/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/150821.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, August 21, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 167 Headlines ACTIVE POWER: Settlement in "Don Lee" Case Granted Final Approval AL VERNAZ: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Repair Units' Defects ALTERA CORPORATION: Six Class Actions Consolidated AMAG PHARMACEUTICALS: Dismissal of Makena Securities Case Upheld AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Morrison" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Continues to Defend Wage and Hour Lawsuit AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Final Approval Hearing Set for September 2015 ANGIE'S LIST: Court Dismissed Securities Action in S.D. Indiana ANGIE'S LIST: "Moore" Case Can Proceed as Class Suit ASSOCIATED ESTATES: Counsel for Parties Entered Into MOU ARGENTINA: 2nd Cir. Cuts Liabilities to Bondholders BAKER HUGHES: "Rovner" Class Action Dismissed BAKER HUGHES: Settlement in FLSA Suit Has Final Approval BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: "St. John" Suit Alleges Antitrust Violation BERANKED LLC: Faces "Alan" Suit Over TCPA Violations BHB & CAFE: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Peralta" Suit Claims BOWES IN HOME: Faces "Mills" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime BRADLEY WEISTEIN: Fails to Supervise Team Members, Suit Claims BRITAX: Recalls Multiple Car Seat Models Due to Injury Risk BUMBLE BEE: Faces Pacific Suit Over Seafood Product-Price Fixing C. R. BARD: 85 Lawsuits Pending Over Hernia Products at July 1 C. R. BARD: Settles 1,500 Women's Health Product Claims C. R. BARD: 50 Filter Product Claims Pending as of July 1 CARDTRONICS USA: Illegally Charges ATM Fees, "Lansang" Suit Says CELGENE CORPORATION: Discovery Conference Scheduled for October 8 CHURCH & DWIGHT: Falsely Marketed Orajel Products, Suit Claims CLECO CORP: Seeks Dismissal of Amended Class Action Petition COPENHAGEN IMPORTS: Recalls Mix n'Match Chairs Due to Fall Hazard CORELOGIC INC: Settlement in RESPA Class Action Has Final Okay DEL TACO: Faces "Tomasulo" Class Action Lawsuit DIALMED INC: Faces "Rivas" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime DJO FINANCE: Accrued $0.2MM for Unpaid Pain Pump Suit Settlements E. I. DU PONT: 3,500 Lawsuits Pending in Ohio and West Virginia EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Motion to Decertify Class in Brady Case Pending EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Settlement Reached in Berk Case FEDERAL SIGNAL: Aug. 25 Status Hearing in Hearing Loss Litigation FIRST AMERICAN: Class Not Certified in Sager and Weber Cases FIRST FLEET: "Lopez Lugo" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations FORD MOTOR: Plaintiffs' Bid for Ohio Supreme Court Review Denied FRED DEELEY: Recalls Multiple Harley-Davidson Motorcycle Models GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Allure Models Due to Injury Risk GIVAUDAN FLAVORS: Recalls Beef Tallow Products from Australia GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Sued Over Birth Defects Caused by Zofran Drugs GRIZZLY INDUSTRIAL: Recalls 10-Inch Table Saw Products HALE & HEARTY: "Hinson" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages HARTLEY MEDICAL: Recalls Prolotherapy with Phenol Injections HIP HOP NY: "Ackerman" Suit Alleges TCPA Violations HOSPICE OF EAST TEXAS: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages HOST INTERNATIONAL: Faces "Gaite" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT IDI INC: Faces Garrett Heim Class Action in S.D. Fla. IGUANA NEW YORK: Faces "Diatta" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime IKEA CANADA: Recalls Drawer Chest Products IKEA NORTH AMERICA: Recalls Patrull Nightlight Products IMAX CORPORATION: Class Action in Canada Still Pending IMAX CORPORATION: Class Action v. IMAX Chicago Theatre Pending INTEL CORP: Hearing on Amended Class Cert. Motion Set for Nov. 6 INTEL CORP: Disputes Class Claims in McAfee Shareholder Suit INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Faces Class Suits for Divesting Business INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Continues to Face Suits in Broome County INTERNATIONAL FREIGHT: "Pinnock" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation JIM SCOTT: "McDowell" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages JING YONG: Faces "Noriega" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime JOHNSTON, R.I.: Sued Over Failure to Pay Police Officers Overtime KAPOWSIN MEATS: Recalls Whole Hogs Products Due to Salmonella KIMBERLY-CLARK: Hugies Diapers Toxic, New York Action Says KINDER MORGAN: Private Landowners in California File Action KINDER MORGAN: Oral Argument on Motion to Dismiss Occurred KINDER MORGAN: Capex Litigation Still Pending KINDER MORGAN: "Walker" Litigation Remains Stayed KOOS MANUFACTURING: Faces "Cristobal" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT LIFE TIME: Faces "Roth" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages LOGMEIN INC: Ignition Plaintiffs Filed Second Amended Complaint LOGMEIN INC: Central Plaintiffs Filed Class Action Complaint LOS ANGELES, CA: Faces "Enguist" Suit Over City Gas User Tax LOVIN' OVEN: Faces "Montgomery" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime MARRIOTT VACATIONS: Parties Agree to Dismiss "Sterman" Action MARRIOTT VACATIONS: Requests That Class Cert. Motion be Deferred MCG CAPITAL: Faces Consolidated Action Over PennantPark Merger MEDSTAR GEORGETOWN: Overcharged Medical Records, Suit Claims MERCEDES-BENZ: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models Due to Injury Risk MERCK SHARP: Recalls Bottles of Temodar(R) and Temozolomide MERGE HEALTHCARE: Sued in Del. Over Proposed IBM Corp. Merger MICHELIN: Recalls Multiple Tire Models Due to Crash Risk MICHIGAN LOGISTICS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime MICROSEMI CORPORATION: Chancery Court Entered Dismissal Order MINISTRY SAINT: Faces "Griebel" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Restraints Trade of Sunday Games, Suit Claims NELNET INC: Judge Reduced Attorney Fees in Debt Collection Suit NEW JERSEY: Governor's Aides Face New Allegations Over Bridgegate NISSAN: Recalls Micra and Versa Models Due to Crash Risk NUVASIVE INC: Motion to Dismiss Fourth Amended Complaint Pending OMNICARE INC: Elow and IBEW Actions Consolidated OMNICARE INC: Plaintiffs Seek to Revise 3rd Amended Complaint PACIFIC COAST: Defending Welch and Berliner Actions PALM MEDICAL: "Perez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages PEOPLES BANCORP: Plaintiffs File Petition to NC Appeals Court PHO MI: "Gama" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations PLEASANT HOUSE: Recalls Steak and Chicken Pie Products QUALITY SYSTEMS: Briefing on Appeal to Be Completed in Fall 2015 QUEENS ARTIFICIAL: Sued Over Failure to Provide Patient Care RAG TRADERS: Faces "Conners" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime RE & FA: Faces "Garcia" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages RITE AID: Recalls Outdoor Dining Sets Due to Injury Risk ROYAL LACE: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Campos" Suit Says SAN FRANCISCO 49ERS: Monopolized Ticket Sales, Suit Claims SENSATA TECHNOGLIES: Faces Hassett Class Action Lawsuit SIRIUS XM: Updates on Pre-1972 Sound Recording Matters SIRIUS XM: Defending Against TCPA Suits SPIRIT AIRLINES: Rosen Action Transferred to Florida SPOA INC: "Lugo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages SPS TECHNOLOGIES: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT & Penalties STANCORP INSURANCE: Being Sold Cheaply to Meiji, Suit Claims STARCRAFT: Recalls Launch Ultra Lite 2015 Models SUPERVALU INC: Defending Against Class Action Filed in Wisconsin SUPERVALU INC: Parties Appeal Magistrate Judge's Order SUPERVALU INC: Response in Customer Data Security Breach Case Due SWAGGIN WAGON: Faces "Rangel" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime TECHNOSPORT INC: Recalls Black Scuba Diving Masks TRANE US: Recalls Accessory Heaters Due to Fire Hazard TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Lawsuit by Hamilton and Macon Stayed TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Sued by Corporation of City of Stratford TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Faces La Crosse County Lawsuit TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Defending Product Liability Lawsuits TRINITY INDUSTRIES: To Defend Against Nemky and Isolde Cases U.S. MONEY RESERVE: Continue to Abuse Elders, Calif. Suit Claims UCLA HEALTH: Faces "Urnovitz" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach UNION PACIFIC: Class Certification Hearing to Begin November 2 UNITIL CORPORATION: Discovery Continuing Into 2016 VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Parties in Allergan Case Dismiss Claims VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: No Response Yet on Amended Complaint VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Salix Shareholder Suit Remains Pending VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Walgreen and Rite Aid Cases Stayed VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: New Cert. Hearing Expected in Early 2016 VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Decision Pending in Appeal VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: "Grignon" Case Voluntarily Dismissed VENTAS INC: Parties to Class Action Agreed to MOU VERISK ANALYTICS: Served With "John Weber" Class Action VERISK ANALYTICS: 2nd Circuit Court Denied Petition for Rehearing VERISK ANALYTICS: Snyder, et. al. v. ACORD Still Pending VERMEER: Recalls 2012 Brush Chipper Units Due to Injury Risk VITAL RECOVERY: "Walker" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime WAL-MART STORES: Fails to Provide Workers Seats, Verge Suit Says WASTE MANAGEMENT: Settlement of Fla. and Ala. Cases Has Final OK WASTE MANAGEMENT: Ruling by Kansas Court Currently on Appeal WEATHERFORD INTERNATIONAL: Settlement Reached in "Freedman" Case WEINBERG & ASSOCIATES: Faces Suit Over Junk Fax Violation WEST BANCORPORATION: Oral Argument Not Yet Set in Appeals WING PARTNERS: "Randall" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages XIAOQING LI: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Repair Units Defects Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Inc. Has $335-Mil. in Fibro Trust ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Inc. Has $162MM Receivable at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Inc. Had 21,000 Hercules PI Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Inc. Had $320MM Hercules Claims Reserve ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Inc.'s Hercules Had $55MM Receivable ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ensco plc Continues to Defend Fibro Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Company Has 2,150 PI Claimants at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Company Has $41-Mil. Insurance Receivable ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Company Unit Accrues $23MM Fibro Liabilities ASBESTOS UPDATE: Armstrong World PI Trust Holds 12% of Shares ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Corp. Had 424 Claims Pending at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Corp. Still Has Cost Sharing Agreement ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Inc. Has 12,500 Fibro Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: AMETEK Inc. Continues to Defend PI Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: MRC Global Has 421 Fibro Suits at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Corp. Has 47,000 Fibro Claims at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Corp. Has $758.3-Mil. Fibro Exposure ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Corp. Records $1.2B Fibro Liability ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Inc. Received $19MM for Non-PCC Cases ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Inc. Has $682MM Est. Fibro Liability ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 Cos. Dropped as Defendants in "Presley" ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Ruling in "Murat" Affirmed ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodrich's Bid to Dismiss "Galasso" Denied ASBESTOS UPDATE: Time to Appeal in NYCAL Suit Extended to Dec. ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Hayden" Suit Remanded to Louisiana State Court ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hopeman Wins Summary Judgment in "Haney" ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Fails in Bid to Junk "Gonzales" ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Footman" Consolidated with NY Inmates' Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Anderson" Jury Verdict Reversed ASBESTOS UPDATE: Couple Sues Pneumo Abex, et al., for Exposure ********* ACTIVE POWER: Settlement in "Don Lee" Case Granted Final Approval ----------------------------------------------------------------- Active Power, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a court has granted final approval of the settlement in a class action complaint on May 15, 2015. "On September 10, 2013, a purported class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas against us and certain of our former executives," the Company said. "The case was captioned Don Lee v. Active Power, Inc., et. al. (Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-00797-SS). The complaint alleged that on February 19, 2013, we reported that we had begun working with an unnamed Chinese distributor partner, and that on April 30, 2013, we announced in press releases and conference calls that we had entered into a strategic distribution partnership with Digital China. However, on September 5, 2013, after the close of trading, we disclosed that our partnership was with Qiyuan Network System Limited, which is neither an affiliate nor a subsidiary of Digital China." "The amended complaint asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and sought unspecified damages on behalf of all stockholders who purchased common stock between February 19 and September 5, 2013. "On March 7, 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss the class action complaint. Our motion was denied by the Court on July 2, 2014. On August 11, 2014, we filed an answer to the class action complaint, and on September 2, 2014, the Court declined to certify its order of July 2, 2014 for an interlocutory appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. "On September 23, 2014, we reached an agreement in principle and entered into a memorandum of understanding to settle the class action complaint. The parties to the class action signed a definitive settlement agreement on December 2, 2014, which was granted final approval by the Court on May 15, 2015. The settlement resolved for all defendants all of the issues that were pending in the class action complaint. The class action settlement resulted in a payment of $1.5 million to the settlement class, inclusive of fees and expenses. This settlement amount was paid from insurance proceeds." AL VERNAZ: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Repair Units' Defects ------------------------------------------------------------- Angel Merriman, Darren Long, Eliza Campbell, Samantha Finley, and Eural Belcher v. Al Vernaz Partners, LLC, Epic Equity LLC, Mandela Oaks, LLC, Douglas Moore, Grant Alvernaz and Does 1-20, Case No. RG15781765 (D. Cal., August 13, 2015), is brought on behalf of the tenants who suffered emotional distress, physical injury, over- payment of rent, and out-of-pocket expenses as a result of the Defendants' failure and refusal to make repairs of the habitability defects to the subject premises. The Defendants own and operate a real estate agency doing business in the County of Alameda, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Wolff, Esq. Chris Beatty, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW WOLFF, PC 1970 Broadway, Ste. 210 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 834-3300 Facsimile: (510) 834-3377 E-mail: andrew@awolfflaw.com chris@awolfflaw.com ALTERA CORPORATION: Six Class Actions Consolidated -------------------------------------------------- Altera Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 23, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 26, 2015, that six class action lawsuits related to a merger agreement have been consolidated. The Company said, "In connection with entering into the Merger Agreement, six putative class action lawsuits have been filed by purported Altera stockholders in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against our board of directors, Intel, Merger Sub, and, in some cases, Altera. The actions are captioned Sciabucchi v. Daane et al., Case No. 11108-VCG; Goldstein v. Daane et al., Case No. 11126-VCG; Reinauer v. Altera et al., Case No. 11144-VCG; Braunstein v. Daane et al., Case No. 11146-VGC; Litwin v. Daane et al., Case No. 11160-VCG; and Robinson v. Daane et al., Case No. 11165-VCG." "On June 26, 2015, these actions were consolidated as In re Altera Corp. Shareholder Litigation, Case No. 11108-VCG. The complaints allege, among other things, that members of our board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to Altera stockholders by agreeing to a transaction that does not adequately reflect Altera's true value, and that Intel, Merger Sub, and/or Altera aided and abetted the board of directors' breaches of fiduciary duties. The complaints seek to enjoin the Merger or, alternatively, seek rescission of the Merger or an award of rescissory damages." AMAG PHARMACEUTICALS: Dismissal of Makena Securities Case Upheld ---------------------------------------------------------------- AMAG Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has affirmed a court decision to dismiss the Makena Securities Litigation. During October and November 2011, three complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (the "Court") against K-V Pharmaceutical Company ("KV") (since renamed as Lumara Health) and certain individual defendants, alleging violations of the anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities laws on behalf of all purchasers of the publicly traded securities of KV between February 14, 2011 and April 4, 2011: Julianello v. K-V Pharmaceutical Co., et al. (filed October 19, 2011); Mukku v. K-V Pharmaceutical Co., et al. (filed October 31, 2011), and Cheong v. K-V Pharmaceutical Co., et al. (filed November 2, 2011). On March 8, 2012, the three cases were consolidated and the consolidated action is now styled In Re K-V Pharmaceutical Company Securities Litigation, Case No. 4:11-CV-1816-AGF. On May 4, 2012, the Court appointed Lori Anderson as the Lead Plaintiff in the matter, and an amended complaint was filed on July 24, 2012. The amended complaint alleges class members were damaged by purchasing KV stock at artificially inflated prices due to defendants' purportedly misleading statements regarding KV's exclusivity over Makena. On April 22, 2013, the individual defendants moved to dismiss the complaint and oral argument was held before the Court on November 26, 2013. KV joined in the motion to dismiss on February 10, 2014. On March 27, 2014, the Court entered an order granting defendants' motion to dismiss the class action complaint without prejudice to the plaintiff's ability to file a second amended complaint with respect to a limited issue of whether defendants' statements about Lumara Health's financial assistance program for Makena were materially false or misleading. On April 16, 2014, plaintiff filed a motion to reconsider asking the Court to reconsider its order restricting the scope of plaintiff's ability to amend its complaint. The Court denied plaintiff's motion to reconsider and entered a judgment granting defendants' motion to dismiss on June 6, 2014. On July 1, 2014, plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (the "Court of Appeals"). The Court of Appeals heard oral argument on March 12, 2015 and on July 2, 2015, affirmed the Court's decision to dismiss the case. Although the plaintiff has an opportunity to appeal, even if such an appeal were to be pursued, in accordance the Sixth Amended Joint Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization for K-V Discovery Solutions and Its Affiliated Debtors, which became effective on September 16, 2013, the recovery in this matter, if any, is limited to the extent of any insurance and/or any proceeds therefrom (excluding any self-insured retention obligation or deductible) that may provide coverage for any liability of Lumara Health for the claims asserted in this litigation. AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Morrison" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing ----------------------------------------------------------------- Larry Morrison, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., American Airlines, Inc., Southwest Airlines Co., and United Airlines, Inc., Case No. 1:15- cv-04745 (E.D.N.Y., August 13, 2015), arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful combination, agreement and conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain and artificially inflate the price of airline tickets for domestic air travel by, suppressing or otherwise restricting "capacity" across their flight routes. The Defendants operate the largest airline companies in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey S. Abraham, Esq. ABRAHAM, FRUCHTER & TWERSKY, LLP One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805 New York, NY 10119 Telephone: (212) 279-5050 Facsimile: (212) 279-3655 E-mail: jabraham@aftlaw.com AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Continues to Defend Wage and Hour Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------ American Electric Power Company, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 23, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company will continue to defend the wage and hour lawsuit. In August 2013, Public Service Company of Oklahoma or PSO received an amended complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma by 36 current and former line and warehouse employees alleging that they have been denied overtime pay in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiffs claim that they are entitled to overtime pay for "on call" time. They allege that restrictions placed on them during on call hours are burdensome enough that they are entitled to compensation for these hours as hours worked. Plaintiffs also filed a motion to conditionally certify this action as a class action, claiming there are an additional 70 individuals similarly situated to plaintiffs. Plaintiffs seek damages in the amount of unpaid overtime over a three-year period and liquidated damages in the same amount. In March 2014, the federal court granted plaintiffs' motion to conditionally certify the action as a class action. Notice was given to all potential class members and an additional 44 individuals opted in to the class, bringing the plaintiff class to 80 current and former employees. Two plaintiffs have since dismissed their claims without prejudice, leaving 78 plaintiffs. "We will continue to defend the case. We are unable to determine a range of potential losses that are reasonably possible of occurring," the Company said. AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Final Approval Hearing Set for September 2015 ---------------------------------------------------------------- American Electric Power Company, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 23, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a final approval hearing has been scheduled for September 2015 in the National Do Not Call Registry Lawsuit. In May 2014, AEP Energy was served with a complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The plaintiff alleges that he received telemarketing calls on behalf of AEP Energy despite having registered his telephone number on the National Do Not Call Registry. Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of persons who allegedly received such calls. Plaintiff seeks statutory damages under the TCPA on behalf of himself and the alleged class as well as injunctive relief. As a result of a mediation held in October 2014, the parties reached an agreement in principle, subject to final documentation and preliminary and final court approval. In April 2015, the Company filed a motion with the court for preliminary approval of the settlement. In June 2015, the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement. A final approval hearing related to this matter has been scheduled for September 2015. "We will continue to defend the case. We believe the provision we have is adequate. We are unable to determine the amount of potential additional losses that are reasonably possible of occurring," the Company said. ANGIE'S LIST: Court Dismissed Securities Action in S.D. Indiana --------------------------------------------------------------- Angie's List, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 23, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Court has granted the defendants' motion to dismiss without prejudice, in the putative securities class action litigation. Two putative securities class action complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, naming the Company and several of its current and former directors and officers as defendants. Baron v. Angie's List, Inc. et al., 1:13-cv-2032, filed on December 23, 2013, and Bartolone v. Angie's List, Inc., et al, 1:14-cv-0023, filed on January 9, 2014, allege that the defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making material misstatements in, and omitting material information from, the Company's public disclosures concerning its paid membership model. The two cases were consolidated on June 16, 2014. The Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss without prejudice on June 18, 2015. The plaintiff did not file an amended complaint within the time prescribed by the Court. ANGIE'S LIST: "Moore" Case Can Proceed as Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------- Andrew Thompson, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that Angie's List must face claims from a woman who says it suppressed negative reviews on a contractor who bilked her, a federal judge ruled. Janell Moore claims she paid the contractor, Bravo Philadelphia, $4,000 to remodel her kitchen after seeing positive reviews on Angie's List. The contractor did not finish the work and refused to refund her money, she says. After leaving a negative review for Bravo on the site, she claims she was suddenly able to see scores of negative remarks that had previously been concealed. She claims that, had she seen the reviews, she never would have hired the contractor. Moore alleges that Angie's List representatives did not cite any technological error of the site. In its membership agreement and its FAQ section, the company purports to rank service providers based solely on the reviews given by customers, not by any payment to the company, she notes. After Moore relayed the event to an electrician he knew, however, he allegedly told her that "he pays 'to be at the top' of search results." With Moore hoping to represent a class of similarly situated consumers, U.S. District Judge Stewart Dalzell found on August 7 that she has standing to proceed with her counts of fraud and unfair trade practices. The 28-page ruling says Moore's allegations and the electrician's substantiation of her suspicions "inject precision and some measure of substantiation into Moore's allegations of fraud by spelling out circumstances that contradict certain Angie's List representations, including that service providers cannot influence their ratings and that businesses do not pay to be on Angie's List." Dismissing Moore's counts of unjust enrichment and breach of contract, however, Dalzell found that the user contract made no such promises as to the validity of the reviews, and that the existence of a contract itself was sufficient to nullify the unjust enrichment claim. The case is Moore v. Angie's List, Inc., 2:15cv-01243-SD (E.D. Pa., March 11, 2015). The lawsuit seeks class action status and alleges claims of breaches of contract and covenants of good faith and fair dealing, fraud and fraudulent inducement, unjust enrichment and violation of Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law. On May 13, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss. ASSOCIATED ESTATES: Counsel for Parties Entered Into MOU -------------------------------------------------------- Associated Estates Realty Corporation said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 24, 2015, that counsel for the parties in the class action lawsuits entered into a memorandum of understanding, in which they agreed on the terms of a settlement that would dispose of all actions in both federal and state courts, including the dismissal with prejudice of the actions. On April 22, 2015, Associated Estates Realty Corporation (the "Company") entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") by and among the Company, BSREP II Aries Pooling LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ("Brookfield"), and BSREP II Aries DE Merger Sub Inc., a Delaware corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Brookfield ("Merger Sub"). Two putative class action and shareholder derivative lawsuits, captioned Cutler v. Friedman, et al., No. 1:15-cv-00857, and Berkman v. Friedman, et. al., No. 1:15-cv-00928, were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio in connection with the announcement of the merger. Two putative class action and shareholder derivative lawsuits, captioned Witkowski v. Associated Estates Realty Corp., et. al., No. CV 15 845978, and Kessler v. Associated Estates Realty Corp., et al., No. CV 15 845987, also were filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County, Ohio. The lawsuits, filed by purported shareholders of the Company, challenge the proposed merger and allege, among other things, that the Company's directors breached their fiduciary duties to shareholders by engaging in a flawed sale process, agreeing to a transaction price that does not adequately compensate shareholders, and agreeing to certain unfair deal protection terms. The complaints also allege that Parent and Merger Sub have aided and abetted the directors' breaches of fiduciary duties. Among other things, the shareholder litigation seeks to enjoin the merger. The two District Court actions were consolidated by order of the Court dated July 2, 2015, and the consolidated action is now governed by an amended complaint that includes, in addition to the fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting claims, claims against all defendants for violation of disclosure requirements of federal proxy law and rules, specifically sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and associated SEC Rule 14a-9. Associated Estates, Brookfield, Merger Sub, and their respective directors believe that the shareholder litigation and the underlying claims are without merit. On July 24, 2015, counsel for the parties in the lawsuits entered into the MOU, in which they agreed on the terms of a settlement that would dispose of all actions in both federal and state courts, including the dismissal with prejudice of the actions and a release of all claims made therein against all defendants. The proposed settlement is conditioned upon, among other things, the execution of an appropriate stipulation of settlement, consummation of the merger, and final court approval of the proposed settlement following notice and hearing. In addition, in connection with the settlement and as provided in the MOU, the parties contemplate that plaintiffs' counsel will seek an award of attorneys' fees and expenses as part of the settlement. There can be no assurance that the merger will be consummated, that the parties ultimately will enter into a stipulation of settlement, or that the settlement will receive court approval even if the parties enter into such stipulation. If the settlement conditions are not met, the proposed settlement as contemplated by the MOU would become void. The settlement will not affect the amount of the merger consideration that Associated Estates stockholders are entitled to receive in the merger. The defendants deny all fault or liability, and deny that they have committed any unlawful or wrongful act alleged in the actions or otherwise in relation to the merger. The defendants have agreed to the terms of the proposed settlement solely to avoid the substantial burden, expense, risk, inconvenience and distraction of continued litigation, including the risk of delaying or adversely affecting the merger. ARGENTINA: 2nd Cir. Cuts Liabilities to Bondholders --------------------------------------------------- Adam Klasfeld, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that Argentine bondholders experienced a setback in their fight for compensation over the country's 2001 debt default, as the Second Circuit reduced the republic's liabilities on Aug. 10. The unanimous ruling slaps presiding U.S. District Judge Thomas Griesa on the wrist for ignoring the appellate court's previous instructions, twice. Griesa, an 84-year-old jurist, has frequently been at odds with Argentina over cases stemming from the country's default on up to $100 million in debt 14 years ago. This rocky relationship hit a nadir in a case filed by New York- based companies NML Capital and Aurelius Capital Management, which have been denounced by their as critics "vulture funds" for gobbling up the distressed debt of poor countries for pennies on the dollar, and then suing for the full amount. U.S. courts, however, have routinely ruled in favor of the hedge funds. Griesa, in particular, has denounced Argentina as "lawless" for refusing to pay up. After he ruled in favor of the New York-based firms, he was lampooned on the streets of Buenos Aires in posters that showed his head superimposed on the body of a vulture. Well before that case made headlines, eight class action lawsuits filed by individual bondholders against Argentina wound their way through the dockets of the same courthouse, before the same judge, over the same debt, to much less fanfare. Argentina does not dispute owing money to the bondholders in these cases; the controversy has always been over how much the country owes, and how those figures are determined. Unlike in the hedge funds case, Argentina has successfully challenged Griesa's rulings favoring the bondholders on appeal. U.S. Circuit Judge Chester Straub recounted this history in the sharply worded opening paragraph of his ruling. "After previous panels of this court twice vacated aggregate judgments entered by the district court in favor of plaintiff classes, we remanded with specific instructions," he wrote. "Rather than follow our instructions, the district court certified expanded plaintiff classes." When a prior panel heard the case, the Second Circuit ordered Griesa to hold an evidentiary hearing to calculate damages though an "individual approach" if an "aggregate approach" were not possible, according to the opinion. After bondholders complained about the "legal and logistical pitfalls" of such a hearing, Griesa expanded the definitions of the class certification as an alternative. Straub said that this contradicted the court's "clear" directive. Attorney Carmine Boccuzzi -- cboccuzzi@cgsh.com -- who represents Argentina for the Manhattan-based firm Cleary Gottlieb Stein & Hamilton LLP, said his client is "pleased" with the ruling. "Plaintiffs have repeatedly failed to prove their alleged damages and are not entitled to the overstated judgments they have twice before demanded and that the Second Circuit has clearly said are improper," he added. An attorney for the bondholders declined to comment on the ruling. BAKER HUGHES: "Rovner" Class Action Dismissed --------------------------------------------- Baker Hughes Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 23, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Rovner class action lawsuit has been dismissed without prejudice. The following lawsuits have been filed in Delaware in connection with the Company's pending merger with Halliburton: * On November 24, 2014, Gary Molenda, a purported shareholder of the Company, filed a class action lawsuit in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware ("Delaware Chancery Court") against Baker Hughes, the Company's Board of Directors, Halliburton, and Red Tiger LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Halliburton ("Red Tiger" and together with all defendants, "Defendants") styled Gary R. Molenda v. Baker Hughes, Inc., et al., Case No. 10390-CB. * On November 26, 2014, a second purported shareholder of the Company, Booth Family Trust, filed a substantially similar class action lawsuit in Delaware Chancery Court. * On December 1, 2014, New Jersey Building Laborers Annuity Fund and James Rice, two additional purported shareholders of the Company, filed substantially similar class action lawsuits in Delaware Chancery Court. * On December 10, 2014, a fifth purported shareholder of the Company, Iron Workers Mid-South Pension Fund, filed another substantially similar class action lawsuit in the Delaware Chancery Court. * On December 24, 2014, a sixth purported shareholder of the Company, Annette Shipp, filed another substantially similar class action lawsuit in the Delaware Chancery Court. All of the lawsuits make substantially similar claims. The Company said, "The plaintiffs generally allege that the members of the Company's Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties to our shareholders in connection with the merger negotiations by entering into the merger agreement and by approving the merger, and that the Company, Halliburton, and Red Tiger aided and abetted the purported breaches of fiduciary duties. More specifically, the lawsuits allege that the merger agreement provides inadequate consideration to our shareholders, that the process resulting in the merger agreement was flawed, that the Company's directors engaged in self-dealing, and that certain provisions of the merger agreement improperly favor Halliburton and Red Tiger, precluding or impeding third parties from submitting potentially superior proposals, among other things. The lawsuit filed by Annettee Shipp also alleges that our Board of Directors failed to disclose material information concerning the proposed merger in the preliminary registration statement on Form S-4." "On January 7, 2015, James Rice amended his complaint, adding similar allegations regarding the disclosures in the preliminary registration statement on Form S-4. The lawsuits seek unspecified damages, injunctive relief enjoining the merger, and rescission of the merger agreement, among other relief. "On January 23, 2015, the Delaware lawsuits were consolidated under the caption In re Baker Hughes Inc. Stockholders Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 10390-CB (the "Consolidated Case"). Pursuant to the Court's consolidation order, plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on February 4, 2015, which alleges substantially similar claims and seeks substantially similar relief to that raised in the six individual complaints, except that while Baker Hughes is named as a defendant, no claims are asserted against the Company. "On March 18, 2015, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the Consolidated Case in exchange for the Company making certain additional disclosures. Those disclosures were contained in a Form 8-K filed with the SEC on March 18, 2015. The settlement remains subject to certain conditions, including consummation of the merger, final documentation, and court approval. "On November 26, 2014, a seventh class action challenging the merger was filed by a purported Company shareholder in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Houston Division). The lawsuit, styled Marc Rovner v. Baker Hughes Inc., et al., Cause No. 4:14-cv-03416 ("the Rovner lawsuit"), asserts claims against the Company, most of our current Board of Directors, Halliburton, and Red Tiger. The lawsuit asserts substantially similar claims and seeks substantially similar relief as that sought in the Delaware lawsuits. "On March 20, 2015, counsel for Mr. Rovner filed a notice of voluntary dismissal, and on March 23, 2015, the Court entered an order dismissing the Rovner lawsuit without prejudice." BAKER HUGHES: Settlement in FLSA Suit Has Final Approval -------------------------------------------------------- Baker Hughes Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 23, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company is a defendant in various labor claims. The Company said: * "On April 28, 2014, a collective action lawsuit alleging that we failed to pay a class of workers overtime in compliance with the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") was filed titled Michael Ciamillo, individually, etc., et al. vs. Baker Hughes Incorporated in the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska ("Ciamillo"). During the fourth quarter of 2014, the parties agreed to settle the Ciamillo lawsuit, including certain state law claims, for $5 million. The court granted final approval of that settlement on June 19, 2015. * On December 10, 2013, a class and collective action lawsuit alleging that we failed to pay a nationwide class of workers overtime in compliance with the FLSA and certain state laws was filed titled Lea et al. v. Baker Hughes, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Galveston Division ("Lea"). During the second quarter of 2014, the parties agreed to settle the Lea lawsuit, subject to final court approval, and we recorded a charge of $62 million, which included an estimate of the Lea settlement amount and associated costs and an amount for settlement of another wage and hour lawsuit. A portion of this settlement was to be paid on a claims made basis and during the second quarter of 2015, the date passed by which the class members could file a claim under this provision of the settlement agreement. The amount of claims made was less than estimated and accordingly, we reduced the accrual by approximately $13 million, which was recorded as an adjustment of litigation settlements during the second quarter of 2015. * On April 30, 2015, a class and collective action lawsuit alleging that we failed to pay a nationwide class of workers overtime in compliance with the FLSA and North Dakota law was filed titled Williams et al. v. Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota. We are evaluating the background facts and at this time cannot predict the outcome of this lawsuit and are not able to reasonably estimate the potential impact, if any, such outcome would have on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows." BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: "St. John" Suit Alleges Antitrust Violation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Michael St. John, and all others similarly-situated v. Bank Of Nova Scotia, New York Agency; BMO Capital Markets Corp.; BNP Paribas Securities Corp.; Barclays Capital Inc.; Cantor Fitzgerald & Co.; Citigroup Global Markets Inc.; Commerz Markets LLC; Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC; Daiwa Capital Markets America Inc.; Deutsche Bank Securities Inc.; Goldman, Sachs & Co.; HSBC Securities (USA) Inc.; Jefferies LLC; J.P. Morgan Securities LLC; Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated; Mizuho Securities USA Inc.; Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC; Nomura Securities International, Inc.; RBC Capital Markets, LLC; RBS Securities Inc.; SG Americas Securities, LLC; TD Securities (USA) LLC; and UBS Securities LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-06139 (S.D.N.Y., August 5, 2015), seeks treble damages, costs of suit, and other relief arising from the Defendants' alleged conspiracy to fix and manipulate the U.S. Treasury bills, notes, and bonds markets and related auctions and derivative financial products in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, Section 4 of the Clayton Act, Section 22 of Commodity Exchange Act, and Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Defendants are Primary Dealers of Treasuries. Primary Dealers are responsible for purchasing the majority of Treasuries offered for sale by the Treasury Department at designated Treasuries Auctions throughout the year. Primary Dealers are entrusted to help the U.S. Federal Reserve institute U.S. monetary policy through their participation in these Treasuries Auctions and to effectuate all related transactions in a manner that not only exemplifies the highest ethical standards but also "reinforces overall market integrity". The Plaintiff is represented by: Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq. Nussbaum Law Group, P.C. 570 Lexington Avenue, 19th Flr New York, NY 10022 Tel: (212) 702-7053 Fax: (212) 681-0300 E-mail: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com - and - Michael E. Criden, Esq. CRIDEN & LOVE, P.A. 7301 S.W. 57th Court, Ste 515 South Miami, FL 33143 Tel: (305) 357-9000 Fax: (305) 357-9050 E-mail: mcriden@cridenlove.com - and - Scott P. Schlesinger, Esq. SCHLESINGER LAW OFFICES, P.A. 1212 Southeast Third Avenue Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Tel: (954) 320-9507 Fax: (954) 320-9509 E-mail: scott@schlesingerlaw.com BERANKED LLC: Faces "Alan" Suit Over TCPA Violations ---------------------------------------------------- Jason Alan, and all others similarly-situated v. Beranked, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-05872 (C.D. Cal., August 4, 2015), seeks to obtain damages and any other available or equitable remedies resulting from the Defendant's alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Defendant is a marketing company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M Friedman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M FRIEDMAN PC 324 S Beverly Drive, Suite 725 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Tel: (877) 206-4741 Fax: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com BHB & CAFE: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Peralta" Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Jose Miguel Peralta, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. BHB & Cafe Management Company, LLC d/b/a West Town Bakery & Diner, Case No. 1:15-cv-07117 (N.D. Ill., August 13, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for time worked in excess of 40 hours in individual work weeks. BHB & Cafe Management Company owns and operates West Town Bakery & Diner in Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas M. Werman, Esq. Maureen A. Sala, Esq. Sarah J. Arendt, Esq. Zachary C. Flowerree WERMAN SALAS P.C. 77 West Washington, Suite 1402 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 419-1008 E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com msalas@flsalaw.com sarendt@flsalaw.com zflowerree@flsalaw.com BOWES IN HOME: Faces "Mills" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Christopher Mills, and all others similarly-situated v. Bowes In Home Care, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-06816 (N.D. Ill., August 4, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay home health clinicians overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law. The Defendant provides home health care to patients in Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas M. Werman, Esq. WERMAN SALAS P.C. 77 West Washington, Ste. 1402 Chicago, IL 60602 Tel: (312) 419-1008 Fax: (312) 419-1025 E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com - and - David Fish, Esq. THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C. 200 E. 5th Avenue, Suite 123 Naperville, IL 60563 Tel: (630) 355-7590 Fax: (630) 778-0400 E-mail: dfish@fishlawfirm.com BRADLEY WEISTEIN: Fails to Supervise Team Members, Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Melanie Rogan, as parent and next best friend of Jack Matthew Rogan v. Bradley Weistein and Fairfield National Little League of Fairfield, Connecticut, Case No. 432680 (D. Conn., August 13, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to properly supervise and monitor the activities of his team members in regard to swinging aluminum baseball bats in public access areas. Fairfield National Little League of Fairfield, Connecticut is a baseball organization or corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Connecticut. Bradley Weistein is the coach of a team from the Fairfield National Little League of Fairfield, Connecticut. The Plaintiff is represented by: Neal P. Rogan, Esq. Kelly B. Bloom, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF NEAL ROGAN, LLC 315 Post Road West Westport, CT 06880 Telephone: (203) 341-8783 E-mail: neal@nealrogan.com BRITAX: Recalls Multiple Car Seat Models Due to Injury Risk ----------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: August 11, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Child Car Seat, Booster Seat Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Seats And Restraints Units affected: 15154 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015364TC ID number: 2015364 On certain car seats, the harness adjuster buttons (red) could remain down in the "release" position after the harness is tightened, allowing the shoulder harness to loosen from a child's movement while secured in the seat. In the event of a crash, the child may not be adequately restrained, increasing the risk of injury. Correction: The manufacturer will provide a repair kit containing a non-toxic food grade lubricant to apply directly to the harness adjuster button with instructions and a label to indicate that the repair has been completed. