medicare home health prospective payment system and the related alleged impact on our business, financial condition, operations and prospects. The Securities Complaint seeks a determination that the action may be maintained as a class action on behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's securities between August 2, 2005 and September 28, 2010 and an unspecified amount of damages. All defendants moved to dismiss the Securities Complaint. On June 28, 2012, the District Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the Securities Complaint. On July 26, 2012, the Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration, which the District Court denied on April 9, 2013. On May 3, 2013, the Co-Lead Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of the Securities Complaint to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (the "Fifth Circuit"). On October 2, 2014, a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit issued a decision reversing the District Court's dismissal of the Securities Complaint. On October 16, 2014, all defendants filed a petition with the Fifth Circuit to review the three-judge panel's decision en banc, or as a whole court. On December 29, 2014, the Fifth Circuit denied the defendants' motion for en banc review of the Fifth Circuit panel's decision reversing the District Court's dismissal of the case. The case now returns to the District Court for further proceedings. No assurances can be given as to the timing or outcome of this matter. AMEDISYS INC: Parties in Wage & Hour Case Pursue Mediation ---------------------------------------------------------- Amedisys, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company and the plaintiffs in the Wage and Hour Litigation while they pursue a mediated settlement. The Company said, "On July 25, 2012, a putative collective and class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut against us in which three former employees allege wage and hour law violations. The former employees claim that they were not paid overtime for all hours worked over forty hours in violation of the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), as well as the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act. More specifically, they allege they were paid on both a per- visit and an hourly basis, and that such a pay scheme resulted in their misclassification as exempt employees, thereby denying them overtime pay. Moreover, in response to a Company motion arguing that plaintiffs' complaint was deficient in that it was ambiguous and failed to provide fair notice of the claims asserted and plaintiffs' opposition thereto, the Court, on April 8, 2013, held that the complaint adequately raises general allegations that the plaintiffs were not paid overtime for all hours worked in a week over forty, which may include claims for unpaid overtime under other theories of liability, such as alleged off-the-clock work, in addition to plaintiffs' more clearly stated allegations based on misclassification. On behalf of themselves and a class of current and former employees they allege are similarly situated, plaintiffs seek attorneys' fees, back wages and liquidated damages going back three years under the FLSA and three years under the Pennsylvania statute. On October 8, 2013, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion for equitable tolling requesting that the statute of limitations for claims under the FLSA for plaintiffs who opt-in to the lawsuit be tolled from September 24, 2012, the date upon which plaintiffs filed their original motion for conditional certification, until 90 days after any notice of this lawsuit is issued following conditional certification. Following a motion for reconsideration filed by the Company, on December 3, 2013, the Court modified this order, holding that putative class members' FLSA claims are tolled from October 29, 2012 through the date of the Court's order on plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification. On January 13, 2014, the Court granted plaintiffs' July 10, 2013 motion for conditional certification of their FLSA claims and authorized issuance of notice to putative class members to provide them an opportunity to opt in to the action. On April 17, 2014, that notice was mailed to putative class members. The period within which putative class members were permitted to opt in to the action expired on July 16, 2014." "On September 10, 2014, the plaintiffs in the Connecticut case filed a motion for leave to amend their complaint to add a new claim under the Kentucky Wage and Hour Act ("KWHA") alleging that the Company did not pay certain home health clinicians working in the Commonwealth of Kentucky all of the overtime wages they were owed, either because the Company misclassified them as exempt from overtime or, while treating them as overtime eligible, did not properly pay them overtime for all hours worked over 40 in a week. On behalf of themselves and a class of current and former employees they allege are similarly situated, plaintiffs seek attorneys' fees, back wages and liquidated damages going back five years before the filing of their original complaint under the KWHA. On October 1, 2014, the Company filed an opposition to the plaintiffs' motion to amend. On October 15, 2014, plaintiffs filed a reply brief in support of their motion. On December 12, 2014, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion to amend the complaint to add the claims under the KWHA. The Company and the plaintiffs have agreed to explore the possibility of a mediated settlement of the Connecticut case, and on February 23, 2015 filed a joint motion to stay proceedings for six months while they pursue this process, which was granted by the Court on February 24, 2015. There can be no assurance that the proposed mediation process will lead to a resolution of this matter." AMERICAN CORADIUS: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act -------------------------------------------------------------- Rachel Labin, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated consumers v. American Coradius International LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-02243 (E.D.N.Y., April 20, 2015) is brought over alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Maxim Maximov, Esq. MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP 1701 Avenue P Brooklyn, NY 11229 Telephone: (718) 395-3459 Facsimile: (718) 408-9570 E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com B FRANK JOY: Accused of Retaliation, Illegal Discharge Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------------- Harry Hill v. B. Frank Joy, L.L.C., Case No. 8:15-cv-01123 (D. Md., April 20, 2015) is brought by the Plaintiff against his former employer for retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and wrongful discharge and malicious use of process under Maryland state law. Mr. Hill is a resident of Laurel, Prince George's County, Maryland. He is a former hourly, non-exempt employee of the Defendant. B. Frank Joy, L.L.C., is a Maryland limited liability company with its principal place of business located in Hyattsville, Prince George's County, Maryland. The Defendant has operated in the construction industry, specializing in the installation, maintenance, and rehabilitation of underground infrastructure for the public and private sectors. The Plaintiff and the Defendant are also parties to a Class Action Complaint for unpaid regular and overtime wages filed contemporaneously in this District by the Plaintiff on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated under the FLSA and the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law. The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew E. Feinberg, Esq. Nathan I. Finkelstein, Esq. THE FINKELSTEIN GROUP, P.C. 4600 N. Park Avenue, Suite 101 Chevy Chase, MA 20815 Telephone: (301) 951-8400 Facsimile: (301) 951-8401 E-mail: Matt@fglawfirm.com Nat@fglawfirm.com B&B COLLECTIONS: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Jennifer Coppahidric, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated v. B&B Collections, Inc., and John Does 1-25, Case No. 2:15-cv-02772-SRC-CLW (D.N.J., April 20, 2015) seeks relief in connection with alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph K. Jones, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH K. JONES, LLC 375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100 Fairfield, NJ 07004 Telephone: (973) 227-5900 E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com B&G FOODS: Class Actions Against Pirate Brands Dismissed -------------------------------------------------------- B&G Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2015, for the fiscal year ended January 3, 2015, that each of the class action lawsuits against Pirate Brands was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice by the respective plaintiffs for an immaterial settlement amount. "Beginning in December 2012, Pirate Brands was named as a defendant in six duplicative putative class action lawsuits filed in United States District Courts, two of which were filed prior to our ownership of Pirate Brands, alleging that Pirate Brands' products were improperly labeled as "natural" because they contained "genetically modified" and "highly processed" ingredients," the Company said. "Each case was filed on behalf of a plaintiff and purported similarly situated individuals. In 2013, all of the cases were transferred to the Eastern District of New York. Pirate Brands had moved to dismiss each of the actions when, in December 2014, each case was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice by the respective plaintiffs for an immaterial settlement amount. The dismissal of these actions did not have a material effect on B&G Foods' consolidated financial position, results of operations or liquidity." B&G FOODS: "Alduey" Class Action Dismissed With Prejudice --------------------------------------------------------- B&G Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2015, for the fiscal year ended January 3, 2015, that Carolina Alduey has voluntarily dismissed her class action with prejudice for an immaterial settlement amount. B&G Foods was named as a defendant in two putative class action lawsuits alleging that certain of the Company's products were improperly labeled as "natural" because they contained "genetically modified" and/or "highly processed" ingredients. "The first case was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida in September 2014 by Bonnie Jo Pettinga, Caleb Johnson, Shawn Teufel and Joseph Grey, individually and purportedly on behalf of similarly situated individuals. This action was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice by the plaintiffs on or about October 17, 2014. The second case was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in October 2014 by Carolina Alduey, purportedly on behalf of herself and similarly situated individuals," the Company said. In November 2014, Ms. Alduey voluntarily dismissed her action with prejudice for an immaterial settlement amount. The dismissal of these actions did not have a material effect on B&G Foods' consolidated financial position, results of operations or liquidity. BARCLAYS PLC: Filed Motion to Dismiss Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Barclays PLC and Barclays Bank PLC said in their Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Barclays has filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in a shareholder securities class action. Civil complaints have been filed in the New York Federal Court on behalf of a putative class of plaintiffs against BPLC and others generally alleging that the defendants violated the federal securities laws by participating in a scheme in which high- frequency trading firms were given informational and other advantages so that they could manipulate the US securities market to the plaintiffs' detriment. In June 2014, the NYAG filed a complaint (Complaint) against BPLC and Barclays Capital Inc. (BCI) in the Supreme Court of the State of New York (NY Supreme Court) alleging, amongst other things, that BPLC and BCI engaged in fraud and deceptive practices in connection with LX Liquidity Cross, the Group's SEC-registered ATS. Barclays filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint in July 2014. The NYAG filed an amended complaint (Amended Complaint) on 3 February 2015 in response to Barclays' motion to dismiss. On 13 February 2015, the NY Supreme Court granted in part and denied in part Barclays' motion to dismiss. Barclays will file a motion to dismiss any remaining claims asserted by the NYAG in the Amended Complaint. Proceedings in this matter are continuing. Barclays has also been named in a class action by an institutional investor client under California law based on allegations similar to those in the Complaint. This California class action has been consolidated with the class action filed in the New York Federal Court. Also, following the filing of the Complaint, Barclays was named in a shareholder securities class action along with its current and certain of its former CEOs and CFOs on the basis that investors suffered damages when their investments in Barclays American Depository Receipts declined in value as a result of the allegations in the Complaint. Barclays has filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. It is possible that additional complaints relating to these or similar matters may be brought in the future against BPLC and/or its affiliates. BARCLAYS PLC: MDL Court Wants Settlement Allocation Plan -------------------------------------------------------- Barclays PLC and Barclays Bank PLC said in their Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the MDL Court has granted preliminary approval for the settlement of the remaining Exchange-Based Class claims for $19.98 million and has requested that the plaintiffs present a plan for allocation of the settlement proceeds. The majority of the USD LIBOR cases, which have been filed in various US jurisdictions, have been consolidated for pre-trial purposes before a single judge in the SDNY (MDL Court). The complaints are substantially similar and allege, amongst other things, that BBPLC and the other banks individually and collectively violated provisions of the US Sherman Antitrust Act, the CEA, the US Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and various state laws by manipulating USD LIBOR rates. The lawsuits seek unspecified damages with the exception of five lawsuits, in which the plaintiffs are seeking a combined total in excess of $1.25bn in actual damages against all defendants, including BBPLC, plus punitive damages. Some of the lawsuits also seek trebling of damages under the US Sherman Antitrust Act and RICO. The proposed class actions purport to be brought on behalf of (amongst others) plaintiffs that (i) engaged in USD LIBOR-linked over-the-counter transactions (OTC Class); (ii) purchased USD LIBOR-linked financial instruments on an exchange (Exchange-Based Class); (iii) purchased USD LIBOR-linked debt securities (Debt Securities Class); (iv) purchased adjustable-rate mortgages linked to USD LIBOR (Homeowner Class); or (v) issued loans linked to USD LIBOR (Lender Class). In August 2012, the MDL Court stayed all newly filed proposed class actions and individual actions (Stayed Actions), so that the MDL Court could address the motions pending in three lead proposed class actions (Lead Class Actions) and three lead individual actions (Lead Individual Actions). In March 2013, the MDL Court issued a decision dismissing the majority of claims against BBPLC and other panel bank defendants in the Lead Class Actions and Lead Individual Actions. Following the decision, the plaintiffs in the Lead Class Actions sought permission to either file an amended complaint or appeal an aspect of the March 2013 decision. In August 2013 and June 2014, the MDL Court denied the majority of the motions presented in the Lead Class Actions. As a result, the: * Debt Securities Class has been dismissed entirely; * The claims of the Exchange-Based Class have been limited to claims under the CEA; and * The claims of the OTC Class have been limited to claims for unjust enrichment and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Subsequent to the MDL Court's March 2013 decision, the plaintiffs in the Lead Individual Actions filed a new action in California state court (since moved to the MDL Court) based on the same allegations as those initially alleged in the proposed class action cases. The Debt Securities Class attempted to appeal the dismissal of their action to the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (Second Circuit), but the Second Circuit dismissed the appeal as untimely on the grounds that the MDL Court had not reached a decision resolving all of the claims in the consolidated actions. In January 2015, the US Supreme Court reversed the Second Circuit's decision, ruling that the Second Circuit must hear the Debt Securities Class' appeal. The OTC Class and the Exchange- Based Class have received permission to join this appeal. Certain other proposed class actions that had previously been stayed by the MDL Court have also received permission to join the appeal as to the dismissal of their antitrust claims. In December 2014, the MDL Court granted preliminary approval for the settlement of the remaining Exchange-Based Class claims for $19.98m and has requested that the plaintiffs present a plan for allocation of the settlement proceeds. Additionally, the MDL Court has begun to address the claims in the Stayed Actions, many of which, including state law fraud and tortious interference claims, were not asserted in the Lead Class Actions. As a result, in October 2014, the direct action plaintiffs (those who have opted out of the class actions) filed their amended complaints and in November 2014, the defendants filed their motions to dismiss. In November 2014, the plaintiffs in the Lender Class and Homeowner Class actions filed their amended complaints. In January 2015, the defendants filed their motions to dismiss. Until there are further decisions, the ultimate impact of the MDL Court's decisions will be unclear, although it is possible that the decisions will be interpreted by courts to affect other litigation, some of which concern different benchmark interest rates. BARCLAYS PLC: Discovery to be Completed by Yearend in Fraud Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- Barclays PLC and Barclays Bank PLC said in their Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that discovery is expected to be substantially complete by the end of 2015 in the securities fraud case. Barclays PLC and Barclays Bank PLC said in their Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that discovery is expected to be substantially complete by the end of 2015 in the securities fraud case. BPLC, BBPLC and BCI have been named as defendants along with four former officers and directors of BBPLC in a proposed securities class action pending in the SDNY in connection with BBPLC's role as a contributor panel bank to LIBOR. The complaint asserted claims under the US Securities Exchange Act of 1934, principally alleging that BBPLC's Annual Reports for the years 2006 to 2011 contained misstatements and omissions concerning (amongst other things) BBPLC's compliance with its operational risk management processes and certain laws and regulations. The complaint also alleged that BBPLC's daily USD LIBOR submissions constituted false statements in violation of US securities law. The complaint was brought on behalf of a proposed class consisting of all persons or entities that purchased BPLC-sponsored American Depositary Receipts on a US securities exchange between 10 July 2007 and 27 June 2012. In May 2013, the district court granted BBPLC's motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety. The plaintiffs appealed, and, in April 2014, the Second Circuit issued an order upholding the dismissal of certain of the plaintiffs' claims, but reversing the dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims that BBPLC's daily USD LIBOR submissions constituted false statements in violation of US securities law. The action has been remanded back to the district court for further proceedings, and discovery is expected to be substantially complete by the end of 2015. BARCLAYS PLC: Appellate Briefing to Be Done by Summer's End ----------------------------------------------------------- Barclays PLC and Barclays Bank PLC said in their Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the appeal in the complaint in the US District Court for the Central District of California is expected to be fully briefed by the end of summer 2015. In July 2012, a purported class action complaint in the US District Court for the Central District of California was amended to include allegations related to USD LIBOR and name BBPLC as a defendant. The amended complaint was filed on behalf of a purported class that includes holders of adjustable rate mortgages linked to USD LIBOR. In January 2015, the court granted BBPLC's motion for summary judgement and dismissed all of the remaining claims against BBPLC. The plaintiff has appealed the court's decision to the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and the appeal is expected to be fully briefed by the end of summer 2015. BARCLAYS PLC: JPY LIBOR Case Discovery Stayed Thru at Least May --------------------------------------------------------------- Barclays PLC and Barclays Bank PLC said in their Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that all discovery has been stayed through at least May 2015 in the Japanese Yen LIBOR case. A class action was commenced in April 2012 in the SDNY against BBPLC and other Japanese Yen LIBOR panel banks by a plaintiff involved in exchange-traded derivatives. The complaint also names members of the Japanese Bankers Association's Euroyen Tokyo Interbank Offered Rate (Euroyen TIBOR) panel, of which BBPLC is not a member. The complaint alleges, amongst other things, manipulation of the Euroyen TIBOR and Yen LIBOR rates and breaches of the CEA and US Sherman Antitrust Act between 2006 and 2010. