/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/150603.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, June 3, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 110 Headlines 21VIANET GROUP: Court Has Not Ruled on Motions to Consolidate 3430685 CANADA: Recalls Nest Booster Seats Due to Fall Hazard AIG INC: Judge Junks Consolidated Insurance Suit Over RICO Claims AIR CANADA: Statement of Claim Filed in Crash Landing Class Suit ALE HOUSE: "Guevara" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages AMERICAN APPAREL: Hit With Calif. Labor Law Class Action AMERICAN EXPRESS: Sued Over Racial & Sexual Discrimination AMERICAN HOME: Denial of "Stissi" Bid for Matrix Benefits Upheld ANTHEM INC: Kansas Firm Seeks Class Status in Kancare Breach APOTEX INC: Recalls APO-Verap SR 180mg Tablets APOTEX INC: Recalls APO-Candesartan/HCTZ 12.5 mg Tablets ASSURANT INC: RICO Claims Tossed in Insurance Class Action AUDIOEYE INC: Milberg LLP Files Securities Class Action AUTOMATED INCOME: Faces "Stewart" Suit Over TCPA Violation AVG TECHNOLOGIES: Reported $100,000 Admin. Costs on Settlement BCE INC: Nova Scotia Class Suit Permanently Stayed BEDESSEE IMPORTS: Recalls Coconut Milk Powder Due to Allergen BEST BUY: Counsel to "Herron" Plaintiffs May Not be Deposed BJ'S WHOLESALE: Sued Over Improper Sales Tax Collection CALFRAC WELL: Sued in Texas Over Layoff Notice CAPITAL BUILDING: Faces "Hussein" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT CARDONE TRAINING: "Scott" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages CARDWORKS INC: Faces "Turner" Suit Over Debt Collection Practices CHINA CERAMICS: Reached Deal in Principle to Settle Class Actions COSTCO WHOLESALE: Falsely Marketed Flushable Wipes, Suit Claims CVS HEALTH: Falsely Marketed Flushable Wipes, "Palmer" Suit Says DELRAY AUTOMALL: Removed "Salgado" Class Suit to S.D. Florida DENSO CORP: Fixed Power Window Motor Prices, All European Claims DENSO CORP: Faces 2nd All European Suit Over Window Motor Prices DIVORCE SOURCE: Facing Class Action Filed by Former Customer DJO FINANCE: Accrued $0.2MM for Unpaid Deals in Pain Pump Case DOLLAR TREE: Removed "Patton" Class Suit to C.D. California DOUBLE KITCHEN: Faces "Zhuang" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime DUKE ENERGY: Class Suit Filed Over Unlawfully Paid Rebates DUPRE ENERGY: "Hart" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ELECTROLUX CANADA: Recalls Frigidaire and Kenmore Elite Ovens ENDURANCE COMMUNICATIONS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages EURO IMPORT: Recalls Dried Apricots Due to Undeclared Sulfites EVERYWARE GLOBAL: To Vigorously Defend Class Action Lawsuit EXCLUSIVE CANDY: Recalls Strux Build & Bite Candy Dextrose EXPLORATION DRILLING: "Casarotto" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT F. KORBEL & BROS: Calif. Wineries Sued Over Arsenic Content FALCON TRADING: Recalls Medium Shred Coconut Due to Steel Wire FALCON TRADING: Recalls Coconut Vanilla Candies Due to Steel Wire FAMILY HOME: "Downie" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages FEDERAL NATIONAL: Illegally Collects Debt, "Walsh" Suit Claims FOOD MANAGEMENT: Sued Over Failure to Give Advance Layoff Notice FORCEFIELD ENERGY: Faces Shareholder Class Action in S.D.N.Y. FORCEFIELD ENERGY: Gainey McKenna Files Class Action in S.D.N.Y. GARCES & GARCES: "Zikorus" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages GENERAL MOTORS: Sued Over Duramax Diesel Engine Fuel Efficiency GOLD FIELDS: Certification Bid to Be Heard in October 2015 GOLD RESOURCE: Reports Successful Defense Against Lawsuit GOOGLE INC: Rips Privacy Class Action Over Data Value Claim HIGH DESERT: $5 Million Settlement Reached in Mariposa Lawsuit HOFFMAN LAW: Faces Class Action in S.D. Fla. Over Upfront Fees HONDA FINANCIAL: Hit With Class Action Over Repo Notices HOTEL CONNECTION: Faces "Yono" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime HSBC: To Pay $1.8-Mil. to End Force Placed Kickback Lawsuit IDREAMSKY TECHNOLOGY: Morgan & Morgan Files Securities Suit IESI BETHLEHEM: Kamensky Cohen Investigates Potential Lawsuit ILLINOIS HIGH SCHOOL: Says Concussions Suit 'Threatens' Football J CREW: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Design Blind-Accessible POS JANSSEN INC: Recalls Eprex Sterile Solution Products JEFFERIES GROUP: Settlement Reached in Delaware Class Action JPMORGAN CHASE: Pleads Guilty to Rigging World's Currency Market KAM WAH: Recalls Glico Biscuit Sticks Due to Milk KAO USA: Faces Class Action Over "Ban Invisible Solid" KBK SERVICES: Sued Over Failure to Provide Employees Travel Pay KIMBERLY-CLARK: Falsely Marketed Flushable Wipes, Action Claims KNCMINER: Faces Class Action by Advokatfirman Over Bitcoin LA GRANJA: Faces "Tovar" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages LAYNE CHRISTENSEN: Class Action at Very Early State LOS ANGELES: Judge OKs Settlement in Lawsuit Against Deputies MALLINCKRODT PLC: Stipulation Reached to Settle Securities Action MARIO'S CLEANING: Faces "Cadoza" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT MAXUM PETROLEUM: Faces "Lewandowski" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT MICHIGAN: Inmates Give Testimony in Prison Rape Suit MIDWEST SLEEP: Faces "Wehrle" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime MIMEDX GROUP: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Suit MINE SAFETY: Removed "James" Class Suit to E.D. Arkansas MOTORS LIQUIDATION: 108 Class Suits Filed v. New GM as of Jan. 30 NAPA AUTO: Recalls MetalPro-Urethane Catalyst Products NESTLE PURINA: Paliare Roland Files Class-Action Over Beneful NETHERLANDS: Facing Suit Over Failure to Reduce Carbon Emissions NEW AUTO IMAGE: Faces "Perez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages NEW RESIDENTIAL: Class Actions Filed Against Home Loan Servicing OCWEN FINANCIAL: 9th Cir. Asked to Revive Consumer Lawsuit OKLAHOMA CITY: Removed "Coker" Class Suit to W.D. Oklahoma OLD DOMINION: Removed "Arteaga" Class Suit to C.D. California PALETERIA LA: Recalls Ice Cream Bars & Popsicles Due to Milk PAYTIME INC: Pa. Ct. Junks Data Breach Suits for Lack of Standing PERRY ELLIS: Parties in "Ordaz" Action Reached Tentative Deal PHILLIPS & COHEN: Illegally Collects Debt, "Shedler" Suit Claims POPCORN FACTORY: Recalls Dill Pickle Popcorn Products Due to Milk PORSCHE: Recalls 2015 Model Cars Due to Wiring Harness Defect PREMERA BLUE: Sued in Seattle, Wash. Over Data Breach QUALITY NATURAL: Recalls Puffed Amaranth Dumpling Products QUESTCOR PHARMACEUTICALS: To Pay $38MM to Settle Securities Suit RALEY'S: Two Women Sue Over Pregnancy and Workplace Issues RED HILLS: Sued Over Fraud and Extortion in Probation, Sentencing REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 11 Tobacco-Related Cases Served in Q1 2015 REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 481 Engle Progeny Pending in Federal Court REYNOLDS AMERICAN: RJR, PM & Lorillard Settle Engle Progeny Cases REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 29 Engle Progeny Cases Tried Have Become Final REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Engle Progeny Judgments Total $293MM REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 58 Engle Progeny Cases for Trial Thru Q1 2016 REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 12 Engle Progeny Cases v. RJR Tried in Q1 2015 REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 100 Individual Smoking Cases Pending v. RJR REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Hearing in West Virginia IPIC on June 8 REYNOLDS AMERICAN: RJR Paid Share of Engle Progeny Settlement REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Trial to Begin November 3 in Sateriale Case REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 4 Lights Class Suits Pending in Ill. and Mo. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: No Oral Argument Yet in "Price" Appeal REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Status Conference Held in "Turner" Case REYNOLDS AMERICAN: No Activity in Howard v. Brown & Williamson REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Feb. 2016 Status Conference in "Collora" Case REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Feb. 2016 Status Conference in "Black" Case REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Parsons v. A C & S Remains Stayed REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Still No Activity in Jones v. American Tobacco REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Amended Claim Filed in "Bourassa" Case REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Decision Pending in "Smith" Plaintiffs' Bid REYNOLDS AMERICAN: American Snuff Faces 6 Smokeless Tobacco Cases REYNOLDS AMERICAN: American Snuff Settled "Vassallo" Case REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Supreme Court Could Rule in June in ERISA Case REYNOLDS AMERICAN: MOU Entered in Delaware Merger Cases REYNOLDS AMERICAN: MOU Entered in North Carolina Merger Case RHODE ISLAND: Judge Asked to Give Prelim. OK of Pension Suit Deal SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Parties to MOU Agreed to Enter Into Stipulation SETERUS INC: Illegally Collects Debt, "Greco" Suit Claims SIROB IMPORTS: "Guevara" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages SONUS NETWORKS: Ryan & Maniskas Files Class Action SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Customer Sues Over Early-Bird Check-In SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS: Easement Deed Entered in Kingsborough Suit SS BODY ARMOR: Action to Compel Annual Meeting Not Barred by Stay STERLING BANCORP: MOU Reached to Settle "Graner" Class Action TAVORA HOLDING: Recalls Vasco Da Gama Canned Seafood Products TCP INTERNATIONAL: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Suit TRUMPS INC: Faces "Emelike" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime UNITED STATES: Deportation Suit Kept Alive UNITED STATES: Federal Ruling May Free Immigrants w/o Bonds VANTAGE FOODS: Recalls Beef Sausages Due to Undeclared Mustard VIAND COFFEE: Faces "Garcia" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime VIATOR INC: Gets Final Court Nod on "Relente" Class Settlement VIKING RANGE: Recalls Viking and Brigade Freestanding Gas Ranges VIPSHOP HOLDINGS: Sued in N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Reports VITAMIN COTTAGE: Recalls Natural Grocers Macadamia Nuts VOLTARI CORPORATION: Appeal in Securities Class Action Pending WHOLE FOODS: Recalls Valrhona Milk Chocolates Due to Hazelnuts YOUKO TUDOU: Block & Leviton Files Class Action in S.D.N.Y. * Stroock Bolsters Litigation Practice in New York and Miami ********* 21VIANET GROUP: Court Has Not Ruled on Motions to Consolidate ------------------------------------------------------------- 21Vianet Group, Inc. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 10, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Court has not ruled on the motions to consolidate class action lawsuits and has not yet appointed a lead plaintiff. The Company said, "On September 12, 2014, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit against our company and our chief executive officer and chief financial officer, Singh v. 21Vianet Group, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 2:14-cv-00894 (E.D. Tex.) (the "Singh Case"), was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. On September 17, 2014, another putative shareholder class action against our company and our chief executive officer and chief financial officer, Sun v. 21Vianet Group, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 4:14-cv-2677 (S.D. Tex.) (the "Sun Case"), was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The complaints in the Singh Case and Sun Case allege that public filings, press releases, financial statements and other related disclosures made by our company during the alleged class period contained material misstatements and omissions, in violation of the federal securities laws, and that such public filings, press releases, financial statements and other related disclosures artificially inflated the value of our company's ADSs. The complaints in the Singh Case and Sun Case state that plaintiffs seek to represent a class of persons who allegedly suffered damages as a result of their trading activities related to our ADSs from April 21, 2011 to September 10, 2014, and allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Section 78j(b) and 78t(a), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. Sec. 240.10b-5 (2013)." On October 1, 2014, the Sun Case was transferred upon plaintiff's request to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The Company said, "On November 12 and 13, 2014, two alleged shareholders of our company, Emily Wu ("Wu") and Hyoung Wan Noh ("Noh"), respectively filed motions requesting the court to consolidate the two putative shareholder class action lawsuits and appoint themselves as lead plaintiffs. On December 3, 2014, Noh filed a response to Wu's motion and acknowledged that Noh did not oppose Wu's appointment as lead plaintiff. The Court has not ruled on the above-mentioned motions to consolidate and has not yet appointed a lead plaintiff." "The actions remain at their preliminary stages. We believe the cases are without merit and intend to defend the actions vigorously." 3430685 CANADA: Recalls Nest Booster Seats Due to Fall Hazard ------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: May 20, 2015 Posting date: May 20, 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-53371 This recall involves the OXO Tot Nest Booster Seat. The booster seat is made with a white plastic base and coloured foam cushion. On the underside of the product is a sticker with a Manufacture Date. Affected products have a manufacture date of 0714, 0814, 0914, 1014, 1114, or 1214. The formed plastic seats are about 33 centimetres (13 inches) wide by 35.5 centimetres (14 inches) tall by 30.5 centimetres (12 inches) deep and have a grey three-point child restraint strap system. The OXO logo is embossed on the restraint system's buckle. The following item numbers are included in this recall: Item number Coloured foam cushion ---------- --------------------- 6367200 Green 6367500 Taupe 6367400 Orange The stitching on the harness straps can become unsewn and may detach, posing a fall hazard to the child. Health Canada has not received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of these booster seats in Canada. OXO International, Ltd. has received five reports of consumer incidents in the United States where the stitching came undone releasing the straps following a child pulling on the strap or an adult tightening the straps. There have been no reports of injury. In total, 136 of the affected booster seat were sold in Canada and approximately 25,000 were distributed in the United States. The affected products were sold from November 2014 to April 2015 in Canada and from September 2014 to April 2015 in the United States. Manufactured in China. Manufacturer: OXO International, Ltd. El Paso Texas UNITED STATES Importer: 3430685 Canada Inc. d/b.a QHouse Kids Ste Anne de Belleville Quebec CANADA AIG INC: Judge Junks Consolidated Insurance Suit Over RICO Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Robert W. Gettleman dismissed the six-count consolidated amended class action complaint captioned IN RE AIG WORKERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE POLICYHOLDER LITIGATION, CASE NO. 13 C 8250, CASE NO. 14 C 2529, CASE NO. 14 C 2828, CASE NO. 14 C 2528, CASE NO. 14 C 2531, MDL NO. 2519, (N.D. Ill.). The judge entered the dismissal order by virtue of the Defendants' joint motion to dismiss. The complaint was filed by Plaintiffs Beach Medical Marketing, Inc., D&J Plastics, Inc., Franjo, Inc., Hopson Seal-a-Lot, Inc., Jayarvee, Inc., JPS Collision, Inc., Mesa Cycles, Inc., Patrick Purdy, Inc., Philip J. Feitelson PSC and tmg-emedia, Inc. against defendants American International Group, Inc., AIU Insurance Company, American Home Assurance Company, American Fuji Fire and Marine Insurance Company, American International Overseas Limited, Chartis Property Casualty Company, Commerce and Industry Insurance Company, Granite State Insurance Company, Illinois National Insurance Co., Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania, National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA, New Hampshire Insurance Company, Yosemite Insurance Company, AIG Risk Management, Inc., and Maurice R. Greenberg, former Chairman and CEO of AIG (jointly "AIG"), alleging violations of the Racketeer Influence and Corrupt Organization Act ("RICO"), 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1962(c), (d), common law fraud, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and violations of various state consumer protection acts. Plaintiffs are all employers from 16 different states (the "Affected States") that are required to carry workers compensation Insurance ("WC insurance"). According to plaintiffs, beginning as early as 1970, AIG devised, implemented, participated in and carried out a number of nationwide schemes to "miss-categorize, falsely report, and falsely book" its WC premiums as other premiums (for example general liability premiums), to reduce its expenses, inflate its profits, and unjustly enrich itself at the expense of plaintiffs. By issuing false certified annual financial reports that underreported the WC insurance premium figures, AIG evaded paying its equitable share of financial responsibility for state-levied taxes and assessments. In its April 27 Order, the District Court holds that plaintiffs' claims are barred by the statute of limitations. "There is simply no valid reason for waiting until 2013 to file the first of these consolidated suits other than to wait until AIG had settled all of its previously filed fraud-related actions," the Court opines. A copy of the Court's April 27, 2015 Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at http://is.gd/45EMBufrom Leagle.com. AIR CANADA: Statement of Claim Filed in Crash Landing Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Melissa Mancini, writing for CBC News, reports that a statement of claim has been filed in a proposed class action lawsuit over the crash landing of Air Canada Flight 624 at the Halifax Stanfield International Airport in March. AC624 crash landed on the early hours of March 29. The plane was travelling from Toronto to Halifax carrying 133 passengers and five crew members. The statement of claim for the class action was filed by Halifax- based MacGillivray Injury and Insurance Law. "We're looking to find out as much as we can about the precise details of what factors contributed to the accident," said Jamie MacGillivray, the lawyer who filed the statement of claim. "We hope to obtain that information through document disclosure and having a chance to discover question under oath the people involved in the accident." The document names the Halifax International Airport Authority, NAV Canada, Air Canada, the captain and first officer of the flight as defendants in the class action. The allegations made in the statement of claim have not been proven in court and the class action has not been certified. 'Inadequate instrument landing system' The Transportation Safety Board's federal investigation into the crash landing is ongoing. The class action lawsuit is seeking damages to cover every class member, which the firm is estimating will total about $12 million. The statement of claim says the first officer and captain, who have not been named publicly, failed to "take reasonable care to avoid the crash." It also says the Halifax International Airport Authority chose to keep the runway open "when it knew or ought to have known that was not reasonably safe to do so" and it chose to operate the runway "with an inadequate instrument landing system." Nav Canada, the statement claims, was negligent in instructing the crew of AC624 to land on the runway when Halifax air traffic control "knew or should have known the conditions were unsafe for landing." The lead plaintiff proposed for the class action is a 54-year-old man from Pictou County. He has musculoskeletal system damage "including, bruising, tearing, straining and damaging of the nerves, muscles, tendons and ligaments" and psychological trauma, according to the statement of claim. Mr. MacGillivray said his firm plans to file a mass tort claim in the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia on Tuesday, in addition to the class action. "The class action has one representative and if it's ever certified, that representative would represent all passengers on the plane. But if it's not certified, our fallback is to have a single action with all 20 plaintiffs named individually," he said. "The advantage of the mass tort is that we don't have to wait for it to be certified in order to get document disclosure and begin discoveries." Right now, Mr. MacGillivray said he has been retained by 20 clients for the mass tort claim. ALE HOUSE: "Guevara" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Willy Guevara, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Ale House, Inc. d/b/a The Washington Street Ale House, Cherry Tree Hospitality, LLC and Darius Mansoory, Case No. 1:15-cv-00409-UNA (D. Del., May 20, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, costs, and reasonable attorneys' fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant and gastro pub that specializes in food and handcrafted beers. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ronald S. Gellert, Esq. GELLERT SCALI BUSENKELL & BROWN, LLC 913 N. Market Street, 10th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 425-5806 Facsimile: (302) 425-5814 E-mail: rgellert@gsbblaw.com AMERICAN APPAREL: Hit With Calif. Labor Law Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Gordon Gibb, writing for the LawyersandSettlements.com, reports that when American Apparel announced to the press an impending mass layoff, the imminent job loss was allegedly news to many of the employees about to be affected, according to a class-action lawsuit filed days ago in California. When the layoffs were triggered on or about April 1, affected employees were blindsided, with little notice and minimal severance. California labor law and the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (both federal and state) hold strict tenets as to what is required when a worker is let go through no fault of his own. American Apparel Hit with Proposed California Labor Law Class Action the proposed class action also alleges that many employees who had little proficiency with the English language were pressured into signing separation agreements described in court documents as "paltry," and were also allegedly pressured into signing separation agreements they were unable to understand that left them little recourse for legal claims after the fact. According to various media reports, American Apparel claimed the layoffs were necessary to ensure the future health and viability of the company. The proposed California labor lawsuit, however, notes that various requirements related to adequate severance and notice of layoff were not properly followed. The lawsuit noted that various state and federal statutes that require 60 days' notice prior to a layoff or job termination were not followed, and severance terms were described as "unconscionable," with some employees offered as little as $300 in severance. "As American Apparel's management was well aware, many of these employees receiving these agreements did not speak, read, or write English. Several of these employees did not read or write at all," the lawsuit said. "Notwithstanding the same, American Apparel's management insisted that these employees sign these agreements immediately, even if they could not read or understand them." The lawsuit also notes the layoffs and terms fly in the face of a retooled ethics policy released by American Apparel in the wake of the recent termination of American Apparel founder Dov Charney in December of last year amidst various allegations of sexual harassment. The proposed California and labor law class action also alleged that the CEO and other top management within the corporation awarded themselves additional stock options and salary increases, while stiffing laid-off employees with minimal severance, or so it is alleged. The lawsuit seeks 60 days' worth of pay for each laid-off worker, as well as backpay and other benefits for the affected workers of American Apparel. The case is Hirschberg et al v. American Apparel Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-02827, filed April 16 in the US District Court for the Central District of California. AMERICAN EXPRESS: Sued Over Racial & Sexual Discrimination ---------------------------------------------------------- Chad Seiber, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc. d/b/a American Express, d/b/a Amex, Jing Wang, individually, and John Does 1-X, Case No. 1:15-cv-03883-WHP (S.D.N.Y., May 20, 2015), seeks to put an end on the Defendant's race and sexual orientation discrimination. The Defendants own and operate a New York corporation that provides financial and travel related services for consumers and companies. The Plaintiff is represented by: Darius Adam Marzec, Esq. MARZEL LAW FIRM PC 225 Broadway, Suite 3000 NY, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 267-0200 Facsimile: (718) 841-7508 E-mail: dmarzec@marzeclaw.com AMERICAN HOME: Denial of "Stissi" Bid for Matrix Benefits Upheld ---------------------------------------------------------------- IN RE: DIET DRUGS (PHENTERMINE/FENFLURAMINE/DEXFENFLURAMINE) PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: SHEILA BROWN, et al. v. AMERICAN HOME PRODUCTS CORPORATION, MDL NO. 1203, CIVIL ACTION NO. 99-20593, 2:16 MD 1203 (E.D. Penn.), Elsie T. Stissi, a class member under the Diet Drug Nationwide Class Action Settlement Agreement with Wyeth, seeks benefits from the AHP Settlement Trust. Under the Settlement Agreement, only eligible claimants are entitled to Matrix Benefits. Generally, a claimant is considered eligible for Matrix Benefits if he or she is diagnosed with mild or greater aortic and/or mitral regurgitation by an echocardiogram performed between the commencement of Diet Drug use and the end of the Screening Period. In an April 30, 2015 Memorandum, District Judge Harvey Bartle, III, concludes that claimant has not met her burden of proving that there is a reasonable medical basis for finding that she had at least mild aortic regurgitation between the commencement of Diet Drug use and the end of the Screening Period. Therefore, the Pennsylvania District Court affirmed the Trust's denial of Ms. Stissi's claim for Matrix B-1, Level IV benefits. Copies of the judge's Memoranda in Support of Separate Pre-trial Order No. 9411 is available at http://is.gd/VQReyiand http://is.gd/ehGgFUfrom Leagle.com. IN RE: DIET DRUGS (PHENTERMINE, FENFLURAMINE, DEXFENFLURAMINE) PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, IN RE:, represented by ANDREW A. CHIRLS, FINEMAN KREKSTEIN & HARRIS PC, ARNOLD LEVIN, LEVIN FISHBEIN SEDRAN & BERMAN, GERALD COOPER KELL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, JOHN FITZPATRICK, HARNES DICKET PIERCE PLC, JULES S. HENSHELL, SEMANOFF ORMSKY GREENBERG & TORCHIA LLC, ROBB W. PATRYK, HUGHES HUBBARD AND REED, ROBERT A. LIMBACHER, Goodell, DeVries, Leech & Dann LLP, ROBERT N. SPINELLI, KELLEY JASONS MCGOWAN SPINELLI & HANNA, LLP, THEODORE V. MAYER, HUGHES HUBBARD AND REED & RAND NOLEN, FLEMING, NOLEN & JEZ LLP. GREGORY P. MILLER, Special Master, represented by GREGORY P. MILLER, DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP. 