/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/150619.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, June 19, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 122 Headlines 8868 CORP: Faces "Li" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages AB CONSTRUCTION: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ADECCO USA: Removed "Nazarian" Class Suit to S.D. California AGRI-FINE: Faces "Hurt" Suit Over Alleged Invasion of Property AINSWORTH PET: Recalls Rachel Ray(TM) Nutrish(R) Wet Cat Food AMERICAN AIRLINES: Bid to Stay Arbitration in "Krakowski" Denied AMERICAN HONDA: Faces "Flanigan" Suit Over Defective CR-V ARIA HEALTH: Faces Suit Over Denial of OT Pay to ER Employees AVON PRODUCTS: Defendants Moved to Dismiss 2nd Amended Complaint AVON PRODUCTS: Interim Co-Lead Counsel Named in "Poovathur" Case BERKELEY COUNTY, SC: Faces $10-Mil. Class Suit Over Impact Fee BESTCARE INC: Faces "Zuparov" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime BIG EASY: Recalls Stuffed Chicken Products Due to Misbranding BROADCOM CORPORATION: Sued in Cal. Over Unlawful Company Sale CALIFORNIA: Class Status Sought in Fire Prevention Fees Case CANADIAN IMPERIAL: Hearing on Class Cert. Appeal Set by Year End CAVIAR INC: Taps Keker Team in Worker Misclassification Suit CELGENE CORPORATION: Supplemental Motion to Dismiss Filed CIGNA CORP: Defends Against Amara Cash Balance Pension Plan Suit CIGNA CORP: Defends Against Franco v. Connecticut General DAWSON GEOPHYSICAL: Faces Shareholder Class Action DELPHI AUTOMOTIVE: To Defend Against Additional Class Action DISCOVER BANK: Illegally Collects Credit Card Debts, Suit Claims ELI LILLY: Takeda to Resolve Actos(R) Product Liability Case ELI LILLY: Prepared to Defend Class Action Related to Actos ELI LILLY: To Defend Against Byetta Product Liability Litigation ELI LILLY: To Defend Against Prozac(R) Product Liability Suit ELI LILLY: To Defend Against Brazil-Employee Litigation ENBRIDGE ENERGY: Settles Kalamazoo River Oil Spill for $75MM ENERSIS S.A.: Class Action Filed by Garzon Residents ETSY INC: Pomerantz LLP Files Securities Class Suit FEDERAL SIGNAL: To Pursue Class Certification Objections FEDERAL SIGNAL: NY Firefighter's Case Removed to Federal Court FEDERAL SIGNAL: Insurer Reimbursed Portion of Defense Costs FIESTA RESTAURANT: No Material Changes to Status of Daisy Action FIRST STUDENT: "Hensley" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages FLEXICOM LLC: "Dayton" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages FRESCA ITALIA: Recalls Italian Pork Products G&C NATURAL: Recalls Pyrola Capsules Due to Diclofenac GARDEN-FRESH: Potato Salad Products Recalled Due to Listeria GIORGIO ARMANI: Faces "Malnar" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime GLOBAL POWER: July 13 Deadline for Lead Plaintiff Bid GRAFTECH INTERNATIONAL: Sued Over Proposed Company Merger GREEN TREE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Sanchez" Suit Claims HARMAN INTERNATIONAL: No Hearing Yet in Class Action Appeal HARMAN INTERNATIONAL: Appeals Court Keeps Ruling in Russell Case I & Y SENIOR: Faces "Barnard" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime IDREAMSKY TECHNOLOGY: Named as Defendant in Two Class Actions ILLINOIS: IHSA to Intoduce Concussion Prevention Projects IMAX CORPORATION: Discovery Ongoing in Scott Redman Class Action ISORAY INC: Faces "Greenberg" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports JUST ENERGY: Faces Suit Over Door-to-Door Sales Agents LARRY'S CUSTOM: Recalls Beef Tongue Products with Lingual Tonsils LIFE OF THE SOUTH: Sued Over Unlawful Installment Loan Policies MARRIOTT VACATIONS: Court Approved Settlement in "Benner" Case MARRIOTT VACATIONS: Filed Motion to Dismiss Abramson Action MASTEC INC: July 6 Deadline for Lead Plaintiff Bid MERGE HEALTHCARE: No Appeal Filed in Shareholder Class Action MERU NETWORKS: Faces "Strougo" Sued Over Proposed Company Merger MOL GLOBAL: Court Has Yet to Appoint Lead Plaintiff MYLAN INSTITUTIONAL: Expands Recalls on Injectable Products NAT'L FOOTBALL: Appeal from Concussion Suit Settlement Filed NATIONAL WESTMINSTER: Appeal in Shareholder Litigation Still Open NATIONAL WESTMINSTER: RBS Group Are Defendants in Novastar Case NATIONAL WESTMINSTER: Members of Settlement Class File Appeal NATIONAL WESTMINSTER: ISDAFIX Antitrust Case in Pre-Discovery NATIONAL WESTMINSTER: Additional FX Antitrust Litigation Filed NAVIENT CORP: Court Denied Motion to Amend Complaint Again NAVIENT CORP: Hearing Held on Motions to Dismiss Suit NETHERLANDS: Ruling in Climate Change Suit Expected by Month End NEW YORK: City Transit Sued Over Denial of Services to Disabled OMNICARE INC: Faces "Elow" Suit Over Proposed Merger with CVS OMNICELL INC: Vincent Wong Firm Files Securities Suit ONEMAIN FINANCIAL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Action Claims PALERMO ENTERPRISES: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages PHILADELPHIA, PA: Suit vs. DA Over Forfeiture Laws Proceeds PLATINUM GROUP: Investors' Class Suit Wins Certification QUALITY LINEALS: Faces "Arias" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime QUICKSILVER INC: Vincent Wong Firm Files Securities Suit RBS HOLDINGS: Discovery Underway in Hopkins v AECOM RBS HOLDINGS: Discovery Underway in CDS Antitrust Litigation RCF LLC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Blotzer" Suit Claims SARAH LEE: Calif. Court Refuses to Dismiss Antitrust Class Suit SATANIC TEMPLE: Abortion Battle May Become Class Suit, Atty Says SERVICE CORPORATION: Facing "Samborsky" Class Action SERVICE CORPORATION: "Moulton" Case to Continue Against Unit SINGING RIVER: Must Turn Over Docs Regarding Failed Pension Plan SOVEREIGN SILVER: Court Tentatively Junks Consumers' Class Suit SPRINGFIELD, MA: Seeks to Junk Class Suit on Mental Health Issues TEREX CORPORATION: Received Complaints Seeking Certification TFS FACILITY: Sued in Ga. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages TINDER INC: Sued Over Paid Version of Dating App UNITED SERVICES: Sued Over Denial of Injury Protection Claims UNUM GROUP: Alabama Class Action Remains Stayed UNUM GROUP: Parties to Seek Status Conference in 2015 First Half UNUM GROUP: Answered 3rd Amended Complaint in Calif. Class Action VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: No Response Yet in Allergan Class Action VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Bid to Dismiss Salix Class Action Filed VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Bid to Dismiss Solodyn Case Pending VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: June 22 Cert. Hearing in Afexa Case VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Expects Ruling on Appeals Bid VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: B&L Settled 630 MoistureLoc Case VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Salix Securities Litigation Dismissed VERIZON WIRELESS: Settles "Cramming" Allegations for $158-Mil. VITAMIN COTTAGE: Recalls Additional Macadamia Nuts Products WALGREEN CO: Recalls Powdered Sugar Mini Donuts WASHINGTON KENNEL: "Hwang" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages WELLS FARGO: Keller Rohrback Files Suit Over Deceptive Tactics WINSTON RETAIL: Removed "Sartore" Class Suit to S.D. California WORLD FUEL: ME District Court Stayed Transferred Cases WORLD FUEL: Stay Lifted for Non-Settling Defendants in Train Case WORLDWIDE TRANSPORTATION: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages XUNLEI LIMITED: Sued in Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports YRC WORLDWIDE: Appeals Court Denied Petition for Mandamus * Class Action Fairness Act Filings Spike Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Corp. Continues to Defend Stearns Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Corp. Continues to Defend Falk Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Corp.'s Zurn Unit Has 7,000 PI Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Savoie" Suit Remanded to Louisiana State Court ASBESTOS UPDATE: 7th Cir. Junks Inmate's Dismissal Order Appeal ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Fails in Bid to Junk "Nuutinen" Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insurers Directed to Produce Settlement Docs ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Messier" Suit Remanded to Conn. State Court ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment in "Jordan" Suit Affirmed ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Directs Co. to Supplement Appeal ASBESTOS UPDATE: Victory Carrier Dropped as Defendant in 4 Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY App. Div. Flips Ruling in "Hockler" Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Workplace Exposure Claims in 2 PI Suits Junked ASBESTOS UPDATE: Childhood Exposure Claims Allowed to Proceed ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Claims vs. Weyerhaeuser Partially Junked ********* 8868 CORP: Faces "Li" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Tao Li, Feng Lin Chi and Ying Chai Hong, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. 8868 Corp. d/b/a Vermicelli Restaurant, and Phuc Chau, Case No. 1:15-cv-04433-LGS (S.D.N.Y., June 8, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 1492 Second Avenue, New York, NY 10075. The Plaintiff is represented by: John Troy, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Boulevard Flushing, NY 11355 Telephone: (718) 762-1324 Facsimile: (718) 762-1342 E-mail: tsaihongjanq@hotmail.com AB CONSTRUCTION: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT -------------------------------------------------------------- Juan Rodriguez and Julio Ogando, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AB Constr. Group Inc. and Anderson Dos Santos, Case No. MICV2015-03929 (Mass. Super. Ct., June 4, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Massachusetts Overtime Law. The Defendants own and operate a construction company with a principal office in Woburn, Massachusetts. The Plaintiff is represented by: Raven Moeslinger, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NICHOLAS F. ORTIZ, P.C. 99 High Street, Suite 304 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617)338-9400 E-mail: rm@mass-legal.com ADECCO USA: Removed "Nazarian" Class Suit to S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit styled Artin Nazarian, and on behalf of all person similarly situated v. Adecco USA, Inc. and DOES 1 through 50, Case No. 37-02014-00042950-CU-OE-CTL, was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego to the U.S. District Court Southern District of California (San Diego). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-01274-W-JMA to the proceeding. The Plaintiff is represented by: Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq. BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK 2255 Calle Clara La Jolla, CA 92037 Telephone: (858) 551-1223 Facsimile: (858) 551-1232 E-mail: norm@bamlawlj.com The Defendant is represented by: Chad Daniel Bernard, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 225 Broadway, Suite 2000 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 573-4915 Facsimile: (619) 573-4901 E-mail: BernardC@jacksonlewis.com AGRI-FINE: Faces "Hurt" Suit Over Alleged Invasion of Property -------------------------------------------------------------- Claude Hurt, Karla Forte, James Fuller, Pamela Fuller, & Masah Renwick v. Agri-Fine, Inc., Case No. 2015-CH-08872 (Ill. Cir. Ct., June 4, 2015), arises from the physical invasion of Plaintiffs' property by noxious odors, which originated at Defendant's facility. Agri-Fine, Inc. is an Illinois corporation with its principal place of business located at 2701 E. l00th St., Chicago, Cook County, IL 60617. Agri-Fine manufactured animal feed products through an acidulation process. The Plaintiff is represented by: William J. Sneckenberg, Esq. Chris L. Pryor, Esq. SNECKENBERG THOMPSON & BRODY, LLP 161 N Clark St # 3575 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 782-9320 E-mail: wjs@stbtrial.com clp@stbtrial.com AINSWORTH PET: Recalls Rachel Ray(TM) Nutrish(R) Wet Cat Food ------------------------------------------------------------- Ainsworth Pet Nutrition of Meadville, PA is voluntarily recalling five varieties of Rachael Ray(TM) Nutrish(R) wet cat food, including Ocean Fish-a-licious, Lip Smackin' Sardine & Mackerel, Ocean Fish & Chicken Catch-iatore, Tuna Purrfection, and certain lot codes of Paw Lickin' Chicken & Liver due to potentially elevated levels of vitamin D. Symptoms of excessive vitamin D consumption usually develop within 12-36 hours after ingestion and may include vomiting or diarrhea, increased thirst and urination, and muscle tremors or seizures. Any cat experiencing these symptoms should be taken to a veterinarian immediately. Two variety packs that contain some of these recalled products (the Chicken Lovers Variety Pack, and the Ocean Lovers Variety Pack) will also be recalled. The recalled products are distributed nationwide. No other Rachael Ray(TM) Nutrish(R) products are affected by this recall. Single Pack Unit UPC Code Best By Dates ----------- ---- ------- Thru ------------- PAW LICKIN CHICKEN (2.8 oz) 071190007032 AUG 17 2015 AND LIVER OCEAN FISH AND (2.8 oz) 071190007049 DEC 1 2016 CHICKEN CATCH- IATORIE OCEAN FISH A (2.8 oz) 071190007056 DEC 1 2016 LICIOUS TUNA PURRFECTION (2.8 oz) 071190007063 DEC 1 2016 LIP SMACKIN (2.8 oz) 071190007070 DEC 1 2016 SARDINE AND MACKEREL Multi Packs - Unit UPC Code Best By Dates 12 Count ---- -------- Thru ------------- ------------- CHICKEN LOVERS (12 count 071190007773 DEC 1 2016 VARIETY PACK pack of 2.8 oz cups) OCEAN LOVERS VARIETY PACK (12 count 071190007780 DEC 1 2016 pack of 2.8 oz cups) The UPC code can be found on the bottom of the cup. The Best By code can be found on the side of the cup. To date, there have been 11 reports of illness associated with these products. After conducting a number of product tests, Ainsworth confirmed that the affected products have elevated levels of vitamin D. The high levels result from the natural levels of vitamin D that are found in some of the fish ingredients that were used in these specific formulas. "At Ainsworth Pet Nutrition and Rachael Ray(TM) Nutrish(R), the safety and quality of our products is our top priority," says Jeff Watters, CEO. "For the time being, we recommend disposing of any of the affected wet cat varieties. Rest assured we have implemented additional operating procedures to prevent an issue like this from occurring in the future. We sincerely apologize to our loyal consumers everywhere." Ainsworth is working to ensure the removal of all affected products from store shelves. Retailers with affected products are asked to contact 888-943-4218 for additional information. Consumers with questions about the recall are encouraged to contact Ainsworth's Consumer Care Team at 877-650-3486 or visit www.nutrishforpets.com/newsdisclaimer icon. Representatives will be available from 8:00 a.m. - 9:00 p.m. ET Monday thru Friday and 8:00 a.m. - 8:00 p.m. ET Saturday and Sunday. Vitamin D is important in regulating calcium and phosphorus in a cat's body. But, when ingested at very high levels, it can lead to serious health issues. Production of the affected varieties has been suspended and will resume after reformulation. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm449843.htm AMERICAN AIRLINES: Bid to Stay Arbitration in "Krakowski" Denied ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bankruptcy Judge Sean H. Lane denied the plaintiffs' motion to stay an upcoming arbitration in the case captioned In re: AMR CORPORATION, et al., Chapter 11, Reorganized Debtors. JOHN KRAKOWSKI, KEVIN HORNER, and M. ALICIA SIKES, individually, and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC. and ALLIED PILOTS ASSOCIATION, Defendants, OFFICIAL COMMITTEE OF UNSECURED CREDITORS, As Intervenor, CASE NO. 11-15463 (SHL),, ADV. PRO. NO. 13-01283 (SHL) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.). Plaintiffs sought to stay an upcoming arbitration, scheduled to start in June 2015 and conclude by December 2015, to integrate the seniority of pilots from U.S. Airways and American Airlines, two airlines that merged in December 2013 as part of the debtors' plan of reorganization. The integration arbitration will result in one seniority list to govern all the pilots who now fly at the merged entity. The plaintiffs contended that they will be harmed if the seniority arbitration proceeds before the merits of their two adversary proceedings are resolved, both of which allege the improper loss of seniority and other rights by former Trans World Airlines' ("TWA") pilots who joined American when American acquired TWA in 2001. Judge Lane explained that to obtain a preliminary injunction, a plaintiff must ordinarily make four showings: (1) the plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) the plaintiff is likely to suffer irreparable harm if relief is not granted; (3) the balance of equities tips in the plaintiff's favor; and (4) the public interest favors the relief. In denying the motion, Judge Lane held that the plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that they will suffer irreparable harm absent a stay of the seniority arbitration. More specifically, the plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that proceeding with the seniority arbitration will preclude them from receiving the relief they seek in their two cases. Judge Lane further held that an evaluation of the remaining requirements also does not support the plaintiffs, as they have not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits, there is a clear benefit to the new American in proceeding with the seniority arbitration, and the public interest does not appear to favor either side. A copy of the May 19, 2015 memorandum and order is available at http://is.gd/8meWFafrom Leagle.com. Counsel for Plaintiffs: JACOBSON PRESS & FIELDS, P.C. Allen P. Press, Esq. 168 N. Meramec Avenue, Suite 150 Clayton, MO 63105 E-mail: press@archcitylawyers.com Counsel for Allied Pilots Association: JAMES & HOFFMAN Edgar N. James, Esq. Steven K. Hoffman, Esq. Darin M. Dalmat, Esq. 1130 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 950 Washington, DC 20036 E-mail: ejames@jamhoff.com skhoffman@jamhoff.com dmdalmat@jamhoff.com Counsel for Allied Pilots Association: STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP Filiberto Agusti, Esq. Joshua R. Taylor, Esq. 1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 E-mail: fagusti@steptoe.com jrtaylor@steptoe.com Counsel for American Airlines, Inc.: WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP Stephen Karotkin, Esq. Alfredo R. Perez, Esq. Lawrence Baer, Esq. 767 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10153 E-mail: stephen.karotkin@weil.com alfredo.perez@weil.com lawrence.baer@weil.com Counsel for American Airlines, Inc.: MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP Jonathan C. Fritts, Esq. 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20004 E-mail: jfritts@morganlewis.com AMERICAN HONDA: Faces "Flanigan" Suit Over Defective CR-V --------------------------------------------------------- Patricia Flanigan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. American Honda Motor Company, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-05390 (W.D. Wash., June 8, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the purchasers and lessees of the 2015 Honda CR-V who were injured because of the defects in the Defendant's vehicles, which causes the vehicles to excessively rattle and vibrate. American Honda Motor Company, Inc. is a California corporation with its national headquarters in Torrance, California. Honda is one of the largest distributors of automobiles in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Cliff Cantor, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF CLIFFORD A. CANTOR, P.C. 627 208th Ave. SE Sammamish, WA 98074 Telephone: (425) 868-7813 Facsimile: (425) 732-3752 E-mail: cliff.cantor@outlook.com ARIA HEALTH: Faces Suit Over Denial of OT Pay to ER Employees ------------------------------------------------------------- Matt Fair, writing for Law360, reported that a Philadelphia-based hospital chain was slapped with a class action in state court on alleging that emergency room workers were denied overtime pay after being forced to work through their meal breaks. A complaint filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia claims that night-shift workers in the emergency room of Aria Health's Torresdale campus had their pay automatically docked for meal breaks that they consistently were required to work through. "Defendant utilizes an electronic timekeeping system that is programmed to automatically deduct 30 minutes per shift to account for a purported meal break," the complaint said. "Defendant utilizes this system even though plaintiff and other ER employees consistently and openly work through their meal breaks." The suit was filed on behalf of Jamal Mullins, an hourly ER employee who worked the night shift at the hospital approximately from October 2014 through January. During his roughly three-month stint at the hospital, Mullins claims that he always ended up working through his meal break despite the time being automatically docked from his pay. He claims that the work performed during the automatically deducted meal breaks meant that he regularly ended up with uncompensated overtime hours. "Because plaintiff and other ER employees' . . . hours often exceeded 40 hours per week, the work they performed during the meal breaks, if credited, would constitute overtime work and would be compensable at the overtime premium rate of 150 percent of the regular pay rate," the complaint said. While the complaint said that Aria employed at least 30 people for the night shift at Aria Torresdale's emergency room, it said that a class in the case would include more than 50 members. The suit, which alleges violations of the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, hopes to capture any hourly night-shift employees who worked at Aria Torresdale during the past three years. Aria Health said in a statement that it was aware of the complaint, but declined to comment on the substance of the allegations. "Aria Health is aware of the recent filing and will be responding through the courts accordingly," the company said in a statement. "Given the fact that there is pending litigation, Aria is not at liberty to provide detailed commentary at this time." Mullins is represented by Peter Winebrake, R. Andrew Santillo and Mark Gottesfeld of Winebrake & Santillo LLC. Counsel information for Aria Health was not immediately available. The case is Jamal Mullins v. Aria Health, case number 150500883, in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. AVON PRODUCTS: Defendants Moved to Dismiss 2nd Amended Complaint ---------------------------------------------------------------- Avon Products, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that Defendants have moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint in the case City of Brockton Retirement System v. Avon Products, Inc., et al., on November 21, 2014. On July 6, 2011, a purported shareholder's class action complaint (City of Brockton Retirement System v. Avon Products, Inc., et al., No. 11-CIV-4665) was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and certain present or former officers and/or directors of the Company. On September 29, 2011, the Court appointed LBBW Asset Management Investmentgesellschaft mbH and SGSS Deutschland Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH as lead plaintiffs and Motley Rice LLC as lead counsel. Lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, and the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on June 14, 2012. On September 29, 2014, the Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss and also granted the plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint. On October 24, 2014, plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint on behalf of a purported class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Avon's common stock from July 31, 2006 through and including October 26, 2011. The second amended complaint names as defendants the Company and two individuals and asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act based on allegedly false or misleading statements and omissions with respect to, among other things, the Company's compliance with the FCPA, including the adequacy of the Company's internal controls. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and declaratory, injunctive, and other equitable relief. Defendants moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on November 21, 2014. "We are unable to predict the outcome of this matter. However, it is reasonably possible that we may incur a loss in connection with this matter. We are unable to reasonably estimate the amount or range of such reasonably possible loss," the Company said. AVON PRODUCTS: Interim Co-Lead Counsel Named in "Poovathur" Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- Avon Products, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Court appointed interim co-lead counsel and ordered plaintiffs to file their consolidated complaint by May 8, 2015. On December 23, 2014, a purported class action, Poovathur v. Avon Products, Inc., et al., No. 14-CV-10083, was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and certain present or former Company employees pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1132. The Poovathur complaint, which was amended on January 28, 2015, asserts claims under ERISA for alleged breach of fiduciary duty and failure to monitor on behalf of a purported class of participants in and beneficiaries of the Avon Personal Savings Account Plan (the "Plan") who invested in and/or held shares of the Avon Common Stock Fund between July 31, 2006 and January 1, 2015. On March 12, 2015, another purported class action, McCoy et al. v. Avon Products, Inc., et al., No. 15- CV-01828, was filed in the same court and designated as related to Poovathur. The McCoy complaint asserts similar causes of action under ERISA, and a claim for co-fiduciary liability, on behalf of participants in the Plan and on behalf of the Plan itself, from February 1, 2011 to the present. Plaintiffs in both actions seek, inter alia, certain monetary relief, damages, and declaratory, injunctive, and other equitable relief. On April 8, 2015, the Court consolidated the actions and recaptioned the consolidated case as In re 2014 Avon Products, Inc. ERISA Litigation; the Court also appointed interim co-lead counsel and ordered plaintiffs to file their consolidated complaint by May 8, 2015. "We are unable to predict the outcome of this matter. However, it is reasonably possible that we may incur a loss in connection with this matter. We are unable to reasonably estimate the amount or range of such reasonably possible loss," the Company said. BERKELEY COUNTY, SC: Faces $10-Mil. Class Suit Over Impact Fee -------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Behre, writing for The Post and Courier, reported Some Berkeley County homeowners and business owners could reap a windfall, pending the success of a lawsuit filed against the county over a controversial impact fee. The lawsuit, filed by four residents and three businesses, seeks class action status and the return of at least $10 million in the fees collected over the past decade. Their complaint says the fee must be refunded because the money -- which was to go toward a new Interstate 26 exit called the Sheep Island Interchange and a spine road between the Dorchester County line and U.S. Highway 17-A -- was not spent in a timely way. The plaintiffs are represented by attorneys Clay McCullough, Ross Appel and James Ward. Berkeley County Council passed the impact fees in 2006, and the lawsuit contends the money needed to be spent by June 30, 2014. Only $1.9 million was spent by then. Both current Supervisor Bill Peagler and former Supervisor Dan Davis criticized the fee during their recent campaign. Last November, voters approved a half-cent sales tax increase for infrastructure projects, and County Council repealed the impact fee program a month later. It's unclear how vigorously the county will contest the lawsuit. County spokesman Michael Mule released a statement saying, "Berkeley County was just served paperwork on this claim. Since the county has not had adequate time to study the claim, the county will not issue comment on it at this time." The plaintiffs' attorneys said they tried to work with the county to find a solution before going to court. "We were optimistic the county was prepared to do the right thing and refund the impact fees to thousands of Berkeley County residents and businesses," McCullough said. "Unfortunately, we are left with no other option but to ask the court to force the current administration to do what Berkeley County officials should have done a long time ago." The firm may be reached at: Clay McCullough, Esq. Ross Appel, Esq. James Ward, Esq. MCCULLOUGH KHAN, LLC 359 King Street, Suite 200 Charleston, SC 29401 Tel: (843) 937-0400 Fax: (843) 937-0706 Email: clay@mklawsc.com ross@mklawsc.com BESTCARE INC: Faces "Zuparov" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Bakhtiyor Zuparov,, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bestcare, Inc., Case No. 506914/2015 (N.Y. Sup Ct., June 4, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the New York Labor Law. Bestcare, Inc. provides home health care to frail elderly individuals who live in New York City. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gennadiy Naydenskiy, Esq. NAYDENSKIY LAW GROUP, P.C. 2747 Coney Island Ave. Brooklyn, NY 11235 Telephone: (718) 808-2224 Facsimile: (718) 228-4034 E-mail: naydenskiylaw@gmail.com BIG EASY: Recalls Stuffed Chicken Products Due to Misbranding ------------------------------------------------------------- Big Easy Foods Louisiana Cuisine, Inc., a Lake Charles, La. establishment, is recalling approximately 93,006 pounds of both raw and cooked stuffed chicken product due to misbranding and an undeclared allergen, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The product contains wheat, a known allergen which is not declared on the product label. The following products are subject to recall: --- 3 pound chipboard cartons of BIG EASY FOODS of LA "Boneless Stuffed Chicken with Pork Sausage and Potato Stuffing" with sell by dates of June 9, 2015 through June 8, 2017. --- 3 pound chipboard cartons of BIG EASY FOODS of LA "Fully Cooked Boneless Stuffed Chicken with Pork Sausage and Potato Stuffing" with sell by dates of July 21, 2013 through April 11, 2015. The products were produced on various dates from June 9, 2013, through June 9, 2015. The products bear the establishment number "13251" inside the USDA mark of inspection and have the sell by date printed on the product label. The products were shipped to retail outlets in Louisiana, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Texas, Arkansas, Missouri, New Jersey, Arizona, Florida, and Tennessee. The problem was discovered on June 8, 2015 when FSIS personnel observed that the chicken stuffing was formulated with an ingredient that contained wheat gluten. FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about a reaction should contact a healthcare provider. FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls. Consumers with questions about the recall can contact Mitzie Midkiff at Big Easy Foods Louisiana Cuisine Customer Service at 1- 337-477-9296 ext 1133. Media with questions about the recall can contact Brittany Prejean at Big Easy Foods Louisiana Cuisine Media Relations hotline at 1-337-477-9296 ext 1123. Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a day. The online Electronic Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a day at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem. BROADCOM CORPORATION: Sued in Cal. Over Unlawful Company Sale ------------------------------------------------------------- New Jersey Building Laborers Statewide Pension Fund, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Broadcom Corporation, et al., Case No. 30-2015-00791484 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 4, 2015), is brought on behalf all stockholders of Broadcom Corporation to enjoin the proposed acquisition of the Company's outstanding shares of stock in a cash and stock transaction by Avago Technologies Limited, for an unfair price and inadequate consideration. Broadcom Corporation is a California corporation provides integrated silicon solutions that enable broadband digital data transmission of voice, data and video content to the home and within the business enterprise. The Plaintiff is represented by: Francis M. Gregorek, Esq. Betsy C. Manifold, Esq. Rachele R. Rickert, Esq. Marisa C. Livesay, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 750 B Street, Suite 2770 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 239-4599 Facsimile: (619) 234-4599 E-mail: gregorek@whafh.com manifold@whafh.com rickert@whafh.com livesay@whafh.com CALIFORNIA: Class Status Sought in Fire Prevention Fees Case ------------------------------------------------------------ Shea Johnson, writing for Daily Press, reported that a motion has been filed seeking to certify a lawsuit over the controversial fire prevention fee as "class action," a step that would significantly broaden the number of "plaintiffs" in the suit should a judge ever rule the fee unconstitutional. In response to budget cuts during the downturn of the economy, lawmakers enacted the fee in 2011 to support state fire services. The fee affects homeowners in so-called State Responsibility Areas, including in parts of Pinion Hills, Phelan, Wrightwood, Oak Hills, Apple Valley and Lucerne Valley. Speaking during a conference call with reporters and interested parties, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association President Jon Coupal said the suit will move forward either way, but the scope of potential beneficiaries is now at the case's forefront. "Instead of having tens of thousands people, we'd be representing about five," said Coupal, talking of the implications of a judge denying the certification request. As a class action suit, anyone who had completed and submitted a petition for determination, disputing the fee, would be a member of the filing class, overriding the need for them to be officially named as plaintiffs. HJTA filed the lawsuit in October 2012, challenging the validity of the fee and saying it was really a tax in disguise. As a tax, it would have required a two-thirds legislative approval, but the fee was instead passed by a majority. The fee currently requires homeowners pay $152.33 yearly for each habitable structure they own. The fee drops to $117.33 for those who simultaneously reside within local fire protection boundaries. Bills finished mailing out to residents in San Bernardino County. A four-member panel, including Coupal, updated participants on the state of the fire fee during teleconference hosted by Diane Harkey, 4th District representative with the Board of Equalization. State Sen. Mike Morrell, R-Rancho Cucamonga, said lawmakers against the fee have tried two different methods in recent years to push back against it: "One is just try to repeal the law. (The other) is try to make it a little more reasonable." Morrell's second attempt to repeal the fee was shot down 7-2 in a Democratic-led state Senate committee in March. Meanwhile, 33rd District Assemblyman Jay Obernolte, R-Hesperia, has introduced a bill that would extend the time that homeowners have to either pay or dispute the fee from 30 days to 60. Obernolte will join Board of Equalization Vice Chair George Runner and his wife, 21st District state Sen. Sharon Runner, R-Lancaster, at a town hallvto update residents on the status of the fee. Coupal said he expected a ruling on the merits of the lawsuit "within a year." "This is not a well-meaning bill gone wrong," Morrell said. "This is just a way to collect extra cash and put it in the state's coffers." CANADIAN IMPERIAL: Hearing on Class Cert. Appeal Set by Year End ---------------------------------------------------------------- Glen Korstrom, writing for Business Vancouver, reported that a certified class-action lawsuit that alleges that the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC) had "vague" wording and "inappropriate" penalties in its mortgage contracts continues to wind its way through the courts, the lawyer working for the representative plaintiff told Business in Vancouver May 13. CIBC is appealing the case, saying that it should not be certified as a class action. That appeal is expected to be heard by the end of 2015 or in early 2016, said Kieran Bridge, who is a principal at Kieran A.G. Bridge Law Corp. Recent developments, since Business in Vancouver first covered the lawsuit in August 2014 , include B.C. Supreme Court Justice Jeanne Watchuk's March 31 ruling that accepts Bridge's definition of who is eligible to be included as part of the class and Bridge's contention that punitive damages are appropriate. "That does not mean that punitive damages will be awarded at this stage," Bridge told BIV. "We're still in the early days of this. Her ruling was that punitive damages are appropriate for a class action." At least 52,200 British Columbians will be entitled to refund cheques from CIBC if Bridge's class-action lawsuit succeeds, he said. The representative plaintiff in the case is Victoria resident Erin Sherry, who wanted out of a CIBC mortgage when her marriage dissolved. The bank hit her with $47,869 in fees because she was only two years into a 10-year mortgage and interest rates had fallen between the time Sherry had committed to the mortgage and when she wanted to break it. Her argument to get out of paying those fees is twofold, Bridge told BIV. Sherry's first argument is that the language in the mortgage document from CIBC's CIBC Mortgage Inc. subsidiary was so vague that it rendered the contract legally unenforceable. Her other argument is that the mathematical formula that the bank used is improper, Bridge said. "If an appropriate formula was used then the penalty would have been less." CAVIAR INC: Taps Keker Team in Worker Misclassification Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reported that restaurant-delivery app Caviar Inc. has tapped Keker & Van Nest to fend off claims it misclassified workers as independent contractors. Partners R. James Slaughter, Esq. -- rslaughter@kvn.com -- Ashok Ramani, Esq. -- aramani@kvn.com -- and Simona Agnolucci, Esq. -- sagnolucci@kvn.com -- entered their appearances on behalf of the company. Caviar uses couriers to drop off food orders for customers that connect to the service online or through a mobile app and is one of several "sharing economy" ventures facing litigation over its treatment of workers. A suit filed in March claims the company avoided reimbursing couriers for work expenses by improperly classifying them as independent contractors instead of employees. Caviar, which was acquired by mobile-payment company Square Inc. in August, claims on its website that its couriers earn up to $25 an hour on a flexible schedule. Boston-based attorney Shannon Liss-Riordan, who sued on behalf of a potential class of Caviar couriers, is also targeting car services Uber Technologies Inc. and Lyft Inc., cleaning-service Homejoy and delivery service Postmates Inc. She claims the companies all misclassified their workers, and in so doing, denied them employment benefits including minimum wage and overtime. Keker & Van Nest also represents Lyft. Paul Hastings represents Homejoy, and Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher represents Uber. An attorney has not yet entered an appearance for Postmates. CELGENE CORPORATION: Supplemental Motion to Dismiss Filed --------------------------------------------------------- Celgene Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that a supplemental motion to dismiss Providence's state law claims was filed in a class action lawsuit on April 20, 2015. The Company said, "On November 7, 2014, the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craft Workers Local 1 Health Fund (IUB) filed a putative class action lawsuit against us in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging that we violated various state antitrust, consumer protection, and unfair competition laws by (a) allegedly securing an exclusive supply contract with Seratec S.A.R.L. so that Barr Laboratories ("Barr" who at one time held an ANDA for THALOMID(R)) allegedly could not secure its own supply of thalidomide active pharmaceutical ingredient; (b) allegedly refusing to sell samples of our THALOMID(R) and REVLIMID(R) brand drugs to Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Lannett Company, and Dr. Reddy's Laboratories so that those companies could conduct the bioequivalence testing needed to submit ANDAs to the FDA for approval to market generic versions of these products; and (c) allegedly bringing unjustified patent infringement lawsuits against Barr and Natco Pharma Limited in order to allegedly delay those companies from obtaining approval for proposed generic versions of THALOMID(R) and REVLIMID(R). IUB, on behalf of itself and a putative class of third party payors, is seeking injunctive relief and damages. On February 6, 2015, we filed a motion to dismiss IUB's complaint. On March 3, 2015, the City of Providence ("Providence") filed a similar putative class action making similar allegations. Both IUB and Providence, on behalf of themselves and a putative class of third party payors, are seeking injunctive relief and damages. Providence agreed that the decision in the motion to dismiss IUB's complaint would apply to the identical claims in Providence's complaint as well. The Court has not yet issued a decision. A supplemental motion to dismiss Providence's state law claims was filed on April 20, 2015. We intend to vigorously defend against IUB's claims." CIGNA CORP: Defends Against Amara Cash Balance Pension Plan Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Cigna Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company will continue to vigorously defend its position in the Amara cash balance pension plan litigation. In December, 2001, Janice Amara filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut against Cigna Corporation and the Cigna Pension Plan (the "Plan") on behalf of herself and other similarly situated participants in the Plan affected by the 1998 conversion to a cash balance formula. The plaintiffs allege various violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), including, that the Plan's cash balance formula discriminates against older employees; that the conversion resulted in a wear-away period (when the pre-conversion accrued benefit exceeded the post- conversion benefit); and that the Plan communications contained inaccurate or inadequate disclosures about these conditions. In 2008, the District Court (1) affirmed the Company's right to convert to a cash balance plan prospectively beginning in 1998; (2) found for plaintiffs on the disclosure claim only; and (3) required the Company to pay pre-1998 benefits under the pre- conversion traditional annuity formula and post-1997 benefits under the post-conversion cash balance formula. The Second Circuit upheld this decision. In 2011, the Supreme Court reversed the lower court decisions in this matter and returned the case to the District Court, which ordered the Company to pay substantially the same benefits as had been ordered in 2008 and denied the Company's motion to decertify the class. The parties again appealed, with the plaintiffs challenging the District Court's denial of their request to return to the prior annuity benefit plan formula, and Cigna and the Plan appealing the District Court's order and the denial of a motion to decertify the class. In December 2014, the Second Circuit upheld the District Court ruling. In January 2015, the plaintiffs filed a petition for re- hearing with the Second Circuit that was subsequently denied in March 2015. The Company will continue to vigorously defend its position. CIGNA CORP: Defends Against Franco v. Connecticut General --------------------------------------------------------- Cigna Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company will continue to vigorously defend its position in the case, Franco v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company, et al. In April 2004, the Company was sued in a number of putative nationwide class actions alleging that the Company improperly underpaid claims for out-of-network providers through the use of data provided by Ingenix, Inc., a subsidiary of one of the Company's competitors. These actions were consolidated into Franco v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company, et al., pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The consolidated amended complaint, filed in 2009 on behalf of subscribers, health care providers and various medical associations, asserted claims related to benefits and disclosure under ERISA, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations ("RICO") Act, the Sherman Antitrust Act and New Jersey state law and seeks recovery for alleged underpayments from 1998 through the present. Other major health insurers have been the subject of, or have settled, similar litigation. In September 2011, the District Court (1) dismissed all claims by the health care provider and medical association plaintiffs for lack of standing; and (2) dismissed the antitrust claims, the New Jersey state law claims and the ERISA disclosure claim. In January 2013 and again in April 2014, the District Court denied separate motions by the plaintiffs to certify a nationwide class of subscriber plaintiffs. The Third Circuit denied plaintiff's request for an immediate appeal of the January 2013 ruling. As a result, the case is proceeding on behalf of the named plaintiffs only. In June 2014, the District Court granted the Company's motion for summary judgment to terminate all claims, and denied the plaintiffs' partial motion for summary judgment. In July 2014, the plaintiffs appealed all of the District Court's decisions in favor of the Company, including the class certification decision, to the Third Circuit. The Company will continue to vigorously defend its position. DAWSON GEOPHYSICAL: Faces Shareholder Class Action -------------------------------------------------- Dawson Geophysical Company said in its Form 8-K/A Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, that on January 7, 2015, Andrew Speese, through his attorney, filed a purported shareholder class action and derivative action relating to the Merger on behalf of himself and Legacy Dawson's other shareholders in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (Midland/Odessa Division), against Legacy Dawson, Legacy Dawson's directors prior to the Merger, Legacy TGC and Merger Sub. The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the members of Legacy Dawson's Board of Directors at the time the action was initiated (the "Legacy Dawson Board") breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the strategic business combination with Legacy TGC, and that Legacy Dawson's registration statement dated November 6, 2014, as subsequently amended, and prospectus filed on December 31, 2014 contain material omissions and materially misleading statements. The complaint sought to enjoin Legacy Dawson, Legacy TGC and Merger Sub from taking any actions that would allow the consummation of the proposed strategic business combination contemplated by the merger agreement or, now that the strategic business combination has been consummated, a judgment for damages. DELPHI AUTOMOTIVE: To Defend Against Additional Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Delphi Automotive PLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that Delphi intends to vigorously defend against an additional class action related to GM Ignition Switch Recall. In the first quarter of 2014, GM, Delphi's largest customer, initiated a product recall related to ignition switches. Delphi received requests for information from, and cooperated with, various government agencies related to this ignition switch recall. In addition, Delphi was initially named as a co-defendant along with GM (and in certain cases other parties) in class action and product liability lawsuits related to this matter. During the second quarter of 2014, all of the class action cases were transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "District Court") for coordinated pretrial proceedings. Two consolidated amended class action complaints were filed in the District Court during the fourth quarter of 2014. Delphi was not named as a defendant in either complaint. An additional class action complaint, brought outside of the consolidated class actions mentioned, named Delphi as a defendant. Delphi believes the allegations contained in this additional class action are without merit, and intends to vigorously defend against them. Although no assurances can be made as to the ultimate outcome of these or any other future claims, Delphi does not believe a loss is probable and, accordingly, no reserve has been made as of March 31, 2015. DISCOVER BANK: Illegally Collects Credit Card Debts, Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lizette Diresta, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. Discover Bank, Case No. 155611/2015 (N.Y. Sup Ct., June 4, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's illegal and deceptive business practices in attempting to collect credit card debt from individuals using false information and documentation. Discover Bank operates an online-only banking service that a checking account, savings accounts, money market accounts, and retirement products. The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy DiResta, Esq. DIRESTA LAW GROUP, PC 30 W. Park Ave., Suite 301 Long Beach, New York 11561 Telephone: (516) 432-0102 Facsimile: (516) 345-1678 E-mail: timothydiresta@optimum.net ELI LILLY: Takeda to Resolve Actos(R) Product Liability Case ------------------------------------------------------------ Eli Lilly and Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that in April 2015, Takeda Chemical Industries, Ltd., and Takeda affiliates announced they will pay approximately $2.4 billion to resolve the vast majority of the product liability lawsuits involving Actos, including Allen, and the other cases involving Eli Lilly. The settlement will become effective if at least 95 percent of current litigants opt into the settlement, and will release Eli Lilly and Takeda of all remaining liability for these cases. Eli Lilly said, "We are named along with Takeda Chemical Industries, Ltd., and Takeda affiliates (collectively, Takeda) as a defendant in approximately 5,700 product liability cases in the U.S. related to the diabetes medication Actos, which we co- promoted with Takeda in the U.S. from 1999 until 2006. In general, plaintiffs in these actions allege that Actos caused or contributed to their bladder cancer. Almost all of the active cases have been consolidated in federal multi-district litigation in the Western District of Louisiana or are pending in a coordinated state court proceeding in California or a coordinated state court proceeding in Illinois. We believe these lawsuits are without merit, and we and Takeda are prepared to defend against them vigorously." "In April 2014, a jury in the Western District of Louisiana found in favor of the plaintiffs in the case of Allen, et al. v. Takeda Pharmaceuticals, et al., no. 6:12-md-00064. In September 2014, judgment was entered awarding $1.3 million in compensatory damages to plaintiffs (allocated 75 percent to Takeda and 25 percent to us) and punitive damages of $6.00 billion against Takeda and $3.00 billion against us. In October 2014, the judge issued an order substantially reducing the amount of punitive damages awarded to approximately $28 million against Takeda and approximately $9 million against us. We continue to believe the evidence did not support plaintiffs' claims and strongly disagree with the verdict. We and Takeda intend to vigorously challenge this outcome through all available legal means. We and Takeda have appealed this judgment and plaintiffs have filed a cross-appeal objecting to the reduction in punitive damages. "Our agreement with Takeda calls for Takeda to defend and indemnify us against our losses and expenses with respect to the U.S. litigation arising out of the manufacture, use, or sale of Actos and other related expenses in accordance with the terms of the agreement. After the jury reached its verdict in Allen, Takeda notified us that it was reserving its right to challenge its obligations to defend and indemnify us with respect to the Allen case. We believe we are entitled to full indemnification of our losses and expenses in Allen and all other U.S. cases; however, there can be no guarantee we will ultimately be successful in obtaining full indemnification." ELI LILLY: Prepared to Defend Class Action Related to Actos ----------------------------------------------------------- Eli Lilly and Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company is named along with Takeda as a defendant in three purported product liability class actions in Canada related to Actos, including one in Ontario (Casseres et al. v. Takeda Pharmaceutical North America, Inc., et al.), one in Quebec (Whyte et al. v. Eli Lilly et al.), and one in Alberta (Epp v. Takeda Canada et al.). "We promoted Actos in Canada until 2009. We believe these claims are without merit and are prepared to defend against them vigorously," the Company said. ELI LILLY: To Defend Against Byetta Product Liability Litigation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Eli Lilly and Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company is prepared to defend against Byetta Product Liability Litigation. The Company said, "We are named as a defendant in approximately 450 Byetta product liability lawsuits involving approximately 980 plaintiffs. Approximately 100 of these lawsuits, covering about 580 plaintiffs, are filed in California state court and coordinated in a Los Angeles Superior Court. Approximately 340 lawsuits, covering about 380 plaintiffs, are filed in federal court, the majority of which are coordinated in a multi-district litigation in the Southern District of California. The remaining approximately 10 lawsuits, representing about 25 plaintiffs, are in various state courts. Approximately 390 of the lawsuits, involving approximately 610 plaintiffs, contain allegations that Byetta caused or contributed to the plaintiffs' cancer (primarily pancreatic cancer or thyroid cancer). We are aware of approximately 225 additional claimants who have not yet filed suit. The majority of these additional claims allege damages for pancreatitis. We believe these lawsuits and claims are without merit and are prepared to defend against them vigorously." ELI LILLY: To Defend Against Prozac(R) Product Liability Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Eli Lilly and Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company is prepared to defend against Prozac(R) Product Liability Litigation. The Company said, "We are named as a defendant in approximately 10 U.S. lawsuits primarily related to allegations that the antidepressant Prozac caused or contributed to birth defects in the children of women who ingested the drug during pregnancy. We are aware of approximately 560 additional claims related to birth defects, which have not yet been filed. We believe these lawsuits and claims are without merit and are prepared to defend against them vigorously." ELI LILLY: To Defend Against Brazil-Employee Litigation ------------------------------------------------------- Eli Lilly and Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company is prepared to defend against Brazil-Employee Litigation. The Company said, "Our subsidiary in Brazil, Eli Lilly do Brasil (Lilly Brasil), is named in a lawsuit brought by the Labor Attorney for 15th Region in the Labor Court of Paulinia, State of Sao Paulo, Brazil, alleging possible harm to employees and former employees caused by exposure to heavy metals at a former Lilly manufacturing facility in Cosmopolis, Brazil, operated by the company between 1977 and 2003. The plaintiffs allege that some employees at the facility were exposed to benzene and heavy metals; however, Lilly Brasil maintains that these alleged contaminants were never used in the facility. In May 2014, the labor court judge ruled against Lilly Brasil. The judge's ruling orders Lilly Brasil to undertake several actions of unspecified financial impact, including paying lifetime medical insurance for the employees and contractors who worked at the Cosmopolis facility more than six months during the affected years and their children born during and after this period. While we cannot currently estimate the range of reasonably possible financial losses that could arise in the event we do not ultimately prevail in the litigation, the judge has estimated the total financial impact of the ruling to be approximately 1.0 billion Brazilian real (approximately $310 million as of March 31, 2015) plus interest. We strongly disagree with the decision and filed an appeal in May 2014. We are also named in approximately 30 lawsuits filed in the same court by individual former employees making similar claims. We believe these lawsuits are without merit and are prepared to defend against them vigorously." ENBRIDGE ENERGY: Settles Kalamazoo River Oil Spill for $75MM ------------------------------------------------------------ Renee Lewis, writing for Aljazeera America, reported that oil giant Enbridge Energy will pay Michigan $75 million to restore a waterway contaminated in 2010 by 800,000 gallons of oil -- one of the largest inland spills in U.S. history -- state officials said. The settlement comes a week after the company settled in a separate class action lawsuit over damages to local residents as a result of the spill, with compensation including pre-paid gift cards and additional payments for some living near the contaminated area. An Enbridge pipeline ruptured on July 26, 2010, near Battle Creek, Michigan, contaminating a 40-mile stretch of the nearby Kalamazoo River. Residual oil has remained in the river despite Enbridge's $1 billion cleanup. In some areas, if the riverbed is disturbed, pockets of oil still float to the surface, according to local residents. As part of a settlement filed in Calhoun County, Enbridge will be required to continue monitoring the impacts of the spill. It will also spend $75 million on projects including improved access to boating and fishing on the river, and rehabilitating 300 acres of wetlands. Currently, residents caution against fishing on the river in the area of the spill. "Every time I see someone fishing here in Kalamazoo I warn them and bring up the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality website that says what fish you can eat -- which is basically none of them," said Chris Wahmhoff, a local resident. He said while the water is not as contaminated as it was in the months after the spill, there were still pockets of oil sheen in almost any stretch of the river in the contaminated zone. "Anybody that's aware there was an oil spill doesn't go in the river. I would say 80 percent of the community is very aware that the water isn't safe," Wahmhoff said. The settlement requires Enbridge to file monthly progress reports on its cleanup efforts, and to pay Michigan $12 million for legal costs and for overseeing the company's restoration efforts. "Enbridge is pleased to have reached this settlement with the State of Michigan and it underscores our commitment to restoring the affected river system and working with people who use this natural resource," Enbridge spokesman Michael Barnes said in an emailed statement. "For more than 60 years, Enbridge has been a good neighbor in Michigan." The 2010 spill not only damaged the Kalamazoo River and nearby waterways and wetlands, but also affected the health of nearby residents who have complained of illnesses they blame on Enbridge. "A lot of the folks in the region have long-term health consequences," said Andy Pearson, a coordinator for MN350, a Minnesota affiliate of the national environmental group 350.org. The toxic fumes that emanated from oil, which was diluted with bitumen to make it easier to transport through Enbridge's pipeline, reportedly smelled like nail polish and gas, according to residents who complained of severe headaches and nausea in the immediate aftermath of the spill. Later, residents said they experienced memory problems, asthma, rashes, heart attacks, cancer and kidney illnesses that they blamed on exposure to the oil spill. A final order approving a class action settlement on behalf of affected residents was given on May 8, according to civil rights attorney Denise Heberle in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Enbridge will make a $2.2 million payment to residents living within 1,000 feet of the river in the defined spill impact zone, according to the settlement. Of that, $250,000 will be divided among those who lived within 200 feet of the river and were worst affected by the spill, and $750 will be given to each resident located within 200 to 400 feet of the river. Other residents living within 400 to 1000 feet of the river will receive pre-paid gift cards in amounts varying from $300 to $600 that can be used in local businesses, according to the settlement. In addition to that compensation package, Enbridge will make additional payments from a $1.5 million fund for residents or businesses within 1,000 feet of the river who can demonstrate an out-of-pocket loss as a result of the spill. Those costs include meals, accommodation, relocation costs, home cleaning, fishing permits and other expenses, the document said. Individual victims of the spill, including whistleblower John Bolenbaugh -- who accused Enbridge of covering up the full extent of the damage during the initial cleanup efforts on the Kalamazoo River -- had filed and settled separate lawsuits against Enbridge. Finally, as part of the class action lawsuit on behalf of local residents, Enbridge would complete a one-time well sampling in various places in the spill impact zone, the settlement said. Not everyone was pleased with the compensation package, according to activists working with affected residents. "Certainly out of the people I've spoken to it's the same feeling -- that this is kind of an insultingly low figure," Wahmhoff said. For the people who lived near the river during the spill who received a gift card in compensation, Wahmhoff said, "to those people, it's a slap in the face." Pearson, the MN350 coordinator, agreed. He said for the people who have long-term health consequences, or simply had their lives disrupted in a significant way, "to see it reduced to such a token as a gift card" was disturbing. The settlements came ahead of the fifth anniversary of the spill in July. Local residents and activists from across the Midwest said they would gather for a "healing walk" along the affected area of the Kalamazoo River as part of a series of events to mark the anniversary from July 24 to 26. "For anyone who wants to see the river, we're working with Energy Action Coalition, MN350 and a bunch of other groups for the five- year anniversary," Wahmhoff said. "We're doing that with a lot of the impacted community to support them and let the people talk about their view of the river and what their lives have been like since the spill." ENERSIS S.A.: Class Action Filed by Garzon Residents ---------------------------------------------------- Enersis S.A. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a class action lawsuit has been filed by residents of the Colombian Municipality of Garzon, alleging that the construction of the El Quimbo hydroelectric project has caused the plaintiffs' income from handicrafts or entrepreneurial activities to decrease by an average of 30%. The lawsuit claims the decrease was not considered when the project's social-economic impact report was drafted. Emgesa has denied these allegations on the basis that (i) the social-economic impact report complied with all methodological criteria, including giving all interested parties the opportunity to be registered in the report, (ii) the plaintiffs are not residents and therefore, compensation is allowed only for those whose revenues are, in their majority, coming from of their activity in the direct area of influence of the El Quimbo hydroelectric project and (iii) compensation must not go beyond the "first link" of the production chain and must be based on the status of the income indicators of each affected person. A proceeding was filed in parallel by 38 inhabitants of the Municipality of Garzon, who are claiming compensation for being affected by the El Quimbo hydroelectric project since they were not included in the social-economic impact report. A mandatory settlement hearing was unsuccessful. The court ordered a test, which is currently in the preliminary phase. In the parallel proceeding, an exception previous of pending lawsuit was filed, based on the existence of the principal proceeding. The proposed exception is pending ruling. The amount involved in this proceeding is estimated to be approximately CPs 94 billion (approximately ThCh$ 23,500,000). ETSY INC: Pomerantz LLP Files Securities Class Suit --------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announced that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Etsy, Inc., (Nasdaq:ETSY) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Eastern District of New York, and docketed under 15-cv-02785, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased Etsy securities between April 16, 2015 and May 10, 2015 inclusive (the "Class Period"). This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). If you are a shareholder who purchased Etsy securities during the Class Period, you have until July 13, 2015 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, x237. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. Etsy operates online and offline marketplaces to buy and sell handmade items, vintage goods, and craft supplies. Its platform connects sellers and buyers to sell or buy products for art, home and living, mobile accessories, jewelry, wedding, and others. The company was founded in 2005 and is headquartered in Brooklyn, New York. It has additional offices in Berlin, Germany; Dublin, Ireland; Hudson, New York; London, United Kingdom; Melbourne, Australia; Paris, France; San Francisco, California; and Toronto, Canada. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) more than 5% of all merchandise for sale on Etsy's website were either counterfeit or constituted trademark or copyright infringement; (2) Brands are increasingly pursuing sellers on Etsy's platform for trademark or copyright infringement, jeopardizing the Company's listing fees and commissions; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, Etsy's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On May 11, 2015, before the market opened for trading, numerous news outlets, including Bloomberg and theAssociated Press, reported that Gil Luria, an equity analyst at Wedbush Securities, issued a note downgrading Etsy to "Underperform." In the note, Luria alleged that more than 5% of merchandise sold on Etsy's platform were either counterfeit or violated trademark protections. As a result of this news, shares of Etsy fell $1.86, or over 8%, on unusually heavy volume, to close at $20.85 on May 11, 2015. The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and Los Angeles, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. More than 70 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. Robert S. Willoughby, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Ave. New York NY 10016 Phone: 212-661-1100 Fax: 212-661-8665 Email: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com FEDERAL SIGNAL: To Pursue Class Certification Objections -------------------------------------------------------- Federal Signal Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company intends to continue its objections to any attempt at certification in the Hearing Loss Litigation. The Company has been sued by firefighters seeking damages claiming that exposure to the Company's sirens has impaired their hearing and that the sirens are therefore defective. There were 33 cases filed during the period of 1999 through 2004, involving a total of 2,443 plaintiffs, in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. These cases involved more than 1,800 firefighter plaintiffs from locations outside of Chicago. In 2009, six additional cases were filed in Cook County, involving 299 Pennsylvania firefighter plaintiffs. During 2013, another case was filed in Cook County involving 74 Pennsylvania firefighter plaintiffs. The trial of the first 27 of these plaintiffs' claims occurred in 2008, when a Cook County jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of the Company. An additional 40 Chicago firefighter plaintiffs were selected for trial in 2009. Plaintiffs' counsel later moved to reduce the number of plaintiffs from 40 to nine. The trial for these nine plaintiffs concluded with a verdict against the Company and for the plaintiffs in varying amounts totaling $0.4 million. The Company appealed this verdict. On September 13, 2012, the Illinois Appellate Court rejected this appeal. The Company thereafter filed a petition for rehearing with the Illinois Appellate Court, which was denied on February 7, 2013. The Company sought further review by filing a petition for leave to appeal with the Illinois Supreme Court on March 14, 2013. On May 29, 2013, the Illinois Supreme Court issued a summary order declining to accept review of this case. On July 1, 2013, the Company satisfied the judgments entered for these plaintiffs, which has resulted in final dismissal of these cases. A third consolidated trial involving eight Chicago firefighter plaintiffs occurred during November 2011. The jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of the Company at the conclusion of this trial. Following this trial, on March 12, 2012 the trial court entered an order certifying a class of the remaining Chicago Fire Department firefighter plaintiffs for trial on the sole issue of whether the Company's sirens were defective and unreasonably dangerous. The Company petitioned the Illinois Appellate Court for interlocutory appeal of this ruling. On May 17, 2012, the Illinois Appellate Court accepted the Company's petition. On June 8, 2012, plaintiffs moved to dismiss the appeal, agreeing with the Company that the trial court had erred in certifying a class action trial in this matter. Pursuant to plaintiffs' motion, the Illinois Appellate Court reversed the trial court's certification order. Thereafter, the trial court scheduled a fourth consolidated trial involving three firefighter plaintiffs, which began in December 2012. Prior to the start of this trial, the claims of two of the three firefighter plaintiffs were dismissed. On December 17, 2012, the jury entered a complete defense verdict for the Company. Following this defense verdict, plaintiffs again moved to certify a class of Chicago Fire Department plaintiffs for trial on the sole issue of whether the Company's sirens were defective and unreasonably dangerous. Over the Company's objection, the trial court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification on March 11, 2013 and scheduled a class action trial to begin on June 10, 2013. The Company filed a petition for review with the Illinois Appellate Court on March 29, 2013 seeking reversal of the class certification order. On June 25, 2014, a unanimous three-judge panel of the First District Illinois Appellate Court issued its opinion reversing the class certification order of the trial court. Specifically, the Appellate Court determined that the trial court's ruling failed to satisfy the class-action requirements that the common issues of the firefighters' claims predominate over the individual issues and that there is an adequate representative for the class. During a status hearing on October 8, 2014, plaintiffs represented to the Court that they would again seek to certify a class of firefighters on the issue of whether the Company's sirens were defective and unreasonably dangerous. On January 12, 2015, plaintiffs filed motions to amend their complaints to add class action allegations with respect to Chicago firefighter plaintiffs as well as the approximately 1,800 firefighter plaintiffs from locations outside of Chicago. On March 11, 2015, the trial court granted plaintiffs' motions to amend their complaints. Plaintiffs have indicated that they will now file motions to certify classes in these cases. On April 24, 2015, the cases were transferred to Cook County chancery court, which will decide all class certification issues. The Company intends to continue its objections to any attempt at certification. The Company also has filed motions to dismiss cases involving firefighters located outside of Cook County based on improper venue. FEDERAL SIGNAL: NY Firefighter's Case Removed to Federal Court -------------------------------------------------------------- Federal Signal Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the lawsuit involving one New York City firefighter plaintiff has been removed to federal court in the Southern District of New York. The Company has been sued related to hearing loss outside of the Cook County, Illinois venue. Many of these cases have involved lawsuits filed by a single attorney in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. During 2007 and through 2009, this attorney filed a total of 71 lawsuits, involving 71 plaintiffs in this jurisdiction. Three of these cases were dismissed pursuant to pretrial motions filed by the Company. Another case was voluntarily dismissed. Prior to trial in four cases, the Company paid nominal sums, which included reimbursements of expenses, to obtain dismissals. Three trials occurred in Philadelphia involving these cases filed in 2007 through 2009. The first trial involving one of these plaintiffs occurred in 2010, when the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff. In particular, the jury found that the Company's siren was not defectively designed, but that the Company negligently constructed the siren. The jury awarded damages in the amount of $0.1 million, which was subsequently reduced to $0.08 million. The Company appealed this verdict. Another trial, involving nine Philadelphia firefighter plaintiffs, also occurred in 2010 when the jury returned a defense verdict for the Company as to all claims and all plaintiffs involved in that trial. The third trial, also involving nine Philadelphia firefighter plaintiffs, was completed during 2010 when the jury returned a defense verdict for the Company as to all claims and all plaintiffs involved in that trial. Following defense verdicts in the last two Philadelphia trials, the Company negotiated settlements with respect to all remaining filed cases in Philadelphia at that time, as well as other firefighter claimants represented by the attorney who filed the Philadelphia cases. On January 4, 2011, the Company entered into a Global Settlement Agreement (the "Settlement Agreement") with the law firm of the attorney representing the Philadelphia claimants, on behalf of 1,125 claimants the firm represented (the "Claimants") and who had asserted product claims against the Company (the "Claims"). Three hundred eight of the Claimants had lawsuits pending against the Company in Cook County, Illinois. The Settlement Agreement, as amended, provided that the Company pay a total amount of $3.8 million (the "Settlement Payment") to settle the Claims (including the costs, fees and other expenses of the law firm in connection with its representation of the Claimants), subject to certain terms, conditions and procedures set forth in the Settlement Agreement. In order for the Company to be required to make the Settlement Payment: (i) each Claimant who agreed to settle his or her claims had to sign a release acceptable to the Company (a "Release"), (ii) each Claimant who agreed to the settlement and who was a plaintiff in a lawsuit, had to dismiss his or her lawsuit with prejudice, (iii) by April 29, 2011, at least 93% of the Claimants identified in the Settlement Agreement must have agreed to settle their claims and provide a signed Release to the Company and (iv) the law firm had to withdraw from representing any Claimants who did not agree to the settlement, including those who filed lawsuits. If the conditions to the settlement were met, but less than 100% of the Claimants agreed to settle their Claims and sign a Release, the Settlement Payment would be reduced by the percentage of Claimants who did not agree to the settlement. On April 22, 2011, the Company confirmed that the terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement had been met and made a payment of $3.6 million to conclude the settlement. The amount was based upon the Company's receipt of 1,069 signed releases provided by Claimants, which was 95.02% of all Claimants identified in the Settlement Agreement. The Company generally denies the allegations made in the claims and lawsuits by the Claimants and denies that its products caused any injuries to the Claimants. Nonetheless, the Company entered into the Settlement Agreement for the purpose of minimizing its expenses, including legal fees, and avoiding the inconvenience, uncertainty and distraction of the claims and lawsuits. During April through October 2012, 20 new cases were filed in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. These cases were filed on behalf of 20 Philadelphia firefighters and involve various defendants in addition to the Company. Five of these cases were subsequently dismissed. The first trial involving these new Philadelphia cases occurred during December 2014 and involved three firefighter plaintiffs. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the Company. Following this trial, all of the parties agreed to settle cases involving seven firefighter plaintiffs set for trial during January 2015 for nominal amounts per plaintiff. In January 2015, plaintiffs' attorneys filed two new complaints in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on behalf of approximately 70 additional firefighter plaintiffs. The vast majority of the firefighters identified in these complaints are located outside of Pennsylvania. One of the complaints in these cases, which involves 11 firefighter plaintiffs from the District of Columbia, has been removed to federal court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. During April through July 2013, additional cases were filed in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. These cases involve 247 plaintiff firefighters from Pittsburgh and various defendants, including the Company. After the Company filed pretrial motions, the Court dismissed claims of 41 Pittsburgh firefighter plaintiffs. During March 2014, an action was brought in the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County, Pennsylvania on behalf of 61 firefighters. This case likewise involves various defendants in addition to the Company. After the Company filed pretrial motions, 32 Erie County firefighter plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their claims. On September 17, 2014, 20 lawsuits, involving a total of 193 Buffalo Fire Department firefighters, were filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Erie County. Several product manufacturers, including the Company, have been named as defendants in these cases. All of the cases filed in Erie County, New York have been removed to federal court in the Western District of New York. During February 2015, a lawsuit involving one New York City firefighter plaintiff was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County. Plaintiff named the Company as well as several other parties as defendants. That case has been removed to federal court in the Southern District of New York. FEDERAL SIGNAL: Insurer Reimbursed Portion of Defense Costs ----------------------------------------------------------- Federal Signal Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that from 2007 through 2009, firefighters brought hearing loss claims against the Company in New Jersey, Missouri, Maryland and Kings County, New York. All of those cases, however, were dismissed prior to trial, including four cases in the Supreme Court of Kings County, New York that were dismissed upon the Company's motion in 2008. On appeal, the New York appellate court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of these cases. Plaintiffs' attorneys have threatened to file additional lawsuits. The Company intends to vigorously defend all of these lawsuits, if filed. The Company's ongoing negotiations with its insurer, CNA, over insurance coverage on these claims have resulted in reimbursements of a portion of the Company's defense costs. These reimbursements are recorded as a reduction of corporate operating expenses. For the three months ended March 31, 2015 and 2014, the Company recorded $0.1 million and less than $0.1 million of reimbursements from CNA related to legal costs, respectively. FIESTA RESTAURANT: No Material Changes to Status of Daisy Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Fiesta Restaurant Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 29, 2015, that there were no material changes to the status of the class action suit filed by Daisy, Inc., an automotive repair shop in Cape Coral, Florida, against Fiesta Restaurant Group, Inc. during the three months ended March 29, 2015. The amount of any loss related to this matter cannot be reasonably estimated at this time. The Company does not have insurance coverage for this claim. FIRST STUDENT: "Hensley" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Kathy Hensley, et al., v. First Student Management LLC, and First Student Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-03811-JHR-AMD (D.N.J., June 8, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages, interest, costs of suit, and counsel fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants operate out of approximately 24 separate bus yards in the state of New Jersey. The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven A. Berkowitz, Esq. BERKOWITZ & ASSOCIATES, PC 10000 Lincoln Drive East, Suite 202 Marlton, NJ 08053 Telephone: (856) 751-1860 E-mail: sberkowitz@contractorlawoffices.com FLEXICOM LLC: "Dayton" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Leanne Dayton, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated v. Flexicom, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-00342-JES-DNF (M.D. Fla., June 8, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. Flexicom, LLC is a foreign limited liability company that is engaged in the business of providing cell phone services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew R. Frisch, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. Suite 400, 600 N. Pine Island Road Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (954) 318-0268 Facsimile: (954) 333-3515 E-mail: AFRISCH@FORTHEPEOPLE.COM FRESCA ITALIA: Recalls Italian Pork Products -------------------------------------------- Fresca Italia Inc., a Brisbane, Calif., establishment, is recalling approximately 36 pounds of pork products produced in Italy that were not presented at the U.S. point of entry for inspection, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. Without the benefit of full inspection, a possibility of adverse health consequences exists. The prosciutto items were produced on April 30, 2015. The following products are subject to recall: --- 3-oz. sealed trays of "MAESTRI AUTHENTIC ITALIAN SALUMI prosciutto italiano." --- 3-oz. sealed trays of "Prosciutto di San Daniele." --- 3-oz. sealed trays of "MAESTRI AUTHENTIC ITALIAN SALUMI speck." The products subject to recall bear the establishment number "CEIT 649L" inside the Italian mark of inspection. These products were shipped to retail locations throughout the San Francisco (Bay Area), California. The problem was discovered during routine FSIS surveillance activities of imported products conducted by the Recall Management and Technical Analysis Staff (RMTAS). FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about a reaction should contact a healthcare provider. FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls. Consumers and media with questions about the recall can contact Andy Lax, General Manager, at 415-468-9800. Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a day. The online Electronic Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a day at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem. G&C NATURAL: Recalls Pyrola Capsules Due to Diclofenac ------------------------------------------------------ G&C Natural Nutrition, Inc. is voluntarily recalling all lots of Pyrola, 430mg/capsule. Advanced Joint Formula capsules may contain undeclared diclofenac and chlorpheniramine. Diclofenac is a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (commonly referred to as NSAIDs). NSAIDs may cause increased risk of cardiovascular events, such as heart attack and stroke, as well as serious gastrointestinal damage, including bleeding, ulceration, and fatal perforation of the stomach and intestines. Chlorpheniramine is an over-the-counter (OTC) antihistamine used for allergies. Antihistamines may cause drowsiness and affect mental alertness. The product is packaged in a white bottle in capsule form, with all lots being recalled. The product was sold to distributors and consumers nationwide through phone orders and online from April, 2013 through June, 2015. To date the company has received no reports of illnesses or adverse events associated with the consumption of the recalled product. G&C Natural Nutrition, Inc. will be contacting all distributors regarding this matter by phone calls and/or mail, and encourage them to stop distribution and return the product to the company for refund. Consumers who may have purchased this product directly from G&C Natural Nutrition, Inc. should dispose it or return it to our office location by mail. Consumers with questions regarding this recall can contact G&C Natural Nutrition, Inc. by 800-970-8198 or by email at contact@gcnatural.com during the hours of 9AM to 5PM Pacific Time, Monday through Friday. Consumers should contact their physician or healthcare provider if they have experienced any problems that may be related to taking or using this drug product. Adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use of this product may be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting program either online, by regular mail or by fax. Online: www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm1 Regular Mail: use postage-paid, pre-addressed Form FDA 3500 available at: www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htm2. Mail to address on the pre- addressed form. Fax: 1-800-FDA-0178 This recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm451160.htm GARDEN-FRESH: Potato Salad Products Recalled Due to Listeria ------------------------------------------------------------ A Wisconsin firm is voluntarily recalling its potato salad, due to the possibility of Listeria monocytogenes contamination. The product was distributed to Jewel stores in the Chicago area and may have been sold at delicatessen counters between May 30 and June 9 under the brand name Garden Fresh Steakhouse Potato Salad. Jewel was notified by Garden-Fresh Foods of the possibility of Listeria monocytogenes contamination and, in an abundance of caution, voluntarily removed and destroyed any possibly affected product. The problem was identified through internal testing at Garden-Fresh as part of its robust testing protocols. No other Garden-Fresh products and no other Potato Salad sold in the delis at Jewel are involved in this recall. There are no reported illnesses associated with the consumption of the recalled product. Although healthy individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea, Listeria monocytogenes infection can cause miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women. The organism can also cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Consumers who have purchased Garden Fresh Steakhouse Potato Salad at Jewel are urged to dispose of the product immediately or return to their local store for a refund. Consumers with questions may contact Garden-Fresh Foods via email at information@garden- freshfoods.com or call 1-414-204-4611 MON-FRI from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. central time. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm450863.htm GIORGIO ARMANI: Faces "Malnar" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Clare Malnar, individually and on behalf of other persons similarly situated v. Giorgio Armani Corporation, Case No. 154399/2015 (N.Y. Sup Ct., June 4, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for failure to New York Labor Law. Giorgio Armani Corporation is a New York corporation that designs, manufactures, distributes and retails fashion and lifestyle products including apparel, accessories, eyewear, watches, jewelry, home interiors, fragrances and cosmetics. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq. Suzanne Leeds Klein, Esq. VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP 40 Broad St, 7th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 943-9080 E-mail: lambinder@vandallp.com - and - Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq. Michael A. Tompkins, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, New York 11514 Telephone: (516) 873-9550 E-mail: jbrown@leedsbrownlaw.com GLOBAL POWER: July 13 Deadline for Lead Plaintiff Bid ----------------------------------------------------- The Rosen Law Firm announces that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of Global Power Equipment Group Inc. (NYSE:GLPW) securities from March 9, 2015 through May 6, 2015 (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Global Power Equipment Group investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Global Power Equipment Group class action, go to the firm's website at http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-603.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. The lawsuit is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. According to the lawsuit, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company's cost of sales in its financial statements for the annual period ended December 31, 2014 were understated; (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. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than July 13, 2015. If you wish to join the litigation, go to the firm's website at http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-603.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact, Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. GRAFTECH INTERNATIONAL: Sued Over Proposed Company Merger --------------------------------------------------------- Walter Watson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Graftech International Ltd., et al., Case No. 11096- VCL (Del. Ch., June 4, 2015), is brought on behalf of all other public stockholders of Graftech International Ltd., to enjoin the proposed acquisition off the Company by Brookfield Asset Management Inc., in an unfair price and inadequate consideration. Graftech International Ltd. is a Delaware corporation that manufactures and sells graphite and carbon material science-based solutions. Brookfield Asset Management Inc. is a Canadian asset management company that manages a global portfolio of total assets under management of more than $200 billion. The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq. Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. Jeremy J. Riley, Esq RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120 Wilmington, DE 19803 Telephone: (302) 295-5310 E-mail: sdr@rl-legal.com bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com jjr@rl-legal.com - and - Donald J. Enright, Esq. Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115 Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 524-4290 GREEN TREE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Sanchez" Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Regina Sanchez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Green Tree Servicing LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-04298 (C.D. Cal., June 8, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of making calls on the Plaintiff's cellular telephone automatic telephone dialing system. Green Tree Servicing LLC is in the business of consumer debt buying, recovery, and collection. The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Suren N. Weerasuriya, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 324 S. Beverly Dr., #725 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com sweerasuriya@attorneysforconsumers.com abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com HARMAN INTERNATIONAL: No Hearing Yet in Class Action Appeal ----------------------------------------------------------- Harman International Industries, Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Lead Plaintiff in the Harman International Industries, Inc. Securities Litigation has filed a notice of appeal and the matter has been fully briefed but no hearing has yet been set. The Company said, "On October 1, 2007, a purported class action lawsuit was filed by Cheolan Kim (the "Kim Plaintiff") against Harman and certain of our officers in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (the "Court") seeking compensatory damages and costs on behalf of all persons who purchased our common stock between April 26, 2007 and September 24, 2007 (the "Class Period"). The original complaint alleged claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder." "The complaint alleged that the defendants omitted to disclose material adverse facts about Harman's financial condition and business prospects. The complaint contended that had these facts not been concealed at the time the merger agreement with Kohlberg, Kravis, Roberts & Co. and Goldman Sachs Capital Partners was entered into, there would not have been a merger agreement, or it would have been at a much lower price, and the price of our common stock therefore would not have been artificially inflated during the Class Period. The Kim Plaintiff alleged that, following the reports that the proposed merger was not going to be completed, the price of our common stock declined, causing the plaintiff class significant losses. "On November 30, 2007, the Boca Raton General Employees' Pension Plan filed a purported class action lawsuit against Harman and certain of our officers in the Court seeking compensatory damages and costs on behalf of all persons who purchased our common stock between April 26, 2007 and September 24, 2007. The allegations in the Boca Raton complaint are essentially identical to the allegations in the original Kim complaint, and like the original Kim complaint, the Boca Raton complaint alleges claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. "On January 16, 2008, the Kim Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint, which extended the Class Period through January 11, 2008, contended that, in addition to the violations alleged in the original complaint, Harman also violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by "knowingly failing to disclose "significant problems" relating to its PND sales forecasts, production, pricing, and inventory" prior to January 14, 2008. The amended complaint claimed that when "Defendants revealed for the first time on January 14, 2008 that shifts in PND sales would adversely impact earnings per share by more than $1.00 per share in fiscal 2008," that led to a further decline in our share value and additional losses to the plaintiff class. "On February 15, 2008, the Court ordered the consolidation of the Kim action with the Boca Raton action, the administrative closing of the Boca Raton action, and designated the short caption of the consolidated action as In re Harman International Industries, Inc. Securities Litigation, civil action no. 1:07-cv-01757 (RWR). That same day, the Court appointed the Arkansas Public Retirement System as lead plaintiff ("Lead Plaintiff") and approved the law firm Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld and Toll, P.L.L.C. to serve as lead counsel. "On March 24, 2008, the Court ordered, for pretrial management purposes only, the consolidation of Patrick Russell v. Harman International Industries, Incorporated, et al. with In re Harman International Industries, Inc. Securities Litigation. "On May 2, 2008, Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated class action complaint (the "Consolidated Complaint"). The Consolidated Complaint, which extended the Class Period through February 5, 2008, contended that Harman and certain of our officers and directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing false and misleading disclosures regarding our financial condition in fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year 2008. In particular, the Consolidated Complaint alleged that defendants knowingly or recklessly failed to disclose material adverse facts about MyGIG radios, personal navigation devices and our capital expenditures. The Consolidated Complaint alleged that when Harman's true financial condition became known to the market, the price of our common stock declined significantly, causing losses to the plaintiff class. "On July 3, 2008, defendants moved to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint in its entirety. Lead Plaintiff opposed the defendants' motion to dismiss on September 2, 2008, and defendants filed a reply in further support of their motion to dismiss on October 2, 2008. "On April 12, 2012, In re Harman International Industries, Inc. Securities Litigation, civil action no. 1:07-cv-01757 (D.D.C.) was reassigned to Judge Rudolph Contreras while Patrick Russell v. Harman International Industries, Incorporated, et al. remained before Judge Richard W. Roberts. "On September 5, 2012, the Court heard oral arguments on defendants' motion to dismiss. At the request of the Court, on September 24, 2012, each side submitted a supplemental briefing on defendants' motion to dismiss. On January 17, 2014, the Court granted a motion to dismiss, without prejudice, in the In re Harman International Industries, Inc. Securities Litigation. The Lead Plaintiff has filed a notice of appeal and the matter has been fully briefed but no hearing has yet been set." HARMAN INTERNATIONAL: Appeals Court Keeps Ruling in Russell Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- Harman International Industries, Incorporated said in its Form 10- Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling of the District Court in the case, Patrick Russell v. Harman International Industries, Incorporated, et al. The Company said, "Patrick Russell (the "Russell Plaintiff") filed a complaint on December 7, 2007 in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and an amended purported putative class action complaint on June 2, 2008 against Harman and certain of our officers and directors alleging violations of ERISA and seeking, on behalf of all participants in and beneficiaries of the Savings Plan, compensatory damages for losses to the Savings Plan as well as injunctive relief, imposition of a constructive trust, restitution, and other monetary relief. The amended complaint alleged that from April 26, 2007 to the present defendants failed to prudently and loyally manage the Savings Plan's assets, thereby breaching their fiduciary duties in violation of ERISA by causing the Savings Plan to invest in our common stock notwithstanding that the stock allegedly was "no longer a prudent investment for the Participants' retirement savings." The amended complaint further claimed that, during the Class Period, defendants failed to monitor the Savings Plan's fiduciaries, failed to provide the Savings Plan's fiduciaries with, and to disclose to the Savings Plan's participants, adverse facts regarding Harman and our businesses and prospects. The Russell Plaintiff also contended that defendants breached their duties to avoid conflicts of interest and to serve the interests of participants in and beneficiaries of the Savings Plan with undivided loyalty. As a result of these alleged fiduciary breaches, the amended complaint asserted that the Savings Plan had "suffered substantial losses, resulting in the depletion of millions of dollars of the retirement savings and anticipated retirement income of the Savings Plan's Participants."" "On March 24, 2008, the Court ordered, for pretrial management purposes only, the consolidation of Patrick Russell v. Harman International Industries, Incorporated, et al. with In re Harman International Industries, Inc. Securities Litigation. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint in its entirety on August 5, 2008. The Russell Plaintiff opposed the defendants' motion to dismiss on September 19, 2008, and defendants filed a reply in further support of their motion to dismiss on October 20, 2008. On May 22, 2013, the District Court converted the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment and granted summary judgment in favor of Harman. The Russell Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal and oral arguments on the briefs submitted by the parties were heard on September 30, 2014. On December 12, 2014, the Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling of the District Court." I & Y SENIOR: Faces "Barnard" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Klara Barnard, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. I & Y Senior Care, Inc., Case No. 506903/2015 (N.Y. Sup Ct., June 4, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week. I & Y Senior Care, Inc. provides home health care to frail elderly individuals who live in New York City. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gennadiy Naydenskiy, Esq. NAYDENSKIY LAW GROUP, P.C. 2727 Coney Island Ave. Brooklyn, NY 11235 Telephone: (718) 808-2224 Facsimile: (718) 228-4034 E-mail: naydenskiylaw@gmail.com IDREAMSKY TECHNOLOGY: Named as Defendant in Two Class Actions ------------------------------------------------------------- iDreamSky Technology Limited said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that starting from April 2, 2015, "we, along with certain of our officers and directors and underwriters of our initial public offering, were named as a defendant in two putative securities class action lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and one putative securities class action lawsuit filed in New York state court: Hung v. iDreamSky Technology Limited, et al., Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-02514 (S.D.N.Y.; filed on April 2, 2015); Griffith v. iDreamSky Technology Limited, et al., Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-02944 (S.D.N.Y.; filed on April 15, 2015); and Mansour v. iDreamSky Technology Limited, et al., No. 651340/2015 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. County; filed on April 22, 2015). The complaints in the above-mentioned putative securities class action lawsuits allege that various public statements made by our company during the respective alleged class periods, including our registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with our initial public offering, contained material misstatements and omissions in violation of the federal securities laws and artificially inflated the value of our ADSs." ILLINOIS: IHSA to Intoduce Concussion Prevention Projects --------------------------------------------------------- Michael Tarm, writing for Huffington Post, reported that with a potentially costly lawsuit looming over it, the governing body of prep sports in Illinois rolled out a series of concussion- prevention projects, including a new advisory council that has the son of a former Chicago Bear as a member. The moves by the Illinois High School Association, or IHSA, come in the wake a class-action suit accusing it and its 800 member schools of doing too little to protect some 50,000 football players and other young athletes. The lawsuit, filed in November, was the first of its kind against a high school government body. The package of new IHSA programs -- dubbed "Play Smart. Play Hard." -- will provide athletes more information on reducing risks of concussions and other injuries. The player-safety council is intended to review head-injury policies. The lawsuit didn't prompt the IHSA to do more, director Marty Hickman said, but it did lead the group to conclude it's not getting the word out about its efforts over previous years to adopt best practices on concussions. "This is a broader education initiative that is not directly related to the lawsuit," he said. The Chicago attorney who filed the lawsuit, Joseph Siprut, said the litigation was clearly "lighting a fire under the IHSA" and that the new programs are clearly a response to the legal scrutiny. And he had guarded praise for them. "The IHSA's initiatives are steps in the right direction, though still far from the more exhaustive and expansive remedies sought" in the suit, Siprut said. Among other mandates, the suit seeks requirements that medical personnel be present at all football games and practices. Hickman has said that such court-imposed mandates would be too costly for poorer schools and would force them to shut down their football programs. Former Bears defensive back Dave Duerson's son, Tregg Duerson, who played football in high school and college, will be one of eight members on the new player-safety council. His father fatally shot himself in the chest in 2011 and left behind notes asking that his brain be tested. "That allows him to bring a very unique perspective to this," Hickman said. Others on the council include Illinois state Sen. Napoleon Harris, himself a former NFL football player; Tory Lindley, an associate athletic director at Northwestern University; and two high school athletes. IMAX CORPORATION: Discovery Ongoing in Scott Redman Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- IMAX Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that discovery is ongoing in the class action filed by Scott Redman. In November 2013, a purported class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the "Court") against IMAX Chicago Theatre LLC ("IMAX Chicago Theatre"), a subsidiary of the Company. The plaintiff, Scott Redman, alleges that IMAX Chicago Theatre provided certain credit card and debit card receipts to customers that were purportedly not in compliance with the applicable truncation requirements of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act. The plaintiff seeks statutory damages individually and on behalf of a putative class. On February 20, 2014, IMAX Chicago Theatre filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which the Court denied on January 23, 2015. Discovery is ongoing in this matter. IMAX Chicago Theatre believes that it has meritorious defenses and intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously. However, given the early stage of the proceedings, IMAX Chicago Theatre is unable to predict the outcome of this matter and is unable to assess the potential impact, if any, of the lawsuit at this time. ISORAY INC: Faces "Greenberg" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judith Greenberg, individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Isoray, Inc., Dwight Babcock and Brien Ragle, Case No. 4:15-cv-05047 (E.D. Wash., June 8, 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. Isoray, Inc. develops, manufactures and sells isotope-based medical products and devices for the treatment of cancer and other malignant diseases in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Steve W. Berman, Esq. Karl P. Barth, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1918 8th Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com karlb@hbsslaw.com - and - David C. Walton, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101-8498 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 Facsimile: (619) 231-7423 E-mail: davew@rgrdlaw.com - and - Curtis V. Trinko, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF CURTIS V. TRINKO, LLP 16 West 46th Street, 7th Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 490-9550 Facsimile: (212) 986-0158 JUST ENERGY: Faces Suit Over Door-to-Door Sales Agents ------------------------------------------------------ Julius Melnitzer, writing for Financial Post, reported that a class action against the Just Energy group of companies claims it unlawfully withheld the minimum protection of the Employment Standards Act from its door-to-door sales agents. "This is one of the first 'independent contractor' employment class actions in Ontario, and will likely impact several thousand people," says Jody Brown of Koskie Minsky, which represents the plaintiffs. Just Energy is a major natural gas and electricity provider in the U.S. and Canada, serving some 1.7 million consumers. According to the Statement of Claim, Just Energy ought to have treated its sales agents as employees and not as independent contractors. Employees, unlike independent contractors, are protected by the ESA's provisions relating to minimum wages, overtime pay, vacation pay, and public holiday and premium pay. "For too long, Just Energy has been artificially misrepresenting to their employees the status of their employment relationship and abusing its position of power by failing to recognize basic minimum employment standards," said David Rosenfeld, a partner in Koskie Minsky' s class action group, in a press release. "This case seeks to provide access to justice for thousands of Just Energy Sales Agents so that they can seek the basic minimum employment standards and obtain compensation to which they are entitled and for which they worked so hard. None of the allegations against Just Energy have been proven in court. LARRY'S CUSTOM: Recalls Beef Tongue Products with Lingual Tonsils ----------------------------------------------------------------- Larry's Custom Meats Inc., a Hartwick, N.Y. establishment, is recalling approximately 529 pounds of beef tongue products that may have been shipped with lingual tonsils still attached, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The beef tongue items were produced on various dates between October 23, 2014 and June 12, 2015. The following products are subject to recall: --- 1 1/2 lb. packages of "Larry's Custom Meats Inc. Beef Tongue." The products subject to recall bear the establishment number "EST. 40359" inside the USDA mark of inspection. These items produced were shipped to retail locations in New York and Pennsylvania. The problem was discovered during in-plant verification activities. Lingual tonsil, located at the back of the base of the tongue, is a small mound of lymphatic tissue which is considered specified risk materials (SRMs) and must be removed from cattle in accordance with FSIS regulations. SRMs are tissues that may contain the infective agent in cattle infected with Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE), as well as materials that are closely associated with these potentially infective tissues. Therefore, FSIS prohibits SRMs from use as human food to minimize potential human exposure to the BSE agent. FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about an injury or illness should contact a healthcare provider. FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers. Consumers and media with questions about the recall can contact Lawrence Althis, at (607) 293-7927. Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a day. The online Electronic Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a day at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem. LIFE OF THE SOUTH: Sued Over Unlawful Installment Loan Policies --------------------------------------------------------------- Marquetta Carzell, Luella Carter, and Gladys Chege, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Life of the South Insurance Company and Insurance Company of the South, Case No. 2015CV261693 (Ga. Super. Ct., June 4, 2015), is an action for damages, restitution, and declaratory and injunctive relief, as a result of the Defendant's unlawful provision and servicing of insurance products tied to installment loans. Life of the South Insurance Company is a Georgia-domiciled insurer and source of credit life and credit disability insurance for financial institutions and their customers. Insurance Company of the South is a Georgia-domiciled insurer and provider of various credit-related insurance products, including accidental death and dismemberment and personal property insurance. The Plaintiff is represented by: E. Adam Webb, Esq. Matthew C. Klase, Esq. WEBB, KLASE & LEMOND, LLC 1900 The Exchange, S.E., Suite 480 Atlanta, Georgia 30339 Telephone: (770) 444-0998 Facsimile: (770) 217-9950 E-mail: Adam@WebbLLC.com Matt@WebbLLC.com - and - Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq. Jeffrey Kaliel, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 2000 L Street, N.W., Suite 808 Washington, D.C. 20036 Telephone: (202) 973-0900 Facsimile: (202) 973-0950 E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com ikaliel@tzlegal.com MARRIOTT VACATIONS: Court Approved Settlement in "Benner" Case -------------------------------------------------------------- Marriott Vacations Worldwide Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 27, 2015, that the Court approved a settlement in the case filed by Jon Benner. The Company said, "In December 2012, Jon Benner, an owner of fractional interests at The Ritz-Carlton Club and Residences, San Francisco (the "RCC San Francisco"), filed suit in Superior Court for the State of California, County of San Francisco, against us and certain of our subsidiaries on behalf of a putative class consisting of all owners of fractional interests at the RCC San Francisco who allegedly did not receive proper notice of their payment obligations under California's Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 (the "Mello-Roos Act"). The plaintiff alleged that the disclosures made about bonds issued for the project under this Act and the payment obligations of fractional interest purchasers with respect to such bonds were inadequate, and this and other alleged statutory violations constituted intentional and negligent misrepresentation, fraud and fraudulent concealment. The relief sought included damages in an unspecified amount, rescission of the purchases, restitution and disgorgement of profits." "In September 2014, we reached an agreement in principle to settle the Benner action, which agreement was subject to court approval because the case is a putative class action. The court approved the settlement on March 31, 2015. At March 27, 2015, we have an accrual of $2.9 million related to the settlement." MARRIOTT VACATIONS: Filed Motion to Dismiss Abramson Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Marriott Vacations Worldwide Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 27, 2015, that the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Abramson action. The Company said, "In May 2014, we received notices of intent to initiate litigation or arbitration from: Michael and Marla Flynn, owners of weeks-based Marriott Vacation Club vacation ownership products at two of our resorts in Hawaii; William Sterman, an owner of such products at one of our resorts in Massachusetts; and Norman and Carreen Abramson, owners of such products at one of our resorts in California. The claimants, all of whom are represented by a single law firm, allege that the introduction of the MVCD program caused an actionable decrease in the value of their vacation ownership interests. The claimants stated that, if a satisfactory resolution of their concerns could not be achieved, they would pursue their claims through litigation or arbitration, each on behalf of a putative class consisting of themselves and all others similarly situated. The notices indicated that the relief that would be sought would include compensatory and exemplary damages, restitution, injunctive relief, interest and attorneys' fees pursuant to applicable timeshare and unfair trade practices acts and common-law theories of breach of contract and breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Flynns filed a claim based on the above allegations with the American Arbitration Association on August 6, 2014. We initiated a declaratory judgment action in the United States District Court of Hawaii against the Flynns, seeking to enjoin the arbitration proceedings." "In December 2014, the Court ruled that the arbitrability of the Flynns' claims must be resolved by an arbitrator. We appealed that decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Court granted our motion to expedite the appeal. On March 30, 2015, the arbitrator ruled that the Flynns' claims are not subject to arbitration, and dismissed the Flynn proceeding. As a result of the arbitrator's ruling that the Flynns' claims are not subject to arbitration, we dismissed as moot our appeal in the Ninth Circuit. "Mr. Sterman filed a claim based on the above allegations with the American Arbitration Association in August 2014. We initiated a declaratory judgment action in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida against Mr. Sterman, seeking to enjoin the arbitration proceedings. On January 16, 2015, the Court ruled that the arbitrability of Mr. Sterman's claims must be resolved by an arbitrator. We appealed that decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The Court granted our motion to expedite the appeal, which remains pending. "On March 30, 2015, the arbitrator ruled that Mr. Sterman's claims were subject to arbitration, but reserved judgment on our motion to dismiss the arbitration for other reasons. "On January 29, 2015, the Abramsons filed an action in the United States District Court for the Central District of California based on the above allegations. On March 30, 2015, we filed a motion to dismiss the Abramson action, which remains pending. We dispute the material allegations in the arbitration claim, as well as the allegations in the California action, and intend to defend against them vigorously. Given the early stages of the arbitration and litigation proceedings, we cannot estimate a range of potential liability, if any, at this time." MASTEC INC: July 6 Deadline for Lead Plaintiff Bid -------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP announced that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on behalf of a class (the "Class") of investors who purchased securities of MasTec, Inc. ("MasTec" or the "Company") (NYSE:MTZ) between August 12, 2014 and March 17, 2015 inclusive (the "Class Period"). Mastec investors have until July 6, 2015 to file a lead plaintiff motion. MasTec is a leading infrastructure company that operates mainly in North America providing services such as the engineering, building, installation, maintenance, and upgrade of energy, utility, and communications infrastructure. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements regarding the Company's financial performance and failed to disclose that (1) certain cost to complete estimates, currently believed to be in the range of zero to $13 million, which were recognized during the company's third quarter of 2014, should have been recognized during the second quarter of 2014; (2) MasTec's internal control over financial reporting was ineffective; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On March 2, 2015, the Company filed a Form 12b-25 to inform the SEC that it would delay the filing of its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2014. On March 17, 2015, the Company issued a press release after the close of trading announcing another delay in filing its 2014 Form 10-K. Upon this news, shares of MasTec fell $1.88 or over 9.5% on unusually heavy volume, to close at $17.82 on March 18, 2015. If you purchased shares of MasTec, have information or would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Lesley Portnoy, Esquire, of Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773- 9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our website athttp://www.glancylaw.com.If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased. The firm may be reached at: Lesley Portnoy Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Tel: 310-201-9150 Fax: 888-773-9224 Emaill: lportnoy@glancylaw.com MERGE HEALTHCARE: No Appeal Filed in Shareholder Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Merge Healthcare Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that to date, no appeal has been filed in the shareholder class action. On January 16, 2014, a purported shareholder class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois by Fernando Rossy, who claims to be a Merge Healthcare stockholder, against Merge Healthcare and certain current and former directors and officers claiming violations of federal securities laws and asserting that a class of our stockholders suffered damages due to the alleged dissemination or approval of false and misleading statements by Merge Healthcare from August 1, 2012 through January 7, 2014, related to falsified subscription backlog figures and a reluctance amongst large health systems to make enterprise purchases, as well as a lack of effective controls. Several other putative shareholder class action complaints alleging materially the same causes of action were subsequently filed. A hearing was held on March 26, 2014, before the Court of the Northern District Illinois, at which time the Court granted the motion of the Arkansas Teacher Retirement System ("ATRS") to consolidate the purported class action cases and to appoint ATRS as lead plaintiff. ATRS filed an amended complaint on May 28, 2014. "We filed a motion to dismiss the purported class action lawsuit and, on March 12, 2015, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting our motion and dismissing the lawsuit. To date, no appeal has been filed," the Company said. "On February 14, 2014, William B. Federman, who claims to be a Merge Healthcare stockholder, filed a derivative complaint in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois against certain of our current and former directors and officers, asserting breaches of fiduciary duty arising out of materially the same conduct alleged in the purported securities class action complaints. Subsequently, two other derivative complaints were filed in the United States District Court of the Northern District of Illinois. "On June 6, 2014, the judge assigned to the purported class action case granted our motion to reassign the two Federal derivative actions to her on the basis of relatedness and stayed the Federal derivative cases until she rules on our motion to dismiss the class action case," the Company said. "The derivative cases currently remain stayed by informal agreements with plaintiffs' counsel. The plaintiffs in the purported class action and derivative cases have not claimed a specific amount of damages. Merge Healthcare and the other named defendants are actively considering all possible responses to these complaints. While we intend to defend the claims vigorously and carry directors and officers insurance, it is reasonably possible that we may incur a loss in this matter. At this stage of the proceedings, however, it is not possible for management to reasonably estimate either the likelihood of such a loss or its magnitude." MERU NETWORKS: Faces "Strougo" Sued Over Proposed Company Merger ---------------------------------------------------------------- Barbara Strougo, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Meru Networks, Inc., Bami Bastani, Barry Cox, Stephen Domenik, John T. Kurtzweil, Sudhakar Ramakrishna, Fortinet, Inc., and Malbrouck Acquisition Corp., Case No. 11097 (Del. Ch., June 4, 2015), is brought on behalf of all other public stockholders of Meru Networks, Inc., to enjoin the proposed acquisition off the Company by Fortinet, Inc., in an unfair price and inadequate consideration. Meru Networks, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that serves customers around the world by delivering high performance intelligent Wi-Fi solutions that are designed to deliver an extraordinary mobility experience, especially in high density and bandwidth intensive environments. Fortinet, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that provides fast, secure, and global cyber security solutions through a broad, high- performance protection against dynamic security threats while simplifying the IT infrastructure. The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq. Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. Jeremy J. Riley, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120 Wilmington, DE 19803 Telephone: (302) 295-5310 E-mail: sdr@rl-legal.com bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com jjr@rl-legal.com - and - Gustavo F. Bruckner, Esq. Ofer Ganot, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 MOL GLOBAL: Court Has Yet to Appoint Lead Plaintiff --------------------------------------------------- Mol Global, Inc. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that between November 24, 2014 and December 2, 2014, three putative class actions were commenced against, among others, the Company and certain of its officers and directors, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York captioned Freedman v. MOL Global, Inc., et al., 14 CV 9357 (WHP), Grodko v. MOL Global, Inc., et al., 14 CV 9397 (WHP) and Jewell v. MOL Global, Inc., et al., 14 CV 9493 (WHP). Each asserts claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of investors who acquired the Company's American Depositary Shares ("ADSs") between October 9, 2014 and November 20, 2014, and/or who acquired ADSs pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the Company's October 9, 2014 Initial Public Offering. The Freedman and Grodko actions also assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On December 22, 2014, plaintiffs voluntary dismissed the Grodko action. The Court has consolidated the two remaining complaints into a single action but has yet to appoint a lead plaintiff. The Company intends to defend the actions vigorously. Given the early stage of this case, the Group is not in a position to evaluate the likelihood that damages or other relief will be awarded, or the amount of damages that may be awarded. MYLAN INSTITUTIONAL: Expands Recalls on Injectable Products ----------------------------------------------------------- Mylan N.V. (Nasdaq: MYL) announced that its U.S.-based Mylan Institutional business is expanding its voluntary nationwide recall to the hospital/user level of select lots of the following injectable products due to the presence of visible foreign particulate matter observed during testing of retention samples. Administration of a sterile injectable that has foreign particulates has the potential of severe health consequences. Intrathecal administration could result in a life threatening adverse event or result in permanent impairment of a body function. Intravenous administration has the potential to damage and/or obstruct blood vessels which could induce emboli, particularly in the lungs. If a right to left cardiac shunt is present, the particulate may lead to arterial emboli and result in stroke, myocardial infarction, respiratory failure, and loss of renal and hepatic function or tissue necrosis. Other adverse effects associated with intravenous injection of particulate matter include local inflammation, phlebitis, allergic response and/or embolization in the body and infection. Intra-arterial administration could result in damage to blood vessels in the distal extremities or organs. Intramuscular administration could result in foreign-body inflammatory response, with local pain, swelling and possible long term granuloma formation. To date, Mylan has not received any reports of adverse events related to this recall. NDC Number Product Name Package Lot Number Expiration ---------- and Strength Size ---------- Date ------------ ------- ---------- 0069-3857-10 Gemcitabine 10 mL 7801084 07/2015 for Injection, USP 200 mg 0069-3857-10 Gemcitabine 10 mL 7801110 08/2015 for Injection, USP 200 mg 67457-463-02 Gemcitabine 100 mL 7801221 03/2016 for Injection, USP 2 g 67457-464-20 Gemcitabine 10 mL 7801398 08/2016 for Injection, USP 200 mg 67457-464-20 Gemcitabine 10 mL 7801406 08/2016 for Injection, USP 200 mg 67457-464-20 Gemcitabine 10 mL 7801427 09/2016 for Injection, USP 200 mg 67457-462-01 Gemcitabine 50 mL 7801284 05/2016 for Injection, USP 1 g 67457-467-99 Methotrexate 5 x 2 mL 7801421 09/2016 Injection, USP 50 mg/2 mL (25 mg/mL) Gemcitabine for Injection, USP is an intravenously administered product indicated for the treatment of ovarian cancer, breast cancer, non-small cell lung cancer and pancreatic cancer. These lots were distributed in the U.S. between January 8, 2014, and February 10, 2015, and were manufactured and packaged by Agila Onco Therapies Limited, a Mylan company. Lot 7801084 and 7801110 are packaged with a Pfizer Injectable label. Methotrexate Injection, USP 25 mg/mL can be administered intramuscularly, intravenously, intra-arterially, or intrathecally and is indicated for certain neoplastic diseases, severe psoriasis and adult rheumatoid arthritis. The lot was distributed in the U.S. between December 8, 2014, and December 19, 2014, and was packaged by Agila Onco Therapies Limited, a Mylan company. Mylan is notifying its distributors and customers by letter and is arranging for return of all recalled products. Distributors, retailers, hospitals, clinics, and physicians that have these products which are being recalled should stop use and return to place of purchase. Consumers with questions regarding this recall can contact Mylan Customer Relations at 800.796.9526 or customer.service@mylan.com, Monday through Friday from 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. EST. Consumers should contact their physician or healthcare provider if they have experienced any problems that may be related to using these drug products. Adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use of this product may be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting program either online, by regular mail or by fax. Complete and submit the report Online: www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm Regular Mail or Fax: Download form www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htm or call 1-800-332-1088 to request a reporting form, then complete and return to the address on the pre-addressed form, or submit by fax to 1-800-FDA-0178. This recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Mylan is a global pharmaceutical company committed to setting new standards in healthcare. Working together around the world to provide 7 billion people access to high quality medicine, we innovate to satisfy unmet needs; make reliability and service excellence a habit; do what's right, not what's easy; and impact the future through passionate global leadership. We offer a growing portfolio of around 1,400 generic pharmaceuticals and several brand medications. In addition, we offer a wide range of antiretroviral therapies, upon which approximately 40% of HIV/AIDS patients in developing countries depend. We also operate one of the largest active pharmaceutical ingredient manufacturers and currently market products in about 145 countries and territories. Our workforce of approximately 30,000 people is dedicated to creating better health for a better world, one person at a time. Learn more at mylan.com. NAT'L FOOTBALL: Appeal from Concussion Suit Settlement Filed ------------------------------------------------------------ Mike Florio, writing for NBC Sports, reported that former players who need compensation for the long-term consequences of head injuries have been waiting since August 2013 to receive their payments. They'll be waiting even longer. Craig Heimburger and Dawn Heimburger have filed an appeal of the court order approving the settlement of the concussion litigation against the NFL. Even if the appeal fails, the process of resolving the case and paying benefits could be delayed by another year, or longer. "We are extremely disappointed and perplexed that an objector would file a notice to appeal the Court's final order, even though this decision means thousands of retired NFL players suffering from devastating neurocognitive injuries, and those concerned about their future, will now be forced to wait many months for the immediate care and support they deserve," the lawyers representing the retired players said in a statement. "Final approval was granted by Judge Anita Brody only after objections were raised and heard at the fairness hearing in November and carefully considered by the Court. Ultimately, in an extremely detailed and thorough opinion, the Court overruled the very same objections that will likely be made in any appeal." The Heimburgers may not be alone in their efforts. The family of former NFL safety Dave Duerson, who committed suicide in 2011, said that they will appeal the settlement . "With over 99 percent participation, it is clear the retired player community overwhelmingly supports this agreement," the lawyers representing the former players said. "Throughout this settlement process, we have heard directly from countless retired players who are in dire need of these benefits, and their most common question has been to ask how quickly they can get help. For those who hoped to receive benefits as soon as this summer, this appeal is heartbreaking news. We look forward to offering a forceful defense of the settlement in the Court of Appeals." Regardless of whether the lawyers or any of the former players don't like it, the procedure allows for an appeal to be pursued. And, as in any class action, it takes only one member of the class who objects to the deal to appeal. It's unclear which aspect(s) of the settlement the appeal will attack. As explained in the aftermath of the approval of the settlement, it arguably mishandles the CTE issue. NATIONAL WESTMINSTER: Appeal in Shareholder Litigation Still Open ----------------------------------------------------------------- National Westminster Bank Plc said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a decision in respect of the appeal in the Shareholder litigation (US) has not yet been issued. The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc or RBSG and certain of its subsidiaries, together with certain current and former officers and directors were named as defendants in a purported class action filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York involving holders of American Depositary Receipts (the ADR claims). A consolidated amended complaint asserting claims under Sections 10 and 20 of the US Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act was filed in November 2011 on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired RBSG's American Depositary Receipts (ADRs) from issuance through 20 January 2009. In September 2012, the Court dismissed the ADR claims with prejudice. In August 2013, the Court denied the plaintiffs' motions for reconsideration and for leave to re-plead their case. The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of this case to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and that appeal was heard on 19 June 2014. A decision in respect of the appeal has not yet been issued. NATIONAL WESTMINSTER: RBS Group Are Defendants in Novastar Case --------------------------------------------------------------- National Westminster Bank Plc said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that RBS Group companies are defendants in a purported MBS class action entitled New Jersey Carpenters Health Fund v. Novastar Mortgage Inc. et al., which remains pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. NATIONAL WESTMINSTER: Members of Settlement Class File Appeal ------------------------------------------------------------- National Westminster Bank Plc said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the status of the previously disclosed settlements in the other MBS class actions in which RBS Group companies were defendants is as follows: In re IndyMac Mortgage-Backed Securities Litigation (final court approval of settlement granted in February 2015), New Jersey Carpenters Vacation Fund et al. v. The Royal Bank of Scotland plc et al. (final court approval of the settlement granted in November 2014), and Luther v. Countrywide Financial Corp. et al. and related class action cases (final court approval of the settlement granted in December 2013). In the latter matter, several members of the settlement class are appealing the court-approved settlement to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. NATIONAL WESTMINSTER: ISDAFIX Antitrust Case in Pre-Discovery ------------------------------------------------------------- National Westminster Bank Plc said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the beginning in September 2014, RBS plc and a number of other financial institutions were named as defendants in several purported class action complaints (now consolidated into one complaint) alleging manipulation of USD ISDAFIX rates, to the detriment of persons who entered into transactions that referenced those rates. The complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and contain claims for unjust enrichment and violations of the U.S. antitrust laws and the Commodities Exchange Act. This matter is subject to pre-discovery motions to dismiss some or all of the claims against the defendants. NATIONAL WESTMINSTER: Additional FX Antitrust Litigation Filed -------------------------------------------------------------- National Westminster Bank Plc said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that certain members of the RBS Group, as well as a number of other financial institutions, are defendants in a consolidated antitrust class action on behalf of U.S.