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss and, in March 2014, the Court issued a decision granting in part and denying in part that motion. Specifically, the court dismissed the plaintiff's antitrust claims in full, but sustained the plaintiff's CEA claims. The defendants' motion for reconsideration of the decision concerning the CEA claims was denied by the Court in October 2014. The plaintiff has moved for leave to file a third amended complaint adding additional claims, including a RICO claim. All discovery has been stayed through at least May 2015. BARCLAYS PLC: EURIBOR Case Proceedings Stayed Thru at Least May --------------------------------------------------------------- Barclays PLC and Barclays Bank PLC said in their Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that all proceedings have been stayed through at least May 2015 in the EURIBOR cases. In February 2013, a Euribor-related class action was filed against BPLC, BBPLC, BCI and other Euribor panel banks. The plaintiffs assert antitrust, CEA, RICO, and unjust enrichment claims. In particular, BBPLC is alleged to have conspired with other Euribor panel banks to manipulate EURIBOR. The lawsuit is brought on behalf of purchasers and sellers of NYSE LIFFE EURIBOR futures contracts, purchasers of Euro currency-related futures contracts and purchasers of other derivative contracts (such as interest rate swaps and forward rate agreements that are linked to EURIBOR) during the period 1 June 2005 through 31 March 2011. All proceedings have been stayed through at least May 2015. BARCLAYS PLC: Defendants Move to Dismiss Amended ISDAfix Case ------------------------------------------------------------- Barclays PLC and Barclays Bank PLC said in their Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the defendants, including BBPLC, will move to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint in the civil Actions in respect of ISDAfix. Since September 2014, a number of ISDAfix related civil actions have been filed in the SDNY on behalf of a proposed class of plaintiffs, alleging that BBPLC, a number of other banks and one broker, violated the US Sherman Antitrust Act and several state laws by engaging in a conspiracy to manipulate the USD ISDAfix. A consolidated amended complaint was filed in mid-February 2015. Pursuant to a schedule issued by the court, the defendants, including BBPLC, will move to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. BARCLAYS PLC: Gold Fix Civil Actions Consolidated for Pretrial -------------------------------------------------------------- Barclays PLC and Barclays Bank PLC said in their Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that all civil actions in respect of the Gold Fix have been transferred to the SDNY and consolidated for pretrial purposes. Since March 2014, a number of civil complaints have been filed in US federal courts, each on behalf of a proposed class of plaintiffs, alleging that Barclays entities and other members of The London Gold Market Fixing Ltd. manipulated the prices of gold and gold derivative contracts in violation of the CEA, the US Sherman Antitrust Act, and state antitrust and consumer protection laws. All of the complaints have been transferred to the SDNY and consolidated for pretrial purposes. BARCLAYS PLC: 2 Foreign Exchange Trading Civil Actions Dismissed ---------------------------------------------------------------- Barclays PLC and Barclays Bank PLC said in their Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that two Civil Actions in respect of Foreign Exchange Trading alleging classes of non-US persons were dismissed on 28 January 2015. Since November 2013, a number of civil actions have been filed in the SDNY on behalf of proposed classes of plaintiffs alleging manipulation of Foreign Exchange markets under the US Sherman Antitrust Act and New York state law and naming several international banks as defendants, including BBPLC. The SDNY before whom all the cases are pending, has combined all actions alleging a class of US persons in a single consolidated action. The two actions alleging classes of non-US persons were dismissed on 28 January 2015. Defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated action was denied on 28 January 2015. The next step in the proceeding is discovery, which is presently stayed. BARCLAYS PLC: Amended Complaint Related to ADS in Discovery ----------------------------------------------------------- Barclays PLC and Barclays Bank PLC said in their Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the consolidated amended complaint related to the American Depositary Shares is now in discovery. BPLC, BBPLC and various current and former members of BPLC's Board of Directors have been named as defendants in five proposed securities class actions consolidated in the SDNY, alleging misstatements and omissions in registration statements for certain American Depositary Shares offered by BBPLC. The consolidated amended complaint, filed in February 2010, asserted claims under the Securities Act of 1933, alleging that registration statements relating to American Depositary Shares representing preferred stock, series 2, 3, 4 and 5 (Preferred Stock ADS) offered by BBPLC at various times between 2006 and 2008 contained misstatements and omissions concerning (amongst other things) BBPLC's portfolio of mortgage-related (including US subprime-related) securities, BBPLC's exposure to mortgage and credit market risk, and BBPLC's financial condition. These complaints did not specifically identify what alleged damages these plaintiffs sought to recover in connection with their claims. The claims concerning the series 2, 3 and 4 offerings have been dismissed on the basis that they were time barred. Although the SDNY also dismissed the claims concerning the series 5 offering, the Second Circuit reversed the dismissal and ruled that the plaintiffs should have been permitted to file a second amended complaint in relation to the series 5 offering claims. This series 5 offering had an original face amount of approximately $2.5 billion. In June 2014, the SDNY denied defendants' motion to dismiss with respect to the claims in the amended complaint concerning the series 5 offering. The case is now in discovery. BIG HEART: Defending Against "Thomas" Class Action -------------------------------------------------- Big Heart Pet Brands said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that on February 2, 2015, Plaintiff filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of Florida (Thomas v. Big Heart Pet Brands), alleging false and misleading advertising and misbranding under Florida's consumer protection laws, negligence and breach of warranties. Specifically, the complaint alleges that Nature's Recipe claims of "all natural" and "no artificial preservatives" on its packaging are inaccurate and misleading. Plaintiff seeks certification as a class action and damages in excess of $5.0 million. The Company denies these allegations and intends to vigorously defend itself. The Company cannot at this time reasonably estimate a range of exposure, if any, of the potential liability. BIG HEART: Defending Against Gamez v. Del Monte Case ---------------------------------------------------- Big Heart Pet Brands said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company intends to vigorously defend itself against the case Gamez v. Del Monte. On January 31, 2014, Plaintiff filed a complaint in the Superior Court of California, San Francisco County (Gamez v. Del Monte) alleging violations of various California wage and hour statutes. This lawsuit was transferred to Del Monte Foods, Inc. pursuant to the terms of the purchase agreement. However, liabilities associated with Kingsburg, CA and Terminal Island, CA facilities were retained by the Company. On August 7, 2014, the Court approved to transfer this case to the Superior Court of California, Fresno County. On October 14, 2014, the Company was served with the Complaint. Del Monte Foods, Inc. is maintaining primary defense of the litigation, but any settlement made with the class will likely include the Company. The Company denies these allegations and intends to vigorously defend itself. The Company has accrued an estimated amount to resolve this matter that is not considered material. BIG HEART: May 18 Final Settlement Hearing in "Montgomery" Case --------------------------------------------------------------- Big Heart Pet Brands said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the hearing for final Court approval of the settlement in the case Montgomery v. Del Monte is set for May 18, 2015. On April 19, 2013, Plaintiff filed a complaint on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated employees in Superior Court of California, Alameda County (Montgomery v. Del Monte) alleging, inter alia, failure to provide meal and rest periods and pay wages properly in violation of various California wage and hour statutes. This lawsuit was transferred to Del Monte Foods, Inc. pursuant to the terms of the purchase agreement. However, liabilities associated with Kingsburg, CA and Terminal Island, CA facilities were retained by the Company. Del Monte Foods, Inc. is maintaining primary defense of the litigation, but any settlement made with the class will likely include the Company. The Company denies these allegations and intends to vigorously defend itself. Mediation was held on June 24, 2014. A settlement was preliminarily approved by the Court on December 4, 2014. The hearing for final Court approval is set for May 18, 2015. The Company has accrued an estimated amount to resolve this matter that is not considered material, and the Company's share of the settlement is expected to be covered by the amount accrued. BIG HEART: Opposition to Class Cert. Bid Filed in "Miller" ---------------------------------------------------------- Big Heart Pet Brands said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Opposition to the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification was filed on January 20, 2015, in the case Miller v. Del Monte, formerly known as Harmon v. Del Monte. On January 31, 2013, a putative class action complaint was filed against the Company in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri, (Miller v. Del Monte, formerly known as Harmon v. Del Monte) alleging that Milo's Kitchen chicken jerky treats ("Chicken Jerky Treats") and Milo's Kitchen Chicken Grillers Recipe home- style dog treats contain "poisonous antibiotics and other potentially lethal substances." Plaintiff seeks certification as a class action, as well as restitution and damages not to exceed $75,000 per class member and the aggregated claim for damages of the class not to exceed $5.0 million under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act. The complaint also alleges the Company continued to sell its Chicken Jerky Treats in Jackson County, Missouri after it announced its recall of the product on January 9, 2013. The Company successfully removed this case to federal court on March 12, 2013. On April 9, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Class Action Petition against the Company. The Company filed its Motion to Transfer to the Western District of Pennsylvania on April 19, 2013 and its Motion to Stay Pending the Motion to Transfer on April 25, 2013. The Motion to Stay was granted the same day it was filed. On May 6, 2013, Plaintiff filed an Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Transfer. The Company filed its Reply in Support of its Motion to Transfer on May 23, 2013. The Court denied the Company's Motion to Transfer on July 22, 2013. The Company filed its Answer on August 13, 2013 and discovery has commenced. On February 3, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint and filed a Fourth Amended Complaint to include an additional named plaintiff on April 22, 2014. The Plaintiffs filed a Fifth Amended Complaint on July 14, 2014 to include an additional Plaintiff and remove Harmon as a named Plaintiff. The Opposition to the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification was filed on January 20, 2015. The Company denies these allegations and intends to vigorously defend itself. The Company cannot at this time reasonably estimate a range of exposure, if any, of the potential liability. BIG HEART: Updates on Langone, Ruff, Funke and Mazur Cases ---------------------------------------------------------- Big Heart Pet Brands, in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, provided updates on the Langone, Ruff, Funke and Mazur cases. On September 6, 2012, October 12, 2012 and October 16, 2012, three separate putative class action complaints were filed against the Company in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Langone v. Del Monte, Ruff v. Del Monte, and Funke v. Del Monte, respectively) alleging product liability claims relating to Chicken Jerky Treats. Specifically, the complaints allege that Plaintiffs' dogs became ill as a result of consumption of Chicken Jerky Treats. The complaints also allege that the Company breached its warranties and California's consumer protection laws. Each of the complaints seeks certification as a class action and damages in excess of $5.0 million. The Company denies these allegations and intends to vigorously defend itself. On December 18, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a motion to relate and consolidate the Langone, Ruff and Funke matters. The Company agreed that the cases are related but argued in its response that they should not be consolidated. The Court ordered the cases are related in an Order on January 24, 2013. In the Langone case, the Company filed a Motion to Transfer/Dismiss on February 1, 2013. Plaintiff in the Langone matter voluntarily dismissed his Complaint without prejudice on February 21, 2013 and re-filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on May 21, 2013. The Company filed its Motion to Dismiss in the Langone case with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on August 2, 2013. The individual claims in the Langone case were settled for a de minimus amount, and a stipulation to dismiss with prejudice was filed on November 25, 2013. On April 9, 2013, the Court transferred Ruff and Funke to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania but denied without prejudice Defendant's motions to consolidate and dismiss. On April 23, 2013, the Company filed its Motion to Dismiss in Ruff and Funke with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania and its Reply in Support of its Motion to Dismiss in both cases on June 3, 2013. On February 11, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation that the Motion to Dismiss be granted as to Plaintiffs' claim for unjust enrichment and denied in all other respects. The Company filed its objections to the Report and Recommendations on March 5, 2014. The District Judge adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation on March 25, 2014. The Company filed its Answer on April 8, 2014. The Company cannot at this time reasonably estimate a range of exposure, if any, of the potential liability. On July 19, 2012, a putative class action complaint was filed against the Company in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (Mazur v. Del Monte) alleging product liability claims relating to Chicken Jerky Treats. Specifically, the complaint alleges that Plaintiff's dog became ill and had to be euthanized as a result of consumption of Chicken Jerky Treats. The complaint also alleges that the Company breached its warranties and Pennsylvania's consumer protection laws. The complaint seeks certification as a class action and damages in excess of $5.0 million. The Company denies these allegations and intends to vigorously defend itself. On August 3, 2012, Plaintiff's counsel filed a Motion to Consolidate the previously filed two similar class actions against Nestle Purina Petcare Company, owner of the Waggin' Train brand of chicken jerky treats, in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois under the federal rules for multi-district litigation ("MDL"). Plaintiff's Motion also sought to include the case against the Company in the proposed MDL consolidation as a "related case." On September 28, 2012, the Court denied the MDL Motion. The case will now proceed in the jurisdiction in which it was originally filed. Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to Commence Limited Discovery on the subject of the voluntary recall of Chicken Jerky Treats on January 25, 2013. The Company filed its response opposing the Motion on February 8, 2013. The Court denied Plaintiff's Motion on March 12, 2013; thus, discovery is stayed until the Court rules on the Company's Motion to Dismiss, which was filed on September 24, 2012. On May 24, 2013, the Judge in the matter issued a Report and Recommendation stating that the Motion to Dismiss be granted as to Plaintiff's claim for unjust enrichment and denied in all other respects. The Company filed its Objections to the Report and Recommendation on June 7, 2013. The Court issued an Order adopting the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation on June 25, 2013. The Court denied the Company's Motion for Reconsideration on July 8, 2013. The Company filed its Answer on August 2, 2013. The Company cannot at this time reasonably estimate a range of exposure, if any, of the potential liability. On August 16, 2013, the Langone, Ruff, Funke and Mazur cases were consolidated. The Court denied the Company's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on February 20, 2014. The Company cannot at this time reasonably estimate a range of exposure, if any, of the potential liability. BIG HEART: Cannot Estimate Exposure in Webster v. Del Monte ----------------------------------------------------------- Big Heart Pet Brands said, in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company cannot at this time reasonably estimate a range of exposure, if any, of the potential liability in the case Webster v. Del Monte. On June 22, 2012, a putative class action complaint was filed against the Company in Los Angeles Superior Court (Webster v. Del Monte) alleging false advertising under California's consumer protection laws, negligence, breach of warranty and strict liability. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Company engaged in false advertising by representing that the Chicken Jerky Treats are healthy, wholesome, and safe for consumption by dogs, and alleges that Plaintiff's pet became ill after consuming Chicken Jerky Treats. The allegations apply to all other putative class members similarly situated. The complaint seeks certification as a class action and unspecified damages, disgorgement of profits, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief. The Company denies these allegations and intends to vigorously defend itself. On September 6, 2012, the Company filed a Notice of Removal to remove the case to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Plaintiff subsequently filed a motion to amend its complaint to remove the federal class action claims and remand the case back to Los Angeles County Superior Court. The Company subsequently stipulated to Plaintiff's motion, and the case has been remanded to Los Angeles County Superior Court. The Company filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on July 3, 2013. The Plaintiff filed an Opposition on August 21, 2013. The Company filed its Reply on August 27, 2013. The Court denied the Company's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on February 20, 2014. The Company cannot at this time reasonably estimate a range of exposure, if any, of the potential liability. BLATT HASENMILLER: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Betty Diefenbach, Individually and On Behalf of Others Similarly Situated v. Blatt, Hasenmiller, Leibsker & Moore LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-00721-ESW (D. Ariz., April 21, 2015) is brought over alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael L. Greenwald, Esq. GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC 5550 Glades Rd., Suite 500 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (561) 826-5477 Facsimile: (561) 961-5684 E-mail: mgreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com BMW VEHICLE: RMBS Plaintiffs Win Dismissal of State Court Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- BMW Vehicle Lease Trust 2015-1 said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that disclosure received from U.S. Bank National Association, the indenture trustee under the indenture for the BMW Vehicle Lease Trust 2015-1 transaction: "In June 2014, a civil complaint was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, by a group of institutional investors against U.S. Bank National Association ("U.S. Bank"), in its capacity as trustee or successor trustee (as the case may be) under certain residential mortgage backed securities ("RMBS") trusts. The plaintiffs are investment funds formed by nine investment advisors (AEGON, BlackRock, Brookfield, DZ Bank, Kore, PIMCO, Prudential, Sealink and TIAA) that purport to be bringing suit derivatively on behalf of 841 RMBS trusts that issued $771 billion in original principal amount of securities between 2004 and 2008. According to the plaintiffs, cumulative losses for these RMBS trusts equal $92.4 billion as of the date of the complaint. The complaint is one of six similar complaints filed against RMBS trustees (Deutsche Bank, Citibank, HSBC, Bank of New York Mellon and Wells Fargo) by certain of these plaintiffs. The complaint against U.S. Bank alleges the trustee caused losses to investors as a result of alleged failures by the sponsors, mortgage loan sellers and servicers for these RMBS trusts and asserts causes of action based upon the trustee's purported failure to enforce repurchase obligations of mortgage loan sellers for alleged breaches of representations and warranties concerning loan quality. The complaint also asserts that the trustee failed to notify securityholders of purported events of default allegedly caused by breaches by mortgage loan servicers and that the trustee purportedly failed to abide by appropriate standards of care following events of default. Relief sought includes money damages in an unspecified amount and equitable relief." "In November 2014, the plaintiffs sought leave to voluntarily dismiss their original state court complaint and filed a substantially similar complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The federal civil complaint added a class action allegation and a change in the total number of named trusts to 843 RMBS trusts. In December 2014, the plaintiffs' motion to voluntarily dismiss their original state court complaint was granted. Other cases alleging similar causes of action have previously been filed against U.S. Bank and other trustees by RMBS investors in other transactions. "There can be no assurances as to the outcome of the litigation, or the possible impact of the litigation on the trustee or the RMBS trusts. However, U.S. Bank denies liability and believes that it has performed its obligations under the RMBS trusts in good faith, that its actions were not the cause of losses to investors and that it has meritorious defenses, and it intends to contest the plaintiffs' claims vigorously." BOB EVANS: Seeks to Have Class in "Snodgrass" Case Decertified -------------------------------------------------------------- Bob Evans Farms, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended January 23, 2015, that the Company intends to seek to have the class decertified in the case David Snodgrass v. Bob Evans Farms, Inc. and/or seek to have the case dismissed on the merits. In August 2012, a former Bob Evans Restaurant employee filed an action against the Company in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (the "Ohio District Court") in David Snodgrass v. Bob Evans Farms, Inc. The lead plaintiff alleged that the Company violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay overtime compensation during the period of time the employee worked as an assistant manager. The plaintiff seeks an unspecified amount of alleged back wages, liquidated damages, statutory damages and attorneys' fees. The lead plaintiff sought to maintain the suit as a collective action on behalf of other similarly situated assistant managers employed at Bob Evans Restaurants between August 2009 and present. Unlike a class action, a collective action requires potential class members to "opt in" rather than "opt out." In December 2013, the Ohio District Court granted conditional certification of the class. The Company intends to seek to have the class decertified and/or seek to have the case dismissed on the merits. The proceedings, including any attempts to resolve the claims through mediation, remain in the early stages with significant uncertainty as to factual issues, outcome of legal proceedings, and/or damages claimed. "We believe