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- BRITAX 2014, 2014, 2014 BUMBLE BEE: Faces Pacific Suit Over Seafood Product-Price Fixing ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pacific Groservice Inc. d/b/a/ PITCO Foods, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Bumble Bee Foods LLC, Tri- Union Seafoods LLC, and Starkist Company, Case No. 3:15-cv-01791- WQH-JMA (S.D. Cal., August 13, 2015), arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful combination, agreement and conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize prices for shelf-stable seafood products that are sold in cans, pouches or ready-to-eat serving packages within the United States. The Defendants are the three largest producers of packaged seafood products in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark I. Labaton, Esq. ISAACS, FRIEDBERG & LABATON LLP City National Plaza - South Tower 555 South Flower St., Suite 4250 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 929-5550 E-mail: mlabaton@iflcounsel.com - and - Barbara Hart, Esq. Sung-Min Lee, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG COHEN & HART, P.C. One North Broadway, Suite 509 White Plains, NY 10601-2301 Telephone: (914) 997-0500 E-mail: bhart@lowey.com slee@lowey.com C. R. BARD: 85 Lawsuits Pending Over Hernia Products at July 1 -------------------------------------------------------------- C. R. Bard, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 24, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that as of July 1, 2015, approximately 45 federal and 40 state lawsuits involving individual claims by approximately 85 plaintiffs, as well as one putative class action in the United States, are currently pending against the company with respect to its Composix(R) Kugel(R) and certain other hernia repair implant products (collectively, the "Hernia Product Claims"). The company voluntarily recalled certain sizes and lots of the Composix(R) Kugel(R) products beginning in December 2005. As of July 1, 2015, all but one of the putative class actions pending against the company were dismissed. The remaining putative class action, which has not been certified, seeks: (i) medical monitoring; (ii) compensatory damages; (iii) punitive damages; (iv) a judicial finding of defect and causation; and/or (v) attorneys' fees. In April 2014, a settlement was reached with respect to the three putative Canadian class actions within amounts previously recorded by the company. Approximately 25 of the state lawsuits, involving individual claims by approximately 25 plaintiffs, are pending in the Superior Court of the State of Rhode Island, with the remainder in various other jurisdictions. The Hernia Product Claims also generally seek damages for personal injury resulting from use of the products. In June 2007, the Composix(R) Kugel(R) lawsuits and, subsequently, other hernia repair product lawsuits, pending in federal courts nationwide were transferred into one Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL") for coordinated pre-trial proceedings in the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island. In June 2011, the company announced that it had reached agreements in principle with various plaintiffs' law firms to settle the majority of its existing Hernia Product Claims. Each agreement was subject to certain conditions, including requirements for participation in the proposed settlements by a certain minimum number of plaintiffs. In addition, the company continues to engage in discussions with other plaintiffs' law firms regarding potential resolution of unsettled Hernia Product Claims, and intends to vigorously defend Hernia Product Claims that do not settle, including through litigation. There are two trials currently scheduled in the second half of 2015. The company cannot give any assurances that the resolution of the Hernia Product Claims that have not settled, including asserted and unasserted claims and the putative class action lawsuit, will not have a material adverse effect on the company's business, results of operations, financial condition and/or liquidity. C. R. BARD: Settles 1,500 Women's Health Product Claims ------------------------------------------------------- C. R. Bard, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 24, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the company has reached an agreement with various plaintiffs' law firms to settle their inventory of cases, representing more than 1,500 of the filed or asserted Women's Health Product Claims. As of July 1, 2015, product liability lawsuits involving individual claims by approximately 15,260 plaintiffs have been filed against the company in various federal and state jurisdictions alleging personal injuries associated with the use of certain of the company's surgical continence products for women. In addition, five putative class actions in the United States and five putative class actions in Canada have been filed against the company. In addition, a limited number of claims have been filed or asserted in various non-U.S. jurisdictions (all lawsuits, collectively, the "Women's Health Product Claims"). The Women's Health Product Claims generally seek damages for personal injury resulting from use of the products. The putative class actions, none of which has been certified, seek: (i) medical monitoring; (ii) compensatory damages; (iii) punitive damages; (iv) a judicial finding of defect and causation; and/or (v) attorneys' fees. In April 2015, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed the plaintiffs' motion for class certification in one Canadian putative class action. The plaintiffs may appeal this decision or may file an alternatives motion with the Ontario Superior Court to redefine the class. With respect to approximately half of the filed and asserted Women's Health Product Claims, the company believes that two subsidiaries of Medtronic plc (as successor in interest to Covidien plc) ("Medtronic"), each a supplier of the company, have an obligation to defend and indemnify the company with respect to any product defect liability. In July 2015 the company reached an agreement with Medtronic regarding certain aspects of Medtronic's indemnification obligation. In October 2010, the Women's Health Product Claims involving solely Avaulta(R) products pending in federal courts nationwide were transferred into an MDL in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia (the "District Court"), the scope of which was later expanded to include lawsuits involving all women's surgical continence products that are manufactured or distributed by the company. The first trial in a state court was completed in California in July 2012 and resulted in a judgment against the company of approximately $3.6 million. On appeal the decision was affirmed by the appellate court in November 2014. The company filed a petition for review to the California Supreme Court on December 24, 2014, which was denied on February 18, 2015. The judgment in this matter, including interest and costs, was paid on March 20, 2015 within the amounts previously recorded by the company. The first trial in the MDL commenced in July 2013 and resulted in a judgment against the company of approximately $2 million. The company has appealed this decision. During the third quarter of 2013, the company settled one MDL case and one New Jersey state case. In addition, during the third quarter of 2013, one MDL case was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice. On January 16, 2014 and July 31, 2014, the District Court ordered that the company prepare 200 and then an additional 300 individual cases, respectively, for trial (the "WHP Pre-Trial Orders") (the timing for which is currently unknown). The WHP Pre- Trial Orders resulted in significant additional litigation-related defense costs beginning in the second quarter of 2014 and continuing through the second quarter of 2015. In June 2015, the District Court issued an order staying the requirement to prepare a significant portion of the cases covered by the WHP Pre-Trial Orders. The WHP Pre-Trial Orders may result in material additional cost in the second half of 2015 in defending Women's Health Product Claims. The District Court may also order that the company prepare additional cases for trial, which could result in material additional cost in future periods. During the second quarter of 2014, the company reached an agreement with two plaintiffs' law firms to settle their inventory of cases, representing more than 500 of the filed or asserted Women's Health Product Claims, which the company believes are not the subject of Medtronic's indemnification obligation. The company also settled one MDL case that was originally scheduled for trial in May 2014. In the third quarter of 2014, the company reached an agreement with a plaintiffs' law firm to settle approximately 25 of the filed or asserted Women's Health Product Claims, which the company believes are not the subject of Medtronic's indemnification obligation. The settlements reached in 2014 for Women's Health Product Claims were within the amounts previously recorded by the company. In February 2015, the District Court appointed a Special Master to assist with settlement resolution. A trial was scheduled to begin in the MDL in February 2015, which the parties settled before trial. In June 2015, the company reached an agreement in principle with various plaintiffs' law firms to settle their inventory of cases, representing more than 1,300 of the filed or asserted Women's Health Product Claims. In July 2015, the company reached an agreement with various plaintiffs' law firms to settle their inventory of cases, representing more than 1,500 of the filed or asserted Women's Health Product Claims. Each agreement is subject to certain conditions, including requirements for participation in the proposed settlements by a certain minimum number of plaintiffs. In addition, the company continues to engage in discussions with other plaintiffs' law firms regarding potential resolution of unsettled Women's Health Product Claims, which may include additional inventory settlements. Notwithstanding these settlement efforts, the company anticipates that multiple additional trials, including one or more possible consolidated trials, may occur in 2015. In December 2014, Medtronic filed a motion for leave to amend its answer in the underlying MDL for Women's Health Product Claims to assert cross-claims against the company challenging the indemnification provisions of certain of their supply agreements with the company. In March 2015, the court granted Medtronic's motion. On January 22, 2015, the company initiated litigation and/or arbitration seeking, among other things, declaratory relief under these supply agreements with Medtronic in three separate jurisdictions -- New Jersey state court, the English High Court of Justice in London and Atlanta, Georgia. In July 2015, as part of the agreement, Medtronic agreed to take responsibility for pursuing settlement of certain of the Women's Health Product Claims that relate to products distributed by the company under supply agreements with Medtronic and the company agreed to pay Medtronic $121 million towards these potential settlements. The company also may, in its sole discretion, transfer responsibility for settlement of additional Women's Health Product Claims to Medtronic on similar terms. The agreement does not resolve the dispute between the company and Medtronic with respect to Women's Health Product Claims that do not settle, if any. As part of the agreement, Medtronic and the company agreed to dismiss without prejudice their pending litigation with respect to Medtronic's obligation to defend and indemnify the company. The company does not believe that any verdicts entered to date are representative of potential outcomes of all Women's Health Product Claims. The case numbers set forth do not include approximately 815 generic complaints involving women's health products where the company cannot, based on the allegations in the complaints, determine whether any of those cases involve the company's women's health products. In addition, the case numbers set forth do not include approximately 1,555 claims that have been threatened against the company but for which complaints have not yet been filed. While the company continues to engage in discussions with other plaintiffs' law firms regarding potential resolution of unsettled Women's Health Product Claims and intends to vigorously defend the Women's Health Product Claims that do not settle, including through litigation, it cannot give any assurances that the resolution of these claims will not have a material adverse effect on the company's business, results of operations, financial condition and/or liquidity. C. R. BARD: 50 Filter Product Claims Pending as of July 1 --------------------------------------------------------- C. R. Bard, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 24, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that as of July 1, 2015, product liability lawsuits involving individual claims by approximately 50 plaintiffs are currently pending against the company in various federal and state jurisdictions alleging personal injuries associated with the use of the company's vena cava filter products (all lawsuits, collectively, the "Filter Product Claims"). The first Filter Product Claim trial was completed in June 2012 and resulted in a judgment for the company. During the second quarter of 2013, the company finalized settlement agreements with respect to more than 30 Filter Product Claims and made payments with respect to such claims within the amounts previously recorded by the company. The case numbers set forth do not include approximately 145 claims that have been threatened against the company but for which complaints have not yet been filed. The company expects additional trials of Filter Product Claims to take place over the next 12 months. While the company intends to vigorously defend Filter Product Claims that do not settle, including through litigation, it cannot give any assurances that the resolution of these claims will not have a material adverse effect on the company's business, results of operations, financial condition and/or liquidity. CARDTRONICS USA: Illegally Charges ATM Fees, "Lansang" Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Lansang, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Cardtronics USA, Inc. and U.S. Bancorp, Case No. 2:15- cv-06139 (C.D. Cal., August 13, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the MoneyPass cardholders and who, were charged a fee for use of the Defendants' ATM that is part of the MoneyPass ATM network. Cardtronics USA, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Texas. Cardtronics owns and operates multiple retail ATMs throughout the United States. U.S. Bancorp is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Minnesota. U.S. Bancorp owns and operates "MoneyPass," which is a network of surcharge-free ATMs. The Plaintiff is represented by: George S. Azadian, Esq. Edrik Mehrabi, Esq. AZADIAN LAW GROUP, PC 790 E. Colorado Blvd., 9th Floor Pasadena, CA 91101 Telephone: (626) 449-4944 Facsimile: (626) 628-1722 E-mail: George@azadianlawgroup.com CELGENE CORPORATION: Discovery Conference Scheduled for October 8 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Celgene Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a discovery conference is scheduled for October 8, 2015, in the lawsuit filed by International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craft Workers Local 1 Health Fund (IUB). 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." "The 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. "On July 6, 2015, the Court entered an Order scheduling the production of certain discovery for the case through October 1, 2015. A discovery conference is scheduled for October 8, 2015. Dates for the completion of fact and expert discovery have not been set. "We intend to vigorously defend against IUB's claims," the Company said. CHURCH & DWIGHT: Falsely Marketed Orajel Products, Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Noelky Sullivan, individually on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Church & Dwight Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv- 04737-DLI-RLM (E.D.N.Y., August 13, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the consumers who purchased Baby Orajel Naturals, teething tablets, teething gel, and nighttime teething gel, that were falsely marketed by the Defendant as "natural". According to the complaint, the products at issue are not natural because they contain various artificial and synthetic ingredients such as Sodium Benzoate, Potassium Sorbate, Magnesium Stearate, Calcarea Phosphorica, Glycerin, Hydroxyethylcellulose, and Sorbic Acid. Church & Dwight Inc. is a Delaware corporation that manufactures deodorizing and household cleaning, laundry, personal care products. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lipari, Esq. Jason P. Sultzer, Esq. Jean M. Sedlak, Esq. THE SULTZER LAW GROUP, P.C. 77 Water Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (646) 722-4266 Facsimile: (888) 749-7747 E-mail: liparij@thesultzerlawgroup.com jsultzer@thesultzerlawgroup.com jsedlak@thesultzerlawgroup.com CLECO CORP: Seeks Dismissal of Amended Class Action Petition ------------------------------------------------------------ Cleco Corporation and Cleco Power LLC said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that Cleco has filed exceptions seeking dismissal of the Second Consolidated Amended Verified Derivative and Class Action Petition. In connection with the Merger, four actions were filed in the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish, Louisiana and three actions were filed in the Civil District Court for Orleans Parish, Louisiana. The petitions in each action generally allege, among other things, that the members of the Cleco Corporation Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things, conducting an allegedly inadequate sale process, agreeing to the Merger at a price that allegedly undervalues Cleco, and failing to disclose material information about the Merger. The petitions also allege that Cleco Partners, Cleco Corporation, Merger Sub, and in some cases, certain of the investors in Cleco Partners, either aided and abetted or entered into a civil conspiracy to advance those supposed breaches of duty. The petitions seek various remedies, including an injunction against the Merger and monetary damages, including attorneys' fees and expenses. The four actions filed in the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish are captioned as follows: * Braunstein v. Cleco Corporation, No. 251,383B (filed October 27, 2014), * Moore v. Macquarie Infrastructure and Real Assets, No. 251,417C (filed October 30, 2014), * Trahan v. Williamson, No. 251,456C (filed November 5, 2014), and * L'Herisson v. Macquarie Infrastructure and Real Assets, No. 251,515F (filed November 14, 2014). On November 14, 2014, the plaintiff in the Braunstein action moved for a dismissal of the action without prejudice, and that motion was granted on November 19, 2014. On December 3, 2014, the Court consolidated the remaining three actions and appointed interim co- lead counsel. On December 18, 2014, the plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed a Consolidated Amended Verified Derivative and Class Action Petition for Damages and Preliminary and Permanent Injunction (the Consolidated Petition), which is now the operative petition in the consolidated action. The action names Cleco Corporation, its directors, Cleco Partners, and Merger Sub as defendants. The Consolidated Petition alleges, among other things, that the directors breached their fiduciary duties to Cleco's shareholders and grossly mismanaged Cleco by approving the Merger Agreement because it does not value Cleco adequately, failing to structure a process through which shareholder value would be maximized, engaging in self-dealing by ignoring conflicts of interest, and failing to disclose material information about the Merger. The Consolidated Petition further alleges that all defendants conspired to commit the breaches of fiduciary duty. Cleco believes that the allegations of the Consolidated Petition are without merit and that it has substantial meritorious defenses to the claims set forth in the Consolidated Petition. The three actions filed in the Civil District Court for Orleans Parish are captioned as follows: * Butler v. Cleco Corporation, No. 2014-10776 (filed November 7, 2014), * Creative Life Services, Inc. v. Cleco Corporation, No. 2014-11098 (filed November 19, 2014), and * Cashen v. Cleco Corporation, No. 2014-11236 (filed November 21, 2014). Both the Butler and Cashen actions name Cleco Corporation, its directors, Cleco Partners, Merger Sub, Macquarie Infrastructure and Real Assets Inc. (MIRA), British Columbia Investment Management Corporation, and John Hancock Financial as defendants. The Creative Life Services action names Cleco Corporation, its directors, Cleco Partners, Merger Sub, MIRA, and Macquarie Infrastructure Partners III, L.P., as defendants. On December 11, 2014, the plaintiff in the Butler action filed an Amended Class Action Petition for Damages, which is now the operative petition in that action. Each petition alleges, among other things, that the directors breached their fiduciary duties to Cleco's shareholders by approving the Merger Agreement because it does not value Cleco adequately, failing to structure a process through which shareholder value would be maximized and engaging in self-dealing by ignoring conflicts of interest. The Butler and Creative Life Services petitions also allege that the directors breached their fiduciary duties by failing to disclose material information about the Merger. Each petition further alleges that Cleco, Cleco Partners, Merger Sub, and certain of the investors in Cleco Partners aided and abetted the directors' breaches of fiduciary duty. On December 23, 2014, the directors and Cleco filed declinatory exceptions in each action on the basis that each action was improperly brought in Orleans Parish and should either be transferred to the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish or dismissed. On December 30, 2014, the plaintiffs in each action jointly filed a motion to consolidate the three actions pending in Orleans Parish and to appoint interim co-lead plaintiffs and co-lead counsel. On January 23, 2015, the Court in the Creative Life Services case sustained the defendants' declinatory exceptions and dismissed the case so that it could be transferred to the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish. On February 5, 2015, the plaintiffs in Butler and Cashen also consented to the dismissal of their cases from Orleans Parish so they could be transferred to the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish. On February 25, 2015, the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish held a hearing on a motion for preliminary injunction filed by plaintiffs Moore, L'Herisson, and Trahan seeking to enjoin the shareholder vote at the Special Meeting of Shareholders scheduled for February 26, 2015, for approval of the Merger Agreement. Following the hearing, the Court denied the plaintiffs' motion. On June 19, 2015, three of the plaintiffs filed their Second Consolidated Amended Verified Derivative and Class Action Petition. This will be considered according to a schedule established by the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish. Cleco filed exceptions seeking dismissal of the amended petition on July 24, 2015. Cleco believes that the allegations of the petitions in each action are without merit and that it has substantial meritorious defenses to the claims set forth in each of the petitions. COPENHAGEN IMPORTS: Recalls Mix n'Match Chairs Due to Fall Hazard ----------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Copenhagen Imports, of Phoenix, Ariz., announced a voluntary recall of about 530 Stars Mix n'Match Chairs. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The chair legs can break, posing a fall hazard for anyone sitting in the chair at the time. The chair seat and back is either black or white molded plastic with a cushion seat. The seat cushion is the same color as the plastic chair. The four chair legs are wood and set in a pyramid style. Tvilum has received two reports of chair legs breaking and one reported injury. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/0YAxan The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Copenhagen Imports stores in Arizona and Texas from May 2013 to June 2015 for about $160. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled chairs and return them to the retailer for a full refund, including delivery charges where applicable. Tvilum is contacting purchasers directly. CORELOGIC INC: Settlement in RESPA Class Action Has Final Okay -------------------------------------------------------------- CoreLogic, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the court has entered final judgment approving the settlement in the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act Class Action and dismissing the case with prejudice. On February 8, 2008, a purported class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, against WaMu and eAppraiseIT alleging breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"), the California Unfair Competition Law and the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act. The complaint alleged a conspiracy between WaMu and eAppraiseIT to allow WaMu to direct appraisers to artificially inflate appraisals in order to qualify higher value loans that WaMu could then sell in the secondary market. Plaintiffs subsequently voluntarily dismissed WaMu on March 9, 2009. On August 30, 2009, the court dismissed all claims against eAppraiseIT except the RESPA claim. On July 2, 2010, the court denied plaintiff's first motion for class certification. On November 19, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for class certification. On April 25, 2012, the court granted plaintiffs' renewed motion and certified a nationwide class of all persons who, on or after June 1, 2006, received home loans from WaMu in connection with appraisals that were obtained through eAppraiseIT. On July 12, 2012, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals declined to review the class certification order. Following discovery, on July 1, 2014, the defendant filed motions for summary judgment and to decertify the class. On September 16, 2014, the trial court granted summary judgment against one named plaintiff but denied it as to the other, denied the motion to decertify the class, and bifurcated trial into two phases with the first phase to begin November 24, 2014. The parties thereafter conducted a court-ordered mediation and subsequently reached an agreement in principle to settle the case for a total of $9.9 million, inclusive of attorney fees and subject to court approval. We previously recorded an accrual for this amount within loss from discontinued operations, net of tax. On December 12, 2014, the court preliminarily approved the settlement. Notice to the class was subsequently made and, after a final fairness hearing on April 24, 2015, the court entered final judgment on April 27, 2015 approving the settlement and dismissing the case with prejudice. DEL TACO: Faces "Tomasulo" Class Action Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------- Del Taco Restaurants, Inc. (f/k/a LEVY ACQUISITION CORP.) said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 16, 2015, that on April 23, 2015, a purported class action and derivative complaint, Jeffery Tomasulo, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Levy Acquisition Sponsor, LLC, Lawrence F. Levy, Howard B. Bernick, Marc S. Simon, Craig J. Duchossois, Ari B. Levy, Steven C. Florsheim, Gregory G. Flynn, Del Taco Holdings, Inc., and Levy Acquisition Corp. ("Complaint"), was filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois (the "Circuit Court"), relating to the proposed Merger pursuant to the Merger Agreement. The Complaint, which purports to be brought as a class action on behalf of all of the holders of the Company's common stock, generally alleges that the Company's directors breached their fiduciary duties to stockholders by facilitating the proposed Merger and in negotiating and approving the Merger Agreement. The Complaint also alleges that the Company's preliminary Proxy Statement that was filed with the SEC on April 2, 2015 is materially misleading and/or incomplete. The Complaint further alleges that DTH and the Sponsor aided and abetted the alleged breaches by the Company's directors. The Complaint seeks (a) a declaration that the Company's directors breached their fiduciary duties; (b) injunctive relief enjoining the Merger until corrective disclosures are made; (c) compensatory and/or rescissory damages; and (d) an award of costs and attorney's fees. On June 30, 2015, the Company reached a settlement in principle of all claims asserted in the purported class action. DIALMED INC: Faces "Rivas" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------ Ana A. Rivas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DialMed, Inc. and Does 1 through 50, Case No. BC591405 (D. Cal., August 13, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work over 8hours in a workday. DialMed, Inc. is in the business of providing home care services to elderly people in California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Justian Jusuf, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIAN JUSUF, APC 17011 Beach Blvd., Suite 900 Huntington Beach, California 92647 Telephone: (714) 274-9814 Facsimile: (714) 362-3148 DJO FINANCE: Accrued $0.2MM for Unpaid Pain Pump Suit Settlements ----------------------------------------------------------------- As of June 27, 2015, DJO Finance LLC has accrued $0.2 million for unpaid settlements in the Pain Pump Litigation, DJO Finance LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 27, 2015. The Company said, "Over the past 7 years, we have been named in numerous product liability lawsuits involving our prior distribution of a disposable drug infusion pump product (pain pump) manufactured by two third-party manufacturers that was distributed through our Bracing and Vascular segment. We discontinued our sale of these products in the second quarter of 2009." "We currently are a defendant in two U.S. cases and a lawsuit in Canada which has been granted class action status for a class of approximately 45 claimants. All other cases have been resolved and any defense costs and settlements related thereto in excess of applicable deductibles and self-insured retentions have been paid by our product liability carrier. All of these lawsuits allege that the use of these pumps with certain anesthetics for prolonged periods after certain shoulder surgeries or, less commonly, knee surgeries, has resulted in cartilage damage to the plaintiffs. The range of potential loss for these remaining claims is not estimable, although we believe we have adequate insurance coverage. "As of June 27, 2015, we have accrued $0.2 million for unpaid settlements in this case, and a corresponding receivable as all of the settlements will be paid by our product liability carriers." E. I. DU PONT: 3,500 Lawsuits Pending in Ohio and West Virginia --------------------------------------------------------------- E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, there were approximately 3,500 lawsuits pending in various federal and state courts in Ohio and West Virginia. DuPont used PFOA (collectively, perfluorooctanoic acids and its salts, including the ammonium salt), as a processing aid to manufacture some fluoropolymer resins at various sites around the world including its Washington Works plant in West Virginia. At June 30, 2015, DuPont has an accrual balance of $14 million related to the PFOA matters. The accrual includes charges related to DuPont's obligations under agreements with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and voluntary commitments to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. These obligations and voluntary commitments include surveying, sampling and testing drinking water in and around certain company sites and offering treatment or an alternative supply of drinking water if tests indicate the presence of PFOA in drinking water at or greater than the national Provisional Health Advisory. In August 2001, a class action, captioned Leach v DuPont, was filed in West Virginia state court alleging that residents living near the Washington Works facility had suffered, or may suffer, deleterious health effects from exposure to PFOA in drinking water. DuPont and attorneys for the class reached a settlement in 2004 that binds about 80,000 residents. In 2005, DuPont paid the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and expenses of $23 million and made a payment of $70 million, which class counsel designated to fund a community health project. The company funded a series of health studies which were completed in October 2012 by an independent science panel of experts (the C8 Science Panel). The studies were conducted in communities exposed to PFOA to evaluate available scientific evidence on whether any probable link exists, as defined in the settlement agreement, between exposure to PFOA and human disease. The C8 Science Panel found probable links, as defined in the settlement agreement, between exposure to PFOA and pregnancy- induced hypertension, including preeclampsia; kidney cancer; testicular cancer; thyroid disease; ulcerative colitis; and diagnosed high cholesterol. In May 2013, a panel of three independent medical doctors released its initial recommendations for screening and diagnostic testing of eligible class members. In September 2014, the medical panel recommended follow-up screening and diagnostic testing three years after initial testing, based on individual results. The medical panel has not communicated its anticipated schedule for completion of its protocol. The company is obligated to fund up to $235 million for a medical monitoring program for eligible class members and, in addition, administrative costs associated with the program, including class counsel fees. In January 2012, the company put $1 million in an escrow account to fund medical monitoring as required by the settlement agreement. The court appointed Director of Medical Monitoring has established the program to implement the medical panel's recommendations and the registration process, as well as eligibility screening, is ongoing. Diagnostic screening and testing has begun and associated payments to service providers are being disbursed from the escrow account. In addition, under the settlement agreement, the company must continue to provide water treatment designed to reduce the level of PFOA in water to six area water districts, including the Little Hocking Water Association (LHWA), and private well users. Class members may pursue personal injury claims against DuPont only for those human diseases for which the C8 Science Panel determined a probable link exists. At June 30, 2015 and March 31, 2015, there were approximately 3,500 lawsuits pending in various federal and state courts in Ohio and West Virginia. The number of lawsuits pending at June 30, 2015, reflects the filing of about 50 additional cases and plaintiffs' voluntary dismissal of about 40 cases during the second quarter 2015. In accordance with a stipulation reached in the third quarter 2014 and other court procedures, these lawsuits have been or will be served and consolidated in multi-district litigation in Ohio federal court (MDL). Based on information currently available to the company the majority of the lawsuits allege personal injury claims associated with high cholesterol and thyroid disease from exposure to PFOA in drinking water. At June 30, 2015, 37 of the pending lawsuits allege wrongful death. While attorneys for the plaintiffs have indicated that additional lawsuits may be filed, the rate of such filings has substantially decreased. In 2014, six plaintiffs from the MDL were selected for individual trial. The first trial is scheduled to begin in September 2015, and the second in November 2015. DuPont denies the allegations in these lawsuits and is defending itself vigorously. EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Motion to Decertify Class in Brady Case Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Express Scripts Holding Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that ESI's motion to decertify the class in the Brady Enterprises case is pending. (i) Brady Enterprises, Inc., et al. v. Medco Health Solutions, Inc. (ii) North Jackson Pharmacy, Inc., et al. v. Express Scripts, Inc., et al. (iii) Mike's Medical Center Pharmacy, et al. v. Medco Health Solutions, Inc., et al. Plaintiffs assert claims for violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Currently, ESI's motion to decertify the class in the Brady Enterprises case is pending. Oral arguments were held in January 2012. Mike's Medical Center Pharmacy agreed to voluntarily dismiss its claims against Medco Health Solutions, Inc. in July 2015. EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Settlement Reached in Berk Case ------------------------------------------------ Express Scripts Holding Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a settlement has been reached in the case, Jason Berk v. Express Scripts, Inc. and Express Scripts Pharmacy, Inc. A complaint was filed by named employee, Jason Berk, a current Pharmacy Benefit Specialist employee, alleging: (1) a collective action under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act for failure to pay wages and overtime; and (2) a class action for breach of contract. In April 2015, the parties reached an agreement to settle outstanding claims for an immaterial amount. Under the terms of the settlement, the case will be dismissed with the Company receiving a release of all claims following administration of the settlement terms. FEDERAL SIGNAL: Aug. 25 Status Hearing in Hearing Loss Litigation ----------------------------------------------------------------- Federal Signal Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the next status hearing in a hearing loss litigation will be on August 25, 2015. 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. The next status hearing on these matters will be on August 25, 2015, at which time the Court may set discovery and briefing schedules on the venue and class certification motions. The Company has also been sued on this issue 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. An initial trial involving eight Pittsburgh firefighters has been scheduled for January 2016. During March 2014, an action also 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. The Company also is aware that a lawsuit involving eight New York City firefighters was filed in New York County, New York, on April 24, 2015 and that a lawsuit involving 34 New Jersey firefighters was filed in Union County, New Jersey state court on May 4, 2015. The Company has not yet been served in those two cases. From 2007 through 2009, firefighters also 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 six months ended June 30, 2015 and 2014, the Company recorded $0.1 million and $0.1 million of reimbursements from CNA related to legal costs, respectively. FIRST AMERICAN: Class Not Certified in Sager and Weber Cases ------------------------------------------------------------ First American Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 23, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that these lawsuits allege, among other assertions, that the Company, one of its subsidiaries and/or one of its agents misclassified certain employees, including: * Sager v. Interthinx, Inc., filed on January 23, 2015 and pending in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, and * Weber v. Interthinx, Inc., et al., filed on April 17, 2015 and pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. All of these lawsuits are putative class actions for which a class has not been certified. The Company has not yet been able to assess the probability of loss or estimate the possible loss or the range of loss. FIRST FLEET: "Lopez Lugo" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations ------------------------------------------------------ Jesus Lopez Lugo, and all others similarly-situated v. Savas Tsitiridis and First Fleet Car Wash LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-04552 (E.D.N.Y., August 4, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for unpaid minimum wages, overtime and spread of hours compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The Defendants own and operate a car wash located in Long Island, New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brett Matthew Schatz, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF BRETT M. SCHATZ PC 1345 Avenue of the Americas, Ste. 2042 New York, NY 10105 Tel: (212) 631-7463 Fax: (646) 786-3325 E-mail: bschatz@bmsfirm.com FORD MOTOR: Plaintiffs' Bid for Ohio Supreme Court Review Denied ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ford Motor Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that Plaintiffs' request for review in the case, Medium/Heavy Truck Sales Procedure Class Action, in the Ohio Supreme Court has been denied. This action in the Ohio state court system alleged that Ford breached its Sales and Service Agreement with Ford truck dealers by failing to publish to all Ford dealers all price concessions that were approved for any dealer. On February 7, 2014, the trial court granted plaintiffs' motion for a new trial, but on December 11, 2014, the Ohio Court of Appeals reversed the order granting a new trial and reinstated a verdict in Ford's favor. Plaintiffs sought further review in the Ohio Supreme Court, which was denied on July 8, 2015. FRED DEELEY: Recalls Multiple Harley-Davidson Motorcycle Models --------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: August 11, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Motorcycle Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Fuel Supply Units affected: 666 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015363TC ID number: 2015363 Manufacturer recall number: 0167 On certain motorcycles, the fuel pump module may have a poor seal at the fuel pump inlet. This could allow an interruption to the fuel supply under acceleration at low fuel levels, possibly before the low fuel indicator has illuminated. If this condition remains undetected, under acceleration with the fuel level below 3 litres, it could result in the motorcycle briefly hesitating and then restoring power abruptly, which could lead to a loss of control, increasing the risk of a crash causing injury and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers will install a new fuel pump assembly. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- HARLEY-DAVIDSON STREET 500 (XG500) 2015 HARLEY-DAVIDSON STREET 750 (XG750) 2015 GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Allure Models Due to Injury Risk -------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: August 12, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Car, SUV Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Lights And Instruments Units affected: 52153 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015365TC ID number: 2015365 Manufacturer recall number: 14291 On certain vehicles, the headlamp driver module (HDM) may not operate properly in high underhood temperatures. If the HDM is not operating correctly, the low-beam headlamps and daytime running lamps could fail to illuminate. Loss of daytime running lamps and low-beam headlamps could result in decreased driver's vision, as well as rendering the vehicle less visible to other motorists, which could result in a crash causing injury and/or property damage. Correction: Dealers will replace the headlamp relay (HDM) located in the underhood bussed electrical centre (UBEC). Note: this condition does not affect the high-beam headlamps, marker lamps, turn signals, or fog lamps. Note: This recall supersedes recall 2014-535. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- BUICK ALLURE 2005 GIVAUDAN FLAVORS: Recalls Beef Tallow Products from Australia ------------------------------------------------------------- Givaudan Flavors Corporation, a Florence, Ky., establishment, is recalling approximately 3,950 pounds of beef tallow products produced in Australia 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 beef tallow products were manufactured by York Foods Pty. Limited, Australia - Establishment 133 and were imported through Chicago. The following products are subject to recall: --- 50-lb. bags of generically labeled, powdered "Givaudan Flavors Corporation NATURAL BEEF FLAVOR WONF." The products subject to recall bear the Batch numbers: DV00130741, DV00130967, DV00134737 and DV00136669 on the label. The products were produced on May 15, May 18, July 7 and July 30, 2015. The beef tallow was used in the production of the powdered beef flavor which was then shipped to locations in Ohio and Texas for further processing. The problem was discovered during FSIS routine monitoring of imported shipments using Public Health Information System data by Recall Management and Technical Analysis Staff. 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 Kate Dailey, Givaudan customer care director, at (513) 948-4905. Media with questions about the recall can contact Jeff Peppet, in Givaudan flavor communications department, at (513) 948-5655. 