/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/150602.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, June 2, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 109 Headlines A & S ENTERTAINMENT: "Braynt" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT ACURA: Recalls MDX and RLX Models Due to Crash Risk ALTEC INDUSTRIES: Recalls Multiple Aerial Devices ALTRIA GROUP: Tobacco Cos. Get Partial Victory in Ad Legal Fight ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI: Oct. Hearing on Cert. Bid in Silicosis Action ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI: To Refer Individual Claims to Arbitration ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI: Court Gathers Evidence in "Usocoello" Case ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI: Injunction in Toche Anaima Belt Case on Appeal ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI: AGAC Awaits Decision on Cancellation Request ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI: No Decision Yet on Bid to Ban Corridor Project ANTHEM INC: Kansas Firm Seeks Class Status in Kancare Breach APPLEBEE'S INT'L: Fails to Pay Servers & Bartenders OT, Suit Says ASSURANT INC: RICO Claims Tossed in Insurance Class Action AT&T MOBILITY: Faces "Singleton" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT AMERICAN CRUISE: Faces "McCormick" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ANCHOR DRILLING: Removed "Wolfe" Suit from W.D. Pa. to S.D. Texas BAYER HEALTHCARE: Court Junks Portions of "Gershman" Class Suit BCE INC: Nova Scotia Class Suit Permanently Stayed BIOMARIN PHARMACEUTICAL: Action v. Prosensa in Earliest Stages BJ'S WHOLESALE: Sued Over Improper Sales Tax Collection BLUE WATER: Faces "Cabrera" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime BREAD AND CHOCOLATE: "Moya" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages BRINKER RESTAURANT: Bilks Customers by Putting Tablets, Suit Says CAMPBELL-EWALD: Supreme Court to Hear Suit Over Unsolicited Texts CASCADE DESIGNS: Recalls MSR Operator and Responder Snow Shovels CATHAY BANK: Illegally Procures Background Reports, Suit Claims CERAGON NETWORKS: Faces Class Suit in Tel-Aviv Economic Dept. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Plaintiffs Didn't Appeal Summary Judgment CHILDREN WORLDWIDE: Recalls Hugo Boss 5-Pocket Children Pants CINTAS CORPORATION: "Serrano" Class Action Still Pending COLLIN BUS: Recalls School Bus Models Due to Noncompliance COMPTON UNIFIED: Accused Wrongful Conduct Over Complex Trauma CONAGRA FOODS: Sued Over Denial of Mental Health Treatment CONAGRA FOODS: Faces Probe Over 2007 Peanut Butter Recall COOPER VISION: Faces "Hirsch" Suit Over Contact Lens-Price Fixing DAEHSAN CANADA: DXN Brand Instant Coffee Products Due to Milk DIGNITY HEALTH: Fails to Pay Overtime, Senior Collector Claims DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: "Bunn" Suit Over Lien Sale May Proceed DIVORCE SOURCE: Facing Class Action Filed by Former Customer DOMINION ENTERPRISES: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages DR. COLORCHIP: Recalls Automotive Touch-Up Paints DUKE ENERGY: Class Suit Filed Over Unlawfully Paid Rebates DYNEGY INC: Trial to Begin July 27 in Duke Energy Class Action EDAP TMS: Dismissal of "Eaton" Class Action Sought ELECTRO RENT: Recognized Other Income From $1.4MM Settlement FACTORS GROUP: Recalls Melatonin Tablets Due to Mislabelling FAMILY DOLLAR: Settlement in "Hegab" Case Has Final Approval FAMILY DOLLAR: Awaits Decision on Appeal in "Itterly" Case FAMILY DOLLAR: Awaits Ruling on Interlocutory Petition FAMILY DOLLAR: Tendered Scott Case to Insurance Carrier FAMILY DOLLAR: Del. Chancery Court Denied Bid to Certify Appeal FAMILY DOLLAR: "Moore" Case in Discovery Stage FAMILY FIRST: Faces "Burton" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime FORD MOTOR: Recalls F150 Models Due to Crash Risk FRANK SANTO: "Gati" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages FRESENIUS MEDICAL: Recalls Sodium Bicarbonate Liquid Concentrate FRIENDFINDER NETWORKS: Investigates Potential Data Breach FT MYERS LODGE: "Popoli" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages GANNETT CO: Removed "Driggers" Class Suit to N.D. New York GENERAL MOTORS: Sued Over Duramax Diesel Engine Fuel Efficiency GOOGLE INC: Rips Privacy Class Action Over Data Value Claim HERBES DES JARDINS: Recalls Omega 3 Capsules Due to Mislabelling HERBES DES JARDINS: Recalls Garcinia Cambogia Capsules HERBES DES JARDINS: Recalls Queue Cerise Capsules HIGH DESERT: $5 Million Settlement Reached in Mariposa Lawsuit HOME LOAN SERVICING: 3 Class Action Lawsuits Filed in S.D.N.Y. HSBC: To Pay $1.8-Mil. to End Force Placed Kickback Lawsuit IDREAMSKY TECHNOLOGY: Morgan & Morgan Files Securities Suit IKEA CANADA: Recalls PATRULL Safety Gates Due to Tripping Hazard ILLINOIS HIGH SCHOOL: Says Concussions Suit 'Threatens' Football J-W WIRELINE: Faces "Webber" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime JAYCO: Recalls 446 Travel Trailers Over Defective Part JEFFREY A. STEINER: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages LANDAU & ASSOCIATES: "McLeod" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT LEAM DRILLING: S.D. Tex. Grants Certification in "McPherson" Suit LFC MANAGEMENT: Faces "Mendoza" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime LIFE PARTNERS: Life Settlements Are Securities, Texas Court Rules LOS ANGELES, CA: Sued for Not Keeping Appraisal Confidential LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Roth" Suit in La. Over Toxic Flooring LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: CEO Quits Amid Laminate Flooring Probe MALLINCKRODT PLC: Dec. 1 Jury Trial Set in Securities Action MASTER TOYS: Recalls JA-RU's Dino World Dino Ooze Products MCDIVA INC: Faces "Juarez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime MICHIGAN: Inmates Give Testimony in Prison Rape Suit MICRO BIRD: Recalls 2015 School Bus Models Due to Injury Risk MICROSOFT CORP: Judge Rejects Transfer Bid; Tosses "Ryan" Case MIMEDX GROUP: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Suit MO'S FISHERMAN: Faces "Mendoza" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime MONSANTO CO: Parties in "Allen" Case Perform on Settlement MONSANTO CO: Parties in Personal Injury Claims Perform on Deal NETHERLANDS: Facing Suit Over Failure to Reduce Carbon Emissions NEW YORK LANGUAGE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages NFG CHICAGO: Faces "Wong" Suit for Overcharging Delivery Fees NGK SPARK: Sued in E.D. Mich. Over Spark Plugs-Price Fixing NISSAN: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models Due to Defective Airbag OCWEN FINANCIAL: 9th Cir. Asked to Revive Consumer Lawsuit OMEGA HEALTHCARE: Four Lawsuits Against AVIV REIT Consolidated PARATEK PHARMACEUTICALS: Final Settlement Hearing Held PAYTIME INC: Pa. Ct. Junks Data Breach Suits for Lack of Standing PEDEGO INC: Recalls Lithium Ion Rechargeable Batteries PIZZAWORKS LLC: Faces "Lee" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime POWERHOUSE FORMULATIONS: Illegally Records Phone Calls, Suit Says PREMERA BLUE: Sued in Seattle, Wash. Over Data Breach PROSPER MARKETPLACE: Settlement Liability Reserve Set at $7.9MM QEP MIDSTREAM: Sued in Texas Over Misleading Financial Reports QUESTCOR PHARMACEUTICALS: To Pay $38MM to Settle Securities Suit RADIATOR SPECIALTY: Recalls Gunk Radiator 10 Minute Flush RALEY'S: Two Women Sue Over Pregnancy and Workplace Issues RED HILLS: Sued Over Fraud and Extortion in Probation, Sentencing REMINGTON FIREARMS: October 15 Settlement Opt-Out Deadline Set RHODE ISLAND: Judge Asked to Give Prelim. OK of Pension Suit Deal ROSS GELFAND: Illegally Collects Debt, "Pfeffer" Suit Says SCHYLLING INC: Recalls Police Toy Vehicles Due to Choking Hazard SEOUL TRADING: Recalls Orion Ball Products Due to Crustacean SOUP BOY: Recalls Carrot Soup Products Due to C. Botulinum SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Customer Sues Over Early-Bird Check-In SPENDSMART NETWORKS: Discovery in TCPA Suit Remains Stayed SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Judge Tosses Investor Class Action SS BODY ARMOR: Action to Compel Annual Meeting Not Barred by Stay STAR BULK: Briefing Expected to Be Completed in Shareholder Case STONELEIGH RECOVERY: Illegally Collects Debt, Action Claims SUBARU: Recalls 3,500 Vehicles Over Errors in EyeSight Manual SUMMIT NURSING: "Davis" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages SUPER STOP: "Perazza" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages TCP INTERNATIONAL: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Suit TOYOTA MOTOR: Recalls Tundra & Sequoia Models Due to Injury Risk TOYOTA MOTOR: Recalls 2004 and 2005 RAV4 Models UNITED STATES: Deportation Suit Kept Alive UNITED STATES: Federal Ruling May Free Immigrants w/o Bonds UNITED TECHNOLOGIES: Falsely Marketed Smoke Alarms, Suit Claims VIOLIN MEMORY: To Defend Against Securities Actions WALGREENS BOOTS: Settlement of 2 Class Suits Awaits Court Okay WASHINGTON: Judge Narrows Claims in "Dunakin" Suit WD-40 COMPANY: Defending Against David Wolf Action WILLOW CREEK: Sued in Colo. Over Failure to Provide Layoff Notice WOONSOCKET, R.I.: Judge Narrows Claims in "Cournoyer" Suit ZUCKER GOLDBERG: Illegally Collects Debt, "Bennet" Suit Claims * Stroock Bolsters Litigation Practice in New York and Miami ********* A & S ENTERTAINMENT: "Braynt" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT ------------------------------------------------------------- Sylvia Bryant and Sasha McNeal, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. A & S Entertainment, LLC d/b/a the Office, Claudette M. Pierre and Greg Pierre, Case No. 1:15-cv- 21880-JAL (S.D. Fla., May 18, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a night club in Miami-Dade County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Martin Eric Leach, Esq. FEILER & LEACH 901 Ponce De Leon Boulevard Penthouse Coral Gables, FL 33134-3009 Telephone: (305) 441-8818 Facsimile: 441-8081 E-mail: mel@flmlegal.com ACURA: Recalls MDX and RLX Models Due to Crash Risk --------------------------------------------------- Starting date: May 14, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Car, SUV Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Brakes Units affected: 3387 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015201TC ID number: 2015201 On certain vehicles, the Collision Mitigation Braking System (CMBS) could unexpectedly activate while operating the vehicle. In rare cases, the system may interpret certain roadside objects, such as metal fences or metal guardrails, as obstacles and apply emergency braking through the CMBS. If the CMBS applies unexpected emergency braking force during normal operation, it could increase the risk of a crash causing injury and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers will update the vehicle sofware for the system. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- ACURA MDX 2014, 2015 ACURA RLX 2014, 2015 ALTEC INDUSTRIES: Recalls Multiple Aerial Devices ------------------------------------------------- Starting date: May 11, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Equipment Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Accessories Units affected: 3 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015194TC ID number: 2015194 Manufacturer recall number: CSN 614 On certain aerial devices installed on utility service vehicles (to elevate personnel in order to facilitate working on overhead service lines, for tree trimming, etc.), unintended boom movement could occur due to defective counterbalance valves. This could allow the aerial device to move unexpectedly, which could result in property damage and/or personal injury. Correction: Altec will supply replacement valves along with installation instructions. Owners may contact Altec at 1-877-462-5832. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- ALTECAT 200A 2014 ALTECAT 200AV 2014 ALTRIA GROUP: Tobacco Cos. Get Partial Victory in Ad Legal Fight ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sam Hananel, writing for The Associated Press, reports that America's largest tobacco companies must inform consumers that cigarettes were designed to increase addiction, but not that they lied to the public about the dangers of smoking, a federal appeals court ruled on May 22. The ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is a partial win for cigarette makers in the long-running legal fight that began in the Clinton administration in 1999. In this latest round, the companies objected to running court-ordered advertisements that would have branded themselves as liars. The ads would have begun with a preamble statement that the companies "deliberately deceived the American public." The ads stem from a 2006 court ruling ordering the companies to admit they had lied for decades about the dangers of smoking. The companies called that statement overbroad and misleading. But government lawyers argued that the language was meant to provide context for the public. The appeals court ruled that the language must focus on preventing future violations, not past misconduct. Writing for the three- judge panel, Judge David Tatel said the preamble language in the ads about past deception went beyond the remedies allowed under federal racketeering laws. But Judge Tatel said other language in the ads that stated the companies intentionally designed cigarettes with enough nicotine "to create and sustain addiction" was within the bounds of the law. The appeals court also approved statements that said the companies "intentionally designed cigarettes to make them more addictive." The companies in the case include Richmond, Virginia-based Altria Group Inc., owner of the biggest U.S. tobacco company, Philip Morris USA; No. 2 cigarette maker, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., owned by Winston-Salem, North Carolina-based Reynolds American Inc.; and No. 3 cigarette maker Lorillard Inc., based in Greensboro, North Carolina. In 1999, the Justice Department filed a lawsuit that alleged the tobacco companies violated racketeering laws by conspiring to deceive the public about the health consequences and addictiveness of smoking cigarettes. After hearing testimony from 162 witnesses over nine months, U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler found in 2006 that the companies had engaged in a massive fraud campaign. The judge ordered the companies to take out ads addressing the negative health effects of smoking, nicotine manipulation, the health impact of secondhand smoke and the truth about "light" and "low-tar" brands. The ads would appear in newspapers, on TV, websites and cigarette pack inserts. While the appeals court struck down the preamble to the ads, it left the remaining content largely intact. The case now goes back to the district court for further proceedings. Matthew Myers, president of the advocacy group Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, called the ruling "a resounding victory for public health," though he said he was disappointed the companies would not be required to admit they deceived the public. "This decision provides a path for forcing the companies to finally tell the truth about their product," said Mr. Myers, whose group was a party in the case. "It should not take long to translate this decision into a workable order, assuming the tobacco industry does not try to further delay." Altria spokesman Brian May said the company was pleased that the court struck down the preamble language, which he called "the critical part of the appeal. ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI: Oct. Hearing on Cert. Bid in Silicosis Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- AngloGold Ashanti Limited said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 2, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that parties in the Silicosis litigation have tentatively agreed on a timetable for the court process wherein the application to certify the class action will be heard in October 2015. On March 3, 2011, in Mankayi vs. AngloGold Ashanti, the Constitutional Court of South Africa held that section 35(1) of the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act, 1993 does not cover an "employee" who qualifies for compensation in respect of "compensable diseases" under the Occupational Diseases in Mines and Works Act, 1973 (ODMWA). This judgement allows such qualifying employee to pursue a civil claim for damages against the employer. Following the Constitutional Court decision, AngloGold Ashanti has become subject to numerous claims relating to silicosis and other Occupational Lung Diseases (OLD), including several potential class actions and individual claims. AngloGold Ashanti, Anglo American South Africa, Gold Fields, Harmony Gold and Sibanye Gold announced in November 2014 that they had formed an industry working group to address issues relating to compensation and medical care for OLD in the gold mining industry in South Africa. The companies have begun to engage all stakeholders on these matters, including government, organised labour, other mining companies and legal representatives of claimants who have filed legal suits against the companies. These legal proceedings are being defended, and the status of the proceedings are set forth. Essentially, the companies are seeking a comprehensive solution which deals both with the legacy compensation issues and future legal frameworks, and which, whilst being fair to employees, also ensures the future sustainability of companies in the industry. The Class Actions On or about August 21, 2012, AngloGold Ashanti was served with an application instituted by Bangumzi Bennet Balakazi ("the Balakazi Action") and others in which the applicants seek an order declaring that all mine workers (former or current) who previously worked or continue to work in specified South African gold mines for the period owned by AngloGold Ashanti and who have silicosis or other OLD constitute members of a class for the purpose of proceedings for declaratory relief and claims for damages. On September 4, 2012, AngloGold Ashanti delivered its notice of intention to defend this application. In addition, on or about January 8, 2013, AngloGold Ashanti and its subsidiary Free State Consolidated Gold Mines (Operations) Limited, alongside other mining companies operating in South Africa, were served with another application to certify a class ("the Nkala Action"). The applicants in the case seek to have the court certify two classes, namely: (i) current and former mineworkers who have silicosis (whether or not accompanied by any other disease) and who work or have worked on certain specified gold mines at any time from January 1, 1965 to date; and (ii) the dependants of mineworkers who died as a result of silicosis (whether or not accompanied by any other disease) and who worked on these gold mines at any time after January 1, 1965. AngloGold Ashanti filed a notice of intention to oppose the application. On August 21, 2013, an application was served on AngloGold Ashanti for the consolidation of the Balakazi Action and the Nkala Action, as well as a request for an amendment to change the scope of the classes. The applicants now request certification of two classes (the "silicosis class" and the "tuberculosis class"). The silicosis class would consist of certain current and former underground mineworkers who have contracted silicosis, and the dependants of certain deceased mineworkers who have died of silicosis (whether or not accompanied by any other disease). The tuberculosis class would consist of certain current and former mineworkers who have or had contracted pulmonary tuberculosis and the dependants of certain deceased mineworkers who died of pulmonary tuberculosis (but excluding silico-tuberculosis). In the event the class is certified, such class of workers would be permitted to institute actions by way of a summons against AngloGold Ashanti for amounts as yet unspecified. The parties in the class action met with the court (South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg) and have tentatively agreed on a timetable for the court process wherein the application to certify the class action will be heard in October 2015. ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI: To Refer Individual Claims to Arbitration ------------------------------------------------------------ AngloGold Ashanti Limited said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 2, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company and the plaintiffs' attorneys have agreed to refer all of the individual claims to arbitration. In October 2012, AngloGold Ashanti received 31 individual summonses and particulars of claim relating to silicosis and/or other OLD. The total amount claimed in the 31 summonses is approximately $7 million as at the 31 December 2014 closing rate. On or about March 3, 2014, AngloGold Ashanti received an additional 21 individual summonses and particulars of claim relating to silicosis and/or other OLD. The total amount claimed in the 21 summonses is approximately $4 million as at the December 31, 2014 closing rate. On or about March 24, 2014, AngloGold Ashanti received a further 686 individual summonses and particulars of claim relating to silicosis and/or other OLD. The total amount claimed in the 686 summonses is approximately $100 million as at the December 31, 2014 closing rate. And on or about April 1, 2014, AngloGold Ashanti received a further 518 individual summonses and particulars of claim relating to silicosis and/or other OLD. The total amount claimed in the 518 summonses is approximately $81 million as at the December 31, 2014 closing rate. All these claims were filed in the South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg. On October 9, 2014, AngloGold Ashanti and the plaintiffs' attorneys agreed to refer all of the individual claims to arbitration. The court proceedings have been suspended as a result of entering into the arbitration agreement. It is possible that additional class actions and/or individual claims relating to silicosis and/or other OLD will be filed against AngloGold Ashanti in the future. AngloGold Ashanti will defend all current and subsequently filed claims on their merits. Should AngloGold Ashanti be unsuccessful in defending any such claims, or in otherwise favourably resolving perceived deficiencies in the national occupational disease compensation framework that were identified in the earlier decision by the Constitutional Court, such matters would have an adverse effect on its financial position, which could be material. The company is unable to reasonably estimate its share of the amounts claimed. ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI: Court Gathers Evidence in "Usocoello" Case ------------------------------------------------------------- AngloGold Ashanti Limited said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 2, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the court in the case Usocoello is gathering evidence from the parties in preparation for its ruling. Four (4) class action lawsuits are pending before Colombian state and federal courts in relation to AngloGold Ashanti Colombia S.A. (AGAC)'s Santa Maria-Montecristo and La Colosa project, which is currently in its pre-feasibility phase and consists of three core concession contracts: 1. Usocoello, Cortolima, Procuraduria Regional Tolima, Universidad de Ibague, Estudiantes de la Universidad del Rosario, Federarroz v. AGAC, Federal Department of Mines, Federal Department of the Environment, Housing and Territorial Development and Ingeominas (September 2010) (Uscocoello); 2. The Personero de Ibague v. Federal Department of the Environment, Housing and Territorial Development, Ingeominas, AGAC, Continental Gold Ltda., Oro Barracuda Ltda., Fernando Montoya, Alberto Murillo and Eugenio Gomez (December 2011) (Toche Anaima Belt); 3. Juan Ceballos v. Federal Department of the Environment, Housing and Territorial Development, Ingeominas, Cortolima and AGAC (February 2012); and 4. Ibague's Ombudsman v. Federal Department of Environment, Housing and Territorial Development, National Mining Agency, AGAC (July 2013) (Corridors). Each lawsuit aims to stop exploration and mining in certain restricted areas affected by the La Colosa project due to environmental concerns or alleged breaches of environmental laws. Under Colombian law, restricted areas are State-protected land on which certain economic activities are restricted. The first class action lawsuit was Uscocoello, which was filed before the Third Administrative Court of the District of Ibague on 9 September 2010 as the court of first instance. It named each of Ingeominas (the Colombian regulatory agency for mining activities), the Federal Department of the Environment, Housing and Territorial Development, as well as the Federal Department of Mines as defendants. AGAC was subsequently joined to the lawsuit as an additional defendant. The plaintiffs are the User Association of the Land Adequation District of Coello and Cucuana Rivers (Usocoello) (a cooperative representing local farmers), the Autonomous Regional Corporation of Tolima ("Cortolima"), (the government of the State of Tolima), the Office of the Attorney General of the State of Tolima (Procurador Judicial Ambiental y Agrario para el Tolima), the University of Ibague (Estudiantes de la Universidad del Rosario), (a student association of the University of El Rosario) and Fedearroz (the Colombian association of rice growers). In Uscocoello, the plaintiffs petitioned the court to order the defendant governmental entities not to declare the La Colosa mining project feasible on the grounds that the project threatens a healthy environment, public health and food safety for Usocoello members and local residents. Such order by the court would result in the revocation of AGAC's temporary use permit for its exploration activities on 6.39 hectares of forest reserve that are otherwise designated as restricted areas. In addition, as each of AGAC's three core mining concession contracts governing the La Colosa project provides that Ingeominas has the discretion to declare the underlying concession void if AGAC breaches applicable environmental laws or regulations, the plaintiffs have petitioned the court to direct Ingeominas to cancel such concession contracts on the ground that AGAC has violated the Code of Natural Resources. If plaintiffs prevail and Ingeominas is ordered to cancel AGAC's three core concession contracts, the company would be required to abandon the La Colosa project and all of AGAC's other existing mining concession contracts and pending proposals for new mining concession contracts would also be cancelled. If the Third Administrative Court issues an adverse ruling against AGAC, the ruling can be appealed. As no settlement was reached at a special conciliation hearing (Pacto de Cumplimiento) held on April 27, 2011, the trial has continued and the court is gathering evidence from the parties in preparation for its ruling. ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI: Injunction in Toche Anaima Belt Case on Appeal ----------------------------------------------------------------- AngloGold Ashanti Limited said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 2, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that in connection with the Toche Anaima Belt lawsuit, AngloGold Ashanti Colombia S.A. has appealed the injunction, but the company does not believe that the mining concession contracts at issue constitute a critical path item for the project. Four (4) class action lawsuits are pending before Colombian state and federal courts in relation to AGAC's Santa Maria-Montecristo and La Colosa project, which is currently in its pre-feasibility phase and consists of three core concession contracts: 1. Usocoello, Cortolima, Procuraduria Regional Tolima, Universidad de Ibague, Estudiantes de la Universidad del Rosario, Federarroz v. AGAC, Federal Department of Mines, Federal Department of the Environment, Housing and Territorial Development and Ingeominas (September 2010) (Uscocoello); 2. The Personero de Ibague v. Federal Department of the Environment, Housing and Territorial Development, Ingeominas, AGAC, Continental Gold Ltda., Oro Barracuda Ltda., Fernando Montoya, Alberto Murillo and Eugenio Gomez (December 2011) (Toche Anaima Belt); 3. Juan Ceballos v. Federal Department of the Environment, Housing and Territorial Development, Ingeominas, Cortolima and AGAC (February 2012); and 4. Ibague's Ombudsman v. Federal Department of Environment, Housing and Territorial Development, National Mining Agency, AGAC (July 2013) (Corridors). Each lawsuit aims to stop exploration and mining in certain restricted areas affected by the La Colosa project due to environmental concerns or alleged breaches of environmental laws. Under Colombian law, restricted areas are State-protected land on which certain economic activities are restricted. In connection with the Toche Anaima Belt lawsuit, the Superior Court of the District of Ibague granted the plaintiff a preliminary injunction, suspending the mining concession contracts relating to certain greenfield exploration activities of the Santa Maria-Montecristo project in September 2011. AGAC has appealed the injunction, but the company does not believe that the mining concession contracts at issue constitute a critical path item for the project. ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI: AGAC Awaits Decision on Cancellation Request --------------------------------------------------------------- AngloGold Ashanti Limited said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 2, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that in connection with the Juan Ceballos lawsuit, AGAC is awaiting a decision on the plaintiff's request for the cancellation of the La Colosa mining project tenements. Four (4) class action lawsuits are pending before Colombian state and federal courts in relation to AngloGold Ashanti Colombia S.A. (AGAC)'s Santa Maria-Montecristo and La Colosa project, which is currently in its pre-feasibility phase and consists of three core concession contracts: 1. Usocoello, Cortolima, Procuraduria Regional Tolima, Universidad de Ibague, Estudiantes de la Universidad del Rosario, Federarroz v. AGAC, Federal Department of Mines, Federal Department of the Environment, Housing and Territorial Development and Ingeominas (September 2010) (Uscocoello); 2. The Personero de Ibague v. Federal Department of the Environment, Housing and Territorial Development, Ingeominas, AGAC, Continental Gold Ltda., Oro Barracuda Ltda., Fernando Montoya, Alberto Murillo and Eugenio Gomez (December 2011) (Toche Anaima Belt); 3. Juan Ceballos v. Federal Department of the Environment, Housing and Territorial Development, Ingeominas, Cortolima and AGAC (February 2012); and 4. Ibague's Ombudsman v. Federal Department of Environment, Housing and Territorial Development, National Mining Agency, AGAC (July 2013) (Corridors). Each lawsuit aims to stop exploration and mining in certain restricted areas affected by the La Colosa project due to environmental concerns or alleged breaches of environmental laws. Under Colombian law, restricted areas are State-protected land on which certain economic activities are restricted. With respect to the Juan Ceballos lawsuit, the plaintiff requested the cancellation of the La Colosa mining project tenements, based on allegations that gold mining represents an environmental risk to the Tolima community. In November 2014, the Court requested that the defendants answer a questionnaire before the Court rules on the matter. AGAC and the Colombian government entities appeared before the Court and answered its questions. AGAC is awaiting a decision in this matter. ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI: No Decision Yet on Bid to Ban Corridor Project ----------------------------------------------------------------- AngloGold Ashanti Limited said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 2, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that in connection with the Corridors lawsuit, AGAC is awaiting a decision on the plaintiffs' request for the banning of AGAC's Corridor Project. Four (4) class action lawsuits are pending before Colombian state and federal courts in relation to AngloGold Ashanti Colombia S.A. (AGAC)'s Santa Maria-Montecristo and La Colosa project, which is currently in its pre-feasibility phase and consists of three core concession contracts: 1. Usocoello, Cortolima, Procuraduria Regional Tolima, Universidad de Ibague, Estudiantes de la Universidad del Rosario, Federarroz v. AGAC, Federal Department of Mines, Federal Department of the Environment, Housing and Territorial Development and Ingeominas (September 2010) (Uscocoello); 2. The Personero de Ibague v. Federal Department of the Environment, Housing and Territorial Development, Ingeominas, AGAC, Continental Gold Ltda., Oro Barracuda Ltda., Fernando Montoya, Alberto Murillo and Eugenio Gomez (December 2011) (Toche Anaima Belt); 3. Juan Ceballos v. Federal Department of the Environment, Housing and Territorial Development, Ingeominas, Cortolima and AGAC (February 2012); and 4. Ibague's Ombudsman v. Federal Department of Environment, Housing and Territorial Development, National Mining Agency, AGAC (July 2013) (Corridors). Each lawsuit aims to stop exploration and mining in certain restricted areas affected by the La Colosa project due to environmental concerns or alleged breaches of environmental laws. Under Colombian law, restricted areas are State-protected land on which certain economic activities are restricted. In connection with the Corridors lawsuit, the plaintiffs requested the banning of AGAC's Corridor Project due to the alleged detrimental environmental impact of the proposed mining in the area. However, AGAC has not proceeded with the Corridor Project due to technical considerations. Accordingly, AGAC has asked the Court to dismiss the lawsuit (without prejudice). AGAC is awaiting a decision. ANTHEM INC: Kansas Firm Seeks Class Status in Kancare Breach ------------------------------------------------------------ Tim Carpenter, writing for The Topeka Capital-Journal, reported that attacks by computer hackers on nearly 390,000 Kansans served by the privatized Medicaid program prompted filing of a proposed class-action lawsuit against insurance giant Anthem and its Amerigroup subsidiary operating in the state. The Lawrence firm of Fagan, Emert & Davis alleged in the filing the nation's second largest health insurance provider didn't properly safeguard sensitive personal, health and financial information of its customers in Kansas. "Any data breach is serious, but this one is particularly dangerous because of the type of data stolen," Paul Davis, an attorney for plaintiffs in the class action suit, said in a statement. "You can't just change your birth date, your medical history, or your social security number like you can a credit card number." Anthem reportedly didn't encrypt personal data of its customers prior to hackers gaining access to a database storing information on more than 80 million Americans. Customer and employee records containing names, addresses and Social Security numbers was obtained in a massive security attack. In Kansas, 390,000 people had information fall into hands of thieves. Amerigroup serves 165,000 KanCare customers subjected to the computer assault, which the plaintiffs' attorneys alleged violated the federal HIPAA privacy statute. "We've already received several reports of fraudulent tax returns being filed," Davis said. "Unfortunately, we fear this is only the beginning." A spokesperson with Amerigroup, headquartered in Virginia Beach, Va., wasn't available to comment. In February, company executives acknowledged the sophisticated cyber attack and apologized for loss of private information. The Kansas portion of the lawsuit seeking unspecified damages was filed April 2 in Douglas County on behalf of Wyandotte County resident Julie Stanturf and others, while the Missouri piece of the case was filed previously in St. Louis by three law firms working jointly. About 100 plaintiffs are involved in the Missouri litigation. Similar legal action has been taken in five states, including California, Florida and Indiana. The Federal Bureau of Investigation issued an alert in April 2014 to the health care industry indicating the transition from paper to electronic health records, lax cybersecurity standards and the value of medical records in the black market could subject the industry to greater risks. In January 2013, Gov. Sam Brownback led privatization of the state's $3 billion Medicaid system. The Brownback administration selected three insurance companies -- Amerigroup, UnitedHealthcare and Sunflower, which is a subsidiary of Centene -- to assume responsibility for serving elderly, children and disabled individuals in the KanCare network. Davis, who ran unsuccessfully against Brownback in the 2014 election, said the Kansas law firm was seeking to represent additional KanCare participants who were victims of the data breach. Anthem paid $1.7 million in 2010 to resolve allegations it left private information on more than 600,000 members available online due to inadequate safeguards. The company also suffered information breaches in 2008 and 2006. APPLEBEE'S INT'L: Fails to Pay Servers & Bartenders OT, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Applebee's stiffs servers and bartenders for overtime, a class action claims in Washington Federal Court. ASSURANT INC: RICO Claims Tossed in Insurance Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Dena Aubin, writing for Reuters, reported that a federal judge has dismissed claims that two Assurant Inc insurance units engaged in racketeering by paying kickbacks to Florida-based Everbank in a scheme that allegedly inflated the costs of property insurance homeowners were forced to buy. In an order, U.S. District Judge Beth Bloom agreed with insurers' lawyers at Carlton Fields Jorden Burt that fraud claims were implausible because homeowners were warned to maintain their own insurance and told that policies provided by the Assurant units would cost much more. AT&T MOBILITY: Faces "Singleton" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------ Jessica Singleton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AT&T Mobility LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-11864- ADB (D. Mass., May 19, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. AT&T Mobility LLC is a foreign limited liability company with its principal place of business at 1025 Lenox Park Blvd NE, Atlanta, GA 30319. AT&T owns and operates thousands of retail wireless stores around the country. The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Garcia, Esq. PHILLIPS & GARCIA, LLP 13 Ventura Drive North Dartmouth, MA 02747 Telephone: (508) 998-0800 Facsimile: (508) 998-0919 E-mail: agarcia@phillipsgarcia.com - and - R. Edward Rosenberg, Esq. MORGADO, P.A. 382 NE 191st St #84164 Miami, FL 33179 Telephone: (855) 899-9121 Facsimile: (855) 499-9191 E-mail: rer@morgado.us AMERICAN CRUISE: Faces "McCormick" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT -------------------------------------------------------------- Nicole McCormick, Jesus Estrada and Justice Kimmons, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. American Cruise Lines, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00741-VLB (D. Conn., May 18, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation for hours in excess of 40 in the workweek. American Cruise Lines, Inc. owns, operates and controls a ship cruise line consisting of 6 ships, which cruise along the Eastern Seaboard, Western Seaboard and rivers of the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Bruce E. Newman, Esq. BROWN, PAINDIRIS & SCOTT, LLP 747 Stafford Avenue Bristol, CT 06010 Telephone: (860) 583-5200 Facsimile: (860) 589-5780 E-mail: bnewman@bpslawyers.com ANCHOR DRILLING: Removed "Wolfe" Suit from W.D. Pa. to S.D. Texas ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Jon Nathan Wolfe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Anchor Drilling Fluids, USA, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-01545, was transferred from the U.S. District Court of the Western District of Pennsylvania Pittsburgh Division to the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of Texas Houston Division. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:15-cv-01344 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff asserts claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act. The Plaintiff contends that Anchor failed to pay overtime compensation for work in excess of 40 hours a week. The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq. FIBICH LEEBRON COPELAND BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON 1150 Bissonnet Houston, TX 77005 Telephone: (713) 751-0025 E-mail: adunlap@fibichlaw.com mjosephson@fibichlaw.com litkin@fibichlaw.com - and - Joshua P. Geist, Esq. GOODRICH & GEIST, P.C. 3634 California Ave Pittsburgh, PA 15212 Telephone: (412) 766-1455 Facsimile: (412) 766-0300 E-mail: josh@goodrichandgeist.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 The Defendant is represented by: Christian Antkowiak, Esq. Joseph F. Quinn, Esq. BUCHANAN INGERSOLL AND ROONEY One Oxford Center 301 Grant Street, 20th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (412) 562-3988 E-mail: christian.antkowiak@bipc.com joseph.quinn@bipc.com - and - Stefanie R. Moll, Esq. Thomas C. Wallace, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS 1000 Louisiana, Ste. 4000 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 890-5780 Facsimile: (713) 890-5001 E-mail: smoll@morganlewis.com twallace@morganlewis.com BAYER HEALTHCARE: Court Junks Portions of "Gershman" Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that a federal judge dismissed portions of a class action against Bayer Healthcare alleging that the company grossly misrepresents the health benefits of Flintstones Healthy Brain Support vitamins. Liza Gershman, et al. v. Bayer Healthcare LLC, Case No. 3:14-cv- 05332-HSG, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. BCE INC: Nova Scotia Class Suit Permanently Stayed -------------------------------------------------- Mondaq.com reported that in BCE Inc. v. Gillis, 2015 NSCA 32, issued on April 9, 2015, the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal considered the doctrine of abuse of process in the context of a proposed class proceeding where a virtually identical action, commenced by the same plaintiffs represented by the same counsel (Merchant Law Group), had already been certified in Saskatchewan. Expressing its disapproval of the practice of having the same plaintiffs file lawsuits in multiple jurisdictions to obtain collateral future advantages, the Court of Appeal overturned the decision of the motions judge and ordered that the Nova Scotia action be permanently and unconditionally stayed. In the course of its judgment, the Court made several notable observations regarding the nature of class proceedings, the role of the Court, and what is (and is not) appropriate conduct by plaintiffs and their counsel. The various Bell defendants /appellants were represented by Robert Deane of Borden Ladner Gervais LLP. The case was one of many across Canada. In 2004, the same group of plaintiffs (all represented by Merchant Law Group) filed a series of actions in nine provinces alleging that various telecommunications providers had been improperly charging "system access fees". Although the Nova Scotia action was first filed on November 2, 2004, no steps were taken to advance it until 2014. In the interim, the plaintiffs' efforts were focused exclusively on the action commenced in Saskatchewan, which was certified by an order dated on February 13, 2008 (Frey v. Bell Mobility Inc., 2007 SKQB 328, leave to appeal denied Microcell Communications Inc. v. Frey, [2012] S.C.C.A. No. 42). The certified class was limited in that it excluded customers with arbitration clauses in their contracts and was limited to claims for unjust enrichment based on the contracts. Non-residents, including residents of Nova Scotia, could opt-in to participate in the action (in accordance with Saskatchewan legislation in effect as of 2008). Saskatchewan residents were included on an opt-out basis. The plaintiffs attempted to convert the certification to an opt-out model but were unsuccessful (Frey v. Bell Mobility Inc., 2009 SKQB 165). Before analyzing the Nova Scotia claim, the Court of Appeal surveyed the treatment of the various other claims filed by the same plaintiffs in other provinces. In British Columbia (Drover v. BCE Inc., 2013 BCSC 1341), the court found it would be an abuse of process to allow the plaintiffs to litigate matters in Saskatchewan and then re-litigate the same matters in British Columbia. The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed one Alberta action for reasons of delay (Pappas v. BCE Inc., 2014 ABQB). In another Alberta action (Turnerv.Bell Mobility, 2015 ABQB 169), a stay was refused on the basis that proper access to justice may be denied to Albertans with an opt-in regime (although the decision is under appeal). The Manitoba action (Hafichuk-Walkin v. BCE Inc.,2014 MBQB 175) was stayed (although the decision is under appeal). The Court of Appeal analogized the plaintiffs' approach in filing identical lawsuits in numerous jurisdictions to "planting legal cherry trees across the country." The Court rejected the plaintiffs' submission that it was an appropriate tactic to do so to accommodate future changes in the law. Rather, the Court held that plaintiffs were attempting to "go from jurisdiction to jurisdiction picking only the cherries they like in jurisdictions they have totally neglected for a decade." The Court of Appeal highlighted the danger of such "selective harvesting" and that, if permitted, it would require defendants to re-litigate the same issues repeatedly, potentially having divergent outcomes. Although commencing class actions in multiple jurisdictions is not necessarily always an abuse of process, the court must review the facts of each case to "assess whether there has been an abuse of process in the circumstances of the litigation as it has been prosecuted with in that jurisdiction." In assessing whether the Nova Scotia action constituted an abuse of process, the Court of Appeal considered the following factors: -- whether the plaintiffs actually intended to prosecute the Nova Scotia action when it was filed; -- the plaintiffs' delay in advancing the Nova Scotia action; the distinction, if any, between opt-in and opt-out class action schemes; -- the danger of multiplicity/duplicity of proceedings; -- the conduct of counsel; -- whether the action was brought for the collateral (and, the Court held, improper) purpose of obtaining carriage of a class action, or to toll the limitation period; and -- the importance of maintaining comity among the courts of the various provinces. The Court of Appeal emphasized that absent an intention to prosecute the Nova Scotia claim, the action in Nova Scotia did not serve a proper purpose. The plaintiffs' objective had consistently been to pursue the Saskatchewan action, and that only changed when events in Saskatchewan made it more advantageous to try to proceed elsewhere. The Court held that the plaintiffs were bound by the national litigation strategy adopted by their counsel. Perhaps most significantly, and contrary to the finding of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench in Turner, the Court of Appeal was not satisfied that the distinction between opt-in and opt-out statutes put Nova Scotia residents at a disadvantage or at least a disadvantage that the Court should seek to remedy. The Court noted that there may be good reasons why Nova Scotia residents may not opt-in to the Saskatchewan class, including that "class actions may result in significant legal fees for plaintiffs' counsel but not result in any money in the pockets of class members." In response to the assertion that few individuals will make the effort to opt-in, the Court queried "why the court and its resources should be more devoted to the financial self-interest of private litigants than they are themselves." The Court of Appeal viewed the actions of class counsel as attempting to re-litigate issues decided in other jurisdictions. The Court emphasized that the Nova Scotia action was a second attempt by the plaintiffs to certify an opt-out class action and, thus, a collateral attack on the Saskatchewan decision which refused to allow certification for non-residents on an opt out basis. To allow a re-litigation of this issue in Nova Scotia would result in an "extraordinary abuse of process and it would undermine the administration of justice." In the Court's view, the Nova Scotia action was an abuse of process from the outset, compounded by the filing of nine virtually identical claims. The plaintiffs had made it clear many years earlier that Saskatchewan was their forum of choice and the Court held that they must live with that decision. As the Court put it, "it is time the respondents be forced to pick cherries from a single tree; one groomed for so many years, while the one in Nova Scotia was neglected." The Court of Appeal's decision in Gillis is a clear statement that forum-shopping is as impermissible in the class action context as it is in individual claims. Where a claim may be brought in multiple jurisdictions, plaintiffs must generally select their jurisdiction of choice, and not start "planting legal cherry trees across the country" in the hope of being able to harvest a different tree if matters do not proceed as desired in the original jurisdiction. Although the Court left open the possibility that there may be circumstances where multiple similar claims across different jurisdictions would be allowed to continue, the record demonstrated that the intention of the plaintiffs and their counsel was to seek to re-litigate issues that had already been determined. Such conduct constituted an abuse of process warranting a permanent and unconditional stay of proceedings. BIOMARIN PHARMACEUTICAL: Action v. Prosensa in Earliest Stages -------------------------------------------------------------- BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc. said in its Form 8-K/A (Amendment No. 1) Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 3, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a class action litigation against Prosensa Holding N.V. is in its earliest stages. On January 16, 2015, BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc. (BioMarin) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the SEC) a current report on Form 8-K (the Initial 8-K) to report, among other things, the consummation of the acquisition by BioMarin of Prosensa Holding N.V. (Prosensa). In July 2014, the Company and certain of its managing directors and supervisory directors were named as defendants in Singh v. Schikan et al., a purported class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint asserts claims under the federal securities laws on behalf of a professed class consisting of all those who purchased the Company's ordinary shares pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement used in connection with the Company's IPO. The complaint alleges that the Company omitted and/or misstated certain facts in the registration statement concerning the Phase III trial of drisapersen that, as announced on September 20, 2013, did not meet its primary endpoint. The litigation is in its earliest stages, and the Company and the individual defendants intend to defend the action vigorously. The Company is not able at present to reasonably estimate potential losses, if any, in connection with the litigation, but an adverse resolution could have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position, results of operations and cash flows. BJ'S WHOLESALE: Sued Over Improper Sales Tax Collection ------------------------------------------------------- Adam P. Beckerink, Jack Trachtenberg and Douglas A. Wick, writing for Mondaq.com, reported that on March 17, 2015, Laura Bugliaro (the "Plaintiff") filed a class action lawsuit against BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc. ("BJ's") in the Circuit Court of the 11th Judicial Circuit of Florida. The complaint alleges that BJ's collects sales tax on the full price of items on sale, instead of applying the discount and then collecting sales tax on the discounted amount. The Plaintiff is claiming that BJ's practices are contrary to regulations promulgated by the Florida Department of Revenue (the "Department"). The complaint alleges violations of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment. This case is similar to other cases being filed around the country against different retailers. Background. The Plaintiff claims that on November 22, 2014, she bought a television from a BJ's location in Florida for a "discounted sales price" of $769.99 (the original price of the television was $1,399.99). The Plaintiff claims she was wrongly charged sales tax based on the full $1,399.99 price of the television because the reduced price was not the result of a manufacturer's coupon or discount. If the Plaintiff is correct, this resulted in an additional $37.80 being collected by BJ's (based on Florida's 6% state sales tax rate). The Plaintiff also claims that she bought another television at a different BJ's location in Florida on November 30, 2014, for a discounted sale price. The Plaintiff again alleges that sales tax was collected on the full price, not the discounted price of the television. In this instance, the television was discounted by $200.00, meaning an extra $12.00 was collected if the Plaintiff's claims are true. Based on these two incidents, the Plaintiff asserts that BJ's regular practice is to charge sales tax on the full price of discounted purchases made in Florida. Florida sales tax regulations. According to regulations promulgated by the Department, the tax base for discounted sales depends on whether the discount originates with the manufacturer of the product or with the retailer. Coupons, rebates, or discounts issued by the manufacturer of a taxable good are not treated as a reduction in the tax base, and therefore, sales tax is to be charged on the full price of the item. Discounts and coupons issued by the retailer, on the other hand, are supposed to be considered a reduction in the sales tax base, and thus, tax should only be charged on the discounted price paid for the product (i.e., full price less the discount). Florida's sales tax rules pose compliance challenges for retailers. While sales tax decisions are nominally made by the company's legal, tax, or accounting department, those policies must be implemented by sales clerks or cash register software programs. Sales clerks often lack the knowledge of whether a discount originates from the manufacturer or the retailer, and regardless, such employees should not be expected to interpret complicated tax regulations as part of their job. Further, it is difficult to program software for every possible deal, sale, coupon, rebate, incentive, or other price reduction that manifests itself in the real world. Indeed, depending on how a particular reimbursement is booked and treated for income tax purposes, it may be that the reimbursement should be treated as a manufacture discount in one instance, but a retailer discount in another. Therefore, even retailers who are earnestly attempting to comply with Florida's and other states' sales tax laws can inadvertently collect the wrong amount of tax on certain discounted sales. Implications for retailers. There is no allegation that BJ's pocketed the "overcharged" sales tax collections or profited in any way from such collections. In fact, there is no indication that BJ's did not remit all collected tax amounts to the Department. Hence, there was no motive or incentive for BJ's to collect excess sales tax from its customers. This suggests that even if the allegations in the complaint are true, any incorrect sales tax practices were inadvertent, contrary to the complaint's assertions of fraudulent activity. There has been a rash of similar class-action lawsuits filed around the country alleging improper collection of sales tax in connection with discounts or coupons, e.g., Wong v. Whole Foods Market Group, Inc., Case 1:115-cv-00848, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division (filed Jan. 28, 2015); Wong v. Target Corp., Case 1:115-cv-01985, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division (filed Mar. 5, 2015). While the stakes are low for any individual customer who claims to have been overcharged, the stakes are high for retailers subjected to the machinations of aggressive law firms hoping for a lucrative payday. Retailers should ensure they are diligently complying with each state's unique sales tax rules. Reed Smith's State Tax Group will continue to closely monitor this case and similar cases across the United States. For more information on the growing risks that businesses face from the application of consumer class action and false claims act statutes to state and local tax matters, contact the authors of this Alert or another member of the Reed Smith State Tax Group. About Reed Smith State Tax Reed Smith's state and local tax practice is composed of more than 30 lawyers across seven offices nationwide. The practice focuses on state and local audit defense and refund appeals (from the administrative level through the appellate courts), as well as planning and transactional matters involving income, franchise, unclaimed property, sales and use, and property tax issues. View our State Tax team. BLUE WATER: Faces "Cabrera" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- Rigoberto Cabrera-Rodriguez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly-situated v. Blue Water Hospitality LLC d/b/a Red Roof Inn and Syed Raza, Case No. 8:15-cv-01189-RAL-TBM (M.D. Fla., May 18, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours work in excess of 40 per week. The Defendants own and operate Red Roof Inn in Tampa Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Bernard R. Mazaheri, Esq. Christina Jean Thomas, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, PA Ste 1600, 20 N Orange Ave Orlando, FL 32802-4979 Telephone: (407) 420-1414 Facsimile: (954) 333-3515 E-mail: bmazaheri@forthepeople.com cthomas@forthepeople.com BREAD AND CHOCOLATE: "Moya" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Moya, and other similarly-situated individuals v. Bread and Chocolate LLC d/b/a Granier Bakery, and Thibaut Renard, Case No. 1:15-cv-21882-JAL (S.D. Fla., May 18, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a bakery and cafeteria business located at 18230 Collins Avenue, Sunny Isles Beach, Florida 33160. The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 3100 South Dixie Highway, Suite 202 Miami, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com BRINKER RESTAURANT: Bilks Customers by Putting Tablets, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Rebekah Kearn at Courthouse News Service reports that Chili's restaurants bilk customers by putting tablets loaded with games on dinner tables for kids, then charging parents for the games, a class action claims. Brenda Quijada sued Brinker Restaurant Corp. and Ziosk in California Superior Court on May 8, on behalf of parents and guardians who were charged for the games. Brinker owns the Chili's and Maggiano's Little Italy restaurant chains. Ziosk created the first pay-at-the-table tablet for casual dining restaurants. The 7-inch Android devices are available at more than 1,500 locations in the United States, according to its Web site. Among other things, the tablets let diners view the menu, order food and drinks and download and play games, according to the complaint. Quijada claims the companies trick people into thinking the games are free by failing to disclose that a 99-cent "entertainment fee" will be added to their bill if they use the tablet to play games. "The main screen user interface simply provides the patron with a menu of service categories (drinks, food, fun and eClub) without any disclaimer language," the complaint states. "Once a customer -- either of legal age or a minor -- clicks the 'fun' application on the tablet they are taken to a second screen. This screen features: (1) content available without payment of the entertainment fee and (2) content that is accessible in exchange for payment of the 'entertainment' fee," the complaint continues. Some tablets do indicate that premium content costs $0.99, according to the complaint. The companies specifically target kids by offering content such as dietary information and a link to the "USA Today" for free while charging $0.99 for fun games such as Spy Mouse, Plants vs. Zombies and Poppit!, which appeal to kids, the complaint states. Diners buy a game by tapping on it and then tapping again on a green button that says "Let's Play." Quijada claims the tablets do not check the user's age or have any parental control measures to make sure kids have permission to buy a game. Targeting kids by putting games on the tablets "and inducing them to purchase, without the knowledge or permission of their parents, thousands of dollars of premium content is unlawful in the extreme," the complaint states. Quijada says she took her younger brother and daughter to Chili's and let them play with the Ziosk tablet during the meal. She says she did not know they were using the tablet to buy and play games, and claims that none of the Chili's staff warned her that playing the games would add $0.99 to her bill. A company spokeswoman told Courthouse News the defendants decline to comment as they have not yet been served with the lawsuit. Quijada seeks class certification, an injunction, restitution, disgorgement and damages for false and misleading advertising. The Plaintiff is represented by: Marcus J. Bradley, Esq. MARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP 29229 Canwood Street, Suite 208 Agoura Hills, CA 91301 Telephone: (818) 991-8080 Toll-Free: (866) 864-4915 Facsimile: (818) 991-8081 E-mail: mbradley@marlinsaltzman.com CAMPBELL-EWALD: Supreme Court to Hear Suit Over Unsolicited Texts ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that the Supreme Court will consider whether an advertising agency hired to boost recruitment for the U.S. Navy is immune from a lawsuit that claims it illegally authorized thousands of unsolicited text messages. The justices said on May 18 they will hear an appeal from the Campbell-Ewald Company, which claims federal contractors can't be sued under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The agency sent the messages through a subcontractor to thousands of cell phones, including one belonging to Jose Gomez. Mr. Gomez says he never consented to receiving the texts and filed a class- action lawsuit. A federal appeals court rejected the company's claim that government contractors are immune from such lawsuits. The company also argues that Gomez can't pursue a class action because he refused an offer to settle the case. CASCADE DESIGNS: Recalls MSR Operator and Responder Snow Shovels ---------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: May 12, 2015 Posting date: May 12, 2015 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Household Items Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Product Safety Audience:General Public Identification number: RA-53275 This recall involves MSR Operator and Responder snow shovels. The compact, adjustable backcountry snow shovels are used for digging a snow-study pit, constructing basecamp or responding to a backcountry emergency. The following snow shovels are included in this recall: SKU Description Colour --- ----------- ------ 03157MSR Operator Snow Shovel, D Handle Red 03159MSR Operator Snow Shovel, T Handle Red 03158MSR Responder Snow Shovel, only Yellow available in T Handle The company has determined through internal testing a manufacturing defect occurred during production of the shovels. The spring-controlled lock button on the lower shaft has the potential to stay recessed inside the shaft, making it so that the shovel blade cannot be secured to the shaft. The spring was not made to specifications. Because of this, it can interfere with the upper shaft and move out of alignment. Neither Health Canada nor Cascade Designs, Inc. has received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of these snow shovels in Canada. Cascade Designs, Inc. has received 4 reports of consumer incidents in the United States. No injuries were reported. Approximately 344 units were sold in Canada, and approximately 4,300 units were sold in the United States. The recalled products were sold from October 2014 to January 2015. Manufactured in Taiwan. Manufacturer: Valencever Company, Ltd. Taipei TAIWAN, PROVINCE OF CHINA Distributor: Cascade Designs, Inc. Seattle Washington UNITED STATES Consumers should stop using the recalled snow shovels and contact Cascade Designs, Inc. for a replacement shaft with a correct lock button. For additional information, consumers may contact Cascade Designs, Inc. Customer Service toll-free at 1-800-531-9531, Monday to Friday, from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. PST or by email. Consumers can also visit Cascade Designs' website and click on Have You Purchased an MSR Snow Shovel? 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/VzMsdi CATHAY BANK: Illegally Procures Background Reports, Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Linda Lam, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cathay Bank and Does 1 through 10, Case No. 2:15-cv- 03725 (C.D. Cal., May 18, 2015), seeks to put an end on the Defendant's practice obtains and uses information from credit and background reports in connection with its hiring process without complying disclosure requirements of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Cathay Bank is a Chinese American bank based in Los Angeles, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Pamela Tsao, Esq. ASCENSION LAW GROUP, PC 2030 E. Fourth Street, Suite 205 Santa Ana, CA 92705 Telephone: (714) 783-4220 Facsimile: (888) 505-1033 E-mail: Tsao.Pamela.Tsao@ascensionlawgroup.com CERAGON NETWORKS: Faces Class Suit in Tel-Aviv Economic Dept. ------------------------------------------------------------- Ceragon Networks Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 2, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a motion to approve a purported class action, naming the Company, its chief executive officer and its directors as defendants, was filed on January 5, 2015, with the District Court of Tel-Aviv (Economic Department), on behalf of holders of ordinary shares, including those who purchased shares during the period following the Company's follow on public offering in July 2014. The purported class action is based on Israeli law and alleges breaches of duties by the company and its management, by making false and misleading statements in the company's SEC filings and public statements, during the period between July and October 2014. The plaintiff's principal claim is that immediately prior to the follow on public offering, the defendants presented misleading guidance concerning the expected financial results for the third quarter of 2014, indicating an anticipated improvement in the rate of gross profit based on orders which were already received by the Company at the time of such presentation. Although the plaintiff admits that, in accordance with the actual results for the third quarter, the Company did meet the guidance as far as revenues were concerned, the actual rate of gross profit turned out to be much lower than the one anticipated. Plaintiff argues that at the time such guidance was presented by the defendants, they already knew, or should have known, that it was incorrect. The plaintiff seeks specified compensatory damages in a sum of up to $75,000,000, as well as attorneys' fees and costs. The motion was received by the Company on January 6, 2015. Based on an initial review, the Company believes that the District Court should deny the motion and intends to aggressively oppose it. The time frame for the initial procedure, i.e. until the District Court decides whether to approve the motion or to deny it, is expected to last several months. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Plaintiffs Didn't Appeal Summary Judgment ----------------------------------------------------------------- Charter Communications, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 6, 2015, that the plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit did not appeal the grant of summary judgment, terminating the litigation. On August 9, 2010, the plaintiffs in Michelle Downs and Laurie Jarrett, et al. v. Insight Communications Company, L.P. filed a second amended complaint in a purported class action in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky alleging that Insight Communications Company, L.P. violated Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act by tying the sales of premium cable television services to the leasing of set-top converter boxes. The plaintiffs were seeking, among other things, unspecified treble monetary damages and an injunction to cease such alleged practices. On July 19, 2013, TWC filed a motion for summary judgment, which argued that Insight Communications Company, L.P. did not coerce the plaintiffs to lease a set-top converter box, a necessary element of the plaintiffs' claim. On July 29, 2014, the court granted TWC's summary judgment motion and entered judgment in TWC's favor. On August 26, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied on December 1, 2014. The plaintiffs did not appeal the grant of summary judgment, terminating the litigation. CHILDREN WORLDWIDE: Recalls Hugo Boss 5-Pocket Children Pants ------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: May 13, 2015 Posting date: May 13, 2015 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Children's Products Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Choking Hazard Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-53325 This recall involves HUGO BOSS 5-pocket pants for children. The blue pants in faded denim have a checkered lining on the lower part of the legs. The grey/blue pants in velvet have blue topstitching on the inside of the waistband. The model number is listed on the inside label sewn into the inside topstitching on the side of the pants, just below the waistband. Product name Model Number Size CUP Number and description ------------ ---- ---------- --------------- Blue denim pants J04161 2 years 3143161100695 3 years 3143161100701 6 months 3143161100909 9 months 3143161100916 12 months 3143161100923 18 months 3143161100930 Grey/blue velvet J04167 2 years 3143160928313 pants 3 years 3143160928320 6 months 3143160928337 9 months 3143160928344 12 months 3143160928351 18 months 3143160928368 The button on the pants may fail and, in some cases, detach from the garment, presenting a choking hazard for young children. Neither Health Canada nor Children Worldwide Fashion Canada has received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of these products. In Canada, about 112 pairs of recalled pants have been sold in various retail stores. The recalled clothing items were sold from July 2014 to April 2015. Manufactured in Tunisia. Manufacturer: Children Worldwide Fashion Les Herbiers Cedex FRANCE Distributor: Children Worldwide Fashion Canada Inc. Montreal Quebec CANADA Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/7l5UKU CINTAS CORPORATION: "Serrano" Class Action Still Pending -------------------------------------------------------- Cintas Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 2, 2015, for the quarterly period ended February 28, 2015, that Cintas is a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit, Mirna E. Serrano, et al. v. Cintas Corporation (Serrano), filed on May 10, 2004, and pending in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division. The Serrano plaintiffs alleged that Cintas discriminated against women in hiring into various service sales representative positions across all divisions of Cintas. On November 15, 2005, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) intervened in the Serrano lawsuit. The Serrano plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and other remedies. On October 27, 2008, the United States District Court in the Eastern District of Michigan granted summary judgment in favor of Cintas limiting the scope of the putative class in the Serrano lawsuit to female applicants for service sales representative positions at Cintas locations within the state of Michigan. Consequently, all claims brought by female applicants for service sales representative positions outside of the state of Michigan were dismissed. Similarly, any claims brought by the EEOC on behalf of similarly situated female applicants outside of the state of Michigan have also been dismissed from the Serrano lawsuit. In September 2010, the Court in Serrano dismissed all private individual claims and all claims of the EEOC and the 13 individuals it claimed to represent. The EEOC appealed the District Court's summary judgment decisions and various other rulings to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. On November 9, 2012, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's opinion and remanded the claims back to the District Court. On April 16, 2013, Cintas filed with the United States Supreme Court a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari seeking to review the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. On October 7, 2013, the Court denied Cintas' Petition, thus remanding the claims back to the District Court consistent with the Sixth Circuit Court's November 9, 2012 decision. The litigation, if decided or settled adversely to Cintas, may result in liability material to Cintas' consolidated condensed financial condition, results of operations or cash flows and could increase costs of operations on an ongoing basis. Any estimated liability relating to these proceedings is not determinable at this time. Cintas may enter into discussions regarding settlement of these and other lawsuits, and may enter into settlement agreements if it believes such settlement is in the best interest of Cintas' shareholders. COLLIN BUS: Recalls School Bus Models Due to Noncompliance ---------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: May 11, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: School Bus Notification type: Compliance Mfr System: Seats and Restraints Units affected: 5 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015195 TC ID number: 2015195 On certain school buses may not comply with Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (CMVSS 302) - Flammability of Interior Materials. Certain school bus seat bottom assemblies may contain a foam core that does not meet the requirements of the standard. As a result the seat components could burn faster than allowable by the standard, which could increase the risk of injury in the event of a fire. Correction: Dealers will replace the seat bottom assembly. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- CORBEIL DH 2014 CORBEIL DE 2014 COMPTON UNIFIED: Accused Wrongful Conduct Over Complex Trauma ------------------------------------------------------------- Peter P., et al., v. Compton Unified School District, et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-03726-MWF-PLA (C.D. Cal., May 18, 2015), is an action for damages as a proximate result of the Defendant's failure to train and sensitize teachers or administrative personnel to recognize , understand, and address the effects of complex trauma. Compton Unified School District operates schools in the south region of Los Angeles County and Corson City. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kathryn Ann Eidmann, Esq. Laura L. Faer, Esq. Mark D. Rosenbaum, Esq. PUBLIC COUNSEL LAW CENTER 610 S Ardmore Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90005 Telephone: (213) 385-2977 Facsimile: (213) 385-9089 E-mail: kedmann@publiccounsel.org lfaer@publiccounsel.org mrosenbaum@publiccounsel.org - and - Michael H. Strub Jr., Esq. Morgan Chu, Esq. IRELL AND MANELLA LLP 1800 Avenue of the Stars Suite 900 Los Angeles, CA 90067-4276 Telephone: (310) 277-1010 E-mail: mstrub@irell.com mchu@irell.com CONAGRA FOODS: Sued Over Denial of Mental Health Treatment ---------------------------------------------------------- Gabriella Raygoza and Benjamin Raygoza, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Conagra Foods, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-03741-SVW-JC (C.D. Cal., May 18, 2015), is brought on behalf of all health insurance plan participants and beneficiaries who were denied of insurance coverage for mental health treatment. Conagra Foods, Inc. is an American packaged foods company headquartered in Omaha, Nebraska. The Plaintiff is represented by: Glenn R. Kantor, Esq. Timothy J. Rozelle, Esq. KANTOR & KANTOR LLP 19839 Nordhoff Street Northridge, CA 91324 Telephone: (818) 886-2525 Facsimile: (818) 350-6272 E-mail: gkantor@kantorlaw.net trozelle@kantorlaw.net CONAGRA FOODS: Faces Probe Over 2007 Peanut Butter Recall --------------------------------------------------------- Josh Funk, writing for The Associated Press, reports that ConAgra Foods is likely to face a criminal charge now that the U.S. government has completed its investigation of the company's 2007 peanut butter recall. A spokeswoman for the U.S. attorney's office in Georgia, Pam Lightsey, said on May 19 that prosecutors plan to reveal details of the investigation on May 20. ConAgra spokeswoman Teresa Paulsen declined to comment on the investigation on May 19, but the company previously has said it was negotiating an end to the investigation that would likely include a misdemeanor charge of shipping tainted products. If the Omaha, Nebraska, food-maker is charged criminally, the case would extend a recent string of high-profile food safety prosecutions. It wasn't clear on May 19 whether any ConAgra executives would be charged. Earlier this year, two former Iowa egg industry executives were sentenced to three months in jail. Last year, two Colorado cantaloupe farmers were convicted and received probation in a deadly 2011 listeria outbreak, and the former owner of Peanut Corporation of America was convicted in a 2008 salmonella outbreak. The peanut executive, Stewart Parnell, could face jail time when sentenced. ConAgra recalled all its peanut butter in 2007 after its Peter Pan and Great Value peanut butter was linked to a salmonella outbreak that sickened at least 625 people in 47 states. The peanut butter was produced at ConAgra's Sylvester, Georgia, plant. At the time of ConAgra's recall, it was unusual for peanut butter to be implicated in a disease outbreak. But the ConAgra case and the subsequent Peanut Corporation of America recall that was linked to nine deaths demonstrated that the pantry staple could harbor bacteria. ConAgra's Paulsen said the company is committed to food safety and hasn't had any problems with its peanut butter since the recall. "We took full responsibility in 2007, taking immediate steps to determine the potential causes of and solutions for the problem and acting quickly and definitively to inform and protect consumers," Ms. Paulsen said. ConAgra officials blamed moisture in the production plant for helping salmonella bacteria on the raw peanuts grow. The company said the roof leaked during a storm and the sprinkler system malfunctioned, which allowed the moisture in. The production plant was upgraded and ConAgra adopted new testing procedures before reintroducing Peter Pan peanut butter a few months later. ConAgra said in documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission that it had already recorded charges of $31.7 million related to the investigation over the past nearly four years. The maker of Healthy Choice, Orville Redenbacher, Chef Boyardee and dozens of other branded foods said it doesn't expect this investigation to have a material effect on its profits. COOPER VISION: Faces "Hirsch" Suit Over Contact Lens-Price Fixing ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judy Hirsch, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Cooper Vision, Inc., Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Bausch & Lomb Incorporated, Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc., and Abb/Con-Cise Optical Group LLC (a/k/a abb optical Group), Case No. 0:15-cv-61055-WPD (S.D. Fla., May 19, 2015), alleges that the Defendants entered into a conspiracy to impose minimum resale prices on certain contact lens lines by subjecting them to so called Unilateral Pricing Policies (UPPs) and eliminate price competition on those products by big box stores, buying clubs, and internet-based retailers that prevent them from discounting those products. The Defendants are United States companies that are engaged in the business of making eye care products. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary C. Rosen, Esq. Michael C. Gongora, Esq. BECKER & POLIAKOFF, P.A. 1 East Broward Blvd., Suite 1800 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 987-7550 Facsimile: (954) 985-4176 E-mail: grosen@becker-poliakoff.com mgongora@bplegal.com - and - Bernard Persky, Esq. Hollis Salzman, Esq. Kellie Lerner, Esq. Meegan Hollywood, Esq. Michelle C. Zolnoski, Esq. ROBINS KAPLAN LLP 601 Lexington Avenue, Suite 3400 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 980-7400 Facsimile: (212) 980-7499 E-mail: bpersky@robinskaplan.com hsalzman@robinskaplan.com klerner@robinskaplan.com mhollywood@robinskaplan.com mzolnoski@robinskaplan.com - and - K. Craig Wildfang, Esq. ROBINS KAPLAN LLP 800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2800 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 349-8500 Facsimile: (612) 339-4181 E-mail: kcwildfang@robinskaplan.com - and - Robert J. Bonsignore, Esq. BONSIGNORE TRIAL LAWYERS, PLLC 193 Plummer Hill Road Belmont, NH 03220 Telephone: (888) 461-8710 E-mail: rbonsignore@class-actions.us DAEHSAN CANADA: DXN Brand Instant Coffee Products Due to Milk ------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: May 14, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Milk Hazard classification: Class 1 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Daehsan Canada Inc. Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, Saskatchewan Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 9835 Daehsan Canada Inc. is recalling DXN brand instant coffee products from the marketplace because they contain milk which is not declared on the label. People with an allergy to milk should not consume and distributors, retailers and food service establishments such as hotels, restaurants, cafeterias, hospitals and nursing homes should not sell or use the recalled products described below. What you should do Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalled products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they were purchased. If you have an allergy to milk, do not consume the recalled product as it may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction. There have been no reported reactions associated with the consumption of these products. This recall was triggered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's (CFIA) inspection activities. The CFIA is conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings. The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product from the marketplace. Brand Common name Size Code(s) UPC name ----------- ---- product --- ----- ------- DXN Cordyceps 20 X 21g All codes where 9 555274 505740 Coffee milk is not declared DXN Vita Cafe 20 X 21g All codes where 9 555274 505719 milk is not declared DXN Lingzhi 3 in 120 All codes where 9 555274 505658 Coffee X 21g milk is not declared DXN EuCafe 20 X 21g All codes where 9 555274 506174 milk is not declared Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/roml89 DIGNITY HEALTH: Fails to Pay Overtime, Senior Collector Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that a senior collector hopes to represent a class of nonexempt employees whom Dignity Health allegedly failed to pay overtime or provide meal and rest periods. The case is Roland Brown v. Dignity Health in the Los Angeles Superior Court, Central District. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: "Bunn" Suit Over Lien Sale May Proceed ------------------------------------------------------------ District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan of the District of Columbia granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the case BENJAMIN COLEMAN, through his Conservator, ROBERT BUNN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Defendant, CIV. ACTION NO. 13-1456 (EGS) (D.D.C.) Robert Bunn filed a suit on behalf of Benjamin Coleman against the District of Columbia, challenging the District of Columbia's law that directed the sale of a lien on Coleman's home after he failed to pay a $133.88 property-tax bill. The law permitted the private purchaser of the lien to add $4,999 in interest, costs, and fees to Coleman's bill and, when Coleman could not pay, to institute a foreclosure proceeding. After the foreclosure proceeding, the private purchaser obtained title to Coleman's home. Coleman, however, received nothing, although the amount of equity he had in his home far surpassed the amount he admittedly owed in taxes, interest, costs, and related fees. Coleman claims that the taking of his excess equity -- the amount of equity minus the taxes and related costs he admits that he owed violated his constitutional rights under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Coleman asked the court to award him monetary damages and to issue a declaratory judgment. Coleman brought this case not only on his own behalf, but also as a representative of all district property owners who suffered a loss of excess equity due to the District's tax-sale law. The District attempted to dismiss the suit but the court rejected the same and the court permitted Coleman to amend his complaint to add a second named plaintiff in the name of the Estate of Jean Robinson. Coleman and Robinson's Estate now ask the court to certify the lawsuit as a class action, to permit them to represent all other District of Columbia property owners who similarly lost equity in excess of the amount of taxes and related fees they owed because of the tax-sale law. The District opposes the motion. Judge Sullivan granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification. A copy of Judge Sullivan's memorandum opinion dated April 13, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/JnKzYvfrom Leagle.com BENJAMIN COLEMAN, Plaintiff, represented by William A. Isaacson -- wisaacson@bsfllp.com -- at BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Defendant, represented by Andrew Carl Eberle, OFFICE FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA & Edward Paul Henneberry, Jr., OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR DC DIVORCE SOURCE: Facing Class Action Filed by Former Customer ------------------------------------------------------------ Legal Newsline reported that a Louisiana man is suing an online company that prepares legal documents, claiming the business isn't licensed to practice law in the state. Anthony Lowery filed the lawsuit on April 8 in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana against Divorce Source, Inc. alleging the company violated Louisiana state law by helping him prepare divorce documents online in August. The lawsuit claims Divorce Source advertises that it is a "money-saving alternative to lawyers." "It is unlawful for the defendant to charge or collect fees from its customers for the preparation of legal documents, and the defendant is legally obligated to refund to the plaintiff and the plaintiff class all fees charged and collected by the defendant," the lawsuit said. According to the suit, Lowery paid approximately $299 to Divorce Source to prepare a petition for divorce while he was in Louisiana. State laws stipulate that part of practicing law is drawing up papers related to the court proceedings, the suit says. In addition to himself, Lowery is seeking class action status for all those that used Divorce Source services to prepare legal documentation. The lawsuit seeks to recover legal fees paid by Lowery to the company for preparing the documents. The lawsuit is also seeking a refund of legal expenses incurred by the class members. Lowery is represented by William H. Beaumont of William H. Beaumont, T.A. in New Orleans and Roberto L. Costales of Costales Law Office in New Orleans. DOMINION ENTERPRISES: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Amy I. Patterson, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Dominion Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00372-DPJ-FKB (S.D. Miss., May 19, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Dominion Enterprises, Inc. owns and operates a marketing services company located at 128 Fox Run Drive, Jackson, Mississippi 39212. The Plaintiff is represented by: Louis H. Watson Jr., Esq. WATSON & NORRIS, PLLC 1880 Lakeland Drive, Suite G Jackson, MS 39216 Telephone: (601) 968-0000 Facsimile: (601) 968-0010 E-mail: louis@watsonnorris.com DR. COLORCHIP: Recalls Automotive Touch-Up Paints ------------------------------------------------- Starting date: May 13, 2015 Posting date: May 13, 2015 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Chemicals Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Labelling and Packaging Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-53329 This recall involves Dr. ColorChip Automotive Touch-Up Paint sold both separately and as part of 4 different repair kits. The touch- up paint was available in various colours and came in 1 oz. and 1.5 oz. clear bottles. The repair kits have the following SKUs: Product Name SKU ------------ --- Dr. ColorChip Squirt 'n Squeegee Paint Chip Repair Kit SNS Dr. ColorChip Road Rash Paint Chip Repair Kit RR Dr. ColorChip Standard Paint Chip Repair Kit S Dr. ColorChip Basic Paint Chip Repair Kit B Health Canada's auditing process has revealed that the product does not meet labelling requirements for consumer chemical products under the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act. The consumer product does not have proper hazard labelling required by the Consumer Chemicals and Containers Regulations, 2001 under the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act. The improper labelling could result in unintentional exposure to these products and lead to serious illness, injury or death. Neither Health Canada nor Dr. ColorChip has received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of this product. Approximately 3000 units of the recalled product were sold directly to consumers through online sales. The recalled product was sold in Canada between January 2007 and November 2014. Manufactured in the United States. Manufacturer: Dr. ColorChip Corporation Lake Park Florida UNITED STATES Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled product and dispose of it according to Municipal Hazardous Waste Guidelines. Consumers may contact the manufacturer by email or by telephone at 1-866-372-2548 for more information about the recall. 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/zpxyvu DUKE ENERGY: Class Suit Filed Over Unlawfully Paid Rebates ---------------------------------------------------------- The following statement is being issued by Markovits, Stock & DeMarco, LLC and Freking & Betz, LLC: To: All class members in either of two subclasses: (1) All business ratepayers who received retail electric generation service from Duke Energy Corp. and/or Cinergy Corp. or their subsidiaries/affiliates at any time between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2008, in the CG&E/Duke electric service territory and who did not receive rebates under the side agreements; or (2) all residential ratepayers who received retail electric generation service from Duke Energy Corp. and/or Cinergy Corp. or their subsidiaries/affiliates at any time between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2008, in the CG&E/Duke electric service territory and who did not receive rebates under the side agreements. DESCRIPTION OF THE LAWSUIT This notice is being published by order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division ("the Court") in Anthony Williams, et al. v. Duke Energy International, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:08-cv-00046. You may be a member of the class described above. The plaintiffs allege that from 2005 to 2008 the defendants unlawfully paid rebates through an affiliate to 24 large industrial or commercial customers pursuant to separate side agreements. The plaintiffs contend that Duke violated two federal statutes, the Robinson-Patman Act and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, and a state statute, Ohio's Pattern of Corrupt Activity Act. The plaintiffs also assert common-law claims for fraud and civil conspiracy. The defendants deny these allegations, assert that the agreements and the payments did not violate any law, and otherwise maintain that they did not engage in any wrongdoing. RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF CLASS MEMBERS If you are a class member and do not opt out, you will automatically become a class member in this lawsuit and will be bound by any judgment or other final disposition, whether favorable to the class or not. There is risk associated with any litigation and no guarantee that you will obtain any recovery. As a class member, you would be represented by the named plaintiffs and by the attorneys representing the class. You would not be charged for this representation. If the class succeeds in the lawsuit, you would, upon meeting any prerequisites set by the Court, share in the distribution of any money damages recovered in this lawsuit. If the class succeeds in the lawsuit, the attorneys representing the class will ask the Court to award them attorney's fees based on a reasonable percentage of the total benefits conferred on the class. You may enter an appearance through your own attorney by mailing a Notice of Appearance to the Clerk of the Court, 85 Marconi Blvd., Columbus, Ohio, 43215. You should retain all records and documents pertaining to this matter, including all billing statements. You should notify the attorneys representing the class of any change in your address or e-mail address, by sending an email to info@dukeclassaction.com. ELECTION BY CLASS MEMBER If you want to be excluded from this class, you must send a written notice of your intent to exclude yourself from the class, with your full name, social security number, current mailing address, phone number, e-mail address, and a statement that you wish to be excluded by mail postmarked no later than June 1, 2015 to: Williams v. Duke Energy, P.O. Box 10092, Dublin, OH, 43017- 6692. If you send that notice, you will not share in any recovery in this case, will not be bound by any judgment and will retain any claims you may have against the defendants, subject to applicable statutes of limitations. Please contact the attorneys for the class at 1-844-322-8220. DYNEGY INC: Trial to Begin July 27 in Duke Energy Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Dynegy Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 9, 2015, that trial has been set to begin on July 27, 2015, in a class action lawsuit against Duke Energy Ohio. In January 2008, four plaintiffs, including individual, industrial and nonprofit customers, filed a lawsuit against Duke Energy Ohio in federal court in the Southern District of Ohio. Plaintiffs alleged Duke Energy Ohio conspired with Duke Energy Retail to provide inequitable and unfair price advantages for certain large business consumers by entering into non-public option agreements in exchange for their withdrawal of challenges to Duke Energy Ohio's Rate Stabilization Plan implemented in early 2005. In March 2014, a federal judge certified this matter as a class action. The parties have agreed to mediation on March 31, 2015. Trial has been set to begin on July 27, 2015. It is not possible to predict whether the Business will incur any liability or to estimate the damages, if any, that may be incurred in connection with this matter. Ultimate resolution of this matter could have a material effect on the results of operations, cash flows or financial position of the Business. EDAP TMS: Dismissal of "Eaton" Class Action Sought -------------------------------------------------- Edap TMS S.A. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 2, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the defendants, including the Company, have filed a motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit filed by Mark Eaton. On August 4, 2014, Mark Eaton filed a purported class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, asserting that the Company, Marc Oczachowski, and Eric Soyer violated federal securities laws Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by issuing materially false and misleading statements about the Company's business operations and prospects particularly concerning the Company's Ablatherm-HIFU PMA file under review by the FDA that caused the price of Edap's American Depository Receipts to be artificially inflated during the period from February 1, 2013 to July 30, 2014. On August 6, 2014, Ronnie Haddad filed a second purported class action lawsuit, also in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, asserting similar claims. On October 24, 2014, the related cases were consolidated by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and a lead plaintiff and lead counsel were appointed. On December 22, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint that no longer included Mr. Soyer. The amended complaint alleges that Edap and Mr. Oczachowski breached their obligations under the Exchange Act in various ways, including by misrepresenting and failing to disclose allegedly material information about the safety and efficacy of treatment with Ablatherm-HIFU, and the Company's interactions with the FDA. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest, costs, and fees, including attorneys' and experts' fees. "On December 31, 2014, we accrued $250,000 (EUR206,000) as legal costs to be incurred by the Company in relation to this litigation," the Company said. "On February 20, 2015, the defendants, including the Company, filed a motion to dismiss the action. We cannot predict the outcome of this motion to dismiss. We believe we have valid defenses to this matter and intend to deny liability and defend our position vigorously. We have notified our insurance carriers of this litigation and no determination can be made at this stage as to the likely outcome of the ongoing procedures and whether it will be material to us. Therefore, no loss contingency beyond legal costs of $250,000 has been booked with regard to this matter." ELECTRO RENT: Recognized Other Income From $1.4MM Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------ Electro Rent Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 9, 2015, for the quarterly period ended February 28, 2015, that in the second quarter of fiscal 2015, the Company recognized other income from a $1.4 million settlement received as one of the plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit involving the purchase of certain computer products. FACTORS GROUP: Recalls Melatonin Tablets Due to Mislabelling ------------------------------------------------------------ Starting date: May 11, 2015 Posting date: May 19, 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-53437 Reason Depth of distribution Affected products Recalled Products Labelling error. Product label incorrectly states "Recommended dosage (adults only): At or before bedtime, allow to dissolve under the tongue 1-2 tablets once daily or as directed by the physician". The tablet is intended to be swallowed, as the correct recommended dosage is time released and not sublingual. Depth of distribution: Wholesalers, Retailers Melatonin Extra Strength 5 mg DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM NPN 80032969 Dosage form: Timed release, Tablets Strength: Melatonin 5 mg Lot or serial number: 717975 719046 719047 Recalling Firm: Factors Group of Nutritional Companies Inc. 1550 United Blvd. Coquitlam V3K 6Y7 British Columbia CANADA Marketing Authorization Holder: WN Pharmaceuticals Ltd 2000 Brigantine Drive Coquitlam V3K 7B5 British Columbia CANADA FAMILY DOLLAR: Settlement in "Hegab" Case Has Final Approval ------------------------------------------------------------ Family Dollar Stores, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 8, 2015, for the quarterly period ended February 28, 2015, that the Court has granted final approval of the settlement in the case Hegab v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc. Hegab v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on March 3, 2011. The plaintiff is seeking unpaid overtime for himself and allegedly similarly situated current and former Store Managers under New Jersey law. The matter was administratively dismissed without prejudice. At the time of dismissal, no class had been certified. On January 14, 2014, the parties preliminarily agreed to resolve the litigation on a claims-made basis. On June 6, 2014, the parties filed a Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of the settlement with the Court. The Court preliminarily approved the settlement on October 3, 2014. The Court granted final approval of the settlement on March 9, 2015, for an amount not material to the Consolidated Condensed Financial Statements. FAMILY DOLLAR: Awaits Decision on Appeal in "Itterly" Case ---------------------------------------------------------- Family Dollar Stores, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 8, 2015, for the quarterly period ended February 28, 2015, that the Company awaits the decision by the Third Circuit in an appeal in the case Itterly v. Family Dollar Stores of Pennsylvania, Inc. Itterly v. Family Dollar Stores of Pennsylvania, Inc., which was formerly pending in the NC Federal Court, was remanded back to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on February 8, 2012. The plaintiffs are seeking unpaid overtime for a class of current and former Pennsylvania Store Managers whom the plaintiffs claim are not properly classified as exempt from overtime pay under Pennsylvania law. Discovery closed in June 2012. In August 2013, the Company filed summary judgment requesting the Court rule that Itterly was properly classified as exempt from overtime. The District Court granted the Company's motion on January 30, 2014, and the case is now dismissed. On February 1, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Appellate briefing has been concluded. The Third Circuit had preliminarily scheduled oral argument on the appeal for January 22, 2015. Subsequently, the Third Circuit canceled the oral argument, indicating it would decide the appeal based on the pleadings. The Company awaits the decision by the Third Circuit. FAMILY DOLLAR: Awaits Ruling on Interlocutory Petition ------------------------------------------------------ Family Dollar Stores, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 8, 2015, for the quarterly period ended February 28, 2015, that the Company currently awaits ruling on its interlocutory petition for appellate relief from the remand decision in the case, Premo v. Family Dollar Stores of Massachusetts, Inc. Premo v. Family Dollar Stores of Massachusetts, Inc., was filed in Worcester County Superior Court in the State of Massachusetts for alleged violations of the Massachusetts overtime law on April 26, 2013. The plaintiffs are seeking unpaid overtime for a class of current and former Massachusetts Store Managers whom plaintiffs claim are not properly classified as exempt from overtime under Massachusetts law. The Company removed the case to federal district court in Massachusetts on May 28, 2013. The plaintiffs challenged the removal to federal court. On March 28, 2014, the court remanded the claim back to state court. On April 7, 2014, the Company filed an interlocutory petition for appellate relief from the remand decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. In the interim, the Company filed its answer to the lawsuit on May 13, 2014. The Company currently awaits the Court's ruling on its motion. FAMILY DOLLAR: Tendered Scott Case to Insurance Carrier ------------------------------------------------------- Family Dollar Stores, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 8, 2015, for the Company has tendered the case, Luanna Scott, et al. v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., to its Employment Practices Liability Insurance ("EPLI") carrier for coverage under its EPLI policy. On October 14, 2008, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court in Birmingham, Alabama captioned Scott, et al. v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., alleging discriminatory pay practices with respect to the Company's female Store Managers. This case was pled as a putative class action or collective action under applicable statutes on behalf of all Family Dollar female Store Managers. The plaintiffs seek recovery of back pay, compensatory and punitive money damages, recovery of attorneys' fees, and equitable relief. The case was transferred to the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina in November 2008. Presently, there are 48 named plaintiffs in the Scott case. On January 13, 2012, the trial court granted the Company's Motion to Strike the class allegations asserted in the complaint based in part upon the United States Supreme Court's ruling in Dukes v. Wal-Mart. The plaintiffs filed an appeal of the Court's dismissal of the class allegations to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. On October 16, 2013, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals partially reversed the trial court's ruling. While the Fourth Circuit agreed the original Complaint should not proceed as a class action, it remanded the case and instructed the trial court to allow the amendment of the complaint, and then consider, based upon the amended complaint, whether the case should proceed as a class action. On November 14, 2013, the Fourth Circuit denied further en banc review of the decision. On January 24, 2014, the Company filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court. On June 30, 2014, the United States Supreme Court denied further review of the Fourth Circuit's decision. The case is now back with the district court. On September 8, 2014, the district court entered a new Pretrial Order and Scheduling Plan and the parties will proceed with limited discovery pursuant to those Orders. The Company has tendered the matter to its Employment Practices Liability Insurance ("EPLI") carrier for coverage under its EPLI policy. At this time, the Company expects the EPLI carrier will participate in any resolution of the case. The Company has exceeded its insurance retention and expects any additional legal fees and settlements will be paid by the EPLI carrier. No reserve is appropriate due to the status of the case. FAMILY DOLLAR: Del. Chancery Court Denied Bid to Certify Appeal --------------------------------------------------------------- Family Dollar Stores, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 8, 2015, for the quarterly period ended February 28, 2015, that the Delaware Court of Chancery has denied plaintiffs' application to certify an appeal from the denial of preliminary injunctive relief to the Delaware Supreme Court. Three putative class action lawsuits have been filed against Family Dollar, its directors, Dollar Tree and Dime Merger Sub, Inc., (subsidiary of Dollar Tree established for Family Dollar to merge into upon consummation of merger) in the Delaware Court of Chancery: * Shiva Y. Stein v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 9985, filed on July 31, 2014, * Darrell Wickert v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10025, filed on August 11, 2014, and * Stuart Friedman v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10080, filed on September 3, 2014. On August 26, 2014, the Stein and Wickert actions were consolidated under the caption In re Family Dollar Stores, Inc. Stockholder, Litig., C.A. No. 9985-CB. On September 11, 2014, all three actions were consolidated under the caption In re Family Dollar Stores, Inc. Stockholder Litig., C.A. No. 9985-CB. Each of the three actions has been brought on behalf of a putative class of Family Dollar's stockholders, and each alleges, generally, that the members of the Family Dollar Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the pending Dollar Tree merger by, among other things, carrying out a process that the plaintiffs allege did not ensure adequate and fair consideration to Family Dollar's stockholders. The plaintiffs further allege that Family Dollar and Dollar Tree aided and abetted the individual defendants' breaches of their fiduciary duties. The plaintiffs seek equitable relief to enjoin consummation of the merger, rescission of the merger and/or rescissory damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. On August 28, 2014, the plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed motions for expedited proceedings and for a preliminary injunction enjoining the merger. On September 3, 2014, the plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed a motion for a temporary restraining order to require Family Dollar to terminate its rights agreement and to direct the Family Dollar Board of Directors to deem the terms of Dollar General's proposal sufficient to warrant entering into negotiations with Dollar General under the terms of the Dollar Tree merger agreement. At a hearing on September 10, 2014, the Delaware Court of Chancery concluded the temporary restraining order application did not merit scheduling a hearing to consider such relief, and declined to do so. A hearing on the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction was held on December 5, 2014, and on December 19, 2014, the Delaware Court of Chancery denied, in its entirety, the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunctive relief. On December 24, 2014, the plaintiffs filed an application in the Delaware Court of Chancery to certify an appeal from the denial of preliminary injunctive relief to the Delaware Supreme Court, which application the Delaware Court of Chancery denied on January 2, 2015. The Company believes these lawsuits are without merit and intends to vigorously defend the claims in these actions. Due to the preliminary status, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss that may result from these lawsuits. FAMILY DOLLAR: "Moore" Case in Discovery Stage ---------------------------------------------- Family Dollar Stores, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 8, 2015, for the quarterly period ended February 28, 2015, that the case Reginald Moore, et al. v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., is in the discovery stage of litigation. On August 13, 2014, the Company was served with a putative class action petition entitled Reginald Moore, et al. v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Missouri. Mr. Moore contends that he, and others similarly situated, received Short Message Service ("SMS") text message advertisements from the Company, without providing express written consent in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). Mr. Moore has requested the court enter an order certifying the action as a class action, and appointing him as representative of the class. Mr. Moore further seeks judgment in favor of himself, and the proposed class, for all damages available under the TCPA, including statutory damages of $500 - $1,500 per willful violation. The Case has been removed from the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Missouri, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division. The Company moved to bifurcate discovery, thus limiting initial discovery to the individual named plaintiff, Reginald Moore. After a hearing on the issue, the judge ruled in favor of the Company and issued an order limiting initial discovery to Mr. Moore's individual TCPA claim. The parties are moving forward with initial discovery related to Mr. Moore's TCPA claim only. The case against the Company is in the discovery stage of litigation and the Company is working to evaluate the allegations contained in the class action petition. Due to the preliminary status, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss that may result from this case. FAMILY FIRST: Faces "Burton" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Lysa Burton, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Family First Caregivers, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-00984 (N.D. Ohio, May 18, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Family First Caregivers, LLC is a company that provides personal and home care services to the greater Cleveland Area. The Plaintiff is represented by: David J. Horvath, Esq. Ste. 155, 7100 East Pleasant Valley Road Independence, OH 44131 Telephone: (216) 986-0860 Facsimile: (216) 986-0860 E-mail: djhorvath@hotmail.com FORD MOTOR: Recalls F150 Models Due to Crash Risk ------------------------------------------------- Starting date: May 12, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Light Truck & Van Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Steering Units affected: 3349 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015196TC ID number: 2015196 Manufacturer recall number: 15S17 On certain vehicles, the intermediate shaft may have been improperly riveted during manufacturing. An improperly riveted intermediate shaft could separate from the intermediate shaft flex coupling, which could result in a loss of steering control without warning, increasing the risk of a crash causing injury and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers will inspect the intermediate shaft, and replace if required. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- FORD F150 2015 FRANK SANTO: "Gati" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Nicole M. Gati and Alicia A. Angle v. Frank Santo, LLC d/b/a Santo Salon & Spa, Case No. 1:15-cv-00985 (N.D. Ohio, May 18, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. Frank Santo, LLC owns and operates a beauty salon and spa doing business within the State of Ohio. The Plaintiff is represented by: Stuart G. Torch, Esq. ELFVIN, BESSER, ROYER & TORCH 4070 Mayfield Road Cleveland, OH 44121 Telephone: (216) 382-2500 Facsimile: (216) 381-0250 E-mail: stuart.torch@elfvinbesser.com FRESENIUS MEDICAL: Recalls Sodium Bicarbonate Liquid Concentrate ---------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: May 14, 2015 Posting date: May 15, 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-53435 Potential Bacterial contamination. Fresenius Medical Care Canada expanded recall to include all lots manufactured in 2014. Depth of distribution: Hospitals, Homecare programs, Homecare patients Naturalyte Sodium Bicarbonate Liquid Concentrate DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM DIN 02230083 Dosage form: Liquid Strength: Sodium bicarbonate 81.25 g / L Lot or serial number: All lots manufactured in 2014 that begin with: 14DMLB 14EMLB 14HMLB 14JMLB 14KMLB 14LMLB 14NMLB 14PMLB 14SMLB Recalling Firm: Fresenius Medical Care Canada Inc. 45 Staples Avenue, Suite 110 Richmond Hill L4B 4W6 Ontario CANADA Marketing Authorization Holder: Fresenius Medical Care Canada Inc. 45 Staples Avenue, Suite 110 Richmond Hill L4B 4W6 Ontario CANADA FRIENDFINDER NETWORKS: Investigates Potential Data Breach --------------------------------------------------------- Brandon Bailey, writing for The Associated Press, reports that the operator of a popular adult dating website on May 22 said it's investigating a potential security breach, following reports that hackers stole names, email addresses and information about the sexual preferences of up to 4 million members. Britain's Channel 4 news outlet reported that hackers posted some of the information on an obscure website after stealing account data from the operator of AdultFriendFinder.com, which claims 64 million members worldwide use its service to "hook up, find sex or meet someone hot now." FriendFinder Networks, the Silicon Valley company that operates the service, said in a statement that it hired a prominent cyber- security firm to investigate and is telling members to update their user names and passwords. It said it is also temporarily blocking attempts to search for user profiles by "any users we believe were affected by the security issue." Tech blogger Bev Robb reported earlier that it was possible to identify some users and glean potentially embarrassing information based on apparently stolen data that was posted on a website frequented by other hackers. Without confirming any details about the apparent breach, FriendFinder Networks said it had no information that any users' financial information was leaked. But the statement, posted on its corporate website, added that, "until the investigation is completed, it will be difficult to confirm the full scope of the incident." FriendFinder Networks operates a number of online sites and dating services aimed at different audiences, including Amigos.com, BigChurch.com and SeniorFriendFinder.com, although there has been no indication that information has leaked from its other sites. The company also says it licenses the Penthouse brand and publishes magazines. "The security of our members' information remains our top priority," the company said. It has hired the Mandiant response division of cyber-security company FireEye, which has previously investigated a number of high-profile breaches in recent months. A FireEye spokesman confirmed the company investigating but declined further comment. FT MYERS LODGE: "Popoli" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Jaye Popoli, on her own behalf and all similarly situated individuals v. Ft. Myers Lodge #1899 Loyal Order of Moose, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-00311-JES-CM (M.D. Fla., May 18, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime pay, liquidated damages, post-judgment interest, and reasonable attorneys' fee and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. Ft. Myers Lodge #1899 Loyal Order of Moose, Inc. owns and operates restaurants, bars, and racetracks in Lee County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Ross Frisch, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, PA Suite 400, 600 N Pine Island Rd Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (954) 318-0268 Facsimile: (954) 333-3515 E-mail: afrisch@forthepeople.com GANNETT CO: Removed "Driggers" Class Suit to N.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Barbara J. Driggers, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Gannett Co., Inc., Gannett Satellite Info Network, Ithaca Journal, and Elmira Star-Gazette, Case No. 0206-3292593, was removed from the New York State Supreme Court, Tompkins County to the U.S. District Court Northern District of New York (Syracuse). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:15-cv-00604-GLS-ATB to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward E. Kopko, Esq. OFFICE OF EDWARD E. KOPKO 308 N. Tioga Street, 2nd Floor Ithaca, NY 14850 Telephone: (607) 269-1300 Facsimile: (607) 269-1301 E-mail: eek@kopkolaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Howard M. Wexler, Esq. SEYFARTH, SHAW LAW FIRM 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018-1405 Telephone: (212) 218-5500 Facsimile: (917) 344-1314 E-mail: hwexler@seyfarth.com GENERAL MOTORS: Sued Over Duramax Diesel Engine Fuel Efficiency --------------------------------------------------------------- Legal Newsline reported that a Michigan man and a California man are suing a major vehicle manufacturer over allegations the design of its trucks' engines are defective and the company didn't tell consumers prior to them purchasing the vehicles. Kenneth Dzieciolowski of Macomb, Mich., and Rene Anthony Acedo of Fullerton, Calif., filed the lawsuit on Jan. 14 in the Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles against General Motors Co. brand DMAX, Ltd. claiming the DMAX diesel engine design is defective causing a reduction in fuel efficiency. The defendant removed the lawsuit to U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on April 2. Isuzu is also a defendant in the lawsuit. The lawsuit said in 1998 GM and Isuzu created DMAX, Ltd. in order to increase GM's share of the heavy-duty truck market. The lawsuit said Duramax motors are solely supplied by DMAX for GM trucks. The lawsuit claims the motors generate soot and other solids that are filtered through a "diesel particulate filter (DPF)" exhaust system. However, the DPF is "relatively far downstream from the engine's exhaust manifold," the lawsuit said, which means the exhaust fumes might not be hot enough to clean out the DPF. If the truck is driven at slow speed for a longer period of time, a light will appear on the dashboard telling the driver to drive at a faster speed in order to heat up the exhaust and clean the DPF, the suit said. The lawsuit also claims GM attempted to solve the cooling issue through regeneration, which causes the engine speed to increase and heat up the gases. This, however, causes a reduction in fuel economy by 25 to 30 percent, the plaintiffs claim. Dzieciolowski said his vehicle has been out of service more than 35 days as a result of the regeneration problem. The plaintiffs claim they weren't told about the regeneration or the possible cooling problem prior to purchasing their vehicles. They are seeking class action status for those who purchased GM trucks with the Duramax diesel engines. They are also seeking an unspecified amount of damages plus court costs. The plaintiffs are represented by Christopher P. Ridout and Caleb Marker of Ridout Lyon + Ottoson, LLP in Long Beach, Calif.; Shafiel A. Karim of the Law Office of Shafiel A. Karim in Cerritos, Calif.; and Sandesh K. Viswanath of The Skv Firm, PLC of Southfield, Mich. GOOGLE INC: Rips Privacy Class Action Over Data Value Claim ----------------------------------------------------------- Joe Vam Acker, writing for Law360, reported that android users accusing Google Inc. of handing over their personal information to app developers without permission have attempted to shoehorn a new argument about the value of their data into the case to avoid dismissal, the company said in California federal court. After the plaintiffs told the court that Google's motion to dismiss the case ignored "the proverbial elephant in the room," namely the Ninth Circuit's ruling in Robertson v. Facebook Inc., Google responded that the plaintiffs should have raised that argument nearly a year ago. HERBES DES JARDINS: Recalls Omega 3 Capsules Due to Mislabelling ---------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: May 12, 2015 Posting date: May 19, 2015 Type of communication: Drug Recall Subcategory: Natural health products Hazard classification: Type III Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Product Safety Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals Identification number: RA-53441 Unauthorized product presenting a false NPN on the label. Depth of distribution: Retail Omega 3 Huile Poisson 1000 mg DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM No market authorization Dosage form: Capsule Strength: 1000 mg Lot or serial number: Unknown Recalling Firm: Herbes des jardins 378 Chemin des jardins Beaumont G0R 1C0 Quebec CANADA Marketing Authorization Holder: N/A HERBES DES JARDINS: Recalls Garcinia Cambogia Capsules ------------------------------------------------------ Starting date: May 12, 2015 Posting date: May 19, 2015 Type of communication: Drug Recall Subcategory: Natural health products Hazard classification: Type III Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Product Safety Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals Identification number: RA-53445 Unauthorized product presenting a false NPN on the label. Depth of distribution: Retail Garcinia Cambogia DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM No market authorization Dosage form: Capsule Strength: Garcinia Cambogia 500 mg Hydroxycitric acid 60% Lot or serial number: Unknown Recalling Firm: Herbes des jardins 378 Chemin des jardins Beaumont G0R 1C0 Quebec CANADA Marketing Authorization Holder: N/A HERBES DES JARDINS: Recalls Queue Cerise Capsules ------------------------------------------------- Starting date: May 12, 2015 Posting date: May 19, 2015 Type of communication: Drug Recall Subcategory: Natural health products Hazard classification: Type III Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Product Safety Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals Identification number: RA-53443 Unauthorized product presenting a false NPN on the label. Depth of distribution: Retail Queue cerise DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM No market authorization Dosage form: Capsule Strength: 450 mg Lot or serial number: Unknown Recalling Firm: Herbes des jardins 378 Chemin des jardins Beaumont G0R 1C0 Quebec CANADA Marketing Authorization Holder: N/A HIGH DESERT: $5 Million Settlement Reached in Mariposa Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Metcalf, writing for Albuquerque Journal, reported that a preliminary $5 million settlement has been reached in a class- action lawsuit pitting individual property owners in the master- planned Mariposa community in Rio Rancho against the project's original developer, High Desert Investment, and Albuquerque Academy. A key element of the preliminary settlement is that, more than likely, it will have to be approved by all property owners covered by the class action. If not unanimously approved, defendants High Desert and the academy have the option to withdraw from the settlement. "The case will go back to court to be litigated," said Richard Alvidrez of Miller Stratvert, the law firm representing High Desert. The lawsuit was filed in 2012 after High Desert, the for-profit arm of the nonprofit Albuquerque Academy, announced it was withdrawing as developer of High Desert, a mostly residential community that was still in its early stages when the housing bubble burst. The lawsuit was filed in response to the withdrawal, alleging breach of contract, unfair practices, negligence and violations of the state Constitution. The essence of the allegations is that affected owners lost money on their property investments due to the actions of High Desert and Albuquerque Academy. From 225 to 235 individuals and households who purchased their property on or before June 20, 2012, are covered by the class action, said plaintiffs' lawyer Christopher Bauman of Bauman, Dow & Le¢n PC. "We have to give the class members an opportunity to accept the settlement, reject portions or all of it, or opt out," he said. "We will send out notices directly to those class members we've identified. . . ." The preliminary settlement, which was reached through mediation, was approved by District Court Judge James L. Sanchez in Valencia County. Both Valencia and Sandoval County, where Mariposa is located, are in the state's 13th Judicial District. As outlined in the judge's order, unanimous approval of the settlement is important because, by signing off on the agreement, the property owners are basically giving up the right to sue High Desert and Albuquerque Academy on their own. A "final fairness hearing" on the preliminary settlement was set for May 27 at the county courthouse in Los Lunas. The active development portion of the original 6,500-acre Mariposa, about 800 acres sometimes called Mariposa East, was repossessed by lenders and sold last fall to current owner Scottsdale, Ariz.-based Harvard Investments. HOME LOAN SERVICING: 3 Class Action Lawsuits Filed in S.D.N.Y. -------------------------------------------------------------- Home Loan Servicing Solutions, Ltd. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 6, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that three putative class action lawsuits have been filed against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York entitled: (i) Oliveira v. Home Loan Servicing Solutions, Ltd., et al., No. 15-CV-652 (S.D.N.Y.), filed on January 29, 2015; (ii) Berglan v. Home Loan Servicing Solutions, Ltd., et al., No. 15-CV-947 (S.D.N.Y.), filed on February 9, 2015; and (iii) W. Palm Beach Police Pension Fund v. Home Loan Servicing Solutions, Ltd., et al., No. 15-CV-1063 (S.D.N.Y.), filed on February 13, 2015. These three lawsuits are collectively referred to as the "New York Actions." The Company said, "The New York Actions name as defendants HLSS, former HLSS Chairman William C. Erbey, HLSS Director, President, and Chief Executive Officer John P. Van Vlack, and HLSS Chief Financial Officer James E. Lauter. The New York Actions assert causes of action under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on certain public disclosures made by the Company relating to our relationship with Ocwen. These actions allege that HLSS misled investors by failing to disclose, among other things, the extent of HLSS's dependence on Ocwen, information regarding governmental investigations of Ocwen's business practices, and the Company's own purportedly inadequate internal controls. The Company intends to vigorously defend the New York Actions." HSBC: To Pay $1.8-Mil. to End Force Placed Kickback Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------- Trey Garrison, writing for Housing Wire, reported that HSBC and Assurant Inc. agreed to pay $1.8 million to put an end to a class action lawsuit that alleged the bank took kickbacks for steering some 11,000 consumers into inflated flood insurance contracts. The arrangement, which needs a Colorado federal court's approval, would put an end to a lawsuit that alleges that HSBC intentionally herded consumers to unnecessary and onerous coverage levels when force placing homeowners whose coverage had lapsed into flood- insurance policies. In turn, the lawsuit alleges, HSBC would receive from Assurant's American Security Insurance a substantial kickback. The deal, if approved, would bar HSBC from ordering insurance for customers at a higher level than necessary when their policy lapsed. It would return about 90% of HSBC's commissions to the customers. "The proposed settlement returns approximately 90% of the commissions that were paid to the HSBC defendants in connection with [lender-placed flood insurance] placed during the class period, provides an excellent recovery for settlement class members, and is plainly adequate under the governing standards for evaluating class action settlements in this circuit," the plaintiffs wrote in their motion for approval. This is not the first time American Security Insurance or Assurant have gotten in trouble over force placed insurance practices. In 2012 American Security Insurance reached an agreement with the California Department of Insurance to reduce premiums charged on lender placed insurance by 30.5%. In 2013, New York state regulators and Assurant reached a settlement over force place insurance policies. The insurer agreed to pay a $14 million civil penalty, while giving refunds to some borrowers. Force placed, or lender placed, insurance is a controversial subject. It pulls big players such as Bank of America into big fights. Force place policies are typically taken out by banks or other lenders on homes where the owner does not have sufficient or any coverage. While it is a necessary function in many instances, the charge for the service often draws ire. Other servicers have run afoul of regulators and analysts for questionable force placed practices. Last year the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau published a five-point checklist for servicers on how to deal with force placing insurance. Both defendants and plaintiffs said in January that they were close to reaching an agreement that would settle the case in Colorado, as well as another class action in New York, according to legal coverage of the case. The homeowners who brought the Colorado lawsuit alleged that HSBC chose levels of insurance coverage that were costlier and more comprehensive that required when homeowners' policies lapsed. In the New York lawsuit, plaintiffs allege that HSBC imposed force placed insurance policies with loss limits exceeding the outstanding mortgage balance. IDREAMSKY TECHNOLOGY: Morgan & Morgan Files Securities Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Morgan & Morgan announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased the American Depository Shares ("ADSs") of iDreamSky Technology Limited ("iDreamSky" or the "Company") between August 8, 2014 and March 13, 2015, inclusive, including those investors who acquired iDreamSky ADSs pursuant or traceable to its initial public offering ("IPO") commenced on or about August 7, 2014 (collectively, the "Class Period") alleging violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and certain of its officers (the "Complaint"). If you purchased iDreamSky during the Class Period, you may, no later than June 1, 2015, request that the Court appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed class. A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of all class members in directing the litigation. Any member of the purported class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. If you want more information about the iDreamSky Class Action, contact Morgan & Morgan at 1(800) 732-5200 or email info@morgansecuritieslaw.com iDreamSky licenses and operates single player mobile games and mobile online games in the People's Republic of China. The Complaint alleges that iDreamSky made materially false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts about its business, operations, prospects, and performance. Specifically, the complaint alleges that iDreamSky failed to disclose that the company had overstated its ability to monetize its user base and effectively integrate its distribution channels. On March 13, 2015, after the market closed, iDreamSky lowered its revenue guidance for fourth quarter 2014 approximately by $9.9 million USD to approximately $53 million USD. According to the company, the revision of fourth quarter guidance is the result of the delay of a popular game, launched on one of the company's distribution platforms, and lower than anticipated revenues from another game being launched simultaneously as other hit games on the same distribution platform. Following this news, American Depositary Shares of iDreamSky fell $3.60, or over 33%, to close at $7.22 per share. About Morgan & Morgan Morgan & Morgan is one of the nation's largest 200 law firms. In addition to shareholder rights, the firm also practices in the areas of antitrust, personal injury, consumer protection, overtime, and product liability. All of the Firm's legal endeavors are rooted in its core mission: provide investor and consumer protection and always fight "for the people." IKEA CANADA: Recalls PATRULL Safety Gates Due to Tripping Hazard ---------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: May 12, 2015 Posting date: May 12, 2015 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Children's Products Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Fall Hazard Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-53309 This recall involves the PATRULL KLAMMA and the PATRULL SMIDIG metal safety gates with a date stamp 1510 (YYWW- Year & Week) or earlier. They are white, pressure mounted adjustable safety gates made of steel and plastic, and designed to be installed between the two sides of the door frame to hold the gate in place. A permanent label is attached to the metal bar at the bottom of the safety gate containing the article number and date stamp. The following safety gates are recalled: Model Overall Colour Article Number ----- Dimensions ------- -------------- ---------- PATRULL SMIDIG N safety 72.5-86.0 cm white 50191950 gate PATRULL SMIDIG N safety 72.5-87.5 cm white 50037567 gate PATRULL SMIDIG safety 70-85 cm white 65551710 gate PATRULL SMIDIG N safety 72.5-87.5 cm white 70098965 gate PATRULL SMIDIG safety 72.5-86.0 cm white 90113601 gate PATRULL SMIDIG N safety 6.5-13.5 cm white 10037060 extension gate PATRULL SMIDIG safety 6.5-13.5 cm white 30191951 extension gate PATRULL SMIDIG safety 15 cm white 45548610 extension gate PATRULL SMIDIG N safety 6.5-13.5 cm white 50098966 extension gate PATRULL SMIDIG safety 30 cm white 85569610 extension gate PATRULL KLAMMA safety 73-87 cm white 30226521 gate PATRULL KLAMMA safety 6.5-13 cm white 90226523 extension gate The friction between the wall and the pressure-mounted safety gate is insufficient to hold the gate in its intended position, posing a fall hazard. The safety gate is not intended to be used at the top of stairs. In addition, the lower metal bar can be a tripping hazard. IKEA has received 18 incidents worldwide, including 4 in Canada, with serious injuries reported for Sweden, Norway and Denmark. Approximately 17,035 of the PATRULL KLAMMA and PATRULL SMIDIG safety gates were sold in Canada and approximately 58,000 were sold in the United States. The recalled safety gates were sold in Canada and in the United States from August 1995 to February 2015. Manufactured in Denmark. Distributor: IKEA Canada Limited Partnership Burlington Ontario CANADA Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/1blVy1 ILLINOIS HIGH SCHOOL: Says Concussions Suit 'Threatens' Football ---------------------------------------------------------------- PJStar.com reported that the U.S.'s first prep sports governing body to face a class-action concussions lawsuit has asked an Illinois judge to dismiss the suit, arguing that if it prevails, it could kill football programs statewide. In its 16-page motion filed in Cook County Circuit Court, the Illinois High School Association says it and its 800 member schools have been proactive about improving head-injury management for the 50,000 football players they oversee each year. The motion calls the suit "a misguided effort that threatens high school football." The filing is the first full response to the lawsuit -- filed in November and slightly amended in January -- that seeks court supervision over how high schools manage head injuries. The IHSA filed the response and provided a copy to The Associated Press. The filing echoes IHSA Director Marty Hickman's previous comments that court-imposed mandates could make football prohibitively expensive for poorer schools, especially Chicago's public high schools, and lead to "haves and have nots" in the sport. Plaintiff attorney Joseph Siprut has said improving safety should help football survive, not lead to its demise. He said football is already in jeopardy because parents fearful of concussions are refusing to let their kids play. That's not the case at Metamora, where Pat Ryan has been coach for 25 seasons. He was on the IHSA's football advisory committee that helped implement the current concussion protocol. "We've got 140 kids signed up to play in the fall, which is the most we've ever had, and I think the people of Woodford County are as informed as anyone else on the subject," Ryan said. "We've made a lot of positive changes. I think the lawsuit is mostly a money grab for the attorneys." College and professional football have faced a barrage of class- action lawsuits in recent years. But the one that names the IHSA as defendant is the first of its kind against a high school football governing body. The IHSA's new filing says it can't be compared to the cash-rich NCAA and NFL. The IHSA has $10 million in yearly revenue to pay for more than 40 sports and activities, and court-imposed mandates could be financially crippling, it argues. The suit doesn't ask for monetary damages. In addition to court oversight, however, it seeks requirements that medical personnel be at all games and practices. It also calls for the IHSA to pay for medical testing of former high school players extending back to 2002. Notre Dame's Joe Walters has coached football in Illinois and Texas. "One of the things they want to do is put sensors that measure impact in all the helmets, and I can see how that would be a financial burden to some schools, and I don't think it's necessary when you consider the procedures now in place," Walters said. The lead plaintiff, named in the amended suit, is Alex Pierscionek, a South Elgin High School lineman from 2010 to 2014. He says he still suffers memory loss from concussions he received at the suburban Chicago school, one of which led to him being airlifted to an area hospital. J-W WIRELINE: Faces "Webber" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Ronald Webber, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. J-W Wireline Company, J-W Admin Company, J-W Energy Company and FTS International, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-02084-ALM- NMK (S.D. Ohio, May 19, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for the hours worked over 40 each workweek. J-W Wireline Company is a wireline and perforating company providing oil and gas services throughout the United States. J-W Admin Company is a wholly owned subsidiary of J-W Energy, which provides payroll services to J-W Energy employees. J-W Energy Company is an oil and gas energy development and services company that operates throughout the United States. FTS International, Inc. is a well completion and hydraulic fracturing services company that operates internationally. The Plaintiff is represented by: Sonia M. Whitehouse, Esq. Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq. THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM 614 W. Superior Ave Rockefeller Building 920 Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 696-5000 Facsimile: (216) 696-7005 E-mail: sonia@lazzarolawfirm.com anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com JAYCO: Recalls 446 Travel Trailers Over Defective Part ------------------------------------------------------ Starting date: May 13, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Travel Trailer Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Accessories Units affected: 446 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015200TC ID number: 2015200 On certain fifth wheel and travel trailers, the HSM Quad Steps rivets that hold the steps together could loosen and fail. If the rivets were to fail, the steps could collapse which could cause a person to fall, resulting in injury. Correction: Dealers will inspect and replace the rivets with stronger bolts. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- JAYCO PINNACLE FIFTH WHEEL TRAILER 2013, 2014 JAYCO EAGLE PREMIER FIFTH WHEEL 2013, 2014 TRAILER JAYCO SEISMIC FIFTH WHEEL TRAILER 2013, 2014 JEFFREY A. STEINER: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Megan Petterson v. Jeffrey A. Steiner, MD, P.A., d/b/a Gastrointestinal Diagnostic Centers and Dr. Jeffrey A. Steiner, M.D, Case No. 0:15-cv-61049-WPD (S.D. Fla., May 19, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a Florida corporation that provides gastroenterology diagnostic treatment. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Anthony Pancier, Esq. MICHAEL A. PANCIER, P.A. 9000 Sheridan Street, Suite 93 Pembroke Pines, FL 33024 Telephone: (954) 862-2217 Facsimile: (954) 862-2287 E-mail: mpancier@pancierlaw.com LANDAU & ASSOCIATES: "McLeod" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT ------------------------------------------------------------- Alicia McLeod, and other similarly situated individuals v. Landau & Associates, P.A. and Todd Landau, Case No. 0:15-cv-61043-JIC (S.D. Fla., May 18, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a law firm in Broward County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ruben Martin Saenz, Esq. SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC 20900 N.E. 30th Avenue, Suite 800 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 503-5131 Facsimile: (888) 270-5549 E-mail: msaenz@saenzanderson.com LEAM DRILLING: S.D. Tex. Grants Certification in "McPherson" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Melinda Harmon of Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, granted defendants' motion in the case BRENT McPHERSON, et al, Plaintiffs, v. LEAM DRILLING SYSTEMS, LLC, et al, Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:14-CV-02361 (S.D. Tex.) Plaintiff Brent McPherson was employed by LEAM Drilling Systems, LLC and REME, LLC during the past 3 years. McPherson alleges MWD/LWD Field Operators ("MWDs") employed by defendants regularly work more than 80 hours in a week but do not receive overtime. Plaintiff pursued an action against the defendants for unpaid overtime based on alleged misclassification of nonexempt employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. He seeks to represent a class consisting of "All MWD/LWD Field Operators employed by LEAM DRILLING SYSTEMS, LLC and REME, LLC during the past 3 years." Defendants admitted that they did not pay MWDs overtime because the MWDs were properly classified as exempt from the overtime requirements of the FLSA. Nonetheless, defendants have since reclassified the MWDs as entitled to overtime. Defendants filed a motion for conditional certification. Judge Harmon granted defendants' motion for conditional certification and within 10 days from the entry of order, defendants shall disclose to plaintiff the names, last known addresses, email addresses if available, and telephone numbers of all current and former drillers and operators employed by LEAM Drilling Systems, LLC and REME, LLC within the last three years from the date of the order. A copy of Judge Harmon's opinion and order dated March 30, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/OZNpxkfrom Leagle.com. Plaintiffs, represented by: Michael A Josephson, Esq. Andrew Dunlap, Esq. Lindsay Rae Itkin, Esq. FIBICH, HAMPTON, LEEBRON, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON, LLP 1150 Bissonnet Street Houston, TX 77005 Telephone: 888-713-5452 - and - Richard J Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza #1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: 713-877-8788 - and - David Tarrant Bright, Esq. SICO, WHITE, HOELSCHER, HARRIS & BRAUGH, LLP 802 N Carancahua St #900 Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: 361-653-3300 LEAM Drilling Systems, LLC, Defendant, represented by Stefanie R Moll -- smoll@morganlewis.com -- Ronald E Manthey -- ron.manthey@morganlewis.com -- Thomas Cullen Wallace -- twallace@morganlewis.com -- at Morgan Lewis and Bockus LLP REME, LLC, Defendant, represented by Stefanie R Moll -- smoll@morganlewis.com -- at Morgan Lewis and Bockus LLP LFC MANAGEMENT: Faces "Mendoza" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- Juan Mendoza, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(B) v. LFC Management Services, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-01729-L (N.D. Tex., May 19, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly. LFC Management Services, Inc. owns and operates a management services company in Dallas County, Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas J. Urquidez, Esq. URQUIDEZ LAW FIRM, LLC 5440 Harvest Hill Rd., Suite 145E Dallas, TX 75230 Telephone: (214) 420-3366 Facsimile: (214) 206-9802 E-mail: tom@tru-legal.com LIFE PARTNERS: Life Settlements Are Securities, Texas Court Rules ----------------------------------------------------------------- David Lee, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that the Texas Supreme Court bolstered lawsuits by the state and a group of investors against Life Partners by ruling life settlements are securities subject to the Texas Securities Act and not mere life insurance contracts. The unanimous ruling May 8 two appeals court rulings that fractional interests in life insurance policies are investment contracts. A panel with the 3rd District Court of Appeals in Austin in 2014 affirmed an earlier ruling by the 5th District Court of Appeals in Dallas that the life settlements do not qualify for an exception for insurance policies. A putative class of investors sued the company in Dallas County Court in 2011 for securities fraud, while Texas filed a separate lawsuit in Travis County Court. Writing for the Texas Supreme Court, Justice Jeffrey S. Boyd adopted the U.S. Supreme Court's definition of an investment contract, which requires a person to expect profits "solely from the efforts" of a promoter or third party. "We hold that the agreements at issue are investment contracts because they constitute transactions through which a person pays money to participate in a common enterprise with the expectation of receiving profits, under circumstances in which the failure or success of the enterprise and the person's realization of the expected profits is at least predominately due to the entrepreneurial or managerial efforts of others," the 40-page opinion stated. Life Partners argued their agreements are not securities because the failure or success of the investment does not rely on the company's efforts. The high court disagreed, stating an investor's realization of expected profits "is at least predominately due to the entrepreneurial or managerial, rather than merely ministerial or clerical, efforts of others." The opinion noted Life Partners identifies insureds to buy policies from by predicting their remaining lifespan; the life settlement purchaser only fails to profit if the insured dies beyond Life Partners' prediction. Boyd was not persuaded by Life Partners' argument that the TSA's protections are unnecessary when the "entrepreneurial or managerial efforts" happen before the transaction and their value is included in the purchase price. "We reject the argument that only post-purchase conduct should determine whether these pre-purchase protections apply," the opinion stated. "We agree that the Act's disclosure requirements provide protection if the purchaser relies predominately on the entrepreneurial or managerial efforts of others to receive the anticipated profit, rather than on market forces or on the purchaser's own efforts, even if those efforts occur before the sale." Based in Waco, Life Partners said it engaged in 162,000 transactions in connection with the purchase of 6,500 policies worth $3.2 billion in face value. It did not immediately respond to a request for comment May 12. Its parent company, Life Partners Holdings, filed for bankruptcy protection in January after the SEC was awarded $46 million from the company. The agency sued in Austin Federal Court in January 2012, claiming certain officers made $11.8 million by selling their stock at prices inflated by the company's systematic underestimation of life expectancy "to generate revenues." A federal jury cleared the company and its officers on fraud and insider trading allegations in February 2014, but concluded it had misstated its books, records and revenue recognition policy. Texas State Securities Board spokesman Robert Elder said May 8 the board was "pleased" with the court's ruling that "clarifies and affirms the scope" of the TSA. The cases are: (1) Life Partners, Inc. and Milkie/Ferguson Investment, Inc., Petitioners v. Michael Arnold, Janet Arnold, Steve South as Trustee and on Behalf of the South Living Trust, John S. Ferris, M.D., Christine Duncan, and all others similarly situated, Respondents, Case No. 14-0122, in the Supreme Court of Texas. The case was on petition for review from the Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas; and (2) Life Partners Holdings, Inc., Life Partners, Inc., Brian. D. Pardo, R. Scott Peden, Advance Trust & Life Escrow Services, L.T.A., and Purchase Escrow Services, LLC, Petitioners v. State of Texas, Respondent, Case No. 14-0226, in the Supreme Court of Texas. The case was on petition for review from the Court of Appeals for the Third District of Texas. LOS ANGELES, CA: Sued for Not Keeping Appraisal Confidential ------------------------------------------------------------ Courthouse News Service reports that Los Angeles County's assessor fails to keep appraisal information confidential, in violation of state law, a class action claims in Superior Court. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Roth" Suit in La. Over Toxic Flooring ---------------------------------------------------------------- Joseph Roth, Dionne Vanardo, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-01692 (E.D. La., May 19, 2015), alleges that the Defendants manufactured, labeled and sold Chinese Flooring that fails to comply with relevant and applicable formaldehyde standards. The Chinese Flooring emits and off-gasses excessive levels of formaldehyde, which is categorized as a known human carcinogen by the United States National Toxicology Program and the International Agency for Research on Cancer. Lumber Liquidators, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 3000 John Deere Road, Toano, Virginia 23168, which is a retailer of hardwood flooring. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jim S. Hall, Esq. Joseph W. Rausch, Esq. JIM S. HALL & ASSOCIATES, LLC 800 N. Causeway Blvd., #100 Metairie, LO 70001 Telephone: (504) 832-3000 Facsimile: (504) 832-1799 E-mail: jim@jimshall.com joe@jimshall.com LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: CEO Quits Amid Laminate Flooring Probe ---------------------------------------------------------- Michelle Chapman, writing for The Associated Press, reports that Lumber Liquidators CEO Robert Lynch has quit the company that is embroiled in an investigation over products imported from China. The company said Lynch resigned "unexpectedly" and declined to provide more details on the resignation when asked by The Associated Press. The company said that it had suspended the sale of all laminate flooring made in China after disclosing that the Justice Department is seeking criminal charges against it. At the time Lumber Liquidators said that it decided to suspend the sales while a board committee completes a review of its sourcing compliance program. The CBS news show "60 Minutes" first reported in March that the Chinese-made laminate flooring contained high levels of the carcinogen formaldehyde. Lumber Liquidators has sent thousands of free air testing kits to customers since early March. It has said that more than 97 percent of the kits from customers with laminate flooring from China showed formaldehyde air concentrations that fell within World Health Organization guidelines. The company has said that it has stopped buying Chinese laminate flooring for now, opting instead for products from parts of Europe and North America. Mr. Lynch, who also served as president and a director, was in the CEO position since January 2012, according to CapitalIQ. Lumber Liquidators Holdings Inc. said that its founder, Thomas Sullivan, will take over as acting CEO while the Toano, Virginia-based company searches for a replacement. The company also announced that lead independent director John Presley was named nonexecutive chairman. MALLINCKRODT PLC: Dec. 1 Jury Trial Set in Securities Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Mallinckrodt public limited company said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 3, 2015, that the Court set a jury trial for December 1, 2015, in the putative class action securities litigation. On September 26, 2012, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against Questcor and certain of its officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, captioned John K. Norton v. Questcor Pharmaceuticals, et al., No. SACvl2-1623 DMG (FMOx). The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of shareholders who purchased Questcor common stock between April 26, 2011 and September 21,2012. The complaint generally alleges that Questcor and certain of its officers and directors engaged in various acts to artificially inflate the price of Questcor stock and enable insiders to profit through stock sales. The complaint asserts that Questcor and certain of its officers and directors violated sections l0(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, ("the Exchange Act"), by making allegedly false and/or misleading statements concerning the clinical evidence to support the use of Acthar for indications other than infantile spasms, the promotion of the sale and use of Acthar in the treatment of MS and nephrotic syndrome, reimbursement for Acthar from third-party insurers, and Questcor's outlook and potential market growth for Acthar. The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount and equitable relief against the defendants. This lawsuit has been consolidated with four subsequently-filed actions asserting similar claims under the caption: In re Questcor Securities Litigation, No. CV 12-01623 DMG (FMOx). On October 1, 2013, the District Court granted in part and denied in part Questcor's motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. On October 29, 2013, Questcor filed an answer to the consolidated amended complaint. Discovery is currently ongoing. The Court set a jury trial for December 1, 2015. MASTER TOYS: Recalls JA-RU's Dino World Dino Ooze Products ---------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: May 14, 2015 Posting date: May 14, 2015 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Children's Products, Toys Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Chemical Hazard Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-53335 This recall involves a toy called JA-RU's Dino World Dino Ooze. JA-RU's Dino World Dino Ooze is a solvent mixture which comes in a variety of colours and within the ooze is a plastic dinosaur fossil. Children can stretch the ooze with their hands. They can also insert the blow tube provided into the ooze and blow, causing the ooze to inflate like a balloon. The toy has the Item Number: 1735 and UPC code: 075656017351. Testing by Health Canada has determined that this product contains organic solvents. Children's balloon blowing kits that contain organic solvents are prohibited in Canada. The safety concern is that blowing the balloons exposes a child to inhaling the vapours present in the solvents. Children can be fascinated with these products, and if they blow balloons for extended periods they may experience early symptoms of central nervous system depression or dysfunction, including euphoria, hallucinations, dizziness, and difficulties with coordination of voluntary movements. Prolonged exposure can lead to more serious symptoms including muscular twitching, unconsciousness, and coma. Health Canada, retailer Carlton Cards, and distributor Master Toys have not received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of this particular balloon blowing kit. For some tips to help consumers choose safe toys and to help them keep children safe when they play with toys, see the General Toy Safety Tips. Approximately 471 of the JA-RU's Dino World Dino Ooze balloon blowing kits were sold at Carlton Card locations across Canada. The recalled products were sold from October 28, 2014 to March 30, 2015. Manufactured in China. Manufacturer: JA-RU Inc. Jacksonville Florida UNITED STATES Distributor: Master Toys Inc. Vernon California UNITED STATES Consumers should immediately take all solvent products that may be inflated into a balloon, no matter where purchased, away from children. Consumers may return JA-RU's Dino World Dino Ooze to local Carlton Cards stores for a full refund, or if the consumer prefers, dispose of the product in regular household trash in such a way that the toy cannot be reused. For more information, consumers may contact retailer Carlton Cards by telephone at 1-800-333-6724. Retailers may contact distributor Master Toys by telephone at 1-323-582-8881. 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/agsUCP MCDIVA INC: Faces "Juarez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------ Carolina Juarez, on behalf of herself, and all other plaintiffs similarly situated, known and unknown v. McDiva, Inc., a/k/a Oviedo Too, Inc., d/b/a McDonalds, Virginia Ojeda, and Michael Ojeda, Case No. 1:15-cv-04392 (N.D. Ill., May 19, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a franchise of a worldwide fast food restaurant in Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Meghan A. Vanleuwen, Esq. John William Billhorn, Esq. BILLHORN LAW FIRM 53 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 840 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 853-1450 E-mail: mvanleuwen@billhornlaw.com jbillhorn@billhornlaw.com MICHIGAN: Inmates Give Testimony in Prison Rape Suit ---------------------------------------------------- Ted Roelofs, writing for Bridge Magazine, reported that one said he was raped in a shower. Another said he was tied down by a bunkmate and sodomized. Still others said they were forced into oral sex, or had their genitals squeezed by prison guards, male and female. They were inmates thrown into Michigan prisons at 17 or even younger, a practice with predictable risks. Once inside, they said they were sexually taunted by adult prisoners and guards and raped by men far older and more powerful than themselves. One noted that when his cellmate was done with him, he was handed over to other prisoners for a bag of beef sticks and chips. When the teenagers reported attacks, they said prison guards laughed at their torment, or did nothing. Bridge has obtained exclusive access to testimony from all seven teenage inmates originally named in a lawsuit against the Michigan Department of Corrections. Their testimony, outlined in raw video depositions, chronicles dozens of assaults across 10 Michigan prisons, nearly a decade after state prison officials vowed to protect young inmates from sexual assault. The allegations, if true, raise serious questions about the competence of state corrections officials under multiple Michigan governors. They also raise the prospect of another large payout by a state that, just six years ago, agreed to pay $100 million to settle a case involving the sexual assault of female inmates by prison guards. The accounts are notable for their grim consistency. The similarity of the testimony -- given at different times, in different places, by teens who did not know one another -- raise a profound challenge to the state's defense that the rapes were invented. That defense may be further strained by 200 additional young inmates cited in the class-action suit, who say they were harmed, sexually or otherwise, by the state's policy (since halted) of housing 17 year olds with adult prisoners. Inaction by guards In the depositions reviewed by Bridge, along with interviews with some of the inmates, the teens portray Michigan prisons as a hothouse of sexual predation and menace literally from the moment they entered. Far from protecting their young charges, corrections officers were indifferent to teens' complaints or simply amused by the danger they faced. As the teenager known as John Doe 1 described it, he was sure guards knew about the stream of predators entering his cell "because they would make a joke about me getting visitors and call me fag." Cells weren't the only danger zone. The teens told of rapes in showers, bathrooms, laundry rooms and broom closets. One said he had to request extra underwear because of rectal bleeding. Another recounted a desperate struggle at Earnest C. Brooks Correctional Facility near Muskegon to keep from being turned on his stomach as a 6-foot-4, 230-pound prisoner in his 40s raped him from behind. He was 5-foot-8 and 148 pounds. "He was older than me, bigger than me, and he could fight way better than me. He got the better hand in the fight," the inmate testified. Afterward, he said, a guard remarked to him, "I heard you got f----d." Another teen said he told prison officials he was raped by two men. He put his safety further at risk by identifying the perpetrators. He said he never heard back. The plaintiffs say correction officers did more than tolerate the sexual taunts directed at the teens by older prisoners -- a practice known as "slipping." Several inmates recounted how male and female guards added their own layer of abuse by squeezing the inmates' genitals, often to the amusement of other guards or prisoners. When one plaintiff complained after being groped by guards, he said a guard "threatened to Tase me and take me to the hole" (an isolation cell) if he took it further. The Michigan Attorney General's Office, which is defending the lawsuit, and the Michigan Department of Corrections say they have found no evidence that any of the reported sexual assaults took place. Andrea Bitely, press secretary for Attorney General Bill Schuette, told Bridge the office does not comment on ongoing cases. Corrections spokesman Chris Gautz said the department is "confident the assertions made in the lawsuit are false," but declined further comment. In court, the state has raised questions about the credibility of the plaintiffs, and in one instance derided the suggestion that the teenagers sent to Michigan prisons are young innocents. "I know for emotional grab it's important to say things like 'children' and 'little kids' and stuff like that," an attorney for Schuette's office said at a hearing last year. "If you look at their records, these are people who have been convicted of first- degree murder, multiple armed robberies, sexual assaults, tortures, carjackings, kidnapping; these are not minor events." Debate over what was known The sexual assaults took place between 2010 and 2013, the suit said. Through most of that period, Michigan routinely integrated 17-year-olds into the general prison population. The state did not complete its effort to segregate inmates 17 and younger until August 2013, one year after federal guidelines called for juveniles to be separated by "sight and sound" from adults. States that don't follow that standard can lose 5 percent of their funding for prisons. Deborah LaBelle, a lawyer for the teens, contends that in the year it took the state to separate juveniles from adults, adult prisoners committed an additional 40 assaults. Today, the youngest Michigan prison inmates are now in a wing of the Thumb Correctional Facility east of Flint. Michigan prison spokesman Gautz said the department began providing sexual assault prevention educational material to all incoming prisoners as early as 2007. Indeed, signs through the prison system proclaim in black in white that Michigan has "zero tolerance" for harassment or abuse of prisoners by either staff or prisoners, as does official prison policy. But Brenda Smith, a law professor at the Washington College of Law at American University in Washington D.C. and former member of federal Prison Rape Elimination Commission, said it takes more than words and documents to effect change. Given the lawsuit's assertion that guards often turned a blind eye to complaints or signs of abuse, Smith questioned how seriously Michigan prison officials have taken this issue. "Actions speak louder than words," said Smith, who directs the school's Project on Addressing Prison Rape. But while the lawsuit portrays an out-of-control prison environment, Patricia Caruso, who was director of the Michigan prison system from 2003 to 2011, said that image does not mesh with her recollection of how the prison system operated. "I am never going to say those things don't happen, but they are not the norm," Caruso said. "I do know that people don't always tell the truth, people on both sides of the law." Caruso declined to comment of the specifics of the class-action lawsuit. But she said it does not make sense for prison staff to tolerate a chaotic environment rife with abuse. "Staff benefits from a safely run system. It doesn't make sense to behave that way, it just doesn't." At the same time, she added, "When I was a director, I said that juveniles don't belong in the (adult) system, and they don't." She won't get much argument on that point from one University of Michigan law professor. Margo Schlanger, who helped craft federal policy protecting juveniles from adult prisoners, said the state's tactics in aggressively defending the claims could backfire if the case goes to a jury. The teenage inmates in the current suit have a lot in common with the female prisoners in the earlier case, she said; namely, multiple inmates telling remarkably similar stories. "Especially when they don't know each other," Schlanger said. "As a juror, it's corroborating evidence when multiple people have the same testimony." The research was clear Lawyers for the young inmates, many of whom also represented the female inmates in the earlier lawsuit, argue that state prison officials have known for more than a decade that teen offenders need added protection. "Youth become prey in prisons if you put them in with adults," said LaBelle, whose Ann Arbor firm is one of four representing the teenage prisoners. Back in 2004, two Michigan Department of Corrections officials shared a PowerPoint slide show with department staff. One slide warned that preventing prison rape is a "matter of national priority" and that teens in adult prisons were "five times more likely to be raped." "They knew that," LaBelle said. "And for 10 years, they flung youth in adult prisons and housed youth with adult prisoners in the same cells and did not take steps to protect them." The lawsuit contends the victimized prisoners were further hampered by a grievance procedure that discouraged complaints. According to the suit, the young inmates were advised that before they could file a grievance there had to be a consultation with the prisoner being accused of assault. Complying with the procedure placed the teens "in grave danger," the suit maintains. The plaintiffs also point to a number of national studies had show mixing prisoners 17 and younger with adult prisoners is a combustible blend: "A 1989 study in the Juvenile & Family Court Journal found that juveniles in adult prison were five times more likely to be sexually assaulted than if they were in a juvenile facility and nearly twice as likely to be beaten by staff. Nearly one-third of juveniles in prison reported they had been attacked by a weapon, compared with less than a fourth in a juvenile facility." In 2001, Human Rights Watch issued a 378-page report, "No Escape: Male Rape in U.S. Prisons," that included widespread accounts of rape in prisons across the United States, including men coerced into sex while guards stood by, and some inmates forced into virtual sex slavery. In 2003, Congress passed the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA), aimed in part at protecting juvenile prisoners from sexual assault. It established a commission to issue recommendations and in 2009, it released a report estimating that 60,000 U.S. inmates were assaulted each year. The 2009 report warned that juveniles were especially vulnerable. "More than any other group of incarcerated persons, youth incarcerated with adults are probably at the highest risk for sexual abuse," the report stated. Punk prison How did Michigan become so bullish on sending young offenders to adult prisons? The push began in the 1980s, with a rise nationally in juvenile crime. In 1988, Michigan's Legislature approved a measure giving prosecutors more authority to charge teens as young as 15 as adults for a short list of crimes, including first-degree murder. In the 1990s, Gov. John Engler called for even tougher measures for "punks," as public anxiety grew over juvenile crime. Those fears were stoked by warnings from analysts like Princeton University political science professor John DiIulio, who issued an alarming forecast in 1995 about the impending rise of the youth "superpredator." In 1996, Engler signed a measure removing any minimum age that a juvenile could be tried as an adult and giving prosecutors the power to automatically charge juveniles as young as 14 as an adult for 18 offenses. According to a University of Michigan study, the number of juveniles in Michigan prisons nearly quadrupled in a decade, from 54 in 1988 to 202 in 1998. But the "superpredator" juvenile crime wave never materialized, as U.S. violent juvenile crime peaked in 1994 and fell by 48 percent between 1994 and 2003. That year, according to the U.S. Department of Justice, the violent juvenile arrest rate stood at its lowest level since 1980. In Michigan, juvenile violent arrests fell by more than half from 1994 to 2002. DiIulio later recanted his theory. In the years since, child advocates point to research showing that putting juveniles in adult prison only increases the chances they will commit another crime when they get out. "Adult prisons are not equipped to deal with the needs of juveniles," said Kristen Staley, associate director of the Michigan Council on Crime and Delinquency a Lansing-based advocacy group. "They have different developmental needs." A 2007 survey of research on juvenile incarceration by the Centers for Disease Control found that juveniles transferred to the adult system "resulted in increased arrest for subsequent crimes, including violent crime" by those juveniles. Juveniles are also more likely to commit suicide in adult settings. A 2000 federal report found that juveniles in adult jails were five times more likely to commit suicide than the general population and eight times more likely than juveniles sent to juvenile detention facilities. Out of step Today, Michigan is one of nine states that mandate prosecution of 17-year-olds as adults. The state sets no minimum age for when juveniles can be charged as adults. And Michigan is one of just four states that provide no judicial review for when juveniles are automatically waived into adult court, according to Carmen Daugherty, policy director at the Campaign for Youth Justice, an advocacy group based in Washington, D.C. "Michigan is out of step with the direction other states are going," Daugherty said. At the end of 2013, according to U.S. Department of Justice data, Michigan ranked fifth in the number of youth in state prison with 73 inmates 17 or younger, though they were now segregated from adults. With more than 350 inmates sentenced to life without parole as youth, the state is second only to Pennsylvania in the number of juvenile lifers. LaBelle, the inmates' lawyer, acknowledges that not everyone sees these get-tough policies as a problem. Likewise, not everyone is going to take pity on her young clients, who have been found guilty of such crimes as armed robbery, carrying a concealed weapon, larceny from a vehicle and criminal sexual conduct. But she contends that the punishment for crimes, even serious crimes, should not be rape. "Your sentence is loss of freedom," LaBelle said. "I can't believe anyone would allow a judge to stand up and say, 'We are going to sentence you to be in a cell for three years and, by the way, we are going to allow you to be raped for three years.'" Teens in prison, a Michigan timeline As laws aimed at getting tough with "punk" offenders took effect, evidence piled up that juveniles in adult prison were at higher risk of rape and abuse. 1974: With mounting evidence that youth were being abused by adults in jail, the federal Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act ties federal funding to states with separation of youth sentenced as juveniles to jail from adults in the jail population. 1988: Legislation approved giving Michigan prosecutors authority to charge juveniles under 17 in adult court for a short list of offenses. 1989: Study in Juvenile & Family Court Journal finds juveniles in adult prison five times more likely to be sexually assaulted in prison were they in a juvenile facility and twice as likely to be beaten by staff. 1995: Princeton University political science professor John DiIulio warns of the impending rise of the juvenile "superpredator." U.S. violent juvenile crime actually peaks in 1994, falling in 2003 by 48 percent from 1994 to its lowest level since 1980. In Michigan, juvenile violent crime falls by more than half from 1994 to 2002. 1995: Speech by Gov. John Engler to prosecutors: "What many of these punks need is not a social worker but a prison cell." 1996: Engler signs legislation greatly expanding power of prosecutors to try juveniles 14 through 16 as adults, listing 18 offenses for which the younger teens can be waived into adult court with no provision for judicial review. Juveniles of any age can be charged as adult through special proceeding. 2000: U.S. Department of Justice issues report noting that juveniles are more likely to commit suicide and be victims of violence and sexual assault in prison. 2001: Human Rights Watch issues 378-page report detailing widespread rape in prisons across the United States. 2003: Congress approves the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA), establishing a commission to issue recommendations for protecting prisoners from sexual assault. 2004: Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) signals awareness of the gravity of the issue in a department communication that calls it a "matter of national priority." The report states that juveniles in adult prison are five times more likely to be raped. 2007: MDOC says it begins to provide PREA education material to incoming prisoners. 2009: Prison Rape Elimination Commission issues report estimating 60,000 prisoners assaulted each year in U.S. prisons and that juveniles are at "highest risk" in prison for sexual assault. August 2012: Federal PREA standards take effect, mandating that juvenile prisoners are to be separated by "sight and sound" from adult prisoners. States could face 5 percent cut in federal prison funding if they fail to comply. August 2013: MDOC says it completes separation of juvenile prisoners from adults. December 2013: Michigan law firm files class-action suit against MDOC, alleging rape and abuse of juveniles by adult prisoners in prisons across the state as well as assault and harassment of juveniles by guards. Many of the same lawyers were involved in a similar suit involving female inmates sexually assaulted by male prison guards; that suit settled in 2009 for $100 million. MICRO BIRD: Recalls 2015 School Bus Models Due to Injury Risk ------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: May 13, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: School Bus Notification type: Compliance Mfr System: Seats And Restraints Units affected: 43 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015199TC ID number: 2015199 On certain school buses may not comply with Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (CMVSS 302) - Flammability of Interior Materials. Certain school bus seat bottom assemblies may contain a foam core that does not meet the requirements of the standard. As a result the seat components could burn faster than allowable by the standard, which could increase the risk of injury in the event of a fire. Correction: Dealers will replace the seat bottom assembly. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- GIRARDING5 COMMERCIAL BUS 2015 GIRARDING5 SCHOOL BUS 2015 MICROSOFT CORP: Judge Rejects Transfer Bid; Tosses "Ryan" Case -------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Lucy. H. Koh of the Northern District of California denied defendant's motion to transfer but granted dismissal in the case DESERAE RYAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant, CASE NO. 14-CV-04634-LHK (N.D. Cal.) Microsoft Corporation is a Washington corporation with its principal place of business in Redmond Washington. Plaintiff Deserae Ryan worked for Microsoft as a Senior Product Manager while plaintiff Trent Rau worked for Microsoft as a Lead Systems Engineer Senior. Plaintiffs allege that defendant conspired with several other technology companies in both a "Do Not Cold Call" agreement and a Restricted Hiring agreement. In their complaint, plaintiffs' alleged that defendant had violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1; California's Cartwright Act, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 16720; California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sections 17200 et seq.; and California Business & Professions Code Section 16600 et seq. Plaintiffs seek damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, attorney's fees and expenses, and injunctive relief. Defendant filed a motion to transfer venue and a motion to dismiss the complaint. Microsoft also filed a request for judicial notice in connection with its motion to dismiss. Defendant's motion to transfer venue under Fed.R.Civ.Proc. Rule 12(b)(6), contends that the court should transfer this action to the Western District of Washington because (1) plaintiffs' employment agreements select the Western District of Washington forum and (2) the convenience of the parties and witnesses, and the interest of justice favor transfer. Judge Koh denied defendants' motion to transfer venue and granted defendants' motion to dismiss. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint and the same must be filed within 30 days. A copy of Judge Koh's order dated April 10, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/iXFiggfrom Leagle.com. Plaintiffs, represented by Jeffrey Lee Hogue -- jhogue@hoguebelonglaw.com -- Tyler Jay Belong -- at Hogue and Belong; David Roger Markham -- dmarkham@markham-law.com -- Maggie K Realin --mrealin@markham-law.com -- Peggy J Reali -- preali@markham-law.com -- Janine Renee Menhennet -- jmenhennet@markham-law.com -- at The Markham Law Firm Microsoft Corporation, a Washington corporation, Defendant, represented by Robert J Maguire -- robmaguire@dwt.com -- Stephen Michael Rummage -- steverummage@dwt.com -- Allison Ann Davis -- allisondavis@dwt.com -- Candice M. Tewell -- candicetewell@dwt.com -- Sanjay Mohan Nangia -- sanjaynangia@dwt.com -- at Davis Wright Tremaine LLP MIMEDX GROUP: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Suit ----------------------------------------------------- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that a securities class action has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of those who purchased shares of MiMedx Group, Inc. ("MiMedx" or the "Company") during the period between February 26, 2014 and December 31, 2014 inclusive (the "Class Period"). The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company was in violation of federal regulations by engaging in improper marketing and sales practices; and (2) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On December 31, 2014, after the close of trading, the Company issued a press release announcing the receipt of a civil subpoena from the Office of Inspector General ("OIG") of the Department of Health and Human Services ("HHS"). Moreover, the Company announced the same day that it had filed a lawsuit against one of its competitors, Organogenesis, Inc. ("Organogenesis"), for tortious interference of contract, alleging that it had interfered with MiMedx's dealings with the Veterans Administration. Within a matter of weeks, MiMedx voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit. Following this news, MiMedx securities declined $1.79 per share, or more than 15%, to close at $9.74 per share on January 2, 2015, the next trading day. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all shareholders who purchased shares of MiMedx during the Class Period described above. No Class has yet been certified in the above action. If you wish to review a copy of the Complaint, to discuss this action, or have any questions, please contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations Coordinator Eitan Kimelman of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484 or via email info@bgandg.com. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address and telephone number. If you suffered a loss in MiMedx you have until April 20, 2015 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities arbitration. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. MO'S FISHERMAN: Faces "Mendoza" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- Melvin Mendoza, Erick Rivera a/k/a Erick Adari Rivera Nolasco and Armando Portillo a/k/a Neftaly Armando Portillo Guevara, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. Mo's Fisherman Exchange, Inc. d/b/a Mo's Seafood Restaurant, Mo's Fisherman's Wharf, Mo's, Mo's Seafood Factory, Mo's Crab and Pasta Factory, and Mo's Neighborhood Bar and Grill, Case No. 1:15-cv-01427-ELH (D. Md., May 19, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate restaurants at six locations in Maryland. The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew David Freeman, Esq. Brooke E. Lierman, Esq. Jessica Paulie Weber, Esq. BROWN GOLDSTEIN AND LEVY LLP 120 E Baltimore St Ste 1700 Baltimore, MD 21202-6701 Telephone: (410) 962-1030 Facsimile: (410) 385-0869 E-mail: adf@browngold.com blierman@browngold.com jweber@browngold.com MONSANTO CO: Parties in "Allen" Case Perform on Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------- Monsanto Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 2, 2015, for the quarterly period ended Feb. 28, 2015, that the parties in the class action lawsuit, styled Virdie Allen, et al. ("Allen") v. Monsanto, et al., have commenced performance of the terms of the settlement. The Company said, "on Dec. 17, 2004, 15 plaintiffs filed a purported class action lawsuit, styled Virdie Allen, et al. ("Allen") v. Monsanto, et al., in the Putnam County, West Virginia, state court against Monsanto, Pharmacia and seven other defendants. Monsanto is named as the successor in interest to the liabilities of Pharmacia. The alleged class consists of all current and former residents, workers, and students who, between 1949 and the present, were allegedly exposed to dioxins/furans contamination in counties surrounding Nitro, West Virginia. The complaint alleges that the source of the contamination is a chemical plant in Nitro, formerly owned and operated by Pharmacia and later by Flexsys, a joint venture between Solutia and Akzo Nobel Chemicals, Inc. ("Akzo Nobel"). Akzo Nobel and Flexsys were named defendants in the case but Solutia was not, due to its then pending bankruptcy proceeding. The suit seeks damages for property cleanup costs, loss of real estate value, funds to test property for contamination levels, funds to test for human exposure, and future medical monitoring costs. The complaint also seeks an injunction against further contamination and punitive damages. Monsanto has agreed to indemnify and defend Akzo Nobel and the Flexsys defendant group, but on May 27, 2011, the judge dismissed both Akzo Nobel and Flexsys from the case. The class action certification hearing was held on Oct. 29, 2007. On Jan. 8, 2008, the trial court issued an order certifying the Allen (now Zina G. Bibb et al. ("Bibb") v. Monsanto et al., because Bibb replaced Allen as class representative) case as a class action for property damage and for medical monitoring. On Nov. 2, 2011, the court, in response to defense motions, entered an order decertifying the property class. After the trial for the Bibb medical monitoring class action began on Jan. 3, 2012, the parties reached a settlement in principle as to both the medical monitoring and the property class claims. The proposed settlement provides for a 30 year medical monitoring program consisting of a primary fund of up to $21 million and an additional fund of up to $63 million over the life of the program, and a three year property remediation plan with funding up to $9 million. On Feb. 24, 2012, the court preliminarily approved the parties' proposed settlement. A fairness hearing was held on June 18, 2012, resulting in the trial court's final approval of the settlement. Certain plaintiffs objected to the approval of the settlement and appealed to the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals. On Nov. 22, 2013, the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal and upheld the fairness of the class action settlements. The objector filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court which was denied. The settlement is final and the parties have commenced performance of the terms of the settlement." MONSANTO CO: Parties in Personal Injury Claims Perform on Deal -------------------------------------------------------------- Monsanto Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 2, 2015, for the quarterly period ended Feb. 28, 2015, that the parties in all pending personal injury claims have commenced performance of the terms of the settlement. These cases allege personal injury occasioned by exposure to dioxin generated by the Nitro Plant during production of 2,4,5T (1949-1969) and thereafter. Monsanto has agreed to accept the tenders of defense in the matters by Pharmacia, Solutia, Akzo Nobel, Flexsys America, and Apogee Coal under a reservation of rights. During the discovery phase of these several claims, the parties reached an agreement in principle to resolve all pending personal injury claims which is reflected in the above liability. The settlement is final and the parties have commenced performance of the terms of the settlement. In October 2007 and November 2009, a total of approximately 200 separate, single plaintiff civil actions were filed in Putnam County, West Virginia, against Monsanto, Pharmacia, Akzo Nobel (and several of its affiliates), Flexsys America Co. ("Flexsys America") (and several of its affiliates), Solutia, and Apogee Coal Company, LLC ("Apogee Coal"). These cases allege personal injury occasioned by exposure to dioxin generated by the Nitro Plant during production of 2,4,5T (1949-1969) and thereafter. Monsanto has agreed to accept the tenders of defense in the matters by Pharmacia, Solutia, Akzo Nobel, Flexsys America, and Apogee Coal under a reservation of rights. During the discovery phase of these several claims, the parties reached an agreement in principle to resolve all pending personal injury claims which is reflected in the above liability. The settlement is final and the parties have commenced performance of the terms of the settlement. NETHERLANDS: Facing Suit Over Failure to Reduce Carbon Emissions ---------------------------------------------------------------- Emma Howard, writing for The Guardian, reported that the first public hearings were slated to take place in April in the Hague in the first case in the world to use existing human rights and tort law to hold a government responsible for failing to reduce carbon emissions fast enough. The 886 citizens involved in the class action against the Dutch government aim to force it to take more robust action to reduce emissions. They also hope to offer a legal solution to the political impasse on international climate change action. They will ask the judiciary to declare that the Dutch government must implement policies to reduce its emissions by between 25% and 40% below 1990 levels by 2020. This was the target for developed nations -- established by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) -- as necessary to create a 50% chance of avoiding a dangerous 2C rise in global temperatures. The European Union recently set a target of reducing emissions by 40% by 2030, ahead of a crunch conference in Paris at the end of the year. The lawsuit has been brought by the sustainability foundation Urgenda with 886 Dutch citizens acting as co-plaintiffs including teachers, entrepreneurs, artists and children legally represented by their elders. Dennis van Berkel, who works for Urgenda, said: "We wanted to show that this is not just one organization that had an idea but it's a broad movement of people who are very concerned about climate change and believe it's necessary to sue the state over it." Joos Ockels is among the plaintiffs. Her late husband, Wubbo Ockels, who was the first Dutch citizen in space, had dedicated much of his later years to environmental work, founding the renewable energy foundation Happy Energy and declaring that citizens must care for the planet as "astronauts of spaceship Earth". In a speech from his bedside days before his death last year Ockels pleaded to camera: "What is wrong with our mindset? Our earth has cancer. I have cancer too. If I could take you to space you would see that this is your only planet, you have no spare." The national weatherman, Reinier van de Berg, and the prolific Dutch DJ, Gregor Salto, are acting as plaintiffs, with the Nasa climate scientist Prof James Hansen also supporting the campaign. Salto, who is an ambassador for WWF, said: "Everybody is waiting for the government to take action but the government has done so little. If the case succeeds, they will be forced to take action. If you look at Denmark, they've managed [to reduce emissions], so why can't we? I want the Dutch to lead the way in this." In the 1990s the Netherlands was hailed as one of the first countries to take climate change seriously, but the country now lags a long way behind its targets on renewables. A low-lying country, it is at higher risk from rising sea levels and storm surges in comparison to other developed nations. The campaigners hailed a breakthrough with the launch of the Oslo Principles on Global Climate Change Obligations in London. Created by a group of prolific judges, advocates and professors, they argue that in failing to introduce adequate policy to tackle climate change, governments have already broken existing human rights, environmental and tort laws, regardless of agreements brokered at the international level. The case is now nearing its end with a verdict expected within six months. Urgenda first took action in 2012 when they sent a letter to the Dutch government asking them to introduce new measures to cut emissions, without which they would proceed to court. Urgenda hopes it will set a precedent and inspire others around the world to take up similar cases. Lawyers in Belgium -- supported by 8,000 citizens -- are currently preparing for court proceedings against their own government. Urgenda and Ockels were inspired to take action by ideas set out in a book written by Roger Cox, the lawyer now leading the case. Five years in the making, Revolution Justified argues -- alongside other legal experts -- that the judiciary can play a fundamental role in tackling climate change. Cox said: "We're now 23 years down the road of the climate change treaty and it's obvious that international politics has not brought much good to the world. The power of politics, fossil fuel companies and the banks are so large but there is one other powerful system with a lot of wisdom and that is the law." He continued: "There is a parallel here with the situation in the 1950s in the United States. It was the courts that decided that segregation in schools was not constitutional. It wasn't a big issue in society and it wasn't political but it was a few people fighting and the courts following up that created a huge change in American society." NEW YORK LANGUAGE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- Ashley Munoz and Cecilia Santiago, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. New York City Language, Inc. d/b/a Pookie & Sebastian and Kevin Matuszak, Case No. 1:15-cv- 03808 (S.D.N.Y., May 18, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate boutique clothing stores with five locations in New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth J. Katz, Esq. KATZ MELINGER PLLC 280 Madison Avenue, Suite 600 New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 460-0047 Facsimile: (212) 428-6811 E-mail: kjkatz@katzmelinger.com NFG CHICAGO: Faces "Wong" Suit for Overcharging Delivery Fees ------------------------------------------------------------- Chang Wong, on behalf of plaintiff and a class v. NFG Chicago, LLC, and Domino's Pizza, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-04352 (N.D. Ill., May 18, 2015), action is brought on behalf of plaintiff and a class of persons who were improperly charged sales tax on the delivery fee. The Defendants own and operate 173 franchised Domino's Pizza in Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel A. Edelman, Esq. Cathleen M. Combs, Esq. James O. Latturner, Esq. Dulijaza Clark, Esq. EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC 20 S. Clark Street, Suite 1500 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 739-4200 Facsimile: (312) 419-0379 E-mail: courtecl@edcombs.com NGK SPARK: Sued in E.D. Mich. Over Spark Plugs-Price Fixing ----------------------------------------------------------- WAL, Inc. d/b/a Tri-State Automotive Warehouse and KMB/CT, Inc. d/b/a KMB Warehouse Distributors, Inc., individually and behalf of all others similarly situated v. NGK Spark Plug Co., Ltd., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-11774-GER-DRG (E.D. Mich., May 18, 2015), arises out of the alleged conspiracy to rig bids and fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize prices of Spark Plugs sold in the United States and elsewhere at supra-competitive levels. NGK Spark Plug Co., Ltd. is currently the largest manufacturer of spark plugs in the world, producing over 500 million NGK brand spark plugs per year. The Plaintiff is represented by: David H. Fink, Esq. Darryl Bressack, Esq. FINK + ASSOCIATES LAW 100 West Long Lake Road; Ste. 111 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304 Telephone: (248) 971-2500 E-mail: dfink@finkandassociateslaw.com dbressack@finkandassociateslaw.com - and - Joseph C. Kohn, Esq. William E. Hoese, Esq. Douglas A. Abrahams, Esq. KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C. One South Broad Street, Suite 2100 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Telephone: (215) 238-1700 E-mail: jkohn@kohnswift.com whoese@kohnswift.com dabrahams@kohnswift.com - and - Gregory P. Hansel, Esq. Randall B. Weill, Esq. Michael S. Smith, Esq. PRETI, FLAHERTY, BELIVEAU & PACHIOS LLP One City Center P.O. Box 9546 Portland, ME 04112-9546 Telephone: (207) 791-3000 E-mail: ghansel@preti.com rweill@preti.com msmith@preti.com - and - Steven A. Kanner, Esq. William H. London, Esq. Michael E. Moskovitz, Esq. FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC 2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130 Bannockburn, IL 60015 Telephone: (224) 632-4500 E-mail: skanner@fklmlaw.com wlondon@fklmlaw.com mmoskovitz@fklmlaw.com - and - Eugene A. Spector, Esq. William G. Caldes, Esq. Jonathan M. Jagher, Esq. Jeffrey L. Spector, Esq. SPECTOR ROSEMAN KODROFF & WILLIS, P.C. 1818 Market Street, Suite 2500 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 496-0300 E-mail: espector@srkw-law.com bcaldes@srkw-law.com jjagher@srkw-law.com jspector@srkw-law.com - and - Carl E. Person, Esq. 225 E. 36th Street - Suite 3A New York, N.Y. 10016-3664 Telephone: (212) 307- 4444 E-mail: carlpers2@gmail.com - and - Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq. Susan R. Schwaiger, Esq. NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C. 570 Lexington Avenue, 19th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 702-7053 E-mail: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com sschwaiger@nussbaumpc.com NISSAN: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models Due to Defective Airbag --------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: May 15, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Car, SUV Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Airbag Units affected: 62538 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015210TC ID number: 2015210 On certain vehicles, the passenger (frontal) airbag inflator could produce excessive internal pressure during airbag deployment. Increased pressure may cause the inflator to rupture, which could allow fragments to be propelled toward vehicle occupants, increasing the risk of injury. This could also damage the airbag module, which could prevent proper deployment. Failure of the passenger airbag to fully deploy during a crash (where deployment is warranted) could increase the risk of personal injury to the seat occupant. Correction: Dealers will inspect and, if necessary, replace the passenger airbag inflator. Note: This is an expansion of recalls 2013117 and 2014566. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- NISSAN SENTRA 2004, 2005, 2006 NISSAN PATHFINDER 2004 NISSAN X-TRAIL 2004, 2005, 2006 OCWEN FINANCIAL: 9th Cir. Asked to Revive Consumer Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------- Trey Garrison, writing for Housing Wire, reported that a homeowner in California asked the Ninth Circuit to revive his putative class action lawsuit against Ocwen Loan Servicing for submitting false information to credit agencies. The owner alleges that Ocwen Loan Servicing, part of Ocwen Financial (OCN), told credit agencies that foreclosed-on homeowners were still liable for the unpaid balance of their mortgage loans after the homes were sold. Jeffrey Kuns in his suit argues that the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act prohibits "deficiency liability" in these circumstances. Kuns' initial suit in California court, filed in July 2012, says he bought a home in Nevada City, California, in June 2005 with a mortgage serviced by Ocwen. When he was unable to make payments, his home was sold through a nonjudicial foreclosure in December 2009. Although the law says that Kuns is not liable for the $400,000 difference between the balance of the mortgage Kuns owed and the sale price Ocwen received in the foreclosure sale, Ocwen, Kuns charges, furnished information to credit reporting agencies indicating he was. Kuns filed the putative class action lawsuit after discovering this on his credit record in June 2011, arguing that he and thousands of other homeowners were victimized by Ocwen's actions. A putative class action means the alleged injured parties, for now, belong to a hypothetical class. If Kuns is allowed to move forward, he will then be allow to populate that class with real people. Ocwen asked to have the case removed to federal court, based on the fact the case involved more than $5 million, the federal minimum for total dollar amount being contested. In April 2013, a U.S. District Court judge dismissed Kuns' case, saying that Ocwen's reporting the deficiency balance to credit reporting agencies was neither "inaccurate or incomplete" as the law requires. Ocwen noted at the time that California law still allowed for deficiency balances to be collected from homeowners. As of publishing Ocwen did not respond to HosuingWire requests for comment. Kuns' attorney, Ethan Preston, asked a three-judge panel to revive Kuns' suit, arguing the case hinges on the basic text of the CCRA. Preston said that CCRA requires that information submitted to credit agencies to not be "inaccurate or incomplete" -- and Ocwen's reporting of homeowners as "personally liable" for the deficiency on their mortgage after a nonjudicial foreclosure is inaccurate. OMEGA HEALTHCARE: Four Lawsuits Against AVIV REIT Consolidated -------------------------------------------------------------- Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 3, 2015, that four lawsuits against AVIV REIT, Inc., have been consolidated. Four putative class actions have been filed by purported stockholders of AVIV against AVIV, its directors, Omega and Omega's merger sub challenging the merger of AVIV and Omega in the Circuit Court of Maryland, Baltimore County. The class actions were filed on November 10, 2014, November 17, 2014, November 24, 2014, and December 2, 2014. Each plaintiff filed an amended complaint on January 22, 2015. The lawsuits seek injunctive relief preventing the parties from consummating the merger, rescission of the transactions contemplated by the merger agreement, imposition of a constructive trust in favor of the class upon any benefits improperly received by the defendants, compensatory damages, and litigation costs including attorneys' fees. The four lawsuits were consolidated on January 28, 2015 under the title In Re Aviv REIT Inc. Stockholder Litigation, Case No. 24-C-14-006352. PARATEK PHARMACEUTICALS: Final Settlement Hearing Held ------------------------------------------------------ Paratek Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 2, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Superior Court entered a preliminary approval order setting May 21, 2015 for the final settlement hearing in a Stockholder Suit. The Company said, "On October 2, 2014, Continuum Capital, on behalf of itself and a putative class of similarly situated stockholders of the Company, filed a lawsuit in the California Superior Court for Contra Costa County, or the Superior Court, against us and our then current board members (only one of whom remains as a director) as well as against the entity then known as Paratek Pharmaceuticals, Inc., or Old Paratek. The complaint alleges that the then Transcept board members breached fiduciary duties to Transcept stockholders in connection with the Merger announced on June 30, 2014, and that Transcept and its then board of directors failed to make adequate disclosures in soliciting stockholder approval of the Merger, and that Old Paratek aided and abetted the alleged breaches. After expedited discovery, the parties agreed in principal to a settlement and release of all claims by a defined class of pre-merger stockholders of Transcept. In furtherance of the settlement, we supplemented our disclosures regarding the Merger and agreed to pay a negotiated plaintiffs' attorneys' fee of $0.6 million. The settlement is subject to the approval of the settlement and fee award, and a dismissal of the action with prejudice each by the Superior Court. The defendants denied any wrongdoing and agreed to settle the action to eliminate the burden and expense of further litigation." "On March 4, 2015, the Superior Court entered a preliminary approval order setting May 21, 2015 for the final settlement hearing and directed that notice be provided to the class. In the event the settlement is not consummated, we intend to vigorously defend all claims asserted." PAYTIME INC: Pa. Ct. Junks Data Breach Suits for Lack of Standing ----------------------------------------------------------------- Nicole Bakare and Matthew Siegel, writing for JDSupra Business Advisor, reported that yet another federal judge has concluded that an individual whose personal information was allegedly accessed during a data breach lacks standing to sue unless and until there has been a misuse of that personal information or such misuse can be proven "imminent." See Storm v. Paytime Inc., No. 14-CV-1138, 2015 WL 1119724 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 13, 2015). In April 2014, hackers gained unauthorized access to the computer systems of Paytime, Inc., a national payroll service company. Several employees of companies that use Paytime's services later filed suit against Paytime and sought class certification, alleging claims of negligence and breach of contract. In response, Paytime moved to dismiss their claims, contending that plaintiffs lacked standing or, in the alternative, that they had failed to state claims as a matter of law. The court found that the plaintiffs did indeed lack standing to sue Paytime, relying heavily on the Third Circuit's holding in Reilly v. Ceridian Corp., 664 F.3d 38 (3d Cir. 2011). "In the event of a data breach, a plaintiff does not suffer a harm, and thus does not have standing to sue, unless [the] plaintiff alleges actual 'misuse' of the information, or that such misuse is imminent," the Reilly court concluded. In Reilly, the employees of a law firm brought a putative class action against a payroll processing firm after it suffered a security breach by an unknown hacker, which they alleged caused increased risk of identity theft, costs of credit monitoring, and emotional distress. According to the court, the alleged future harm was "not sufficiently imminent," however. Rather, it was "significantly attenuated, considering that it was 'dependent on entirely speculative, future actions of an unknown third party." Likewise, in Paytime, the plaintiffs alleged they were at an increased risk of identity theft, spent time and money to protect themselves from identify theft, and have suffered "actual damages." What they failed to allege, the court explained, were "allegations of misuse or that such misuse is certainly impending." None alleged that they had actually suffered any form of identity theft or even that any of their data had been misused. Allegations of being at an increased risk of identity theft are not sufficient to amount to an imminent injury, the court decided, reasoning that the data breach had occurred more than a year ago. Given that none of the plaintiffs had yet become "actual victims of identity theft," any layperson "with a common sense notion of 'imminence' would find this lapse of time, without any identity theft, to undermine the motion that identity theft would happen in the near future." The court acknowledged that Reilly's standing requirements leave plaintiffs on the hook for the costs of preventive measures, but found that the logic of the doctrine is sound and its wisdom clear: given the constant efforts of hackers to access confidential data, "for a court to require companies to pay damages to thousands of customers, when there is yet to be a single case of identity theft proven, strikes us as overzealous and unduly burdensome to business." Once a hacker succeeds in actually misusing a person's personal information, the court explained, there is a "clear injury" that can be fully compensated with money damages and the plaintiff is "free to return to court and would have standing to recover his or her losses." PEDEGO INC: Recalls Lithium Ion Rechargeable Batteries ------------------------------------------------------ Starting date: May 11, 2015 Posting date: May 11, 2015 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Tools and Electrical Products Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Fire Hazard Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-53305 This recall involves 36-volt and 48-volt lithium ion rechargeable batteries. The recalled batteries were sold separately and as original equipment with Pedego electric bikes. The batteries came in two styles. One style has a silver or black metal case that measures 13 1/2 inches (34 centimeters) long and 6 1/2 inches (16.5 centimeters) wide and 2 1/2 inches (6.25 centimeters) high with black plastic end caps and a handle. The other style has a black or white plastic case that measures about 14 inches (35.5 centimeters) long, 6 1/2 inches (16.5 centimeters) wide and 2 1/2 inches (6.25 centimeters) high with a red indicator lamp on one end. Serial numbers that start with 'DLG' are included in this recall. The serial number can be found on a label on the side of the batteries with metal casing and on the underside of the batteries with plastic casing. The batteries can overheat, posing a fire hazard. Health Canada has not received any consumer reports of incidents or injuries related to the use of these batteries. Pedego Inc. has received one report of a battery overheating, resulting in minor property damage in Canada. Approximately 400 units were sold in Canada. The affected batteries were sold between January 2010 and September 2013 at various retailers. Manufactured in China. Manufacturer: DLG Shanghai CHINA Distributor: Pedego Inc. Irvine California UNITED STATES Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/FSNkVO PIZZAWORKS LLC: Faces "Lee" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Lee, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons v. Pizzaworks, LLC, Pizzaworks II, LLC, Pizzaworks III, LLC, Pizzaworks IV, LLC, and Emmanuel Hatz, Case No. 3:15-cv-00570 (M.D. Tenn., May 19, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a pizza restaurant in Nashville, Tennessee. The Plaintiff is represented by: David W. Garrison, Esq. Scott P. Tift, Esq. BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC Bank of America Plaza 414 Union Street, Suite 900 Nashville, TN 37219 Telephone: (615) 244-2202 Facsimile: (615) 252-3798 E-mail: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com stift@barrettjohnston.com - and - Lee W. Barron, Esq. William D. Buchanan, Esq. THE LAKIN LAW FIRM, P.C. P O Box 27, 301 Evans Avenue Wood River, IL 62095-0027 Telephone: (618) 254-1127 E-mail: lee@leebarronlaw.com will@leebarronlaw.com POWERHOUSE FORMULATIONS: Illegally Records Phone Calls, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jackeob Brown, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Powerhouse Formulations LLC and Does 1-10, Inclusive, Case No. 2:15-cv-03746 (C.D. Cal., May 18, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to disclose any recording and monitoring of telephone communications. Powerhouse Formulations LLC is a New Jersey limited liability company that does business in California. Powerhouse is a distributor and wholesaler of Acai Berry, Colon Cleanse. The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. Richard H. Hikida, Esq. David W. Reid, Esq. Victoria C. Knowles, Esq. NEWPORT TRIAL GROUP 4100 Newport Place, Ste. 