we have meritorious defenses to the claims and intend to vigorously contest the action. At this time, the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome cannot be determined with any certainty. An amount or range of a reasonably possible loss cannot be estimated," the Company said. BP PLC: Deadline for Submitting Medical Benefits Claims Lapsed -------------------------------------------------------------- BP p.l.c. said in its Form 20-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the medical benefits class action settlement provides for claims to be paid to qualifying class members from the agreement's effective date. Following the resolution of all appeals relating to this settlement, the agreement's effective date was February 12, 2014. The deadline for submitting claims under the settlement was one year from the effective date. BP PLC: Trial of Securities Fraud Claims Set for January 2016 ------------------------------------------------------------- BP p.l.c. said in its Form 20-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the trial of the securities fraud claims of the class of post-explosion ADS purchasers has been scheduled to commence on 11 January 2016. On February 13, 2012, the federal district court in Houston in MDL 2185 issued two decisions (the February 2012 ruling) on the defendants' motions to dismiss the two consolidated securities fraud complaints filed on behalf of purported classes of BP ordinary shareholders and American Depositary Shares holders. The February 2012 ruling dismissed all the claims of the ordinary shareholders, and the claims of the lead class of ADS holders against most of the individual defendants while holding that a subset of the claims against two individual defendants and the corporate defendants could proceed. In addition, all of the claims of a smaller purported subclass were dismissed with leave to re- plead in 20 days. On April 2, 2012, the plaintiffs in the lead class and subclass filed an amended consolidated complaint with claims based on (1) the 12 alleged misstatements that the court held were actionable in the February 2012 ruling; and (2) 13 alleged misstatements concerning BP's operating management system that the judge either rejected with leave to re-plead or did not address in the February 2012 ruling. On May 2, 2012, defendants moved to dismiss the claims based on the 13 statements in the amended complaint that the judge did not already rule are actionable. On February 6, 2013, the court granted in part this motion to dismiss, rejecting the plaintiffs' claims based on eight of the statements at issue in the motion and also dismissing all claims against former BP employee Andrew Inglis. On May 20, 2014, the judge denied plaintiffs' motion to certify a proposed class of ADS purchasers before the Deepwater Horizon explosion (from November 8, 2007 to April 20, 2010) and granted plaintiffs' motions to certify a class of post-explosion ADS purchasers from April 26, 2010 to May 28, 2010 and to amend their complaint to add one additional alleged misstatement. Both parties sought permission to appeal from the district court's class certification decisions and on July 3, 2014, the Fifth Circuit granted both parties' requests. Briefing on those appeals is expected to conclude in March 2015. The trial of the securities fraud claims of the class of post- explosion ADS purchasers has been scheduled to commence on January 11, 2016. BP PLC: Plaintiffs in ERISA Case Filed Amended Complaint -------------------------------------------------------- BP p.l.c. said in its Form 20-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Plaintiffs in the ERISA case filed an amended complaint on February 12, 2015. On March 30, 2012, the federal district court in Houston in MDL 2185 issued a decision granting the defendants' motions to dismiss the ERISA case related to BP share funds in several employee benefit savings plans. On April 11, 2012, the plaintiffs requested leave to file an amended complaint, which was denied on August 27, 2012. Final judgment dismissing the case was entered on September 4, 2012 and, on September 25, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Fifth Circuit. On July 15, 2014, the Fifth Circuit remanded the case to the district court in light of new pleading standards recently set forth by the US Supreme Court. On September 18, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking leave to amend their complaint. Defendants opposed that motion. On January 15, 2015, the district court granted in part and denied in part the motion to amend, permitting plaintiffs to amend their complaint to allege some of their proposed claims against certain defendants. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on February 12, 2015. BP PLC: Briefing on Application in Canadian Action Concluded ------------------------------------------------------------ BP p.l.c. said in its Form 20-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that briefing on an application in the Canadian class action concluded on November 25, 2014. On July 20, 2012, a BP entity received an amended statement of claim for an action in Alberta, Canada, filed by three plaintiffs seeking to assert claims under Canadian law against BP on behalf of a class of Canadian residents who allegedly suffered losses because of their purchase of BP ordinary shares and ADSs. This case was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds on November 14, 2012. On November 15, 2012, one of the plaintiffs re-filed a statement of claim against BP in Ontario, Canada, seeking to assert the same claims against BP. BP moved to dismiss that action for lack of jurisdiction, and on October 9, 2013 the Ontario court denied BP's motion. On November 7, 2013, BP filed a notice of appeal from that decision. On August 14, 2014, the Ontario Court of Appeal held that the case should be stayed and that the claims made on behalf of Canadian residents who purchased BP ordinary shares and ADSs on exchanges outside of Canada should be litigated in those countries, and granted leave for the plaintiff to amend the complaint to assert claims only on behalf of Canadian residents who purchased ADSs on the Toronto Stock Exchange. On October 10, 2014, the plaintiff filed an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. Briefing on that application concluded on November 25, 2014. BP PLC: Briefing on Appeal in Dividend-Related Proceedings Done --------------------------------------------------------------- BP p.l.c. said in its Form 20-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that briefing on an appeal in the dividend-related proceedings concluded on December 24, 2014. On July 5, 2012, the federal district court in Houston in MDL 2185 issued a decision granting BP's motion to dismiss, for lack of personal jurisdiction, the lawsuit against BP p.l.c. for cancelling its dividend payment in June 2010. On August 10, 2012, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which BP moved to dismiss on October 9, 2012. On April 12, 2013, the court granted BP's motion and dismissed the lawsuit for lack of personal jurisdiction and on the alternative grounds of failure to state a claim and that the courts of England are the more appropriate forum for the litigation. On June 16, 2013, the court granted the plaintiff's motion to amend its decision so as to eliminate the alternative grounds for dismissal. On November 22, 2013, the plaintiffs filed an additional and substantially identical action against BP p.l.c. in federal court in New York, which was transferred to the judge presiding over MDL 2185. BP p.l.c. moved to dismiss that action on February 19, 2014. On June 18, 2014, the court dismissed the case on the ground that the courts of England are the more appropriate forum for the litigation. On July 18, 2014, the plaintiff appealed that decision to the Fifth Circuit. Briefing on that appeal concluded on December 24, 2014. BP PLC: Amended Complaints in 15 Individual Securities Cases Due ---------------------------------------------------------------- BP p.l.c. said in its Form 20-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that amended complaints in the remaining 15 Individual securities litigation were due by April 1, 2015. In April and May 2012, six cases (three of which were consolidated into one action) were filed in state and federal courts by one or more state, county or municipal pension funds against BP entities and several current and former officers and directors seeking damages for alleged losses those funds suffered because of their purchases of BP ordinary shares and, in two cases, ADSs. The funds assert various state law and federal law claims. From July 2012 to April 2014, 27 additional cases were filed in Texas state and federal courts (later consolidated into 24 actions) by pension or investment funds or advisers against BP entities and current and former officers and directors, asserting state, federal, and non- US law claims and seeking damages for alleged losses that those funds suffered because of their purchases of BP ordinary shares and/or ADSs. Two cases were filed in New York federal court by funds that purchased BP ordinary shares and ADSs, asserting state and federal law claims. All the cases have been transferred to federal court in Houston and, with the exception of one case that has been stayed, the judge presiding over MDL 2185. One case was voluntarily dismissed on May 9, 2013. On October 3, 2013, the judge granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss three of the remaining 29 cases dismissing a subset of the claims. The judge held that English law governs the plaintiffs' remaining claims (with the exception of the federal law claims based on purchases of ADSs and a potential claim under Ohio state law against BP p.l.c. by certain Ohio funds). On December 11, 2013, defendants moved to dismiss 10 of the remaining cases and answered the complaints in two others. On 5 December 2013, the Ohio funds (plaintiffs in one of the first three cases defendants moved to dismiss) filed an amended complaint withdrawing their English law claim and asserting only a claim under Ohio state law. On January 6, 2014, BP moved to dismiss that case for a second time, and on April 7, 2014, the judge dismissed the Ohio action with leave to replead English law claims within 30 days. On June 8, 2014, the Ohio funds filed a second amended complaint asserting only English law claims. On September 30, 2014, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss 10 cases. The court dismissed the negligent misstatement claims in all but one of the 10 cases and dismissed claims in these cases based on certain public and private misstatements. The court also rejected BP's arguments that the ordinary share claims of the non- US plaintiffs should be heard in England. On October 29, 2014, the case brought by the Ohio funds was transferred to federal court in Houston for all purposes. On December 30, 2014, defendants answered the complaints in 11 cases. Amended complaints in the remaining 15 cases were due by April 1, 2015. BRANDED LLC: Recalls Kaleidoscopes Due to Laceration Risk --------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Branded LLC, of Sammamish, Wash., announced a voluntary recall of about 35,000 Kaleidoscope. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The end caps of the kaleidoscope can be removed and expose small parts that can come loose and pose a choking hazard to small children and internal components that pose a risk of laceration. This recall involves H-E-Buddy kaleidoscopes. The recalled kaleidoscopes are made of red plastic, about 5-3/4 inches long and 2 inches in diameter and have "H-E-Buddy" on the barrel. No consumer incidents have been reported. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/iDvpkw The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at H-E-B and H-E-B Plus stores in Texas from April 1, 2015 to April 3, 2015 as a prize for accumulated purchase points. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled kaleidoscopes, take them from children and return the kaleidoscopes to an H-E-B store for a refund of purchase points that can be used for another item. CALIX INC: Hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend Held ---------------------------------------------------------------- Calix, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the motion of plaintiffs requesting leave to amend their complaint to add Jefferies and Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C., former defense counsel in the lawsuit, as defendants was scheduled to be heard by the Court on March 17, 2015. On September 16, 2010, the Company, two direct, wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Company, and Occam entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger and Reorganization (the "Merger Agreement"). In response to the announcement of the Merger Agreement on October 6, 2010, a purported class action complaint was filed by stockholders of Occam in the Delaware Court of Chancery: Steinhardt v. Howard- Anderson, et al. (Case No. 5878-VCL). On November 24, 2010, these stockholders filed an amended complaint (the "amended Steinhardt complaint"). The amended Steinhardt complaint named Occam (which has since been merged into Calix) and the members of the Occam board of directors as defendants. The amended Steinhardt complaint did not name Calix as a defendant. The amended Steinhardt complaint sought injunctive relief rescinding the merger transaction and an award of damages in an unspecified amount, as well as plaintiffs' costs, attorney's fees, and other relief. The merger transaction was completed on February 22, 2011 (the "Effective Date"). On January 6, 2012, the Delaware court ruled on a motion for sanctions brought by the defendants against certain of the lead plaintiffs. The Delaware court found that lead plaintiffs Michael Steinhardt, Steinhardt Overseas Management, L.P., and Ilex Partners, L.L.C., collectively the "Steinhardt Plaintiffs," had engaged in improper trading of Calix shares, and dismissed the Steinhardt Plaintiffs from the case with prejudice. The court further held that the Steinhardt Plaintiffs are: (i) barred from receiving any recovery from the litigation, (ii) required to self-report to the SEC, (iii) directed to disclose their improper trading in any future application to serve as lead plaintiff, and (iv) ordered to disgorge trading profits of $0.5 million to be distributed to the remaining members of the class of former Occam stockholders. The Delaware court also granted the motion of the remaining lead plaintiffs, Herbert Chen and Derek Sheeler, for class certification, and certified Messrs. Chen and Sheeler as class representatives. The certified class is a non- opt-out class consisting of all owners of Occam common stock whose shares were converted to shares of Calix on the date of the merger transaction, with the exception of the defendants in the Delaware action and their affiliates. Chen and Sheeler, on behalf of the class of similarly situated former Occam stockholders, continue to seek an award of damages in an unspecified amount. Fact discovery in the case closed on April 30, 2013. On June 11, 2013, the plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Class Action Complaint for Breach of Fiduciary Duty ("Second Amended Complaint"). The Second Amended Complaint adds Occam's former CFO as a defendant, and alleges that each of the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by failing to attempt to obtain the best purchase price for Occam and failing to disclose certain allegedly material facts about the merger transaction in the preliminary proxy statement and prospectus included in the Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed with the SEC on November 2, 2010. On July 17, 2013, attorneys representing all of the defendants named in the Second Amended Complaint filed Defendants' Opening Brief in Support of Their Motion for Summary Judgment, arguing that all defendants are entitled to summary judgment on all counts of the Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs' answering brief to the motion for summary judgment was filed on September 3, 2013, and defendants' reply brief was filed on October 4, 2013. A hearing on the motion for summary judgment was held on December 6, 2013. On April 8, 2014, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware issued an Opinion granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. The court granted summary judgment in favor of those defendants who served solely as directors of Occam with respect to all claims alleging improper actions in connection with the Occam sale process. The ruling also granted summary judgment on all claims as to Occam, the corporate entity. The court left in place process-based claims against Occam's former CEO and CFO, and also declined to grant summary judgment on separate claims that the director and officer defendants breached their fiduciary duties by issuing a proxy statement for Occam's stockholder vote that allegedly contained misleading disclosures and had material omissions. On June 12, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a Motion to Compel Production of Documents by Defendants and Jefferies & Company, Inc. and For Sanctions Against Defendants. This motion sought additional documents from defendants and from Jefferies, Occam's former advisor, and requested that the court impose severe sanctions, up to and including a finding of liability against defendants. Defendants have rejected the suggestion that any additional documents should be produced and vigorously opposed the imposition of any sanctions. On September 3, 2014, the court denied the motion without prejudice as to defendants, directed counsel for the defendants to provide an affidavit clarifying the prior conduct of discovery, and ordered discovery into defendants' document collection and review methodologies. The court also ordered Jefferies to produce additional documents. Those proceedings are ongoing, but the plaintiffs have indicated that they do not intend to seek any sanctions against the defendants at this time. Instead, plaintiffs have filed a motion requesting leave to amend their complaint to add Jefferies and Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C., former defense counsel in this lawsuit, as defendants. That motion was scheduled to be heard by the Court on March 17, 2015. The Company continues to believe that the allegations in the Second Amended Complaint are without merit and intends to continue to vigorously contest the action as it moves forward toward trial. However, there can be no assurance that the defendants will be successful in defending this ongoing action. CAREER EDUCATION: Court Stayed "Enea" Case Pending Appeal --------------------------------------------------------- Career Education Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Court has stayed the case Enea, et al. v. Career Education Corporation, California Culinary Academy, Inc., SLM Corporation, and Sallie Mae, Inc., pending a ruling on an appeal. Enea, et al. v. Career Education Corporation, California Culinary Academy, Inc., SLM Corporation, and Sallie Mae, Inc. Plaintiffs filed this putative class action in the Superior Court State of California, County of San Francisco, on or about June 27, 2013. Plaintiffs allege that CCA materially misrepresented the placement rates of its graduates, falsely stated that admission to the culinary school was competitive and that the school had an excellent reputation among restaurants and other food service providers, represented that the culinary schools were well- regarded institutions producing skilled graduates who employers eagerly hired, and lied by telling students that the school provided graduates with career placement services for life. The class purports to consist of persons who executed Parent Plus loans or co-signed loans for students who attended CCA at any time between January 1, 2003 and December 31, 2008. Plaintiffs seek restitution, damages, civil penalties and attorneys' fees. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss and to strike class action allegations on October 31, 2013. A hearing on the motions was conducted on March 14, 2014. Thereafter, the Court issued two separate orders granting the motion to strike the class allegations and the motion to dismiss without leave to amend. Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking leave to file a third amended complaint and/or for reconsideration of the Court's orders. On May 9, 2014, the Court denied plaintiffs' motion to reconsider its order striking the class allegations and granted plaintiffs leave to file a third amended complaint as to some, but not all, of plaintiffs' claims. On May 15, 2014, plaintiffs appealed the Court's ruling with respect to the motion to strike the class allegations. The Court has stayed the case pending a ruling on the appeal. CAREER EDUCATION: Awaits Decision in "Surrett" Case Appeal ---------------------------------------------------------- Career Education Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company is awaiting the Court's decision in the appeal in the case Surrett, et al. v. Western Culinary Institute, Ltd. and Career Education Corporation. On March 5, 2008, a complaint was filed in Portland, Oregon in the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon in and for Multnomah County naming Western Culinary Institute, Ltd. ("WCI") and the Company as defendants. Plaintiffs filed the complaint individually and as a putative class action and alleged two claims for equitable relief: violation of Oregon's Unlawful Trade Practices Act ("UTPA") and unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 10, 2008, which added two claims for money damages: fraud and breach of contract. Plaintiffs allege WCI made a variety of misrepresentations to them, relating generally to WCI's placement statistics, students' employment prospects upon graduation from WCI, the value and quality of an education at WCI, and the amount of tuition students could expect to pay as compared to salaries they could expect to earn after graduation. WCI subsequently moved to dismiss certain of plaintiffs' claims under Oregon's UTPA; that motion was granted on September 12, 2008. On February 5, 2010, the Court entered a formal Order granting class certification on part of plaintiff's UTPA and fraud claims purportedly based on omissions, denying certification of the rest of those claims and denying certification of the breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims. The class consists of students who enrolled at WCI between March 5, 2006 and March 1, 2010, excluding those who dropped out or were dismissed from the school for academic reasons. Plaintiffs filed a fifth amended complaint on December 7, 2010, which included individual and class allegations by Nathan Surrett. Class notice was sent on April 22, 2011, and the opt-out period expired on June 20, 2011. The class consisted of approximately 2,600 members. They are seeking tuition refunds, interest and certain fees paid in connection with their enrollment at WCI. On May 23, 2012, WCI filed a motion to compel arbitration of claims by 1,062 individual class members who signed enrollment agreements containing express class action waivers. The Court issued an Order denying the motion on July 27, 2012. On August 6, 2012, WCI filed an appeal from the Court's Order and on August 30, 2012, the Court of Appeals issued an Order granting WCI's motion to compel the trial court to cease exercising jurisdiction in the case. The oral argument on the appeal was heard on May 9, 2014 and the Company is awaiting the Court's decision. All proceedings with the trial court have been stayed pending the outcome of the appeal. CAREER EDUCATION: Summary Judgment Motions Due in "Wilson" Case --------------------------------------------------------------- Career Education Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Court has ordered the parties in the case Wilson, et al. v. Career Education Corporation, to file summary judgment motions by March 24, 2015. On August 11, 2011, Riley Wilson, a former admissions representative based in Minnesota, filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The Company said, "The two-count complaint asserts claims of breach of contract and unjust enrichment arising from our decision to terminate our Admissions Representative Supplemental Compensation ("ARSC") Plan. In addition to his individual claims, Wilson also seeks to represent a nationwide class of similarly situated admissions representatives who also were affected by termination of the plan. On October 6, 2011, we filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On April 13, 2012, the Court granted our motion to dismiss in its entirety and dismissed plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim. The Court dismissed this action with prejudice on May 14, 2012. On June 11, 2012, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit appealing the final judgment of the trial court. Briefing was completed on October 30, 2012, and oral argument was held on December 3, 2012. On August 30, 2013, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling on plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim but reversed and remanded for further proceedings on plaintiff's breach of contract claim. On September 13, 2013, we filed a petition for rehearing to seek review of the panel's decision on the breach of contract claim and for certification of question to the Illinois Supreme Court, but the petition was denied." "The case now is on remand to the district court for further proceedings on the sole question of whether CEC's termination of the ARSC Plan violated the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. CEC has answered the complaint, and the parties have commenced fact discovery as to the issue of liability. The Court has ordered the parties to complete fact discovery as to that issue by January 30, 2015 and to file summary judgment motions by March 24, 2015." "Because the matter is in its early stages and because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise, the outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this point. Based on information available to us at present, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential loss, if any, for this action. Accordingly, we have not recognized any liability associated with this action." CITIGROUP INC: Must Face Woori Bank's Suit Over CDO Fraud --------------------------------------------------------- Scott Flaherty, writing for Law.com, reports that a financial crisis lawsuit that stumbled on South Korean law regained its footing on April 22, when a U.S. appeals court revived claims that Citigroup Inc. duped a Korean bank into investing in a complex investment product that went belly-up in the global recession. Siding with South Korea's Woori Bank and its lawyers at Hausfeld, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed a prior ruling that found Woori's case was brought too late. Woori in 2007 invested $25 million into the Armitage ABS CDO, which, the South Korean bank alleges, Citigroup Global Markets Inc. sold only after ensuring -- and betting -- that an underlying collateralized debt obligation would fail. The appellate decision marks a loss for Citi's lawyers at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, who convinced U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest in Manhattan last August that Woori was aware of alleged fraud in the CDO market sometime in 2008 or early 2009. Since Woori didn't sue until May 2012, the district judge found the claims were brought outside of an applicable three-year statute of limitations under Korean law. To back their timeliness defense at the lower court, Citi's lawyers had presented excerpts from some 69 news articles, legal complaints and other public sources that, they said, should have put Woori on notice of its potential fraud claims more than three years before the suit was filed. On April 22, the Second Circuit examined those pieces of public information and held that they shouldn't have rendered the case time-barred under the proper application of Korean law. "Even if the publicly available information would permit a generalized finding of wrongdoing (even one captured in a set of regulatory findings), the Korean statute of limitations does not run until there are more specific facts of a tortfeasor's identity, wrongful conduct, the existence of damages and a connection between the conduct and the harm," the three-judge panel wrote in the April 22 summary order. Woori claims that when creating the Armitage investment, Citi included a $20 million interest in a separate, toxic CDO known as Class V Funding III. The Class V CDO was also at the heart of Citi's $285 million settlement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission over claims that the bank marketed the CDO while also betting against it. (After initially rejecting the deal, U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff in Manhattan grudgingly approved the SEC settlement on Aug. 5, 2014, the same day Forrest issued her timeliness ruling in the Woori case.) Woori sold its interest in the Armitage CDO in August 2008, several months after it and the underlying Class V CDO had gone into default. The South Korean bank has maintained that it didn't fully know about Citi's alleged wrongdoing until a federal investigative report on the financial crisis came out in January 2011 and the SEC sued Citi in October 2011 over the Class V CDO. Hausfeld's Christopher Lebsock -- clebsock@hausfeld.com -- argued the Second Circuit appeal for Woori. He praised the ruling in an email on April 22, saying Korean Law strongly supported the court's findings. Jessica Carey -- jcarey@paulweiss.com -- of Paul Weiss argued for Citi and was joined on the appellate brief by firm chair Brad Karp -- bkarp@paulweiss.com -- and partner Susanna Buergel -- sbuergel@paulweiss.com Ms. Carey didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. CITIZENS FINANCIAL: Defending Against TCPA Litigation ----------------------------------------------------- Citizens Financial Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company is a defendant in a purported class action complaint filed in December 2013 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The named plaintiff purports to represent a "national class" of customers who allegedly received automated calls to their cell phones from the bank or its agents, without customer consent, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Company is vigorously defending this matter, but is unable to predict the outcome of this matter. CITIZENS FINANCIAL: Defending Against LIBOR Litigation ------------------------------------------------------ Citizens Financial Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company is a defendant in lawsuits in which allegations have been made that its parent company, RBS Group, manipulated U.S. dollar LIBOR to the detriment of the Company's customers. The lawsuits include a purported class action on behalf of borrowers of the Company whose interest rates were tied to U.S. dollar LIBOR. The plaintiffs in these cases assert various theories of liability, including fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. The Company is vigorously defending these matters, but is unable to predict the outcome of these matters. COLLECTION BUREAU: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Salim Minah, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Collection Bureau of the Hudson Valley, Inc. d/b/a CBHV, Case No. 1:15-cv-02241 (E.D.N.Y., April 20, 2015) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Zelman, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ALAN J. SASSON 1669 East 12th Street Brooklyn, NY 11229 Telephone: (347) 526-4093 Facsimile: (347) 244-7178 E-mail: yzelman@gmail.com DEUTSCHE BANK: Enters Into Settlement in LIBOR Manipulation Probe ----------------------------------------------------------------- Nell Gluckman, writing for The Am Law Daily, reports that Deutsche Bank Group Services has agreed to pay $2.52 billion in a joint settlement with British and American authorities after pleading guilty to wire fraud. Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison litigation co-chair Theodore Wells, along with litigation partners Andrew Finch and Roberto Finzi, advised the bank on the settlements with the U.S. Department of Justice, the Commodities Futures Trading Commission and the New York State Department of Financial Services, according to an agreement document. Magic Circle firm Slaughter and May took the lead on a settlement with the U.K.'s Financial Conduct Authority. That team included the head of Slaughter and May's dispute resolution and global investigations practices, Deborah Finkler, as well as commercial litigation partner Ewan Brown. The U.K. publication Legal Business reports that the German firm Hengeler Mueller handled the defense in Germany. The settlement brings resolution to a long-standing investigation into the bank's role in the manipulation of the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) and other benchmarks used to set interest rates. Between 2003 and 2011, Deutsche Bank traders requested that bank employees who report LIBOR submit rates that are favorable to their trading positions, according to the Department of Justice announcement. The traders sometimes worked with other banks to manipulate the interest rates as well, the press release said. Barclays Bank, UBS, The Royal Bank of Scotland, Cooperative Centrale Raiffeisen-Boerenleenbank and Lloyds Banking Group have all also reached resolutions with the Justice Department on interest rate manipulation investigations, but according to The New York Times, Deutsche Bank's settlement is the biggest. The bank says that the internal investigation conducted on the matter included a review of more than 21 million electronic documents and 320,000 audio files. The bank's general counsel for the Americas Steven Reich, who had been a partner at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld until February, signed the agreements. Paul Weiss has worked with the German bank before. The firm represented Deutsche Bank when U.S. District Judge Naomi Buchwald in Manhattan dismissed several claims related to the benchmark global interest rate, sibling publication Litigation Daily reported at the time. DIVERSIFIED ADJUSTMENT: Accused of Violating FDCPA in New York -------------------------------------------------------------- Reuven Bolotin, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Diversified Adjustment Service, Incorporated, Case No. 1:15-cv-02244 (E.D.N.Y., April 20, 2015) accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Maxim Maximov, Esq. MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP 1701 Avenue P Brooklyn, NY 11229 Telephone: (718) 395-3459 Facsimile: (718) 408-9570 E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com ELI LILLY: Faces "Courtney" Suit Arising From Cymbalta Injuries --------------------------------------------------------------- Christina Courtney, Debbie Head, Joianne Jones, Teresa Simmons, Deona Mae Slabaugh, and Ashley Ruchelle Valentine v. Eli Lilly and Company, an Indiana corporation, Case No. 1:15-cv-00643-TWP-MJD (S.D. Ind., April 21, 2015) alleges personal injuries and damages that the Plaintiffs allegedly suffered as a result of Lilly's failure to provide both adequate instructions for discontinuing use of Cymbalta and an adequate warning that fully and accurately informed them about the frequency, severity, and duration of symptoms associated with Cymbalta withdrawal. Cymbalta belongs to a class of antidepressants known as "Serotonin and Norepinephrine Reuptake Inhibitors." Eli Lilly and Company is an Indiana corporation headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana. Lilly is a pharmaceutical company involved in the research, development, testing, manufacture, production, promotion, distribution, marketing, and sale of numerous pharmaceutical products, including Cymbalta. Lilly is one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world with annual revenues exceeding $20 billion. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert J. Schuckit, Esq. SCHUCKIT & ASSOCIATES PC 4545 Northwestern Drive Zionsville, IN 46077 Telephone: (317) 2363-2400 Facsimile: (317) 363-2257 E-mail: rschuckit@schuckitlaw.com - and - Steven B. Stein, Esq. KNOX RICKSEN LLP One Kaiser Plaza, Suite 1101 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 285-2500 Facsimile: (510) 285-2505 E-mail: sbs@knoxricksen.com FELT BICYCLES: Recalls Felt Cruiser Bicycles Due to Crash Hazard ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Felt Bicycles, of Irvine, Calif., announced a voluntary recall of about 200 Felt Cruiser bicycles. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The bicycle's brakes can fail, posing a crash hazard. This recall involves beach cruiser style Felt Deep Six and El Guapo model bicycles with one speed and coaster brakes. "Felt" and "Deep Six" or "El Guapo" are printed on the bicycle's frame. The Deep Six was sold in black cherry with white sidewall tires and the El Guapo was sold in matte black with white tires. The Deep Six has a serial number between YI31106188 and YI31106287. The El Guapo has a serial number between YI31106288 and YI31106387. The serial number is printed on the bicycle's bottom bracket. Felt Bicycles has received 26 reports of incidents with the recalled bicycles. No injuries have been reported. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/w7r8BJ The recalled products were manufactured in Taiwan and sold at Bicycle specialty stores nationwide from June 2014 through March 2015 for between $600 and $750. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled bicycles and contact your local Felt bicycle dealer for a free inspection and replacement of the rear hub cog/driver. FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE: Accused of Violating FDCPA in New York ------------------------------------------------------------- Ephraim Steinwurzel, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Firstsource Advantage, LLC, Case No. 1:15- cv-02273 (E.D.N.Y., April 21, 2015) accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Maxim Maximov, Esq. MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP 1701 Avenue P Brooklyn, NY 11229 Telephone: (718) 395-3459 Facsimile: (718) 408-9570 E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com HY-VEE INC: Recalls Summer Fresh Pasta Salad Due to Listeria ------------------------------------------------------------ Hy-Vee, Inc. issued a recall for Hy-Vee Summer Fresh Pasta Salad that is sold in its stores' kitchen department cold cases and salad bars. The pasta was recalled after Hy-Vee was notified the frozen vegetables used to make the ready-to-eat pasta were potentially contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes. The frozen vegetables were produced by Inventure Foods, Jefferson, Georgia. Listeria monocytogenes can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Although healthy individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea, Listeria infection can cause miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women. The Summer Fresh Pasta Salad is packaged upon customer request from the kitchen cold case and would have been packaged in 16oz. (1 lb.) or 32oz. (2 lb.) clear plastic containers. A light tan scale-produced label with the product name, weight and price would have been affixed to the container. The recalled product would have been available in a limited number of stores between April 9, 2015 and April 27, 2015. Hy-Vee has since pulled the ready-to-eat Summer Fresh Pasta Salad from its distribution channels and the stores in Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska and South Dakota to which it was distributed. All stores that received the product have been instructed to dispose of the product. To date, Hy-Vee has not received any complaints associated with the Summer Fresh Pasta Salad. Customers who purchased Summer Fresh Pasta Salad from the Hy-Vee kitchen department cold case or salad bar between April 9, 2015 and April 27, 2015, should dispose of the product or return it to the store for a refund. For questions, please call Hy-Vee Customer Care at 1-800-772-4098. Hy-Vee, Inc. is an employee-owned corporation operating more than 235 retail stores across eight Midwestern states with sales of $8.7 billion annually. Hy-Vee ranks among the top 25 supermarket chains and the top 50 private companies in the United States. Supermarket News, the authoritative voice of the food industry, has honored the company with a Whole Health Enterprise Award for its leadership in providing services and programs that promote a healthy lifestyle. For more information, visit www.hy-vee.com IKEA NORTH: Recalls Sultan and Vyssa Crib Mattresses ---------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with IKEA North America Services LLC, of Conshohocken, Pa., announced a voluntary recall of about 300,000 Sultan and Vyssa crib mattress in the United States and about 44,000 in Canada. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The crib mattresses could create a gap between the mattress and crib ends larger than allowed by federal regulations, posing an entrapment hazard to infants. This recall involves IKEA SULTAN and VYSSA crib mattresses with the following model names: SULTAN BLUNDA, SULTAN DR™MMA, SULTAN SNARKA, SULTAN SUSSA, VYSSA VACKERT, VYSSA VINKA, VYSSA SPELEVINK, VYSSA SL™A and VYSSA SLUMMER. The recalled mattresses are 52 inches long and 27 1/2 inches wide and were manufactured on May 4, 2014 or earlier. An identification label attached to the mattress cover has the date of manufacture in Month-DD-YY format or YY-WW format and the SULTAN or VYSSA model name. In the YY-WW format, mattresses with a date code of 14-18 or earlier are being recalled. A gap between the mattress and crib ends larger than two finger width is an indication of the defective mattress. The firm has received two reports of infants becoming entrapped between the mattress and an end of the crib. The children were removed from the gap without injury. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/ojlO2m The recalled products were manufactured in Mexico, Poland, China and the United States and sold at IKEA stores nationwide and online at www.ikea-usa.com from October 2000 to May 2014 for about $20 to $100. Consumers should immediately stop using a recalled mattress and inspect it by making sure there is no gap larger than the width of two fingers between the ends of the crib and the mattress. If any gap is larger, customers should immediately stop using the recalled mattresses and return it to any IKEA store for an exchange or a full refund. INSYS THERAPEUTICS: Parties Filed Bid to Stay Pending Mediation --------------------------------------------------------------- Insys Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the parties have filed a motion to stay the federal securities litigation pending a mediation in connection with a potential resolution of the action. "Between May 15 and May 19, 2014, two complaints (captioned Larson v. Insys Therapeutics, Inc., Case No. 14-cv-01043-GMS) and (Li vs. Insys Therapeutics, Inc., Case No 14-cv-01077-DGC) were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, or Arizona District Court, against us and certain of our current officers," the Company said. "The complaints were brought as purported class actions, on behalf of purchasers of our common stock. In general, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated federal securities laws by making intentionally false and misleading statements regarding our business and operations, therefore artificially inflating the price of our common stock. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief. On July 14, 2014, several purported shareholders filed motions to consolidate the two cases, appoint a lead plaintiff, and appoint lead counsel. On August 29, 2014, the Arizona District Court issued an order consolidating the action, appointing Hongwei Li as lead plaintiff, and appointing the lead counsel. Lead plaintiffs complaint was filed on October 27, 2014. On December 11, 2014, we moved to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint. The parties have filed a motion to stay the action pending a mediation in connection with a potential resolution of the action." KENT NUTRITION: Recalls Medicated Poultry Feeds Due to Salt ----------------------------------------------------------- Kent Nutrition Group, Inc. is recalling one lot of its Blue Seal Home Fresh Starter Amp Medicated Poultry Feed. The recall is being implemented due to the discovery of excess salt in the feed concerning lot number 1015072. Salt (sodium chloride) is an essential nutrient for all animals. However, excess salt intake can be dangerous especially if access to clean water is limited. Salt toxicity in birds results in thirst, trouble breathing, fluid discharge from the beak, wet droppings, weakness or paralysis of the legs, and even death. Customers should contact their veterinarian if their birds experienced adverse health effects while consuming the affected product. The poultry feed being recalled was manufactured in Columbus, Nebraska. Beginning March 18 through March 25 the product was distributed to six dealerships in Nebraska. Product is sold in 50lb bags. At this time, 64- 50lb bags of Blue Seal Home Fresh Starter Amp Medicated Poultry Feed Lot 1015072 remains unaccounted for. The lot number of the product is located on the tape of the sewed-end of the bag. The recall is the result of routine sampling by Kent Nutrition Group which indicated an excess amount of salt in the feed. Kent Nutrition Group's products that are not from this specific lot are not affected by the recall. Customers who have purchased Blue Seal Home Fresh Starter Amp Medicated from lot number 1015072 are urged to return it to their Kent Dealer for a full refund. Customer questions or concerns may be directed to the company at 1-800-552-9620 Monday through Friday during the hours of 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM CST. LATTICE SEMICONDUCTOR: Facing Suits Over Silicon Image Merger ------------------------------------------------------------- Lattice Semiconductor Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2015, for the fiscal year ended January 3, 2015, that on or about January 29, 2015, Silicon Image, Inc., members of its Board, the Company and the Company's wholly-owned merger acquisition subsidiary, were named as defendants in two complaints filed in Santa Clara Superior Court by alleged stockholders of Silicon Image in connection with the proposed merger of Silicon Image and the Company. Both complaints were dated January 29, 2015 and were captioned respectively Molland v. George, et al. and Stein v. Silicon Image, Inc. et. al. Five additional complaints were subsequently filed on January 30, 2015, February 4, 2015 and February 9, 2015 in Delaware Chancery Court by alleged stockholders of Silicon Image, Inc. in connection with the Merger, captioned respectively Pfeiffer v. Martino et. al.; Lipinski v. Silicon Image, Inc. et. al.; Feldbaum et. al. v. Silicon Image, Inc. et. al; Nelson v. Silicon Image, Inc. et. al. and Partansky v. Silicon Image, Inc. et. al. The five Delaware matters were subsequently consolidated into an action captioned In re Silicon Image Stockholders Litigation by order of the Delaware Chancery Court on February 11, 2015, and a consolidated amended complaint was filed in the matter on February 13, 2015. Two complaints captioned Tapia v. Silicon Image, Inc. et. al. and Caldwel v. Silicon Image, Inc. were also filed on February 4, 2015 and February 9, 2015 in Santa Clara Superior Court by alleged stockholders in connection with the Merger. Amended complaints were filed in the Molland and Stein actions on February 11, 2015. Each of these lawsuits are purported class actions brought on behalf of Silicon Image stockholders, asserting claims against each member of the Board for breach of fiduciary duty, and against various of the Silicon Image, Silicon Image's Board, the Company, and the Company's wholly-owned merger subsidiary for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty. The lawsuits allege that the Merger does not appropriately value Silicon Image, was the result of an inadequate process, and includes preclusive deal devices. The amended complaints also assert that the Silicon Image's disclosures regarding the Merger in its Schedule 14D-9 omitted material information regarding the Merger. Each of these complaints purport to seek unspecified damages and may seek injunctive relief preventing consummation of the transactions. The Company believes that the claims in these complaints are without merit and intends to vigorously defend this litigation. An adverse judgment for monetary damages could have an adverse effect on the operations of the Company. A preliminary injunction could delay or jeopardize the completion of the Merger, and an adverse judgment granting permanent injunctive relief could indefinitely enjoin completion of the Merger. LOS ALTOS BEACH: Judge Awards $4.5MM to Family in Bush Crash Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that a federal judge has awarded $4.5 million to a family injured in Costa Rica when a resort-owned shuttle bus crashed and partially flipped over. U.S. District Judge Mitchell S. Goldberg of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania entered a default judgment against Los Altos Beach Resort and Spa, a Costa Rica-based defendant that did not respond to the Yuschak family's lawsuit. The verdict was broken down into four parts for each member of the family: $150,000 in pain and suffering for James Yuschak, the father; $3.4 million in pain and suffering and lost wages for Susan Yuschak, the mother; $300,000 in pain and suffering for Caitlyn Yuschak, the daughter; and $700,000 in pain and suffering for Eric Yuschak, the son. Judge Goldberg wrote in the verdict order, "In short, in having to undergo the trauma of a serious, frightening accident, resulting in significant injuries with lasting effects, the Yuschak family has endured and will continue to endure significant pain and suffering." Those injuries included significant head trauma to Susan Yuschak, tearing of ligaments in Eric Yuschak's left knee, and fractures in Caitlyn Yuschak's lower back. According to Goldberg, James Yuschak suffered no physical injuries, but instead made claims of emotional trauma. According to the family's attorney, Sayde J. Ladov, the next step is getting a hold of the resort's lawyer in Costa Rica to get the judgment paid. Ms. Ladov said she does not expect the process to be completed without difficulty. "You're dealing with a foreign government, a language barrier; it's not like taking a piece of paper and going to the next county, registering the judgment, and doing what you need to do to collect," Mr. Ladov said . "It's positively baffling to me why they never responded. I corresponded and interacted and told them very bluntly that they were going to get sued," she added. The accident occurred in October 2012 when the family boarded the resort's shuttle bus, described by the plaintiffs as a converted truck with a canvas cover and two benches positioned lengthwise in the rear, according to Judge Goldberg. The road descending to the beach was windy and hazardous, Judge Goldberg said, and when the driver reached the bottom, he lost control of the vehicle. The bus crashed into a tree, partially flipped, and the passengers were thrown to the driver's side of the vehicle. After the accident, the Yuschaks were taken to a local hospital. Goldberg said Susan Yuschak was taken to a more modern facility to address her head injuries while the children returned to their hotel rooms after receiving rudimentary treatment and made arrangements to return to the United States for further treatment the next day. Susan Yuschak was diagnosed with a depressed skull fracture requiring immediate surgery. The following December, back in Pennsylvania, she was diagnosed by a neurologist as having a traumatic brain injury. According to Goldberg, a psychotherapist said, "Susan initially described frequent bouts of tearfulness, unable to stop thinking about the accident and injuries of her spouse and children, persistent worry about her children's injuries with catastrophic expectations about their recovery, suicidal ideation, poor sleep, and inappropriate guilt blaming herself for extent of son's injuries." She also found concentration difficult and was unable to return to her job as a part-time pharmacist. "As a result of her head injury, her cognitive ability, computational skills, ability to concentrate, and short-term memory are impacted such that she cannot meet the demands of her profession," Judge Goldberg said. Eric Yuschak, whose left ACL and LCL were torn during the accident, required surgery upon returning to the United States. After the surgery, Eric Yuschak was able to return to college, although he experienced difficulty traveling to and from classes. He was also unable to play competitive basketball for roughly a year. Caitlyn Yuschak traveled back to the United States with her brother to have her back examined. X-rays revealed that she had fractures in her lumbosacral region. According to Judge Goldberg, a doctor said she had a reduced range of motion primarily because of the pain, but her fractures would heal on their own in time. James Yuschak testified as to the emotional stress he suffered as a result of the accident. In particular, Judge Goldberg said, "James testified that his relationship with his wife is now different because of the effects of her head injury. H e stated that Susan now gets frustrated quickly, and, because of that, there can be more tension between them and he has to carefully manage family situations to ensure that Susan is not put into a position of making decisions on behalf of the family." LYFT INC: Removes "Bekele" Suit to Massachusetts District Court --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Yilkal Bekele v. Lyft, Inc., Case No. 15-0245E, was removed from the Superior Court for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Boston). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-11650 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment and seeks to recover expenses that he claims were improperly incurred as a result of his and the putative class members' alleged misclassification as independent contractors, including "expenses for owning or leasing their vehicles, maintenance, insurance, gas, and other expenses." The Plaintiff is represented by: Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. Adelaide Pagano, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, Massachusetts 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 Facsimile: (617) 994-5801 E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: James D. Smeallie, Esq. David J. Santeusanio, Esq. Michael T. Maroney, Esq. Robert M. Shaw, Esq. Nathaniel F. Hulme, Esq. HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 10 St. James Avenue Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 523-2700 Facsimile: (617) 523-6850 E-mail: jd.smeallie@hklaw.com david.santeusanio@hklaw.com michael.maroney@hklaw.com robert.shaw@hklaw.com nathaniel.hulme@hklaw.com MICHAEL HARRISON: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act --------------------------------------------------------------- Melissa Ciriello, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated v. Michael Harrison, Case No. 2:15-cv-02759-MCA-JBC (D.N.J., April 20, 2015) accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Yongmoon Kim, Esq. KIM LAW FIRM LLC 411 Hackensack Ave., 2nd Floor Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 273-7117 Facsimile: (201) 273-7117 E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com MICHAELS STORES: "Horton" Suit Moved From California to N.J. ------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit styled Barbara Horton v. Michaels Stores, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-01644, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Newark). The New Jersey District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-02750 to the proceeding. The lawsuit seeks relief under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq. FINKELSTEIN THOMPSON LLP One California Street, Suite 900 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 398-8700 Facsimile: (415) 398-8704 E-mail: rrivas@finkelsteinthompson.com NASDAQ STOCK: Settles Facebook IPO Suit for $26.5 Million --------------------------------------------------------- Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC has agreed to pay $26.5 million to settle claims that its negligence and misstatements about its technical capabilities contributed to shareholder losses on the day of Facebook Inc.'s 2012 initial public offering. The settlement in the case brought by Facebook shareholders, announced on April 23, comes two weeks before the Nasdaq's lawyers were scheduled to go before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to reverse a landmark 2013 ruling that denied a motion to dismiss the shareholder claims against the stock exchange. The settlement is limited to those who bought shares on the day of the IPO. "This is a very good recovery for a one-day class period case," said Vincent Cappucci -- vcappucci@entwistle-law.com -- a lead plaintiffs attorney in the consolidated shareholder class action against the stock exchange stemming from Facebook's $16 billion IPO. "It was the largest technology initial public offering in the history of the exchange -- an offering that presented unprecedented volume and activity -- and this is a case where we believe that the exchange really acted outside of what should be commercially expected of them." Nasdaq announced the deal in an earnings report with investors. The settlement doesn't involve claims against Facebook, its officers or directors, or the underwriters of its IPO. Separate consolidated litigation is pending against those entities over shareholder losses attributable to the IPO. One of the most anticipated IPOs in recent years, Facebook's public offering price of $38 per share plummeted soon after its debut on May 18, 2012. Shareholder lawsuits over the IPO were coordinated before U.S. District Judge Robert Sweet of the Southern District of New York. The Nasdaq, its parent, Nasdaq OMX Group Inc., its chief executive officer, Robert Greifeld, and its former chief information officer, Anna Ewing, argued in court that the exchange was immune from liability as a self-regulatory organization. But in 2013, Judge Sweet refused to dismiss the case. He agreed with the plaintiffs that the Nasdaq could be held negligent for software glitches that caused delays in trading on the first day of the IPO that its officials could have misled investors about the strength of its technology in statements made just prior to the IPO. "Those claims were sustained in a very significant decision -- the first of its kind -- and that was the decision that was appealed," said Mr. Cappucci of New York's Entwistle & Cappucci. Both the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the New York Stock Exchange LLC had filed amicus briefs before the Second Circuit to reverse what they called an overly broad and unprecedented ruling. Oral arguments had been scheduled for May 7. The April 23 settlement, Mr. Cappucci said, excludes any technical changes to Nasdaq's system, which were addressed in an agreement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that included a $10 million fine. It also excludes Nasdaq members who were compensated through a $62 million accommodation program. In its earnings report, Nasdaq announced a $31 million loss reserve to pay for the settlement plus potential additional costs in reopening the accommodation program to members that didn't get paid, including UBS Securities. On Oct. 31, the Second Circuit refused to allow UBS Securities, which lost $350 million on Facebook's IPO, to arbitrate its claim against the Nasdaq. Still remaining are shareholder cases alleging that Facebook executives and its underwriters failed to disclose enough to investors about anticipated advertising revenue decreases due to the increased use of mobile devices. In 2013, Sweet refused to dismiss that case. Plaintiffs attorneys moved on Dec. 23 to certify a class of investors, plus subclasses for retail and institutional investors. A hearing on class certification is scheduled for May 20. On April 27, the Second Circuit also will hear several appeals of shareholders whose derivative claims over the Facebook IPO were dismissed. NAVISTAR INT'L: Status Hearing Stricken in MaxxForce Litigation --------------------------------------------------------------- Navistar International Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that on the Court's own motion, a status hearing scheduled for February 20, 2015 was stricken in the MaxxForce Engine EGR Warranty Litigation. On June 24, 2014, N&C Transportation Ltd. filed a putative class action lawsuit against NIC, Navistar, Inc., Navistar Canada Inc., and Harbour International Trucks in Canada in the Supreme Court of British Columbia (the "N&C Action"). Subsequently, five additional, similar putative class action lawsuits have been filed in Canada (together with the N&C Action, the "Canadian Actions"). On July 7, 2014, Par 4 Transport, LLC filed a putative class action lawsuit against Navistar, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the "Par 4 Action"). Subsequently, sixteen additional putative class action lawsuits were filed in various United States district courts, including the Northern District of Illinois, the Eastern District of Wisconsin, the Southern District of Florida, the Southern District of Texas, the District of Minnesota and the Middle District of Pennsylvania (together with the Par 4 Action, the "U.S. Actions"). The U.S. Actions alleged matters substantially similar to the Canadian Actions. More specifically, the Canadian Actions and the U.S. Actions (collectively, the "EGR Class Actions") seek to certify a class of persons or entities in Canada or the United States who purchased and/or leased a ProStar or other Navistar vehicle equipped with a model year 2008-2013 MaxxForce Advanced EGR engine. In substance, the EGR Class Actions allege that the MaxxForce Advanced EGR engines are defective and that Navistar, Inc. failed to disclose and correct the alleged defect. The EGR Class Actions assert claims based on theories of contract, breach of warranty, consumer fraud, unfair competition, misrepresentation and negligence. The EGR Class Actions seek relief in the form of monetary damages, punitive damages, declaratory relief, interest, fees, and costs. On October 3, 2014, NIC and Navistar, Inc. filed a motion before the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the "MDL Action") seeking to transfer and consolidate before Judge Joan B. Gottschall of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois all of the U.S. Actions then pending, as well as certain non-class action MaxxForce Advanced EGR engine lawsuits pending in various federal district courts. On December 17, 2014, Navistar's motion was granted. The MDL Panel issued an order consolidating all of the U.S. Actions pending on the date the motion was filed before Judge Gottschall in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The MDL Panel also consolidated certain non-class action MaxxForce Advanced EGR engine lawsuits pending in the various federal district courts, with the exception of one matter. For putative class action lawsuits filed subsequent to Navistar's original motion, we continue to request that the MDL Panel similarly transfer and consolidate these U.S Actions. At the request of the various law firms representing the plaintiffs in the U.S. Actions, Judge Gottschall set a briefing schedule for the appointment of interim class counsel. On the Court's own motion, a status hearing scheduled for February 20, 2015 was stricken. "Based on our assessment of the facts underlying the claims in the above actions, we are unable to provide meaningful quantification of how the final resolution of these claims may impact our future consolidated financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows," the Company said. NAVISTAR INT'L: Ruling Date in Shareholder Litigation Extended -------------------------------------------------------------- Navistar International Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Court extended the ruling date in the shareholder litigation to April 15, 2015. The Company said, "In March 2013, a putative class action complaint, alleging securities fraud, was filed against us by the Construction Workers Pension Trust Fund - Lake County and Vicinity, on behalf of itself and all other similarly situated purchasers of our common stock between the period of November 3, 2010 and August 1, 2012. A second class action complaint was filed in April 2013 by the Norfolk County Retirement System, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated purchasers of our common stock between the period of June 9, 2010 and August 1, 2012. A third class action complaint was filed in April 2013 by Jane C. Purnell FBO Purnell Family Trust, on behalf of itself and all other similarly situated purchasers of our common stock between the period of November 3, 2010 and August 1, 2012. Each complaint named us as well as Daniel C. Ustian, our former President and Chief Executive Officer, and Andrew J. Cederoth, our former Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer as defendants." "These complaints (collectively, the "10b-5 Cases") contain similar factual allegations which include, among other things, that we violated the federal securities laws by knowingly issuing materially false and misleading statements concerning our financial condition and future business prospects and that we misrepresented and omitted material facts in filings with the SEC concerning the timing and likelihood of EPA certification of our EGR technology to meet 2010 EPA emission standards. The plaintiffs in these matters seek compensatory damages and attorneys' fees, among other relief. "In May 2013, an order was entered transferring and consolidating all cases before one judge and in July 2013, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's counsel. The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint in October 2013. The consolidated amended complaint enlarged the proposed class period to June 9, 2009 through August 1, 2012, and named fourteen additional current and former directors and officers as defendants. In December 2013, we filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. "In July, 2014, the Court granted the defendants' Motions to Dismiss, denied the lead plaintiff's Motion to Strike as moot, and gave the lead plaintiff leave to file a second consolidated amended complaint. In August, 2014, the plaintiff timely filed a Second Amended Complaint, which narrows the claims in two ways. First, the plaintiff abandoned its claims against the majority of the defendants, asserting claims against only Navistar, Dan Ustian, A.J. Cederoth, Jack Allen, and Eric Tech. The plaintiff also shortened the putative class period by changing the class period commencement date from June 9, 2009 to March 10, 2010. Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint in September, 2014 and in October, 2014, the plaintiff filed its opposition to defendants Motion to Dismiss. In November, 2014, defendants filed their reply brief in support of defendants Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. Also in November 2014, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed Eric Tech as a defendant. The Court had set a ruling date on the Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint for February 17, 2015. On the Court's own motion, the ruling date was extended to April 15, 2015." NEW YORK, NY: Faces Class Suit by Transport Workers Union --------------------------------------------------------- Transport Workers Union of Greater New York, AFL-CIO, Local 100, as the Representative of Bus Drivers Employed by the New York City Transit Authority, Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating System, and MTA Bus Company; and Katherine Angotti, Jennine Gregory, William Gonzalez, Angelo Crispin, Raymond Vega and Christopher Magwood, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Bill De Blasio, as Mayor of the City of New York, and The City of New York, Case No. 1:15-cv-02225 (E.D.N.Y., April 20, 2015) seeks relief under the Civil Rights Act. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Arthur Z. Schwartz, Esq. ADVOCATES FOR JUSTICE, CHARTERED ATTORNEYS 225 Broadway, Suite 1902 New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 285-1400 Facsimile: (718) 228-5537 E-mail: aschwartz@afjlaw.com NOMI TECHNOLOGIES: Settles FTC Charges Over Privacy Policy ---------------------------------------------------------- Jenna Greene, writing for Law.com, reports that a company whose technology allows retailers to track customer movements through their stores agreed on April 23 to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that it misled consumers about privacy choices. The FTC said Nomi Technologies Inc. wrongly stated in its privacy policy that it would provide an opt-out mechanism for consumers at stores using its services, and that consumers were not informed of in-store tracking. The case prompted sharp dissents from the agency's two Republican commissioners, who criticized the majority for going after a start-up company absent any showing of consumer harm. The majority "adopts an approach that places legal form over substance, is inconsistent with the available data, and defies common sense," wrote Commissioner Joshua Wright. Commissioner Maureen Ohlhausen argued the enforcement action actually "encourages companies to do only the bare minimum on privacy, ultimately leaving consumers worse off." The commission's three Democrats issued a separate statement rebutting the dissents. They defended the action as "carefully- tailored relief designed to prevent similar violations in the future." New York-based Nomi tracks consumers' smart phone signals to provide retailers with information such as how many consumers passed by their store instead of entering, how long consumers stayed in the store and how many repeat customers enter a store in a given period. Nomi collects MAC addresses -- unique 12-digit identifiers assigned to individual mobile devices -- that are picked up by in- store sensors. The addresses are cryptographically "hashed" so no individuals are identified. The problem, the FTC said in its complaint, is how Nomi described its opt-out policy. Nomi pledged to "Always allow consumers to opt out of Nomi's service on its website as well as at any retailer using Nomi's technology." According to the FTC, there was no in-store opt-out. "It's vital that companies keep their privacy promises to consumers when working with emerging technologies, just as it is in any other context," said Jessica Rich, director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection, in news release. "If you tell a consumer that they will have choices about their privacy, you should make sure all of those choices are actually available to them." In his dissent, Wright argued that the majority makes too much of the retail opt-out provision. "The evidence strongly implies that specific representation was not material and therefore not deceptive," he wrote. To presume it was material "requires one to accept the proposition that the privacy-sensitive consumer would be more likely to bypass the easier and immediate route (the online opt out) in favor of waiting until she had the opportunity to opt out in a physical location," he wrote. The settlement does not -- and cannot -- compel retailers to disclose the tracking technology, he said. All it does is order Nomi to take the claim out of its privacy policy (which the company had already done). "Nomi was under no legal obligation to post a privacy policy, describe its practices to consumers, or to offer an opt-out mechanism. To penalize a company for such a minor shortcoming -- particularly when there is no evidence the misrepresentation harmed consumers -- sends a dangerous message," he wrote. Ms. Ohlhausen echoed the concern, writing that Nomi is "a young company that attempted to go above and beyond its legal obligation to protect consumers but, in so doing, erred without benefiting itself," she wrote. The majority -- Chairwoman Edith Ramirez and commissioners Julie Brill and Terrell McSweeny -- rebutted their arguments. "Nomi's express representations regarding how consumers may opt out of its location tracking services go to the very heart of consumers' ability to make decisions about whether to participate in these services. Thus, we have ample reason to believe that Nomi's opt-out representations were material," they wrote. Nomi in a statement said, "We are pleased to reach this agreement. We continually review our privacy policies to ensure that they follow best practices and had already made the recommended changes in pursuit of that goal by updating our privacy policy over a year and a half ago, while we were still an early-stage startup that was less than a year old." ORTOVOX CANADA: Recalls S1+ Avalanche Transceivers -------------------------------------------------- Starting date: April 14, 2015 Posting date: April 14, 2015 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Electronics Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Product Safety Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-52897 This recall involves the Ortovox S1+ Avalanche Transceiver, which is used as a transmission device to locate the user if caught in an avalanche. The Ortovox S1+ Avalanche Transceiver is a flip-open design, is powered by two AAA batteries and is black and green in colour. The item code is 11380 and the UPC is 4250091798867. The potential failure of a component may prevent the transmission of a reliable signal to searchers in the case of an avalanche. Neither Health Canada nor Ortovox Canada has received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of these products. In total, 750 units of the affected transceivers were sold in Canada. The affected product was sold from September 2011 to March 2015. Manufactured in Germany. Manufacturer: Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH Taufkirchen GERMANY Distributor: Ortovox Canada Ltd. Calgary Alberta CANADA Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/40q97P PINTY'S DELICIOUS: Recalls Pinty's Eatwell Brand Chicken Products ----------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: April 20, 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: Pinty's Delicious Foods Inc. Distribution: National Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 9792 Brand name Common name Size Code(s) UPC ---------- ---------- ---- on product --- ---------- Pinty's Eatwell Chicken 810 g Lot 5061 0 69094 62592 6 Breast Strips BB/MA 2016 MR 02 EST 232 Pinty's Eatwell Chicken 810 g Lot 5061 0 69094 62591 9 Nuggets BB/MA 2016 MR 02 EST 232 POCO DOLCE: Recalls Individually Wrapped Tiles Due to Milk ---------------------------------------------------------- Poco Dolce Confections of San Francisco, CA is recalling all Almond, Aztec Chile, Burnt Caramel, Almond Coconut, Ginger, and Sesame Toffee Individually Wrapped Tiles. These varieties of individually wrapped Tiles are being recalled because of their label's failure to identify the food allergen (Milk) in addition to the listing for "Butter" in the label's ingredient statement. People who have allergy or severe sensitivity to specific type of allergen (e.g., peanuts, tree nuts {chestnuts, brazil nuts, walnuts, hazelnuts, pecans, pine nuts, cashews}, eggs, and sulfites) run the risk of life threatening allergic reaction, anaphylaxis, that requires immediate medical care if they consume these product. Poco Dolce Confections immediately segregated its entire Individually Wrapped Tiles inventory and is notifying consumers and customers not to consume this product. The Individually Wrapped Tiles are individually wrapped 2" square pieces of Bittersweet Chocolate in glassine envelopes which come in 18pc trays. They are available in seven varieties though only the following six flavors are subject to this recall: Almond, Aztec Chile, Burnt Caramel, Almond Coconut, Ginger, and Sesame Toffee. Poco Dolce Confections wants to ensure its products are safe. Consequently, in addition to its ongoing cooperation with the California Department of Public Health, Poco Dolce Confections is voluntarily recalling all Individually Wrapped Tile Varieties (Almond, Aztec Chile, Burnt Caramel, Almond Coconut, Ginger, Sesame Toffee) from all of its customers. Consumers in possession of these Chocolates should not eat the product and should return the product to the place of purchase. Poco Dolce Confections will be sending recall notices to all of its direct customers. Please call Albert Moriguchi at 415-255-1443 (8:30-5, M-F) for further information. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm445559.htm POLYPORE INTERNATIONAL: Defendant in Lax v. Toth Case ----------------------------------------------------- Polypore International, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2015, for the fiscal year ended January 3, 2015, that a putative class action lawsuit captioned Lax v. Toth, et al., Case No. 10741 (Del. Ch.) (the "Action") was filed on March 3, 2015, in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against the Company, the current members of the Board of Directors, Asahi Kasei and EMS. "The Action, filed by a purported shareholder of the Company's common stock, challenges the contemplated integrated transactions with 3M, Asahi Kasei and EMS and alleges, among other things, that the members of the Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties to our stockholders by engaging in a flawed sales process, agreeing to a transaction price that does not adequately compensate our stockholders, and agreeing to certain unfair deal protection terms. The Action also alleges that Asahi Kasei and EMS aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. The Action seeks various remedies, including declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as damages and costs," the Company said. POWERSECURE INTERNATIONAL: Dismissal of Securities Action Sought ---------------------------------------------------------------- Powersecure International, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a motion to dismiss the securities class action lawsuit was filed on February 26, 2015. The Company said, "On May 22, 2014, a putative securities class action lawsuit was filed against us and certain of our executive officers in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. Subsequently, in May and July 2014, two additional purported securities class action lawsuits were filed against the same defendants in the United States District Courts, one in the Eastern District of North Carolina and the other in the Western District of North Carolina. On October 10, 2014, these lawsuits were consolidated in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, and a lead plaintiff was appointed. A consolidated amended complaint was filed on December 29, 2014, purportedly on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased our common stock during a purported class period from August 8, 2013 through May 7, 2014. The action alleges that certain statements made by the defendants during the applicable class period violated federal securities laws. The amount of damages has not been specified, and no determination has been made on the status of the lawsuits proposed as class actions. We filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit on February 26, 2015. The plaintiff is expected to file its response to our motion to dismiss, to which we will file a reply, before the court rules on our motion to dismiss. We cannot provide any assurance on the timing or the outcome of a court ruling on our motion to dismiss." PRIME CONSULTING: Accused of Violating Fair Credit Reporting Act ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rhonda Jackson, on behalf of herself and all similarly-situated individuals v. Prime Consulting Group, Inc., Case No. 8:15-cv- 00938-EAK-TGW (M.D. Fla., April 21, 2015) alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Donna V. Smith, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA 1110 N Florida Ave., Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 223-0431 Facsimile: (813) 229-8712 E-mail: dsmith@wfclaw.com RANBAXY PHARMACEUTICALS: Recalls RAN-Gabapentin Products -------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: April 10, 2015 Posting date: April 14, 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-52913 Possibility of contamination with trace amounts of the active ingredient Etodolac. Depth of distribution: Retailers RAN-Gabapentin DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM DIN 02319055 Dosage form: Capsule Strength: Gabapentin 100 mg Lot or serial number: 2582026 Recalling Firm: Ranbaxy Pharmaceuticals Canada Inc. 200-2680 Matheson Blvd. East Mississauga L4W 0A5 Ontario CANADA Marketing Authorization Holder: Ranbaxy Pharmaceuticals Canada Inc. 200-2680 Matheson Blvd. East Mississauga L4W 0A5 Ontario CANADA SABRE CORP: Class Suit Stayed Pending State Court Action Results ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sabre Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that one class action is pending in federal court, but has been stayed pending the outcome of the Texas state court action. "Four consumer class action lawsuits have been filed against us in which the plaintiffs allege that we made misrepresentations concerning the description of the fees received in relation to facilitating hotel reservations," the Company said. "Generally, the consumer claims relate to whether Travelocity provided adequate notice to consumers regarding the nature of our fees and the amount of taxes charged or collected. One of these lawsuits was dismissed by the trial court and this dismissal was subsequently affirmed by the Texas Supreme Court; one was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs; one is pending in Texas state court, where the court is currently considering the plaintiffs' motion to certify a class action; and the last is pending in federal court, but has been stayed pending the outcome of the Texas state court action. We believe the notice we provided was appropriate." SABRE CORP: Court Closed Hotel Related Antitrust Case ----------------------------------------------------- Sabre Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Court has closed the Hotel Related Antitrust Proceedings and the Company regard this matter as fully and finally resolved. On August 20, 2012, two individuals alleging to represent a putative class of bookers of online hotel reservations filed a complaint against Sabre Holdings, Travelocity.com LP, and several other online travel companies and hotel chains in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging federal and state antitrust and related claims. The complaint alleged generally that the defendants conspired to enter into illegal agreements relating to the price of hotel rooms. Over 30 copycat suits were filed in various courts in the United States. In December 2012, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation centralized these cases in the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of Texas, which subsequently consolidated them. The proposed class period was January 1, 2003 through May 1, 2013. Together with the other defendants, Travelocity and Sabre filed a motion to dismiss. On February 18, 2014, the court granted the motion and dismissed the plaintiff's claims without prejudice. The plaintiffs had moved for leave to file an amended complaint but the judge denied the motion on October 27, 2014 and dismissed the claims with prejudice. The plaintiffs did not appeal and their opportunity to appeal has expired. The Court closed the case on January 17, 2015 and the Company regard this matter as fully and finally resolved. SAFEWAY INC: Bid for Final Deal Approval to Be Filed Mid-2015 ------------------------------------------------------------- Safeway Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a motion for final approval of the settlement in a class action lawsuit would be filed in mid-2015. On August 18, 2001, a group of truck drivers from the Company's Tracy, CA distribution center filed an action in California Superior Court, San Joaquin County entitled Cicairos, et al. v. Summit Logistics, alleging that Summit Logistics, the entity with whom Safeway contracted to operate the distribution center until August 2003, failed to provide meal periods, rest periods and itemized wage statements to the drivers in violation of California state law. Under its contract with Summit, Safeway is obligated to defend and indemnify Summit Logistics in this lawsuit. On February 6, 2007, another group of truck drivers from the Tracy distribution center filed a similar action in the same court, entitled Bluford, et al. v. Safeway Inc., alleging essentially the same claims against the Company. Both cases were subsequently certified as class actions. After lengthy litigation in the trial and appellate courts on February 20, 2015, the parties signed a preliminary agreement of settlement that calls for the Company to pay approximately $31 million in total. This amount consists of a settlement fund of $30.2 million, out of which will be paid relief to the class, and attorneys' fees and costs as awarded by the court. In addition to this settlement fund, the Company will pay interest of $10,000 if the distribution to the class is made in August 2015, with additional monthly amounts of interest if later. The Company will also pay third party settlement administrator costs, and its employer share of FICA/Medicare taxes. The Company anticipates that a motion for preliminary court approval of the settlement will be heard in the Spring of 2015. If such preliminary approval is granted, class members will be notified and given the opportunity to file objections to the settlement. Following that, a motion for final approval of the settlement would be filed in mid-2015. SENSO GROUP: Recalls Charcoal Products Due to Mislabeling --------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: April 20, 2015 Posting date: April 20, 2015 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Outdoor Living Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Labelling and Packaging Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-52987 This recall involves Senso brand Charcoal. Senso Charcoal is an all-natural wood charcoal used for barbeque cooking. The product comes in green bags with red, black and white writing. It is available in 2 sizes. The 10 kilogram bag has the product code: 795005 and UPC 5600259123335. The 15 kilogram bag has the product code 795007 and UPC 5600259123342. Health Canada's sampling and evaluation program project has revealed that the Senso Charcoal does not meet the warning label requirements under Canadian Law. Charcoal produces carbon monoxide. This can be toxic if it is burned inside or in an area without proper ventilation. Warning labels help to protect the public by telling them about this hazard. Neither Senso Group Building Supplies nor Health Canada have received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries to Canadians related to the use of this product. Approximately, 10,987 units of the 10 kilogram bag and 15,789 units of the 15 kilogram bag were sold in the Greater Toronto Area. The recalled product was sold in the Greater Toronto Area from February 2012 to April 2015. Manufactured in Portugal. Manufacturer: Zeva Green Vila Facaia PORTUGAL Importer: Senso Group Building Supplies Toronto Ontario CANADA Consumers should stop using the product and contact Senso Group Building Supplies at 1-416-658-8300 for information on how to receive a corrective label. 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/E0JsU2 SMITH & WESSON: Defendant in Eight Product Liability Cases ---------------------------------------------------------- Smith & Wesson Holding Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company is a defendant in eight product liability cases and is aware of approximately eight other product liability claims, primarily alleging defective product design, defective manufacturing, or failure to provide adequate warnings. "In addition, we are a co-defendant in a case filed on August 27, 1999 by the city of Gary, Indiana against numerous firearm manufacturers, distributors, and dealers seeking to recover damages allegedly arising out of the misuse of firearms by third parties. We believe that the various allegations as described above are unfounded, and, in addition, that any accident and any results from them were due to negligence or misuse of the firearm by the claimant or a third party," the Company said. "In addition, we are involved in lawsuits, claims, investigations, and proceedings, including commercial, environmental, and employment matters, which arise in the ordinary course of business. "The relief sought in individual cases primarily includes compensatory and, sometimes, punitive damages. Certain of the cases and claims seek unspecified compensatory or punitive damages. In others, compensatory damages sought may range from less than $75,000 to approximately $1.5 million. In our experience, initial demands do not generally bear a reasonable relationship to the facts and circumstances of a particular matter. "We are vigorously defending ourselves in the lawsuits to which we are subject. An unfavorable outcome or prolonged litigation could harm our business. Litigation of this nature also is expensive and time consuming and diverts the time and attention of our management." ST. FRANCIS: Recalls All-Seasons Detox Kit Due to Excess Lead ------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: April 13, 2015 Posting date: April 20, 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-52991 Heavy Metal limits exceeded for lead. Depth of distribution: Naturopaths, Retailers and Pharmacies All-Seasons Detox Kit DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM NPN 80054551 Dosage form: Kit Strength: Althaea officinalis 0.175 g Arctium lappa 0.1 ml Ceanothus americanus 0.18 ml D-Galacto-L-arabinan 1.26 g Echinacea angustifolia 0.11 ml Galium aparine 0.18 ml Iris versicolor 0.18 ml Lobelia Inflata 0.04 ml Mentha x piperita 0.035 g Pectin 0.35 g Phyllanthus emblica 0.165 g Phytolacca americana 0.07 ml Pimpinella anisum 0.175 g Plantago ovate 1.428 g Rheum palmatum 0.0225 ml Rumex acetosella 0.3675 ml Schisandra chinensis 3.0 g Terminalia bellirica 0.165 g Terminalia chebula 0.165 g Ulmus rubra 0.0925 g Verbascum thapsus 0.08 ml Zanthoxylum clava-herculis 0.06 ml Zingiber officinale 0.042 g Lot or serial number: 001115; 002115; 003115; 004115; 005115; 006115 Recalling Firm: St. Francis Herb Farm 104 Maika Road Combermere K0J 1L0 Ontario CANADA Marketing Authorization Holder: St. Francis Herb Farm 104 Maika Road Combermere K0J 1L0 Ontario CANADA ST. FRANCIS: Recalls Bulklax V Products Due to Arsenic & Lead ------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: April 13, 2015 Posting date: April 20, 2015 Type of communication: Drug Recall Subcategory: Natural health products, Affects children, pregnant or breast feeding women Hazard classification: Type I Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Product Safety Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals Identification number: RA-52989 Heavy Metal limits exceeded for arsenic and lead. Depth of distribution: Naturopaths, Retailers and Pharmacies Bulklax V DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM NPN 80048371 Dosage form: Powder Strength: Althaea officinalis 0.175 g; D-Galacto-L-arabinan 1.26 g; Mentha x piperita 0.035 g; Pectin 0.35 g; Phyllanthus emblica 0.165 g; Pimpinella anisum 0.175 g; Plantago ovate 1.428 g; Terminalia bellirica 0.165 g; Terminalia chebula 0.165 g; Zingiber officinale 0.042 g Lot or serial number: 10600114 10600214 10600314 10600815 Recalling Firm: St. Francis Herb Farm 104 Maika Road Combermere K0J 1L0 Ontario CANADA Marketing Authorization Holder: St. Francis Herb Farm 104 Maika Road Combermere K0J 1L0 Ontario CANADA STATE AUTO: Proceedings in Schumacher Case Stayed ------------------------------------------------- State Auto Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Court has stayed the proceedings in the case Schumacher vs. State Automobile Mutual Insurance Company, et al., to allow the parties to engage in settlement discussions. In April 2013, a putative class action lawsuit (Schumacher vs. State Automobile Mutual Insurance Company, et al.) was filed against State Auto Mutual, State Auto Financial and State Auto P&C in Federal District Court in Ohio. Plaintiffs claim that in connection with the homeowners policies of various State Auto companies, the coverage limits and premiums were improperly increased as a result of an insurance to value ("ITV") program and Plaintiffs allege that they purchased coverage in excess of that which was necessary to insure them in the event of loss. Plaintiffs' claims include breach of good faith and fair dealing, negligent misrepresentation and fraud, violation of the Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and fraudulent inducement. Plaintiffs sought compensatory and punitive damages to be determined by the court, as well as class certification. On February 2, 2015, the Court struck the class allegations, and on February 13, 2015, the Court stayed the proceedings to allow the parties to engage in settlement discussions. STRATASYS LTD: Faces Class Actions in Minnesota & New York ---------------------------------------------------------- Stratasys Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that