-based plaintiffs that is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiffs in this action allege that the defendants violated the U.S. antitrust laws by conspiring to manipulate the foreign exchange market by manipulating benchmark foreign exchange rates. On 28 January 2015, the court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss this action. On the same day, the court dismissed two similar class action complaints that had been filed on behalf of non-U.S. plaintiffs in Norway and South Korea on the principal ground that such claims are barred by the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act. On 23 February 2015, an additional class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of investors that transacted in exchange-traded foreign exchange futures contracts and/or options on foreign exchange futures contracts. The complaint contains allegations that are substantially similar to those contained in the consolidated antitrust class action, and it asserts both antitrust claims and claims under the Commodities Exchange Act. NAVIENT CORP: Court Denied Motion to Amend Complaint Again ---------------------------------------------------------- Navient Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Court denied Plaintiffs' motion, denying their request to amend a class action complaint again. On March 18, 2011, a student loan borrower filed a putative class action complaint against Old SLM in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint was captioned Tina M. Ubaldi v. SLM Corporation et. al., Case No. C-11-01320EDL. The plaintiff brought the complaint on behalf of a class consisting of other similarly situated California borrowers. The complaint alleged, among other things, that Old SLM's practice of charging late fees proportional to the amount of missed payments constituted liquidated damages in violation of California law; and Old SLM engaged in unfair business practices by charging daily interest on private educational loans. Following motion practice and additional amendments to the complaint, which added usury claims under California state law and two additional defendants (Sallie Mae, Inc., now known as Navient Solutions, Inc. ("NSI"), and SLM PC Student Loan Trust 2004-A), a Modified Third Amended Complaint was filed on December 2, 2013. Plaintiffs sought restitution of late charges and interest paid by members of the class, injunctive relief, cancellation of all future interest payments, treble damages as permitted by law, as well as costs and attorneys' fees, among other relief. Prior to the formation of Sallie Mae Bank in 2005, Old SLM followed prevalent capital market practices of acquiring and securitizing private education loans purchased in secondary transactions from banks who originated these loans. Plaintiffs alleged that the services provided by Old SLM and Sallie Mae, Inc. to the originating banks resulted in Old SLM and Sallie Mae, Inc. constituting lenders on these loans. Since 2006, Sallie Mae Bank originated the vast majority of all private education loans acquired by Old SLM. The claims at issue in this case expressly exclude loans originated by Sallie Mae Bank since its inception. Named defendants are subsidiaries of Navient and as such the Ubaldi litigation will remain the sole responsibility of Navient Corporation. Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Class Certification on October 22, 2013. On March 24, 2014, the Court denied plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification without prejudice, but granted plaintiffs leave to file an amended Motion for Class Certification. On June 20, 2014, a Complaint in Intervention was filed on behalf of two additional customers representing a proposed usury sub-class. On June 23, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a Renewed Motion for Class Certification. On December 19, 2014, the court granted plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Class Certification regarding the claims concerning late fees, but denied the motion as to the usury claims. On January 30, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking leave to file another amended complaint. On March 24, 2015, the Court denied Plaintiffs' motion, denying their request to amend the complaint again. It is not possible at this time to estimate a range of potential exposure, if any, for amounts that may be payable in connection therewith. NAVIENT CORP: Hearing Held on Motions to Dismiss Suit ----------------------------------------------------- Navient Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that a hearing on the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint in the Marlene Blyden class action is set for June 15, 2015. On November 26, 2014, Marlene Blyden filed a putative class action suit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against Navient Corporation, Navient, LLC, Navient Solutions, Inc., Navient Credit Finance Corporation, Navient Investment Corporation, SLM Corporation, Bank of New York, and the Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A. The complaint was captioned Marlene Blyden v. Navient Corporation et. al., Case No. 5:14-CV-2456. On December 2, 2014, plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. The plaintiff purports to bring the First Amended Complaint on behalf of a class consisting of other similarly situated California borrowers. The First Amended Complaint alleged that plaintiff and members of the asserted class were charged and/or paid interest at a rate above that permitted under California law. On February 4, 2015, Plaintiff filed her Second Amended Complaint, which drops SLM Corporation as a defendant, adds various securitization trusts as defendants, and adds claims for conversion and for money had and received. Defendants filed Motions to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on March 6, 2015. The plaintiff filed her Opposition on April 16, 2015, and Defendants filed Replies on April 20, 2015. A hearing on the motions is set for June 15, 2015. It is not possible at this time to estimate a range of potential exposure, if any, for amounts that may be payable in connection therewith. NETHERLANDS: Ruling in Climate Change Suit Expected by Month End ---------------------------------------------------------------- Gayle Nelson, writing for Nonprofit Quarterly, reported that knowing the long-term effects climate change will have on the Netherlands and the world, the nonprofit Urgenda concluded it could not wait for its government to act. In November 2012, it filed a groundbreaking class action suit. In it, their attorneys used current human rights and tort law to claim the Dutch government is placing human life in danger by failing to reduce carbon emissions. If they are successful, some experts believe it will begin a major shift in environmentalists' efforts to reduce carbon emissions. Although many associate the Netherlands with windmills and bicycles, citizens rely heavily on coal-powered utility plants for most of their electricity. Additionally, the Dutch government's goal of reducing emissions is far less ambitious than its European neighbors. At the same time, the country will be critically affected by the effects of climate change, since it is located three meters below sea level. To force their government to act, an innovative class action lawsuit was filed by the Dutch nonprofit Urgenda on behalf of slightly less than 900 citizens and against the government of the Netherlands. The suit contends the Dutch government is not doing enough to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change. On April 14th, the suit was heard by a district court in The Hague. If the court rules in the class's favor, it will force the Dutch government to execute policies that will reduce emission by a minimum of 25 percent below 1990 levels by the year 2020. The suit hinges on whether the rising of the Earth's global temperature by 2 øC will cause conditions dangerous to human life. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) created this benchmark for developing nations. The Panel is a scientific body created by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988. Its mission is to provide "the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of knowledge in climate change and its potential environmental and socioeconomic impacts." The organization evaluates scientific, technical and socioeconomic information to develop a comprehensive understanding of the effects of climate change on the planet. The class was originated by the Dutch nonprofit Urgenda. Urgenda, abbreviated from "urgent agenda," is a leader in developing new methods of fighting climate change. Before filing the suit, the organization, led by its founder Marjam Minnesma, created a campaign to introduce solar panels to a large number of individual consumers. When the campaign was completed, the organization negotiated a deal with Chinese manufacturers for 50,000 panels. Many of the members of the class have changed their lifestyle to limit their individual carbon emissions. They ride bicycles on a daily basis and heat their houses using solar panels. Unfortunately, they know their individual actions alone will do little to change the direction of climate change. They are hoping this suit will develop into a large movement to change carbon emission. To build the movement, Urgenda spent critical resources translating research and court documents into English and posting them online. A similar class action suit with over 8,000 members is pending in Belgium. Additionally, lawyers in Australia, Canada, and the United States are investigating opportunities in their own countries. A decision in the suit filed by Urgenda is expected by the end of June. NEW YORK: City Transit Sued Over Denial of Services to Disabled --------------------------------------------------------------- John Riley, writing for Newsday, reported that New York City Transit violates the constitutional rights of the disabled by denying them paratransit services through the Access-a-Ride program and refusing to give reasons, according to a class-action lawsuit filed in Manhattan federal court. Access-a-Ride is designed to provide vans and other alternatives for people who are medically unable to use subways and buses, but the agency gives applicants a bureaucratic runaround when they are deemed ineligible or denied recertification, the suit said. Among other problems, it alleges: Denials come in generic form letters without reasons, applicants seeking reasons are told to file a Freedom of Information request which takes longer to process than the appeal deadline and disabled applicants can't get a ride to attend an in-person appeal. The plaintiffs, the suit said, include Patricia Davis, a Bronx woman suffering from a stroke who was certified for Access-a-Ride in 2011, but then cut off without being given reasons this year; and Barbara Walsh, a Queens senior citizen with a brain injury who was cut off without reasons in 2014, with her service restored only after she got a lawyer. The lawsuit says that during the past few years the transit authority has been refusing to recertify many previously eligible disabled riders, and the "black box application process" violates the Constitution and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Transit officials have said that because of budgetary constraints, the agency has been enforcing medical eligibility for Access-a-Ride more strictly. The program is expected to cost $465 million for 6.4 million trips this year. Kevin Ortiz, an agency spokesman, declined to comment on the lawsuit. New York City Transit is part of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority. OMNICARE INC: Faces "Elow" Suit Over Proposed Merger with CVS ------------------------------------------------------------- Clifford Elow, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Omnicare, Inc., James D. Shelton, Nitin Sahney, John L. Bernbach, James G. Carlson, Mark A. Emmert, Steven J. Heyer, Sam R. Leno, Barry Scochet, Amy Wallman, CVS Pharmacy, Inc., and Tree Merger Sub, Inc., Case No. 11093 (Del. Ch., June 4, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the public stockholders of Omnicare, Inc., to enjoin the proposed agreement and plan of merger with CVS Pharmacy, Inc. for an unfair price and inadequate consideration. Headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio, Omnicare, Inc. is a healthcare services company that specializes in the management of pharmaceutical care in the United States. CVS Pharmacy, Inc. is a Rhode Island corporation that provides integrated pharmacy health care services in the United States via its pharmacy services and retail pharmacy segments. The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter B. Andrews, Esq. Craig J. Springer, Esq. ANDREWS & SPRINGER LLC 3801 Kennett Pike Bldg C Ste 305 Wilmington, DE 19807 Telephone: (302) 504-4957 Facsimile: (302) 397-2681 E-mail: pandrews@andrewsspringer.com cspringer@andrewsspringer.com OMNICELL INC: Vincent Wong Firm Files Securities Suit ----------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announced that a class action lawsuit has been commenced in the USDC for the Northern District of California on behalf of investors who purchased Omnicell, Inc. ("Omnicell" or the "Company") securities between December 23, 2013 and October 22, 2014. Click here to learn about the case: http://docs.wongesq.com/OMCL-Info-Request-Form-693 There is no cost or obligation to you. The complaint alleges that the Company misrepresented and/or failed to disclose: (a) the existence of a "side letter" arrangement with a Company customer for certain discounts and Company products that were provided at no cost, but which were not reflected in final invoices paid by the customer; (b) the Company lacked adequate internal controls over financial reporting; and (c) that as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. If you suffered a loss in Omnicell you have until May 18, 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. To obtain additional information, contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email vw@wongesq.com by telephone at 212.425.1140, or visit http://docs.wongesq.com/OMCL-Info-Request-Form-693. Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney that has represented investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and violations of shareholder rights. ONEMAIN FINANCIAL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Action Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ Alu Banarji, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Onemain Financial, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-01270-WQH- DHB (S.D. Cal., June 8, 2015), seeks to put an end on the Defendant's practice of placing multiple calls to the Plaintiff's cellular telephone using an automatic telephone dialing system. Onemain Financial, Inc. is in the business of purchasing consumer debts and collecting thereon from debtors. The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Suren N. Weerasuriya, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 324 S. Beverly Dr., #725 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com sweerasuriya@attorneysforconsumers.com abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com PALERMO ENTERPRISES: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Patricia Velez, individually and on behalf of other employees similarly situated v. Palermo Enterprises, Inc. and Joe Greco, Case No. 1:15-cv-04997 (N.D. Ill., June 8, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week. The Defendants own and operate a bakery located in Norridge, Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: David Erik Stevens, Esq. CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC 6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200 Chicago, IL 60646 Telephone: (312) 307-0766 E-mail: dstevens@yourclg.com PHILADELPHIA, PA: Suit vs. DA Over Forfeiture Laws Proceeds ----------------------------------------------------------- Jeremy Roebuck, writing for Philly.com, reported that lawsuit challenging the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office's use of state civil-forfeiture laws will proceed in federal court after a judge rejected calls from city lawyers to throw it out. In an opinion released, U.S. District Judge Eduardo Robreno dismissed the city's arguments, including that it had recently made reforms to one of the most debated parts of the controversial program -- the use of "seize and seal" orders to take preliminary possession of a property targeted for forfeiture before a full hearing in court. In legal filings, First Assistant District Attorney Edward F. McCann Jr. said his office never had a policy allowing prosecutors to take this step unless "exigent circumstances" warranted such drastic action. As of October, however, his personal approval was required before prosecutors could seek such an order, he added. Judge Robreno responded: "If the D.A.'s Office charted a course that may have run afoul of due process -- as [the] plaintiffs allege that it has -- then a directive to essentially stay the course cannot, of itself, ensure that the D.A.'s Office will not run aground on rocky constitutional shoals again." Judge Robreno's opinion comes nine months after Philadelphia residents filed a lawsuit challenging the civil asset forfeiture program -- aimed at depriving drug dealers of cash and property. The program has come under increasing scrutiny for instances in which people faced eviction for only tangential connections to crime. Of the four plaintiffs seeking class-action status, three had their houses threatened after relatives were accused of dealing drugs on their properties. None of them have been accused of involvement in a crime. The fourth plaintiff's car was seized after his arrest for possession of drug paraphernalia. Lead plaintiff Christos Sourovelis, 52, and his wife, Markela, were kicked out of their $350,000 house in Somerton last May with a "seize and seal" order more than a month after police arrested their 22-year-old son, Yianni, for selling drugs outside. Although Christos Sourovelis said his family had no idea what their son was up to, prosecutors moved for permanent forfeiture of their property. The law allows authorities to go after properties suspected as criminal hot spots even if no one associated with them is ever charged. And unlike a criminal case, where prosecutors must offer "proof beyond a reasonable doubt," authorities in forfeiture cases must only show it is more likely than not that the property was used in or obtained as a result of a crime. Property owners can challenge the seizures, but those efforts can take months and multiple court visits to resolve, the plaintiffs' lawyers argue. The Sourovelises were allowed to return to their home within a week of the initial seizure, but for months feared they could lose the legal fight over the fate of their property. Prosecutors withdrew their action against the Sourovelises' house in December and described their case as an "exception rather than the rule" in the employment of a tool they say has aided in cleaning up dozens of rough neighborhoods across Philadelphia. City attorneys cited the withdrawal of their case against the Sourovelises' house and that of one other plaintiff in their arguments to persuade Judge Robreno to toss the case. They also argued that since judges made the decisions in these cases, the District Attorney's Office was not the proper entity to sue. The judge rejected both arguments. PLATINUM GROUP: Investors' Class Suit Wins Certification -------------------------------------------------------- Dan Healing, writing for Calgary Herald, reported that a class action lawsuit allowing hundreds of investors to unite to sue individuals and companies associated with the Platinum Group for millions of dollars in losses has been certified, but the lead lawyer concedes the process could still take months or years to be concluded. An estimated 2,200 investors lost an estimated $200 million buying limited partnership units or trust units that invested in commercial real estate entities that operated and were heavily marketed in print and on radio and television between 2002 and 2012. "There are approximately 21 separate projects and there were concerns about the co-mingling of funds between projects," said Kevin McGuigan of McGuigan Nelson LLP, who is representing about 1,000 of the investors who have joined the class action. "What (the certification) does is allows us to proceed in a way that all of the investors in different projects are working together as opposed to potentially having to fight over priority to funds later." He said that under Alberta law, investors can "opt out"of the lawsuit but his will be the only class action allowed. The ruling by Justice A.D. Macleod follows an application in December that named a long list of defendants, chief among them Shariff M.Chandran, Riaz Mamdani, Chitra Chandran, the Strategic Group of Companies and the Platinum Group of Companies. McGuigan said many of the investors are elderly so he will try to move the process along as quickly as possible. He pointed out the defendants vigorously opposed the granting of certification. He said he is seeking approval from the defendants for a form of order, then will send a notice to all investors inviting them to join the suit. He said he hopes the process can proceed by fall with questioning of witnesses but that could be derailed if the defendants launch an appeal. In September, Shariff Chandran, principal of real estate investment company Platinum Equities Inc., was given a $1 million fine by the Alberta Securities Commission for real estate fraud. His sister Chitra, who held various official titles with Platinum Group entities, was fined $150,000. The ASC ruled in February 2014 that a significant portion of over $58 million raised from Platinum investors was obtained through illegal trades and distributions. Platinum Equities raised money through a series of separate limited partnerships which sold units typically for $25,000 or $50,000 each and used the funds to buy property. Shariff Chandran and Chitra Chandran were also ordered to pay $136,500 and $52,500, respectively, to cover the costs of the ASC investigation and hearing. The firm may be reached at: Kevin McGuigan, Esq. MCGUIGAN NELSON LLP 300, 1550 -- 8th Street SW Calgary, AB T2R 1K1 Tel: 403.265.7744 Fax: 403.265.7528 QUALITY LINEALS: Faces "Arias" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Adan Arias, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Quality Lineals USA, Inc., Northeast Windows USA, Inc., Jeffrey Kaiserman, and Steven Kaiserman, Case No. 2:15-cv- 03320 (E.D.N.Y., June 8, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Quality Lineals USA, Inc. is a New York with a principle executive office at 1 Kees Place in Merrick, New York. Quality maintains a window factory address at 105 Bennington Avenue in Freeport, New York. Northeast Windows USA, Inc. maintains a factory address at 1 Kees Place in Merrick, New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven John Moser, Esq. STEVEN J. MOSER, P.C. 3 School Street, Suite 207B Glen Cove, New York 11542 Telephone: (516) 671-1150 Facsimile: (516) 882-5420 E-mail: smoser@moseremploymentlaw.com QUICKSILVER INC: Vincent Wong Firm Files Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announced that a class action lawsuit has been commenced in the USDC for the Central District of California on behalf of investors who purchased Quiksilver Inc. ("Quiksilver" or the "Company") securities between June 6, 2014 and March 26, 2015. There is no cost or obligation to you. On March 4, 2015 the Company disclosed there would be a delay in the release of its financial results for the first quarter of 2015 due to management's identification of a revenue recognition issue. Then on March 26, 2015, the Company announced that the Company's internal controls over financial reporting, contrary to its previous reporting, were ineffective as of October 31, 2014. Then on March 27, 2015 the Company announced the resignation of the Company's CEO and CFO. If you suffered a loss in Quiksilver you have until June 1, 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. To obtain additional information, contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email vw@wongesq.com, by telephone at 212.425.1140, or visit http://docs.wongesq.com/ZQK-Info- Request-Form-716. Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney that has represented investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and violations of shareholder rights. RBS HOLDINGS: Discovery Underway in Hopkins v AECOM --------------------------------------------------- RBS Holdings N.V. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that discovery is underway in the case of Hopkins v AECOM. In 2005 RBS Group (Australia) Pty Ltd ("RBSGA"), previously ABN AMRO Australia Pty Limited, a member of RBSH Group, was a member of a consortium that appointed AECOM Australia Pty Ltd (formerly known as Maunsell Australia Pty Ltd) ("AECOM") to forecast traffic for the Clem7 Tunnel in Brisbane, Australia. Three sets of proceedings have been brought against AECOM. The first (Hopkins v AECOM) is a class action relating to the initial public offer of units to retail investors in the RiverCity Motorway Group, which operated the Clem7 Tunnel. The claim relates to allegations that the IPO disclosure was defective, particularly in relation to traffic volume forecasts by AECOM. The second and third proceedings (RiverCity v AECOM and Portigon v AECOM), involve claims of negligent misstatement and misleading or deceptive conduct in the issuance of traffic forecasts. In all three proceedings AECOM filed a number of cross-claims for contribution in the event it is found liable, including against RBSGA. On 18 July 2014, the court refused to allow the cross- claims to proceed, except in the case of Hopkins v AECOM. Discovery is underway. RBS HOLDINGS: Discovery Underway in CDS Antitrust Litigation ------------------------------------------------------------ RBS Holdings N.V. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that discovery is underway in the case Credit Default Swap Antitrust Litigation. Certain members of RBS Group, as well as a number of other financial institutions, are defendants in a consolidated antitrust class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiffs generally allege that defendants violated the U.S. antitrust laws by restraining competition in the market for credit default swaps through various means and thereby causing inflated bid-ask spreads for credit default swaps. On 4 September 2014, the Court largely denied the defendants' motion to dismiss this matter. Discovery is underway. RCF LLC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Blotzer" Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------- Casey Blotzer and Edward Makaron, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RCF, LLC, Case No. 8:15-cv-00896 (C.D. Cal., June 8, 2015), seeks to put an end on the Defendant's practice of placing multiple calls to the Plaintiffs' cellular telephone using an automatic telephone dialing system. RCF, LLC is in the business of offering consumers and business owners business loans. The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Suren N. Weerasuriya, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 324 S. Beverly Dr., #725 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com sweerasuriya@attorneysforconsumers.com abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com SARAH LEE: Calif. Court Refuses to Dismiss Antitrust Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Siegal, writing for Law360, reported that a California judge refused to dismiss class action allegations that Sarah Lee Corp. illegally fixed the prices independent distributors could charge for its baked goods, pointing to new claims that Sara Lee's record-keeping system prevented the distributors from negotiating their own prices. Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Jane L. Johnson overruled Sara Lee's demurrer to the fifth amended complaint in the nine-year-old suit, which alleges that distributors who bought baked goods from Sara Lee and resold them to retail chains were illegally prevented from negotiating with the retailers. Judge Johnson said in a written tentative ruling and during the hearing that a California Court of Appeals panel had ordered her to give plaintiffs another shot to amend their complaint to plead allegations that could support their claim for illegal vertical price-fixing under California's Cartwright Act. Johnson wrote that the plaintiffs had bolstered their allegations with specifics about the handheld computer record-keeping system Sara Lee required distributors to use, which plaintiffs say does not allow distributors to change the prices they charge to retailers. "The Court of Appeal concluded that plaintiff did not sufficiently allege price fixing," Judge Johnson wrote. "The [fifth amended complaint] now directly addresses the Court of Appeal's comments." The original suit was filed in October 2006, and in 2008 an amended complaint was filed by four former distributors containing 10 causes of action that alleged, as one theory of liability, that Sara Lee classified distributors as independent contractors when they were in fact employees. The suit proposed a class of all persons who delivered Sara Lee baked goods to stores since November 1999. After an appellate court in May 2012 affirmed Judge Johnson's denial of certification for the misclassification claims, the plaintiffs sought to proceed as a class under their alternative antitrust theory relating to price-fixing and territorial divisions. In May 2013, Judge Johnson dismissed those claims without leave to amend, ruling that Sara Lee's contracts with the distributors gave it the right to negotiate the price of its baked goods with chain stores and that the distributors' grievance is at best a contractual dispute. In October 2013, however, a California appeals court panel ruled that while the fourth amended complaint did not contain sufficient allegations to support a Cartwright Act claim, the plaintiffs should have been granted leave to amend to add a new class representative or new allegations. The plaintiffs are represented by Mike Arias, Esq. -- marias@aogllp.com -- of Arias Ozzello & Gignac LLP, Gretchen M. Nelson of Kreindler & Kreindler LLP, and George A. Kaufman and Jonathan Weiss. Sara Lee is represented by Donna D. Melby, Esq. -- donnamelby@paulhastings.com -- Holly A. House, Esq. -- hollyhouse@paulhastings.com -- Elizabeth Brown, Esq., Sean Unger, Esq. -- seanunger@paulhastings.com -- and Ryan Craig, Esq. -- ryancraig@paulhastings.com -- of Paul Hastings LLP. The case is Kaewsawang v. Sara Lee Corp., case number BC360109, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles. SATANIC TEMPLE: Abortion Battle May Become Class Suit, Atty Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Massoud Hayoun, writing for Aljazeera America, reported that the Satanic Temple's bid to allow a Missouri follower to circumvent state laws restricting abortion may soon become a class-action lawsuit, the woman's legal counsel said. Court documents filed and obtained by Al Jazeera argue that, as a Satanist, a woman referred to as "Mary Doe" should not have to undergo the state's mandatory 72-hour wait period, be offered an ultrasound to listen to a potential heartbeat and receive requisite informational materials that her attorneys say are designed to dissuade her from the procedure. The Satanic Temple, an organization that has long sought to bolster the separation between church and state -- most notably through an ongoing bid to place a Satanic monument next to the Ten Commandments statue on the Oklahoma state Capitol lawn -- hopes to "leverage" Missouri's Religious Freedom Restoration Act, said Temple spokesman Lucien Greaves, who is also known by his legal name, Doug Mesner. The documents say Missouri's abortion restrictions contravene the group's religious tenets, which hold "her body is inviolable and subject to her will alone" and that "she makes any decision regarding her health based on the best scientific understanding of the world." Attorneys are waiting for a court date when the state and Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon will have to argue either against the sincerity of Doe's religious convictions or her exemption from state law, said W. James Mac Naughton, one of Doe's attorneys. Nixon's office did not respond to an interview request by time of publication. Doe may not be the only plaintiff. Her complaint "lends itself to a class-action-type claim," Mac Naughton said. Although other women may not identify with Doe's professed religious convictions, "Mary Doe is not alone in her beliefs." "What's my class?" he said of potential co-filers. "Women situated closely to Mary Doe. Who are they? Mary Doe 1, Mary Doe 2, Mary Doe 3, Mary Doe 4." He is looking into other circumstances where class-action lawsuits have been filed on behalf of entirely anonymous clients. Doe and whoever she ends up filing with would remain anonymous for safety reasons, he said, noting "physicians have been shot by people on the other side of the debate on whether the fetus is just tissue or an unborn child." In May 2009, abortion doctor