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. APOTEX INC: Recalls APO-Verap SR 180mg Tablets ---------------------------------------------- Starting date: May 19, 2015 Posting date: May 21, 2015 Type of communication: Drug Recall Subcategory: Drugs Hazard classification: Type III Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Product Safety Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals Identification number: RA-53499 Out of Specification result for dissolution testing. Depth of distribution: Wholesalers Affected products: A. APO-Verap SR 180 mg DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM DIN 02246894 Dosage form: Tablet (Extended-Release) Strength: Verapamil hydrochloride 180 mg Lot or serial number: MC 9090 Recalling Firm: Apotex Inc. 150 Signet Drive Toronto M9L 1T9 Ontario CANADA Marketing Authorization Holder: Apotex Inc. 150 Signet Drive Toronto M9L 1T9 Ontario CANADA APOTEX INC: Recalls APO-Candesartan/HCTZ 12.5 mg Tablets -------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: May 19, 2015 Posting date: May 21, 2015 Type of communication: Drug Recall Subcategory: Drugs Hazard classification: Type II Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Product Safety Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals Identification number: RA-53497 Product lots KN9456, KP0842, KV0887, KP0050 did not meet the shelf life specification for CAD II impurity. Product lots KN9458, KN9461, KV7989, KV0896 obtained results that were close to the specification limit for CAD II impurity (out of trend). Product lot KV0886 did not meet the shelf life specification for CAD II impurity (result: 0.6%, limit: NMT 0.5%) during stability testing at 9 month time point. Depth of distribution: Wholesalers Affected products: A. APO-Candesartan/HCTZ 12.5 mg DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM DIN 02395126 Dosage form: Tablet Strength: Candesartan Cilexetil 32 mg Hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg Lot or serial number: KN9456 KN9458 KN9461 KP0842 KV0886 KV0887 KV7989 Recalling Firm: Apotex Inc. 150 Signet Drive Toronto M9L 1T9 Ontario CANADA Marketing Authorization Holder: Apotex Inc. 150 Signet Drive Toronto M9L 1T9 Ontario CANADA 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. AUDIOEYE INC: Milberg LLP Files Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Milberg LLP has filed a federal securities class action against AudioEye, Inc. alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The action, filed in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, is on behalf of purchasers of AudioEye securities between May 5, 2014 and April 1, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Defendants are alleged to have violated the federal securities laws, specifically Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the complaint, throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) AudioEye's financial statements contained errors concerning the classification of revenues and expenses; (2) the Company lacked adequate internal controls over its financial reporting; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On April 1, 2015, the truth was revealed when AudioEye announced that its previously issued financial statements for the quarters ended March 31, June 30 and September 30, 2014 will be restated due to errors. Furthermore, AudioEye stated that its preliminary earnings release issued by the Company on January 12, 2015 relating to the quarter and year ended December 31, 2014 should no longer be relied upon. The Company also announced that, Edward O'Donnell, resigned as the Company's Chief Financial Officer. As a result of this announcement, the Company's stock fell 22% during intraday trading on April 1, 2015. If you purchased AudioEye common stock during the Class Period you may, no later than June 15, 2015, request that the Court appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed class. A lead plaintiff is a class member that represents other class members in directing the litigation. Your share in any recovery will not be affected by serving as a lead plaintiff, however, lead plaintiffs make important decisions that could affect the overall recovery for class members. You do not need to be a lead plaintiff to recover as an absent class member. You may retain Milberg LLP, or other attorneys, for this action, but do not need to retain counsel to recover. If this action is certified as a class action, class members will be automatically represented by Court-appointed counsel. Milberg LLP has represented individual and institutional investors for over four decades and serves as lead counsel in Courts throughout the United States. Visit the Milberg website (www.milberg.com) for more information about the firm. If you wish to discuss this matter with us, please contact the following attorney: Andrei Rado, Esq. Milberg LLP One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Fl. New York, NY 10119-0165 Tel No: 800-320-5081 E-mail: arado@milberg.com AUTOMATED INCOME: Faces "Stewart" Suit Over TCPA Violation ---------------------------------------------------------- Sabrina Stewart, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Automated Income Stream, LLC and Prosperity Team, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-03115-SVW-JC (C.D. Cal., April 27, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Adrian Robert Bacon, Esq. Suren N. Weerasuriya, Esq. Todd M. Friedman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN PC 324 S Beverly Drive Suite 725 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com sweerasuriya@attorneysforconsumers.com tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com AVG TECHNOLOGIES: Reported $100,000 Admin. Costs on Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- AVG Technologies N.V. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 10, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company recognized a remaining liability of $100,000 related to administrative costs of the settlement of a class action lawsuit. On May 22, 2012, the Company received notification of a class action litigation relating to the design, sale and marketing of its AVG PC TuneUp software. This notification was amended on September 5, 2012 adding the Australian based provider as defendant. On August 14, 2013 the parties agreed to a settlement in principle and as a consequence the Company estimated and recorded a liability of $2,600,000. In relation to this, the Company also estimated and recorded a receivable of $1,000,000 from the Australian based provider. On January 14, 2014, the Company transferred $1,500,000 to an escrow account and the Australian based provider contemporaneously transferred $1,000,000 on behalf of the claimant. The Court issued an order providing final approval of the settlement on behalf of the class on May 5, 2014. As of December 31, 2014, the Company recognized a remaining liability of $100,000 related to administrative costs of the settlement. 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. BEDESSEE IMPORTS: Recalls Coconut Milk Powder Due to Allergen ------------------------------------------------------------- Our firm is voluntarily recalling Brown Betty Coconut Milk Powder Mix because the product contains Sodium Caseinate, but the label lacks the allergen statement "Contains milk." People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to milk run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume this product. Please return all unused portion to the store you had purchase the product from for a full refund. The recalled "Coconut Milk Powder" was sold in NY, NJ, CT, MD, NC and FL. No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this problem. Thank you for your cooperation in this recall. If you have any question regarding this recall, please feel free to contact our office at 888-233-3773 or 718-272-1300 during Monday to Saturday from 9am to 5pm. lf you require any further information our staff can assist you. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm448376.htm BEST BUY: Counsel to "Herron" Plaintiffs May Not be Deposed ----------------------------------------------------------- In the putative class action CHAD HERRON, Plaintiff, v. BEST BUY CO. INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:12-CV-2103 GEB CKD, (E.D. Calif.), plaintiff alleges claims under the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"). Plaintiff alleges that on product tags placed on merchandise, defendants misrepresented the battery life on laptop computers and notebooks. Defendant sought to depose attorneys Stonebarger and Lambert, counsel for plaintiff in the action. Defendant contended these attorneys had knowledge of who the properly named defendant was in this action (Best Buy Stores, LP) prior to the filing of the second amended complaint on March 1, 2013. Plaintiff reasoned that the depositions cannot proceed because the information sought is protected work product. Accordingly, in a May 4, 2015 Order available at http://is.gd/A3ZSelfrom Leagle.com, Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney granted plaintiff's motion for protective order. "Inquiry into the facts underlying plaintiff's counsel's decision to name Best Buy Co. Inc. as the defendant will breach protected work product. The attorneys that are the subject of the pending motion have submitted in this case affidavits on the statute of limitations issue. Further inquiry by deposition of plaintiff's attorneys is not warranted," the judge opined. Chad Herron, Plaintiff, represented by Demetrius Xavier Lambrinos, Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP, Gene Joseph Stonebarger, Stonebarger Law, Anne Marie Murphy, Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy, LLP, Elaine Wing Ling Yan, Stonebarger Law, APC, Jonathan C Hsieh, Cotchett, Pitre & Mccarthy, LLP, Niall P. McCarthy, Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP & Richard David Lambert, Stonebarger Law. Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc., Defendant, represented by Rebekah Kaufman, Morrison & Foerster Llp, John Michael Stusiak, Morrison and Foerster LLP, Penelope A. Preovolos, Morrison & Foerster LLP & Samuel James Boone Lunier, Morrison and Foerster LLP. Best Buy Stores, LP, Defendant, represented by Jill S. Casselman, Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi, LLP & Michael Aaron Geibelson, Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi LLP. Dell Inc., Intervenor Defendant, represented by Alyssa E. Ramirez, Winston & Strawn LLP, Kevin P. McCormick, Winston & Strawn LLP, Kimball R. Anderson, Winston & Strawn LLP & Krista M. Enns, Winston & Strawn LLP. BJ'S WHOLESALE: Sued Over Improper Sales Tax Collection ------------------------------------------------------- Reed Smith State Tax Group's Adam P. Beckerink, Jack Trachtenberg and Douglas A. Wick, in an article 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. CALFRAC WELL: Sued in Texas Over Layoff Notice ---------------------------------------------- Anthony Gardinier, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Calfrac Well Services Corporation, Case No. 5:15-cv- 00417-RP (W.D. Tex., May 19, 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 Converse, Texas site of employment. Calfrac Well Services Corporation provides acidizing, hydraulic fracturing, coiled tubing, nitrogen and carbon dioxide drilling and completion services to the oil and gas exploration companies. The Plaintiff is represented by: Allen R. Vaught, Esq. BARON AND BUDD PC 3102 Oak Lawn Ave-Ste 1100 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 521-3605 Facsimile: (214) 520-1181 E-mail: avaught@baronbudd.com CAPITAL BUILDING: Faces "Hussein" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------- Duniyo Hussein, Naima Omar Issa, Leyla Yusuf, Raymond Deshler, Assiongbonvi "Luc" Kangnigan, Melvin Holmes, Abraham Quevedo Orantes, Leticia Zuniga Escamilla, on behalf of themselves, the Proposed Rule 23 Class, and others similarly situated v. Capital Building Services Group, Inc., Case No. 0:15-cv-02498-SRN-BRT (D. Minn., May 20, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Minnesota state law. Capital Building Services Group, Inc. provides commercial cleaning services to retail, corporate, commercial, industrial, banking, and educational venues. The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam W. Hansen, Esq. Carl F. Engstrom, Esq. Paul J. Lukas, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 4600 IDS Center 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 256-3207 Facsimile: (612) 338-4878 E-mail: ahansen@nka.com cengstrom@nka.com lukas@nka.com CARDONE TRAINING: "Scott" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Nicole Scott and other similarly situated individuals v. Cardone Training Technologies, Inc. and Grant T. Cardone, Case No. 1:15- cv-21919-RNS (S.D. Fla., May 20, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, declaratory relief and other relief under the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants are engaged in the business of developing visual and audio products geared towards enhancing individuals and corporations' production through sales. The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony Maximillien Georges-Pierre, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC Court House Tower 44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416-5000 Facsimile: (305) 416-5005 E-mail: agp@rgpattorneys.com CARDWORKS INC: Faces "Turner" Suit Over Debt Collection Practices ----------------------------------------------------------------- Patricia Turner v. Cardworks, Inc., Cardworks Servicing, LLC and Carson Smithfield, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-02911 (E.D.N.Y., May 20, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. The Defendants own and operate a consumer finance company with an office at 101 Crossways Park West, Woodbury, New York 11797. The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward B. Geller, Esq. M. HARVEY REPHEN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 15 Landing Way Bronx, NY 10464 Telephone: (914) 473-6783 Facsimile: (914) 473-6783 E-mail: epbh@aol.com CHINA CERAMICS: Reached Deal in Principle to Settle Class Actions ----------------------------------------------------------------- China Ceramics Co., Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 20, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company and the individual defendants in class action lawsuits reached an agreement in principle to settle the cases as against all defendants and the Company in consideration of the payment by the Company of $850,000, consisting of a combination of cash and common stock. The Company said, "On June 6, 2014, a putative class action complaint (the "Pollock Complaint") was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against us and various current and former directors and officers asserting claims of violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against all defendants, and asserting claims for violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual defendants; and pursuing remedies under the Exchange Act. The complaint is captioned Robert Pollock, Individually and On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated v. Huang Jia Dong, Su Pei Zhi, Hen Man Edmund, Ding Wei Dong, Paul K. Kelly, Cheng Yan Davis, William L. Stulginsky, Su Wei Feng, Shen Cheng Liang, Jianwei Liu, And China Ceramics Co., Ltd. (Case No. 14-cv-4100)." "On June 16, 2014, a putative class action complaint (the "Artinoff Complaint") was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against us and various current and former directors and officers asserting claims of violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against all defendants, and asserting claims for violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual defendants; and pursuing remedies under the Exchange Act. The complaint is captioned Roger Artinoff, Individually and On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated v. China Ceramics Co. Ltd., Huang Jia Dong, Su Pei Zhi, Hen Man Edmund, Ding Wei Dong, Paul K. Kelly, Cheng Yan Davis, William L. Stulginsky And Su Wei Feng. (Case No. 14-cv- 4312). "On July 2, 2014, a putative class action complaint (the "Finlayson Complaint") was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against us and various current and former directors and officers asserting claims for violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against all defendants, and claims for violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual defendants; and pursuing remedies under the Exchange Act. The complaint is captioned Richard Finlayson, Individually and On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated v. Huang Jia Dong, Su Pei Zhi, Hen Man Edmund, Ding Wei Dong, Paul K. Kelly, Cheng Yan Davis, William L. Stulginsky, Su Wei Feng, Shen Cheng Liang, Jianwei Liu, and China Ceramics Co., Ltd. (Case No. 14-cv-4997). "On February 6, 2015, we and the individual defendants reached an agreement in principle to settle the above-described cases as against all defendants and us in consideration of the payment by us of $850,000, consisting of a combination of cash and our common stock. The settlement is subject to the execution of a mutually acceptable settlement agreement and the approval of the settlement by the Court." COSTCO WHOLESALE: Falsely Marketed Flushable Wipes, Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Desmond R. Armstrong, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Costco Wholesale Corporation and Nice-Pak Products, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-02909 (E.D.N.Y., May 19, 2015), is a class action brought in connection with the purchase of Kirkland Signature Wipes that were falsely marketed and advertised by the Defendants as safe to be flushed. The wipes at issue are not flushable but rather do not disintegrate immediately upon flushing, causing clog in sewer or septic systems. Headquartered in Issaquah, Washington, Costco Wholesale Corporation operates membership warehouses that offer branded and private-label products in a range of merchandise categories. Nice-Pak Products, Inc. a New York corporation that designs, manufactures, markets, and distributes branded and private label pre-moistened wipes products. The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. Mark S. Reich, Esq. Sean T. Masson, Esq. Lauren E. Karalis, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 367-7100 Facsimile: (631) 367-1173 E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com mreich@rgrdlaw.com smasson@rgrdlaw.com lkaralis@rgrdlaw.com - and - Stuart A. Davidson, Esq. Mark Dearman, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 750-3000 Facsimile: (561) 750-3364 E-mail: sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com mdearman@rgrdlaw.com CVS HEALTH: Falsely Marketed Flushable Wipes, "Palmer" Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Steven and Ellen Palmer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CVS Health and Nice-Pak Products, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-02928 (E.D.N.Y., May 20, 2015), is a class action brought in connection with the purchase of CVS Brand Flushable Wipes that were falsely marketed and advertised by the Defendants as safe to be flushed. The wipes at issue are not flushable but rather do not disintegrate immediately upon flushing, causing clog in sewer or septic systems. The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. Mark S. Reich, Esq. Sean T. Masson, Esq. Lauren E. Karalis, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 367-7100 Facsimile: (631) 367-1173 E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com mreich@rgrdlaw.com smasson@rgrdlaw.com lkaralis@rgrdlaw.com - and - Stuart A. Davidson, Esq. Mark Dearman, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 750-3000 Facsimile: (561) 750-3364 E-mail: sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com mdearman@rgrdlaw.com DELRAY AUTOMALL: Removed "Salgado" Class Suit to S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------------- Rene Salgado, and other similarly situated car washers v. Delray Automall and Franz Menardy, Case No. 113C-7677354, was removed to the U.S. District Court Southern District of Florida (West Palm Beach). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 9:15-cv-80527- DMM to the proceeding. The lawsuit asserts labor-rated claims. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brody Max Shulman, Esq. Jason Saul Remer, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC Courthouse Tower 44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416-5000 Facsimile: (305) 416-5005 E-mail: bshulman@rgpattorneys.com jremer@rgpattorneys.com The Defendant is represented by: Daniel A. Sands, Esq. Robert A. Stok, Esq. STOK FOLK + KON 18851 Northeast 29th Avenue,Suite 1005 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 935-4440 E-mail: dsands@stoklaw.com rstok@stoklaw.com DENSO CORP: Fixed Power Window Motor Prices, All European Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- All European Auto Supply, Inc., individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated v. DENSO Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-11829-VAR-MJH (E.D. Mich., May 20, 2015), asserts that the Defendants entered into an agreement, combination, or conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize prices, rig bids, and allocate the market and customers in the United States for Power Window Motors. DENSO Corporation is a Japanese corporation with its principal place of business in Kariya, Japan. DENSO through its subsidiaries manufactured, marketed, and sold Power Window Motors that were purchased throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Aubrey H. Tobin, Esq. ATTORNEY AT LAW, P.C. 2140 Walnut Lake Road West Bloomfield, MI 48323 Telephone: (248) 932-3070 E-mail: Aubrey@tobinpc.com - and - M. John Dominguez, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Telephone: (561) 515-1431 E-mail: jdominguez@cohenmilstein.com - and - David A. Young, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Ave. NW, Suite 500 West Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 E-mail: dyoung@cohenmilstein.com - and - Matthew W. Ruan, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 88 Pine Street, 14th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 838-7797 E-mail: mruan@cohenmilstein.com - and - Christopher J. Cormier, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 2443 S. University Boulevard, #232 Denver, CO 80210 Telephone: (720) 583-0650 E-mail: ccormier@cohenmilstein.com DENSO CORP: Faces 2nd All European Suit Over Window Motor Prices ---------------------------------------------------------------- All European Auto Supply, Inc., individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated v. DENSO Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-11830-VAR-MJH (E.D. Mich., May 20, 2015), asserts that the Defendants entered into an agreement, combination, or conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize prices, rig bids, and allocate the market and customers in the United States for Power Window Motors. DENSO Corporation is a Japanese corporation with its principal place of business in Kariya, Japan. DENSO through its subsidiaries manufactured, marketed, and sold Power Window Motors that were purchased throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Aubrey H. Tobin, Esq. ATTORNEY AT LAW, P.C. 2140 Walnut Lake Road West Bloomfield, MI 48323 Telephone: (248) 932-3070 E-mail: Aubrey@tobinpc.com - and - M. John Dominguez, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Telephone: (561) 515-1431 E-mail: jdominguez@cohenmilstein.com - and - David A. Young, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Ave. NW, Suite 500 West Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 E-mail: dyoung@cohenmilstein.com - and - Matthew W. Ruan, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 88 Pine Street, 14th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 838-7797 E-mail: mruan@cohenmilstein.com - and - Christopher J. Cormier, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 2443 S. University Boulevard, #232 Denver, CO 80210 Telephone: (720) 583-0650 E-mail: ccormier@cohenmilstein.com 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. DJO FINANCE: Accrued $0.2MM for Unpaid Deals in Pain Pump Case -------------------------------------------------------------- DJO Finance LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 20, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 28, 2015, that the Company as of March 28, 2015, has accrued $0.2 million for unpaid settlements in the Pain Pump Litigation. The Company said, "Over the past 7 years, we have been named in numerous product liability lawsuits involving our prior distribution of a disposable drug infusion pump product (pain pump) manufactured by two third-party manufacturers that was distributed through our Bracing and Vascular segment. We currently are a defendant in two U.S. cases and a lawsuit in Canada which has been granted class action status for a class of approximately 45 claimants. We discontinued our sale of these products in the second quarter of 2009. These cases have been brought against the manufacturers and certain distributors of these pumps. All of these lawsuits allege that the use of these pumps with certain anesthetics for prolonged periods after certain shoulder surgeries or, less commonly, knee surgeries, has resulted in cartilage damage to the plaintiffs. In the past four years, we have entered into settlements with plaintiffs in approximately 140 pain pump lawsuits. Except for the payment by the Company of policy deductibles or self-insured retentions, our products liability carriers in three policy periods have paid the defense costs and settlements related to these claims, subject to reservation of rights to deny coverage for customary matters, including punitive damages and off-label promotion. The range of potential loss for these claims is not estimable, although we believe we have adequate insurance coverage for such claims. As of March 28, 2015, we have accrued $0.2 million for unpaid settlements in this case, and a corresponding receivable as all of the settlements will be paid by our product liability carriers." DOLLAR TREE: Removed "Patton" Class Suit to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Curtis Patton an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., Case No. BC577498, was removed from the Los Angeles Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Western Division - Los Angeles). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-03813 to the proceeding. The case asserts account receivable claims. The Plaintiff is represented by: Curtis Patton PRO SE The Defendant is represented by: Christopher L Dengler, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON PC 2049 Century Park East 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067-3107 Telephone: (310) 553-0308 Facsimile: (310) 553-5583 E-mail: cdengler@littler.com DOUBLE KITCHEN: Faces "Zhuang" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- He Zhuang, Lan Chen, Xue Mel Han, Amalyn Chariss M. WILLIAMS, Christmaster Tara Yao, Migmar Dolma, and Qin Jiang, individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated v. Double Kitchen LLC d/b/a Ichiumi, JNRP, Inc. d/b/a Todai, Yun Park, and Jaeseong Ko a/k/a Jea Seong Ko, Case No. 1:15-cv-03858-VEC (S.D.N.Y., 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 Ichi Umi restaurant with its principal place of business located at 6 East 32nd Street, New York, New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles Gershbaum, Esq. Marc Scott Hepworth, Esq. Rebecca Solomon Predovan, Esq. HEPWORTH, GERSHBAUM & ROTH, PLLC 192 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 385-2121 Facsimile: (212) 532-3801 E-mail: Charles@hgrlawyers.com marc@hgrlawyers.com rifbecca@gmail.com 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. DUPRE ENERGY: "Hart" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Donte Hart and Johnathan Torok, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Dupre Energy Services, LLC and KSW Environmental, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-00659-AJS (W.D. Pa., May 20, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act. Dupre Energy Services owns and operates numerous oil field service companies across the United States. KSW Environmental, LLC deploys, operates, and maintains filter units that are intended to reduce the crystalline silica dust emitted due to fracking operations. The Plaintiff is represented by: 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 ELECTROLUX CANADA: Recalls Frigidaire and Kenmore Elite Ovens ------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: May 20, 2015 Posting date: May 20, 2015 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Appliances Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Fire Hazard, Burn Hazard Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-53465 This voluntary recall involves certain Frigidaire(R) and Kenmore(R) Elite dual fuel stainless steel slide-in ranges with gas cooktops and electric ovens bearing both the model and serial numbers set out below. The model and serial number can be found on the left side trim when the oven door is opened. Frigidaire(R) and Kenmore(R) Slide-in Units: Model Numbers beginning Serial Numbers and with these Letters and Numbers Serial Number Ranges ------------------------------ -------------------- Frigidaire CPDS3085PF AF42903111 to AF42903122, AF43103696 to AF43103719, AF43000014. Frigidaire CGDS3065PF AF43001481 to AF43001492, AF43103672 to AF43103695, AF43000013. Kenmore 970C42613 AF42302293 to AF42302304, AF42401060, AF42401061, AF42401063 to AF42401064, AF42401066 to AF42401078, AF42401080, AF42401095, AF42401101 to AF42401105, AF42401146 to AF42401147, AF42401151, AF42401153, AF42402715, AF42402717 to AF42402723, AF42402725, AF42402751 to AF42402752, AF42402754 to AF42402755, AF42402757 to AF42402761, AF42402775 to AF42402777, AF42402779, AF42402789, AF42402791, AF42402795 to AF42402799, AF42402801 to AF42402802, AF42402804 to AF42402806, AF42402810,AF42502138, AF42502140 to AF42502141, AF42502149, AF42600469, AF42600472 to AF42600480, AF42600841 to AF42600842, AF42601181 to AF42601183, AF42601185 to AF42601186, AF42601188 to AF42601202, AF42601229 to AF42601230, AF42601242 to AF42601243, AF42601245 to AF42601246, AF42601248 to AF42601250, AF42602719 to AF42602730, AF43000113 to AF43000124. The burner flame can go out while the gas is turned on. This can allow gas to escape and poses fire and burn hazards. Neither Health Canada nor Electrolux Canada Corp. has received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries to Canadians related to the use of these products. Additionally, no consumer injuries related to the use of these products have been reported in the United States. Approximately 142 Kenmore(R) affected products were sold at Sears Canada stores across Canada, and approximately 71 Frigidaire(R) affected products were sold at various retailers across Canada. Only ranges falling within both the model numbers and serial numbers or serial number ranges set out above are affected products. In the United States, approximately 250 Sears Kenmore units were sold. The US models were not sold in Canada. The recalled products were sold from approximately June 2014 through October 2014. Manufactured in United States. Distributor: The Frigidaire Division of Electrolux Canada Corp. Mississauga Ontario CANADA Consumers should immediately stop using the affected products. Consumers with affected products should contact Electrolux toll- free at 1-800-265-8352 between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday, and between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. ET on Saturdays to arrange a free in-home service call that will address the issue. Consumers with affected products can also obtain information on the web at Voluntary Recall Alert (for English) or Avis de rappel volontaire (in French). US consumers may obtain information regarding the recall of the US Models on the US CPSC'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/LDZpsN ENDURANCE COMMUNICATIONS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Damasi Roberts, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v. Endurance Communications & Electrical, LLC. 4Evolution, Inc., Chirstopher Riley, Case No. 6:15-cv-00810 (M.D. Fla., May 20, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, declaratory relief and other relief under the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants are in the business of providing electrical services in Orange County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kimberly De Arcangelis, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, PA Ste 1600, 20 N. Orange Ave Orlando, FL 32802-4979 Telephone: (407) 420-1414 Facsimile: (407) 420-5956 E-mail: kwoods@forthepeople.com EURO IMPORT: Recalls Dried Apricots Due to Undeclared Sulfites -------------------------------------------------------------- EURO IMPORT DISTRIBUTIONS INC at 4821 1st Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11232 is recalling dried apricots in 3.5 oz plastic bags, because it contains undeclared sulfites. People who have severe sensitivity to sulfites run the risk of serious or life- threatening allergic reactions if they consume this product. The recalled Dried Apricots is sold in 3.5 oz plastic bags coded 20 02 15 and was distributed in New York State. It is a product of Russia. The recall was initiated after routine sampling by the New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets Food Inspectors and subsequent analysis of the product by Food Laboratory personnel revealed the presence of sulfites in packages of Dried Apricots which did not declare sulfites on the label. The consumption of 10 milligrams of sulfites per serving has been reported to elicit severe reaction in some asthmatics. Anaphylactic shock could occur in certain sulfite sensitive individuals upon ingesting 10 milligrams or more of sulfites. Analysis of the Dried Apricots revealed it contains 23.26 mg per serving. No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this problem. Consumers who have purchased Dried Apricots should return it to the place of purchase. Consumers with questions may contact the company at 718-768-5145. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm448342.htm EVERYWARE GLOBAL: To Vigorously Defend Class Action Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------- EveryWare Global, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 14, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that, "On October 7, 2014, we were named as a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit in a complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. The complaint alleges that the Company and certain of its current and former executive officers violated Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by issuing allegedly false or misleading statements concerning the Company. The plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory damages. We intend to vigorously defend these claims." EXCLUSIVE CANDY: Recalls Strux Build & Bite Candy Dextrose ---------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: May 20, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Notification Subcategory: Chemical Hazard classification: Class 3 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Exclusive Candy & Novelty Distribution Ltd. Distribution: National Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 9774 Brand name Common name Size Code(s) on UPC --------- ----------- ---- product --- ---------- Strux Build & Bite 65 g Best Before: 60631 71181 2 (Candy 27-12-2015 Dextrose) Lot: L2706201410 EXPLORATION DRILLING: "Casarotto" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT ----------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Casarotto, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Exploration Drilling, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00041- SPW-CSO (D. Mont., May 20, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. Exploration Drilling, Inc. is a Montana energy company engaged in the exploration and production of oil. The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip L. McGrady, Esq. McGRADY LAW FIRM, PLLC PO Box 40 Park City, MT 59063 Telephone: (406) 322-8647 E-mail: philip@mcgradylawfirm.com F. KORBEL & BROS: Calif. Wineries Sued Over Arsenic Content ----------------------------------------------------------- Joe Van Acker, writing for Law 360, reports that dozens of California wineries and distributors -- including F. Korbel & Bros. Inc., Sutter Home Winery Inc. and Trader Joe's Co. -- produce and sell wine containing dangerous levels of arsenic, without informing consumers, according to a potential class action suit filed in federal court. Zahira Crespo-Bithorn alleged that the winemakers and distributors have produced or sold wine containing inorganic arsenic and have concealed that fact from consumers, who are at risk for maladies ranging from nausea and bronchitis to cancer, encephalopathy and death. FALCON TRADING: Recalls Medium Shred Coconut Due to Steel Wire -------------------------------------------------------------- Falcon Trading Company, Inc./SunRidge Farms of Royal Oaks, CA announced that it has taken the precautionary measure of voluntarily recalling the one bulk item mentioned below. The product may contain very small stainless steel wire, the kind and type used in the screening process during manufacturing. Please visit the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's website at http://www.cdc.gov. Falcon Trading Company/SunRidge Farms is committed to producing only the highest quality products, and our top priority is the safety of our customers. For this reason we are issuing this voluntary recall as a precautionary measure. No illnesses have been reported in connection with the SunRidge Farms recalled product and no other SunRidge Farms products are being recalled at this time. Consumers who have purchased the items mentioned below should return it to the retail store where they purchased it for a full refund. If they have any questions, they should call Falcon Trading Company's customer service at 1-831-786-7000. RE: COCONUT-MEDIUM SHRED IMPORTED BY FALCON TRADING COMPANY, INC. Item Code UPC Code Item Pack Case Lot -------- -------- Description Size Quantity Codes ----------- ---- -------- ----- 001120 0867000- COCONUT- 25 LB 726 SACKS DCM-101 11201 MEDIUM BAG AND SHRED DCM-102 FALCON TRADING: Recalls Coconut Vanilla Candies Due to Steel Wire ----------------------------------------------------------------- Falcon Trading Company, Inc./SunRidge Farms of Royal Oaks, CA announced that it has taken the precautionary measure of voluntarily recalling the one bulk item mentioned below. This item was distributed to the East Coast on May 7, 2015. The product may contain very small stainless steel wire, the kind and type used in the screening process during manufacturing. Please visit the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's website at http://www.cdc.gov. Falcon Trading Company/SunRidge Farms is committed to producing only the highest quality products, and our top priority is the safety of our customers. For this reason we are issuing this voluntary recall as a precautionary measure. No illnesses have been reported in connection with the SunRidge Farms recalled product and no other SunRidge Farms products are being recalled at this time. Consumers who have purchased the items mentioned below should return it to the retail store where they purchased it for a full refund. If they have any questions, they should call Falcon Trading Company's customer service at 1-831-786-7000. RE: SUNRIDGE CANDY-COCONUT CHEWS, VANILLA Item Code UPC Code Item Pack Case Lot -------- -------- Description Size Quantity Codes ----------- ---- -------- ----- 023617 0867009- SUNRIDGE 10 LB 156 BOXES 1081545 36177 CANDY- BAG AND COCONUT 1101545 CHEWS, VANILLA FAMILY HOME: "Downie" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Yvonne Downie v. Family Home Care Services of Brooklyn and Queens, Inc., and Thomas O'Brien, Case No. 1:15-cv-03862-RA (S.D.N.Y., May 19, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate an assisted living facility with its principal place of business located at 168 Seventh Street, Brooklyn, N.Y. 11215. The Plaintiff is represented by: William Coudert Rand, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM COUDERT RAND 488 Madison Avenue, Suite 1100 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 286-1425 Facsimile: (646) 688-3078 E-mail: wcrand@wcrand.com FEDERAL NATIONAL: Illegally Collects Debt, "Walsh" Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Brandon M. Walsh, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Federal National Mortgage Association, Case No. 2:15-cv-00761 (D. Ariz., April 27, 2015), seeks to put an end on the Defendant's deceptive, misleading, and unfair debt collection practices. The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Francis, Esq. John Soumilas, Esq. FRANCIS & MAILMAN PC Land Title Bldg. 100 S Broad St., 19th Fl. Philadelphia, PA 19110 Telephone: (215) 736-8600 - and - Paul B. Mengedoth, Esq. MENGEDOTH LAW PLLC 20909 N 90th St., Ste. 211 Scottsdale, AZ 85255 Telephone: (480) 778-9100 Facsimile: (480) 778-9101 E-mail: paul@mengedothlaw.com - and - Sylvia Antalis Goldsmith, Esq. GOLDSMITH & ASSOCIATES LLC 20545 Center Ridge Rd., Ste. 120 Rocky River, OH 44116 Telephone: (440) 934-3025 Facsimile: (440) 934-3026 E-mail: sgoldsmith@sgoldsmithlawoffice.com FOOD MANAGEMENT: Sued Over Failure to Give Advance Layoff Notice ---------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Hodge, individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals v. Food Management Partners, Inc., and Catalina Restaurant Group, Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv-00996 (C.D. Cal., May 20, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to provide 60 days' advance written notice in connection with recent closing of over 70 Coco's Bakery Restaurants and Carrows Restaurants following the acquisition of their parent company, Catalina Restaurant Group, Inc. by Food Management Partners, Inc. The Defendants own and operate Coco's restaurant located in Victorville, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Sing Lee Capstone Law APC 1840 Century Park East Suite 450 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 556-4811 Facsimile: (310) 943-0396 E-mail: jonathan.lee@capstonelawyers.com FORCEFIELD ENERGY: Faces Shareholder Class Action in S.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------- Forcefield Energy Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 20, 2015, that on April 17, 2015 a lawsuit (the "Complaint") against the Registrant and its officers, Messrs. St-Julien (who resigned as Chairman and from all other positions he held with the Registrant), Natan and Williams (Mr. Natan and Mr. Williams are collectively referred to as the "Individual Defendants"), and certain other third parties, was filed in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York. Although the Registrant has yet to be served with a copy of the Complaint, the Complaint filed by one individual that had purchased 650 shares, appears to seek class status on behalf of all persons who purchased the Registrant's securities between September 16, 2013 and April 15, 2015 (the "Period") and alleges violations by the Registrant and the other persons named therein of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The Complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages. Although the ultimate outcome of this matter cannot be determined with certainty, the Registrant believes that the allegations stated in the Complaint are without merit against the Registrant and the Individual Defendants, and the Individual Defendants and the Registrant intend to defend themselves vigorously against all allegations set forth in the Complaint. FORCEFIELD ENERGY: Gainey McKenna Files Class Action in S.D.N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Gainey Mckenna & Egleston disclosed 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 securities of ForceField Energy Inc. during the period from September 16, 2013 through April 15, 2015, alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and certain of its officers. ForceField purports to design, distribute, and license alternative energy products and technologies in China and the United States. ForceField is a distributor of light emitting diode ("LED") and other lighting products for a number of premier LED lighting manufacturers. The Complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose that members of its management team have substantial connections to public companies that have been scrutinized for fraudulent or illegal activity. When this information was revealed on April 15, 2015, the price of the Company's shares declined by $2.97, to close at $4.74 per share on April 16, 2015. Ultimately, the Company's stock price fell below $3.15 by April 20, 2015. According to the Complaint, Defendants falsely stated and/or failed to disclose that: (1) articles issued by independent authors touting the Company were in fact paid promoters hired by the Company; (2) ForceField's management reviewed these so-called independent articles before publication; and (3) members of ForceField's management have disturbing histories with fraudulent companies. On April 20, 2015, a Bloomberg article reported that Richard St- Julien ("St-Julien"), former chairman of ForceField, "was arrested and had resigned as chairman. "St-Julien "was charged with scheming to boost the company's share price using secret payments" to conspirators through a Belize-based firm. ForceField's stock was halted on April 20, 2015 and is currently down nearly 60% from its close on April 14, 2015. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than June 16 2015. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com or gegleston@gme-law.com. GARCES & GARCES: "Zikorus" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Frederick Zikorus, Jose Martinez and all others similarly situated v. Garces & Garces Cargo Service, Inc., Patricia Garces, and Daniel Arredondo, Case No. 1:15-cv-21918 (S.D. Fla., May 20, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a freight forwarder company that regularly transacts business in Miami Dade County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Oscar Edmund Marrero, Esq. Lourdes Espino Wydler, Esq. MARRERO & WYDLER Couglas Centre 2600 Douglas Road, Suite PH-4 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 446-5528 Facsimile: 446-0995 E-mail: oem@marrerolegal.com lew@marrerolegal.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. GOLD FIELDS: Certification Bid to Be Heard in October 2015 ---------------------------------------------------------- Gold Fields Limited said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 14, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a consolidated application has been brought against several South African mining companies, including Gold Fields, for certification of a class action on behalf of current or former mineworkers (and their dependants) who have allegedly contracted silicosis and/or tuberculosis, while working for one or more of the mining companies listed in the application. The certification application will be heard in October 2015, and will be preceded by various legal technical applications and court processes. In addition to the class action, an individual silicosis-related action has been instituted against Gold Fields and one other mining company. GOLD RESOURCE: Reports Successful Defense Against Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------- Street Insider reports that Gold Resource Corporation issued updates to its shareholders on its successful defense against the securities class action and shareholder derivative lawsuits filed against the Company in late 2012. Gold Resource is a gold and silver producer with operations in Oaxaca, Mexico and exploration in Nevada, USA. The Company has returned over $103 million to shareholders in monthly dividends since commercial production commenced July 1, 2010, and offers shareholders the option to convert their cash dividends into physical gold and silver and take delivery. The U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado dismissed the securities class action lawsuit against the Company with prejudice on July 15, 2014. When a case is dismissed with prejudice, the court has made a final determination on the merits of the case and the plaintiffs are therefore forbidden from filing another lawsuit based on the same grounds. The plaintiffs, Nitesh Banker, Scott Cantor, Robert D. Rhodes and their attorneys, appealed the District Court's ruling to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals and on January 16, 2015, the Court of Appeals issued a ruling upholding the District Court's dismissal with prejudice. The deadlines for plaintiffs to file for rehearing or further appeal the Tenth Circuit's decision expired in mid-April. With respect to the shareholders' derivative lawsuit, the parties agreed to stay the proceedings pending the outcome of the motion to dismiss and appeal in the securities class action lawsuit. In light of the Tenth Circuit's ruling to uphold dismissal with prejudice, the parties in the shareholder derivative case agreed to voluntarily dismiss the proceedings, which was granted by the District Court on February 25, 2015. Both lawsuits are now closed in favor of Gold Resource Corporation. "We are pleased that these proceedings are finally resolved and behind us," stated Gold Resource Corporation's CEO and President, Mr. Jason Reid. "In addition to the waste of time and valuable corporate resources, the damage to the Company's reputation, share price and corresponding decrease in shareholder value was evident following the filing of these frivolous law suits. We believe many of these type of lawsuits are in large part driven by a particular business model where the goal is to try to collect quick hostage payments from companies who do not want to endure the time and expense of litigation. Our counsel at Latham & Watkins and at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher performed an excellent job in our defense and we thank them tremendously for their efforts. If there is a silver lining here, it is that Gold Resource Corporation did not fall victim to making a hostage payment and thus the plaintiffs and their attorneys bore their own costs in this process. We have no desire to countersue for damages or waste another cent of shareholder money or another second of management's time on these frivolous lawsuits. I am pleased to be able to now focus all our efforts, time and capital more efficiently on building the company." 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. 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 will be held 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. HOFFMAN LAW: Faces Class Action in S.D. Fla. Over Upfront Fees -------------------------------------------------------------- Legal Newsline reports that a now-closed law group is the subject of a class action lawsuit alleging it unfairly charged its clients upfront for mortgage assistance relief services. Melvin Baity filed the lawsuit against the Hoffman Law Group, claiming the business would require a $6,000 fee prior to having clients execute any type of agreement with the loan provider. Mr. Baity claims this is a violation of Florida state law and believes Hoffman was deceptive and unfair in its business practices. Hoffman advertised itself as being able to obtain "favorable results" for clients faced with mortgage foreclosure actions, the lawsuit said. The lawsuit further claims none of the attorneys working at Hoffman were licensed to practice law in the areas where some of its clients' homes were located. Mr. Baity claims there are hundreds of clients who were forced to pay the $6,000 upfront fee by Hoffman even though it violated state law. The Hoffman Law Group closed in Florida on July 16, 2014, the lawsuit said. The plaintiff is seeking class status and asking for more than $5 million in damages plus court costs. He is represented by Paul B. Thanasides of McIntyre Thanasides Bringgold Elliott Grimaldi & Guito P.A. in Tampa, Fla. United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida case number is 9:15-cv-80489. HONDA FINANCIAL: Hit With Class Action Over Repo Notices -------------------------------------------------------- Kurt Orzeck, writing for Law360, reports that Honda Financial Services was hit with a proposed class action in Pennsylvania state court accusing it of violating the state's consumer protection statute by not properly notifying debtors whose vehicles were repossessed. Plaintiff Robert Jeffers accuses Honda of not sufficiently informing him and other class members he seeks to represent that their repossessed vehicles would be auctioned off, or when the sales of their vehicles would take place. Honda also allegedly failed to send explanations to the putative class members of how much they were still obligated to pay on their loans, or how much they were owed, after the sales of the vehicles. Along with not sending a letter providing Jeffers with an accounting of the purported debt arising from the sale of the vehicle, Honda reported an allegedly outstanding debt of $21,897 to credit bureaus even though such debt is exempt from collection by law, the suit claims. "Plaintiff and class members have suffered ascertainable damages including loss of money, property and harm to credit as a result of Honda's violations," the suit claims. "The harm continues due to the fact that Honda has yet to correct the improper adverse filings on plaintiffs' and class members' credit reports and because Honda has yet to cease all collection activities against the members of the class." On July 26, 2013, Honda repossessed the vehicle of Jeffers, a government employee, when he was out of town on business, according to court papers. When he returned home a few weeks later, he allegedly realized he hadn't received a letter telling him of repossession. When Mr. Jeffers contacted Honda's repossession department, he was allegedly told that a letter had already been returned to the financial services company unclaimed. Jeffers requested a copy of the letter and all other paperwork relating to the loan. Honda sent Mr. Jeffers a computer-generated form letter, dated July 29, 2013, that didn't provide the requisite minimum disclosures as required by the Pennsylvania Commercial Code and Motor Vehicle Sales Finance Act, according to Friday's suit. Pennsylvania law provides for statutory damages for failure to follow proper procedures when repossessing property. Mr. contends that the Uniform Commercial Code allows consumer debtors who have not received proper notice, as well as the proposed class, to recover at minimum, the credit service charge, in addition to 10 percent of the principal owed. Mr. Jeffers seeks to represent four classes that number at least in the hundreds, according to Friday's complaint. First, he proposes a class of Pennsylvania residents who financed a vehicle primarily for personal, family or household use through Honda, whose vehicle was repossessed, and who were sent no notice of repossession or a notice that didn't have all the information required by state law. In addition to the so-called repossession notice class, Jeffers also wants to represent a class of Pennsylvania residents whose vehicles were sold at auction by Honda and who weren't sent a post-sale notice or were sent a post-sale notice that didn't have all the necessary information. He also proposes a Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act class covering consumers who paid money to Honda after the sale of the repossessed vehicle or from whom Honda sent any adverse action to the class member's credit report relating to any deficiency balance alleged from the sale of the repossessed vehicle. Lastly, Mr. Jeffers seeks to represent an unjust enrichment class whose members received notices of repossession that didn't contain all the required information, whose vehicles were sold by Honda and resulted in a reduction of the amount of their alleged principal obligation, and who paid any money to Honda for an alleged deficiency balance. The suit seeks statutory damages, a constructive trust over all allegedly ill-gotten proceeds, pre- judgment interest, preliminary and permanent enjoinders blocking Honda from collecting deficiency balances, and other relief. Jeffers is represented by Richard Shenkan of Shenkan Injury Lawyers LLC. The case is Robert Jeffers v. American Honda Finance Corp., case number 150401707, in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. HOTEL CONNECTION: Faces "Yono" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mahir Yono v. Hotel Connection Inc., Valet Connections, Inc., Kouthar Aji, and Hani Hamati, Case No. 2:15-cv-11806-BAF-MKM (E.D. Mich., May 19, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Hotel Connection Inc. owns and operates a hotel with its principal place of business located at 27075 Wick Rd., Taylor, Michigan 48180. Valet Connections, Inc. provides shuttle and parking services to individuals traveling to and from Detroit International Airport. The Plaintiff is represented by: Megan Bonanni, Esq. PITT MCGEHEE PALMER & RIVERS, P.C. 117 W. Fourth Street, Suite 200 Royal Oak, MI 48067-3804 Telephone: (248) 398-9800 E-mail: mbonanni@pittlawpc.com - and - Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square Ste 1700 Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 Facsimile: (248) 936-2143 E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com jyoung@sommerspc.com 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." IESI BETHLEHEM: Kamensky Cohen Investigates Potential Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- Christina Tatu, writing for The Morning Call, reports that a Trenton, N.J.