on February 5, 9, and 20, 2015, lawsuits styled as class actions were commenced in the United States District Courts for the District of Minnesota, the Southern District of New York, and the Eastern District of New York, respectively, naming the Company and certain of the Company's officers and directors as defendants. The lawsuits allege violations of the Exchange Act in connection with allegedly false and misleading statements concerning our business and prospects. The plaintiffs seek damages and awards of reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees. These lawsuits are in their initial stages and no substantive proceedings have occurred to date. "We intend to mount vigorous defenses to these lawsuits," the Company said. SUN RICH: Recalls Sliced Apple Products Due to Listeria ------------------------------------------------------- Sun Rich Fresh Foods Inc. of Richmond, BC, Canada is voluntarily recalling sliced apple and products containing sliced apples, from its Northeast Fresh Facility located in Brampton, ON, Canada because they have the potential to be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes, an organism which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Although healthy individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea, Listeria infection can cause miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women. Apple slices and products containing sliced apples were distributed to IL, IN, KY, MI, MN, MO, ND, OH, WI and WV through retail stores, distributors and food service establishments. The recall is limited to product produced out of the Brampton, ON Canada facility which is identified by a 7 digit numerical lot code that begins with the number 2. Brand Product Size Package UPC Lot Best ----- ------- ---- Description --- Code Before ----------- ---- Date (up to and including) ---------- Sun Rich Apple 6x6oz Parfait Cup 060243- 2510041 2015 MA 15 Slices (170g) 004647 2513041 with Dip 2515041 2517041 2520041 2522041 2524041 Sun Rich Apple 4x3lb, Bag in 060243- 2510041 2015 MA 17 Slices 2x3lb a Box 004586 2511041 2512041 2513041 2514041 2515041 2517041 2518041 2519041 2520041 2521041 2522041 2525041 2526041 Sun Rich Apple 100x2oz, Bags a06024- 2510041 2015 MA 17 Slices 24x2oz, 3004531 2511041 (57g) 2512041 2513041 2514041 2515041 2517041 2518041 2519041 2520041 2521041 2522041 2524041 2525041 2526041 Sun Rich Apple 3lb Bag 060243- 2512041 2015 MA 17 Slices in Box 005088 2514041 2515041 2518041 2519041 2521041 2522041 2525041 2526041 Sun Rich Apple 3lb Bag in 060243- 2510041 2015 MA 16 Slices Box 012932 2511041 2513041 2514041 2515041 2517041 2518041 2520041 2521041 2522041 2524041 2525041 Subway Apple 2.4oz Bags 308251- 2510041 2015 MA 14 Slices 8g) 46031272 2511041 2512041 2513041 2514041 2515041 2517041 2518041 2519041 2520041 2521041 2522041 2524041 2525041 2526041 Sun Rich Sunshine 10lb Boxed 060243- 2513041 2015 MA 12 Salad Kit 012963 2515041 2517041 2520041 2522041 2524041 The voluntary recall was the result of an abundance of caution by Sun Rich following a routine sampling program by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) which revealed that the finished products possibly contained the bacteria. Check to see if you have recalled products in your home or establishment. Recalled products should be thrown out or returned to the location where they were purchased. Customers have been contacted with regards to handling of affected product. Consumers with questions may contact the company at 1-800-661-0087 between the hours of 8am - 7pm EST Monday thru Sunday. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm445392.htm TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS: Settles Actos Lawsuits for $2.4 Billion --------------------------------------------------------------- Amanda Bronstad, writing for Law.com, reports that Takeda Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. has agreed to pay $2.4 billion to settle lawsuits by 9,000 people alleging that the company failed to warn of bladder cancer risks from taking its Type 2 diabetes drug Actos. The settlement, announced on April 28, resolves a "high percentage" of the Actos cases, according to Takeda's parent company, Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., which said it would take a $2.7 billion charge in its quarterly earnings to cover the settlement and related costs. The company did not admit liability. "This settlement allows Takeda to reduce the uncertainties of complex litigation and focus on providing medicines for patients around the world," Sandy Rodriguez, a spokeswoman for Takeda Pharmaceuticals, U.S.A., said in an emailed statement. "We remain committed to Actos, which continues to be available as a treatment option in the U.S., Japan and other countries." Takeda said it would set up a fund of between $2.37 billion to $2.4 billion, depending on how many Actos litigants opt into the settlement. The settlement involves more than 4,000 cases coordinated in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, as well as lawsuits filed by about 4,000 people in Cook County, Ill., according to Peter Flowers of Meyers & Flowers Law Firm in Chicago, who is co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs in the state court cases in Illinois. "Due to Takeda's negligence in informing the public of the cancer risk, this settlement will recover some compensation for the victims who have been injured and, in some cases, maimed by bladder cancer while taking Actos, a drug that was designed to improve their health, not make it worse," Mr. Flowers said. Although Takeda has won some verdicts in state court cases over Actos, the settlement comes about a year after a landmark $9 billion verdict in the first federal bellwether trial against Takeda and co-promoter Eli Lilly and Co. Prior to trial, U.S. District Judge Rebecca Doherty had sanctioned Takeda for destroying and losing key files in the case. On Oct. 26, she reduced the jury's award, most of which was punitive damages, to less than $37 million. Takeda, which was due to file its opening brief on April 27 in its appeal of that verdict before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, was granted an extension to May 11. TECUMSEH PRODUCTS: Deal Okayed in Canadian Horsepower Label Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tecumseh Products Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a settlement involving all but three of the defendants (Kawasaki, American Honda and Tecumseh) has been negotiated and approved by the court in the Canadian Horsepower label litigation. The Company said, "On March 19, 2010, Robert Foster and Murray Davenport filed a lawsuit under the Class Proceedings Act in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against us and several other defendants (including Sears Canada Inc., Sears Holdings Corporation, John Deere Limited, Platinum Equity, LLC, Briggs & Stratton Corporation, Kawasaki Motors Corp., USA, MTD Products Inc., The Toro Company, American Honda Motor Co., Electrolux Home Products, Inc., Husqvarna Consumer Outdoor Products N.A., Inc. and Kohler Co.), alleging that defendants conspired to fix prices of lawn mowers and lawn mower engines in Canada, to lessen competition in lawn mowers and lawn mower engines in Canada, and to mislabel the horsepower of lawn mower engines and lawn mowers in violation of the Canadian Competition Act, civil conspiracy prohibitions and the Consumer Packaging and Labeling Act. Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of all persons in Canada who purchased, for their own use and not for resale, a lawn mower containing a gas combustible engine of 30 horsepower or less provided that either the lawn mower or the engine contained within the lawn mower was manufactured and/or sold by a defendant or their predecessors between January 1, 1994 and the date of judgment. Plaintiffs seek undetermined money damages, punitive damages, interest, costs and equitable relief. In addition, Snowstorm Acquisition Corporation and Platinum Equity, LLC, the purchasers of Tecumseh Power Company and its subsidiaries and Motoco a.s. in November 2007, have notified us that they claim indemnification with respect to this lawsuit under our Stock Purchase Agreement with them." "A settlement involving all but three of the defendants (Kawasaki, American Honda and Tecumseh) has been negotiated and approved by the court. It is not binding on the non-settling defendants, nor is it determinative of their liability, if any. At this time, we do not have a reasonable estimate of the amount of our ultimate liability, if any, or the amount of any potential future settlement, but the amount could be material to our financial position, consolidated results of operations and cash flows. "On May 3, 2010, a class action was commenced in the Superior Court of the Province of Quebec by Eric Liverman and Sidney Vadish against us and several other defendants (including those listed above) advancing allegations similar to those outlined immediately above. Plaintiffs seek undetermined monetary damages, punitive damages, interest, costs, and equitable relief. As stated above, Snowstorm Acquisition Corporation and Platinum Equity, LLC, the purchasers of Tecumseh Power Company and its subsidiaries and Motoco a.s. in November 2007, have notified us that they claim indemnification with respect to this lawsuit under our Stock Purchase Agreement with them. "As was the case with the Ontario litigation, a settlement involving all but three of the defendants (Kawasaki, American Honda and Tecumseh) has been negotiated and approved by the court. It is not binding on the non-settling defendants, nor is it determinative of their liability, if any. "At this time, we do not have a reasonable estimate of the amount of our ultimate liability, if any, or the amount of any potential future settlement, but the amount could be material to our financial position, consolidated results of operations and cash flows." TIME WARNER: "Johnson" Suit Moved to S. Carolina District Court --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Johnson v. Time Warner Entertainment-Advance/Newhouse Partnership, et al., Case No. 2015- CP-40-01935, was removed from the County of Richland to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina (Columbia). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-01727-CMC to the proceeding. The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher P. Kenney, Esq. Richard A. Harpootlian, Esq. RICHARD A. HARPOOTLIAN LAW OFFICE 1410 Laurel Street Columbia, SC 29201 Telephone: (803) 252-4848 E-mail: cpk@harpootlianlaw.com rah@harpootlianlaw.com - and - Tobias Gavin Ward, Jr., Esq. TOBIAS G. WARD LAW FIRM Six Calendar Court, Suite Three Columbia, SC 29206 Telephone: (803) 403-8754 E-mail: tw@tobywardlaw.com Defendant Time Warner Entertainment-Advance/Newhouse Partnership, doing business as Time Warner Cable, is represented by: Frank Rogers Ellerbe, III, Esq. Kevin Kendrick Bell, Esq. ROBINSON MCFADDEN AND MOORE PO Box 944 Columbia, SC 29202 Telephone: (803) 779-8900 Facsimile: (803) 252-0724 E-mail: fellerbe@robinsonlaw.com kbell@robinsonlaw.com TORO COMPANY: Recalls Walk-Behind Power Mowers ---------------------------------------------- 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: Physical Hazard Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-52929 This recall involves the 2015 22-inch walk-behind power mower. The mower has a red base on four wheels, a black motor and handle, and a white bag attached for catching the clippings. A black plate on the front of the mower says "Toro Recycler 22." The recalled mowers have model number 20337 and serial numbers ranging from 315000101 to 315000983. The model and serial numbers are located on a label found on the back of the machine. The mowers were assembled with an incorrect blade driver and blade combination, which may cause the blade to break, posing an injury hazard. Neither Health Canada nor the Toro Company has received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of this product. Approximately 100 recalled mowers were distributed in Canada and 800 in the United States. The affected products were sold from February to March 2015 in Canada and in the United States at various retailers. Manufactured in Mexico. Distributor: The Toro Company Bloomington Minnesota UNITED STATES TRACER: Recalls Multiple Trailer Models Due to Crash Injury ----------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: April 13, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Travel Trailer Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Accessories Units affected: 6 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015153TC ID number: 2015153 On certain travel trailers, the slide room mechanisms may be defective. The cables slide that controls the inward and outward motion of the room could be fastened with defective 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. Make Model Model year(s) affected --- ----- ---------------------- TRACER TRT270AIR 2016 TRACER TRT3200BHT 2016 TREK BICYCLE: Recalls Bicycle With Front Quick Release Levers ------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: April 21, 2015 Posting date: April 21, 2015 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Sports/Fitness Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Fall Hazard Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-53009 This recall involves all models of Trek bicycles from years 2000 through 2015 equipped with front disc brakes and a black or silver quick release lever on the front wheel hub that opens far enough to contact the disc brake. Bicycles with front quick release levers that do not open a full 180 degrees from the closed position are not included in this recall. When a quick release lever on the bicycle's front wheel hub is capable of opening more than 180 degrees, improperly adjusted or left open, it can come into contact with the front disc brake assembly causing the front wheel to come to a sudden stop or separate from the bicycle. This poses a crash and injury hazard. Neither Health Canada nor Trek has received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of these bicycles in Canada. Trek Bicycle Corporation has received 3 reports of consumer incidents in the United States. Approximately 98,000 recalled bicycles were sold in Canada, and approximately 900,000 were sold in the United States. The recalled bicycles were sold from September 1999 to April 2015. Manufactured in China. Distributor: Trek Bicycle Corporation Waterloo Wisconsin UNITED STATES Consumers should stop using the bicycles immediately and contact an authorized Trek retailer for free installation of a new quick release on the front wheel. For additional information, consumers may contact Trek toll-free at 1-800-373-4594, between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. CST, Monday through Friday. Consumers may also visit Trek's website and click on Safety & Recalls at the bottom 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/oC7yqq TROPHIC CANADA: Recalls Maximized Living 7 Day D-Tox Systems ------------------------------------------------------------ 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-52951 Lead levels exceed acceptable daily limits when 2 capsules are taken. Depth of distribution: Distributors, Retailers Maximized Living 7 Day D-Tox System DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM NPN 80051962 Dosage form: Capsule Lot or serial number: 07233991 07234571 Recalling Firm: Trophic Canada (Importer) 490 Elgin Mills Road East Richmond Hill L4C 0L8 Ontario CANADA Marketing Authorization Holder: Trophic Canada (Importer) 490 Elgin Mills Road East Richmond Hill L4C 0L8 Ontario CANADA UPM MARKETING: Expands Line Voltage Thermostats Recall ------------------------------------------------------ Starting date: April 16, 2015 Posting date: April 16, 2015 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Electronics Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Fire Hazard Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-52863 This recall expansion involves line voltage thermostats with various brand names. The following brand names and model numbers are included in this recall; all serial numbers are included : Brand Name Model Number ---------- ------------ Maison HTM511 HTM611 NOMA HTM211 HTM611 HTM621 RONA HTM611 UPM HTM211 HTM311 HTM511 HTM611 HTM621 Note that some thermostat model numbers may have a letter after them, for example HTM221A. This letter indicates a minor, non- electrical variation in the product such as the shape of the LCD window or buttons or the colour of the unit. The presence of these letters does not affect which model numbers are included in the recall. The recalled units were certified to Canadian Standards by CSA International. The units may overheat, emit smoke and damage the wall, posing a fire hazard to consumers. Since June 2011, Health Canada has received 24 reports of incidents from consumers and retailers regarding the use of these thermostats including overheating, melting, smoke and damage to the wall. No injuries have been reported. The number sold to consumers is unknown; however the thermostats were known to be sold at Canadian Tire, RONA and various other hardware and building stores. The time period sold is unknown. Manufactured in China. Manufacturer: ESIC Technology Inc. CHINA Manufacturer: Mandolyn Electronic Technology CHINA Importer: UPM Marketing Inc. CANADA Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled thermostats and contact the retailer from whom they purchased the product as the importer is no longer in business. Otherwise, consumers should remove and throw the thermostats away according to their local municipal disposal requirements. 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/INP9fP VECTOR GROUP: Four Class Actions Pending as of December 31 ---------------------------------------------------------- Vector Group Ltd. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that as of December 31, 2014, there were four actions pending for which either a class had been certified or plaintiffs were seeking class certification where Liggett is a named defendant, including one alleged price fixing case. Other cigarette manufacturers are also named in these actions. Plaintiffs' allegations of liability in class action cases are based on various theories of recovery, including negligence, gross negligence, strict liability, fraud, misrepresentation, design defect, failure to warn, nuisance, breach of express and implied warranties, breach of special duty, conspiracy, concert of action, violation of deceptive trade practice laws and consumer protection statutes and claims under the federal and state anti-racketeering statutes. Plaintiffs in the class actions seek various forms of relief, including compensatory and punitive damages, treble/multiple damages and other statutory damages and penalties, creation of medical monitoring and smoking cessation funds, disgorgement of profits, and injunctive and equitable relief. Defenses raised in these cases include, among others, lack of proximate cause, individual issues predominate, assumption of the risk, comparative fault and/or contributory negligence, statute of limitations and federal preemption. In November 1997, in Young v. American Tobacco Co., a purported personal injury class action was commenced on behalf of plaintiff and all similarly situated residents in Louisiana who, though not themselves cigarette smokers, allege they were exposed to secondhand smoke from cigarettes that were manufactured by the defendants, including Liggett, and suffered injury as a result of that exposure. The plaintiffs seek to recover an unspecified amount of compensatory and punitive damages. No class certification hearing has been held. In 2013, plaintiffs' filed a motion to stay the case. The defendants did not oppose and the stay was entered by the court. In February 1998, in Parsons v. AC & S Inc., a class was commenced on behalf of all West Virginia residents who allegedly have personal injury claims arising from exposure to cigarette smoke and asbestos fibers. The complaint seeks to recover $1,000 in compensatory and punitive damages individually and unspecified compensatory and punitive damages for the class. The case is stayed due to the December 2000 bankruptcy of three of the defendants. In February 2000, in Smith v. Philip Morris, a case pending in Kansas, a class was commenced against cigarette manufacturers alleging they conspired to fix cigarette prices in violation of antitrust laws. Plaintiffs seek to recover an unspecified amount in actual and punitive damages. Class certification was granted in November 2001. In January 2012, the trial court heard oral argument on defendants' motions for summary judgment and in March 2012, the court granted the motions and dismissed plaintiffs' claims with prejudice. In July 2014, the court of appeals affirmed the lower court's decision. On August 18, 2014, plaintiffs filed a petition for review with the Kansas Supreme Court. Although not technically a class action, in In Re: Tobacco Litigation (Personal Injury Cases), a West Virginia state court consolidated approximately 750 individual smoker actions that were pending prior to 2001 for trial of certain common issues. In January 2002, the court severed Liggett from the trial of the consolidated action. After two mistrials, on May 15, 2013, the jury rejected all but one of the plaintiffs' claims, finding for the plaintiffs on the claim that ventilated filter cigarettes sold between 1964 and 1969 should have included instructions on how to use them. The issue of damages was reserved for further proceedings that have not yet been scheduled. The court entered judgment in October 2013, dismissing all claims lost by the plaintiffs. The judgment was affirmed on appeal. The defendants did not appeal the verdict in favor of the plaintiffs on the "failure to instruct" claim which impacted less than 30 plaintiffs. A hearing is scheduled for February 26, 2015 to address the remaining ventilated filter claim. If the case were to proceed against Liggett, it is estimated that Liggett could be a defendant in approximately 100 of the individual cases. Class action suits have been filed in a number of states against cigarette manufacturers, alleging, among other things, that use of the terms "lights" and "ultra lights" constitutes unfair and deceptive trade practices. In December 2008, the United States Supreme Court, in Altria Group v. Good, ruled that the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act did not preempt the state law claims asserted by the plaintiffs and that they could proceed with their claims under the Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act. The Good decision resulted in the filing of additional "lights" class action cases in other states against other cigarette manufacturers. Although Liggett was not a defendant in the Good case, and is not currently a defendant in any other "lights" class actions, an adverse ruling or commencement of additional "lights" related class actions could have a material adverse effect on the Company. VECTOR GROUP: 13 Engle Progeny Cases for Trial Through Dec. 2015 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Vector Group Ltd. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that as of December 31, 2014, there were 13 Engle progeny cases scheduled for trial through December 31, 2015, where Liggett (and in many cases, the Company) is a named defendant. Trial dates are, however, subject to change. In May 2003, a Florida intermediate appellate court overturned a $790.0 million punitive damages award against Liggett and decertified the Engle v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. smoking and health class action. In July 2006, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the May 2003 intermediate appellate court decision. Among other things, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed the decision decertifying the class on a prospective basis and the order vacating the punitive damages award, but preserved several of the trial court's Phase I findings (including that: (i) smoking causes lung cancer, among other diseases; (ii) nicotine in cigarettes is addictive; (iii) defendants placed cigarettes on the market that were defective and unreasonably dangerous; (iv) the defendants concealed material information; (v) all defendants sold or supplied cigarettes that were defective; and (vi) all defendants were negligent) and allowed plaintiffs to proceed to trial on individual liability issues (using the above findings) and compensatory and punitive damage issues, provided they commence their individual lawsuits within one year of the date the court's decision became final on January 11, 2007, the date of the court's mandate. In December 2006, the Florida Supreme Court added the finding that defendants sold or supplied cigarettes that, at the time of sale or supply, did not conform to the representations made by defendants. Pursuant to the Florida Supreme Court's July 2006 ruling in Engle, former class members had until January 2008 to file individual lawsuits. Cases were commenced on behalf of approximately 8,000 plaintiffs. Lawsuits by individuals requesting the benefit of the Engle ruling are referred to as the "Engle progeny cases." In October 2013, the Company announced a settlement of the claims of approximately 4,900 of the remaining 5,300 Engle progeny plaintiffs. Notwithstanding this comprehensive settlement, the claims of approximately 320 state court Engle progeny plaintiffs remain outstanding. As of December 31, 2014, there were 13 Engle progeny cases currently scheduled for trial in 2015. Through December 31, 2014, 14 adverse verdicts had been entered against Liggett in Engle progeny cases. Several of these were affirmed on appeal and were satisfied by Liggett. The remaining verdicts are at various stages of appeal although appellate efforts, to date, have not been successful. Liggett faces outstanding judgments of $28.2 million, plus interest and attorney fees, for the cases currently on appeal. VECTOR GROUP: Engle Payments Pegged at $3.5MM Per Year Thru 2028 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Vector Group Ltd. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company's future payments in the Engle Progeny Settlement are estimated to be approximately $3,500,000 per annum though 2028, with a cost of living adjustment in 2021." The Company said, "On October 23, 2013, a settlement was reached between us and approximately 4,900 Engle progeny plaintiffs and their counsel. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, Liggett will pay a total of approximately $110,000,000, with approximately $61,600,000 paid in a lump sum, which was paid in 2014 and the balance to be paid in installments over the next 14 years, with a cost of living adjustment beginning in year eight. We recorded a charge of $86,213,000 for the year ended December 31, 2013 in connection with the proposed settlement. Of this amount, $25,213,000 is related to certain payments discounted to their present value because the timing and amounts of such payments are fixed and determinable. The present value of the installment payments was computed using an 11% annual discount rate. The installment payments total approximately $48,000,000 on an undiscounted basis. Our future payments are estimated to be approximately $3,500,000 per annum though 2028, with a cost of living adjustment in 2021." "Notwithstanding the comprehensive nature of the Engle Progeny Settlement, approximately 320 plaintiffs did not participate in the settlement and, therefore, we and Liggett may still be subject to periodic adverse judgments which could have a material adverse affect on the our consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows." VECTOR GROUP: Tobacco Product Liability Legal Costs Total $9.9MM ---------------------------------------------------------------- Vector Group Ltd. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that for the twelve months ended December 31, 2014, Liggett incurred tobacco product liability legal expenses and other litigation costs totaling $9,944,000. Since 1954, Liggett and other United States cigarette manufacturers have been named as defendants in numerous direct, third-party and purported class actions predicated on the theory that cigarette manufacturers should be liable for damages alleged to have been caused by cigarette smoking or by exposure to secondary smoke from cigarettes. The cases have generally fallen into the following categories: (i) smoking and health cases alleging personal injury brought on behalf of individual plaintiffs ("Individual Actions"); (ii) lawsuits by individuals requesting the benefit of the Engle ruling ("Engle progeny cases"); (iii) smoking and health cases primarily alleging personal injury or seeking court-supervised programs for ongoing medical monitoring, as well as cases alleging that use of the terms "lights" and/or "ultra lights" constitutes a deceptive and unfair trade practice, common law fraud or violation of federal law, purporting to be brought on behalf of a class of individual plaintiffs ("Class Actions"); and (iv) health care cost recovery actions brought by various foreign and domestic governmental plaintiffs and non-governmental plaintiffs seeking reimbursement for health care expenditures allegedly caused by cigarette smoking and/or disgorgement of profits ("Health Care Cost Recovery Actions"). With the commencement of new cases, the defense costs and the risks relating to the unpredictability of litigation increase. The future financial impact of the risks and expenses of litigation are not quantifiable. For the twelve months ended December 31, 2014 and 2013, Liggett incurred tobacco product liability legal expenses and other litigation costs totaling $9,944,000 and $9,321,000, respectively. The 2013 costs exclude a charge of $86,213,000 associated with the Engle progeny settlement. VECTOR GROUP: Liggett Settled 155 Engle Progeny Cases ----------------------------------------------------- Vector Group Ltd. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that as of December 31, 2014, Liggett (and in certain cases the Company) had, on an individual basis, settled 155 Engle progeny cases for approximately $1,983,000 in the aggregate. Judgments have been entered against Liggett and other industry defendants in Engle progeny cases. A number of the judgments have been affirmed on appeal and satisfied by the defendants. As of December 31, 2014, 21 Engle progeny cases where Liggett was a defendant at trial resulted in verdicts. Fourteen verdicts were returned in favor of the plaintiffs and seven in favor of Liggett. Excluding the Lukacs case, which was tried in 2002, seven years before the trials of Engle progeny cases commenced, the compensatory verdicts against Liggett have ranged from $1,000 to $3,600,000. In certain cases, the judgments entered have been joint and several with other defendants. In four of the cases, punitive damages were awarded against Liggett. Management is unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss from the remaining Engle progeny cases as there are currently multiple defendants in each case and, in most cases, discovery has not occurred or is limited. As a result, the Company lacks information about whether plaintiffs are in fact Engle class members (non-class members' claims are generally time-barred), the relevant smoking history, the nature of the alleged injury and the availability of various defenses, among other things. Further, plaintiffs typically do not specify their demand for damages. Although Liggett has generally been successful in managing litigation, litigation is subject to uncertainty and significant challenges remain, including with respect to the remaining Engle progeny cases. There can be no assurances that Liggett's past litigation experience will be representative of future results. Judgments have been entered against Liggett in the past, in Individual Actions and Engle progeny cases, and several of those judgments were affirmed on appeal and satisfied by Liggett. It is possible that the consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows of the Company could be materially adversely affected by an unfavorable outcome or settlement of any of the remaining smoking-related litigation. Liggett believes, and has been so advised by counsel, that it has valid defenses to the litigation pending against it, as well as valid bases for appeal of adverse verdicts. All such cases are, and will continue to be, vigorously defended. Liggett may, however, enter into settlement discussions in particular cases if it believes it is in its best interest to do so, including the remaining Engle progeny cases. As of December 31, 2014, Liggett (and in certain cases the Company) had, on an individual basis, settled 155 Engle progeny cases for approximately $1,983,000 in the aggregate. There were 11 settlements in the fourth quarter of 2014. In October 2013, Liggett announced a settlement of the claims of over 4,900 Engle progeny plaintiffs. VOLKSWAGEN: Recalls Golf, GTI and A3 Models ------------------------------------------- Starting date: April 16, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Car Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Fuel Supply Units affected: 0 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015161TC ID number: 2015161 Manufacturer recall number: 20V5 Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- VOLKSWAGEN GOLF 2015 VOLKSWAGEN GTI 2015 AUDI A3 2015 WATERLOO INDUSTRIES: Recalls Husky(R) Securelock(TM) Bike Hooks --------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: April 15, 2015 Posting date: April 15, 2015 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Sports/Fitness Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Fall Hazard Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-52869 This recall involves Husky(R) Securelock(TM) vertical bike hooks model number THD208CAN, SKU 1000726802 used with a Husky(R) Securelock(TM) Trackwall garage storage system. The 7.5 cm by 9 cm black metal plate is mounted to the grooves in the Trackwall and the bike's tire is attached to a hook protruding from the plate. There are no markings on the hook. The Trackwall has "Husky" printed on the lower left corner. The hook holds up to a 15 kg bike. The mounted bike hooks can unexpectedly detach, allowing the bike to fall. This poses a risk of injury to bystanders. Health Canada has not received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of these bike hooks. Waterloo Industries has received two reports in Canada of the bike hook cracking the Securelock(TM) Trackwall, causing the attached hook and bike to fall, with one incident resulting in property damage. No injuries have been reported. Waterloo Industries has received 20 reports of incidents in the United States of the bike hooks falling from the mounted Securelock(TM) Trackwall, including 11 reports of property damage to bicycles and/or nearby vehicles. No injuries have been reported. Approximately 15,000 of the recalled products were sold in Canada and about 105,000 were distributed in the United States, exclusively through Home Depot. The recalled product was sold from May 2012 to March 2015 in Canada and from April 2011 to March 2015 in the United States. Manufactured in China. Manufacturer: Yanbu Youncheng Hardware Manufacturer: Foshan Guangdong CHINA Distributor: Waterloo Industries Waterloo Iowa UNITED STATES Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled bike hooks and return the product to any Home Depot location in Canada for a refund. For more information, consumers may contact Waterloo Industries at 1-800-833-8851 from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit the Home Depot website and click on "product recalls." 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/6Fhs5k WEIGHT WATCHERS: Made Settlement Payment in "Connolly" Case ----------------------------------------------------------- Weight Watchers International, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2015, for the fiscal year ended January 3, 2015, that the Court provided final approval of the settlement in the case Jeri Connolly et al. v. Weight Watchers North America, Inc., and the Company made the corresponding settlement payment in January 2015. In August 2013, the Company was contacted by plaintiffs' counsel in the previously filed and settled Sabatino v. Weight Watchers North America, Inc. case, or Sabatino, threatening to file a new class action on behalf of the Company's current and former service providers in California asserting various wage and hour claims, including but not limited to claims for unpaid overtime and minimum wage violations, which allegedly accrued after the effective date of the Sabatino settlement. On March 17, 2014, the parties came to an agreement in principle to settle the matter on a class-wide basis for $1.7 million. On April 29, 2014, the parties executed a Memorandum of Understanding to document the terms and conditions of settlement and, the following day, plaintiffs filed a complaint regarding the claims at issue in the Northern District of California. On June 11, 2014, the parties filed a formal settlement agreement and other required documents for the Court's preliminary approval. On July 21, 2014, the parties received the Court's preliminary approval of the settlement agreement. On August 11, 2014, notices of settlement were sent out to the class members advising them of the settlement and their right to object or opt-out of the settlement; no class members did so by the deadline of September 22, 2014. At a December 2014 hearing the Court provided final approval of the settlement and the Company made the corresponding settlement payment in January 2015. WEIGHT WATCHERS: To Defend Securities Litigation ------------------------------------------------ Weight Watchers International, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2015, for the fiscal year ended January 3, 2015, that the Company intends to defend vigorously the case In re Weight Watchers International, Inc. Securities Litigation. In March 2014, two substantially identical putative class action complaints alleging violation of the federal securities laws were filed by individual shareholders against the Company, certain of the Company's current and former officers and directors, and the Company's controlling shareholder, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaints were purportedly filed on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's common stock, no par value per share, between February 14, 2012 and October 30, 2013, inclusive (the Class Period). The complaints allege that, during the Class Period, the defendants disseminated materially false and misleading statements and/or concealed material adverse facts. The complaints allege claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5. The plaintiffs seek to recover unspecified damages on behalf of the class members. In June 2014, the Court consolidated the cases and appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel. On August 12, 2014, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that, among other things, reduced the Class Period to between February 14, 2012 and February 13, 2013 and dropped all current officers and certain directors previously named as defendants. On October 14, 2014, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs filed an opposition to the defendants' motion to dismiss on November 24, 2014 and the defendants filed a reply in support of their motion to dismiss on December 23, 2014. The Company continues to believe that the suits are without merit and intends to defend them vigorously. WINE GROUP: Faces "Bithorn" Suit Over Arsenic-Contaminated Wine --------------------------------------------------------------- Zahira Crespo Bithorn, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Wine Group, Inc. a California Corporation, et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-01424 (D.P.R., April 20, 2015) alleges that the Defendants' sale of arsenic-contaminated wine violates the laws of all 50 states and federal laws and standards, poses a risk to the public, and unfairly undercuts those wine makers and sellers, who do not make or sell arsenic tainted wines. Inorganic arsenic is an odorless, colorless, and highly toxic poison known to cause illness and death when ingested by humans, according to the complaint. The Wine Group, Inc., is a parent company of The Wine Group, LLC. The Companies are headquartered in Tracy, California. The Defendants sell and distribute wine. The other Defendants are The Wine Group, LLC, a California Corporation; Sutter Home Winery, Inc., d/b/a Trinchero Family Estates, a California Corporation; Folie A Deux Winery, a California Corporation; California Natural Products, a California Corporation; Rebel Wine Co., LLC a California Corporation; Golden State Vinters, a California Corporation; Varni Brothers, Corp., a California Corporation; Treasury Wines Estates Americas Co., a California Corporation; Treasury Wines Estates Holding, Inc., a California Corporation; Beringer Vineyards, a California Corporation; Seaglass Wine Co., a California Corporation; Constellation Wines, US, a California Corporation; Smith & Hook Winery Corporation, a/k/a Smith and Hook, a California Corporation, d/b/a Hahn Family Wines, a California Corporation; Raymond Vineyard and Cellar, Inc., a California Corporation; Jean- Claude Boisset Wines, USA, Inc., a California Corporation; Fetzer Vineyards, a California Corporation; F. Korbel & Bros., Inc., a California Corporation; Megan Mason and Randy Mason, d/b/a Mason Cellars, a California Corporation; Oakville Winery Management Corp., GP, a California Corporation; Woodbridge Winery, Inc., a California Corporation; Simply Naked Winery, a California Corporation; Winery Exchange, Inc., a California Corporation; Sonoma Wine Co., LLC, a California Corporation; Don Sebastiani & Sons International Wine Negociants, Corp., a California Corporation; and Don Sabastiani & Sons International Wine Negociants, a California Corporation; Bronco Wine Company, a California Corporation; Trader Joe's Company, a California Corporation, and Does 1-200, Inclusive. The Plaintiff is represented by: John F. Nevares, Esq. JOHN F. NEVARES & ASSOCIATES, PSC P.O. Box 13667 San Juan, PR 00908-3667 Telephone: (787) 722-9333 Facsimile: (787) 721-8820 E-mail: jfnevares@nevareslaw.com YAMAHA: Recalls Multiple Motorcycle Models Due to Injury Risk ------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: April 13, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Motorcycle Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Suspension Units affected: 62 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015152TC ID number: 2015152 Manufacturer recall number: M15-093 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 replace the rear shock absorber with a correctly manufactured one. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- YAMAHA 2015 * Court Urged to Approve LSAT Disability Accommodations Plan ------------------------------------------------------------ Karen Sloan, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that the U.S. Department of Justice has urged a federal court to approve extensive reforms to the process for evaluating whether people who want to take the Law School Admission Test are disabled and require accommodations to make the test fairer. The department and the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing on April 27 filed court papers in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California defending a five-member panel's recommendations for making it easier for disabled people receive accommodations including extra time, breaks between test sections or specialized computer software. The Law School Admission Council (LSAC), which administers the test, in March objected to the proposals, claiming the panel exceeded its authority and seemed more bent on ensuring test takers received accommodations than making sure their requests are evaluated fairly. The proposed procedures would undermine the exam's integrity, the council argued. "This is an attempt to avoid the recommendations of a panel of experts proposing best practices for protecting a class that has long been discriminated against," said Kevin Kish, director of the California agency. "Full and prompt implementation of the panel's recommendations is an essential step in ensuring full access to law school and the legal profession for students with disabilities," he said. A council spokeswoman declined to comment, but administrators have acknowledged the organization's procedures historically have been more rigorous than that of other standardized testing bodies. They argue that the outsized role of LSAT scores in law school admissions require it to accommodate only people who can prove they need it. People denied disability accommodations routinely sue the council. In 2012, the state agency filed a class action alleging the council's policies were too burdensome and violated the Americans With Disabilities Act. The Justice Department joined that action. The parties signed a consent decree in May 2014, the council agreeing to pay $7.73 million to more than 6,000 people it had refused accommodations and to end "flagging" -- that is, alerting law schools when giving someone extra time to complete the test, a common accommodation. The consent decree established the expert panel to devise an improved accommodations process. In January, the panel concluded that the council's documentation requirements were excessive. It recommended adding specialists to review requests, placing greater weight on previous testing accommodations granted applicants and establishing a formal appeals process, among other changes. The council in March filed an appeal, opposing six of the panel's 10 recommendations. "Many of the recommendations challenged by LSAC would require LSAC to approve accommodation requests when the requested accommodations are not warranted," the counsel said in its appeal. But the council takes too narrow a view of the panel's mandate, the state and federal governments argued. "The panel's recommended best practices appropriately reflect and respond to the charge that the parties agreed to delegate to it," they said. "And, significantly, they represent practical solutions to the very real problems identified by the panel. The LSAC's proposed 'revisions' to the panel's recommendations would gut the best practices." Ruth Colker, a professor at Ohio State University Michael E. Moritz College of Law and one of the five panel members, said the group quoted in its report each of the 10 matters set forth in the consent decree, to ensure it worked within the proper framework. "I'm glad the Justice Department vigorously defended our report," she said. "I'm optimistic the court will uphold our report and say it is consistent with our charge. I hope the LSAC doesn't spend any more money challenging our report." ********* 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 * * *