George Tiller, was shot to death at age 67 in a Kansas church. It was the second time an opponent had shot him, and he had also survived the bombing of his clinic. Mary Doe reportedly entered the St. Louis Planned Parenthood facility late to submit a letter from the Satanic Temple arguing against the mandatory information and wait time. Greaves said he would not reveal the exact timing of Doe's trips to the clinic, out of respect for her safety. Mac Naughton said Doe is not giving interviews. SERVICE CORPORATION: Facing "Samborsky" Class Action ---------------------------------------------------- Service Corporation International said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company is facing Charles Samborsky, et al, individually and on behalf of those persons similarly situated, v. SCI California Funeral Services, Inc., et al; Case No. BC544180; in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, Central District-Central Civil West Courthouse. This lawsuit was filed in April 2014 against an SCI subsidiary and purports to have been brought on behalf of employees who worked as family service counselors in California since April 2010. The plaintiffs allege causes of action for various violations of state laws regulating wage and hour pay. The plaintiffs seek unpaid wages, compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs, interest, and injunctive relief. "We cannot quantify our ultimate liability, if any, in this lawsuit," the Company said. SERVICE CORPORATION: "Moulton" Case to Continue Against Unit ------------------------------------------------------------ Service Corporation International said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the case, Karen Moulton, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Stewart Enterprises, Inc., Service Corporation International and others; Case No. 2013-5636; in the Civil District Court Parish of New Orleans, will continue against the Company's subsidiary Stewart Enterprises and its former individual directors. This case was filed as a class action in June 2013 against SCI and our subsidiary in connection with SCI's proposed acquisition of Stewart Enterprises, Inc. The plaintiffs allege that SCI aided and abetted breaches of fiduciary duties by Stewart Enterprises and its board of directors in negotiating the combination of Stewart Enterprises with a subsidiary of SCI. The plaintiffs seek damages concerning the combination. "We filed exceptions to the plaintiffs' complaint that were granted in June 2014. Thus, subject to appeals, SCI will no longer be party to the suit. The case will continue against our subsidiary Stewart Enterprises and its former individual directors. We cannot quantify our ultimate liability, if any, for the payment of damages," the Company said. SINGING RIVER: Must Turn Over Docs Regarding Failed Pension Plan ---------------------------------------------------------------- Doug Walker, writing for WMC ActionNews5, reported that during a hearing that lasted one and a half hours, several motions were heard by the judge. The bottom line is Singing River Health System must turn over accounting documents regarding the failed pension plan within 10 days. Plaintiff attorneys have doubts about what those records will reveal. Harvey Barton is one of them. "I'm afraid that the documents that they've already given to the CPA and accounting firm have already been sanitized. They've already been cleaned by the lawyers representing the hospital," Barton said. Hospital attorneys, including Kelly Sessoms, disagreed. "I think the documents that will be produced within the 10 days ordered by judge Hilburn will be consistent with the judge's ruling regarding the accounting part of the lawsuit," Sessoms explained. Just in case, attorneys for the retirees are filing another lawsuit, this one naming names including Jackson County elected officials and high ranking hospital executives. Earl Denham talked about the process. "Everyone that we add will be someone who aided, assisted or covered up, in one way or another, the breach of fiduciary relationship and breach of contract between my clients and the hospital," Denham said. There was a point of some confusion during a hearing. That's because in addition to the state court cases, there are federal cases as well. So, what happens between those two? Matthew Mestayer is representing some retirees in federal court. "With the class action also pending involving some of the same parties, but not all, so that's an issue that has to be dealt with about where the cases are going to be resolved and the interplay between the two courts, for sure," Mestayer explained. For the retirees, they are just glad something is happening. Cynthia Almond is the original plaintiff in the case. "It appears that we are getting the things that we have asked for. We need discovery. We need factual documents that will help us build our case," said Almond. While that may be true, everyone agrees this case is a long way from being over. SOVEREIGN SILVER: Court Tentatively Junks Consumers' Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Jessica Dye, writing for Reuters, reported that a federal judge has tentatively decertified and dismissed a class action over immune-support claims on Natural-Immunogenics' Sovereign Silver products, after excoriating plaintiffs' counsel for their "repeated inability" to find a class representative. U.S. District Judge Larry Burns in the Southern District of California gave class counsel from the Newport Trial Group until May 15 to respond to his tentative decision, which came in response to revelations that the named plaintiff selected to represent California consumers was not a class member. SPRINGFIELD, MA: Seeks to Junk Class Suit on Mental Health Issues ----------------------------------------------------------------- Stephanie Barry, writing for Mass Live, reported that parents, education advocates and civil rights activists packed a courtroom for a hearing in a class action lawsuit filed by a parent of a teen with mental health issues against the city and the School Department. S.S et al vs. the City of Springfield focuses on the city's public day schools: three of them which cater to students who are deemed to have mental health issues that discount them from mainstream, neighborhood schools. Lawyers for the plaintiffs argue the children are being warehoused and deprived of basic educational rights. They filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court and the city has a motion to dismiss pending. "They're getting less classroom time and also being excluded from a whole host of other activities . . . because they're being restrained, suspended and isolated in the classrooms," plaintiffs' lawyer Carole Head told U.S. District Judge Mark G. Mastroianni. The lawsuit seeks to restructure special education for children with mental illnesses to school-based behavioral services. The lead plaintiff is a now-16-year-old boy who has been diagnosed with depression and ADHD, and filed suit when he was a middle- schooler, who transitioned to a public day high school and then out of school, according to Head. She suggested he was de facto forced from school because he couldn't tolerate the conditions at the day schools. His mother was in the courtroom, identified only as "Mrs. Y." The plaintiffs filed suit under the Americans with Disabilities Act, umbrella legislation that supports accommodations for people with all manner of disabilities. Edward Pikula, a lawyer for the city, told Mastroianni that the plaintiffs essentially repurposed a claim after it was rebuffed by a state board of special education appeals. According to Pikula, a judge in that forum ruled that the city had accommodated "S.S" and forged an individual education plan that was "the least restrictive" alternative for the boy. That phrase is key to special education. "This child has had the opportunity to be in a less restrictive environment and was found to have failed in that environment; so we had a track record," Pikula argued to Mastroianni, adding that the behavior of the plaintiff child was "very disruptive." "There has been that opportunity and it didn't work; and the judge said it didn't work and we need to move on," he continued. Pikula argued that, if successful, the class action suit will "open the floodgates" for disgruntled families who want to trump the administrative process the state sets up for special education appeals. Head argued that is not the case, and the lawsuit is simply about discrimination. "ADA says you get equal opportunity, not some . . . they're different; one is some, one is equal," she told the judge. She asked that Mastroianni allow the case to advance while Pikula argued that it be thrown out. The judge took the matter under advisement. TEREX CORPORATION: Received Complaints Seeking Certification ------------------------------------------------------------ Terex Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company has received complaints seeking certification of class action lawsuits in an ERISA lawsuit, a securities lawsuit and a stockholder derivative lawsuit as follows: * A consolidated complaint in the ERISA lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court, District of Connecticut on September 20, 2010 and is entitled In Re Terex Corp. ERISA Litigation. * A consolidated class action complaint for violations of securities laws in the securities lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court, District of Connecticut on November 18, 2010 and is entitled Sheet Metal Workers Local 32 Pension Fund and Ironworkers St. Louis Council Pension Fund, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Terex Corporation, et al. * A stockholder derivative complaint for violation of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment was filed on April 12, 2010 in the United States District Court, District of Connecticut and is entitled Peter Derrer, derivatively on behalf of Terex Corporation v. Ronald M. DeFeo, Phillip C. Widman, Thomas J. Riordan, G. Chris Andersen, Donald P. Jacobs, David A. Sachs, William H. Fike, Donald DeFosset, Helge H. Wehmeier, Paula H.J. Cholmondeley, Oren G. Shaffer, Thomas J. Hansen, and David C. Wang, and Terex Corporation. These lawsuits generally cover the period from February 2008 to February 2009 and allege, among other things, that certain of the Company's SEC filings and other public statements contained false and misleading statements which resulted in damages to the Company, the plaintiffs and the members of the purported class when they purchased the Company's securities and in the ERISA lawsuit and the stockholder derivative complaint, that there were breaches of fiduciary duties and of ERISA disclosure requirements. The stockholder derivative complaint also alleges waste of corporate assets relating to the repurchase of the Company's shares in the market and unjust enrichment as a result of securities sales by certain officers and directors. The complaints all seek, among other things, unspecified compensatory damages, costs and expenses. As a result, the Company is unable to estimate a possible loss or a range of losses for these lawsuits. The stockholder derivative complaint also seeks amendments to the Company's corporate governance procedures in addition to unspecified compensatory damages from the individual defendants in its favor. The Company believes that the allegations in the suits are without merit, and Terex, its directors and the named executives will continue to vigorously defend against them. The Company believes that it has acted, and continues to act, in compliance with federal securities laws and ERISA law with respect to these matters. Accordingly, the Company has filed motions to dismiss the ERISA lawsuit and the securities lawsuit. These motions are currently pending before the court. The plaintiff in the stockholder derivative lawsuit has agreed with the Company to put this lawsuit on hold pending the outcome of the motion to dismiss in connection with the securities lawsuit. TFS FACILITY: Sued in Ga. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Florencia Cipriano-Pioquinto, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated v. TFS Facility Services Georgia, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-02055-AT (N.D. Ga., June 8, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. TFS Facility Services Georgia, LLC owns and operates a cleaning and maintenance services company, doing business in Atlanta, Georgia. The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew R. Frisch, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. Suite 400, 600 N. Pine Island Road Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (954) 318-0268 Facsimile: (954) 333-3515 E-mail: AFRISCH@FORTHEPEOPLE.COM TINDER INC: Sued Over Paid Version of Dating App ------------------------------------------------ Legal NewsLine reported that a popular smartphone dating app is being sued after it introduced a paid version of its app. Michael Manapol filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the District of California court on April 28 against Tinder, Inc., claiming the company falsely advertised that the app's services would be free. In March, Tinder announced the services Manpol had used before would no longer be available unless he purchased a subscription called Tinder Plus, which started around $2.99 per month. Further, the app charges users over the age of 30 about $19 a month for the service, which the lawsuit claims is discrimination. "Not only is the price discriminatory based on age, it also discriminates based on gender," the lawsuit said. "Based on information and belief, Tinder provides swipes or uses with and without Tinder Plus at a more favorable rate to women based solely on their gender." Manapol is seeking class status for all Tinder users, and is also seeking more than $5 million in damages plus court costs. He is represented by John P. Kristensen and David L. Weisberg of Kristensen Weisberg, LLP in Los Angeles. John P. Kristensen, Esq. David L. Weisberg, Esq. KRISTENSEN WEISBERG, LLP 12304 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 100 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Tel: (310) 507-7924 UNITED SERVICES: Sued Over Denial of Injury Protection Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Anthony Battaglia, individually and as representative of all persons similarly situated v. United Services Automobile Association and Auto Injury Solutions, Case No. 201532011 (Tex. Dist. Ct., June 4, 2015), is a class action to secure redress for the Defendants' denial of properly submitted personal injury protection (PIP) claims related to automobile accidents for no legitimate reason. United Services Automobile Association is a foreign for-profit company doing business in the State of Texas. United provides customizable, end-to-end medical review solutions to clients in the property and casualty insurance industry. United Services Automobile Association owns and operates an insurance company, authorized to do business in and doing business in the State of Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brad T. Wyly, Esq. WYLY & COOK, LLP 4101 Washington Ave. Houston, TX 77007 Telephone: (713) 236-8330 Facsimile: (713) 863-8502 E-mail: bwyly@wylycooklaw.com - and - Joshua P. Davis, Esq. JOSH DAVIS LAW FIRM 1010 Lamar, Suite 200 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 337-4100 Facsimile: (713) 337-4101 E-mail: josh@thejdfirm.com UNUM GROUP: Alabama Class Action Remains Stayed ----------------------------------------------- Unum Group said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that no further action in a class action case is expected unless and until the stay is lifted. A former employee filed a purported class action lawsuit in 2002 in the Circuit Court of Morgan County, Alabama, seeking unstated damages and alleging that the plaintiffs suffered fear, increased risk, subclinical injuries, and property damage from exposure to certain perfluorochemicals at or near the Company's Decatur, Alabama, manufacturing facility. The court in 2005 granted the Company's motion to dismiss the named plaintiff's personal injury- related claims on the basis that such claims are barred by the exclusivity provisions of the state's Workers Compensation Act. The plaintiffs' counsel filed an amended complaint in November 2006, limiting the case to property damage claims on behalf of a purported class of residents and property owners in the vicinity of the Decatur plant. In 2005, the judge in a second purported class action lawsuit (filed by three residents of Morgan County, Alabama, seeking unstated compensatory and punitive damages involving alleged damage to their property from emissions of certain perfluorochemical compounds from the Company's Decatur, Alabama, manufacturing facility that formerly manufactured those compounds) granted the Company's motion to abate the case, effectively putting the case on hold pending the resolution of class certification issues in the first action, filed in the same court in 2002. Despite the stay, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint seeking damages for alleged personal injuries and property damage on behalf of the named plaintiffs and the members of a purported class. No further action in the case is expected unless and until the stay is lifted. UNUM GROUP: Parties to Seek Status Conference in 2015 First Half ---------------------------------------------------------------- Unum Group said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that no further action in a class action case is expected unless and until the stay is lifted. In February 2009, a resident of Franklin County, Alabama, filed a purported class action lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Franklin County seeking compensatory damages and injunctive relief based on the application by the Decatur utility's wastewater treatment plant of wastewater treatment sludge to farmland and grasslands in the state that allegedly contain PFOA, PFOS and other perfluorochemicals. The named plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all persons within the State of Alabama who have had PFOA, PFOS, and other perfluorochemicals released or deposited on their property. In March 2010, the Alabama Supreme Court ordered the case transferred from Franklin County to Morgan County. In May 2010, consistent with its handling of the other matters, the Morgan County Circuit Court abated this case, putting it on hold pending the resolution of the class certification issues in the first case filed there. In May 2013, the court placed the case on its administrative docket due to co-defendant Synagro's bankruptcy filing. Pursuant to directions from the Morgan County court, the parties reported that the Synagro Chapter 11 bankruptcy case was concluded and closed in September 2014. The parties will request a status conference with the Morgan County court in the first half of 2015. UNUM GROUP: Answered 3rd Amended Complaint in Calif. Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Unum Group said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company answered the third amended complaint in a purported class action complaint filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. In May 2013, a purported class action complaint was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. The plaintiff sought to represent a class of California insureds who were issued long-term care policies containing an inflation protection feature. The plaintiff alleged we incorrectly administered the inflation protection feature, resulting in an underpayment of benefits. The complaint made allegations against us for breach of contract, bad faith, fraud, violation of Business and Professions Code 17200, and injunctive relief. "We removed the case to the United States District Court for the Central District of California and filed a motion to dismiss. Rather than oppose the motion, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, and we filed another motion to dismiss," the Company said. In August 2014, the District Court dismissed the fraud claim as well as plaintiff's requests for injunctive and declaratory relief, but granted plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint alleged breach of contract, bad faith, fraud, and violation of Business and Professions Code 17200 on behalf of a nationwide class of insureds who were issued long-term care policies containing an inflation protection feature. "In October 2014, we answered the second amended complaint," the Company said. In December 2014, the court ordered plaintiff to show cause why he was an adequate representative with claims typical of the putative class. "We are awaiting the court's ruling on this issue," the Company said. In March 2015, the court permitted the plaintiff to file a third amended complaint entitled Michael Don, Executor of The Estate of Ruben Don, Leroy Little, by and through his Guardian ad Litem Tamara Pelham, and Carolyn Little v. Unum Group, and Unum Life Insurance Company of America. The complaint alleges breach of contract, bad faith, fraud, and violation of Business and Professions Code 17200 and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of a nationwide class of insureds who were issued long- term care policies containing an inflation protection feature. "In April 2015, we answered the third amended complaint," the Company said. VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: No Response Yet in Allergan Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that defendants have not yet responded to the Complaint in the Allergan Shareholder Class Action. On December 16, 2014, Anthony Basile, filed a putative class action lawsuit against the Company, Valeant, AGMS, Pershing Square, PS Management, GP, LLC, PS Fund 1 and William A. Ackman in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Basile v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc., et al., Case No. 14-cv-02004-DOC). The complaint alleges claims on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of Allergan securities between February 25, 2014 and April 21, 2014, against all defendants asserting violations of Sections 14(e) of the Exchange Act and rules promulgated by the SEC thereunder. The complaint also alleges violations of Section 20A of the Exchange Act against Pershing Square, PS Management, GP, LLC, PS Fund 1 and William A. Ackman. The complaint seeks, among other relief, money damages, equitable relief, and attorneys' fees and costs. Defendants have not yet responded to the Complaint. The Company is reviewing these claims and intends to vigorously defend these matters. VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Bid to Dismiss Salix Class Action Filed ---------------------------------------------------------------- Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the defendants filed motions to dismiss the Salix Shareholder Class Actions. Following the announcement of the execution of the Merger Agreement with Salix, six purported stockholder class actions were filed challenging the Salix Acquisition. All of the actions were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery, and alleged claims against some or all of the board of directors of Salix (the "Salix Board"), the Company, Salix, Valeant and Sun Merger Sub, Inc. ("Sun Merger Sub"). On March 17, 2015, the Court consolidated the actions under the caption In re Salix Pharmaceuticals Shareholder Litigation (Court No. 10721-CB), and designated the complaint in one action to be the operative complaint. The operative complaint alleges generally that the members of the Salix Board breached their fiduciary duties to stockholders and that the other defendants aided and abetted such breaches, by seeking to sell Salix through an inadequate sale process and for inadequate consideration and by agreeing to allegedly preclusive deal protections. The complaint also alleges that the Form 14d-9 filed by Salix in connection with the Salix Acquisition contained inaccurate or materially misleading information about, among other things, the Salix Acquisition and the sales process leading up to the Merger Agreement. The complaint seeks, among other things, injunctive relief, including enjoining the proposed transaction, and unspecified attorneys' and other fees and costs. On April 1, 2015, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the action. Those motions remain pending. The Company is vigorously defending this matter. VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Bid to Dismiss Solodyn Case Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that oral argument on the Defendants' motion to dismiss was held on March 12, 2015 and a decision is currently pending in the Solodyn(R) Antitrust Class Actions. On July 22, 2013, United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1776 & Participating Employers Health and Welfare Fund, filed a civil antitrust class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Case No. 2:13-CV- 04235-JCJ, against Medicis, the Company and various manufacturers of generic forms of Solodyn(R), alleging that the defendants engaged in an anticompetitive scheme to exclude competition from the market for minocycline hydrochloride extended release tablets, a prescription drug for the treatment of acne marketed by Medicis under the brand name, Solodyn(R). The plaintiff further alleges that the defendants orchestrated a scheme to improperly restrain trade, and maintain, extend and abuse Medicis' alleged monopoly power in the market for minocycline hydrochloride extended release tablets to the detriment of plaintiff and the putative class of end-payor purchasers it seeks to represent, causing them to pay overcharges. Plaintiff alleges violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 1, 2, and of various state antitrust and consumer protection laws, and further alleges that defendants have been unjustly enriched through their alleged conduct. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and, where applicable, treble, multiple, punitive and/or other damages, including attorneys' fees. Additional class action complaints making similar allegations against all defendants, including Medicis and the Company have been filed in various courts by other private plaintiffs purporting to represent certain classes of similarly-situated direct or end-payor purchasers of Solodyn(R) (Rochester Drug Co- Operative, Inc., Case No. 2:13-CV-04270-JCJ (E.D. Pa. filed July 23, 2013); Local 274 Health & Welfare Fund, Case No. 2:13-CV-4642- JCJ (E.D.Pa. filed Aug. 9, 2013); Sheet Metal Workers Local No. 25 Health & Welfare Fund, Case No. 2:13-CV-4659-JCJ (E.D. Pa. filed Aug. 8, 2013); Fraternal Order of Police, Fort Lauderdale Lodge 31, Insurance Trust Fund, Case No. 2:13-CV-5021-JCJ (E.D. Pa. filed Aug. 27, 2013); Heather Morgan, Case No. 2:13-CV-05097 (E.D. Pa. filed Aug. 29, 2013); Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 176 Health & Welfare Trust Fund, Case No. 2:13-CV-05105 (E.D. Pa. filed Aug. 30, 2013); Ahold USA, Inc., Case No. 1:13-cv-12225 (D. Mass. filed Sept. 9, 2013); City of Providence, Rhode Island, Case No. 2:13- cv-01952 (D. Ariz. filed Sept. 24, 2013); International Union of Operating Engineers Stationary Engineers Local 39 Health & Welfare Trust Fund, Case No. 1:13-cv-12435 (D. Mass. filed Oct. 2, 2013); Painters District Council No. 30 Health and Welfare Fund et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-12517 (D. Mass. filed Oct. 7, 2013); Man-U Service Contract Trust Fund, Case No. 13-cv-06266-JCJ (E.D. Pa. filed Oct. 25, 2013)). On August 29, 2013, International Union of Operating Engineers Local 132 Health and Welfare Fund voluntarily dismissed the class action complaint it had originally filed on August 1, 2013, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, and on August 30, 2013, re-filed its class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Case No. 2:13-cv-05108). The International Union of Operating Engineers Local 132 Health and Welfare Fund complaint makes similar allegations against all defendants, including Medicis and the Company, and seeks similar relief, to the other end-payor plaintiff complaints. On February 25, 2014, on a motion by Medicis and the Company, the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") ordered that the cases pending outside the District of Massachusetts be transferred to the District of Massachusetts, with the consent of that court, for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with the actions already pending in that district. The Multi- District Litigation ("MDL"), captioned In re Solodyn (Minocycline Hydrochloride) Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:14-md-02503-DJC, is now pending before U.S. District Judge Denise Casper. Two additional end-payor actions have been filed in the District of Massachusetts since the February 25th centralization order: Allied Services Division Welfare Fund, Case No. 1:14-cv-10786 (D. Mass. filed Mar. 14, 2014); and NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust Fund, Case No. 1:14-cv-11015 (D. Mass. filed Mar. 19, 2014). These cases have been included in the pending MDL. On September 12, 2014, the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs and the End-Payor Plaintiffs each filed a consolidated amended class action complaint. The Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs, with the Defendants' consent, subsequently filed a corrected amended complaint on September 22, 2014. On November 24, 2014, the Defendants jointly moved to dismiss the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs' and the End Payor Plaintiffs' complaints. Oral argument on the Defendants' motion was held on March 12, 2015 and a decision is currently pending. On March 26, 2015, and on April 6, 2015, two additional non-class action complaints were filed against Medicis in the Middle District of Pennsylvania by purported direct purchasers of Solodyn, making similar allegations and seeking similar relief to that sought in the other direct purchaser plaintiff complaints (Walgreen Co., et al. v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp.. No. 1:15- cv-00611-YK (M.D. Pa. filed March 26, 2015); Rite Aid Corp., et al. v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp., No. 1:15-cv-00673-YK (M.D. Pa. filed April 6, 2015)). On April 8, 2015, the JPML transferred the Walgreen complaint to the District of Massachusetts, where it is now included in the MDL. The Company intends to vigorously defend these actions. VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: June 22 Cert. Hearing in Afexa Case ------------------------------------------------------------ Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that a date for the certification hearing has been tentatively scheduled for June 22, 2015, in the Afexa Class Action. On March 9, 2012, a Notice of Civil Claim was filed in the Supreme Court of British Columbia which seeks an order certifying a proposed class proceeding against the Company and a predecessor, Afexa (Case No. NEW-S-S-140954). The proposed claim asserts that Afexa and the Company made false representations respecting Cold- FX(R) to residents of British Columbia who purchased the product during the applicable period and that the proposed class has suffered damages as a result. On November 8, 2013, the Plaintiff served an amended notice of civil claim which sought to re- characterize the representation claims and broaden them from what was originally claimed. On December 8, 2014, the Company filed a motion to strike certain elements of the Plaintiff's claim for failure to state a cause of action. In response, the Plaintiff proposed further amendments to its claim. The hearing on the motion to strike and the Plaintiff's amended claim was held on February 4, 2015 and a decision is pending. A date for the certification hearing has been tentatively scheduled for June 22, 2015. The Company denies the allegations being made and is vigorously defending this matter. VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Expects Ruling on Appeals Bid ------------------------------------------------------ Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that B&L has been served or is aware that it has been named as a defendant in approximately 321 currently active product liability lawsuits (some with multiple plaintiffs) pending in a New York State Consolidated Proceeding, as well as in certain other U.S. state courts, on behalf of individuals who claim they suffered personal injury as a result of using a contact lens solution with MoistureLoc(TM). Two consolidated cases were established to handle MoistureLoc(TM) claims. First, on August 14, 2006, the Federal Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation created a coordinated proceeding in the Federal District Court for the District of South Carolina. Second, on January 2, 2007, the New York State Litigation Coordinating Panel ordered the consolidation of cases filed in New York State, and assigned the coordination responsibilities to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County. There are approximately 320 currently active non- fusarium cases pending in the New York Consolidated Proceeding. On July 15, 2009, the New York State Supreme Court overseeing the New York Consolidated Proceeding granted B&L's motion to exclude plaintiffs' general causation testimony with regard to non- fusarium infections, which effectively excluded plaintiffs from testifying that MoistureLoc(TM) caused non-fusarium infections. On September 15, 2011, the New York State Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the Trial Court's ruling. On February 7, 2012, the New York Court of Appeals denied plaintiffs' additional appeal. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion to renew the trial court's ruling, and B&L cross-filed a motion for summary judgment to dismiss all remaining claims. On May 31, 2013, the Trial Court denied Plaintiffs' motion to renew, and granted B&L's motion for summary judgment, dismissing all remaining non-fusarium claims. On June 28, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the Trial Court's ruling. The appeal was argued January 20, 2015. The Court issued its decision on February 10, 2015, denying plaintiffs' appeal to renew and affirming the lower court's decision granting B&L's motion for summary judgment regarding all remaining non- fusarium claims. On March 10, 2015, the plaintiffs filed their motion for leave to appeal this decision and B&L filed its opposition on March 26, 2015. A decision was expected on the motion for leave to appeal by the end of May 2015. All matters under jurisdiction of the coordinated proceedings in the Federal District Court for the District of South Carolina have been dismissed, including individual actions for personal injury and a class action purporting to represent a class of consumers who suffered economic claims as a result of purchasing a contact lens solution with MoistureLoc(TM). VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: B&L Settled 630 MoistureLoc Case --------------------------------------------------------- Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that B&L has settled approximately 630 cases in connection with MoistureLoc(TM) product liability suits. All U.S.-based fusarium claims have now been resolved and there are two active fusarium claims involving claimants outside of the United States that remain pending. The parties in these active matters are involved in settlement discussions. VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Salix Securities Litigation Dismissed -------------------------------------------------------------- Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that beginning on November 7, 2014, three putative class action lawsuits were filed by shareholders of Salix, each of which generally alleges that Salix and certain of its former officers and directors violated federal securities laws in connection with Salix's disclosures regarding certain products, including with respect to disclosures concerning historic wholesaler inventory levels, business prospects and demand, reserves and internal controls. Two of these actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, and are captioned: Woburn Retirement System v. Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd., et al. (Case No: 1:14-CV-08925 (KMW)), and Bruyn v. Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd., et al. (Case No. 1:14-CV-09226 (KMW)). These two actions have been consolidated and an initial schedule has been set. Salix and the Company are vigorously defending this consolidated matter. A third action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina under the caption Grignon v. Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. et al. (Case No. 5:14-cv- 00804-D), but was subsequently voluntarily dismissed. VERIZON WIRELESS: Settles "Cramming" Allegations for $158-Mil. -------------------------------------------------------------- Kevin McCoy, writing for USA Today, reported that Verizon Wireless and Sprint will pay $158 million collectively to settle allegations the wireless carriers billed customers millions of dollars for unauthorized text-messaging subscription services, authorities announced. The settlements mark the latest government enforcement action over the alleged practice known as cramming. Verizon and Sprint allegedly charged customers 99 cents to $14 per month for premium text-messaging services -- such as horoscopes, trivia, sports scores and other data many consumers neither requested nor approved. Most consumers were targeted online as they clicked on ads that led them to websites where they were asked to enter their cellphone numbers. Some of the third-party text-messaging providers allegedly tricked consumers into providing their cellphone numbers to receive "free" digital content that instead resulted in extra charges. Verizon kept 30% or more of each third-party charge it billed, while Sprint received approximately 35% of collected revenue for the charges, the Federal Communications Commission and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau said. "Consumers rightfully expect their monthly phone bills will reflect only those services that they's purchased," Travis LeBlanc, head of the FCC's enforcement bureau, said in a statement about the settlements announced by the federal regulators and attorneys general of all 50 states and the District of Columbia. "Settlements put in place strong protections that will prevent consumers from being victimized by these kinds of practices in the future," LeBlanc said. At least $120 million of the penalties paid by Verizon and Sprint will be used to reimburse customers who unwittingly paid again and again for the unauthorized charges. The wireless carriers will distribute the refunds through programs supervised by the CFPB. The settlements also require Sprint and Verizon to stay out of the commercial PSMS business, the electronic platform where regulators alleged most of the mobile cramming occurred. The wireless carriers also must: * Obtain consumers' consent before billing for third-party charges and ensure customers are charged only if they have been informed about all material terms and conditions. * Give consumers an opportunity to obtain a full refund or credit for unauthorized third-party charges. * Inform customers their mobile phones can be used to pay for third-party charges, and tell the consumers how to block charges if they don't want the services. * Detail any third-party charges in a separate section of customers' mobile phone bills. VITAMIN COTTAGE: Recalls Additional Macadamia Nuts Products ----------------------------------------------------------- Vitamin Cottage Natural Food Markets Inc., a Lakewood, Colo., based natural grocery chain, is recalling additional 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. The recalled product is packaged in clear plastic bags with Natural Grocers label: UPC Code Description Packed on Dates -------- ----------- --------------- 000080657552 Raw Macadamia Nuts 10 oz. 14-328, 14-337, 14- 360, 14-365, 15-020, 15-041, 15-056, 15- 077, 15-090, 15-104, 15-127 The product was distributed to Natural Grocers' 97 stores located in Arkansas, Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, 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). Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm450676.htm WALGREEN CO: Recalls Powdered Sugar Mini Donuts ----------------------------------------------- Walgreen Co. of Deerfield, IL is recalling Nice! Powdered Sugar Mini Donuts, because it has received consumer complaints alleging that mold was observed on some products. Consumers in possession of this product should return the product to any Walgreens store for a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact the company at 1-800-925-4733. The Nice! Powdered Sugar Mini Donuts were distributed to Walgreens stores nationwide. The product comes in 11.5 oz packages and is marked with WIC number 178206 and UPC number 4902264948. Both the WIC and UPC numbers can be found near the product bar code, which is located next to the nutrition facts on the package. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm450673.htm WASHINGTON KENNEL: "Hwang" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Roy Hwang and Horace Carr, III, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Washington County Kennel Club, Incorporated d/b/a Ebro Greyhound Park & Poker Room, Case No. 5:15-cv-00128-MW-GRJ (N.D. Fla., June 8, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. Washington County Kennel Club owns and operates a casino located at 6558 Dog Track Rd, Ebro, FL 32437, United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher J. Whitelock, Esq WHITELOCK & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 300 Southeast Thirteenth Street Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Telephone: (954) 463-2001 Facsimile: (954) 463-0410 E-mail: cjw@whitelocklegal.com WELLS FARGO: Keller Rohrback Files Suit Over Deceptive Tactics -------------------------------------------------------------- Keller Rohrback L.L.P. has filed a class action lawsuit against Wells Fargo Bank (NYSE: WFC) alleging the bank victimized its customers by using illegal, fraudulent, and deceptive tactics to boost sales of its banking and financial products. Wells Fargo has recently been in the news due to allegations of unfair, unlawful, and fraudulent conduct including forcing employees to misuse customers' confidential information and refuse to close accounts even when customers complained. The complaint, filed on behalf of a California consumer and other Wells Fargo customers nationwide, includes detailed allegations about Wells Fargo's "gaming" of customers, including inside information from a current Wells Fargo employee who saw bank employees open unauthorized accounts on a "nearly daily basis." "We have heard from Wells Fargo customers in multiple states who have been charged fees or faced collection actions for accounts they did not sign up for," said Matthew Preusch, an attorney in Keller Rohrback's Santa Barbara office. Wells Fargo's practices have caused significant stress to, and hardship and financial losses for, its customers, the complaint alleges. Specifically, Wells Fargo has allegedly: (a) withdrawn money from customers' authorized accounts to pay for the fees assessed by Wells Fargo on unauthorized accounts opened in customers' names; (b) placed customers into collections when the unauthorized withdrawals from customer accounts went unpaid; (c) placed derogatory information in credit reports when unauthorized fees went unpaid; (d) denied customers access to their funds while Wells Fargo stockpiled account applications; and (e) caused customers to purchase identity theft protection. "As a result of its deceptive and illegal practices, Wells Fargo has engineered a fee-generating machine that produces extraordinary profits for the corporation at the significant expense of its customers," the complaint says. The class action complaint comes after a separate lawsuit against the bank by the Los Angeles City Attorney. The City Attorney is warning customers to scrutinize their bank statements and pay extra attention to online accounts. Customers should also review bank statements for suspicious withdrawals ranging from $25 to $100, the same amounts needed to open a Wells Fargo checking or savings account. If you are concerned about suspicious withdrawals or activities related to one or more of your Wells Fargo accounts, please contact attorney Gretchen Freeman Cappio at (800) 776-6044 or via email at consumer@kellerrohrback.com. The case is Jabbari v. Wells Fargo & Company and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., in the Northern District of California. A copy of the complaint is available at krcomplexlit.com. Keller Rohrback L.L.P., with offices in Seattle, Phoenix, New York, and Santa Barbara, serves as lead and co-lead counsel in class actions throughout the country. Our Complex Litigation Group is proud to offer its expertise to clients nationwide, and our trial lawyers have obtained judgments and settlements on behalf of clients in excess of seven billion dollars. The firm may be reached at: Matthew Preusch, Esq. Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq. Keller Rohrback L.L.P. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 623-1900 Facsimile:(206) 623-3384 Email: mpreusch@kellerrohrback.com gcappio@kellerrohrback.com WINSTON RETAIL: Removed "Sartore" Class Suit to S.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit entitled Jenny Sartore and Shanna Ferguson, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated and aggrieved v. Winston Retail Solutions, LLC and Does 1 through 25, Case No. 37-02013-00046851-CU-OE-CTL, was removed from the Superior Court, San Diego County, Central Division to the U.S. District Court Southern District of California (San Diego). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-01273-AJB-BLM to the proceeding. The Plaintiff is represented by: Diane Elizabeth Richard, Esq. GRAHAMHOLLIS, APC 3555 Fifth Street San Diego, CA 92103 Telephone: (619) 692-0080 Facsimile: (619) 692-0822 E-mail: drichard@robbinsarroyo.com The Defendant is represented by: Michael S. Kun, Esq. EPSTEIN, BECKER & GREEN, PC 1925 Century Park East, Suite 500 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2506 Telephone: (310) 556-8861 Facsimile: (310) 553-2165 E-mail: cemail@ebglaw.com WORLD FUEL: ME District Court Stayed Transferred Cases ------------------------------------------------------ World Fuel Services Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the ME District Court entered an amended consent order staying proceedings in the transferred cases pending the appeal and allowing plaintiffs to file additional cases. The Company said, "We, on behalf of DPTS Marketing, LLC ("DPM"), a crude oil marketing joint venture in which we owned a 50% membership interest, purchased crude oil from various producers in the Bakken region of North Dakota. Dakota Petroleum Transport Solutions, LLC ("DPTS"), a crude oil transloading joint venture in which we also owned a 50% membership interest, arranged for the transloading of the crude oil for DPM into tank cars at the joint venture's facility in New Town, North Dakota. We leased the tank cars used in the transloading from a number of third party lessors and subleased these tank cars to DPM. We, on behalf of DPM, contracted with Canadian Pacific Railway ("CPR") for the transportation of the tank cars and the crude oil from New Town, North Dakota to a customer in New Brunswick, Canada. CPR subcontracted a portion of that route to Montreal, Maine and Atlantic Railway ("MMA"). On July 6, 2013, the freight train operated by MMA with tank cars carrying approximately 50,000 barrels of crude oil derailed in Lac-M‚gantic, Quebec. The derailment resulted in significant loss of life, damage to the environment from spilled crude oil and extensive property damage." "In 2013, we, certain of our subsidiaries, DPM and DPTS, along with a number of third parties, including MMA and certain of its affiliates, as well as several manufacturers and lessors of tank cars, were named as defendants in twenty complaints filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. The complaints generally allege wrongful death and negligence in the failure to provide for the proper and safe transportation of crude oil and seek economic and compensatory damages, as well as costs. The actions were removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the "IL District Court") and subsequently reassigned to a single judge in the IL District Court (other than one action that was remanded to state court prior to reassignment and another that was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs). "The plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion to have these actions remanded to state court. We filed a motion in the United States District Court for the District of Maine (the "ME District Court"), where MMA's bankruptcy is pending, to transfer all of these actions to that court. On March 21, 2014, the ME District Court granted the transfer motion. On April 4, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the order granting the transfer motion and a motion requesting the ME District Court abstain from exercising jurisdiction over the cases. The motion for reconsideration was denied and the motion for abstention remains pending. On May 1, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a notice stating their intention to appeal the order granting the transfer motion to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. On June 17, 2014, the ME District Court entered a consent order staying proceedings in the transferred cases pending the appeal. On November 11, 2014, the Trustee for MMA's U.S. bankruptcy estate (the "Trustee") and plaintiffs moved to amend the consent order staying proceedings in the transferred cases to allow plaintiffs to file additional cases in other jurisdictions. On March 23, 2015, the ME District Court entered an amended consent order staying proceedings in the transferred cases pending the appeal and allowing plaintiffs to file additional cases. We believe the plaintiffs' claims against us, certain of our subsidiaries, DPM and DPTS are without merit and intend to vigorously defend against such claims and pursue any and all defenses available." WORLD FUEL: Stay Lifted for Non-Settling Defendants in Train Case ----------------------------------------------------------------- World Fuel Services Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the stay was lifted in respect of all non-settling defendants. The Company said, "In 2013, we, certain of our subsidiaries, DPM and DPTS, along with a number of other third parties, including CPR, MMA and certain of its affiliates, several manufacturers and lessors of tank cars, as well as the intended purchaser and certain suppliers of the crude oil, were named as defendants in a motion filed in Quebec Superior Court to authorize the bringing of a class-action lawsuit seeking economic, compensatory and punitive damages, as well as costs. The motion generally alleges wrongful death and negligence in the failure to provide for the proper and safe transportation of crude oil. On February 24, 2015, the Superior Court of Quebec issued an order staying the class action proceedings in light of settlement agreements reached by several defendants with the Trustee and the monitor in MMA's Canadian bankruptcy (the "Monitor"). On March 20, 2015, by terms of the order dated February 24, 2015, the stay was lifted in respect of all non-settling defendants, including us. We believe these claims against us, certain of our subsidiaries, DPM and DPTS are without merit and intend to vigorously defend against such claims and pursue any and all defenses available." WORLDWIDE TRANSPORTATION: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Misael Carrizo, and other similarly situated individuals v. Worldwide Transportation Services, Inc. and Ali A. Malek, Case No. 1:15-cv-22172-CMA (S.D. Fla., June 8, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants are in the business of providing corporate sedan, executive limousine, van and coach services, having their main place of business in Miami-Dade County. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ruben Martin Saenz, Esq. SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC 20900 N.E. 30th Avenue, Suite 800 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 503-5131 Facsimile: (888) 270-5549 E-mail: msaenz@saenzanderson.com XUNLEI LIMITED: Sued in Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports -------------------------------------------------------------- Christopher Shreves, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Xunlei Limited, et al., Case No. 2:15-cv- 04288 (C.D. Cal., June 8, 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. Xunlei Limited operates an internet platform for digital media content in the People's Republic of China. The Plaintiff is represented by: Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 785-2610 Facsimile: (213) 226-4684 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com YRC WORLDWIDE: Appeals Court Denied Petition for Mandamus --------------------------------------------------------- YRC Worldwide Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Court of Appeals denied plaintiffs' petition for mandamus in the case, Bryant Holdings Securities Litigation. The Company said, "On February 7, 2011, a putative class action was filed by Bryant Holdings LLC in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas on behalf of purchasers of our common stock between April 24, 2008 and November 2, 2009, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking damages under the federal securities laws for statements and/or omissions allegedly made by us and the individual defendants during the Class Period which plaintiffs claimed to be false and misleading." "The individual defendants are former officers of our Company. No current officers or directors are named in the lawsuit. The parties participated in voluntary mediation between March 11, 2013 and April 15, 2013. The mediation resulted in the execution of a mutually acceptable settlement agreement by the parties. Substantially all of the payments contemplated by the settlement would be covered by our liability insurance. The self-insured retention on this matter has been accrued. "The settlement agreement required court approval. On August 19, 2013, November 18, 2013, and February 11, 2015, the district court denied Plaintiffs' motions for preliminary approval of the settlement. On March 4, 2015, the district court set the case for trial beginning June 6, 2016. On March 20, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, seeking an order requiring the district court to vacate the trial setting and to give further consideration to the settlement agreement. On April 28, 2015, the Court of Appeals denied plaintiffs' petition for mandamus." * Class Action Fairness Act Filings Spike ----------------------------------------- Keith Paul Bishop, writing for The National Law Review, reported that on February 18, 2005, Congress enacted the Class Action Fairness Act(CAFA), P.L. No. 109-2 (28 U.S.C. Section Section 1332(d), 1453, and 1711 - 1715). In enacting the CAFA, Congress sought to protect consumers and investors from settlements in which plaintiffs' attorneys received significant fees but class members received little or even less. In one (in)famous case, for example, an unfortunate class member incurred $91.33 in attorneys' fees to recover $2.19 on the merits. Kamilewicz v. Bank of Boston Corp., 92 F.3d 506 (7th Cir. 1996). Congress tried to address this problem by requiring, among other things, that each defendant participating in a proposed settlement serve notice on the "appropriate state official" of each state in which a class member resides and the appropriate Federal official. 28 U.S.C. Section 1715(b). Rather unhelpfully, the CAFA doesn't say what exactly the appropriate state official is to do with the notice. In 2007, then Commissioner of Corporations Preston DuFauchard issued Release 18-G to provide guidance with respect to notifying the Department of Corporations (now known as the Department of Business Oversight). Cornerstone Research recently reported that there were 63 class action settlements nationwide in 2014 while the number of CAFA notices filed with the Department was only six. Congress did not grant state officials any expanded authority or responsibilities, including the authority to enforce compliance with the CAFA. 28 U.S.C. Section 1715(f). Indeed, it would be an interesting question of federalism if Congress had purported to do so. I have not heard that the Department has ever objected to any proposed settlement and it is questionable whether it has the authority under state law to do so even if it were so inclined. Failure to serve the required notices has at least one consequence. Congress provided that a class member may refuse to comply with, and may choose not to be bound by, a settlement agreement or consent decree in a class action if the class member demonstrates that the required notice was not served. Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Corp. Continues to Defend Stearns Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rexnord Corporation continues to defend itself against numerous lawsuits alleging personal injuries arising from asbestos allegedly present in products manufactured by the Stearns division, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2015. Multiple lawsuits (with approximately 700 claimants) are pending in state or federal court in numerous jurisdictions relating to alleged personal injuries due to the alleged presence of asbestos in certain brakes and clutches previously manufactured by the Company's Stearns division and/or its predecessor owners. Invensys plc and FMC, prior owners of the Stearns business, have paid 100% of the costs to date related to the Stearns lawsuits. Similarly, the Company's Prager subsidiary is a defendant in two pending multi-defendant lawsuits relating to alleged personal injuries due to the alleged presence of asbestos in a product allegedly manufactured by Prager. Additionally, there are numerous individuals who have filed asbestos related claims against Prager; however, these claims are currently on the Texas Multi-district Litigation inactive docket. The ultimate outcome of these asbestos matters cannot presently be determined. As of March 31, 2015, the Company's insurance providers have paid 100% of the costs related to the Prager asbestos matters. The Company believes that the combination of its insurance coverage and the Invensys indemnity obligations will cover any future costs of these matters. Rexnord Corporation (Rexnord) is a multi-platform industrial company. The Company operates through two business segments: the Process & Motion Control platform and Water Management platform. The Process & Motion Control platform designs, manufactures, markets and services specified and engineered mechanical components used within systems where reliability requirements and cost of failure or downtime is high. The platform's product portfolio includes gears, couplings, industrial bearings, aerospace bearings and seals, FlatTop chain, engineered chain and conveying equipment. The Water Management platform designs, procures, manufactures and markets products that provide and enhance water quality, safety, flow control and conservation. The Water Management product portfolio includes professional grade specification drainage products, flush valves and faucet products, engineered valves and gates for the water and wastewater treatment market, and PEX piping. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Corp. Continues to Defend Falk Suits ------------------------------------------------------------- Rexnord Corporation continues to defend itself against lawsuits alleging personal injuries due to the alleged presence of asbestos in certain clutches and drives previously manufactured by The Falk Corporation, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2015. In connection with the acquisition of The Falk Corporation ("Falk"), Hamilton Sundstrand has provided the Company with indemnification against certain products-related asbestos exposure liabilities. The Company believes that, pursuant to such indemnity obligations, Hamilton Sundstrand is obligated to defend and indemnify the Company with respect to the asbestos claims, and that, with respect to these claims, such indemnity obligations are not subject to any time or dollar limitations. Falk, through its successor entity, is a defendant in multiple lawsuits pending in state or federal court in numerous jurisdictions relating to alleged personal injuries due to the alleged presence of asbestos in certain clutches and drives previously manufactured by Falk. There are approximately 50 claimants in these suits. The ultimate outcome of these lawsuits cannot presently be determined. Hamilton Sundstrand is defending the Company in these lawsuits pursuant to its indemnity obligations and has paid 100% of the costs as of March 31, 2015. Rexnord Corporation (Rexnord) is a multi-platform industrial company. The Company operates through two business segments: the Process & Motion Control platform and Water Management platform. The Process & Motion Control platform designs, manufactures, markets and services specified and engineered mechanical components used within systems where reliability requirements and cost of failure or downtime is high. The platform's product portfolio includes gears, couplings, industrial bearings, aerospace bearings and seals, FlatTop chain, engineered chain and conveying equipment. The Water Management platform designs, procures, manufactures and markets products that provide and enhance water quality, safety, flow control and conservation. The Water Management product portfolio includes professional grade specification drainage products, flush valves and faucet products, engineered valves and gates for the water and wastewater treatment market, and PEX piping. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Corp.'s Zurn Unit Has 7,000 PI Suits ------------------------------------------------------------- Rexnord Corporation's subsidiary, Zurn, is a defendant in approximately 7,000 personal injury asbestos-related lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2015. Certain Water Management subsidiaries are also subject to asbestos litigation. As of March 31, 2015, Zurn and numerous other unrelated companies were defendants in approximately 7,000 asbestos related lawsuits representing approximately 21,000 claims. Thr Plaintiffs' claims allege personal injuries caused by exposure to asbestos used primarily in industrial boilers formerly manufactured by a segment of Zurn. Zurn did not manufacture asbestos or asbestos components. Instead, Zurn purchased them from suppliers. These claims are being handled pursuant to a defense strategy funded by insurers. As of March 31, 2015, the Company estimates the potential liability for the asbestos-related claims as well as the claims expected to be filed in the next ten years to be approximately $35.0 million of which Zurn expects its insurance carriers to pay approximately $27.0 million in the next ten years on such claims, with the balance of the estimated liability being paid in subsequent years. The $35.0 million was developed based on an actuarial study and represents the projected indemnity payout for claims filed in the next ten years. However, there are inherent uncertainties involved in estimating the number of future asbestos claims, future settlement costs, and the effectiveness of defense strategies and settlement initiatives. As a result, actual liability could differ from the estimate. Further, while this current asbestos liability is based on an estimate of claims through the next ten years, such liability may continue beyond that time frame, and such liability could be substantial. Management estimates that its available insurance to cover this potential asbestos liability as of March 31, 2015, is approximately $248.1 million, and believes that all current claims are covered by insurance. However, principally as a result of the past insolvency of certain of the Company's insurance carriers, certain coverage gaps will exist if and after the Company's other carriers have paid the first $172.1 million of aggregate liabilities. As of March 31, 2015, the Company had a recorded receivable from its insurance carriers of $35.0 million, which corresponds to the amount of this potential asbestos liability that is covered by available insurance and is currently determined to be probable of recovery. However, there is no assurance that $248.1 million of insurance coverage will ultimately be available or that this asbestos liability will not ultimately exceed $248.1 million. Factors that could cause a decrease in the amount of available coverage include: changes in law governing the policies, potential disputes with the carriers regarding the scope of coverage, and insolvencies of one or more of the Company's carriers. Rexnord Corporation (Rexnord) is a multi-platform industrial company. The Company operates through two business segments: the Process & Motion Control platform and Water Management platform. The Process & Motion Control platform designs, manufactures, markets and services specified and engineered mechanical components used within systems where reliability requirements and cost of failure or downtime is high. The platform's product portfolio includes gears, couplings, industrial bearings, aerospace bearings and seals, FlatTop chain, engineered chain and conveying equipment. The Water Management platform designs, procures, manufactures and markets products that provide and enhance water quality, safety, flow control and conservation. The Water Management product portfolio includes professional grade specification drainage products, flush valves and faucet products, engineered valves and gates for the water and wastewater treatment market, and PEX piping. ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Savoie" Suit Remanded to Louisiana State Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Carl J. Barbier of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, in an order and reasons dated June 8, 2015, remanded to the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana, the asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit styled LORITA M. SAVOIE v. PENNSYLVANIA GENERAL INSURANCE CO., ET AL., Section: J (3), Civil Action No. 15-1220 (E.D. La.), agreeing with the plaintiff that removal is not proper pursuant to the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act. A full-text copy of Judge Barbier's Decision is available at http://is.gd/AIjtyffrom Leagle.com. Lorita M Savoie, Plaintiff, represented by Gerolyn Petit Roussel, Roussel & Clement, Jonathan Brett Clement, Roussel & Clement, Lauren Roussel Clement, Roussel & Clement & Perry Joseph Roussel, Jr., Roussel & Clement. Marcia Savoie Medlin, Plaintiff, represented by Gerolyn Petit Roussel, Roussel & Clement, Jonathan Brett Clement, Roussel & Clement, Lauren Roussel Clement, Roussel & Clement & Perry Joseph Roussel, Jr., Roussel & Clement. Craig M Savoie, Plaintiff, represented by Gerolyn Petit Roussel, Roussel & Clement, Jonathan Brett Clement, Roussel & Clement, Lauren Roussel Clement, Roussel & Clement & Perry Joseph Roussel, Jr., Roussel & Clement. Tania Savoie Alexander, Plaintiff, represented by Gerolyn Petit Roussel, Roussel & Clement, Jonathan Brett Clement, Roussel & Clement, Lauren Roussel Clement, Roussel & Clement & Perry Joseph Roussel, Jr., Roussel & Clement. Rodney A Savoie, Plaintiff, represented by Gerolyn Petit Roussel, Roussel & Clement, Jonathan Brett Clement, Roussel & Clement, Lauren Roussel Clement, Roussel & Clement & Perry Joseph Roussel, Jr., Roussel & Clement. Greta Savoie Boudoin, Plaintiff, represented by Gerolyn Petit Roussel, Roussel & Clement, Jonathan Brett Clement, Roussel & Clement, Lauren Roussel Clement, Roussel & Clement & Perry Joseph Roussel, Jr., Roussel & Clement. Dale J Savoie, Plaintiff, represented by Gerolyn Petit Roussel, Roussel & Clement, Jonathan Brett Clement, Roussel & Clement, Lauren Roussel Clement, Roussel & Clement & Perry Joseph Roussel, Jr., Roussel & Clement. Joseph B. Savoie, Jr., also known as Blaine Joseph Savoie, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Gerolyn Petit Roussel, Roussel & Clement, Benjamin Peter Dinehart, Roussel & Clement, Dylan A. Wade, Roussel & Clement, Jonathan Brett Clement, Roussel & Clement, Lauren Roussel Clement, Roussel & Clement & Perry Joseph Roussel, Jr., Roussel & Clement. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated, formerly known as Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding, Inc. formerly known as Northrop Grumman Ship Systems, Inc. formerly known as Avondale Industries, Inc. formerly known as Avondale Shipyards, Inc. formerly known as Avondale Marine Ways, Inc., Defendant, Third Party Plaintiff, Cross Claimant, represented by Gary Allen Lee, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Daphne M. Lancaster, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Michael Kevin Powell, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP & Richard Marshall Perles, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP. Albert L Bossier, Jr, Defendant, Third Party Plaintiff, Cross Claimant, represented by Gary Allen Lee, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Daphne M. Lancaster, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Michael Kevin Powell, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP & Richard Marshall Perles, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP. J Melton Garrett, Defendant, Third Party Plaintiff, Cross Claimant, represented by Gary Allen Lee, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Daphne M. Lancaster, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Michael Kevin Powell, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP & Richard Marshall Perles, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP. OneBeacon America Insurance Company, as Successor to Commercial Union Insurance Company and Employers Commercial Union Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Samuel Milton Rosamond, III, Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC, Adam Devlin deMahy, Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC & Angela J. O'Brien, Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC. Pennsylvania General Insurance Company, formerly known as American Employers Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Samuel Milton Rosamond, III, Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC, Adam Devlin deMahy, Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC & Angela J. O'Brien, Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC. Foster Wheeler LLC, formerly known as Foster-Wheeler Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by John Joseph Hainkel, III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot L.L.C., James H. Brown, Jr., Frilot L.L.C., Meredith K. Keenan, Frilot L.L.C., Peter R. Tafaro, Frilot L.L.C. & Rebecca Abbott Zotti, Frilot L.L.C.. General Electric Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by John Joseph Hainkel, III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot L.L.C., James H. Brown, Jr., Frilot L.L.C., Meredith K. Keenan, Frilot L.L.C., Peter R. Tafaro, Frilot L.L.C. & Rebecca Abbott Zotti, Frilot L.L.C.. Hopeman Brothers, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Kaye N. Courington, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Blaine Augusta Moore, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Jeffrey Matthew Burg, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Jennifer H. McLaughlin, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC & Troy Nathan Bell, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC. Owens Illinois, Inc, Defendant, represented by Walter G. Watkins, III, Forman, Perry, Watkins, Krutz & Tardy, LLP, Forrest Ren Wilkes, Forman, Perry, Watkins, Krutz & Tardy, LLP & Mary Reeves Arthur, Forman, Perry, Watkins, Krutz, LLP. Reilly-Benton Company, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Thomas L. Cougill, Willingham Fultz & Cougill, Jamie M Zanovec, Willingham, Fultz & Cougill, Jeanette Seraile- Riggins, Willingham Fultz & Cougill & Jennifer D. Zajac, Willingham Fultz & Cougill. Travelers Indemnity Company, formerly known as Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, Defendant, represented by Kristopher T. Wilson, Lugenbuhl, Wheaton, Peck, Rankin & Hubbard & Travis Brendon Wilkinson, Lugenbuhl, Wheaton, Peck, Rankin & Hubbard. Taylor-Seidenbach, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Christopher Kelly Lightfoot, Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale, Anne Elizabeth Medo, Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale, Edward J. Lassus, Jr., Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale & Richard J. Garvey, Jr., Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale. Uniroyal, Inc., Defendant, represented by Forrest Ren Wilkes, Forman, Perry, Watkins, Krutz & Tardy, LLP. CBS Corporation, formerly known as Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by John Joseph Hainkel, III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot L.L.C., James H. Brown, Jr., Frilot L.L.C., Meredith K. Keenan, Frilot L.L.C., Peter R. Tafaro, Frilot L.L.C. & Rebecca Abbott Zotti, Frilot L.L.C.. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Third Party Defendant, represented by Kaye N. Courington, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Blaine Augusta Moore, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Jeffrey Matthew Burg, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Jennifer H. McLaughlin, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC & Mathilde Villere Semmes, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC. International Paper Company, Third Party Defendant, represented by Walter G. Watkins, III, Forman, Perry, Watkins, Krutz & Tardy, LLP, Jason K. Elam, Forman, Perry, Watkins, Krutz & Tardy, LLP & Mary Reeves Arthur, Forman, Perry, Watkins, Krutz, LLP. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, as the insurer of Wayne Manufacturing Company, Hopeman Brothers, Inc., Charles N. Johnson, Jr., and Bertram C. Hopeman, Third Party Defendant, represented by Kaye N. Courington, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Blaine Augusta Moore, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Jeffrey Matthew Burg, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Jennifer H. McLaughlin, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Mathilde Villere Semmes, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC & Troy Nathan Bell, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC. 3M Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Sophia L. Lauricella, Esq. -- llawrence@thompsoncoe.com -- Thompson, Coe, Cousins & Irons, LLP. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 7th Cir. Junks Inmate's Dismissal Order Appeal --------------------------------------------------------------- Larry Oruta purported to bring a class-action lawsuit on behalf of himself and one other, raising disparate allegations in which he alludes to deficiencies in state proceedings for workers' compensation, an unlawful arrest, and exposure to asbestos in county jail. The district court described the complaint as "incomprehensible," dismissed it without prejudice for failure to state a claim for relief, and identified other defects relating to Oruta's attempt to bring a class action. Oruta amended his complaint, restyling it as one under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and naming only himself as the plaintiff. The district court concluded that Oruta had not cured the deficiencies identified in its earlier order and dismissed the suit with prejudice. Oruta appeals from the dismissal of his civil complaint for failure to state a claim for relief. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, in an opinion dated June 4, 2015, dismissed the appeal, after determining that while Oruta may have fixed the issues raised by the district court, he has not articulated any reason to disturb the district court's conclusion that the allegations in his amended complaint do not give rise to any cognizable federal claim. Because Oruta fails to illuminate how his amended complaint alleges sufficient facts to state a plausible claim for relief, the Seventh Circuit said it is left with nothing to review and thus dismissed the appeal. The case is LARRY ORUTA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CONTINENTAL AIR TRANSPORT, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellees, No. 14-3782 (7th Circ.). A full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/84bKJdfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Fails in Bid to Junk "Nuutinen" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Rudolph T. Randa of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, in a decision and order dated June 9, 2015, denied a motion for summary judgment filed by defendant CBS Corporation and granted a motion for summary judgment filed by defendant John Crane, Inc., in the asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit captioned MARYBETH NUUTINEN, Individually and as Special Administrator for the Estate of Charles H. Nuutinen, deceased, Plaintiff, v. CBS CORPORATION and JOHN CRANE, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 97-C-678 (E.D. Wis.). A full-text copy of Judge Randa's Decision is available at http://is.gd/EEexMqfrom Leagle.com. Estate of Charles H Nuutinen, Plaintiff, represented by Michael P Cascino, Cascino Vaughan Law Offices Ltd & Robert G McCoy, Cascino Vaughan Law Offices Ltd. Marybeth Nuutinen, Plaintiff, represented by Michael P Cascino, Cascino Vaughan Law Offices Ltd & Robert G McCoy, Cascino Vaughan Law Offices Ltd. CBS Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Ivan A Gustafson, Esq. -- iagustafson@ewhlaw.com -- Evert Weathersby Houff, Richard M Lauth, Esq. -- rmlauth@ewhlaw.com -- Evert & Weathersby, William D Harvard, Esq. -- wdharvard@ewhlaw.com -- Evert Weathersby Houff & Roshan N Rajkumar, Esq. -- roshan.rajkumar@bowmanandbrooke.com -- Bowman and Brooke LLP. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insurers Directed to Produce Settlement Docs ------------------------------------------------------------- Following a bench trial before the Hon. Jeremiah J. Moriarty III, J.S.C., New York State Supreme Court, County of Erie, a judgment of $3 million was entered against Hedman Resources, Ltd., as damages for personal injuries, to wit, pleural mesothelioma, sustained by Paul J. Mineweaser due to asbestos exposure at his place of employment, Durez Plastics, a division of Occidental Chemical Corporation, between May and October of 1971, and pecuniary loss sustained by his spouse, Edna K. Mineweaser. Paul J. Minewaser died of complications from malignant mesothelioma immediately after the judgment was entered. An action was filed seeking payment of the state court judgment from Hedman's excess insurance carriers. The defendant excess insurance carriers disclaim any obligation to the plaintiffs on multiple grounds, including, confidential settlement agreements releasing them from all outstanding coverage obligations they may have had with Hedman. The Plaintiffs assert that the settlement agreements constitute fraudulent conveyances. The defendants filed a motion to enforce the confidentiality of the settlement agreements between the excess insurance companies and Hedman by allowing defendants to file the agreements under seal and subject to a protective order, and plaintiffs' motion to compel production of those settlement agreements. In a decision and order dated June 5, 2015, Magistrate Judge H. Kenneth Schroeder, Jr., of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York, denied the defendants motion to file the settlement agreements under seal and subject to a protective order and granted the plaintiffs' motion to compel production of those settlement agreements. Magistrate Schroeder said the settlement agreements in which Hedman and the excess insurance carriers resolved their dispute as to coverage for asbestos related claims will be relevant to, perhaps even determinative of, the Court's assessment of the merits of plaintiffs' claims against the excess insurance carriers. Yet the defendants present no compelling reason for upholding the confidentiality provisions in the settlement agreements and precluding public scrutiny of the Court's determination regarding the propriety and consequences of the settlement agreements between Hedman and the excess insurance carriers. Hedman's desire to avoid the scrutiny of the terms and conditions of the settlement of the coverage dispute does not provide a sufficient basis for sealing these documents, particularly when weighed against the fact that the settlement effectively foreclosed the ability of workers to collect damages for personal injuries caused by Hedman, Magistrate Schroeder says. The case is EDNA K. MINEWEASER, Executrix of the Estate of PAUL J. MINEWEASER, Deceased, and Individually as Surviving Spouse Plaintiffs, v. ONE BEACON AMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY, RESOLUTE MANAGEMENT INC., Administrator for ONE BEACON INSURANCE COMPANY, SEATON INSURANCE COMPANY, Individually and as Successor to UNIGUARD INSURANCE COMPANY, CONTINENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Individually and as Successor in Interest to HARBOR INSURANCE COMPANY (CNA), HARPER INSURANCE LIMITED, f/k/a TUREGUM INSURANCE COMPANY, and ASSICURAZIONI GENERALI, SPA, Defendants, No. 14-CV- 0585A(Sr) (W.D.N.Y.). A full-text copy of Magistrate Schroeder's Decision is available at http://is.gd/SPIRL9from Leagle.com. Edna K. Mineweaser, Plaintiff, represented by James J. Duggan, Duggan & Pawlowski LLP & John N. Lipsitz, Lipsitz & Ponterio, LLC. One Beacon America Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Joseph J. Schwartz, Mendes & Mount, LLP & Stephen Thomas Roberts, Mendes & Mount, LLP. Resolute Management, Inc., Defendant, represented by Joseph J. Schwartz, Mendes & Mount, LLP & Stephen Thomas Roberts, Mendes & Mount, LLP. Seaton Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Edward S. Bloomberg, Phillips Lytle LLP, Anne M. Mohan, Riker Danzig Scherer Hyland & Perretti LLP, Jonathan D. Henry, Dentons US LLP & Shawn L. Kelly, Dentons US LLP. Continental Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Joseph J. Schwartz, Mendes & Mount, LLP & Stephen Thomas Roberts, Mendes & Mount, LLP. Harper Insurance Limited, Defendant, represented by Sharon Angelino, Esq. -- sangelino@goldbergsegalla.com -- Goldberg Segalla LLP. Assicurazioni Generalli, SPA, Defendant, represented by Sharon Angelino, Goldberg Segalla LLP. Assicurazioni Generalli, SPA, ThirdParty Plaintiff, represented by Sharon Angelino, Goldberg Segalla LLP. Harper Insurance Limited, ThirdParty Plaintiff, represented by Sharon Angelino, Goldberg Segalla LLP. ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Messier" Suit Remanded to Conn. State Court ------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff George Messier filed a lawsuit in Connecticut state court against several corporate defendants, including CBS Corporation and General Electric Company for injuries arising from exposure to asbestos. On March 19, 2015, CBS filed a notice of removal in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, asserting jurisdiction under the "federal officer" removal statute, 28 U.S.C. Section 1442, on the basis of a "government contractor defense" -- specifically, that CBS and GE manufactured any allegedly injurious products under contracts with the U.S. Navy. On March 20, 2015, GE joined in the removal on the same grounds. Messier has moved to remand the case to state court. Because there has not been an adequate showing of a causal connection between Messier's lawsuit and the actions that CBS and GE took under their government contracts, the District Court ruled that is is without jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1442 and granted the motion to remand the case. The case is GEORGE MESSIER, Plaintiff, v. INGERSOLL RAND CO., et al., Defendants, No. 3:15-cv-00408 (MPS)(D. Conn.). A full-text copy of the June 1, 2015 Order penned by U.S. District Judge Michael P. Shea is available at http://is.gd/xYT5Dsfrom Leagle.com. George Messier, Plaintiff, represented by Amity L. Arscott, Embry & Neusner. CBS Corporation, formerly known as Viacom Inc. Successor CBS Corporation formerly known as Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Robert F. Martin, Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott LLC. A.W. Chesteron Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross Claimant, represented by Brian Collins Spring, Manion Gaynor & Manning, LLP-MA, Jonathan F. Tabasky, Manion Gaynor & Manning, LLP-MA & Kevin W. Hadfield, Manion Gaynor & Manning, LLP-MA. Armstrong International Inc., individually and as Successor Armstrong Machine Works, Defendant, represented by Adam C Martin, Cetrulo LLP. Aurora Pump Co, Defendant, represented by Cullen W. Guilmartin, Esq. -- cguilmartin@gordonrees.com -- Gordon & Rees LLP-CT. Bell & Gossett Co, Defendant, represented by Robert Stuart Ludlum, Esq. -- rludlum@melicklaw.com -- Melick & Porter, LLP. Crane Co., individually and/or as parent, alter ego and/or Successor Chapman Valve Company Successor Cochrane Corp. Successor Chempump Successor Crane Supply Successor Crane Pumps and Systems, Inc. Successor Jenkins Valves, Defendant, Cross Claimant, Cross Defendant, represented by Jason Kirk Henderson, Danaher Lagnese, PC & Patrick J. Glinka, Danaher, Lagnese & Sacco, P.C.. Crosby Valve, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jeffrey D. Adams, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP. Electrolux Home Products, Inc., individually and as Successor Copes-Vulcan formerly known as Vulcan Soot Blower Company, Defendant, represented by Charles K. Mone, Pierce, Davis & Perritano, LLP. Foster Wheeler, LLC, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by James R. Oswald, Adler, Pollock & Sheehan, Katharine S. Perry, Adler Pollock & Sheehan PC & Kristen R. Souza, Adler Pollock & Sheehan PC. General Electric Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Brett Michael Szczesny, Esq. -- szczesny@halloransage.com -- Halloran & Sage & Dan E. LaBelle, Esq. -- labelle@halloransage.com -- Halloran & Sage. IMO Indus Inc, Defendant, represented by Brendan T. Mahoney, Esq. -- BMahoney@uks.com -- Updike, Kelly & Spellacy, PC-Htfd. Niantic Seal Rip Inc, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Reed Adam Slatas, Adler Law Group LLC. Sepco, also known as Sealing Equip Prod Co Inc, Defendant, Cross Claimant, Cross Defendant, represented by Brendan T. Mahoney, Updike, Kelly & Spellacy, PC-Htfd. Superior Boiler Works, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by James R. Oswald, Adler, Pollock & Sheehan, Katharine S. Perry, Adler Pollock & Sheehan PC & Kristen R. Souza, Adler Pollock & Sheehan PC. Viking Pumps, Inc., Defendant, represented by Charles K. Mone, Pierce, Davis & Perritano, LLP. Weir Valves & Controls USA Inc., formerly known as Atwood & Morrill Co, Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross Claimant, represented by Jennifer Elaine Wheelock, McGivney & Kluger, P.C. & Tamar Bakhbava, McGivney & Kluger, P.C.. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment in "Jordan" Suit Affirmed ----------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeals of Louisiana, Second Circuit, in an opinion dated June 10, 2015, affirmed a trial court's summary judgment dismissing the premises liability claims against Progressive Care Center, one of the defendants against whom a wrongful death and survival action was asserted following the death of the original plaintiff, William H. Jordan, from mesothelioma. According to the Court of Appeals, Jordan's deposition, which was the main exhibit offered by PCC in support of its motion for summary judgment, shows an absence of factual support for elements essential to the plaintiffs' negligence and strict liability claims. The case is WILLIAM H. JORDAN Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THATCHER STREET, LLC, F/F/A R.F. ZIMMERMAN & COMPANY, CHRISTUS HEALTH NORTHERN LA D/B/A CHRISTUS SCHUMPERT HEALTH SYSTEM, PROGRESSIVE CARE CENTER, THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT AND THE STATE OF LOUISIANA Defendants-Appellees, No. 49,820-CA (La. App.). A full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/TS1NBtfrom Leagle.com. MARTZELL & BICKFORD, By: Scott R. Bickford, Lawrence J. Centola, III, Roshawn H. Donahue, Counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellants, William H. Jordan (deceased), Dorothy Jordan, William, H. Jordan, Jr., Ronnie Jordan, Sr. FRANK M. FERRELL, WATSON, BLANCHE, WILSON & POSNER, By: Rene J. Pfefferle, Esq. -- rpfefferle@wbwplaw.com -- Jennifer M. Durham, Esq. -- jdurham@wbwplaw.com -- Counsel for Defendants-Appellees, Progressive Care Center and Virginia Hall Nursing Home. BAKER DONELSON BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC, By: Robert S. Emmett, Paul K. Colomb, Jr., Counsel for Defendants-Appellees, Christus Health Northern LA and Christus Schumpert Health System. GRAHAM H. TODD, Counsel for Defendant-Appellee, City of Shreveport. ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Directs Co. to Supplement Appeal ---------------------------------------------------------- The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department, in a decision dated June 2, 2015, directed defendant- appellant in the case captioned IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION, Motion No. M-2344 (N.Y. App. Div.) to immediately file a supplemental appendix. A full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/3PjnTofrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Victory Carrier Dropped as Defendant in 4 Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Eduardo C. Robreno of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, issued an order on June 8, 2015, approving the stipulation between Motley Rice LLC, as counsel for certain asbestos plaintiffs, and Thompson Hine LLP, as counsel for Defendant Victory Carriers, Inc., agreeing that (1) Victory Carriers is deemed to have filed motions to dismiss based on lack of personal jurisdiction in Ohio, and (2) consistent with the Court's prior Orders dismissing Victory Carriers for lack of personal jurisdiction, the Court may enter an Order pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2), dismissing the plaintiffs' claims against Victory Carrier with respect to Civil Action No. 2:11CV30170 Bowden, Jr., Augustus, Civil Action No. 2:10CV54522 Rivera, Francisco, Civil Action No. 2:11CV32306 Spencer, Jim, and Civil Action No. 2:11CV33303 Clark, Terrill, for lack of personal jurisdiction, without prejudice and without consideration, each party to bear its own costs. The case is IN RE: ASBESTOS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (NO.VI) This document relates to all actions: In Re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation (No.: VI), Certain Plaintiffs, v. Certain Defendants, Civil Action No. MDL 875 (E.D. Pa.). A full-text copy of Judge Robreno's Decision is available at http://is.gd/lQVuQp from Leagle.com. John E. Herrick, Motley Rice LLC, Mt. Pleasant, SC, Attorney for Plaintiffs. Harold W. Henderson, Thompson Hine LLP, Cleveland, OH, Attorney for Defendant Victory Carriers, Inc. ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY App. Div. Flips Ruling in "Hockler" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department, in an opinion dated June 9, 2015, unanimously reversed an order by the Supreme Court, New York County, entered Oct. 23, 2014, which denied defendant the William Powell Company's motion for summary judgment dismissing the asbestos-related personal injury complaint captioned RYAN HOCKLER, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. THE WILLIAM POWELL COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant, 14981, 190235/13 (N.Y. App. Div.), after determining that, even assuming Powell's valves were defectively designed, the plaintiff's injuries did not result from their intended or unintended but reasonably foreseeable use. A full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/tpa0d7from Leagle.com. Clemente Mueller, PA, New York (William F. Mueller, Esq. -- wmueller@cm-legal.com -- of counsel), for appellant. Levy Konigsberg LLP, New York (Brendan Tully of counsel), for respondent. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Workplace Exposure Claims in 2 PI Suits Junked --------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Weyerhaeuser Company filed in two asbestos-related lawsuits separate motions for judgment on the grounds that: (a) the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin has dismissed similar claims premised solely on workplace exposure and (b) the time -- as set in the MDL court -- for amending complaints has passed, precluding the plaintiffs from now claiming the kind of community exposure on which other asbestos plaintiffs have been allowed to proceed. The two plaintiffs move for leave to file second amended complaints, containing allegations of community exposure. In an opinion and order dated June 2, 2015, U.S. District Judge William M. Conley granted in part and denied in part Weyerhaeuser's motion for judgment on the pleadings. Weyerhaeuser's motion is granted with respect to any claim based on workplace exposure, but denied in all other respects. Judge Conley granted the plaintiffs' motions for leave to amend their respective complaints. The cases are BRIAN HECKEL, individually and as special administrator for the purposes of this lawsuit on behalf of Sharon Heckel, Plaintiff, v. 3M COMPANY, CBS CORP., GENERAL ELECTRIC CO., METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, OWENS-ILLINOIS INC., and WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, Defendants. DIANNE JACOBS, individually and as special administrator for the purposes of this lawsuit on behalf of Rita Treutel, Plaintiff, v. OWENS-ILLINOIS INC., RAPID AMERICAN CORPORATION, and WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, Defendants, RAPID AMERICAN CORPORATION, Cross-claimant, v. OWENS-ILLINOIS INC. and WEYERHAEUSER, Nos. 13-cv-459-wmc, 12-cv-899-wmc (W.D. Wis.). A full-text copy of Judge Conley's Decision is available at http://is.gd/QKALGEfrom Leagle.com. Brian Heckel, Plaintiff, represented by Michael P. Cascino, Cascino Vaughan Law Offices, Ltd. & Robert G. McCoy, Cascino Vaughan Law Offices, Ltd.. 3M Company, Defendant, represented by Edward J. McCambridge, Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney, Ltd., Emily Zapotocny, Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney, Ltd. & Bradley R. Bultman, Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney, Ltd.. CBS Corporation, Defendant, represented by Roshan Nicholas Rajkumar, Bowman and Brooke, LLP. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by William P. Croke, von Briesen & Roper, s.c.. Owens-Illinois Inc., Defendant, represented by Brian O'Connor Watson, Schiff Hardin LLP, Edward M. Casmere, Schiff Hardin, LLP & Matthew John Fischer, Schiff Hardin LLP. Weyerhaeuser Company, Defendant, represented by Joshua J. Metcalf, Forman Watkins Krutz & Tardy, LLP, Mark S. DesRochers, DesRochers Law Offices, LLC, Ruth F. Maron, Forman Watkins Krutz & Tardy, LLP & Tanya D. Ellis, Forman Watkins Krutz & Tardy, LLP. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Childhood Exposure Claims Allowed to Proceed ------------------------------------------------------------- In two asbestos-related cases, the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin previously dismissed the plaintiffs' claims against defendant Owens-Illinois, Co., based on a patent licensing theory, finding that those claims failed as a matter of law, but allowing the plaintiffs to re-plead any claims premised on Owens-Illinois' sale of asbestos door cores provided it could plead in good faith that the individual plaintiffs came into contact with those door cores. After submitting proposed amended complaints and motions for reconsideration, the court allowed certain plaintiffs in other related cases to proceed on claims against Owens-Illinois on the basis that those plaintiffs worked at Roddis, Weyerhaeuser's predecessor, during the time in which Owens-Illinois sold its Kaylo core to Roddis. Unfortunately for the plaintiffs in the two asbestos case, that ruling was of no help since none of them worked at Weyerhaeuser until well after Owens-Illinois ceased manufacturing the doors at issue. Before the court now is a second motion for reconsideration from plaintiffs Masephol and the Boyers, however, contending that the court erred in dismissing their claims against Owens-Illinois based on their respective allegations that "Plaintiff was exposed to Kaylo dust in the 1950s when his parents brought it home on their clothes and in their family car." U.S. District Judge William M. Conley, in an opinion and order dated June 2, 2015, granted the plaintiffs' motions and allow them to proceed on a claim against Owens-Illinois based on their childhood exposure to Kaylo dust, although the court is skeptical that an attenuated claim can survive the plaintiffs' burden of proving causation, even at the summary judgment stage. The cases are MILTON BOYER and KATHY BOYER, Plaintiffs, v. WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, 3M COMPANY, METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, OWEN-ILLINOIS, CO., Defendants. RICHARD MASEPHOL, Plaintiffs, v. WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, 3M COMPANY, METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, and OWENS-ILLINOIS INC., Defendants, Nos. 14- cv-286-wmc, 14-cv-186-wmc (W.D. Wis.). A full-text copy of Judge Conley's Decision is available at http://is.gd/0mOttnfrom Leagle.com. Richard Masephol, Plaintiff, represented by Michael P. Cascino, Cascino Vaughan Law Offices, Ltd., Alyssa R. Segawa, Galiher DeRobertis Waxman, Gary Galiher, Galiher DeRobertis Waxman, James Nicholas Hoey, Cascino Vaughan Law Offices, Ltd. & Robert G. McCoy, Cascino Vaughan Law Offices, Ltd.. 3M Company, Defendant, represented by Edward J. McCambridge, Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney, Ltd., Bradley R. Bultman, Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney, Ltd., Emily Zapotocny, Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney, Ltd. & Kevin B. Brown, Thompson Coe Cousins & Irons, LLP. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Smitha Chintamaneni, von Briesen & Roper & William P. Croke, von Briesen & Roper, s.c.. Weyerhaeuser Company, Defendant, represented by Joshua J. Metcalf, Forman Watkins Krutz & Tardy, LLP, Ruth F. Maron, Forman Watkins Krutz & Tardy, LLP & Tanya D. Ellis, Forman Watkins Krutz & Tardy, LLP. Marshfield DoorSystems, Inc., Interested Party, represented by Sherry Dawn Coley, Godfrey & Kahn, S.C. & Joshua Lee Johanningmeier, Godfrey & Kahn S.C.. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Claims vs. Weyerhaeuser Partially Junked --------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Weyerhaeuser Company seeks to dismiss several asbestos plaintiffs' negligent nuisance and intentional nuisance claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Weyerhaeuser asserts several bases for dismissal. In an opinion dated June 2, 2015, Judge William M. Conley of the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin granted in part and denied in part Weyerhaeuser's motions, finding that the plaintiffs may bring their respective nuisance claims, but may not rely on the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 7401 et seq., and regulations of the Environmental Protection Agency, including the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, in establishing the applicable standard of care. In all other respects, defendant's motion is denied. The cases are MILTON BOYER and KATHY BOYER, Plaintiffs, v. WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, 3M COMPANY, METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, OWEN-ILLINOIS, CO., Defendants. RICHARD MASEPHOL, Plaintiffs, v. WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, 3M COMPANY, METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, and OWENS-ILLINOIS INC., Defendants. JANET PECHER, Individually and as Special Administrator on behalf of the Estate of Urban Pecher, Plaintiffs, v. WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, 3M COMPANY, METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, and OWENS-ILLINOIS INC., Defendants. VIRGINIA PRUST, Individually and as Special Administrator on behalf of the Estate of Valmore Prust, Plaintiff, v. WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, 3M COMPANY, METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, and OWENS-ILLINOIS INC., Defendants. ROGER SEEHAFER and JANICE SEEHAFER, Plaintiffs, v. WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY and OWENS- ILLINOIS INC., Defendants. WESLEY F. SYDOW and THERESA SYDOW, Plaintiffs, v. WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, 3M COMPANY, METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, and OWENS-ILLINOIS INC., Defendants, Nos. 14- cv-286-wmc, 14-cv-186-wmc, 14-cv-147-wmc, 14-cv-143-wmc, 14-cv- 161-wmc, 14-cv-219-wmc (W.D. Wis.). A full-text copy of Judge Conley's Decision is available at http://is.gd/KfXGDgfrom Leagle.com. Virginia Prust, Plaintiff, represented by Michael P. Cascino, Cascino Vaughan Law Offices, Ltd., James Nicholas Hoey, Cascino Vaughan Law Offices, Ltd. & Robert G. McCoy, Cascino Vaughan Law Offices, Ltd. Weyerhaeuser Company, a corporation, Defendant, represented by Joshua J. Metcalf, Forman Watkins Krutz & Tardy, LLP, Ruth F. Maron, Forman Watkins Krutz & Tardy, LLP & Tanya D. Ellis, Forman Watkins Krutz & Tardy, LLP. 3M Company, a corporation, Defendant, represented by Edward J. McCambridge, Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney, Ltd., Bradley R. Bultman, Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney, Ltd. & Emily Zapotocny, Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney, Ltd.. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, a corporation, Defendant, represented by Smitha Chintamaneni, von Briesen & Roper & William P. Croke, von Briesen & Roper, s.c.. Owens-Illinois Inc., a corporation, Defendant, represented by Brian O'Connor Watson, Schiff Hardin LLP, Edward M. Casmere, Schiff Hardin, LLP, Matthew John Fischer, Schiff Hardin LLP & Rachel Allison Remke, Schiff Hardin LLP. ********* 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 * * *