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 706-6464 Facsimile: (949) 706-6469 E-mail: sferrell@trialnewport.com rhikida@trialnewport.com dreid@trialnewport.com vknowles@trialnewport.com PREMERA BLUE: Sued in Seattle, Wash. Over Data Breach ----------------------------------------------------- David Lewis, writing for JDSupra Business Advisor, reported that five class action lawsuits have been filed against Premera Blue Cross in federal court in Seattle, Washington following the recent report of a data breach that affected approximately 11 million individuals. The lawsuits make similar allegations that Premera failed to protect sensitive information from attack. One lawsuit alleged a violation of the Health Insurance Portability Accountability Act ("HIPAA"). The Premera attack was discovered on January 29, 2015. Premera reported the attack to the FBI and engaged a cyber-security firm, Mandiant, to conduct an investigation and remove the infection caused by the attack on Premera's IT systems. According to Premera President and CEO Jeff Rowe, Premera is taking additional steps to strengthen and enhance the security of its IT systems going forward and assisting individuals who could potentially be impacted by the data breach. Premera posted a notice on its website and sent letters to individuals who may have been impacted by the attack. Premera's investigation determined the attackers may have gained access to members and applicants' email addresses, names and addresses, social security numbers, health insurance identification numbers and bank account numbers. As a health plan, Premera is a "covered entity" under HIPAA and is subject to the breach notification requirements under the HIPAA Omnibus Rule if "protected health information" is accessed by individuals not authorized to receive it. Under the Omnibus Rule, Premera was required to notify effected individuals and the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services ("HHS") not later than sixty days following discovery of the breach. According to the website for the office of civil rights of HHS, Premera provided the required notice on March 17, 2015, which is within sixty days of the discovery of the breach as required by the Omnibus Rule. Recent decisions in data breach cases underscore the considerable burdens that plaintiffs in the Premera class actions are likely to face. Courts are becoming suspect of the speculative nature of damages claims where the plaintiff cannot prove specific injury. In Lovell v. P.F. Chang's China Bistro, Inc., the plaintiff sought to recover under theories of negligence, breach of implied contract, breach of fiduciary duty, strict liability and negligent misrepresentation. The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington (the same court where the Premera class actions have been filed) found that the plaintiff's claims of injury under each theory were not well founded and dismissed the case with prejudice. Costs that might be incurred in the future along with lack of evidence of any representations by the defendant regarding security protocols were relied upon by the Court in reaching its decision. While recent disclosures of cyber- security problems "make headlines," they do not have much impact on consumer behavior, the court noted. A similar suit in Illinois against P.F. Chang's was also dismissed on similar grounds. A class action suit against Horizon Health Care Services, Inc. based on the alleged theft of personal information of nearly 840,000 customers of Horizon following the theft of two laptop computers was dismissed on April 6, 2014 because the plaintiffs did not demonstrate they suffered particular individual harm as a result of the breach. The court based its decision on the fact that the plaintiffs did not allege identity theft or any other injury as a result of the breach. The Court did grant the plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint. Depending on the facts involved, Premera will likely face investigation, fines, and a corrective action plan from HHS. HIPAA does not permit a private right of action. Based on current trends in recent cases, the probability of success in the class actions seems limited given the recent precedents unless the plaintiffs can show actual harm. Nevertheless, all companies should be alert to the increasing cyber-security threats and taking appropriate action to secure their IT systems against such sophisticated threats and be prepared to respond to such threats when they occur. PROSPER MARKETPLACE: Settlement Liability Reserve Set at $7.9MM --------------------------------------------------------------- Prosper Marketplace, Inc. and Prosper Funding LLC said in their Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 6, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the reserve for the class action settlement liability is $7.9 million on PMI's consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2014. On November 26, 2008, plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit against PMI and certain of its executive officers and directors in the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, California (the "Superior Court"). The suit was brought on behalf of all promissory note purchasers on the platform from January 1, 2006 through October 14, 2008. The lawsuit alleged that PMI offered and sold unqualified and unregistered securities in violation of the California and federal securities laws. The lawsuit sought rescission damages against PMI and the other named defendants, as well as treble damages against PMI and the award of attorneys' fees, experts' fees and costs, and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest. On July 19, 2013, solely to avoid the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in litigation, and without admitting any liability or wrongdoing, the parties to the class action litigation pending before the Superior Court, entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise, Settlement, and Release (the "Settlement") setting forth an agreement to settle all claims related thereto. In connection with the Settlement, PMI agreed to pay the plaintiffs an aggregate amount of $10 million, payable in four lump sum payments of $2 million in 2014, $2 million in 2015, $3 million in 2016 and $3 million in 2017. On April 16, 2014, the Superior Court granted final approval of the Settlement. Subject to satisfaction of the conditions set forth in the Settlement, the defendants will be released by the plaintiffs from all claims concerning or arising out of the offering of promissory notes on the platform from January 1, 2006 through October 14, 2008. The reserve for the class action settlement liability is $7.9 million on PMI's consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2014. QEP MIDSTREAM: Sued in Texas Over Misleading Financial Reports -------------------------------------------------------------- Randy Behner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. QEP Midstream Partners, LP, Tesoro Logistics LP, Susan O. Rheney, Don A. Turkleson, and Gregory C. King, Case No. 5:15- cv-00415 (W.D. Tex., May 19, 2015), asserts that the Defendants made false and materially misleading Registration Statement in connection with the proposed merger agreement between Tesoro Logistics LP and QEP Midstream. QEP Midstream Partners, LP is a Delaware Limited Partnership, with its principal place of business located in San Antonio, Texas. QEP is engaged in the business of providing natural gas and crude oil gathering and transportation services. Tesoro Logistics LP is a Delaware Limited Partnership, with its principal place of business located in San Antonio, Texas. Tesoro owns, operates, develops, and acquires logistics assets related to crude oil and refined products The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Powers, Esq. Meredith Black-Mathews, Esq. POWERS TAYLOR LLP Campbell Centre II 8150 North Central Expressway, Suite 1575 Dallas, TX 75206 Telephone: (214) 239-8900 Facsimile: (214) 239-8901 E-mail: patrick@powerstaylor.com meredith@powerstaylor.com - and - Willie C. Briscoe, Esq. THE BRISCOE LAW FIRM, PLLC 8150 N. Central Expressway, Suite 1575 Dallas, TX 75206 Telephone: (214) 239-4568 Facsimile: (281) 254-7789 E-mail: wbriscoe@thebriscoelawfirm.com - and - Cullin O'brien, Esq. CULLIN O'BRIEN LAW, P.A. 6541 NE 21st Way Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33308 Telephone: (561) 676-6370 Facsimile: (561) 320-0285 E-mail: cullin@cullinobrienlaw.com QUESTCOR PHARMACEUTICALS: To Pay $38MM to Settle Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- StreetInsider.com reported that certain putative class action lawsuits were filed against Questcor Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Questcor"))(Nasdaq: QCOR) and certain of its officers and directors in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, which actions were consolidated under the caption In re Questcor Securities Litigation, No. CV 12-01623 DMG (FMOx) (the "Securities Class Action"). The consolidated complaint generally alleges that Questcor and certain of its officers and directors violated Sections l0(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. On April 13, 2015, the defendants executed a stipulation of settlement to settle the Securities Class Action. Under the terms of the proposed settlement, Questcor has agreed to pay $38 million to resolve the plaintiffs' claims, inclusive of all fees and costs. Questcor and the individual defendants maintain that the plaintiffs' claims are without merit, and are entering into the settlement to eliminate the uncertainties, burden and expense of further protracted litigation. The proposed settlement will be subject to customary conditions, including court approval. If the proposed settlement is approved by the court, the Securities Class Action will be dismissed with prejudice and all clams will be released. During the three months ended March 27, 2015, a $38 million reserve was established for this settlement. RADIATOR SPECIALTY: Recalls Gunk Radiator 10 Minute Flush --------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: May 12, 2015 Posting date: May 12, 2015 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Chemicals Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Labelling and Packaging, Chemical Hazard Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-53311 This recall involves Gunk Radiator 10 Minute Flush (part number C1412C) sold in a white bottle with a blue / yellow label and UPC 060959314016. This consumer product does not meet labelling requirements for consumer chemical products under Canadian law. It does not have proper hazard labelling required by the Consumer Chemicals and Containers Regulations, 2001 under the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act. Improper labelling could result in unintentional exposure to these products and lead to serious illnesses, injuries and death. Neither Health Canada nor Radiator Specialty Company has received consumer incident reports related to the use of this product. Approximately 104,580 containers of the recalled product were sold at various retail locations across Canada. The recalled product was sold in Canada between January 2004 and April 2015. Manufactured in the United States. Distributor: Radiator Specialty Company of Canada Mississauga Ontario CANADA Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled product and contact the Radiator Specialty Company for a replacement or refund (1-800-268-2330, extension 117). 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/dkFhbR RALEY'S: Two Women Sue Over Pregnancy and Workplace Issues ---------------------------------------------------------- Bob Egelko, writing for SFGate.com, reported that two Northern California women have filed a proposed statewide lawsuit accusing the Raley's market chain of illegally denying them light-duty assignments and forcing them to take unpaid leave when they became pregnant. The suit comes on the heels of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling strengthening pregnant women's protections from discrimination at work, but relies on even stronger California laws that require employers with at least five employees to accommodate pregnant workers. A 1999 state law entitles pregnant women to "reasonable accommodations" on the job, and to be transferred to any available "less strenuous or hazardous positions." The women said Raley's managers told them the company's policy allowed workers who were injured on the job to transfer to "light duty" assignments, but did not cover pregnant employees. Plaintiff Lucianna Borrego said the food service manager at the store in Ukiah told her, after she asked to use a motorized sweeper to mop the floors, that she was not entitled to play the "pity card" just because she was pregnant. Denied reassignment despite a doctor's note limiting her to light duty, she said she was placed on unpaid leave two weeks later. "I wanted to keep working, but Raley's refused to accommodate my pregnancy," Borrego said in a statement through her lawyers at the nonprofit Equal Rights Advocates in San Francisco. "Losing that income when I was struggling to support my family was absolutely devastating." Raley's, based in West Sacramento, operates more than 120 stores in Northern California under its own name and as Bel Air Markets, Nob Hill Foods and Food Source. In a statement, company spokeswoman Chelsea Minor said Raley's "follows all laws regarding pregnancy leaves of absence and accommodations and will respond to these claims through the legal process." The suit was filed after the Supreme Court ruled that federal law requires employers to give pregnant women the same light-duty assignments and other accommodations they offer to workers with similar disabilities. California's law entitles pregnant employees to on-the-job accommodations regardless of how the employer treats other workers. Borrego and the second Raley's plaintiff, Kirsten Kelly, both started working as store clerks in 2011. Kelly, employed at the Bel Air market in Antelope (Sacramento County), said she told store managers of her pregnancy last fall and gave them a doctor's note saying she should not lift heavy items. Soon afterward, she said, when a customer needed help lifting 20-can packs of soda, Kelly asked for help and said a manager told her she had to carry the packs herself. Told she would be fired if she did not accept unpaid leave, Kelly went on leave in December, the suit said. The suit seeks statewide class-action status, damages and an order requiring Raley's to accommodate pregnant employees. RED HILLS: Sued Over Fraud and Extortion in Probation, Sentencing ----------------------------------------------------------------- Sandy Hodson, writing for The Augusta Chronicle, reported that the legal assault on for-profit probation operations in Georgia has moved to federal court, where one lawsuit contends a probation firm and the small cities it serves regularly commit constitutional violations and crimes such as fraud and extortion. The Southern Center for Human Rights filed its first legal action in the battle in the U.S. District Court in Albany. The lawsuit contends in Pelham and Bainbridge courts, poor people who cannot make payments on the day of sentencing are held hostage until payments are made, and that private probation firm Red Hills Community Probation uses the threat of incarceration to force people to continue making payments after their sentences have expired. A state audit noted at least one practice -- continuing to charge probationers after their sentences had expired -- in a scathing report released in April 2014 by the state's Department of Audits and Accounts Performance Audits Division. There could be no question the judge knew people were forced to make payments after their sentences had expired because he was provided regular reports listing total payments by people with expired sentences, according to the report. The lawsuit names Adel Edwards as one plaintiff. Edwards, who is physically and mentally disabled, was sentenced to pay a $500 fine for burning leaves in his yard without a permit. Because he could not pay the fine that day, the judge placed him on 12 months probation. According to the lawsuit, a Red Hills probation officer told him he owed the $500 fine and $528 in probation supervision fees and that he had to make an immediate $250 payment or go to jail. Edwards did not have the money and after the court session ended, he was taken to jail. The lawsuit accuses Red Hills probation officers of continuously threatening Edwards with jail for nearly a year after his sentence expired, only stopping when attorney Sarah Geraghty of the Southern Center filed a "motion to stop enforcement of expired probation sentence" in Pelham Municipal Court on March 11. The lawsuit alleges similar legal horror stories on behalf of four other plaintiffs, one of whom was unemployed and caring for her terminally ill father. She could not make an immediate $50 payment the day she was sentenced for rolling through a stop sign. Her fiance took the engagement ring off her finger and pawned it and lawn equipment to raise the money to free her, according to the lawsuit. Two other federal lawsuits were filed in U.S. Court in Dublin on March 20 and April 8 against the private probation firms Judicial Alternatives of Georgia and Middle Georgia Probation, which serve multiple courts in south Georgia. The lawsuits challenge the constitutionality of Georgia's law, which allows local courts to contract with private, for-profit probation firms. The suits contend the law doesn't ensure the rights of probationers are protected, and that it violates the doctrine of separation of governmental powers. The lawsuits also contend the companies have operated for years without valid contracts and seek class-action status for everyone who paid probation fees during those years. The latest surge of controversy over the use of private probation firms in Georgia was spurred in a large part by 13 lawsuits filed in the Superior Courts in Richmond and Columbia counties against Sentinel Offender services. Those cases are still pending. REMINGTON FIREARMS: October 15 Settlement Opt-Out Deadline Set -------------------------------------------------------------- IF YOU OWN CERTAIN REMINGTON FIREARMS, YOU MAY BE ELIGIBLE FOR BENEFITS FROM A CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT. A proposed nationwide Settlement has been preliminarily approved in a class action lawsuit involving certain Remington firearms. The class action lawsuit claims that trigger mechanisms with a component part known as a trigger connector are defectively designed and can result in accidental discharges without the trigger being pulled. The lawsuit further claims that from May 1, 2006 to April 9, 2014, the X-Mark Pro(R) trigger mechanism assembly process created the potential for the application of an excess amount of bonding agent, which could cause Model 700 or Seven bolt-action rifles containing such trigger mechanisms to discharge without a trigger pull under certain limited conditions. The lawsuit contends that the value and utility of these firearms have been diminished as a result of these alleged defects. Defendants deny any wrongdoing. WHO'S INCLUDED? The Settlement provides benefits to: Current owners of Remington Model 700, Seven, Sportsman 78, 673, 710, 715, 770, 600, 660, XP-100, 721, 722, and 725 firearms containing a Remington trigger mechanism that utilizes a trigger connector; Current owners of Remington Model 700 and Model Seven rifles containing an X-Mark Pro trigger mechanism manufactured from May 1, 2006 to April 9, 2014 who did not participate in the voluntary X-Mark Pro product recall prior to April 14, 2015; and Current and former owners of Remington Model 700 and Model Seven rifles who replaced their rifle's original Walker trigger mechanism with an X-Mark Pro trigger mechanism. WHAT DOES THE SETTLEMENT PROVIDE? Settlement Class Members may be entitled to: (1) have their trigger mechanism retrofitted with a new X-Mark Pro or other connectorless trigger mechanism at no cost to the class members; (2) receive a voucher code for Remington products redeemable at Remington's online store; and/or (3) be refunded the money they spent to replace their Model 700 or Seven's original Walker trigger mechanism with an X-Mark Pro trigger mechanism. HOW CAN I OBTAIN BENEFITS? Submit a Claim Form. Claim Forms can be found at www.remingtonfirearmsclassactionsettlement.com or by calling 1-800-876-5940. WHAT ARE MY LEGAL RIGHTS? Even if you do nothing you will be bound by the Court's decisions. If you want to keep your right to sue the Defendants yourself, you must exclude yourself from the Settlement Class by October 5, 2015. If you stay in the Settlement Class, you may object to the Settlement by October 5, 2015. The Court will hold a hearing on December 4, 2015, to consider whether to approve the Settlement and a request for attorney's fees of up to $12.5 million, plus a payment of $2,500 for each named Plaintiff. You or your own lawyer may appear at the hearing at your own expense. For more information or a Claim Form: 1-800-876-5940 or www.remingtonfirearmsclassactionsettlement.com RHODE ISLAND: Judge Asked to Give Prelim. OK of Pension Suit Deal ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tom Mooney, writing for The Providence Journal, reported that some 60,000 public-sector workers and retirees could be asked their opinion on plans to end the legal challenge to cuts in their pensions by way of a class-action settlement. The contentious case took a step closer toward resolution when lawyers for both sides asked a Superior Court judge to grant preliminary approval of a class-action settlement so that required notification procedures can begin for those affected. If Judge Sarah Taft-Carter grants the request in the next day or two, as expected, notices would be mailed out to retirees, teachers, and state and municipal workers informing them of their right to weigh in on the settlement's terms at a "fairness hearing." Taft-Carter would make a final determination whether to approve a class-action settlement after that hearing, which could extend for three days, lawyers say, depending on how many people wish to speak. A draft notification letter, along with the legislation lawmakers are considering to finalize the settlement, were included in hundreds of pages of documents filed in court. After weeks of private discussions and voting, thousands of state workers and retirees recently approved a settlement rather than take the issue to trial. State officials have said the proposed deal preserves about 90 percent of the savings in future pension benefits anticipated under the 2011 pension overhaul law. Among its cost-saving measures, the law raised ages of retirement and ended guaranteed annual cost-of-living raises. The proposed settlement relaxes some of those age requirements for retirement and provides for the potential of periodic cost of living hikes -- if pension funds meet certain funding levels. The class-action settlement would bind all members of the various unions and retirement groups that filed suit against the state and prevent the possibility of "a never-ending pension suit," said lawyer Carly Iafrate, representing about 7,000 retirees. But the settlement deal would not prohibit three other unions who voted it down from pursuing their legal challenges to the constitutionality of the 2011 pension law. Those opposing unions, representing about 800 police and firefighters, include members of the International Brotherhood of Police Officers, which has locals in about 20 Rhode Island communities, Cranston police and Cranston firefighters. Taft-Carter also heard a motion from one lawyer to withdraw from the pension case. Sean O'Leary represents a group of about 90 retired state workers and public school teachers who initially opposed being lumped into any class-action settlement. But there is such turmoil within the group, O'Leary told the judge -- with 14 members who want to accept the proposed settlement and 76 others who want to keep fighting -- that "it is virtually impossible" to represent both divergent sides, particularly when some clients have "terminated our services" and object to him taking any further action on behalf of the others. Taft-Carter appeared cool to O'Leary's request to withdraw. "Why can't you represent these people?" she asked. "It's very late in the game, sir." One retiree from the group, Roy Hilternann, a former deputy warden for the Department of Corrections, told the judge he was displeased with O'Leary's representation, but allowing him to withdraw now would leave the group no representation at all. Hilternann said the group needed time to find another lawyer. Taft-Carter said she would rule on O'Leary's request soon. ROSS GELFAND: Illegally Collects Debt, "Pfeffer" Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------- Ari Pfeffer, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Law Offices of Ross Gelfand, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv- 02859 (E.D.N.Y., May 18, 2015), seeks to put an end on the Defendant's deceptive, misleading, and unfair debt collection practices. Law Offices of Ross Gelfand, LLC is engaged in the business of collecting or attempting to collect debts. The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq. ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW 483 Chestnut Street Cedarhurst, NY 11516 Telephone: (516) 791-4400 Facsimile: (516) 791-4411 E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com SCHYLLING INC: Recalls Police Toy Vehicles Due to Choking Hazard ---------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: May 12, 2015 Posting date: May 12, 2015 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Toys Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Choking Hazard Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-53307 This recall involves the Police Press & Go Emergency Vehicle. The toy vehicle is a blue and white police vehicle with a policeman's head that may be pressed down for movement of the vehicle. The recalled product may be identified by UPC 019649227822 and the following date codes: 14223STL, 13322STL, 13161STL, 12219STL, 11312STL, 10337STL, 10103STL, 1028STL. The policeman's hat may detach from the head, releasing a small component, and posing a choking hazard to young children. Neither Schylling Inc. nor Health Canada has received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries in Canada relating to the use of this product. In the United States, Schylling Inc. has received one report of the policeman's hat detaching from the head. No injuries were reported. For some tips to help consumers choose safe toys and to help them keep children safe when they play with toys, see Health Canada's General Toy Safety Tips. Approximately 2,100 units of the affected toys were sold in Canada and approximately 13,200 affected toys were distributed in the United States. The recalled toys were sold from April 2010 to April 2015. Manufactured in China. Manufacturer: Supreme Toys (H.K.) Ltd. Kowloon/Hong Kong CHINA Distributor: Schylling Inc. Rowley Massachusetts UNITED STATES Consumers should immediately take the recalled toys away from young children and contact Schylling Inc. to receive a refund. Consumers may contact Schylling Inc., at 1-800-767-8697 from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. EST, Monday through Friday or visit the firm's web site and click on Safety Alerts & Recalls at the top of the page for more information. You may also email Schylling Inc. 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/EGmqfL SEOUL TRADING: Recalls Orion Ball Products Due to Crustacean ------------------------------------------------------------ Starting date: May 15, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Crustacean/Shellfish Hazard classification: Class 1 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Seoul Trading Corp. Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Possibly National, Saskatchewan Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 9832 Seoul Trading Corporation is recalling Orion Ball from the marketplace because it contains squid, crab, and shrimp which are not declared on the label. People with an allergy to squid, crab, or shrimp should not consume the recalled product described below. Check to see if you have recalled product in your home. Recalled product should be thrown out or returned to the store where it was purchased. If you have an allergy to squid, crab, or shrimp, do not consume the recalled product as it may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction. There have been no reported reactions associated with the consumption of this product. This recall was triggered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's (CFIA) inspection activities. The CFIA is conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings. The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product from the marketplace. Brand Common name Size Code(s) UPC name ----------- ---- product --- ----- ------- N/A Orion Ball 202 g All codes where 8 801117 761004 (Korean squid, crab, Characters and shrimp are Only) not declared on the label Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/GaFnRu SOUP BOY: Recalls Carrot Soup Products Due to C. Botulinum ---------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: May 13, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning Subcategory: Microbiological - Clostridium botulinum Hazard classification: Class 1 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: The Soup Boy Distribution: New Brunswick Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 9830 The Soup Boy is recalling Carrot Soup from the marketplace because it may permit the growth of Clostridium botulinum. Consumers should not consume the recalled product described below. What you should do Check to see if you have recalled product in your home. Recalled product should be thrown out or returned to the location where it was purchased. Food contaminated with Clostridium botulinum toxin may not look or smell spoiled but can still make you sick. Symptoms can include nausea, vomiting, fatigue, dizziness, blurred or double vision, dry mouth, respiratory failure and paralysis. In severe cases of illness, people may die. There have been no reported illnesses associated with the consumption of this product. This recall was triggered by a consumer complaint. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) is conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings. The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product from the marketplace. Brand name Common name Size Code(s) on product UPC ---------- ----------- ----- ------------------ --- The Soup Boy Carrot Soup 1 L N/A, this product None is not labelled Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/kVhm7y SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Customer Sues Over Early-Bird Check-In ---------------------------------------------------------- Legal Newsline reported that Southwest Airlines is being sued for allegedly misleading a passenger into purchasing early check-in for its flights. Teri Lowry filed the class action lawsuit on April 1 against Southwest, claiming the airline deceived her into purchasing an "Early-Bird" priority boarding cost for a flight she took in March 2014 from Los Angeles to Indianapolis. According to the lawsuit, Lowry bought a "Wanna Get Away" ticket offered by Southwest, and then added on the "Early-Bird Check-in" feature for $25 roundtrip. Lowry said she purchased the feature based on previously traveling Southwest and receiving a "B" boarding group assignment. Lowry said she contacted others who received a higher boarding position than she did for her trip to Indianapolis, and none of them purchased the "Early Bird Check-In." The lawsuit said boarding is chosen by the order in which a person checks in online. Boarding is broken into three groups with each group containing about 60 board positions. According to the lawsuit, Southwest Airlines' website states customers can obtain an A boarding position by purchasing an "Early Bird Check-in." Lowry claims Southwest's website says customers who purchased "Anytime" fairs receive priority over other fare types including "Early Bird Check-ins." The lawsuit alleges that contradicts other areas of the website that say "Anytime" or "Wanna Get Away" fares don't have priority over other fares. Lowry is seeking class status, and more than $5 million plus court costs. She is represented by Kristopher P. Badame of Badame & Associates, APC. SPENDSMART NETWORKS: Discovery in TCPA Suit Remains Stayed ---------------------------------------------------------- Spendsmart Networks, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 3, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that class discovery remains stayed in a lawsuit filed in the United States District Court Eastern District of New York relating to alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (the "TCPA"). On January 1, 2014, Intellectual Capital Management, LLC dba SMS Masterminds was named in a potential class-action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court Eastern District of New York relating to alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (the "TCPA"). The plaintiff's lawsuit has sought the certification of a class, though as of the date of this Annual Report on Form 10-K such class certification has not been approved by the court. Specifically, the complaint alleges that SMS Masterminds sent unsolicited text messages to the plaintiff and other recipients without the prior express invitation or permission of the recipients and such plaintiff is now seeking unspecified monetary damages, injunctive relief, costs and attorneys' fees. SMS Masterminds filed its motion for summary judgment in June. The briefing on the motion concluded on August 5th. "Plaintiff made numerous requests for discovery prior to filing his opposition to our motion and repeated these requests in his opposition. The hearing on the motion took place September 17th. The Court granted Plaintiff a brief window to conduct discovery limited to the issues raised in our motion for summary judgment and that discovery has been completed. Class discovery remains stayed," the Company said. "We expect to renew our motion for summary judgment in early 2015. We believe Plaintiff's allegations have no merit and will continue to vigorously defend against Plaintiff's claims. Litigation is subject to numerous uncertainties and we are unable to predict the ultimate outcome of this or any other matter. Moreover, the amount of any potential liability in connection with this lawsuit will depend, to a large extent, on whether a class in a class action lawsuit is certified and, if one is certified, on the scope of the class, neither of which we can predict at this time. These and any future lawsuits that we may face regarding these issues could materially and adversely affect our results of operations, cash flows and financial condition, cause us to incur significant expenses and divert the attention of our management and key personnel from our business operations." SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Judge Tosses Investor Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ Roxana Hegeman, writing for Findlaw.com, reports that a federal judge on May 14 threw out a class-action lawsuit brought by investors against aircraft parts maker Spirit AeroSystems alleging that the company and four of its officers made misleading statements that artificially inflated its stock price. The shareholder lawsuit was filed after an October 2012 announcement that the Wichita-based company had recorded $590 million forward losses on six manufacturing contracts. Spirit AeroSystems' stock price dropped $6.55 per share, or 30 percent, following the announcement. Investors sued in June 2013 in U.S. District Court in Kansas, alleging violations of federal securities laws. They alleged they bought Spirit stock at artificially inflated prices because of misrepresentations and omissions of material facts related to the progress of the company's cost-cutting efforts. In dismissing their lawsuit, U.S. District Judge Eric Melgren ruled that shareholders failed to show any allegedly misleading statements were material to an investor deciding whether to buy or sell stock. The judge also said they did not show the company or officers made any statements with the intent to deceive or with recklessness. Spirit issued a statement saying it believes its company and the officers named in the lawsuit have been vindicated by the judge's action. Then-CEO Jeffrey Turner; chief financial officer Philip Anderson; the vice president of Spirit's Oklahoma operations, Alexander Kummant; and the vice president of Spirit's 787 program, Terry George, were all named in the suit. Attorneys for the plaintiffs did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment on the judge's decision. The lawsuit pointed to a total of 86 misleading statements or omissions allegedly made by the officers before the loss announcement. But Judge Melgren said it's unclear the company and officers had anything to gain by delaying announcement of the loss to October 2012. Spirit AeroSystems' stock price immediately plummeted and Mr. Turner announced his resignation shortly afterward. "Presumably, those same things would have happened even if Spirit had recorded those same forward-loss charges earlier as Plaintiffs contend it should have done," Judge Melgren wrote. The forward losses included $184 million for the Boeing 787 program, $162.5 million for its Gulfstream G650 program, $151 million for its Rolls-Royce BR725 program, $88.1 million for its Gulfstream G280 program, $2.4 million for its Airbus 350 program and $2.4 million for its Boeing 747 program. The company attributed the losses to performance issues in its Tulsa facility; higher cost estimates related to certification; the decision to delay moving work to lower-cost facilities in Kinston, North Carolina, and Chanute, Kansas; and the finalization of supplier contracts. They contended the losses did not become evident until the third quarter of 2012, when they were reported. SS BODY ARMOR: Action to Compel Annual Meeting Not Barred by Stay ----------------------------------------------------------------- Bankruptcy Judge Christopher S. Sontchi granted Jeffrey R. Brooks' "Motion for Relief from the Automatic Stay as Necessary to Enforce Delaware State Law Rights to Compel An Annual Meeting" in the case captioned IN RE: SS BODY ARMOR I, INC., ET AL., Chapter 11, Debtors, CASE NO. 10-11255(CSS). Judge Sontchi found that an action to compel an annual meeting is not barred by the automatic stay. The Court also held that oppositions to the Motion had the effect of seeking an injunction of any Chancery Court action to compel a shareholder meeting and/or the shareholder meeting, which was procedurally deficient under the Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure. A copy of the Judge Sontchi's April 1, 2015 Opinion is available at http://is.gd/JtHnF4from Leagle.com. PACHULSKI STANG ZIEHL & JONES LLP, Laura Davis Jones -- ljones@pszjlaw.com -- David M. Bertenthal -- dbertenthal@pszjlaw.com -- James E. O'Neill -- joneill@pszjlaw.com -- Wilmington, DE, Counsel to Debtors and Debtors in Possession. THE ROSNER LAW GROUP LLC, Scott J. Leonhardt -- leonhardt@teamrosner.com -- Wilmington, DE, and ARENT FOX LLP, Robert M. Hirsh -- robert.hirsh@arentfox.com -- George P. Angelich -- george.angelich@arentfox.com -- New York NY, Counsel for the Official Committee Unsecured Creditors. CONNOLLY GALLAGHER LLP, Jeffrey C. Wisler -- jwisler@connollygallagher.com -- Wilmington, DE, Counsel for Jeffrey R. Brooks. BIFFERATO LLC, Ian Connor Bifferato -- cbifferato@bifferato.com -- Thomas F. Driscoll III, Wilmington, DE, and BAKER & McKENZIE LLP, John E. Mitchell -- john.Mitchell@bakermckenzie.com -- Rosa A. Shirley -- rosa.Shirley@bakermckenzie.com -- Jonathan Rosamond -- jonathan.Rosamond@bakermckenzie.com-- Dallas, TX, Counsel for the Official of Committee of Equity Security Holders. CROSS & SIMON LLC, Christopher P. Simon -- csimon@crosslaw.com -- Kevin S. Mann -- kmann@crosslaw.com -- Wilmington, DE, and LOWENSTEIN SANDLER LLP, Michael S. Etkin -- metkin@lowenstein.com -- Roseland, NJ., Counsel to Lead Plaintiffs. REED SMITH LLP, Kurt F. Gwynne -- kgwynne@reedsmith.com -- Wilmington, De, and David Mason, New York, NY, Counsel for Khashayar Eynalhori. D. David Cohen, Steven Wildstein, Prescott Group Capital Management and Eric Lay Appearing Pro Se. Headquartered in Pompano Beach, Florida, Point Blank Solutions, Inc. -- http://www.pointblanksolutionsinc.com/-- designed and produced body armor systems for the U.S. Military, Government and law enforcement agencies, as well as select international markets. The Company's former chief executive officer and chief operating officer were convicted in September 2010 of orchestrating a $185 million fraud. Point Blank Solutions, formerly DHB Industries, filed for Chapter 11 protection (Bankr. D. Del. Case No. 10-11255) on April 14, 2010. In October 2011, the Debtors sold substantially all assets to Point Blank Enterprises, Inc. The lead debtor changed its name to SS Body Armor I, Inc. following the sale. STAR BULK: Briefing Expected to Be Completed in Shareholder Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- Star Bulk Carriers Corp. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 8, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that briefing was expected to be completed by May 8, 2015, in a shareholder class action case. The Company said, "On October 23, 2014, a purported shareholder (the "Plaintiff") of Star Bulk Carriers Corp. filed a derivative and putative class action lawsuit in New York state court against our Chief Executive Officer, members of our board of directors and several of our shareholders and related entities. We have been named as a nominal defendant in the lawsuit. The lawsuit alleges that our acquisition of Oceanbulk and purchase of several Excel Vessels were the result of self-dealing by various defendants and that we entered into the respective transactions on unfair terms. The lawsuit further alleges that, as a result of these transactions, several defendants' interests in Star Bulk Carriers Corp. have increased and that the Plaintiff's interest in Star Bulk Carriers Corp. has been diluted. The lawsuit also alleges that our management has engaged in other conduct that has resulted in corporate waste. The lawsuit seeks cancellation of all shares issued to the defendants in connection with our acquisition of Oceanbulk, unspecified monetary damages, the replacement of some or all members of our board of directors and of our Chief Executive Officer, and other relief. We believe the claims are completely without merit, deny them, and intend to vigorously defend against them in court." "On November 24, 2014, we and the other defendants removed the action to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The court has issued a case management plan pursuant to which all fact discovery must be completed by October 2, 2015, and all expert discovery must be completed by November 16, 2015. No date for trial has been set. On March 4, 2015, we and the other defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. Briefing is underway and [was] expected to be completed by May 8, 2015." STONELEIGH RECOVERY: Illegally Collects Debt, Action Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- Mark Czubachouski, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Stoneleigh Recovery Associates, LLC, Bureaus Investment Group Portfolio No. 3 LLC, and John Does 1-25, Case No. 3:15-cv-03417 (D.N.J., May 18, 2015), seeks to put an end on the Defendant's deceptive, misleading, and unfair debt collection practices. The Defendants are engaged in the business of collecting or attempting to collect debts. 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 SUBARU: Recalls 3,500 Vehicles Over Errors in EyeSight Manual ------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: May 15, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Car, SUV Notification type: Compliance Mfr System: Accessories Units affected: 3500 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015206TC ID number: 2015206 Manufacturer recall number: WQO-51 On certain vehicles equipped with EyeSight driver assist technology, the French version of the EyeSight Owner's Manual may contain incorrect translations of certain text. If the vehicle were to be operated as described in the mistranslated French text, it could increase the risk of a crash. Correction: Subaru will send corrected French EyeSight manuals directly to affected vehicle owners and additional corrected manuals will be available to all Dealers. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- SUBARU LEGACY 2013, 2014, 2015 SUBARU IMPREZA 2015 SUBARU OUTBACK 2013, 2014, 2015 SUBARU FORESTER 2014, 2015 SUBARU XV CROSSTREK 2015 SUMMIT NURSING: "Davis" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Marquita Davis v. Summit Nursing Services, Inc., and Melva Barrett, Case No. 0:15-cv-61037-BB (S.D. Fla., May 18, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime pay, liquidated damages, post-judgment interest, and reasonable attorneys' fee and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a nursing home and rehabilitation center in Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian Jay Militzok, Esq. MILITZOK LAW, P.A. 4600 Sheridan Street, Suite 402 Hollywood, FL 33021 Telephone: (954) 780-8228 Facsimile: (954) 719-4016 E-mail: bjm@mllawfl.com SUPER STOP: "Perazza" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Maria Perazza and other similarly-situated individuals v. Super Stop 441, Inc. and George Joseph, Case No. 1:15-cv-21894-MGC (S.D. Fla., May 19, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a convenience store in Davie, Broward County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 3100 South Dixie Highway, Suite 202 Miami, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com TCP INTERNATIONAL: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------ Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP reminds investors of TCP International Holdings Ltd. ("TCP" or the "Company") (NYSE: TCPI) who purchased the Company's shares between June 26, 2014 and February 26, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period"), that they have until May 1, 2015 to file a motion to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the shareholder lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Please contact Lesley Portnoy to discuss this matter. The Complaint alleges that Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: the Company was placing non-compliant products into the marketplace; the Company's CEO, E. Yan, consistently overrode Company policies on matter such as capital expenditures, customer credit, new product development process, product design and safety certifications, the Company's code of ethics and business conduct manual. On February 26, 2015, TCPI announced that claims were filed in Ohio state court against the Company, and E. Yan, by TCPI General Counsel and Chief Compliance Officer, Laura Hauser, alleging misconduct by the CEO. The complaint specifically alleged that, E. Yan's conduct violated state and federal law, and created significant risk to shareholder value. On this news shares of TCPI declined $3.67 per share, over 56%, to close at $2.74 per share on February 27, 2015. If you are a member of the Class described above, you may move the Court no later than May 1, 2015, to serve as lead plaintiff, if you meet certain legal requirements. To be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Lesley Portnoy, Esquire, of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067, at (310) 201-9150, by e-mail to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at http://www.glancylaw.com.If you inquire by email, please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased. TOYOTA MOTOR: Recalls Tundra & Sequoia Models Due to Injury Risk ---------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: May 13, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Light Truck & Van Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Airbag Units affected: 4409 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015197TC ID number: 2015197 Manufacturer recall number: SSC 241 On certain vehicles, the passenger (frontal) airbag inflator could produce excessive internal pressure during airbag deployment. Increased pressure may cause the inflator to rupture, which could allow fragments to be propelled toward vehicle occupants, increasing the risk of injury. This could also damage the airbag module, which could prevent proper deployment. Failure of the passenger airbag to fully deploy during a crash (where deployment is warranted) could increase the risk of personal injury to the seat occupant. Note: This recall is an expansion of 2014224. Correction: Dealers will replace the front passenger air bag inflator with a newly manufactured one. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- TOYOTA TUNDRA 2003, 2004 TOYOTA SEQUOIA 2003, 2004 TOYOTA MOTOR: Recalls 2004 and 2005 RAV4 Models ----------------------------------------------- Starting date: May 13, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: SUV Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Airbag Units affected: 14570 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015198TC ID number: 2015198 Manufacturer recall number: SRC R06 On certain vehicles, the driver's (frontal) airbag inflator has a potential for intrusion of moisture over time due to insufficient air sealing. This could result in the inflator rupturing during a deployment, and/or an abnormal deployment of the driver's (frontal) airbag during a crash (where deployment is warranted), which could increase the risk of injury to the seat occupant. Correction: Dealers will replace the driver's (frontal) air bag inflator with an updated part. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- TOYOTA RAV4 2004, 2005 UNITED STATES: Deportation Suit Kept Alive ------------------------------------------ David Rogers, writing for Politico, reported that immigrant rights attorneys won an important round in federal court in Seattle, keeping alive their lawsuit challenging President Barack Obama's decision to rush thousands of children from Central America into deportation proceedings last summer without first assuring them legal counsel. U.S. District Judge Thomas Zilly denied the Justice Department's motion to dismiss the case outright on jurisdictional grounds and said instead that the child migrants' due process right-to-counsel claim was vital and deserves "an answer." "The Court is of the opinion the due process question plaintiffs have raised in this case is far too important to consign it, as defendants propose, to the perhaps perpetual loop of the administrative and judicial review process," Zilly said. "A fundamental precept of due process is that individuals have a right to be heard 'at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner' and before 'being condemned to suffer grievous loss of any kind even though it may not involve the stigma and hardship of a criminal conviction." "The removal proceedings at issue in this case pit juveniles against the full force of the federal government," Zilly wrote. "The government initiates the proceedings, it is represented in them, and its discretion in executing removal orders is insulated from judicial review. Moreover, courts have repeatedly recognized 'with only a small degree of hyperbole' that the immigration laws are 'second only to the Internal Revenue Code in complexity.'" UNITED STATES: Federal Ruling May Free Immigrants w/o Bonds ----------------------------------------------------------- Mike Carter, writing for Seattle Times, reported that Seattle federal judge orders the DOJ to obey a law that allows some immigrant detainees to be released on their own recognizance while their cases work through the system. In a move that could affect tens of thousands of detainees, a federal judge in Seattle has ordered the Department of Justice to obey a law that allows for the release of some undocumented immigrants without posting a bond. Immigration-rights leaders say the law is routinely ignored in Washington and elsewhere in the United States because of a conflicting Department of Justice (DOJ) policy that requires immigrant detainees to post at least a $1,500 bond regardless of whether they pose a danger or flight risk. "People should not be locked up while they are in immigration proceedings simply because they do not have money to pay a bond," said Matt Adams, the legal director of the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project (NIRP). In ordering that the DOJ follow the law, U.S. District Judge Robert Lasnik also certified a lawsuit filed on behalf of one such detainee by the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington and NIRP as a class-action, sweeping in hundreds of plaintiffs who are being detained on immigration holds solely because they cannot post bonds. Adams said that while Lasnik's ruling now only affects undocumented immigrants held in Western Washington -- he estimates there are about 500 people in the Seattle and Tacoma areas who fit that scenario -- the DOJ's policy impacts tens of thousands of detainees nationally. "We are hopeful this ruling will have an impact," on a practice that has been in place for 15 years, he said. "This is a national problem." Nicole Navas, a spokeswoman for the Department of Justice in Washington, D.C., said the DOJ was "reviewing the judge's order." The lawsuit was filed in October on behalf of Maria Sandra Rivera, a Honduran woman who said she was fleeing torture and domestic slavery when she illegally entered the United States on May 29, 2014. She was picked up by agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) that same day and sent to the Northwest Detention Center in Tacoma, according to the lawsuit. Rivera sought asylum and passed a "credible fear interview" with an asylum officer, who referred her case to Tacoma Immigration Court, the lawsuit said. In the meantime, ICE determined she posed no flight risk or threat to the community and recommended bond, which was eventually set by an immigration judge at $3,500, according to court documents. Rivera could not afford that amount and asked that she be released on her own recognizance -- a process called "conditional parole" - - which is allowed for in the Immigration and Nationalization Act. However, conditional parole is routinely denied in Seattle, Tacoma and elsewhere in the country, Adams said, because of a conflicting DOJ policy that requires an immigrant detainee post at least $1,500 bond regardless of whether he or she poses a danger or flight risk, according to court documents. Rivera had been detained more than four months when the suit was filed in October. She has since been granted asylum and released, according to the court docket. Adams said hundreds of other immigrant detainees are in the same situation when it comes to posting bond. "The result of this policy is that Immigration Judges require individuals such as Ms. Rivera to post bond even after determining that neither danger nor flight risk require their detention," according to the lawsuit. "Thus, indigent or low-income individuals like Ms. Rivera . . . routinely suffer continued and unnecessary detention, of, if it is even possible, are forced to strain personal, family and community resources in order to gain their release." Adams wrote that the policy "unquestionably violates" the immigration act. The government has fought the lawsuit, attacking the court's jurisdiction and arguing the case is moot because Rivera has since been released. Assistant U.S. Attorney Erez Reuveni of the DOJ's Civil Division in Washington, D.C., argued in pleadings in the Rivera case that the Board of Immigration Appeals is poised to address a similar case on its own and argued that Lasnik should hold off on any decision and let that process play out. But Lasnik, in the order, said that the immigration court's blanket refusal to consider conditional parole for immigrant detainees potentially impinges on a detainee's due-process and liberty interests, and that Rivera had standing to challenge the policy. The government also argued that Lasnik was barred from second- guessing the immigration judge, but Lasnik said the application of the policy wasn't the point. "While an [Immigration Judge's] discretionary judgment in how it applies the statute is not subject to review, this Court has found no authority supporting the notion that [an immigration judge] has the discretion to misinterpret the statute under which he operates," Lasnik wrote. He ruled that the Immigration and Nationalization Act "unambiguously states that an immigration judge may consider conditions for release beyond a monetary bond," and found that the agency's policy violates the law. "The court thus finds that aliens who are detained following defective bond hearings . . . may immediately challenge their hearings for legal error on the grounds that their continued detention is an unnecessary harm," Lasnik wrote. UNITED TECHNOLOGIES: Falsely Marketed Smoke Alarms, Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Vincent Zito, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. United Technologies Corporation, et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-00744 (D. Conn., May 19, 2015), seeks redress for the Defendants' ongoing failure to disclose that their Ionization Smoke Alarms are not fit to detect and warn of most home fires and therefore pose an unreasonable safety hazard. United Technologies Corporation is a Delaware corporation that makes and sells Ionization Smoke Alarms under the brand name Kidde. The Plaintiff is represented by: William Bloss, Esq. Richard A. Bieder, Esq. KOSKOFF KOSKOFF & BIEDER, P.C. 350 Fairfield Avenue Bridgeport, CO 06604 Telephone: (203) 336-4421 Facsimile: (203) 368-3244 E-mail: bbloss@koskoff.com rbieder@koskoff.com - and - Marc R. Stanley, Esq. Martin Woodward, Esq. STANLEY LAW GROUP 3100 Monticello Avenue, Suite 770 Dallas, TX 75205 Telephone: (214) 443-4300 Facsimile: (214) 443-0358 E-mail: marcstanley@mac.com mwoodward@stanleyiola.com - and - Andrew S. Kierstead, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ANDREW KIERSTEAD 1001 SW 5th Avenue, Suite 1100 Portland, OR 97204 Telephone: (508) 224-6246 Facsimile: (508) 224-4356 E-mail: ajkier@aol.com - and - Peter N. Wasylyk, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF PETER N.WASYLYK 1307 Chalkstone Avenue Providence, RI 02908 Telephone: (401) 831-7730 Facsimile: (401) 861-6064 E-mail: pnwlaw@aol.com VIOLIN MEMORY: To Defend Against Securities Actions --------------------------------------------------- Violin Memory, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 8, 2015, for the fiscal year ended January 31, 2015, that the Company intends to defend against the securities actions. The Company said, "Beginning on November 26, 2013, four putative class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, naming us and a number of our present or former directors and officers, and several underwriters of our September 27, 2013 IPO. The four complaints have been consolidated into a single, putative class action, and co-lead plaintiffs have been appointed by the court. On March 28, 2014, a consolidated complaint was filed. The complaint purports to assert claims under the federal securities laws on behalf of purchasers of our common stock issued in the IPO, based on seven categories of alleged omissions. The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount and other relief. On April 18, 2014, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint. On October 31, 2014, the court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motions to dismiss. The court's order dismissed all except one category of alleged omissions, and gave plaintiffs the opportunity to amend the complaint. On November 21, 2014, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. In so doing, the plaintiffs chose not to amend their claims against us or the present or former directors and officers. Pending further developments regarding plaintiffs' claims against the underwriters, the case will proceed to the discovery phase on the remaining allegations against us and the present or former directors and officers." WALGREENS BOOTS: Settlement of 2 Class Suits Awaits Court Okay -------------------------------------------------------------- Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 9, 2015, for the quarterly period ended February 28, 2015, that the proposed settlement of two class action lawsuits is subject to, among other things, court approval. On December 5 and 12, 2014, putative shareholders filed class actions in federal court in the Northern District of Illinois against the Walgreens Board of Directors, Walgreen Co., and Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. arising out of the Company's definitive proxy statement/prospectus filed with the SEC in connection with the special meeting of Walgreens shareholders on December 29, 2014. The actions assert claims that the definitive proxy statement/prospectus was false or misleading in various respects. On December 23, 2014, solely to avoid the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in litigation, and without admitting any liability or wrongdoing, Walgreens entered into a memorandum of understanding with the plaintiffs in both actions, pursuant to which Walgreens made certain supplemental disclosures. The proposed settlement is subject to, among other things, court approval. WASHINGTON: Judge Narrows Claims in "Dunakin" Suit -------------------------------------------------- District Judge James L. Robart of the Western District of Washington, Seattle, ruled on the parties' motions in the case ADAM DUNAKIN, Plaintiff, v. KEVIN W. QUIGLEY, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. C14-0567 JLR (W.D. Wash.) Plaintiff Adam Dunakin is a 34-year-old man with developmental disability, who has lived in nursing facilities for more than eight years. He alleges that defendants Kevin W. Quigley, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Washington State Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS), and Dorothy F. Teeter, in her official capacity as Director of the Washington State Health Care Authority (HCA), have failed to provide him with screenings and evaluations, specialized services, and notice of or planning for eventual community placement as required pursuant to the Nursing Home Reform Act (NHRA), 42 U.S.C. Section 1396r, and other laws. He further alleges that these failures have resulted in his continued institutionalization and unnecessary isolation. He brings his complaint on behalf of himself and a putative class of other residents of privately operated, Medicaid-certified nursing facilities in Washington State who are similarly situated. The complaint enumerates six claims for relief. Mr. Dunakin's first claim is based on defendants' alleged violations of certain provisions of the NHRA. His second and third claims are based on alleged violations of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 12132, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 794(a). His fourth claim alleges violations of certain provisions of Title XIX of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. Sections 1396a(a)(8), 1396a(a)(10)(B)(i), 1396n(c)(2)(B). His fifth and sixth claims seek declaratory and injunctive relief and are derivative of his first four claims. Dunakin filed a motion for class certification and a motion for partial summary judgment. Defendants on the other hand brought a motion for judgment on the pleadings and partial summary judgment under Fed.R.Civ.Proc. Rule 12(2). Judge Robart granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings and for partial summary judgment. The court granted dismissal with respect to Mr. Dunakin's claim based on the comparability requirement of the Medicaid Act as set forth in 42 U.S.C. Section 1396(a)(10)(B)(i), but the court also granted Mr. Dunakin's leave to amend his complaint with respect to the claim within 30 days of the date of the order. In all other respects, the court denies defendants' motion. The court granted Mr. Dunakin's motions for class certification and for partial summary judgment. A copy of Judge Robart's order dated April 10, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/SOIhpqfrom Leagle.com Adam Dunakin, Plaintiff, represented by: Susan Linn Kas, Esq. DISABILITY RIGHTS WASHINGTON 315 - 5th Avenue South, Suite 850 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: 206-324-1521 Facsimile: 206-957-0729 - and - Eleanor Hamburger, Esq. SIRIANNI YOUTZ SPOONEMORE 999 Third Avenue, Suite 3650 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: 206-223-0303 Facsimile: 206-223-0246 Defendants, represented by: Angela D. Coats McCarthy, Esq. Matthew S. King, Esq. Michelle Teed, Esq. WASHINGTON ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: 206-464-7744 WD-40 COMPANY: Defending Against David Wolf Action -------------------------------------------------- WD-40 Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 9, 2015, for the quarterly period ended February 28, 2015, that the Company intends to vigorously defend the case, David Wolf v. WD-40 Company. On February 25, 2014, a legal action was filed against the Company in the Superior Court of California for San Diego County (David Wolf v. WD-40 Company). Mr. Wolf's complaint seeks class action status and alleges that the Company violated California Penal Code Section 632.7 which prohibits the interception or reception and intentional recording of "a communication transmitted between two cellular radio telephones, a cellular radio telephone and a landline telephone, two cordless telephones, a cordless telephone and a landline telephone, or a cordless telephone and a cellular radio telephone" without the consent of both parties to the communication. Mr. Wolf alleges that he called a toll free number for the Company from his cellular radio telephone and that his call was recorded by the Company without his consent in violation of the statute. The California Penal Code provides for a private right of action to persons who are injured by a violation of the statute. If entitled to recover, the injured plaintiff may recover the greater of $5,000 or three times the amount of actual damages sustained by the plaintiff. The Company asserts that the Company has not violated the California Penal Code and the Company intends to vigorously defend this action. At the present time, the Company is unable to estimate the extent of possible loss or a range of possible loss that could result from this legal proceeding. WILLOW CREEK: Sued in Colo. Over Failure to Provide Layoff Notice ----------------------------------------------------------------- John Madden, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Willow Creek Companies, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-01047- CMA (D. Colo., May 18, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to provide 60 days' advance written notice in connection with recent a mass layoff and plant closing at the Defendant's Pecos, Texas site of employment. Willow Creek Companies, LLC provides midstream oil & natural gas, water, and pipeline and facilities construction for oil companies. The Plaintiff is represented by: Allen Ryan Vaught, Esq. BARON & BUDD, P.C. 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100 Dallas, TX 75219-4283 Telephone: (214) 521-3605 Facsimile: (214) 520-1181 E-mail: avaught@baronbudd.com WOONSOCKET, R.I.: Judge Narrows Claims in "Cournoyer" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Justice Netti C. Vogel of Superior Court of Rhode Island, Providence, ruled on various motions in the case JAMES C. COURNOYER, SHAUN R. COURNOYER, MARC A. COTE, ROLAND M. MICHAUD, AND ROGER G. JALETTE, SR., ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. CITY OF WOONSOCKET BUDGET COMMISSION, THE CITY OF WOONSOCKET, THE TAX ASSESSOR OF THE CITY OF WOONSOCKET, AND THE TREASURER OF THE CITY OF WOONSOCKET, C.A. NO. PC 2013-4082 (R.I.) A group of taxpayers, residents, and owners of motor vehicles and real estate in the City of Woonsocket have brought an action against the City of Woonsocket Budget Commission, the Tax Assessor of the City of Woonsocket, and the Treasurer of the City of Woonsocket. Plaintiffs challenge the legality of Ordinance NO. 7, a supplemental tax issued by the City of Woonsocket on certain motor vehicles and real estate. They brought the lawsuit as a putative class action on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated taxpayers in the City of Woonsocket. Specifically, plaintiffs allege that (1) the Ordinance contravenes Section 44-5-74.4 (Count 1); (2) the Ordinance is in violation of the presentment requirement in the Rhode Island Constitution because it was enacted prematurely (Count 2); (3) the supplemental tax is illegal (Count 3); (4) inclusion of the supplemental tax in the tax levy for fiscal year 2013-2014 was unlawful (Count 4); (5) inclusion of the supplemental tax in the tax levy for fiscal year 2014-2015 was unlawful (Count 5); (6) the enactment and assessment of the supplemental tax violated plaintiffs' procedural due process rights (Count 6); (7) the supplemental tax amounted to an impermissible taking (Count 7); and (8) failure to file the minutes of the July 8, 2013 Budget Commission meeting within the statutory time period violated the Open Meetings Act (Count 8). The plaintiffs seek summary judgment as to Counts 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8. The defendants move for summary judgment on all counts. Plaintiffs also move to dismiss defendants' counterclaim for attorney's fees pursuant to Section 45-9-23. Justice Vogel granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment with respect to counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. The court denied plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment to counts 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7. With respect to Count 8, the court grants the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, in part, on the issue of the Open Meetings Act violation. Should plaintiffs seek an award of attorney fees incurred with respect to the violation of the Open Meetings Act, they must file a motion before the court with notice to defendants. The court grants plaintiffs' motion to dismiss defendants' counterclaim. A copy of Justice Vogel's decision dated April 10, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/6LKfDifrom Leagle.com For Plaintiff: Robert G. Senville, Esq. ROBERT G. SENVILLE, ESQ. P.C. 170 Westminster St., Suite 1010 Providence, RI 02903 Tel: 401-454-7100 For Defendant: Edmund L. Alves, Jr., Esq. Joseph V. Cavanagh, III, Esq. Lynne Barry Dolan, Esq. BLISH & CAVANAGH LLP Commerce Center, 30 Exchange Terrace Providence, RI 02903-1765 Telephone: 401-831-8900 Facsimile: 401-751-7542 - and - Marc DeSisto, Esq. DeSisto Law Offices 211 Angel St. Providence, RI 02906 ZUCKER GOLDBERG: Illegally Collects Debt, "Bennet" Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Micaela P. Bennett and Sahib Bennett, individually and on behalf of others who are similarly situated v. Zucker, Goldberg & Ackerman, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-03415-SDW-SCM (D.N.J., May 18, 2015), seeks to put an end on the Defendant's deceptive, misleading, and unfair debt collection practices. The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip D. Stern, Esq. PHILIP D. STERN ATTORNEY AT LAW 2816 Morris Avenue, Suite 30 Union, NJ 07083 Telephone: (973) 379-7500 Facsimile: (973) 532-0866 E-mail: pstern@philipstern.com * Stroock Bolsters Litigation Practice in New York and Miami ------------------------------------------------------------ Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, a national law firm with offices in New York, Los Angeles, Miami and Washington, DC, announced the addition of two new partners and a special counsel. Joining the firm are Michael C. Keats, a litigation partner in New York, and Laura Besvinick, an insurance litigation partner in Miami. Julie Nevins, who focuses on complex commercial litigation, has joined the firm as special counsel in Miami. The continued expansion of the firm includes two recent additions in the Los Angeles office, Steven D. Atlee, a financial services/class action partner in the Litigation Practice Group, and Yousuf I. Dhamee, an investment management partner. "The addition of these talented and experienced lawyers will bolster the firm's strong national litigation practice in key practice areas -- insurance, securities, commercial litigation and commodities," said Alan M. Klinger, Stroock's co-managing partner and co-chair of Stroock's Litigation Practice Group. Mr. Keats represents financial institutions and their senior executives in civil litigation and regulatory enforcement proceedings. A former Managing Director in Goldman Sachs' Litigation and Regulatory Proceedings Group, Mr. Keats is a seasoned litigator with extensive experience both in the courtroom and in-house. He also advises clients on securities fraud and commodities manipulation, intellectual property litigation, complex contract disputes and class action cases. In addition, Mr. Keats has represented clients in investigations conducted by the U.S. Department of Justice, the SEC and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. "Michael has an extraordinary breadth of experience as a corporate counsel, trial lawyer and adviser to Fortune 100 companies, as well as their executives, on complex, high-risk securities matters," said Mr. Klinger. Mr. Keats received his J.D. from Boston University School of Law, and his B.A. and M.A. from Brandeis University. Mr. Keats may be reached at: Michael C. Keats, Esq. STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP 180 Maiden Lane New York, NY 10038-4982 Tel: 212-806-5533 Fax: 212-806-6006 Email: mkeats@stroock.com Ms. Besvinick's practice focuses on the representation of insurers in bad faith actions, complex coverage disputes and consumer class actions. She also advises insurers on claims-handling and bad faith issues. In addition, Ms. Besvinick regularly defends accountants and attorneys in malpractice actions, securities class actions and before the SEC, and represents companies in complex commercial disputes in the courts and in arbitration. "Laura is one of the most respected insurance litigators in the country, and has an extraordinary record of success for her clients in state, federal and appellate courts," said Michele Jacobson, a member of the Firm's Executive Committee and a partner in the Insurance Practice Group. "She and Julie will be great assets to our Florida office and national insurance practice." Ms. Besvinick received her J.D., cum laude, from Harvard Law School, where she was an Editor of the Harvard Law Review, and her A.B. from Harvard-Radcliffe College. Ms. Besvinick may be reached at: Laura Besvinick, Esq. STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP 200 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 3100 Miami, FL 33131-5323 Tel: 305-789-9395 Fax: 305-789-9302 Email: lbesvinick@stroock.com Julie Nevins concentrates her practice on complex business disputes and has over 15 years of experience handling matters in trial and appellate courts and in arbitral and administrative forums. She has broad experience handling insurance coverage, business torts, trademark, trade secret, contract, lender liability, and real property disputes. Ms. Nevins received her J.D., magna cum laude, from Florida State University College of Law, Order of the Coif, where she was Editor-in-Chief of the Florida State University Law Review, and her B.A. from Vassar College. Ms. Nevins may be reached at: Julie Nevins, Esq. STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP 200 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 3100 Miami, FL 33131-5323 Tel: 305-789-9380 Fax: 305-789-9302 Email: jnevins@stroock.com Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP is a law firm providing transactional, regulatory and litigation guidance to leading financial institutions, multinational corporations, investment funds and entrepreneurs in the U.S. and abroad. Our emphasis on excellence and innovation has enabled us to maintain long-term relationships with our clients and made us one of the nation's leading law firms for almost 140 years. Stroock's practice areas include capital markets/securities, commercial finance, mergers, acquisitions and joint ventures, private equity, private funds, commodities and derivatives, employment law and benefits, energy and project finance, entertainment, environmental law, financial restructuring, financial services litigation, government relations, insurance, intellectual property, investment management, litigation, national security/CFIUS, personal client services, real estate, structured finance and tax. ********* 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 * * *