-based law firm is investigating whether to file a class-action lawsuit against IESI Bethlehem Landfill for a noxious odor Lower Saucon residents believe is emanating from the site. Residents in the Steel City area received a letter from Kamensky, Cohen & Riechelson along with a survey asking whether they notice odors from the landfill. The letters come amid continued complaints from residents who say a foul smell has been impacting their quality of life. "Due to your proximity to the IESI Bethlehem Landfill, you may have experienced odors associated with this neighboring facility. Odors which interfere with the use and enjoyment of your home may constitute a nuisance that may entitle you to compensation," says the letter dated April 13. Attorney Kevin Riechelson wasn't certain the exact number of letters and surveys the law firm sent, but estimated a few thousand were sent to residents within a three-mile-radius of the landfill. Whether the law firm actually pursues a class action lawsuit will be determined by a percentage based on the number of responses received and the total population of the township, he said. "The forms are for us to gather information. If a resident fills out the survey, they are not signing up as a client. We are not creating a contract with them. It's really for us to find out what kind of interest there is," Mr. Riechelson said. IESI Landfill has not been officially targeted as the source of the odor. Township manager Jack Calahan previously said other possible sources could be the Bethlehem Wastewater Treatment Plant and a renewable energy center that burns methane. The state Department of Environmental Protection has said it would inspect the landfill's gas-collection system and ground covering to see if they could be contributing to an odor. The survey asks residents if they've noticed any odors from IESI Landfill in their homes, and if so to describe the offensive odor. The surveys also ask residents to summarize how the odor has affected their ability to use and enjoy their homes. Mr. Riechelson's firm provides local counsel for Liddle & Dubin, a Detroit-based law firm known for class action lawsuits involving environmental contamination. Earlier this year, a Lower Saucon resident contacted Liddle & Dubin about whether any action could be taken, Mr. Riechelson said. A second resident later contacted the Trenton-based firm after reading about a class-action lawsuit the firm filed in December against Waste Management, which owns the Tullytown Landfill in Bucks County. Similar to the situation in Lower Saucon, residents there claim noxious odors have forced them to stay inside, affecting property values and quality of life. Kamensky, Cohen & Riechelson is also currently investigating whether to file a class-action suit against the Keystone Landfill in Dunmore, Lackawanna County, Mr. Riechelson said. The Keystone Landfill is seeking a permit from DEP to expand. Similarly, IESI is seeking a DEP permit to expand onto 29 acres, which are already part of their 201-acre site zoned for landfill use. IESI officials said they are aware of the letter and survey circulated to residents, though they did not receive any direct correspondence about the documents. "IESI Bethlehem Landfill remains dedicated and open to working closely with the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Lower Saucon Township and Steel City residents to address any concerns regarding the operation of the facility," said a prepared statement issued by Vito Galante, a northeast region engineer with Progressive Waste, which oversees the Lower Saucon facility. Steel City resident Kareen Bleam lives about a mile from the landfill. She welcomes the possibility of a class-action lawsuit. Bleam purchased her property in 1970. "We were told at the time the landfill would not be able to expand the way it has," she said. "It's really bad. I had relatives up last May for a birthday party, and my niece was expecting. She had to stay in the house because every time she came outside she would smell that odor." The smell ranges from a methane-like odor to a sickly sweet rotting smell, like the odor or rotting onions or potatoes, she said. "I'm glad. I hope somebody does something because it's getting terrible here," said resident David Shosh, who lives about a half- mile from the landfill. Mr. Shosh started noticing the smell two years ago. "Lately it's been every couple days. I've been telling the township and the DEP. The DEP says they will call me back, but they've only called me back one time out of the 50 phone calls I've made," he said. "To me, it's like a rotten egg smell. It turns your stomach. You can't stay outside with it, that's for dang sure." 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 CREW: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Design Blind-Accessible POS ---------------------------------------------------------------- Andres Gomez, individually and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. J. Crew Group, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-03808 (C.D. Cal., May 20, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to design and construct Point Of Sale Devices (POS Devices) that are fully accessible to, and independently usable by, blind people. J. Crew Group, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered at 770 Broadway, New York, NY 10003. J. Crew owns and operates retail stores throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason Louis Ribakoff, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JASON L RIBAKOFF 6819 Sepulveda Boulevard Suite 307 Van Nuys, CA 90140 Telephone: (818) 778-6255 Facsimile: (818) 778-6256 E-mail: ribakoffjason@gmail.com JANSSEN INC: Recalls Eprex Sterile Solution Products ---------------------------------------------------- Starting date: May 19, 2015 Posting date: May 21, 2015 Type of communication: Drug Recall Subcategory: Drugs, Biologic/vaccine Hazard classification: Type II Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Product Safety Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals Identification number: RA-53483 Oxidized methionine level may not remain within registered specification throughout shelf-life. Depth of distribution: Wholesalers and retailers A. Eprex Sterile Solution 1000 IU / 0.5 mL DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM DIN 02231583 Dosage form: Solution Strength: Epoetin Alfa 1000 Unit / 0.5 mL Lot or serial number: ECS1Q00 ECS1Q01 Recalling Firm: Janssen Inc. 19 Greenbelt Drive Toronto M3C 1L9 Ontario CANADA Marketing Authorization Holder: Janssen Inc. 19 Greenbelt Drive Toronto M3C 1L9 Ontario CANADA B. Eprex Sterile Solution 2000 IU / 0.5 mL DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM DIN 02231584 Dosage form: Solution Strength: Epoetin Alfa 2000 Unit / 0.5 mL Lot or serial number: EBS3P00 EES4I00 EHS4W00 Recalling Firm: Janssen Inc. 19 Greenbelt Drive Toronto M3C 1L9 Ontario CANADA Marketing Authorization Holder: Janssen Inc. 19 Greenbelt Drive Toronto M3C 1L9 Ontario CANADA C. Eprex Sterile Solution 3000 IU / 0.3 mL DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM DIN 02231585 Dosage form: Solution Strength: Epoetin Alfa 3000 Unit / 0.3 mL Lot or serial number: ECS2700 Recalling Firm: Janssen Inc. 19 Greenbelt Drive Toronto M3C 1L9 Ontario CANADA Marketing Authorization Holder: Janssen Inc. 19 Greenbelt Drive Toronto M3C 1L9 Ontario CANADA D. Eprex Sterile Solution 4000 IU / 0.4 mL DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM DIN 02231586 Dosage form: Solution Strength: Epoetin Alfa 4000 Unit / 0.4 mL Lot or serial number: EDS5X00 EAS2X00 EAS4300 EBS2T00 EBS5C00 Recalling Firm: Janssen Inc. 19 Greenbelt Drive Toronto M3C 1L9 Ontario CANADA Marketing Authorization Holder: Janssen Inc. 19 Greenbelt Drive Toronto M3C 1L9 Ontario CANADA E. Eprex Sterile Solution 6000 IU / 0.6 mL DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM DIN 02243401 Dosage form: Solution Strength: Epoetin Alfa 6000 Unit / 0.6 mL Lot or serial number: EAS4200 EJS4R00 Recalling Firm: Janssen Inc. 19 Greenbelt Drive Toronto M3C 1L9 Ontario CANADA Marketing Authorization Holder: Janssen Inc. 19 Greenbelt Drive Toronto M3C 1L9 Ontario CANADA F. Eprex Sterile Solution 8000 IU / 0.8 mL DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM DIN 02243403 Dosage form: Solution Strength: Epoetin Alfa 8000 Unit / 0.8 mL Lot or serial number: ECS3600 EGS6N00 EGS6N01 EHS4U00 Recalling Firm: Janssen Inc. 19 Greenbelt Drive Toronto M3C 1L9 Ontario CANADA Marketing Authorization Holder: Janssen Inc. 19 Greenbelt Drive Toronto M3C 1L9 Ontario CANADA G. Eprex Sterile Solution 10000 IU / 1.0 mL DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM DIN 02231587 Dosage form: Solution Strength: Epoetin Alfa 10000 Unit / mL Lot or serial number: EKS5N00 Recalling Firm: Janssen Inc. 19 Greenbelt Drive Toronto M3C 1L9 Ontario CANADA Marketing Authorization Holder: Janssen Inc. 19 Greenbelt Drive Toronto M3C 1L9 Ontario CANADA JEFFERIES GROUP: Settlement Reached in Delaware Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Jefferies Group LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 10, 2015, for the quarterly period ended February 28, 2015, that the remaining defendants in the Delaware class action litigation entered into a settlement agreement with the plaintiffs. Seven class-action lawsuits had been filed in New York and Delaware on behalf of a class consisting of Jefferies Group's stockholders concerning the transaction through which Jefferies Group LLC became a wholly owned subsidiary of Leucadia National Corporation. The Company said, "The class actions named as defendants Leucadia, Jefferies Group, Inc., certain members of our board of directors, certain members of Leucadia's board of directors and, in certain of the actions, certain transaction- related subsidiaries. On October 31, 2014, the remaining defendants in the Delaware litigation entered into a settlement agreement with the plaintiffs in the Delaware litigation. The terms of that agreement provide for an aggregate payment of $70.0 million by Leucadia, who will bear the costs of the settlement, to certain former equity holders of Jefferies Group, Inc., other than the defendants and certain of their affiliates, along with attorneys' fees to be determined and approved by the court. The settlement resolves all of the class-action claims in Delaware, and releases the claims brought in New York." JPMORGAN CHASE: Pleads Guilty to Rigging World's Currency Market ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ken Sweet and Eric Tucker, writing for The Associated Press, report that a group of global banks will pay more than $5 billion in penalties and plead guilty to rigging the world's currency market, the first time in more than two decades that major players in the financial industry have admitted to criminal wrongdoing. JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Barclays and The Royal Bank of Scotland conspired with one another to fix rates on U.S. dollars and euros traded in the huge global market for currencies, according to a resolution announced on May 20 between the banks and the Department of Justice. A group of currency traders, who called themselves "The Cartel," allegedly shared customer orders through chat rooms and used that information to profit at the expense of their clients. The resolution is complex and involves multiple regulators in the U.S. and overseas. The four banks will pay a combined $2.5 billion in criminal penalties to the DOJ for criminal manipulation of currency rates between December 2007 and January 2013, according to the agreement. The Federal Reserve is slapping them with an additional $1.6 billion in fines, as the banks' chief regulator. Finally, British bank Barclays is paying an additional $1.3 billion to British and U.S. regulators for its role in the scheme. Another bank, Switzerland's UBS, has agreed to plead guilty to manipulating key interest rates and will pay a separate criminal penalty of $203 million. Big banks overall have already been fined billions of dollars for their role in the housing bubble and subsequent financial crisis. But even so, the latest penalties are big. Including a separate agreement with the Federal Reserve announced Wednesday and another announced last year, the group of banks will pay nearly $9 billion in fines for manipulating the $5.3 trillion global currency market. Unlike the stock and bond markets, currencies trade nearly 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The market pauses two times a day, a moment known as "the fix." Traders in the cartel allegedly shared client orders with rivals ahead of the "fix", pumping up currency rates to make profits. Global companies, who do business in multiple currencies, rely on their banks to give them the closest thing to an official exchange rate each day. The banks are supposed to be looking out for them instead of conspiring to get even bigger profits by using customers' orders against them. Travelers who regularly exchange currencies also need to get a fair price for their euros or dollars. It is rare to see a bank plead guilty to wrongdoing. Even in the aftermath of the financial crisis, most financial companies reached "non-prosecution agreements" or "deferred prosecution agreements" with regulators, agreeing to pay billions in fines but not admitting any guilt. If any guilt were found, it was usually one of the bank's subsidiaries or divisions -- not the bank holding company. One of the most notable banks to plead guilty to any criminal wrongdoing was investment bank Drexel Burnham Lambert, which plead guilty to fraud in the 1980s following the implosion of the junk bond bubble. The number of traders who participated in the criminal activity was small. JPMorgan, in a statement, said the one trader involved has been fired. Citi said it fired nine employees involved. The agreement between the banks and the DOJ is subject to court approval. If approved, all five banks have agreed to three years of corporate probation overseen by a court. The banks will also help prosecutors with their investigations into individual criminal activity related to the currency market rigging. KAM WAH: Recalls Glico Biscuit Sticks Due to Milk ------------------------------------------------- Starting date: May 20, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Milk Hazard classification: Class 2 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Kam Wah Resources Co. Ltd. Distribution: Ontario Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 9834 Brand name Common name Size Code(s) on UPC --------- ----------- ---- product --- ---------- Glico Double Biscuit 50 g All codes 6 901845 040401 Pretz Sticks (Milk where milk & Coffee is not Flavor) declared in the list of ingredients. Glico Pretz Biscuit Sticks 65 g All codes 6 901845 040357 (Pizza Flavor) where milk is not declared in the list of ingredients. KAO USA: Faces Class Action Over "Ban Invisible Solid" ------------------------------------------------------ Legal Newsline reports that the maker of Ban Invisible Solid antiperspirants and deodorants is being sued over allegations its labeling and packaging was misleading to consumers. Hong Chong, Lourdes Rosado, Lynn Moore and Josefina Valdez filed the lawsuit against KAO USA Inc., claiming the products listed a net weight 2.6 ounces greater than the actual weight of usable product. The so-called "non-functional slack-fill" deceived customers into thinking they were purchasing more of the product than it actually contained, the lawsuit said. According to a table listed in the lawsuit, some of the deodorants' net weights were nearly 20 percent more than the usable product. "Through these unfair and deceptive practices, (KAO) has collected hundreds of millions of dollars from the sale of its products that it would not have otherwise earned," the lawsuit said. The plaintiffs are seeking class status for those who purchased the products and are asking for more than $5 million in damages plus court costs. They are represented by C.K. Lee of the Lee Litigation Group PLLC in New York City. KBK SERVICES: Sued Over Failure to Provide Employees Travel Pay --------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Ricard, Craig Melville, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. KBK Services Inc., Case No. 3:15- cv-00299 (W.D. Wis., May 19, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to compensate employees travel time hours away from their home communities. KBK Services Inc. performs sheet metal, steam fitting, and plumbing work on construction projects throughout Northwestern Wisconsin. The Plaintiff is represented by: Yingtao Ho, Esq. PREVIANT, GOLDBERG, UELMEN, GRATZ, MILLER & BRUEGGEMAN, S.C. 1555 N. RiverCenter Drive, S. 202 P. O. Box 12993 Milwaukee, Wi 53212 Telephone: (414) 223-0437 Facsimile: (414) 271-6308 E-mail: yh@previant.com KIMBERLY-CLARK: Falsely Marketed Flushable Wipes, Action Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Gladys Honigman, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation, Case No. 2:15- cv-02910 (E.D.N.Y., May 19, 2015), is a class action brought in connection with the purchase of Cottonelle Flushable Wipes & Cleansing Cloths that were falsely marketed and advertised by the Defendant as safe to be flushed. The wipes at issue are not flushable but rather do not disintegrate immediately upon flushing, causing clog in sewer or septic systems. Kimberly-Clark Corporation is a Delaware corporation that manufactures and markets personal care, consumer tissue, and health care products worldwide. The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. Mark S. Reich, Esq. Sean T. Masson, Esq. Lauren E. Karalis, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 367-7100 Facsimile: (631) 367-1173 E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com mreich@rgrdlaw.com smasson@rgrdlaw.com lkaralis@rgrdlaw.com - and - Stuart A. Davidson, Esq. Mark Dearman, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 750-3000 Facsimile: (561) 750-3364 E-mail: sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com mdearman@rgrdlaw.com KNCMINER: Faces Class Action by Advokatfirman Over Bitcoin ---------------------------------------------------------- Brian Yim, writing for Coin Buzz, reports that a group of approximately two dozen people represented by the Swedish Law Firm Advokatfirman Rise & Co AB is bringing a class action lawsuit against Swedish Bitcoin ASIC Manufacturer KnCMiner, a company that was once famous for its high-quality bitcoin miners. There are many reasons behind this lawsuit against KnCMiner, and every person has their own different motives. One of the customers tells us his experience: "I read in the local papers that a Swedish company was going to make an ASIC. They delivered the Jupiter (October batch) and I was cursing my luck, that machine was awesome! I immediately got in line for the next machine, the Jupiter (November batch) and loved it, I had nothing but praise for KnC." However, when KnCMiner announced their next batch of ASIC Mining devices, this customer decided to order them, and he and others were hit with delays and excuses. KnCMiner offered "Super Jupiter" devices instead of the "Neptunes" that they had originally ordered, and when they were received, customer found, much to their dismay, that "Super Jupiters" were second hand machines that were running in KnC's data centers, which were covered in dust, barely working and some even had shattered pieces. When the Neptune miners were delivered, they were packaged poorly, causing a large number of them to be damaged during transit, making customers have to ship them back for a working unit. This caused a major loss in profits, since a few weeks of mining time was lost. The devices are Bitcoin Mining ASICs. KnC then started to accept pre-orders for the "Titan", an ASIC Mining Device for scrypt-based altcoins, such as Litecoin and Dogecoin. When these were delivered, customers found that these devices only hashed at 10% of their promised hashrate, because the software was extremely badly-written. The compensation was less than the correct value, which outraged many customers. Many of you may wonder what is so important about this; the fact is that if a company promises to deliver a product worth $5,000, for example, and they fail to do so, the customer should be refunded with the $5,000 or a product with an equivalent value. However, this isn't the case with KnCMiner, and the amount of unsatisfied customers has led to this class action lawsuit against the company, due to their severe mishandling the problems that have arisen. Swedish law indicates that a prison sentence of up to six years long can be given for fraud, and given the current situation with 24 victims, the prison time could increase exponentially. If the class action lawsuit is won against KnCMiner, it may prompt the Swedish Authorities to start investigating KnCMiner's business operations. LA GRANJA: Faces "Tovar" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mariana Tovar and other similarly situated individuals v. La Granja Parrilla & Seafood Inc., Gustavo Bartra, Racso Bartra, Claudia Bartra, and Gustavo Bartra Jr., Case No. 0:15-cv-61071-DMM (S.D. Fla., May 20, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Broward County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Anaeli Caridad Petisco, Esq. Anthony Maximillien Georges-Pierre, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC Court House Tower Suite 2200, 44 West Flagler Street Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416-5000 Facsimile: (305) 416-5005 E-mail: apetisco@rgpattorneys.com agp@rgpattorneys.com LAYNE CHRISTENSEN: Class Action at Very Early State --------------------------------------------------- Layne Christensen Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 14, 2015, for the fiscal year ended January 31, 2015, that a class action litigation against Layne's subsidiaries is at a very early state. On April 17, 2013, an individual person filed a purported class action suit against three of Layne's subsidiaries and two other companies supposedly on behalf of all lessors and royalty owners from 2004 to the present. The plaintiff essentially alleges that Layne and two other companies allocated the market for mineral leasing rights and restrained trade in mineral leasing within the state of Kansas. The plaintiff seeks certification as a class and unquantified damages. On April 1, 2014, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed one of the other two company defendants without prejudice. "Since this litigation is at a very early state, Layne is currently unable to predict its outcome or estimate our exposure," the Company said. LOS ANGELES: Judge OKs Settlement in Lawsuit Against Deputies ------------------------------------------------------------- CBS Los Angeles reports that a federal judge gave final approval to a settlement in a class-action lawsuit alleging Los Angeles County Sheriff's deputies engaged in violence and abuse against jail inmates. U.S. District Court Judge Dean D. Pregerson made the determination nearly four months after the nation's largest sheriff's department agreed to federal court oversight and adopted a new use-of-force policy as part of a settlement agreed to in December. The settlement agreement in Rosas v. Baca, which was approved by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, marked the latest in several efforts to reform the scandal-plagued department beset with allegations of rampant abuse by deputies, costly lawsuits and federal convictions of deputies for obstructing an FBI probe into jail beatings. "The issue was making sure that inmates weren't subjected to unreasonable and excessive force," ACLU Legal Director Peter Eliasberg said. "The nice thing is that this settlement agreement not only tells the Sheriff's department what they have to do, but it also is monitored . . ." Since the agreement took effect, three court-appointed monitors have overseen the department, according to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which filed the lawsuit in 2012. Former inmate Michael Holguin, who took part in the lawsuit while testifying in the case, alleges he was beaten after requesting to take a shower, resulting in stitches to his head and a broken kneecap. The lawsuit was filed as the FBI investigated claims of excessive use of force and then-Sheriff Lee Baca weathered increasing criticism for being out of touch with his department, which runs the county jail and also provides policing in unincorporated parts of the county and some suburbs. Baca stepped down in January after 18 underlings were charged with federal crimes ranging from beating inmates and jail visitors to obstructing justice. The settlement provides no monetary damages and the department didn't admit any wrongdoing. Sheriff Jim McDonnell issued a statement, reading, "While more work remains to be done to implement all the reforms our Commission recommended, I am deeply committed to implementing and institutionalizing meaningful and lasting change." MALLINCKRODT PLC: Stipulation Reached to Settle Securities Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mallinckrodt public limited company said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 13, 2015, that the defendants executed a stipulation of settlement to settle the Securities Class Action. Certain putative class action lawsuits were filed against Questcor Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Questcor") 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. MARIO'S CLEANING: Faces "Cadoza" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------ Gricelda Janeth Ramos Cardoza, and all others similarly situated v. Mario's Cleaning Services, Corp. and Mario G. Molina, Case No. 0:15-cv-61059-KAM (S.D. Fla., 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 home cleaning services company in Broward County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jamie H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, P.A 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Telephone: (305) 865-6766 Facsimile: 865-7167 E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM MAXUM PETROLEUM: Faces "Lewandowski" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathen Lewandowski, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Maxum Petroleum Operating Company and Pilot Travel Centers LLC d/b/a Pilot Flying J Case No. 1:15- cv-00408-UNA (D. Del., May 20, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week. The Defendants are providers of petroleum drilling and exploration support services throughout the United State. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jessica Zeldin, Esq. ROSENTHAL, MONHAIT & GODDESS, P.A. Mellon Bank Center, Suite 1401 P.O. Box 1070, 919 Market Street Wilmington, DE 19899-1070 Telephone: (302) 656-4433 Facsimile: (302) 658-7567 E-mail: jzeldin@rmgglaw.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. MIDWEST SLEEP: Faces "Wehrle" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Rebecca Wehrle, on behalf of herself and all other plaintiffs similarly situated v. Midwest Sleep Associates, LLC d/b/a Midwest Center for Sleep Disorders, Case No. 1:15-cv-04397 (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. Midwest Sleep Associates, LLC owns and operates a health care facility that sleeps disorder diagnostic. The Plaintiff is represented by: Sarmistha Banerjee, Esq. David J. Fish, Esq. THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C. 200 E 5th Ave Suite 123 Naperville, IL 60563 Telephone: (630) 355-7590 E-mail: buri@fishlawfirm.com dfish@fishlawfirm.com 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. MINE SAFETY: Removed "James" Class Suit to E.D. Arkansas -------------------------------------------------------- The lawsuit styled Andrew James v. Mine Safety Appliances Company, et al., Case No. CV-2014-381-5, was removed from the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Arkansas Civil Division to the U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas (Pine Bluff). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:15-cv-00159-KGB to the proceeding. The Plaintiff asserts a claim under the Federal Employers Liability Act. The Plaintiff contends that Mine Safety failed to provide its employees with protective clothing and devices including, appropriate respirators that would have reduced or eliminated exposure to silica, silica containing products. The Plaintiff is represented by: John T. Givens, Esq. PORTER & MALOUF, P.A. Post Office Box 12768 Jackson, MS 39236-2768 Telephone: (601) 957-7366 E-mail: johnny@portermalouf.com The Defendant is represented by: Mary Clay Morgan, Esq. BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLC 188 East Capitol Street, Suite 400 Jackson, MS 39201 Telephone: (601) 948-8000 Facsimile: (601) 948-3000 E-mail: mmorgan@babc.com MOTORS LIQUIDATION: 108 Class Suits Filed v. New GM as of Jan. 30 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Motors Liquidation Company GUC Trust said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 20, 2015, that New GM disclosed in its 2014 annual report on Form 10-K filed February 4, 2015, that since the beginning of 2014, New GM had recalled approximately 2.6 million vehicles to repair ignition switches or to fix ignition lock cylinders and had recalled an additional 33.4 million vehicles to address certain electrical and other safety concerns (collectively, the "Recalled Vehicles"). New GM also disclosed that, as of January 30, 2015, (i) 108 putative class actions had been filed against New GM in various federal and state courts seeking compensatory and other damages for economic losses allegedly resulting from one or more of the recalls announced in 2014 and/or the underlying condition of the Recalled Vehicles (the "Economic Loss Actions"), and (ii) 104 putative class actions had been filed against New GM in various federal and state courts seeking compensatory and other damages for personal injury and other claims allegedly arising from accidents that occurred as a result of the underlying condition of Recalled Vehicles (the "Personal Injury Actions," and collectively with the Economic Loss Actions, the "Recall-Related Actions"). NAPA AUTO: Recalls MetalPro-Urethane Catalyst Products ------------------------------------------------------ Starting date: May 21, 2015 Posting date: May 21, 2015 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Chemicals Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Product Safety Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-53485 This recall involves MetalPro-Urethane catalyst used in conjunction with the MetalPro paint series. The urethane catalyst was sold in a 946 mL (product page number 6003C) and 360 mL (product number 6001C) format. 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 NAPA Auto Parts has received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of this product. Approximately 3,776 containers of the 360 mL format and 816 containers of the 946 mL format were sold at NAPA Auto Parts across Canada. The recalled products were sold in Canada between 2012 in 2015. Manufactured in Quebec. Distributor: NAPA Auto Parts Montreal Quebec CANADA Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled product and dispose of it according to Municipal Hazardous Waste Guidelines. 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/HQhjsI NESTLE PURINA: Paliare Roland Files Class-Action Over Beneful ------------------------------------------------------------- Pet Product News reports that Canadian pet owners, represented by Paliare, Roland, Rosenberg, Rothstein LLP, a Toronto law firm, have filed a class-action lawsuit against Nestle Purina Petcare Canada, alleging its Beneful dry dog food contains substances that are harmful to dogs. The class action is for anyone living in Canada who might have purchased Beneful dry dog food since March 2, 2013, and either had a dog that became ill or died after consuming the product. Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that Beneful contains propylene glycol, which is listed as an ingredient on the product packaging, and toxins such as mycotoxins. In fact, Paliare is partnering with the San Francisco law firm Ram, Olson, Cereghino and Kopczynski LLP, lead counsel in the proposed class action in California. Paliare is continuing to collect information from individuals who believe their pets have exhibited signs of toxin ingestion after consuming Beneful dry dog food. Pet owners in Canada who purchased Beneful and believe their dog or dogs became ill from eating it are urged to contact the firm. In addition, the suit brought by Paliare alleges that Purina has received many complaints about dogs becoming ill after eating Beneful but has neither withdrawn the product, removed the harmful ingredients or made any efforts to warn consumers of the potential issues associated with its product. None of the allegations in the lawsuit have been proven in court, and it is expected Nestle Purina Petcare Canada will deny liability, said Paliare. Nestle Purina Petcare Canada was contacted but declined to comment. 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 AUTO IMAGE: Faces "Perez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Julio Perez, and other similarly situated individuals v. New Auto Image Marketing Incorporated, Rodrigo Oquendo, and Aramis Rodriguez, Case No. 1:15-cv-21893-JAL (S.D. Fla., 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 an auto repair shop in Miami Dade County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony Maximillien Georges-Pierre, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC Court House Tower 44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416-5000 Facsimile: (305) 416-5005 E-mail: agp@rgpattorneys.com NEW RESIDENTIAL: Class Actions Filed Against Home Loan Servicing ---------------------------------------------------------------- New Residential Investment Corp. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 7, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that three putative class action lawsuits have been filed against Home Loan Servicing Solutions, Ltd. 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." 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. OKLAHOMA CITY: Removed "Coker" Class Suit to W.D. Oklahoma ---------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Corie Coker, for himself and all others similarly situated v. Oklahoma City, Case No. CJ-2015-2019, was removed from the U.S. District Court of Oklahoma County Oklahoma to the U.S. District Court Western District of Oklahoma (Oklahoma City). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:15- cv-00442-L to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought under the Civil Rights Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey J. Box, Esq. JEFFREY J. BOX PC 2621 S Western Oklahoma City, OK 73109 Telephone: (405) 600-9918 Facsimile: (405) 632-8828 E-mail: jeffreybox@coxinet.net - and - Marvel E Lewis, Esq. MARVEL E. LEWIS PC 701 NW 13th St Oklahoma City, OK 73103 Telephone: (405) 521-8900 Facsimile: (405) 604-9054 E-mail: marvel@whiteandweddle.com The Defendant is represented by: Richard C. Smith, Esq. Tina A. Hughes, Esq. MUNICIPAL COUNSELOR'S OFFICE 200 N Walker Ave, Suite 400 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 297-2451 Facsimile: (405) 297-3851 E-mail: rick.smith@okc.gov tina.hughes@okc.gov OLD DOMINION: Removed "Arteaga" Class Suit to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit entitled Andrew E. Arteaga v. Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc., Case No. CIVDS1502699, was removed from U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Eastern Division - San Bernardino) to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Eastern Division - Riverside). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:15-cv-00990-SJO-DTB to the proceeding. The lawsuit asserts labor-rated claims. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. LAVI AND EBRAHIMIAN LLP 8889 West Olympic Boulevard Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 432-0000 Facsimile: (310) 432-0001 E-mail: jlavi@lelawfirm.com - and - Leonard H. Sansanowicz, Esq. FELDMAN BROWNE OLIVARES APC 10100 Santa Monica Boulevard Suite 2490 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 552-7812 Facsimile: (310) 552-7814 E-mail: leonard@leefeldmanlaw.com - and - Sahag Majarian II, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN II 18250 Ventura Boulevard Tarzana, CA 91356 Telephone: (818) 609-0807 Facsimile: (818) 609-0892 E-mail: sahagii@aol.com The Defendant is represented by: Sabrina A. Beldner, Esq. Sylvia Jihae Kim, Esq. Matthew Charles Kane, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS LLP 1800 Century Park East 8th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 315-8200 Facsimile: (310) 315-8210 E-mail: sbeldner@mcguirewoods.com skim@mcguirewoods.com mkane@mcguirewoods.com PALETERIA LA: Recalls Ice Cream Bars & Popsicles Due to Milk ------------------------------------------------------------ Paleteria La Jalpita of Pasco, Washington, is recalling ice cream bars and popsicles because it may contain undeclared milk and sulfite. People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to milk or sulfite run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products. PRODUCTS UNDECLARED Net Weight -------- ---------- ---------- Coco (Coconut) Popsicle Sulfite 3 Fl oz. Walnut (Nuez) Bolis Milk 3.5 Fl oz. Coconut popsicles were distributed through the state of Oregon and Washington through retail and direct delivery and the Walnut Bolis were sold only through the retail store located at 202 W. Lewis Street, Pasco WA 99301. These products were sold between March 2015 and May 2015. Products are sold in a sealed clear plastic bag or bolis (tube) and stored in a freezer. There are no codes on labels. No illnesses have been reported to date. The mislabeling issue was discovered during a routine inspection by Washington State Department of Agriculture (WSDA). This recall is being made with the knowledge of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and WSDA. Consumers who have purchased Paleteria La Jalpita are urged not to consume products if they have an allergy or severe sensitivity to milk or sulfite and they should return product to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact the company at 1 (509) 545-9551 from 9am-8pm Pacific Time any day of the week. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm448796.htm 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." PERRY ELLIS: Parties in "Ordaz" Action Reached Tentative Deal ------------------------------------------------------------- Perry Ellis International, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 14, 2015, for the fiscal year ended January 31, 2015, that the parties in a class action lawsuit filed by Humberto Ordaz have reached a tentative settlement. The Company is a defendant in Humberto Ordaz v. Perry Ellis International, Inc., Case No. BC490485 (Cal. Sup. Ct. 2012), involving claims for unpaid wages, missed breaks and related claims, which was originally filed on August 17, 2012 by a former employee in the Company's California administrative offices. The plaintiff sought an unspecified amount of damages. The lawsuit has been pleaded but not certified as a class action. Mediation was held during the third quarter of fiscal 2015. Currently, the parties have reached a tentative settlement which is set for a preliminary approval hearing on April 13, 2015. The tentative settlement amount has been provided for in the Company's results of operations. PHILLIPS & COHEN: Illegally Collects Debt, "Shedler" Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Terri Shedler, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Phillips & Cohen Associates, Ltd, PCA Acquisitions V, LLC, John Does 1-25, Case No. 2:15-cv-03449-SDW-SCM (D.N.J., May 20, 2015), seeks to put an end to 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 POPCORN FACTORY: Recalls Dill Pickle Popcorn Products Due to Milk ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Popcorn Factory of Lake Forest, Illinois is voluntarily recalling 600 4oz bags of "Lite Works Dill Pickle Popcorn," (the "Product") because it may contain undeclared milk. People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to milk run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products. Product was distributed nationally in Burlington Coat Factory retail stores. The Product comes in a 4oz foil bag. A 5 digit lot code is printed along with the best by date just above the price sticker located on the lower left of the backside of the bag. The lot code of the recalled product is 15111, the best by date is SEP 17, 2015. No illnesses have been reported to date. The recall was initiated after it was discovered that the wrong food product ingredients were packaged in the foil bags during production. Subsequent investigation indicates the problem was caused by an error in the company's production and packaging processes. Consumers who have purchased the 4oz bag of Lite Works Dill Pickle Popcorn with lot code 15111, best by date SEP 17, 2015 are urged to discard the product. Consumers with questions may contact The Popcorn Factory at 1-888-238-8107. Customer Service is available Monday through Friday, 9am - 5pm CST. Customers who purchased the recalled product may contact The Popcorn Factory for a replacement. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm448561.htm PORSCHE: Recalls 2015 Model Cars Due to Wiring Harness Defect ------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: May 21, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Car Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Electrical Units affected: 19 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015217TC ID number: 2015217 On certain vehicles, the wiring harness for the left rear radiator fan may make contact with a carbon fiber heat insulation plate. This could cause chafing of the wiring harness which could lead to an electric short, increasing the risk of fire resulting in injury and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers will inspect, secure and repair the wiring harness if damage is found. Affected products Make Model Model year(s) affected ----- ----- ---------------------- PORSCHE 2015 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. QUALITY NATURAL: Recalls Puffed Amaranth Dumpling Products ---------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: May 20, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Notification Subcategory: Extraneous Material Hazard classification: Class 3 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Quality Natural Foods Canada Inc. Distribution: National Extent of the product distribution: Hotel/Restaurant/Institutional CFIA reference number: 9836 Brand name Common name Size Code(s) on UPC --------- ----------- ---- product --- ---------- Quality Super Rajgira Laddu 100 g Best Before: Batch Number: Tasty - Puffed 2016 OC 25 1114T6 Amaranth 85441 00007 1 Dumplings 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. 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. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 11 Tobacco-Related Cases Served in Q1 2015 ------------------------------------------------------------- Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 20, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that during the first quarter of 2015, 11 tobacco-related cases, including one Engle Progeny case, were served against RJR Tobacco or its affiliates or indemnitees. On March 31, 2015, there were 180 cases pending against RJR Tobacco or its affiliates or indemnitees: 163 in the United States and 17 in Canada, as compared with 167 total cases on March 31, 2014. The U.S. case number does not include the approximately 564 individual smoker cases pending in West Virginia state court as a consolidated action, 3,638 Engle Progeny cases, involving approximately 4,681 individual plaintiffs, and 2,555 Broin II cases, pending in the United States against RJR Tobacco or its affiliates or indemnitees. Of the U.S. cases pending on March 31, 2015, 13 are pending in federal court, 149 in state court and 1 in tribal court, primarily in the following states: Maryland (33 cases); Florida (27 cases); Missouri (18 cases); and New York (13 cases). REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 481 Engle Progeny Pending in Federal Court ------------------------------------------------------------- Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 20, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that as of March 31, 2015, 481 Engle Progeny cases were pending in federal court, and 3,157 of them were pending in state court. In 2000, a jury in Engle v. Liggett Group, a class action brought against the major U.S. cigarette manufacturers by Florida smokers allegedly harmed by their addiction to nicotine, rendered a $145 billion punitive damages verdict in favor of the class. In 2006, the Florida Supreme Court set aside that award, prospectively decertified the class, and preserved several of the Engle jury findings for use in subsequent individual actions to be filed within one year of its decision. The preserved findings include jury determinations that smoking causes various diseases, that nicotine is addictive, and that each defendant sold cigarettes that were defective and unreasonably dangerous, committed unspecified acts of negligence and individually and jointly concealed unspecified information about the health risks of smoking. In the wake of Engle, thousands of individual progeny actions were filed in federal and state courts in Florida. Such actions are commonly referred to as "Engle Progeny" cases. As of March 31, 2015, 481 Engle Progeny cases were pending in federal court, and 3,157 of them were pending in state court. These cases include approximately 4,681 plaintiffs. In addition, as of March 31, 2015, RJR Tobacco was aware of 15 additional Engle Progeny cases that had been filed but not served. One hundred nine Engle Progeny cases have been tried in Florida state and federal courts since the beginning of 2012, and numerous state court trials are scheduled for 2015. The number of pending cases fluctuates for a variety of reasons, including voluntary and involuntary dismissals. Voluntary dismissals include cases in which a plaintiff accepts an "offer of judgment," referred to in Florida statutes as "proposals for settlement," from RJR Tobacco and/or its affiliates. An offer of judgment, if rejected by the plaintiff, preserves RJR Tobacco's right to recover attorneys' fees under Florida law in the event of a verdict favorable to RJR Tobacco. Such offers are sometimes made through court-ordered mediations. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: RJR, PM & Lorillard Settle Engle Progeny Cases ----------------------------------------------------------------- Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 20, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that during the first quarter of 2015, RJR Tobacco, together with Philip Morris USA Inc. and Lorillard, tentatively settled virtually all of the Engle Progeny cases then pending against them in federal district court. The total amount of the settlement was $100 million divided as follows: RJR Tobacco - $42.5 million; Philip Morris USA Inc. - $42.5 million; and Lorillard - $15 million. The settlement covers more than 400 federal progeny cases but does not cover 16 federal progeny cases previously tried to verdict and currently pending on post-trial motions or appeal; approximately 26 federal progeny cases pending as of March 31, 2015 involving pro se plaintiffs unrepresented by counsel; and two federal progeny cases filed by different lawyers from the ones who negotiated the settlement for the plaintiffs. In March 2015, RJR Tobacco paid its share of the settlement, $42.5 million, to an escrow account under its control for disbursements and has reflected this balance as restricted cash in other current assets with a corresponding balance in other current liabilities in RAI's condensed consolidated balance sheet (unaudited) as of March 31, 2015. At the beginning of the Engle Progeny litigation, a central issue was the proper use of the preserved Engle findings. RJR Tobacco has argued that use of the Engle findings to establish individual elements of progeny claims (such as defect, negligence and concealment) is a violation of federal due process. In 2013, however, both the Florida Supreme Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, referred to as the Eleventh Circuit, rejected that argument. In addition to this global due process argument, RJR Tobacco raises many other factual and legal defenses as appropriate in each case. These defenses may include, among other things, arguing that the plaintiff is not a proper member of the Engle class, that the plaintiff did not rely on any statements by any tobacco company, that the trial was conducted unfairly, that some or all claims are preempted or barred by applicable statutes of limitation, or that any injury was caused by the smoker's own conduct. In Hess v. Philip Morris USA Inc. and Russo v. Philip Morris USA Inc., decided on April 2, 2015, the Florida Supreme Court held that, in Engle Progeny cases, the defendants cannot raise a statute of repose defense to claims for concealment or conspiracy. The defendants in each of these cases filed a motion for rehearing on April 17, 2015. On April 8, 2015, in Graham v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the Eleventh Circuit found meritorious a defense that, in Engle Progeny cases, federal law impliedly preempts use of the preserved Engle findings to establish claims for strict liability or negligence. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 29 Engle Progeny Cases Tried Have Become Final ----------------------------------------------------------------- Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 20, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that twenty-nine Engle Progeny cases that were tried have become final through March 31, 2015. These cases resulted in aggregate payments by RJR Tobacco of $214.71 million ($163.36 million for compensatory and punitive damages and $51.35 million for attorneys' fees and statutory interest). During the first quarter of 2015, a payment of $1.27 million was made: $1.26 million for compensatory and punitive damages and $11,000 for attorneys' fees and statutory interest in satisfaction of the adverse judgment in the Webb case, described below. Based on RJR Tobacco's evaluation, an accrual of $68.2 million ($53 million for compensatory and punitive damages and $15.2 million for attorneys' fees and statutory interest for Hiott, Starr- Blundell, Clayton, Ward, Hallgren, Cohen, Sikes, Thibault and Buonomo) was recorded in RAI's condensed consolidated balance sheet (unaudited) as of March 31, 2015. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Engle Progeny Judgments Total $293MM ------------------------------------------------------- Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 20, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that as of March 31, 2015, judgments in favor of the Engle Progeny plaintiffs have been entered and remain outstanding against RJR Tobacco in the amount of $132,752,360 in compensatory damages (as adjusted) and in the amount of $160,717,000 in punitive damages, for a total of $293,469,360. All of these verdicts are at various stages in the appellate process. RJR Tobacco continues to believe that it has valid defenses in these cases, including case-specific issues beyond the due process issue. It is the policy of RJR Tobacco and its affiliates to vigorously defend all smoking and health claims, including in Engle Progeny cases. Should RJR Tobacco not prevail in any particular individual Engle Progeny case or determine that in any individual Engle Progeny case an unfavorable outcome has become probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated, a loss would be recognized, which could have a material adverse effect on earnings and cash flows of RAI in a particular quarter or year. This position on loss recognition for Engle Progeny cases as of March 31, 2015, is consistent with RAI's and RJR Tobacco's historic position on loss recognition for other smoking and health litigation. It is also the policy of RJR Tobacco to record any loss concerning litigation at such time as an unfavorable outcome becomes probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated on an individual case-by-case basis. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 58 Engle Progeny Cases for Trial Thru Q1 2016 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 20, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that there are approximately 58 Engle Progeny cases against RJR Tobacco and/or B&W set for trial through March 31, 2016, but it is not known how many of these cases will actually be tried. Trial schedules are subject to change, and many cases are dismissed before trial. It is likely that RJR Tobacco and other cigarette manufacturers will have an increased number of tobacco- related trials in 2015. There are six cases, exclusive of Engle Progeny cases, scheduled for trial as of March 31, 2015 through March 31, 2016, for RJR Tobacco or its affiliates and indemnitees: one non-smoking and health case, one class action and four individual smoking and health cases. There are approximately 58 Engle Progeny cases against RJR Tobacco and/or B&W set for trial through March 31, 2016, but it is not known how many of these cases will actually be tried. From January 1, 2012 through March 31, 2015, 112 smoking and health, Engle Progeny and health-care cost recovery cases in which RJR Tobacco or B&W were defendants were tried, including six trials for cases where mistrials were declared in the original proceedings. Verdicts in favor of RJR Tobacco, B&W and, in some cases, RJR Tobacco, B&W and other defendants, were returned in 54 cases, including 15 mistrials, tried in Florida (53) and West Virginia (1). Verdicts in favor of the plaintiffs were returned in 52 cases tried in Florida and one in New York. Three cases in Florida were dismissed during trial. One case in Florida was a retrial only as to the amount of damages. In another case in Florida, the jury entered a partial verdict that did not include compensatory or punitive damages, and post-trial motions are pending. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 12 Engle Progeny Cases v. RJR Tried in Q1 2015 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 20, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that in the first quarter of 2015, 12 Engle Progeny cases in which RJR Tobacco was a defendant were tried: * In Gray v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found the decedent to be 50% at fault and RJR Tobacco to be 50% at fault, and awarded $6 million in compensatory damages. Punitive damages were not awarded. * In Hecht v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury returned a verdict in favor of RJR Tobacco. * In McKeever v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the plaintiff dismissed RJR Tobacco during jury selection. * In Lennox v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury returned a verdict in favor of RJR Tobacco. * In Sowers v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found the decedent, Charles Sowers, to be 50% at fault and RJR Tobacco to be 50% at fault, and awarded $4.25 million in compensatory damages. Punitive damages were not awarded. * In Landau v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff but awarded no compensatory damages and no entitlement to punitive damages against RJR Tobacco and another defendant. The jury awarded $100,000 in compensatory damages against the remaining defendant, allocated fault 75% to the plaintiff and 25% to the remaining defendant and found entitlement to punitive damages. * In McMannis v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants, including RJR Tobacco. * In Caprio v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury informed the court that they could not reach a unanimous verdict. The court directed the jury to complete the verdict form on the questions where there was unanimous agreement. For a detailed description of the case. * In Zamboni v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found the decedent, Robert Hoover, to be 60% at fault, RJR Tobacco to be 30% at fault and the remaining defendant to be 10% at fault, and awarded $340,000 in compensatory damages. Punitive damages were not awarded. * In Dion v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the court declared a mistrial due to the jury's inability to reach a unanimous verdict. * In Pollari v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found the decedent, Paul Pollari, to be 15% at fault, RJR Tobacco to be 42.5% at fault and the remaining defendant to be 42.5% at fault, and awarded $10 million in compensatory damages and entitlement to punitive damages. * In the Gore v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. retrial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found the decedent, Gloria Gore, to be 54% at fault, RJR Tobacco 23% at fault and the remaining defendant 23% at fault, and awarded $2 million in compensatory damages. Punitive damages were not awarded. In addition, since the end of the first quarter of 2015, a decision was entered in the following Engle Progeny case: * In Ryan v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the court declared a mistrial due to the opinion being issued by the Florida Supreme Court in Hess v. Philip Morris USA Inc. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 100 Individual Smoking Cases Pending v. RJR -------------------------------------------------------------- Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 20, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that as of March 31, 2015, 100 individual cases were pending in the United States against RJR Tobacco, B&W, as its indemnitee, or both. This category of cases includes smoking and health cases alleging personal injury brought by or on behalf of individual plaintiffs, but does not include the Broin II, Engle Progeny or West Virginia IPIC cases discussed below. A total of 98 of the individual cases are brought by or on behalf of individual smokers or their survivors, while the remaining two cases are brought by or on behalf of individuals or their survivors alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke, referred to as ETS. A description of the non-Engle Progeny individual smoking and health cases against RJR Tobacco or B&W, or both, which went to trial or were decided during the period from January 1, 2015 to March 31, 2015, or remained on appeal as of March 31, 2015. On May 26, 2010, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff in Izzarelli v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in December 1999 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. The plaintiff sought to recover damages for personal injuries that the plaintiff alleges she sustained as a result of unsafe and unreasonably dangerous cigarette products and for economic losses she sustained as a result of unfair trade practices of the defendant. The jury found RJR Tobacco to be 58% at fault and the plaintiff to be 42% at fault, awarded $13.9 million in compensatory damages and found the plaintiff to be entitled to punitive damages. In December 2010, the court awarded the plaintiff $3.97 million in punitive damages. Final judgment was entered in December 2010, in the amount of $11.95 million. The court granted the plaintiff's motion for offer of judgment interest, and awarded the plaintiff $15.8 million for the period of December 6, 1999 up to and including December 5, 2010, and approximately $4,000 per day thereafter until an amended judgment was entered. The amended judgment was entered in the amount of approximately $28.1 million in March 2011. RJR Tobacco filed a notice of appeal in September 2011, and the plaintiff thereafter cross appealed with respect to the punitive damages award. In September 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued an opinion that certified the following question to the Connecticut Supreme Court: "Does Comment i to section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts preclude a suit premised on strict products liability against a cigarette manufacturer based on evidence that the defendant purposefully manufactured cigarettes to increase daily consumption without regard to the resultant increase in exposure to carcinogens, but in the absence of evidence of any adulteration or contamination?" Subsequently, the plaintiff submitted a motion to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to amend the certification order to add a second question to the Connecticut Supreme Court: "Does Comment i to section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts preclude a claim under the [Connecticut Products Liability Act] against a cigarette manufacturer for negligence (in the design of its cigarette products)?" The Second Circuit denied the plaintiff's motion. The Connecticut Supreme Court accepted the certified question and denied the plaintiff's request to amend the question with the same additional question that the plaintiff proposed to the Second Circuit. Oral argument is scheduled for April 22, 2015. The Second Circuit has retained jurisdiction over the parties' appeals and will decide the case after the Connecticut Supreme Court has completed its proceedings. On June 19, 2013, in Whitney v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants, including RJR Tobacco. The case was filed in January 2011, in the Circuit Court, Alachua County, Florida. The plaintiff alleged that as a result of using the defendants' products, she suffers from lung cancer and emphysema. Final judgment was entered in July 2013. The plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the First DCA in August 2013. On December 5, 2014, the First DCA reversed the trial court's directed verdict in favor of the defendants on the plaintiff's design defect claims, affirmed on all other issues, and remanded the case for a new trial. The defendants' motion for panel rehearing, rehearing en banc, or certification to the Florida Supreme Court was denied on February 26, 2015. The new trial has not been scheduled. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Hearing in West Virginia IPIC on June 8 ---------------------------------------------------------- Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 20, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Court in the West Virginia Individual Personal Injury Cases required briefing and scheduled a hearing on June 8, 2015. In re: Tobacco Litigation Individual Personal Injury Cases began in 1999, in West Virginia state court, as a series of roughly 1,200 individual plaintiff cases making claims with respect to cigarettes manufactured by Philip Morris, Lorillard, RJR Tobacco, B&W and The American Tobacco Company. The cases were consolidated for a Phase I trial on various defense conduct issues, to be followed in Phase II by individual trials of any claims left standing. Over the years, approximately 600 individual plaintiff claims were dismissed for failure to comply with the case management order, leaving 564 individual cases pending as of April 2013. On April 15, 2013, the Phase I jury trial began and ended with a virtually complete defense verdict on May 15, 2013. The jury found that cigarettes were not defectively designed, were not defective due to a failure to warn prior to July 1, 1969, that defendants were not negligent, did not breach warranties and did not engage in conduct which would warrant punitive damages. The only claim remaining after the verdict was the jury's finding that all ventilated filter cigarettes manufactured and sold between 1964 and July 1, 1969 were defective for a failure to instruct. In November 2014, the West Virginia Supreme Court affirmed the verdict, issuing an opinion without oral argument. In January 2015, the plaintiffs' petition for rehearing was denied. The trial court then set a hearing for February 26, 2015 to address the narrow ventilated filter failure to instruct claim left open by the jury verdict. The defendants believe that there are only approximately 30 plaintiffs remaining who arguably claim to have smoked a ventilated filter cigarette during the relevant period, and that the claims of all other plaintiffs must be dismissed. The plaintiffs contend that the definition of ventilated filter cigarettes is broader than cigarettes with ventilated filters, and they contend there may be roughly 300 plaintiffs eligible to pursue failure to instruct claims. The court required briefing and scheduled a hearing on June 8, 2015. On April 5, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court. The plaintiffs are seeking review of the amended judgment on Phase I, the opinion affirming the judgment on Phase I, and the order denying the plaintiffs' petition for rehearing. In addition to the foregoing claims, various plaintiffs in 1999 and 2000 asserted claims against retailers and distributors. Those claims were severed and stayed pending the outcome of Phase I. Also, six plaintiffs asserted smokeless tobacco claims against various smokeless manufacturers including American Snuff Co. Those claims were severed in 2001, and the plaintiffs took no action to prosecute the claims. They have recently sought to activate those claims. The defendants will assert various defenses to all of these claims, including that all of the additional claims were either covered by the Phase I verdict or abandoned. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: RJR Paid Share of Engle Progeny Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 20, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that in March 2015, RJR Tobacco paid its share of the settlement in the Engle Progeny Cases, $42.5 million, to an escrow account. Trial began in July 1998 in Engle v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a class action filed in Circuit Court, Miami-Dade County, Florida. The Engle class consisted of Florida citizens and residents, and their survivors, who suffer from or have died from diseases or medical conditions caused by an addiction to smoking. The action was brought against the major U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR Tobacco and B&W. In July 1999, the Engle jury found against RJR Tobacco, B&W and the other defendants in the initial phase of the trial, which addressed alleged common issues related to the defendants' conduct, general causation, the addictiveness of cigarettes, and potential entitlement to punitive damages. On July 14, 2000, in the second phase of the trial, the jury returned a punitive damages verdict in favor of the class of approximately $145 billion, including verdicts of $36.3 billion and $17.6 billion against RJR Tobacco and B&W, respectively. On appeal, the Florida Supreme Court prospectively decertified the class, and it set aside the punitive damages award as both premature and excessive. However, the court preserved a number of findings from Phase I of the trial, including findings that cigarettes can cause certain diseases, that nicotine is addictive, and that defendants placed defective cigarettes on the market, breached duties of care, and concealed health-related information about cigarettes. The court authorized former class members to file individual lawsuits within one year, and it stated that the preserved findings would have res judicata effect in those actions. In the wake of the Florida Supreme Court ruling, thousands of individuals filed separate lawsuits seeking to benefit from the Engle findings. As of March 31, 2015, RJR Tobacco was a defendant in 3,638 Engle Progeny cases in both state and federal courts in Florida. These cases include approximately 4,681 plaintiffs. Many of these cases are in active discovery or nearing trial. During the first quarter of 2015, however, RJR Tobacco, together with Philip Morris USA Inc. and Lorillard, tentatively settled virtually all of the Engle Progeny cases then pending against them in federal district court. The total amount of the settlement was $100 million divided as follows: RJR Tobacco - $42.5 million; Philip Morris USA Inc. - $42.5 million; and Lorillard - $15 million. The settlement covers more than 400 federal progeny cases but does not cover 16 federal progeny cases previously tried to verdict and currently pending on post-trial motions or appeal; approximately 26 federal progeny cases pending as of March 31, 2015 involving pro se plaintiffs unrepresented by counsel; and two federal progeny cases filed by different lawyers from the ones who negotiated the settlement for the plaintiffs. In March 2015, RJR Tobacco paid its share of the settlement, $42.5 million, to an escrow account under its control for disbursements and has reflected this balance as restricted cash in other current assets with a corresponding balance in other current liabilities in RAI's condensed consolidated balance sheet (unaudited) as of March 31, 2015. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Trial to Begin November 3 in Sateriale Case -------------------------------------------------------------- Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 20, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that trial is tentatively scheduled to begin on November 3, 2015, in the case Sateriale v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. In Sateriale v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a class action filed in November 2009, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, the plaintiffs brought the case on behalf of all persons who tried unsuccessfully to redeem Camel Cash certificates from 1991 through March 31, 2007, or who held Camel Cash certificates as of March 31, 2007. The plaintiffs allege that in response to the defendants' action to discontinue redemption of Camel Cash as of March 31, 2007, customers, like the plaintiffs, attempted to exchange their Camel Cash for merchandise and that the defendants, however, did not have any merchandise to exchange for Camel Cash. The plaintiffs allege unfair business practices, deceptive practices, breach of contract and promissory estoppel. The plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, actual damages, costs and expenses. In January 2010, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which prompted the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint in February 2010. The class definition changed to a class consisting of all persons who reside in the U.S. and tried unsuccessfully to redeem Camel Cash certificates, from October 1, 2006 (six months before the defendant ended the Camel Cash program) or who held Camel Cash certificates as of March 31, 2007. The plaintiffs also brought the class on behalf of a proposed California subclass, consisting of all California residents meeting the same criteria. In May 2010, RJR Tobacco's motion to dismiss the amended complaint for lack of jurisdiction over subject matter and, alternatively, for failure to state a claim was granted with leave to amend. The plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. In July 2010, RJR Tobacco's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint was granted with leave to amend. The plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint, and RJR Tobacco filed a motion to dismiss in September 2010. In December 2010, the court granted RJR Tobacco's motion to dismiss with prejudice. Final judgment was entered by the court, and the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in January 2011. In July 2012, the appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims under the Unfair Competition Law and the Consumer Legal Remedies Acts and reversed the dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims for promissory estoppel and breach of contract. RJR Tobacco's motion for rehearing or rehearing en banc was denied in October 2012. RJR Tobacco filed its answer to the plaintiffs' third amended complaint in December 2012. In June 2014, RJR Tobacco filed a motion for summary judgment, and the plaintiff filed a motion for class certification. Oral arguments on those motions were held on September 15, 2014. On December 19, 2014, the court denied RJR Tobacco's motion for summary judgment and certified a class of California residents who hold Camel Cash certificates which were distributed between 1992 and the program's termination on October 1, 2006. In January 2015, RJR Tobacco filed motions for reconsideration of the court's order on class certification and summary judgment. On April 8, 2015, the judge denied both of RJR Tobacco's motions for reconsideration. Trial is tentatively scheduled to begin on November 3, 2015. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 4 Lights Class Suits Pending in Ill. and Mo. --------------------------------------------------------------- Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 20, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that "lights" class-action cases are pending against RJR Tobacco or B&W in Illinois (2) and Missouri (2). The classes in these cases generally seek to recover $50,000 to $75,000 per class member for compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive and other forms of relief, and attorneys' fees and costs from RJR Tobacco and/or B&W. In general, the plaintiffs allege that RJR Tobacco or B&W made false and misleading claims that "lights" cigarettes were lower in tar and nicotine and/or were less hazardous or less mutagenic than other cigarettes. The cases typically are filed pursuant to state consumer protection and related statutes. Many of these "lights" cases were stayed pending review of the Good v. Altria Group, Inc. case by the U.S. Supreme Court. In that "lights" class-action case against Altria Group, Inc. and Philip Morris USA, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that these claims are not preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act or by the Federal Trade Commission's, referred to as FTC, historic regulation of the industry. Since this decision in December 2008, a number of the stayed cases have become active again. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: No Oral Argument Yet in "Price" Appeal --------------------------------------------------------- Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 20, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that briefing is complete but oral argument has not been scheduled in the appeal in Price v. Philip Morris, Inc. The seminal "lights" class-action case involves RJR Tobacco's competitor, Philip Morris, Inc. Trial began in Price v. Philip Morris, Inc. in January 2003. In March 2003, the trial judge entered judgment against Philip Morris in the amount of $7.1 billion in compensatory damages and $3 billion in punitive damages. Based on Illinois law, the bond required to stay execution of the judgment was set initially at $12 billion. Philip Morris pursued various avenues of relief from the $12 billion bond requirement. On December 15, 2005, the Illinois Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision and sent the case back to the trial court with instructions to dismiss the case. On December 5, 2006, the trial court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss and for entry of final judgment. The case was dismissed with prejudice the same day. In December 2008, the plaintiffs filed a petition for relief from judgment, stating that the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Good v. Altria Group, Inc. rejected the basis for the reversal. The trial court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' petition for relief from judgment in February 2009. In March 2009, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Illinois Appellate Court, Fifth Judicial District, requesting a reversal of the February 2009 order and remand to the circuit court. On February 24, 2011, the appellate court entered an order, concluding that the two-year time limit for filing a petition for relief from a final judgment began to run when the trial court dismissed the plaintiffs' lawsuit on December 18, 2006. The appellate court therefore found that the petition was timely, reversed the order of the trial court, and remanded the case for further proceedings. Philip Morris filed a petition for leave to appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court. On September 28, 2011, the Illinois Supreme Court denied Philip Morris's petition for leave to appeal and returned the case to the trial court for further proceedings. In December 2012, the trial court denied the plaintiffs' petition for relief from the judgment. The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Illinois Appellate Court, Fifth Judicial District. In April 2014, the appellate court reinstated the 2003 verdict. In May 2014, Philip Morris filed a petition for leave to appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court and a motion for supervisory order. Philip Morris has requested the Illinois Supreme Court to direct the Fifth Judicial District to vacate its April 2014 judgment and to order the Fifth Judicial District to affirm the trial court's denial of the plaintiff's petition for relief from the judgment, or in the alternative, grant its petition for leave to appeal. On September 24, 2014, the Illinois Supreme Court agreed to hear Philip Morris's appeal. Briefing is complete. Oral argument has not been scheduled. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Status Conference Held in "Turner" Case ---------------------------------------------------------- Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 20, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that a status conference is scheduled for May 27, 2015, in the case Turner v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. In Turner v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in February 2000, in Circuit Court, Madison County, Illinois, a judge certified a class in November 2001. In June 2003, RJR Tobacco filed a motion to stay the case pending Philip Morris's appeal of the Price v. Philip Morris, Inc. case mentioned above, which the judge denied in July 2003. In October 2003, the Illinois Fifth District Court of Appeals denied RJR Tobacco's emergency stay/supremacy order request. In November 2003, the Illinois Supreme Court granted RJR Tobacco's motion for a stay pending the court's final appeal decision in Price. On October 11, 2007, the Illinois Fifth District Court of Appeals dismissed RJR Tobacco's appeal of the court's denial of its emergency stay/supremacy order request and remanded the case to the Circuit Court. A status conference is scheduled for May 27, 2015. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: No Activity in Howard v. Brown & Williamson -------------------------------------------------------------- Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 20, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that in Howard v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., another case filed in February 2000 in Circuit Court, Madison County, Illinois, a judge certified a class in December 2001. In June 2003, the trial judge issued an order staying all proceedings pending resolution of the Price v. Philip Morris, Inc. case. The plaintiffs appealed this stay order to the Illinois Fifth District Court of Appeals, which affirmed the Circuit Court's stay order in August 2005. There is currently no activity in the case. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Feb. 2016 Status Conference in "Collora" Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 20, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that a status conference is scheduled for February 22, 2016, in the case, Collora v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. A "lights" class-action case is pending against each of RJR Tobacco and B&W in Missouri. In Collora v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in May 2000 in Circuit Court, St. Louis County, Missouri, a judge in St. Louis certified a class in December 2003. In April 2007, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion to reassign Collora and the following cases to a single general division: Craft v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc. and Black v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.. In April 2008, the court stayed the case pending U.S. Supreme Court review in Good v. Altria Group, Inc. A nominal trial date of January 10, 2011 was scheduled, but it did not proceed at that time. A status conference is scheduled for February 22, 2016. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Feb. 2016 Status Conference in "Black" Case -------------------------------------------------------------- Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 20, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that a status conference is scheduled for February 22, 2016, in the case, in Black v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. in Black v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., a case filed in November 2000 in Circuit Court, City of St. Louis, Missouri, B&W removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. The plaintiffs filed a motion to remand, which was granted in March 2006. In April 2008, the court stayed the case pending U.S. Supreme Court review in Good v. Altria Group, Inc. A nominal trial date of January 10, 2011, was scheduled, but it did not proceed at that time. A status conference is scheduled for February 22, 2016. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Parsons v. A C & S Remains Stayed ---------------------------------------------------- Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 20, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that Parsons v. A C & S, Inc., remains automatically stayed with respect to all defendants. In Parsons v. A C & S, Inc., a case filed in February 1998 in Circuit Court, Ohio County, West Virginia, the plaintiff sued asbestos manufacturers, U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR Tobacco and B&W, and parent companies of U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR, seeking to recover $1 million in compensatory and punitive damages individually and an unspecified amount for the class in both compensatory and punitive damages. The class was brought on behalf of persons who allegedly have personal injury claims arising from their exposure to respirable asbestos fibers and cigarette smoke. The plaintiffs allege that Mrs. Parsons' use of tobacco products and exposure to asbestos products caused her to develop lung cancer and to become addicted to tobacco. In December 2000, three defendants, Nitral Liquidators, Inc., Desseaux Corporation of North America and Armstrong World Industries, filed bankruptcy petitions in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, In re Armstrong World Industries, Inc. Pursuant to section 362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, Parsons is automatically stayed with respect to all defendants. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Still No Activity in Jones v. American Tobacco ----------------------------------------------------------------- Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 20, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that in Jones v. American Tobacco Co., Inc., a case filed in December 1998 in Circuit Court, Jackson County, Missouri, the defendants removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri in February 1999. The action was brought against the major U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR Tobacco and B&W, and parent companies of U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR, by tobacco product users and purchasers on behalf of all similarly situated Missouri consumers. The plaintiffs allege that their use of the defendants' tobacco products has caused them to become addicted to nicotine. The plaintiffs seek to recover an unspecified amount of compensatory and punitive damages. The case was remanded to the Circuit Court in February 1999. There is currently no activity in this case. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Amended Claim Filed in "Bourassa" Case --------------------------------------------------------- Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 20, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that an amended claim has been filed in the case, In Bourassa v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited. In Bourassa v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, a case filed in June 2010 in the Supreme Court of British Columbia against Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities, including RJR Tobacco and one of its affiliates, the plaintiff, the heir to a deceased smoker, alleging that the deceased was addicted to and suffered emphysema resulting from the use of tobacco products, is seeking compensatory and unspecified punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all individuals, including their estates, who were alive on June 12, 2007, and who have suffered, or who currently suffer from chronic respiratory diseases, after having smoked a minimum of 25,000 cigarettes designed, manufactured, imported, marketed, or distributed by the defendants, as well as disgorgement of revenues earned by the defendants from January 1, 1954, to the date the claim was filed. RJR Tobacco and its affiliate have filed a challenge to the jurisdiction of the British Columbia court. The plaintiff filed a motion for certification in April 2012, and filed affidavits in support in August 2013. An amended claim was filed in December 2014. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Decision Pending in "Smith" Plaintiffs' Bid -------------------------------------------------------------- Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 20, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that a decision is pending in the case, Smith v. Philip Morris Cos., related to the plaintiffs' petition for review with the Supreme Court of the State of Kansas. In Smith v. Philip Morris Cos., Inc., a case filed in February 2000, and pending in District Court, Seward County, Kansas, the court granted class certification in November 2001, in an action brought against the major U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR Tobacco and B&W, and the parent companies of the major U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR, seeking to recover an unspecified amount in actual and punitive damages. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants participated in a conspiracy to fix or maintain the price of cigarettes sold in the United States. In an opinion dated March 23, 2012, the court granted summary judgment in favor of RJR Tobacco and B&W on the plaintiffs' claims. On July 18, 2014, the Court of Appeals of the State of Kansas affirmed the grant of summary judgment. On August 18, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court of the State of Kansas. A decision is pending. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: American Snuff Faces 6 Smokeless Tobacco Cases ----------------------------------------------------------------- Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 20, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that as of March 31, 2015, American Snuff Co. was a defendant in six actions brought by individual plaintiffs in West Virginia state court seeking damages in connection with personal injuries allegedly sustained as a result of the usage of American Snuff Co.'s smokeless tobacco products. These actions are pending before the same West Virginia court as the smoker cases against RJR Tobacco, B&W, as RJR Tobacco's indemnitee, or both. Pursuant to the court's December 3, 2001 order, the smokeless tobacco claims and defendants remain severed, and there has been no activity in these cases for the last 14 years. The plaintiffs have recently sought to resurrect those claims. The defendants will assert various defenses to these claims including that they have been abandoned by years of inaction. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: American Snuff Settled "Vassallo" Case --------------------------------------------------------- Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 20, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that pursuant to a second amended complaint filed in September 2006, American Snuff Co. was a defendant in Vassallo v. United States Tobacco Company, pending in the Eleventh Circuit Court in Miami-Dade County, Florida. The individual plaintiff alleges that he sustained personal injuries, including addiction and cancer, as a result of his use of smokeless tobacco products, allegedly including products manufactured by American Snuff Co. The plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory and consequential damages in an amount greater than $15,000. There is no punitive damages demand in this case, though the plaintiff retains the right to seek leave of court to add such a demand later. In April 2015, American Snuff Co. and the plaintiff resolved the case through the "offer of judgment" process. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Supreme Court Could Rule in June in ERISA Case ----------------------------------------------------------------- Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 20, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that depending on when that brief is filed, the Supreme Court could rule on the defendants' petition in June or early fall in the ERISA Litigation. In May 2002, in Tatum v. The R.J.R. Pension Investment Committee of the R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company Capital Investment Plan, an employee of RJR Tobacco filed a class-action suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, alleging that the defendants, RJR, RJR Tobacco, the RJR Employee Benefits Committee and the RJR Pension Investment Committee, violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, referred to as ERISA. The actions about which the plaintiff complains stem from a decision made in 1999 by RJR Nabisco Holdings Corp., subsequently renamed Nabisco Group Holdings Corp., referred to as NGH, to spin off RJR, thereby separating NGH's tobacco business and food business. As part of the spin-off, the 401(k) plan for the previously related entities had to be divided into two separate plans for the now separate tobacco and food businesses. The plaintiff contends that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to participants of the RJR 401(k) plan when the defendants removed the stock funds of the companies involved in the food business, NGH and Nabisco Holdings Corp., referred to as Nabisco, as investment options from the RJR 401(k) plan approximately six months after the spin-off. The plaintiff asserts that a November 1999 amendment (the "1999 Amendment") that eliminated the NGH and Nabisco funds from the RJR 401(k) plan on January 31, 2000, contained sufficient discretion for the defendants to have retained the NGH and Nabisco funds after January 31, 2000, and that the failure to exercise such discretion was a breach of fiduciary duty. In his complaint, the plaintiff requests, among other things, that the court require the defendants to pay as damages to the RJR 401(k) plan an amount equal to the subsequent appreciation that was purportedly lost as a result of the liquidation of the NGH and Nabisco funds. In July 2002, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the court granted in December 2003. In December 2004, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the dismissal of the complaint, holding that the 1999 Amendment did contain sufficient discretion for the defendants to have retained the NGH and Nabisco funds as of February 1, 2000, and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court granted the plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint and denied all pending motions as moot. In April 2007, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, dismissing all claims against the RJR Employee Benefits Committee and the RJR Pension Investment Committee. The remaining defendants, RJR and RJR Tobacco, filed their answer and affirmative defenses in June 2007. The plaintiff filed a motion for class certification, which the court granted in September 2008. The district court ordered mediation, but no resolution of the case was reached. In September 2008, each of the plaintiffs and the defendants filed motions for summary judgment, and in January 2009, the defendants filed a motion to decertify the class. A second mediation occurred in June 2009, but again no resolution of the case was reached. The district court overruled the motions for summary judgment and the motion to decertify the class. A non-jury trial was held in January and February 2010. During closing arguments, the plaintiff argued for the first time that certain facts arising at trial showed that the 1999 Amendment was not validly adopted, and then moved to amend his complaint to conform to this evidence at trial. On June 1, 2011, the court granted the plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint and found that the 1999 Amendment was invalid. The parties filed their findings of fact and conclusions of law on February 4, 2011. On February 25, 2013, the district court dismissed the case with prejudice. On March 8, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. On August 4, 2014, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, referred to as Fourth Circuit, reversed, holding that the district court applied the wrong standard when it held that the defendants did not cause any loss to the plan and remanded the case back to the district court to apply the correct standard. On September 2, 2014, the Fourth Circuit denied the defendants' request for rehearing en banc. The mandate from the Fourth Circuit was issued on October 1, 2014. On November 19, 2014, the district court held a hearing and ordered briefing on various issues that remain pending on remand, with briefs due on various dates in January and February 2015. On December 1, 2014, the defendants filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court. Briefing on the defendants' petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court has been completed, and on March 9, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court invited the Solicitor General of the United States to express the views of the United States with respect to the defendants' petition for writ of certiorari. The Solicitor General might file his brief as early as late spring. Depending on when that brief is filed, the Supreme Court could rule on the defendants' petition in June or early fall. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: MOU Entered in Delaware Merger Cases ------------------------------------------------------- Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 20, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that defendants in the Delaware merger litigation (other than British American Tobacco p.l.c.,, which was not named in the amended complaint) entered into the Delaware Memorandum of Understanding regarding the settlement of the Delaware Actions. In the third quarter of 2014, Lorillard, the members of Lorillard's board of directors, RAI and BAT, were named as defendants in 11 putative class action lawsuits brought in the Delaware Court of Chancery by Lorillard shareholders challenging the proposed Merger with RAI, referred to as the Delaware Actions. The complaints generally allege, among other things, that the members of the Lorillard board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to Lorillard shareholders by authorizing the proposed merger of Lorillard with RAI. The complaints also allege that RAI and BAT aided and abetted the breaches of fiduciary duties allegedly committed by the members of the Lorillard board of directors. On November 25, 2014, the court granted a motion for consolidation of the lawsuits into a single action captioned In re Lorillard, Inc. Stockholders Litigation, and for appointment of lead plaintiffs and lead counsel. On December 11, 2014, the lead plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction and a motion to expedite. Although they believe that these lawsuits are without merit and that no further disclosure was required to supplement the Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus under applicable laws, to eliminate the burden, expense and uncertainties inherent in such litigation, on January 15, 2015, the defendants (other than BAT, which was not named in the amended complaint) entered into the Delaware Memorandum of Understanding regarding the settlement of the Delaware Actions. The Delaware Memorandum of Understanding outlines the terms of the parties' agreement in principle to settle and release all claims which were or could have been asserted in the Delaware Actions. In consideration for such settlement and release, the parties to the Delaware Actions agreed, among other things, that Lorillard and RAI would make certain supplemental disclosures to the Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus, which they did on January 20, 2015. The Delaware Memorandum of Understanding contemplates that the parties will negotiate in good faith to agree upon a stipulation of settlement to be submitted to the court for approval as soon as practicable. The stipulation of settlement will be subject to customary conditions, including approval by the court, which will consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of such settlement. There can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the court will approve the settlement even if the parties were to enter into such a stipulation. In such event, or if the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement are not consummated for any reason, the proposed settlement will be of no force and effect. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: MOU Entered in North Carolina Merger Case ------------------------------------------------------------ Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 20, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that RAI and the director defendants in the North Carolina merger litigation have entered into the North Carolina Memorandum of Understanding regarding the settlement of the disclosure claims asserted in that lawsuit. RAI, the members of the RAI board of directors and BAT have been named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit captioned Corwin v. British American Tobacco PLC, et al., brought in North Carolina state court, referred to as the North Carolina Action, by a person identifying himself as a shareholder of RAI. The North Carolina Action was initiated on August 8, 2014, and an amended complaint was filed on November 7, 2014. The amended complaint generally alleges, among other things, that the members of the RAI board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to RAI shareholders by approving the Share Purchase and the sharing of technology with BAT. The amended complaint also alleges that there were various conflicts of interest in the transaction, and that RAI aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by its board of directors. The North Carolina Action seeks injunctive relief, damages and reimbursement of costs, among other remedies. On December 5 and December 8, 2014, all defendants filed motions to dismiss and to stay discovery until the motion to dismiss is decided. On January 2, 2015, the plaintiff in the North Carolina Action filed a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin temporarily the RAI shareholder meeting and votes scheduled for January 28, 2015. RAI and the RAI board of directors timely opposed that motion prior to a hearing that was scheduled to occur on January 16, 2015. RAI believes that the North Carolina Action is without merit and that no further disclosure was necessary to supplement the Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus under applicable laws. However, to eliminate certain burdens, expenses and uncertainties, on January 17, 2015, RAI and the director defendants in the North Carolina Action entered into the North Carolina Memorandum of Understanding regarding the settlement of the disclosure claims asserted in that lawsuit. The North Carolina Memorandum of Understanding outlines the terms of the parties' agreement in principle to settle and release the disclosure claims which were or could have been asserted in the North Carolina Action. In consideration of the partial settlement and release, RAI agreed to make certain supplemental disclosures to the Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus, which it did on January 20, 2015. The North Carolina Memorandum of Understanding contemplates that the parties will negotiate in good faith to agree upon a stipulation of partial settlement to be submitted to the court for approval as soon as practicable. The stipulation of partial settlement will be subject to customary conditions, including approval by the court, which will consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the partial settlement. There can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of partial settlement or that the court will approve the partial settlement even if the parties were to enter into such a stipulation. In that event, the proposed partial settlement will be null and void and of no force and effect. As is more fully set forth in the North Carolina Memorandum of Understanding, the partial settlement will not resolve or terminate the non- disclosure claims in the North Carolina Action and these claims will continue to be litigated. In addition, the partial settlement will not affect the consideration to be paid to Lorillard shareholders in connection with the Merger. 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. SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Parties to MOU Agreed to Enter Into Stipulation ----------------------------------------------------------------- Scientific Games Corporation said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 10, 2015, that parties to the memorandum of understanding in the class actions against Bally Technologies, Inc. have agreed promptly to enter into a stipulation of settlement that will be presented to the Nevada court for final approval. The following complaints challenging the merger have been filed in the District Court of the Eighth Judicial District, County of Clark, Nevada (the "Nevada court"): (i) Shaev v. Bally Technologies, Inc., et al., No. A-14-705012-B; (ii) Crescente v. Bally Technologies, Inc., et al., No. A-14-705144-C; (iii) Lewandoski v. Bally Technologies, Inc., et al., No. A-14-705153-C; (iv) Rosenfeld v. Bally Technologies, Inc., et al., No. A-14- 705162-B; (v) Stein v. Bally Technologies, et al., No. A-14- 705338-B; and (vi) Hahm v. Bally Technologies, Inc., No. A-14- 706234-C. Each of the actions is a putative class action filed on behalf of the public stockholders of Bally Technologies, Inc. and names as defendants Bally, its directors, Scientific Games, Merger Sub and Financing Sub. The complaints generally allege that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties in connection with their consideration and approval of the merger. Four of the six complaints also allege that all of the entity defendants aided and abetted the purported breaches by the individual defendants. Of the remaining two complaints, Shaev v. Bally Technologies, Inc., et al., alleges that Scientific Games, Merger Sub and Financing Sub aided and abetted the individual defendants' purported breaches but makes no such claim against Bally, and Hahm v. Bally Technologies, Inc., et al., alleges that Bally alone aided and abetted the individual defendants' purported breaches. The complaints seek, among other relief, to enjoin the merger. On August 26, 2014, the Shaev, Crescente, Lewandoski, Rosenfeld and Stein actions were consolidated into a single proceeding under the caption In re Bally Technologies, Inc. Stockholders Litigation, No. A-14-705012-B (the "Nevada Action"). The Hahm action was consolidated into the Nevada Action after it was filed on August 27, 2014. On or about September 19, 2014, the plaintiffs served an amended consolidated class action complaint. On or about October 3, 2014, those plaintiffs filed a motion for expedited proceedings. On October 7, 2014, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the Nevada Action based on the plaintiffs' failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. On October 8, 2014, the plaintiffs in the Nevada Action withdrew their motion for expedited discovery and the parties entered into preliminary settlement discussions. On October 17, 2014, following arm's-length negotiations, the parties to the Nevada Action (the "Settling Parties") entered into a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") providing for the settlement in principle of all claims asserted in the Nevada Action on a class-wide basis, subject to certain confirmatory discovery by the plaintiffs in the Nevada Action and the approval of the Nevada court. While Bally believes that no further disclosure was required under applicable laws to supplement the preliminary proxy statement Bally filed with the SEC on September 8, 2014, Bally agreed, pursuant to the terms of the MOU, to make certain supplemental disclosures in the definitive proxy statement it filed on October 20, 2014. Bally and the other named defendants entered into the MOU solely to avoid the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in litigation and without admitting any liability or wrongdoing, and vigorously denied, and continue to vigorously deny, that they have committed any violation of law or engaged in any of the wrongful acts that were alleged in the Nevada Action. The MOU outlines the terms of the Settling Parties' agreement in principle to settle and release all claims which were or could have been asserted in the Nevada Action. The parties to the MOU have agreed promptly to enter into a stipulation of settlement that will be presented to the Nevada court for final approval. The stipulation of settlement will be subject to customary conditions, including approval by the Nevada court, which will consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement. The stipulation of settlement will provide for, among other things, the conditional certification of the consolidated Nevada Action as a non-opt-out class action. The stipulation of settlement will provide for the release of any and all claims arising from the merger, subject to approval by the Nevada court. The release will not become effective until the stipulation of settlement is approved by the Nevada court, and there can be no assurance that the Settling Parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the Nevada court will approve the settlement. In such event, or if the merger is not consummated for any reason, the proposed settlement will be null and void and of no force and effect. Payments made in connection with the settlement, which are subject to court approval, are not expected to be material. The settlement will not affect the consideration to be received by Bally's stockholders in the merger or the timing of the anticipated closing of the merger. The outcome of the lawsuits cannot be predicted with any certainty. An adverse judgment for monetary damages could have a material adverse effect on the operations and liquidity of Bally. A preliminary injunction could delay or jeopardize the completion of the merger, and an adverse judgment granting permanent injunctive relief could indefinitely enjoin completion of the merger. All of the defendants believe that the claims asserted against them in the lawsuits are without merit. SETERUS INC: Illegally Collects Debt, "Greco" Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------- Kevin Greco, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Seterus Inc. and John Does 1-25, Case No. 2:15-cv- 03450-KM-MAH (D.N.J., May 20, 2015), seeks to put an end on the Defendant's deceptive, misleading, and unfair debt collection practices. Seterus Inc. is engaged in the business of collecting or attempting to collect debts. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq. MARCUS LAW LLC 1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101 Ocean, NJ 07712 Telephone: (732) 660-8169 E-mail: ari@marcuslawyer.com SIROB IMPORTS: "Guevara" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Edgar Guevara and Lorena M. Guevara, individually and on behalf of all others situated v. Sirob Imports, Inc., Nick Boboris, and Peter Boboris, Case No. 2:15-cv-02895 (E.D.N.Y., May 19, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. Sirob Imports, Inc. is an importer, distributor, and manufacturer of food products. The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven John Moser, Esq. STEVEN J. MOSER 3 School Street, Suite 207B Glen Cove, NY 11542 Telephone: (516) 671-1150 Facsimile: (516) 882-5420 E-mail: smoser@moseremploymentlaw.com SONUS NETWORKS: Ryan & Maniskas Files Class Action -------------------------------------------------- Ryan & Maniskas, LLP that a class action lawsuit has been filed in United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased securities of Sonus Networks, Inc. between October 23, 2014 and March 23, 2015, inclusive. Sonus shareholders may, no later than June 5, 2015, move the Court for appointment as a lead plaintiff of the Class. If you purchased shares of Sonus and would like to learn more about these claims or if you wish to discuss these matters and have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights, contact Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire toll-free at (877) 316-3218 or to sign up online, visit: http://www.rmclasslaw.com/cases/sons. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements, and omitted materially adverse facts, about the Company's business, operations and prospects. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the defendants concealed from the investing public that (1) Sonus would be unable to close certain orders in the first quarter of 2015; and (2) Sonus would be experiencing longer decision cycles from its customers. On March 24, 2015, Sonus lowered revenue guidance for the first quarter of 2015 to a range of $47 million to $50 million compared to previous guidance of $74 million. Further, Sonus disclosed that the "Company no longer expects to receive certain orders this quarter that had been expected to be received at the back end of the first quarter. " These revelations contradicted Sonus's representations made just weeks earlier, on February 18, 2015, that it was "comfortable with the current consensus estimates for the first quarter of next year of $74 million in revenue" and "our first quarter is more backend loaded than the past few years but the revenue is also far more diversified. In short, we're not dependent upon a single large deal in the quarter. Instead, we have a number of good sized deals in our funnel that we expect to close over the next few week." As a result of this surprising March 24th disclosure, shares of Sonus common stock plummeted $4.46 per share or nearly 34%, to close at $8.70 per share on March 24, 2015. If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than June 5, 2015, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff of the class. A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Under certain circumstances, one or more class members may together serve as "lead plaintiff." Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. You may retain Ryan & Maniskas, LLP or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in this action. Ryan & Maniskas, LLP is a national shareholder litigation firm. Ryan & Maniskas, LLP is devoted to protecting the interests of individual and institutional investors in shareholder actions in state and federal courts nationwide. 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. SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS: Easement Deed Entered in Kingsborough Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton entered an Eastment Deed by Court Order in Settlement of Landowner Action - Active Lines in the class action complaint RICHARD KINGSBOROUGH, et al., for themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY L.P., et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 1:14-CV-12049-NMG, (D. Mass.). The parties in the Complaint entered into a Massachusetts class settlement agreement in May 2014, and the District Court entered a final order approving the settlement on April 8, 2015. The Class comprises of all Persons who own or who claim to own, for any period of time during a Compensation Period, any Covered Property, provided, that "Settlement Class" or "Class" does not include: (1) Right-of-Way Providers and their predecessors, successors, parents, subsidiaries, and affiliates, past or present; (2) federal, state, and local governmental entities; (3) Native American nations and tribes; or (4) any Person who files a valid and timely exclusion on or before the Opt-Out Deadline. The Settlement provides for the entry of an Easement Deed by which the Settling Defendants acquire, to the extent that Class Members have the right to transfer it, a permanent telecommunications easement in the Right of Way adjacent to the property of each Class Member. Accordingly, Judge Gorton entered the Easement Deed in early April 2015. Terms and conditions of the easement are detailed in the judge's order dated April 8, 2015 available at http://is.gd/pMgKJPfrom Leagle.com. 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. STERLING BANCORP: MOU Reached to Settle "Graner" Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Sterling Bancorp said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 13, 2015, that Hudson Valley Holding Corp. ("Hudson Valley") and Sterling Bancorp ("Sterling") entered on April 9, 2015, into a memorandum of understanding (the "MOU") with plaintiff regarding the settlement of a putative class action captioned Graner v. Hudson Valley Holding Corp., et al., Index No. 70348/2014 (the "Action"), pending before the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Westchester (the "Court"). The Action relates to the Agreement and Plan of Merger dated November 4, 2014 (the "Merger Agreement"), pursuant to which Hudson Valley shareholders will receive a fixed ratio of 1.92 shares of Sterling stock for each share of Hudson Valley common stock they own (the "Proposed Transaction"). Under the terms of the MOU, Hudson Valley, Sterling, the other named defendants and the plaintiff have reached an agreement in principle to settle the Action and release the defendants from all claims relating to the Proposed Transaction, subject to approval of the Court. Under the terms of the MOU, plaintiff's counsel also has reserved the right to seek an award of attorneys' fees and expenses. If the Court approves the settlement contemplated by the MOU, the Action will be dismissed with prejudice. The settlement will not affect the merger consideration to be paid to Hudson Valley's shareholders in connection with the Proposed Transaction or the timing of the special meeting of Hudson Valley's shareholders, scheduled for April 30, 2015 at Hudson Valley's headquarters at 21 Scarsdale Road, Yonkers, New York, at 11:30 a.m. local time, or the special meeting of Sterling's stockholders, scheduled for April 28, 2015, at The University Club, One West 54th Street, New York, New York, at 11:00 a.m. local time, to vote upon a proposal to approve the Merger Agreement. Hudson Valley, Sterling and the other defendants deny all of the allegations made by plaintiff in the Action and believe the disclosures in the joint proxy statement/prospectus filed by each of Sterling and Hudson Valley with the SEC (the "joint proxy statement/prospectus") are adequate under the law. Nevertheless, Hudson Valley, Sterling and the other defendants have agreed to settle the Action in order to avoid the costs, disruption and distraction of further litigation. TAVORA HOLDING: Recalls Vasco Da Gama Canned Seafood Products ------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: May 19, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning Subcategory: Microbiological - Other Hazard classification: Class 2 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Tavora Holding Co. Ltd. Distribution: National Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 9838 Industry is recalling Vasco Da Gama brand canned seafood products from the marketplace because they may be contaminated with dangerous bacteria. Consumers should not consume the recalled products described below. Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalled products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they were purchased. Food contaminated with dangerous bacteria 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 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 name Common name Size Code(s) UPC ---------- ----------- ---- on product ---- ---------- Vasco Da Gama Mussels in 115gEs1200559/ 5 601105 090023 Marinade sauce PO CE L330 M11/ 2017 Vasco Da Gama Octopus and 120g L2639J-PTC 5 601105 225258 Squid in 221 1P CE Garlic Sauce 11/2018 Vasco Da Gama Squids in 120g LI351I PTC 5 601105 071008 Ravigot Sauce 221 1P CE 08/2019 Vasco Da Gama Portuguese 120g LI8460 06/ 5 601105 011516 Sardines In 2019 L050 C Vegetable Oil 07/2015 PT C 2211P CE Vasco Da Gama Portuguese 120g L0851B08/ 5 601105 011561 Sardines in 2019,L3151 Hot Tomato 08/2019, Sauce L0151E 08/2019 PTC211 1P CE Vasco Da Gama Polvo E Pota 120g L1120F PT 5 601105 062006 em Oleo Vegetal 11/07/2017 (Portuguese only) 0221 1P CE Vasco Da Gama Mussels in 115g Es1200559/ 5 601105 090016 Red Pickled PO CE Sauce L203M 07/ 2017 Vasco Da Gama Mackerel 120g PT C221 1P 5 601105 020402 Filets in CE L30380 Vegetable FCO 10/2018 Oil Vasco Da Gama Mackerel 120g PT C2375 CE 5 601105 020501 Filets in PT G2375 CE Olive Oil Vasco Da Gama Portuguese 120g L0551 E SA 5 601105 011523 Sardines in 08/2019 PT Olive Oil 0221 1P CE Vasco Da Gama Octopus and 120g L1831J PPC 5 601105 061009 Squid in 06/2018 PT Ravigot Sauce C221 1P CE Vasco Da Gama Portuguese 120g L1850 I 51-P 5 601105 011561 Sardines in Hot PT C221 1P CE Tomato Sauce 07/2018 Vasco Da Gama Portuguese 120g L2850C SOP PT 5 601105 011547 Sardines in Hot C221 1P CE Sauce 07/2019 Vasco Da Gama Small Sardines 90g L2041L POP 5 601105 230047 in Hot Sauce 01/ 2019 PT C221 1P CE Vasco Da Gama Small Sardines 90g L2241L 01/ 5 601105 230030 in Tomato Sauce 2019 PT C221 1P CE Vasco Da Gama Small Sardines 90g L0344V PO PT 5 601105 230054 in Vegetable C221 1P CE Oil 04/2019 Vasco Da Gama Horse Mackerel 120g L0639B CARD 5 601105 130026 in Vegetable 06/11/2018 Oil PT C221 1P CE Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/piVDJp 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. TRUMPS INC: Faces "Emelike" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- Kechi Emelike, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Trumps, Inc. d/b/a Club Onyx, Rick's Cabaret International, Case No. 3:15-cv-01728-B (N.D. Tex., May 19, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week. Trumps, Inc. owns and operates a family of gentlemen's clubs throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Derek Braziel, Esq. LEE & BRAZIEL LLP 1801 Lamar Blvd, Suite 325 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (214) 749-1400 Facsimile: (214) 749-1010 E-mail: jdbraziel@l-b-law.com 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. VANTAGE FOODS: Recalls Beef Sausages Due to Undeclared Mustard -------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: May 21, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Mustard, Allergen - Wheat Hazard classification: Class 2 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Vantage Foods Inc. Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, Saskatchewan Extent of the product distribution: Retail Brand name Common name Size Code(s) on UPC --------- ----------- ---- product --- ---------- Compliments Beef Sausages 500 g All lots 0 68820 13010 9 where mustard or and wheat are 0 68820 13007 9 not declared on the label. VIAND COFFEE: Faces "Garcia" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Darqui Garcia, Individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Viand Coffee Shop of 61st. Inc. d/b/a Viand Coffee Shop and George Kontogiannis , Case No. 1:15-cv-03854-RJS (S.D.N.Y., 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 restaurant located at 673 Madison Avenue, New York City, NY 1 0021. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Antonio Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2020 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 E-mail: faillace@employmentcompliance.com VIATOR INC: Gets Final Court Nod on "Relente" Class Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge entered an order on May 4, 2015, granting final approval to the class action settlement in the complaint ROSALINA C. RELENTE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. VIATOR, INC., Defendant, CASE NO. 12-CV-05868-JD, (N.D. Calif.). In the complaint, plaintiffs Rosalina Relente and Travis Anderson, allege that Viator, a company that markets and sells "tours and experiences" through its website, displayed some tours with a "strike-through price" -- a price with a line running through it to convey the fact that it was superseded. Plaintiffs claimed that these strike-through prices misled consumers about the amount by which the tours' prices were discounted. The class consists of "All persons who purchased a Viator tour worldwide using a California billing address from October 16, 2008 through June 7, 2014 when a Strikethrough Price was displayed with no Special Offer Text." Under the Settlement, Viator will be subject to a permanent injunction requiring it to include a description of the basis for a strike-through price whenever it lists one on its website or apps. In addition, the Settlement provides for a $515,000 settlement fund, to be divided between the class members based on how much they paid for their tour. There are 16,637 class members, resulting in an average payout of $30.96. A copy of Judge Donato's Final Order dated May 4, 2015 is available at http://is.gd/BwLjjXfrom Leagle.com. Rosalina C. Relente, Plaintiff, represented by James Mitchel Sitkin, Dacey & Sitkin, Karl Olson, Ram, Olson, Cereghino & Kopczynski LLP & Michael Francis Ram, Ram, Olson, Cereghino & Kopczynski LLP. Travis R. Anderson, Plaintiff, represented by James Mitchel Sitkin, Dacey & Sitkin, Michael Francis Ram, Ram, Olson, Cereghino & Kopczynski LLP & Karl Olson, Ram, Olson, Cereghino & Kopczynski LLP. Viator, Inc., Defendant, represented by Colette M. Coles, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Rebekah E. Kaufman, Morrison & Foerster LLP & Wesley Ellsworth Overson, Jr., Morrison & Foerster LLP. VIKING RANGE: Recalls Viking and Brigade Freestanding Gas Ranges ---------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: May 21, 2015 Posting date: May 21, 2015 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Household Items Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Burn Hazard Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-53433 This recall involves Viking and Brigade brand freestanding gas ranges. The recalled ranges come in widths of 30 inches (76 centimeters), 36 inches (91 centimeters), 48 inches (122 centimeters) and 60 inches (152 centimeters). They were sold in stainless steel as well as a variety of other colours and various surface burner configurations. Model Numbers beginning Serial Numbers and with these Letters and Numbers Serial Number Ranges ------------------------------ -------------------- VGIC306 All VGIC308 All VGIC366 All VGIC368 All VGIC486 All VGIC488 All VGIC530 and CVGIC530 All VGIC536 and CVGIC536 All VGCC530 and CVGCC530 040108 through 010313 VGCC536 and CVGCC536 110108 through 010913 VGCC548 and CVGCC548 020109 through 010913 VGCC560 and CVGCC560 050111 through 010313 VGSC530 and CVGSC530 063008 through 063014 VGSC536 and CVGSC536 113008 through 063014 VGSC548 and CVGSC548 030109 through 063014 The model and serial numbers can be found on a label in one of three locations: On the bottom of the control panel above the door, on the front of the oven cavity below the control panel, or on the inside of the left side panel, which can be seen by removing the left front grate and burner bowl. The first six numbers in the serial number are the manufacture date (MM/DD/YY format). Model numbers will have additional characters at the end depending on the top configuration and product finish. For example, a CVGIC530 with 4 burners in stainless steel will be CVGIC530-4B-SS. The ovens in the gas ranges can turn on by themselves when liquid drips from the stove top into the oven, posing a burn hazard to consumers. Health Canada has not received any consumer reports of incidents or injuries related to the use of these ranges. Viking Range has received 4 reports in Canada and 71 reports in the United States of the ovens in the gas ranges turning on by themselves. There have been no reports of injuries or property damage in Canada. In the United States, burn injuries were reported in three incidents, while property damage was reported in four cases. Approximately 8,300 units were sold in Canada and 51,700 units in the United States. The affected ranges were sold in Canada and the United States from July 2007 through June 2014 at various appliance retailers. Manufactured in the United States. Manufacturer: Viking Range LLC Greenwood Mississippi UNITED STATES Viking Range to schedule a free in-home repair. For more information, consumers may contact Viking toll-free at 1- 877-929-2581, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. EST, Monday through Friday or visit the firm's website and click on Safety Recall Information at the bottom right of the home page. 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/KMXSJe VIPSHOP HOLDINGS: Sued in N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Reports ---------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Heller, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Vipshop Holdings Limited, Ya Shen, and Donghao Yang, Case No. 1:15-cv-03870-LTS (S.D.N.Y., May 19, 2015), alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Vipshop Holdings Limited is a Cayman Islands corporation that operates as an online discount retailer for various brands in the People's Republic of China. The Plaintiff is represented by: C. Dov Berger, Esq. Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Ave, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (646) 581-9969 E-mail: cdberger@pomlaw.com jalieberman@pomlaw.com VITAMIN COTTAGE: Recalls Natural Grocers Macadamia Nuts ------------------------------------------------------- Vitamin Cottage Natural Food Markets Inc., a Lakewood, Colo., based natural grocery chain, is recalling two lots of Natural Grocers brand Macadamia nuts as the product has the potential to be contaminated with Salmonella, an organism which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons infected with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. In rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in the organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more severe illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e., infected aneurysms), endocarditis and arthritis. This recall was initiated after being notified of positive Salmonella findings in product sampled by the FDA. UPC Code Description Packed on Dates -------- ----------- --------------- 0000080657552 RAW MACADAMIA NUTS 10oz 15-041 and 15-056 The product was distributed to Natural Grocers' 96 stores located in Arkansas, Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Washington and Wyoming. Consumers can find the specific locations of Natural Grocers stores at: https://www.naturalgrocers.com/store-locationsdisclaimer icon. Only packages bearing the Julian packed on dates listed above are subject to recall. To date the company has received no reports of illness. Consumers who may have purchased this product should return it to the store for credit or refund. Consumers with questions may contact the company by calling Customer Service at (303) 986-4600, ext. 531, Monday through Friday 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. (MST). VOLTARI CORPORATION: Appeal in Securities Class Action Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- An appeal in an Securities Class Action against Voltari Corporation remains pending, Voltari said in its Form 10-K/A (Amendment No. 1) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 20, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. The Company said, "We previously announced that Joe Callan filed a putative securities class action complaint in the U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington at Seattle on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired common stock of Motricity between June 18, 2010 and August 9, 2011 or in Motricity's initial public offering. Motricity, which was our predecessor registrant, is now our wholly-owned subsidiary and has changed its name to Voltari Operating Corp. The defendants in the case were Motricity, certain of our current and former directors and officers, including Ryan K. Wuerch, James R. Smith, Jr., Allyn P. Hebner, James N. Ryan, Jeffrey A. Bowden, Hunter C. Gary, Brett Icahn, Lady Barbara Judge CBE, Suzanne H. King, Brian V. Turner; and the underwriters in Motricity's initial public offering, including J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc., Goldman, Sachs & Co., Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., RBC Capital Markets Corporation, Robert W. Baird & Co Incorporated, Needham & Company, LLC and Pacific Crest Securities LLC. The complaint alleged violations under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, (the "Securities Act") and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), by all defendants and under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act by Motricity and those of our former and current officers who are named as defendants. The complaint sought, inter alia, damages, including interest and plaintiff's costs and rescission. A second putative securities class action complaint was filed by Mark Couch in October 2011 in the same court, also related to alleged violations under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act, and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act." "On November 7, 2011, the class actions were consolidated, and lead plaintiffs were appointed pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. On December 16, 2011, plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint which added a claim under Section 12 of the Securities Act to its allegations of violations of the securities laws and extended the putative class period from August 9, 2011 to November 14, 2011. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on May 11, 2012 and a second amended complaint on July 11, 2012. "On August 1, 2012, we filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, which was granted on January 17, 2013. A third amended complaint was filed on April 17, 2013. On May 30, 2013, we filed a motion to dismiss the third amended complaint, which was granted by the Court on October 1, 2013. On October 31, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On April 25, 2014, the plaintiffs filed their opening appellate brief and on July 24, 2014 we filed our answering brief." WHOLE FOODS: Recalls Valrhona Milk Chocolates Due to Hazelnuts -------------------------------------------------------------- Whole Foods Market's Oakland store located at 230 Bay Place is voluntarily recalling Jivara Lactee Milk Chocolate Valrhona cut and wrap pieces due to undeclared hazelnuts on the product label. People who have an allergy or sensitivity to hazelnuts run the risk of serious or life threatening allergic reaction if they consume the product. The recalled product came in pieces wrapped in clear plastic wrap. The recall includes all Jivara Lactee Milk Chocolate Valrhona cut and wrap pieces packed on dates prior to May 19th 2015. This product's UPC code is 250344025508. This recall only applies to Whole Foods Market's Oakland store. One mild reaction has been reported to-date. Customers who have purchased this product should discard it and may bring in their receipt for a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact Whole Foods Market's Oakland store at 510-834-9800 from 8:00 am - 10:00 PM Pacific time. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm447919.htm YOUKO TUDOU: Block & Leviton Files Class Action in S.D.N.Y. ----------------------------------------------------------- Block & Leviton LLP has filed a class action lawsuit against Youku Tudou Inc. following the Company's announcement disclosing that the Company had received and responded to queries from the SEC regarding certain accounting treatment adopted by the Company in its historical financial statements. The lawsuit was filed in the Southern District of New York and is captioned Jahm v. Youku Tudou Inc., number 15 CV 2875. The lawsuit affects all investors in Youku securities purchased between May 15, 2013, and March 19, 2015. On March 19, 2015, Youku announced that had received and responded to queries from the SEC regarding certain accounting treatment adopted by the Company in its historical financial statements. As a result, the Company is attempting to resolve the SEC's comments and intends to file its 2014 Form 20-F by the end of April 2015. The stock fell from a closing price of $15.15 on Thursday, March 19, 2015, to close at $13.50 on March 20, 2015, a drop of approximately 9%, on extremely high volume. Shares of the Company continued to fall in the weeks following the announcement, closing at just $12.36 on March 30, 2015, representing a total drop of over 18%. The loss of market value was approximately $365 million. If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than May 26, 2015. As a member of the class, you may seek to file a motion to serve as a lead plaintiff or take no action and remain an absent class member. If you have questions about your legal rights, would like a copy of the complaint or if you have information relevant to this lawsuit, please contact either attorney Steven P. Harte or Mark A. Delaney of Block & Leviton LLP, www.blockesq.com, at (617) 398-5600 or at -- Steven@blockesq.com -- and -- Mark@blockesq.com -- respectively. * 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 * * *