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. GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Sued Over Birth Defects Caused by Zofran Drugs --------------------------------------------------------------- Michelle Lynne Forbes, individually and as parent and natural guardian of S.F., a Minor v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC, Case No. 3:15- cv-00902 (S.D. Ill., August 13, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to disclose the birth defects associated with the non-FDA-approved use of Zofran in pregnant women. Zofran is a prescription drug indicated for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, radiation therapy- induced nausea and vomiting and post-operative nausea and vomiting. GlaxoSmithKline LLC is a Delaware corporation, which operates a pharmaceutical company with its principal place of business in Wilmington, Delaware. The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam J. Levitt, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A. 30 N. LaSalle Street Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 214-0000 Facsimile: (312) 214-0001 E-mail: alevitt@gelaw.com - and - Jay W. Eisenhofer, Esq. Caitlin M. Moyna, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A. 485 Lexington Avenue, 29th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (646) 722-8500 Facsimile: (646) 722-8501 E-mail: jeisenhofer@gelaw.com cmoyna@gelaw.com - and - M. Elizabeth Graham, Esq. Thomas V. Ayala, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A. 123 Justison Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 622-7000 Facsimile: (302) 622-7100 E-mail: egraham@gelaw.com tayala@gelaw.com GRIZZLY INDUSTRIAL: Recalls 10-Inch Table Saw Products ------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Grizzly Industrial Inc., of Bellingham, Wash., announced a voluntary recall of about 1,240 Grizzly 10-inch hybrid table saws. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The motor pulley can come loose and hit the table saw blade, causing the blade teeth to break into flying metal fragments, posing a risk of laceration or impact injury to consumers. This recall involves Grizzly 10-inch hybrid table saws with model number G0771 and serial number between TS2014060001 and TS2014111244 or a date code between 06/2014 and 11/2014. The Grizzly logo, "G0771," the serial number and the date code are printed on the side of the table saw's enclosed white metal base. Grizzly.com is printed on a green band on the bottom of the base. Incidents/Injuries The firm has received two reports of incidents with the table saws, including one report of a 46 year-old man who suffered a broken nose and lacerations when he was hit by flying pieces of the table saw. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/l27SWO The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Grizzly's showrooms, online at www.grizzly.com, in Grizzly's catalogs and in woodworking trade magazines from January 2015 through May 2015 for about $625. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled table saws and return them to Grizzly for a full refund, free repair or a free motor pulley kit that can be installed by the consumer. Grizzly is contacting consumers who bought the recalled table saws directly. HALE & HEARTY: "Hinson" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Chavanna Hinson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Hale & Hearty Soups L.L.C., et al., Case No. 153449 (D.N.Y, August 13, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. Hale & Hearty Soups L.L.C. owns and operates 33 locations of Hale & Hearty restaurants throughout New York State. The Plaintiff is represented by: Anne Melissa Seelig, Esq. C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 465-1124 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 E-mail: anne@leelitigation.com cklee@leelitigation.com HARTLEY MEDICAL: Recalls Prolotherapy with Phenol Injections ------------------------------------------------------------ Hartley Medical is voluntarily recalling three lots of Prolotherapy with Phenol, Injectable to the hospital/user level due to non-sterility concerns. Parenteral administration of non-sterile injection products that are intended to be sterile may result in a site-specific or systemic infection, which in turn may cause hospitalization, significant morbidity (permanent organ damage), or a fatal outcome. To date Hartley Medical has not received any reports of product contamination and/or adverse events related to this recall. This recall is a voluntary measure taken following a recent inspection with issues on our sterility methods and testing procedures specifically for this preparation. Prolotherapy with Phenol is used for neurolysis and is packaged in clear 5 mL and/or 100 mL sterile vials with labeling of the pharmacy and the drug. The affected Prolotherapy with Phenol lots include the following lot numbers and expiration dates: --- RX328690Expires 12/1/2015 --- RX323132Expires 10/6/2015 --- RX321608Expires 11/1/2015 The product can be identified by its white label on each vial with the name "PROLOTHERAPY WITH PHENOL". Product was distributed in California and Nevada to pain clinics between 5/15/15 - 7/14/15. Hartley Medical is notifying its distributors and customers by telephone, facsimile, electronic mail and/or regular mail and is arranging a return of all recalled products. Consumers/distributors/retailers that have Prolotherapy with Phenol which is being recalled should stop using the product and return its remaining contents to the pharmacy. To return product or request assistance related to this recall, users should call (562) 595-7548, Monday through Friday, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. PDT. 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. Complete and submit the report Online:www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm1 Regular Mail or Fax: Download form www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htm2. 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. HIP HOP NY: "Ackerman" Suit Alleges TCPA Violations ------------------------------------------------------ Michael Ackerman, and all others similarly-situated v. Hip Hop NY, Inc. and Lions Marketing & Promotions, LLC, Case No.1:15-cv-04532 (E.D.N.Y., August 4, 2015), seeks damages, injunctive relief, and any other available legal or equitable remedies pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Defendants sent unsolicited text messages to Plaintiff's cellular phone. Hip Hop NY, Inc.'s place of business is in Brooklyn, New York. Lions Marketing & Promotions, LLC's business is located at Bay Shore, New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Zelman, Esq. MARCUS ZELMAN LLC 1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101 Ocean, NJ 07712 Tel: (732) 695-3282 Fax: (732) 298-6256 E-mail: yzelman@marcuszelman.com - and - Todd M. Friedman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 369 S. Doheny Dr., #415 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Tel: (877) 206-4741 Fax: (866) 633-0228 HOSPICE OF EAST TEXAS: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Angela Black v. The Hospice of East Texas, Case No. 6:15-cv-00747 (E.D. Tex., August 13, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Hospice of East Texas is a Texas non-profit corporation that provides care for patients with life-limiting illnesses. The Plaintiff is represented by: Bob Whitehurst, Esq. WHITEHURST LAW FIRM 5380 Old Bullard Road, Suite 600, #363 Tyler, TX 75703 Telephone: (903)593-5588 E-mail: whitehurstlawfirm@yahoo.com HOST INTERNATIONAL: Faces "Gaite" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------- Dario Gaite v. Host International, Inc., Host Services of New York, Inc., and HMS Host USA, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-04744 (E.D.N.Y., August 13, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants operate restaurants and concessions inside of John F. Kennedy, International Airport in Queens, New York, I1430. The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Berlingieri, Esq. BERLINGIERI LAW, PLLC 244 Fifth Avenue, Suite F276 New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (347) 766-5105 Facsimile: (347)766-5105 E-mail: cjb@nyctlaw.com IDI INC: Faces Garrett Heim Class Action in S.D. Fla. ----------------------------------------------------- IDI, Inc., said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2015, that the Company was sued on July 22, 2015 in a class action suit entitled Garrett Heim vs. IDI, Inc., et al, USDC, Southern District of Florida, Case 9:15-cv-81019-BB. IGUANA NEW YORK: Faces "Diatta" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- Gaston Diatta, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Iguana New York Ltd. and Gerald Shallo, Case No. 1:15- cv-06399 (S.D.N.Y., August 13, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a Mexican restaurant located at 240 West 54th Street, New York, NY 10019. The Plaintiff is represented by: Micheal Taubenfeld, Esq. SERRINS FISHER LLP 233 Broadway, Suite 2340 New York, NY 10279 Telephone: (212) 571-0700 Facsimile: (212) 233-3801 IKEA CANADA: Recalls Drawer Chest Products ------------------------------------------ Starting date: August 12, 2015 Posting date: August 12, 2015 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Children's Products, Household Items Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Physical Hazard Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-54632 This notice involves the IKEA MALM 3- and 4-drawer chests and two styles of MALM 6-drawer chests; other children's chests and dressers taller than 23 1/2 inches; and adult chests and dressers taller than 29 1/2 inches. The affected products can tip-over if not securely anchored to the wall using the tip-over restraints provided with the product, posing an entrapment hazard. Health Canada has not received any reports of consumer tip-over incidents or injuries in Canada related to the use of IKEA drawer chests. IKEA has received 16 reports of tip-over incidents involving MALM drawer chests in the United States, resulting in two deaths and four injuries. Approximately 6,000,000 drawer chests have been sold at IKEA stores across Canada and online at IKEA's website. The MALM series drawer chests that are part of this notice have been sold since 2002 in Canada. The MALM series drawer chests are manufactured in Lithuania and Germany. Distributor: IKEA Canada Limited Partnership Burlington Ontario CANADA Consumers should immediately stop using all affected products unless they are securely anchored to the wall. For the convenience of consumers who may have misplaced or not installed the tip-over restraint that was originally provided with the product, IKEA Canada is offering consumers a wall anchoring kit free of charge for use with the affected chests and dressers. The kit contains replacement tip-over restraints, wall anchoring hardware, instructions and warning labels to be affixed to the furniture for use by any consumer who has not secured the affected chests and dressers to the wall. If a consumer has already anchored their IKEA chests and dressers in accordance with the instructions originally provided with the product, there is no action necessary. For more information, consumers may contact IKEA Canada by visiting the Secure It! Creating safer homes together webpage or by calling the toll-free number 1-800-661-9807. Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any health or safety incidents related to the use of this product or any other consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the Consumer Product Incident Report Form. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/jT9i5L IKEA NORTH AMERICA: Recalls Patrull Nightlight Products ------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with IKEA North America Services LLC, of Conshohocken, Pa., announced a voluntary recall of about 359,000 PATRULL Nightlight (in addition, 83,000 were sold in Canada). Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The nightlight's plastic covering can detach and expose electrical components, posing an electrical shock hazard. This recall affects all PATRULL Nightlights. Nightlights come in white, orange and pink. The nightlights automatically turn on in the dark and off in the light. Each PATRULL Nightlight has an IKEA logo on the back top near the sensor. The light has a dome-shaped plastic cover that gives the light its color and is attached to a white rectangular plastic base. The nightlight is 2 3/4 inches round and 3 1/2 inches deep. IKEA has received one report from Austria where a young child tried to remove the light from the electrical outlet when the colored plastic cover detached. The child received an electric shock and minor wounds on the hand. No incidents have been reported within the US. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/nfqNvD The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at IKEA stores nationwide and online at www.ikea-usa.com from August 2013 to July 2015 for about $4. Consumers should immediately stop using and unplug the recalled product and contact IKEA for a full refund. IMAX CORPORATION: Class Action in Canada Still Pending ------------------------------------------------------ IMAX Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 23, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a class action lawsuit was filed on September 20, 2006 in the Canadian court against the Company and certain of its officers and directors, alleging violations of Canadian securities laws. This lawsuit was brought on behalf of shareholders who acquired the Company's securities between February 17, 2006 and August 9, 2006. The lawsuit seeks $210.0 million in compensatory and punitive damages, as well as costs. For reasons released December 14, 2009, the Canadian Court granted leave to the plaintiffs to amend their statement of claim to plead certain claims pursuant to the Securities Act (Ontario) against the Company and certain individuals ("the Defendants") and granted certification of the action as a class proceeding. These are procedural decisions, and do not contain any conclusions binding on a judge at trial as to the factual or legal merits of the claim. Leave to appeal those decisions was denied. In March 2013, the Defendants obtained an Order enforcing the settlement Order in the parallel class action in the United States in this Canadian class action lawsuit, with the result that the class in this case was reduced in size by approximately 85%. A motion by the Plaintiffs for leave to appeal that Order was dismissed. The Company believes the allegations made against it in the statement of claim are meritless and will vigorously defend the matter, although no assurance can be given with respect to the ultimate outcome of such proceedings. The Company's directors' and officers' insurance policy provides for reimbursement of costs and expenses incurred in connection with this lawsuit as well as potential damages awarded, if any, subject to certain policy limits, exclusions and deductibles. IMAX CORPORATION: Class Action v. IMAX Chicago Theatre Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- IMAX Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 23, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that 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. INTEL CORP: Hearing on Amended Class Cert. Motion Set for Nov. 6 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Intel Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 27, 2015, that a hearing on plaintiffs' amended class certification motion is set for November 6, 2015. At least 82 separate class-action lawsuits have been filed in the U.S. District Courts for the Northern District of California, Southern District of California, District of Idaho, District of Nebraska, District of New Mexico, District of Maine, and District of Delaware, as well as in various California, Kansas, and Tennessee state courts. These actions generally repeat the allegations made in a now-settled lawsuit filed against us by AMD in June 2005 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (AMD litigation). Like the AMD litigation, these class- action lawsuits allege that we engaged in various actions in violation of the Sherman Act and other laws by, among other things: providing discounts and rebates to our manufacturer and distributor customers conditioned on exclusive or near-exclusive dealing that allegedly unfairly interfered with AMD's ability to sell its microprocessors; interfering with certain AMD product launches; and interfering with AMD's participation in certain industry standards-setting groups. The class actions allege various consumer injuries, including that consumers in various states have been injured by paying higher prices for computers containing our microprocessors. We dispute these class-action claims and intend to defend the lawsuits vigorously. All of the federal and state class actions other than the California class actions were transferred by the Multidistrict Litigation Panel to the U.S. District Court in Delaware for all pre-trial proceedings and discovery (MDL proceedings). The Delaware district court appointed a Special Master to address issues in the MDL proceedings, as assigned by the court. In January 2010, the plaintiffs in the Delaware action filed a motion for sanctions for our alleged failure to preserve evidence. This motion largely copies a motion previously filed by AMD in the AMD litigation, which has settled. The plaintiffs in the MDL proceedings also moved for certification of a class of members who purchased certain personal computers containing products sold by us. In July 2010, the Special Master issued a Report and Recommendation (Report) denying the motion to certify a class. The MDL plaintiffs filed objections to the Special Master's Report, and a hearing on those objections was held before the district court in July 2013. In July 2014, the district court affirmed the Special Master's ruling and issued an order denying the MDL plaintiffs' motion for class certification. In August 2014, plaintiffs filed a petition for interlocutory appeal of the district court's decision with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which the Third Circuit denied in October 2014. In December 2014, Intel filed a motion for summary judgment on the claims of the remaining individual plaintiffs. All California class actions have been consolidated in the Superior Court of California in Santa Clara County. The plaintiffs in the California actions moved for class certification, which we are in the process of opposing. At our request, the court in the California actions agreed to delay ruling on this motion until after the Delaware district court ruled on the similar motion in the MDL proceedings. The plaintiffs asked the court for leave to retain a new expert and to amend their previous motion for class certification. The court granted plaintiffs' request in February 2015 and the hearing on plaintiffs' amended class certification motion is set for November 6, 2015. Given the procedural posture and the nature of these cases, we are unable to make a reasonable estimate of the potential loss or range of losses, if any, arising from these matters. INTEL CORP: Disputes Class Claims in McAfee Shareholder Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Intel Corporation disputes the class-action claims in the McAfee, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Intel said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 27, 2015. On August 19, 2010, we announced that we had agreed to acquire all of the common stock of McAfee, Inc. (McAfee) for $48.00 per share. Four McAfee shareholders filed putative class-action lawsuits in Santa Clara County, California Superior Court challenging the proposed transaction. The cases were ordered consolidated in September 2010. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that named former McAfee board members, McAfee and Intel as defendants, and alleged that the McAfee board members breached their fiduciary duties and that McAfee and Intel aided and abetted those breaches of duty. The complaint requested rescission of the merger agreement, such other equitable relief as the court may deem proper, and an award of damages in an unspecified amount. In June 2012, the plaintiffs' damages expert asserted that the value of a McAfee share for the purposes of assessing damages should be $62.08. In January 2012, the court certified the action as a class action, appointed the Central Pension Laborers' Fund to act as the class representative, and scheduled trial to begin in January 2013. In March 2012, defendants filed a petition with the California Court of Appeal for a writ of mandate to reverse the class certification order; the petition was denied in June 2012. In March 2012, at defendants' request, the court held that plaintiffs were not entitled to a jury trial, and ordered a bench trial. In April 2012, plaintiffs filed a petition with the California Court of Appeal for a writ of mandate to reverse that order, which the court of appeal denied in July 2012. In August 2012, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court granted that motion in November 2012, and entered final judgment in the case in February 2013. In April 2013, plaintiffs appealed the final judgment. Intel, McAfee, and McAfee's board of directors filed an opposition to plaintiff's appeal in December 2014. Because the resolution of the appeal may materially impact the scope and nature of the proceeding, we are unable to make a reasonable estimate of the potential loss or range of losses, if any, arising from this matter. "We dispute the class-action claims and intend to continue to defend the lawsuit vigorously," the Company said. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Faces Class Suits for Divesting Business ---------------------------------------------------------------- International Business Machines Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2015, for the quarter ended June 30, 2015, that in March 2015, putative class action litigation was commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York related to the company's October 2014 announcement that it was divesting its global commercial semiconductor technology business. The company and three of its officers are named as defendants. Plaintiffs allege that defendants violated Sections 20(a) and 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. In May 2015, a related putative class action was also commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York based on the same underlying facts, alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The company, management's Retirement Plans Committee, and three current or former IBM executives are named as defendants. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Continues to Face Suits in Broome County ---------------------------------------------------------------- International Business Machines Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2015, for the quarter ended June 30, 2015, that the company is a defendant in numerous actions filed after January 1, 2008 in the Supreme Court for the State of New York, county of Broome, on behalf of hundreds of plaintiffs. The complaints allege numerous and different causes of action, including for negligence and recklessness, private nuisance and trespass. Plaintiffs in these cases seek medical monitoring and claim damages in unspecified amounts for a variety of personal injuries and property damages allegedly arising out of the presence of groundwater contamination and vapor intrusion of groundwater contaminants into certain structures in which plaintiffs reside or resided, or conducted business, allegedly resulting from the release of chemicals into the environment by the company at its former manufacturing and development facility in Endicott. These complaints also seek punitive damages in an unspecified amount. The company has reached an agreement in principle to settle substantially all of these cases. INTERNATIONAL FREIGHT: "Pinnock" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation ------------------------------------------------------------ Hugalee Pinnock, and all others similarly-situated v. International Freight Consolidators, Inc. dba IFC and John Collins, Case No. 0:15-cv-61614 (S.D. Fla., August 5, 2015), seeks to recover monetary damages for unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate a freight forwarding business and are engaged in interstate commerce. Their main office is located in Miami-Dade County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ruben Martin Saenz, Esq. SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC 20900 N.E. 30th Ave., Ste 800 Aventura, FL 33180 Tel: (305) 503-5131 Fax: (888) 270-5549 E-mail: msaenz@saenzanderson.com JIM SCOTT: "McDowell" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Howard McDowell v. Jim Scott Enterprises, Inc. and James R. Scott, Case No. 0:15-cv-61683-DPG (S.D. Fla., August 13, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a radio station and broadcasting company in Broward County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: K. Brian Roller, Esq. SCHWARTZ ROLLER LLP 3876 Sheridan Street Hollywood, FL 33021 Telephone: (954) 966-2483 Facsimile: (954) 966-2566 E-mail: kbroller@szalaw.com pleadings@szalaw.com JING YONG: Faces "Noriega" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------ Jose A. Noriega v. Jing Yong, Inc. and Jing Yang, Case No. 1:15- cv-00697 (W.D. Tex., August 13, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate multiple buffet restaurants in Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert W. Cowan, Esq. BAILEY PEAVY BAILEY PLLC 440 Louisiana Street, Suite 2100 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 425-7100 Facsimile: (713) 425-7101 E-mail: rcowan@bpblaw.com JOHNSTON, R.I.: Sued Over Failure to Pay Police Officers Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- James Brandy, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated v. Town of Johnston and Joseph Chiodo, Case No. 1:15-cv-00341-M- LDA (D.R.I., August 13, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay police officer's overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Town of Johnston is a municipal corporation organized under a Home Rule Charter enacted by the Rhode Island General Assembly. The Plaintiff is represented by: Elizabeth A. Wiens, Esq. GURSKY WIENS ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LTD. 420 Scrabbletown Road, Suite C North Kingstown, RI 02852 Telephone: (401) 294-4700 ext. 13 Facsimile: (401) 294-4700 E-mail: ewiens@rilaborlaw.com KAPOWSIN MEATS: Recalls Whole Hogs Products Due to Salmonella ------------------------------------------------------------- Kapowsin Meats, a Graham, Wash. establishment, is recalling approximately 116,262 pounds of whole hogs that may be contaminated with Salmonella I 4, [5],12:i:-, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The whole hogs for barbeque item were produced on various dates between April 18, 2015 and July 27, 2015. The following products are subject to recall: --Varying weights of Whole Hogs for Barbeque The product subject to recall bears the establishment number "Est. 1628" inside the USDA mark of inspection. The product was shipped to various individuals, retail locations, institutions, and distributors in Alaska and Washington. On July 15, 2015, the Washington State Department of Health notified FSIS of an investigation of Salmonella I 4,[5],12:i:- illnesses. Working in conjunction with the Washington State Department of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), FSIS determined that there is a link between whole hogs for barbeque from Kapowsin Meats and these illnesses. Traceback investigation has identified 32 case-patients who consumed whole hogs for barbeque from this establishment prior to illness onset. These illnesses are part of a larger illness investigation. Based on epidemiological evidence, 134 case- patients have been identified in Washington with illness onset dates ranging from April 25, 2015 to July 29, 2015. FSIS continues to work with our public health partners on this ongoing investigation. Consumption of food contaminated with Salmonella can cause salmonellosis, one of the most common bacterial foodborne illnesses. The most common symptoms of salmonellosis are diarrhea, abdominal cramps, and fever within 12 to 72 hours after eating the contaminated product. The illness usually lasts 4 to 7 days. Most people recover without treatment. In some persons, however, the diarrhea may be so severe that the patient needs to be hospitalized. Older adults, infants, and persons with weakened immune systems are more likely to develop a severe illness. Individuals concerned about an illness should contact their health care provider. FSIS and the company are concerned that some product may be frozen and in consumers' freezers. 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. FSIS advises all consumers to safely prepare their raw meat products, including fresh and frozen, and only consume pork and whole hogs for barbeque that have been cooked to a minimum internal temperature of 145ø F with a three minute rest time. The only way to confirm that whole hogs for barbeque are cooked to a temperature high enough to kill harmful bacteria is to use a food thermometer that measures internal temperature, http://1.usa.gov/1cDxcDQ.For whole hogs for barbeque make sure to check the internal temperature with a food thermometer in several places. Check the temperature frequently and replenish wood or coals to make sure the fire stays hot. Remove only enough meat from the carcass as you can serve within 1-2 hours. Media and consumers with questions regarding the recall can contact John Anderson, Owner, at (253) 847-1777. 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. KIMBERLY-CLARK: Hugies Diapers Toxic, New York Action Says ---------------------------------------------------------- Adam Klasfeld, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that marketed in a soft-green font and tree imagery, Huggies "pure & natural" diapers market themselves safe and environmentally sound, but they have a synthetic ingredient that can "strip skin of pigment," claims a federal class action filed in Manhattan. Christina Franjul and Veronica Brenner, of New York and California, respectively, filed the federal complaint against Huggies parent Kimberly-Clark Corp. and two subsidiaries. The 32- page filing accuses the Fortune 500 company of deceiving consumers who are growing more conscious of the dangers of mass-marketed household products. "In recent years, consumers have become significantly more aware and sensitive to the toxicity and impact of household products on their health, the health of their children, and the general environment," the complaint states. "As a result, demand has increased for so-called 'green' products that are naturally derived, environmentally sound, and non-toxic." The Huggies diapers appeal to this demographic with promises of "soft organic cotton," and healthy green leaves providing a canopy over a smiling baby who has the words "pure & natural" hovering over his belly. The diapers, however, are "neither pure nor natural" because they contain ingredients such as polypropylene, sodium polyacrylate, sodium methylparaben and methylisothiazolinone, the class says. A Washington-based watchdog called the Environmental Working Group (EWG) describes sodium methylparaben as a "human endocrine disrupter," and the European Union has banned the substance for its potential to "strip skin of pigment," according to the lawsuit. The EWG has also linked methylisothiazolinone to skin toxicity, immune system toxicity and allergic reactions. "Furthermore, until around June 2010, Huggies Natural Wipes contained a substance called DMDM hydantoin, which is a 'formaldehyde releaser' -- i.e., over time, it releases formaldehyde, which is a preservative classified as a carcinogen by the United States Department of Labor's Occupational Safety & Health Administration," the complaint states. In addition, the women say, the "organic cotton" advertised on the packaging refers only to the material on the outside of the diaper. "The organic cotton, thus, never actually comes into contact with the ultimate user, the baby," according to the complaint. The class seeks punitive damages for 10 violations of federal and state law, including the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, breach of express warranty, and California, Florida and New York consumer protection statutes. It is represented by: Joseph Marchese, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 E-mail: jmarchese@bursor.com Tel: 646-837-7410 Kimberly-Clark actually discontinued Huggies Natural Diapers and removed methylisothiazolinone from Huggies Natural Wipes after two other women hit it with a similar federal class action last month in San Francisco. A footnote in the new complaint notes that the company has not recalled the products, which are "still available for purchase online and on shelves nationwide." Kimberly-Clark declined to comment on pending litigation. KINDER MORGAN: Private Landowners in California File Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Kinder Morgan, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 24, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that private landowners in California have filed a purported class action lawsuit related to subsurface real property allegedly used or occupied by Union Pacific Railroad Company (UPRR) or SFPP, L.P. On April 23, 2015, after the decision by the California Court of Appeals which held that UPRR does not own the subsurface rights to grant certain easements and may not be able to collect rent from those easements, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Case No. 01842) by private landowners in California who claim to be the lawful owners of subsurface real property allegedly used or occupied by UPRR or SFPP. Fourteen substantially similar and follow-on lawsuits have been filed in federal courts by landowners in Oregon, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. These suits, which are brought purportedly as class actions on behalf of all landowners who own land in fee adjacent to and underlying the railroad easement under which the SFPP pipeline is located in those respective states, assert claims against UPRR, SFPP, Kinder Morgan G.P., Inc. or KMGP, and Kinder Morgan Operating L.P. "D" for declaratory judgment, trespass, ejectment, quiet title, unjust enrichment, accounting, and alleged unlawful business acts and practices arising from defendants' alleged improper use or occupation of subsurface real property. SFPP views these cases as primarily a dispute between UPRR and the plaintiffs. UPRR purported to grant SFPP a network of subsurface pipeline easements along UPRR's railroad right-of-way. SFPP relied on the validity of those easements and paid rent to UPRR for the value of those easements. "We believe we have recorded a right-of-way liability sufficient to cover our potential liability, if any, for back rent," the Company said. KINDER MORGAN: Oral Argument on Motion to Dismiss Occurred ---------------------------------------------------------- Kinder Morgan, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 24, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in the Kinder Morgan, Inc. Corporate Reorganization Litigation, oral argument on defendants' motion to dismiss occurred on June 12, 2015 and the motion remains under consideration by the Court. Certain unitholders of Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. or KMP and El Paso Pipeline Partners, L.P. or EPB filed five putative class action lawsuits in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware in connection with the Merger Transactions, which the Court consolidated under the caption In re Kinder Morgan, Inc. Corporate Reorganization Litigation (Consolidated Case No. 10093- VCL). The plaintiffs originally sought to enjoin one or more of the proposed Merger Transactions, which relief the Court denied on November 5, 2014. On December 12, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a Verified Second Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint, which purports to assert claims on behalf of both the former EPB unitholders and the former KMP unitholders. The EPB plaintiff alleged that (i) El Paso Pipeline GP Company, L.L.C. (EPGP), the general partner of EPB, and the directors of EPGP breached duties under the EPB partnership agreement, including the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, by entering into the EPB Transaction; (ii) EPB, E Merger Sub LLC, KMI and individual defendants aided and abetted such breaches; and (iii) EPB, E Merger Sub LLC, KMI, and individual defendants tortiously interfered with the EPB partnership agreement by causing EPGP to breach its duties under the EPB partnership agreement. The KMP plaintiffs allege that (i) KMR, KMGP, and individual defendants breached duties under the KMP partnership agreement, including the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, by entering into the KMP Transaction and by failing to adequately disclose material facts related to the transaction; (ii) KMI aided and abetted such breach; and (iii) KMI, KMP, KMR, P Merger Sub LLC, and individual defendants tortiously interfered with the rights of the plaintiffs and the putative class under the KMP partnership agreement by causing KMGP to breach its duties under the KMP partnership agreement. The complaint seeks declaratory relief that the transactions were unlawful and unenforceable, reformation, rescission, rescissory or compensatory damages, interest, and attorneys' and experts' fees and costs. On December 30, 2014, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. Oral argument on defendants' motion to dismiss occurred on June 12, 2015 and the motion remains under consideration by the Court. On April 2, 2015, the EPB plaintiff and the defendants submitted a stipulation and proposed order of dismissal, agreeing to dismiss all claims brought by the EPB plaintiff with prejudice as to the EPB lead plaintiff and without prejudice to all other members of the putative EPB class. The Court entered such order on April 2, 2015. The defendants believe the allegations against them lack merit, and they intend to vigorously defend these lawsuits. KINDER MORGAN: Capex Litigation Still Pending --------------------------------------------- The Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. Capex Litigation remains pending, according to Kinder Morgan, Inc.'s Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 24, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015. Putative class action and derivative complaints were filed in the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware against defendants Kinder Morgan Inc. or KMI, Kinder Morgan G.P., Inc. or KMGP and nominal defendant Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. or KMEP on February 5, 2014 and March 27, 2014 captioned Slotoroff v. Kinder Morgan, Inc., Kinder Morgan G.P., Inc. et al (Case No. 9318) and Burns et al v. Kinder Morgan, Inc., Kinder Morgan G.P., Inc. et al (Case No. 9479) respectively. The cases were consolidated on April 8, 2014 (Consolidated Case No. 9318). The consolidated suit seeks to assert claims both individually and on behalf of a putative class consisting of all public holders of KMEP units during the period of February 5, 2011 through the date of the filing of the complaints. The suit alleges direct and derivative causes of action for breach of the partnership agreement, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, aiding and abetting, and tortious interference. Among other things, the suit alleges that defendants made a bad faith allocation of capital expenditures to expansion capital expenditures rather than maintenance capital expenditures for the alleged purpose of "artificially" inflating KMEP's distributions and growth rate. The suit seeks disgorgement of any distributions to KMGP, KMI and any related entities, beyond amounts that would have been distributed in accordance with a "good faith" allocation of maintenance capital expenses, together with other unspecified monetary damages including punitive damages and attorney fees. Defendants believe this suit is without merit and intend to defend it vigorously. KINDER MORGAN: "Walker" Litigation Remains Stayed ------------------------------------------------- Walker v. Kinder Morgan, Inc., Kinder Morgan G.P., Inc. et al. remains stayed pending further resolution of the Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. Capex Litigation, according to Kinder Morgan, Inc.'s Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 24, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015. On March 6, 2014, a putative class action and derivative complaint was filed in the District Court of Harris County, Texas (Case No. 2014-11872 in the 215th Judicial District) against Kinder Morgan Inc. or KMI, Kinder Morgan G.P., Inc. or KMGP, Kinder Morgan Management, LLC or KMR, Richard D. Kinder, Steven J. Kean, Ted A. Gardner, Gary L. Hultquist, Perry M. Waughtal and nominal defendant Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. or KMEP. The suit was filed by Kenneth Walker, a purported unit holder of KMEP, and alleges derivative causes of action for alleged violation of duties owed under the partnership agreement, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, "abuse of control" and "gross mismanagement" in connection with the calculation of distributions and allocation of capital expenditures to expansion capital expenditures and maintenance capital expenditures. The suit seeks unspecified money damages, interest, punitive damages, attorney and expert fees, costs and expenses, unspecified equitable relief, and demands a trial by jury. Defendants believe this suit is without merit and intend to defend it vigorously. By agreement of the parties, the case is stayed pending further resolution of the Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. Capex Litigation. KOOS MANUFACTURING: Faces "Cristobal" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ----------------------------------------------------------------- Noe Cristobal, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Koos Manufacturing, Inc. and Does 1 through 100, Case No. BC591484 (D. Cal., August 13, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code. Koos Manufacturing, Inc. operates a company that designs, manufactures and distributes denim jeans and pants. The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul K. Haines, Esq. Fletcher W. Schmidt, Esq. Kristina R. Sherry, Esq. BOREN, OSHER & LUFTMAN LLP 222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 2222 El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (310) 322-2220 Facsimile: (310) 322-2228 E-mail: phaines@bollaw.com fschmidt@bollaw.com ksherry@bollaw.com LIFE TIME: Faces "Roth" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Jennifer Roth, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Life Time Fitness, Inc., LTF Club Operations Company, Inc., LTF Club Management Company, LLC, and LTF Yoga Company, LLC, Case No. 0:15-cv-03270 (D. Minn., August 13, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a fitness gym in Minnesota. The Plaintiff is represented by: Garrett D. Blanchfield, Esq. Roberta A. Yard, Esq. REINHARDT WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD E-1250 First National Bank Bldg. 332 Minnesota St. St. Paul, MN 55101 Telephone: (651) 287-2100 Facsimile: (651) 287-2103 E-mail: g.blanchfield@gwblawfirm.com r.yard@gwblawfirm.com - and - J. Barton Goplerud, Esq. HUDSON MALLANEY SHINDLER & ANDERSON, PC 5015 Grand Ridge Drive, Suite 100 West Des Moines, IA 50265 Telephone: (515) 223-4567 Facsimile: (515) 223-8887 E-mail: jbgoplerud@hudsonlaw.net - and - Daniel R. Karon, Esq. Beau D. Hollowell, Esq. KARON LLC 700 W. St. Clair Ave., Suite 200 Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 551-9175 Facsimile: (216) 241-8175 E-mail: dkaron@karonllc.com bhollowell@karonllc.com - and - Alan L. Rosca, Esq. PEIFFER ROSCA WOLF ABDULLAH CARR & KANE 1422 Euclid Ave., Suite 1610 Cleveland, OH 44115 Telephone: (216) 589-9280 Facsimile: (888) 411-0038 E-mail: arosca@prwlegal.com LOGMEIN INC: Ignition Plaintiffs Filed Second Amended Complaint --------------------------------------------------------------- Logmein, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 24, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Ignition Plaintiffs have filed a second amended complaint. On August 28, 2014, a putative class action complaint was filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California (Case No. 1:14-cv-01355) by an individual on behalf of himself and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, or collectively, the Ignition Plaintiffs. The Ignition Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint on February 17, 2015, which included claims made under California's False Advertising Act and Unfair Competition Law relating to the Company's sale of its Ignition for iOS application, or the App, and the Ignition Plaintiffs' continued use of the App. On May 6, 2015, the Ignition Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. The Ignition Plaintiffs' second amended complaint seeks restitution, damages in an unspecified amount, attorney's fees and costs, and unspecified equitable and injunctive relief. "The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims and intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously," Logmein said. "Given the inherent unpredictability of litigation and the fact that this litigation is still in its early stages, the Company is unable to predict the outcome of this litigation or reasonably estimate a possible loss or range of loss associated with this litigation at this time." LOGMEIN INC: Central Plaintiffs Filed Class Action Complaint ------------------------------------------------------------ Logmein, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 24, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a putative class action complaint was filed on June 29, 2015, against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Case No. 5:15-cv-01258) by an individual on behalf of himself and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, or collectively, the Central Plaintiffs, under California's Automatic Purchase Renewal Statute and Unfair Competition Law related to pricing changes and billing practices for subscriptions to the Company's LogMeIn Central service. The Plaintiffs' complaint seeks restitution, damages in an unspecified amount, attorney's fees and costs, and unspecified equitable and injunctive relief. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims and intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously. Given the inherent unpredictability of litigation and the fact that this litigation is still in its early stages, the Company is unable to predict the outcome of this litigation or reasonably estimate a possible loss or range of loss associated with this litigation at this time. LOS ANGELES, CA: Faces "Enguist" Suit Over City Gas User Tax ------------------------------------------------------------ Lorin M. Enguist and Angelica G. Divinagracia d/b/a Fun Fit Factory, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. City of Los Angeles, Case No. BC591331 (D. Cal., August 13, 2015), is an action for damages as a result of the Defendant's illegal collection of City Gas User Tax. City of Los Angeles is located within the Los Angeles County and has a population of approximately 3.8 million residents. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jon Tostrud, Esq. TOSTRUD LAW GROUP, PC 1925 Century Park, East, Suite 2125 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 278-2600 Facsimile: (310)278-2640 E-mail: jtostrud@tostrudlaw.com LOVIN' OVEN: Faces "Montgomery" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jennifer Hope Montgomery, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Lovin' Oven Catering Suffolk, Inc., 21 Main North Beach, LLC, William Riley, Gerard Scollan and Matthew Scollan, Case No. 4:15-cv-03214-RBH (D.S.C., August 13, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants are the food & beverage service providers at North Beach Plantation's locations, including Seaside Cafe, BLU, Poolside Bar & Grill and 21 Main Prime Steak House and Sushi Bar. The Plaintiff is represented by: William E. Hopkins Jr., Esq. J. Clay Hopkins, Esq. HOPKINS LAW FIRM, LLC 12019 Ocean Highway Post Office Box 1885 Pawleys Island, SC 29585 Telephone: (843) 314-4202 Facsimile: (843) 314-9365 E-mail: bill@hopkinsfirm.com clay@hopkinsfirm.com - and - Natasha M. Hanna, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NATASHA M. HANNA, P.C. 4717 Jenn Drive, #102 Myrtle Beach, SC 29577 Telephone: (843) 839-8002 Facsimile: (843) 839-8011 E-mail: natasha@nhannalaw.com MARRIOTT VACATIONS: Parties Agree to Dismiss "Sterman" Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Marriott Vacations Worldwide Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 23, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 19, 2015, that the parties in the class action filed by William Sterman filed a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice as to the remaining claim in arbitration. "In August 2014, William Sterman, an owner of a weeks-based Marriott Vacation Club vacation ownership product at our resort in Massachusetts, filed a claim with the American Arbitration Association on behalf of a putative class consisting of himself and all others similarly situated," the Company said. The claims alleged and the relief sought are substantially similar to the claims alleged and the relief sought by the Flynns. "On June 15, 2015, the arbitrator granted our motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part, and denied Mr. Sterman's request to proceed with a class action. "On July 7, 2015, the parties filed a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice as to the remaining claim in arbitration, and also filed a joint motion to dismiss our appeal that was pending in the Eleventh Circuit of the decision by the District Court that the arbitrability of Mr. Sterman's claims must be resolved by an arbitrator." MARRIOTT VACATIONS: Requests That Class Cert. Motion be Deferred ----------------------------------------------------------------- Marriott Vacations Worldwide Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 23, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 19, 2015, that the Company has filed a motion requesting that proceedings on the class certification motion filed by the Abramsons be deferred until after resolution of the Company's motion to dismiss. The Company said, "On January 29, 2015, Norman and Carreen Abramson, owners of weeks-based Marriott Vacation Club vacation ownership products at one of our resorts in California and of our points-based Marriott Vacation Club vacation ownership product, filed an action in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of a putative class consisting of themselves and all others similarly situated. The claims alleged and the relief sought are substantially similar to the claims alleged and the relief sought by the Flynns." "On March 30, 2015, we filed a motion to dismiss the Abramson action, which remains pending. On June 30, 2015, Mr. Abramson filed a motion for class certification. On July 10, 2015, we filed a motion requesting that proceedings on the class certification motion be deferred until after resolution of our motion to dismiss and the taking of discovery on Mr. Abramson's class claims, which motion also remains pending. "We dispute the material allegations in the California action and intend to defend against them vigorously. Given the early stages of the action and the inherent uncertainties of litigation, we cannot estimate a range of potential liability, if any, at this time." MCG CAPITAL: Faces Consolidated Action Over PennantPark Merger -------------------------------------------------------------- MCG Capital Corporation is a party to a consolidated class action stockholder lawsuit in connection with its proposed merger with PennantPark, MCG said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015. The Company said, "Six complaints were filed by stockholders challenging the merger between May 6, 2015, and May 18, 2015, in the Delaware Court of Chancery. The complaints were consolidated and on June 10, 2015, a consolidated class action complaint was filed. The consolidated complaint alleges that MCG's directors violated their fiduciary duties by, among other things, not protecting against their supposed conflicts of interest and failing to take steps to maximize the consideration to be received by MCG's stockholders in the Merger. The consolidated complaint also alleges that PennantPark and its affiliated entities have aided and abetted the MCG directors' purported breach of fiduciary duties. The complaint demands, among other things, a preliminary and permanent injunction against the Merger and rescission of the transaction to the extent that it has been implemented. MCG believes that the consolidated complaint is without merit. MEDSTAR GEORGETOWN: Overcharged Medical Records, Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ A federal class action in Washington accuses Medstar Georgetown University Hospital of overcharging for medical records, and seeks $1,500 per violation. MERCEDES-BENZ: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models Due to Injury Risk ----------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: August 7, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Car Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Engine Units affected: 9 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015359TC ID number: 2015359 On certain vehicles, the rubber seal at the top edge of the secondary bulkhead of the engine compartment may have been damaged during manufacturing. Should a sufficient length of rubber seal be displaced from the bulkhead, and the seal were to drop down, it could result in the loose end of the seal contacting exhaust components. This could increase the risk of fire resulting in injury and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers will replace the rubber seal in the engine compartment. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- MERCEDES-BENZ E CLASS 2015 MERCEDES-BENZ CLS CLASS 2015 MERCK SHARP: Recalls Bottles of Temodar(R) and Temozolomide ----------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., of Whitehouse Station, N.J., announced a voluntary recall of about 276,000 Bottles with cracked caps containing Temodar(R) (Temozolomide) and Temozolomide (generic) capsules. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The bottle cap can be cracked which can cause the child-resistant closure to become ineffective to young children who can gain unintended access to the capsules, posing a risk of poisoning. This recall to replace involves bottle caps for Temodar and Temozolomide (generic) capsules, an oral chemotherapy drug. The capsules were distributed in 5- and 14-count brown glass bottles that have white plastic child-resistant caps. A white label affixed to the bottle has the word "Temozolomide" printed in black lettering. No consumer incidents have been reported. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/naFnbg The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold at Clinics and pharmacies nationwide as a prescribed medicine from July 2013 to August 2015. The container was included in the cost of the medication which is based on quantities prescribed, health insurance terms and other factors. Consumers should immediately inspect their bottle caps for cracks. If a crack is found, consumers should contact Merck for a replacement cap. As with all drug products, the bottles should be stored up high, out of sight and reach of young children. Consumers may continue to use the drug as directed. MERGE HEALTHCARE: Sued in Del. Over Proposed IBM Corp. Merger ------------------------------------------------------------- Steven Merola, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Merge Healthcare Incorporated, et al., Case No. 11388 (D. Del., August 13, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the public stockholders of Merge Healthcare Incorporated to enjoin the proposed acquisition of Merge by International Business Machines Corporation for inadequate consideration and unfair price. Merge Healthcare Incorporated is a Delaware corporation that develops software solutions that facilitate the sharing of images to create a more effective and efficient electronic healthcare experience for patients and physicians. International Business Machines Corporation manufactures and markets computer hardware, middleware and software, and offers infrastructure, hosting and consulting services in areas ranging from mainframe computers to nanotechnology. 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 MICHELIN: Recalls Multiple Tire Models Due to Crash Risk -------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: August 10, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Tire Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Tires Units affected: 6400 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015361TC ID number: 2015361 Certain tires could experience a rapid loss of air pressure due to a rupture of the sidewall in the bead area under severe usage conditions. Rapid air loss could cause a loss of vehicle control, increasing the risk of a crash causing injury and/or damage to property. Correction: manufacturers will provide instructions on how to obtain replacement tires. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- BF GOODRICH 2014, 2014, 2014, 2014, 2014, 2014, 2014, 2014 MICHIGAN LOGISTICS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime --------------------------------------------------------- Michael Keane, and all others similarly-situated v. Michigan Logistics Inc. dba Diligent Deliveries, Northeast Logistics Inc. dba Diligent Deliveries, and Any Part Group Purchasing, Inc. dba Any Part Auto Store, Case No.2:15-cv-04592 (E.D.N.Y., August 5, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Michigan Logistics Inc. dba Diligent Deliveries and Northeast Logistics Inc. dba Diligent Deliveries operate a business that's primary purpose is to hire delivery drivers for businesses nationwide. Any Part Group Purchasing, Inc. dba Any Part Auto Store operates a business enterprise consisting of eight auto parts stores throughout the State of New York. Any Part Group Purchasing, Inc. shares its employees throughout its stores. The Plaintiff is represented by: Troy L. Kessler, Esq. SHULMAN KESSLER LLP 534 Broadhollow Road, Ste. 275 Melville, NY 11747 Tel: (631) 499-9100 Fax: (631) 499-9120 E-mail: tk@shulmankessler.com MICROSEMI CORPORATION: Chancery Court Entered Dismissal Order ------------------------------------------------------------- Microsemi Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 28, 2015, that the Chancery Court has entered an order of dismissal, as stipulated by the parties, providing that the lawsuit be dismissed with prejudice as to the plaintiff. On February 23, 2015, the Ironworkers Local No. 25 Pension Fund filed a shareholder derivative class action lawsuit in Delaware Chancery Court against the Company's current and former directors, including James J. Peterson, Dennis R. Leibel, Thomas R. Anderson, William E. Bendush, Paul F. Folino, William L. Healey, Matthew E. Massengill and James V. Mazzo, and the Royal Bank of Canada ("RBC"). The lawsuit challenges a provision in the Company's credit agreement, as amended prior to that date, that allegedly triggered an event of default if a majority of the board of directors was replaced through various means over a specified period of time. The plaintiff alleges that the directors breached their fiduciary duties by permitting the Company to agree to the challenged change of control term on the theory that the term could have had the effect of entrenching incumbent board members. The lawsuit also alleges that RBC aided and abetted the purported breaches of fiduciary duties by the directors. The lawsuit seeks an order invalidating the challenged change of control term and an award of attorneys' fees and costs to the plaintiff's lawyers. On March 31, 2015, before any substantive proceedings in the lawsuit, the Company amended the credit agreement to remove the challenged change of control term, and disclosed the amendment in a Form 8-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 1, 2015. On June 18, 2015, the Chancery Court entered an order of dismissal, as stipulated by the parties, providing that the lawsuit be dismissed with prejudice as to the plaintiff, and without prejudice to other putative class members, following the satisfaction of certain specified events including the payment of an agreed-upon amount of attorneys' fees and costs to the plaintiff's counsel and the filing of the Company's 10-Q for the quarter ended June 28, 2015. The final resolution of this matter did not have a material impact on our financial position or results of operations. MINISTRY SAINT: Faces "Griebel" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- Victoria A. Griebel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ministry Saint Joseph's Hospital, Case No. 3:15-cv-00507 (W.D. Wis., August 13, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Ministry Saint Joseph's Hospital operates a medical center affiliated with a community health system, Ministry Health Care, Inc., which consists of 16 hospitals, numerous clinics and related services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Nathan D. Eisenberg, Esq. Erin F. Medeiros, Esq. THE PREVIANT LAW FIRM, S.C. 1555 N. River Center Drive, S. 202 P. O. Box 12993 Milwaukee, WI 53212 Telephone: (414) 271 4500 Facsimile: (414) 271 6308 E-mail: nde@previant.com efm@previant.com - and - Gregory B. Gill Sr., Esq. Barry P. Gill, Esq. GILL & GILL, S.C. 128 North Durkee Street Appleton, WI 54911 Telephone: (920) 739-1107 Facsimile: (920) 739-3027 E-mail: gillsr@gillandgillsc.com bpgill@gillandgillsc.com NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Restraints Trade of Sunday Games, Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1465 3rd Ave. Rest. Corp. d/b/a Gael Pub, for itself and for all others similarly situated v. National Football League, Inc., NFL Enterprises LLC, DirecTv, LLC, and DirecTv Holdings LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-06145 (C.D. Cal., August 13, 2015), seeks to enjoin the ongoing unreasonable restraint of trade that Defendants have implemented through DirecTV's exclusive arrangement to broadcast all Sunday afternoon out-of-market games. National Football League, Inc. is an unincorporated association of 32 American professional football teams in the United States. NFL Enterprises, LLC was organized to hold the broadcast rights of the 32 NFL teams and license them to providers and other broadcasters. DirecTV Holdings, LLC is a Delaware Limited Liability Company and has its principal place of business at 2230 East Imperial Highway, El Segundo, California. DirecTV is a direct broadcast satellite service provider and broadcaster. DirecTV, LLC is a California Limited Liability Company that has its principal place of business at 2230 East Imperial Highway, El Segundo, California. DirecTV, LLC issues bills to its subscribers. The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman M. Silberfeld, Esq. David Martinez, Esq. ROBINS KAPLAN LLP 2049 Century Park East, Suite 3400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 552-0130 Facsimile: (310) 229-5800 E-mail: RSilberfeld@RobinsKaplan.com DMartinez@RobinsKaplan.com - and - Hollis Salzman, Esq. Kellie Lerner, Esq. Michelle C. Zolnoski, Esq. ROBINS KAPLAN LLP 601 Lexington Avenue, Suite 3400 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 980-7400 Facsimile: (212) 980-7499 E-mail: HSalzman@RobinsKaplan.com KLerner@RobinsKaplan.com MZolnoski@RobinsKaplan.com - and - John Radice, Esq. Kenneth Pickle, Esq. RADICE LAW FIRM 34 Sunset Boulevard Long Beach, NJ 08008 Telephone: (646) 245-8502 Facsimile: (609) 385-0745 E-mail: JRadice@radicelawfirm.com KPickle@radicelawfirm.com NELNET INC: Judge Reduced Attorney Fees in Debt Collection Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Eva Fedderly, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that a federal judge in Orlando, Florida, awarded $1.25 million in attorney's fees following the settlement of a class action against a student loan servicing company. The fee award represents 27.78 percent of the gross settlement fund of $4.5 million, and was accompanied by the final dismissal -- with prejudice -- of a complaint filed in February 2014. In his complaint, lead plaintiff James David Cooper Jr. claimed NelNet Inc., repeatedly placed pre-recorded voice calls to his cell phone while attempting to collect an alleged debt. Cooper argued the calls were a direct contravention of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, because he did not consent to them, and in fact, were related to a debt incurred by someone other than himself. NelNet denied the allegations, but in June 2015, after an exchange of "robust" discovery, production of thousands of pages and documents, and a full day of mediation, nevertheless agreed to settle the case. A total of 2,526 individuals submitted class action claim forms, and under the agreement, each will receive at least $150. Cooper himself was also granted a $25,000 "incentive" award for his role in pursuing the case. NelNet also agreed to implement a new, enhanced training regime for its employees. Attorneys then submitted a request for $1.5 million in fees, which U.S. District Judge Roy Dalton Jr. felt compelled to reduce on August 4. Dalton explained he did so for a number of reasons, not least of which was the relatively short amount of time the case was actually pending. "The docket reflects that the progress of the case has been unremarkable with little to no substantive motion practice beyond the TCPA constitutional issue, which was mooted by settlement," Dalton wrote. At the same time, the judge said, he was mindful not to reduce the fees too much, acknowledging that it is not easy for consumers to obtain counsel in Telephone Consumer Protection Act cases, given the law is relatively new and the cases often handled on a contingency basis. "Additionally, Class Counsel obtained significant benefits for the class . . . "Dalton wrote. "Moreover, the Agreement, including the negotiation of the attorneys' fees, was reached in mediation with a skilled mediator. Thus, there is a presumption that the Agreement is fair, negotiated at arm's length and without collusion." "Importantly, there were no objections to the Agreement or even to the fees requested by counsel," he added. Representatives could not be reached for comment by Courthouse News. NEW JERSEY: Governor's Aides Face New Allegations Over Bridgegate ----------------------------------------------------------------- Nick Rummell, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that as New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie prepared for the much-anticipated presidential debate on August 6, his former aides faced new federal allegations over the "Bridgegate" scandal. With exhibits putting it close to 700 pages, the class action filed on August 6 renews allegations of political corruption and retribution concerning the five-day September 2013 shutdown of several lanes leading into the George Washington Bridge, which had snarled traffic for hours. The lane shutdown, which occurred on the first day of school for children and had caused innumerable delays to both school buses and emergency vehicles, was allegedly payback for Fort Lee Mayor Mark Sokolich not endorsing Christie's re-election for governor. In dismissing an earlier version of lawsuit, a federal judge chided the class for not including enough details on the alleged conspiracy. U.S. Judge Jose Linares had said in June that the complaint contained "merely conclusory allegations with respect to any alleged concerted activity of defendants and fails to set forth any allegations of fact with respect to defendants' joint action." The plaintiffs took the court up on its offer to amend their claims. The new filing draws heavily from a December 2014 report by the New Jersey Legislature, which alleged evidence of a conspiracy in hundreds of text messages, phone calls, and emails between Christie staffers and officials at the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. The amended complaint also cites an investigation by law firm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher on behalf of Christie's office into both Bridgegate and allegations of withheld relief money after Superstorm Sandy. Bridgegate has been a consistent black eye for Christie over the past year and a half, but he has not faced any direct fallout. Indeed, he is not even named as a defendant to the latest iteration. The plaintiffs, who are residents of the nearby New Jersey towns of Old Tappan and Fort Lee, as well as several taxi services, instead have taken aim at the state; Christie's gubernatorial re- election campaign organization; Christie's former deputy chief of staff, Bridget Anne Kelly; and Christie's former spokesman. Former Christie-appointed Port Authority employees Bill Baroni and David Wildstein also are named as the defendants. Christie, who had been named as a defendant in the original action, has said the Gibson Dunn report -- as well as two Democratic investigations -- support his assertion that he was in the dark regarding Bridgegate. In a July 6 interview on MSNBC, Christie said "nobody cares" about the scandal and that "after a while people just say, 'OK, I guess he's telling the truth.'" The amended complaint additionally removes claims against Christie's campaign manager, William Stepien, a friend of Wildstein's. Though Stepien has maintained his innocence, he took heat for having called Fort Lee's mayor an "idiot." Christie eventually fired for the man for "poor judgment." One of the most popular quotes from the scandal -- "time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee" -- appeared in an email Kelly sent just before the shutdown. She and Baroni face federal criminal charges over the scandal. After the bridge shutdown, Christie's aides and Port Authority officials attempted to defer questions from the press and from Sokolich by saying the shutdown of several toll lanes was the result of a traffic study. Port Authority officials have already admitted to faking that traffic study as an excuse for the shutdown. The new complaint says Wildstein had sent Baroni emails saying he would have the Port Authority's engineering department fabricate evidence to "make the traffic study cover story seem legitimate." They also allegedly prepared misleading statements for the agency's media relations department to deflect media questions. The complaint also quotes Wildstein and Kelly talking glibly about how the bridge-lane shutdown. After complaints about the snarled traffic, Kelly texted Wildstein, "is it wrong that I'm smiling?" Another read: "I feel badly about the kids. I guess." When hearing of Sokolich complaining about the backed-up traffic, she emailed another colleague: "Good." Portraying Kelly as eager to pursue political payback against others, the complaint quotes a separate text chain to Wildstein in which she asked about a rabbi who had become troublesome and whether they could "cause traffic problems in front his house." In May 2015 Wildstein pleaded guilty to two counts of fraud and one count of conspiracy for his role in the shutdown. Kelly could not be reached for comment. A lawyer for Baroni declined to comment on the amended complaint. A spokeswoman with the New Jersey Attorney General's Office, which is representing both the state and Drewniak, declined to comment. NISSAN: Recalls Micra and Versa Models Due to Crash Risk -------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: August 12, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Car Notification type: Safety TC System: Powertrain Units affected: 27773 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015366TC ID number: 2015366 On certain vehicles, the driver's foot could contact the edge of the center console lower trim panel, which could impede smooth accelerator pedal operation. The panel edge could also catch the driver's shoe, potentially resulting in a delay in the driver being able to shift their foot from the accelerator to the brake pedal. This could increase stopping distances, potentially resulting in a crash causing injury and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers will modify the lower trim panel. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- NISSAN MICRA 2014 NISSAN VERSA 2012 NUVASIVE INC: Motion to Dismiss Fourth Amended Complaint Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Nuvasive, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company's motion to dismiss the Fourth Amended Complaint in a class action lawsuit is pending. On August 28, 2013, a purported securities class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California naming the Company and certain of its current and former executive officers for allegedly making false and materially misleading statements regarding the Company's business and financial results, specifically relating to the purported improper submission of false claims to Medicare and Medicaid. The complaint asserts a putative class period stemming from October 22, 2008 to July 30, 2013. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and seeks unspecified monetary relief, interest, and attorneys' fees. On February 13, 2014, the lead plaintiff ("Plaintiff") filed an Amended Class Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws. The District Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint and ordered Plaintiff to amend its complaint. Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint on September 8, 2014, and the District Court once again granted the Company's motion to dismiss the complaint with leave to amend. On December 23, 2014 Plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint. The Company filed a motion to dismiss, and while the Company's motion was pending, Plaintiff sought leave to file a Fourth Amended Complaint. The Company moved to dismiss the Fourth Amended Complaint and the motion is pending. At June 30, 2015, the probable outcome of this litigation cannot be determined, nor can the Company estimate a range of potential loss. In accordance with authoritative guidance on the evaluation of loss contingencies, the Company has not recorded an accrual related to this litigation. OMNICARE INC: Elow and IBEW Actions Consolidated ------------------------------------------------ Omnicare, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 24, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, the Elow Action and the IBEW Action have been consolidated for all purposes under the caption In re Omnicare, Inc. Shareholder Litigation. The following announcement of the Merger, two putative class action complaints styled Elow v. Omnicare, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 11093-VCG (the "Elow Action") and Electrical Workers Pension Trust Fund of IBEW Local Union No. 58 v. CVS Health Corp., et al., Civil Action No. 11131-VCG (the "IBEW Action") were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware on behalf of purported stockholders of Omnicare. The complaints name as defendants various combinations of Omnicare, the members of the Omnicare Board of Directors, CVS Health, CVS Pharmacy and Merger Sub. The complaints generally allege that the members of the Omnicare Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties to Omnicare's stockholders during Merger negotiations by entering into the Merger Agreement and approving the Merger, and that CVS Health, CVS Pharmacy and Merger Sub aided and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duties. The complaints further allege that, among other things, (i) the Merger consideration undervalues Omnicare, (ii) the sales process leading up to the Merger was flawed due to the conflicts of interest of members of the Omnicare Board of Directors, members of Omnicare management, and Omnicare's financial advisors, (iii) certain provisions of the Merger Agreement inappropriately favor CVS Pharmacy and inhibit competing bids and (iv) Omnicare's preliminary proxy statement filed with the SEC on June 26, 2015 omitted material facts, including material information regarding the process leading up to the Merger, the financial analyses of Omnicare's financial advisors and certain prospective financial information described in the proxy statement. The complaints seek, among other things, (i) a declaration that the Merger was entered into in breach of the defendants' fiduciary duties and is therefore unenforceable, (ii) injunctive relief enjoining the Merger unless and until Omnicare implements a process that will yield a Merger Agreement providing fair terms to Omnicare's stockholders, (iii) rescission of the Merger Agreement to the extent already implemented and granting rescissory damages, (iv) an accounting of all damages suffered as a result of the alleged wrongdoing and (v) reimbursement of costs. On July 20, 2015, the Elow Action and the IBEW Action were consolidated for all purposes under the caption In re Omnicare, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Consolidated Civil Action No. 11093- VCG. The defendants believe that the claims asserted against them in the complaints are without merit and intend to defend the litigation vigorously. OMNICARE INC: Plaintiffs Seek to Revise 3rd Amended Complaint ------------------------------------------------------------- Omnicare, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 24, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in the case, Indiana State Dist. Council of Laborers & HOD Carriers Pension & Welfare Fund v. Omnicare, Inc., et al., the plaintiffs have filed a motion to amend the third amended complaint. In February 2006, two substantially similar putative class action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, and were consolidated and entitled Indiana State Dist. Council of Laborers & HOD Carriers Pension & Welfare Fund v. Omnicare, Inc., et al., No. 2:06cv26. The amended consolidated complaint was filed against Omnicare, three of its officers and two of its directors and purported to be brought on behalf of all open-market purchasers of Omnicare common stock from August 3, 2005 through July 27, 2006, as well as all purchasers who bought shares of Omnicare common stock in the Company's public offering in December 2005. The complaint contained claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (and Rule 10b-5 thereunder) and Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 and sought, among other things, compensatory damages and injunctive relief. Plaintiffs alleged that Omnicare (i) artificially inflated its earnings (and failed to file GAAP- compliant financial statements) by engaging in improper generic drug substitution, improper revenue recognition and overvaluation of receivables and inventories; (ii) failed to timely disclose its contractual dispute with UnitedHealth Group Inc.; (iii) failed to timely record certain special litigation reserves; and (iv) made other allegedly false and misleading statements about the Company's business, prospects and compliance with applicable laws and regulations. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on March 12, 2007, and on October 12, 2007, the district court dismissed the case. On November 9, 2007, plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. On October 21, 2009, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals generally affirmed the district court's dismissal, dismissing plaintiff's claims for violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. However, the appellate court reversed the dismissal for the claim brought for violation of Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, and returned the case to the district court for further proceedings. On July 14, 2011, the district court granted plaintiffs' motion to file a third amended complaint. This complaint asserts a claim under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of all purchasers of Omnicare common stock in the December 2005 public offering. The new complaint alleges that the 2005 registration statement contained false and misleading statements regarding Omnicare's policy of compliance with all applicable laws and regulations with particular emphasis on allegations of violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute in connection with three of Omnicare's acquisitions, Omnicare's contracts with two of its suppliers and its provision of pharmacist consultant services. On August 19, 2011, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' most recent complaint and on February 13, 2012 the district court dismissed the case and struck the case from the docket. On March 12, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. On May 23, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part the dismissal of the plaintiffs' complaint. On October 4, 2013, the Company filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court. On March 3, 2014, the United States Supreme Court granted the Company's petition for writ of certiorari. Oral argument at the United States Supreme Court was held on November 3, 2014. On March 24, 2015, the United States Supreme Court vacated the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and remanded the case to the District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. On May 29, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the third amended complaint. PACIFIC COAST: Defending Welch and Berliner Actions --------------------------------------------------- Pacific Coast Oil Trust is still defending the Welch and Berliner actions, which were consolidated into a single action, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 23, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015. On July 1, 2014, Thomas Welch, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a putative class action complaint in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, against the Trust, PCEC, PCEC (GP) LLC, Pacific Coast Energy Holdings LLC, certain executive officers of PCEC (GP) LLC and others. The complaint asserts federal securities law claims against the Trust and other defendants and states that the claims are made on behalf of a class of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Trust securities pursuant or traceable to the registration statement that became effective on May 2, 2012 and the prospectuses issued thereto and the registration statement that became effective purportedly on September 19, 2013 and the prospectuses issued thereto. The complaint states that the plaintiff is pursuing negligence and strict liability claims under the Securities Act of 1933 and alleges that both such registration statements contained numerous untrue statements of material facts and omitted material facts. The plaintiff seeks class certification, unspecified compensatory damages, rescission on certain of plaintiff's claims, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs and any other relief the Court may deem just and proper. On October 16, 2014, Ralph Berliner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a second putative class action complaint in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, against the Trust, PCEC, PCEC (GP) LLC, Pacific Coast Energy Holdings LLC, certain executive officers of PCEC (GP) LLC and others. The Berliner complaint asserts the same claims and makes the same allegations, against the same defendants, as are made in the Welch complaint. In November 2014, the Welch and Berliner actions were consolidated into a single action. The Trust believes that it is fully indemnified by PCEC against any liability or expense it might incur in connection with the consolidated action. Nevertheless, the Trust may incur expenses in connection with the litigation. The Trust will estimate and provide for potential losses that may arise out of litigation to the extent that such losses are probable and can be reasonably estimated. Significant judgment will be required in making any such estimates and any actual liabilities of the Trust may ultimately be materially different than any such estimates. The Trust is currently unable to assess the probability of loss or estimate a range of any potential loss the Trust may incur in connection with the consolidated action, and has not established any reserves relating to the litigation. The Trust may withhold estimated amounts from future distributions to cover future costs associated with the litigation if determined necessary at any time. PALM MEDICAL: "Perez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ariel Perez, and other similarly situated individuals v. Palm Medical Center, LLC, Health Holdings Company, Strategic Health Services, LLC, and Edward M. Carriero, Case No. 1:15-cv-23044-MGC (S.D. Fla., August 13, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a medical center in Miami-Dade County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony M. Georges-Pierre, Esq. Anaeli C. Petisco, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC 44 West Flagler St., Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416-5000 Facsimile: (305) 416-5005 E-mail: jremer@rgpattorneys.com PEOPLES BANCORP: Plaintiffs File Petition to NC Appeals Court ------------------------------------------------------------- Peoples Bancorp of North Carolina, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2015, that the Plaintiff in a class action lawsuit has filed a notice of appeal to the North Carolina Court of Appeals. On April 2, 2013, the Bank received notice that a lawsuit was filed against it in the General Court of Justice, Superior Court Division, Lincoln County, North Carolina. The complaint alleged (i) breach of contract and the covenants of good faith and fair dealing by the Bank, (ii) conversion, (iii) unjust enrichment and (iv) violations of the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act in its assessment and collection of overdraft fees. It seeks the refund of overdraft fees, treble damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief. The Plaintiff sought to have the lawsuit certified as a class action. On June 10, 2015, the North Carolina Business Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Bank on all claims and ordered the case dismissed with prejudice. The Plaintiff has filed a notice of appeal to the North Carolina Court of Appeals. The Bank continues to believe that the allegations in the complaint are without merit and intends to vigorously defend the lawsuit on appeal. PHO MI: "Gama" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations ------------------------------------------- Antonio Gama, and all others similarly-situated v. Pho Mi, LLC, dba Dalat Restaurant and Bar, and Khanh Nguyen, Case No. 3:15-cv- 02565 (N.D. Tex., August 4, 2015), seeks double damages and reasonable attorney fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act for overtime wage violations. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant and bar. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Manteuffel, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, P.C. 6310 LBJ Freeway, Ste. 112 Dallas, TX 75240 Tel: (972) 233-2264 Fax: (972) 386-7610 E-mail: rlmanteuffel@sbcglobal.net PLEASANT HOUSE: Recalls Steak and Chicken Pie Products ------------------------------------------------------ Pleasant House Bakery, LLC, a Chicago, Ill. establishment, is recalling an undetermined amount of steak and chicken pie products distributed without the benefit of inspection. These products were also missing the ingredient statement and contained undeclared allergens, including eggs, milk, and wheat, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The steak and chicken pie items were produced between January 1, 2014, and August 14, 2015. The following products are subject to recall: --- 10-oz. of individually wrapped product labeled "Steak & Ale Pie." --- 10-oz. of individually wrapped product labeled "Chicken Balti Pie." These items were distributed to restaurants and retail establishments in Chicago, Ill. and New Buffalo, Mich. The problems were discovered when an FSIS employee determined that product was being sold in a retail establishment in the Chicago area. 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. 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 Arthur Jackson, owner, at (312) 804-5247. 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. QUALITY SYSTEMS: Briefing on Appeal to Be Completed in Fall 2015 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Quality Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 23, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that briefing is scheduled to be completed in the fall of 2015 in an appeal related to the federal securities class action. "On November 19, 2013, a putative class action complaint was filed on behalf of the shareholders of our Company other than the defendants against us and certain of our officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Central District of California by one of our shareholders," the Company said. After the court appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel for this action, and recaptioned the action In re Quality Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 8L13-cv-01818-CJC(JPRx), lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 7, 2014. The amended complaint, which is substantially similar to the "Hussein Litigation," generally alleges that statements made to the Company's shareholders regarding the Company's financial condition and projected future performance were false and misleading in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and that the individual defendants are liable for such statements because they are controlling persons under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint seeks compensatory damages, court costs and attorneys' fees. "We filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on June 20, 2014, which the court granted on October 20, 2014, dismissing the complaint with prejudice. Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court's order, which the court denied on January 5, 2015," the Company said. "On January 30, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, captioned In re Quality Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 15-55173. Briefing on the appeal is scheduled to be completed in the fall of 2015. "We believe that the plaintiff's claims are without merit and continue to defend against them vigorously. At this time, we are unable to estimate the probability or the amount of liability, if any, related to this claim," the Company said. QUEENS ARTIFICIAL: Sued Over Failure to Provide Patient Care ------------------------------------------------------------ Hyacinth Burton v. Queens Artificial Kidney Center Foundation, Inc. and Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc., Case No. 708582 (D.N.Y., August 13, 2015), arises out of the Defendants' alleged failure to proper care, control, supervision, treatment, training and direction to its patients. The Defendants own and operate a medical facility located at 34-35 70th Street, Jackson Heights, New York 11372. The Plaintiff is represented by: Isaac A. Arasteh, Esq. OMRANI & TAUB, P.C. 909 Third Avenue- 28th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 599-5550 RAG TRADERS: Faces "Conners" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Chad Conners, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Rag Traders Melrose, LLC, et al., Case No. BC591413 (D. Cal., August 13, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code. Rag Traders Melrose, LLC is a manufacturer of men's and women's ready to wear clothing, shoes and accessories collection. The Plaintiff is represented by: Will Lemkul, Esq. MORRIS, SULLIVAN & LEMKUL 9915 Mira Mesa Boulevard, Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92131 Telephone: (858) 566-7600 Facsimile: (858) 566-6602 E-mail: lemkul@morrissullivanlaw.com - and - Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq. Kyle Nordrehaug, Esq. Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq. BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK 2255 Calle Clara San Diego CA 92037 Telephone: (858) 367-9913 Facsimile: (858) 551-1232 RE & FA: Faces "Garcia" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages --------------------------------------------------------- Luis A. Garcia, and other similarly-situated individuals v. Re & Fa, LLC, d/b/a Lombardi's and Fatih Dincer, Case No. 1:15-cv- 23039-CMA (S.D. Fla., August 13, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate Lombardi's restaurant in Miami-Dade County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. Florida Bar No.: 0024031 3100 South Dixie Highway, Suite 202 Miami, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com RITE AID: Recalls Outdoor Dining Sets Due to Injury Risk -------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with in Rite Aid, of Camp Hill, Pa., announced a voluntary recall of about 13,000 Outdoor Dining Sets. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The chair arms and legs can bend and cause the user to fall, posing a risk of injury. This recall involves a six-piece outdoor patio set containing four folding chairs, a table and an umbrella. The brown metal-frame chairs have a red canvas seat and back, and measure 21 1/4 inches tall by 25 1/4 inches wide. The umbrellas are 80 inches tall have a coordinated red with stripes canvas top. The square table also has a metal frame and a hard-plastic clear top. UPC number 011822350303 and item number 9034923 are printed on the packaging of the patio set. The firm has received four reports of chairs bending unexpectedly, including four reports of injuries to the lower back and hip. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/nWjuK8 The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Rite Aid stores nationwide and online at RiteAid.com from January 2015 to July 2015 for between $100 and $150. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled chairs and return them to the any Rite Aid store for a full refund. Consumers are not required to return the table and umbrella. ROYAL LACE: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Campos" Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Gudelio Campos and Bemabe Campos, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Royal Lace Inc. d/b/a Royal Lace, Moises Guttman, and Aaron Guttman, Case No. 1:15-cv-04740 (E.D.N.Y., August 13, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week. The Defendants own and operate a textile factory located at 902 E. Hazelwood Avenue, Rahway, New Jersey 07065. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 E-mail: Michael@Faillacelaw.com SAN FRANCISCO 49ERS: Monopolized Ticket Sales, Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------- Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that a federal class action accuses the San Francisco 49ers and Ticketmaster of conspiring to drive up ticket resale prices by monopolizing the secondary market for 49ers tickets. Lead plaintiff Amir Kazemzadeh sued the 49ers and Ticketmaster, alleging antitrust violations and trespass to chattels. Kazemzadeh claims that this year, for the first time, the 49ers blocked him and other season ticketholders from getting their tickets until 72 hours before game time. In previous seasons, Kazemzadeh says, he could print his tickets in advance and give them as gifts or post them for sale on websites such as stubhub. For the coming season, the only way season ticketholders can resell tickets before the 3-day limit is through Ticketmaster's NFL Ticket Exchange website, which charges high fees and conceals its floor price for resold tickets, according to the 18-page lawsuit. The complaint cites a 2014 Forbes column in which Steve Pociask wrote that Ticketmaster "sets an arbitrary price floor on tickets, a floor that is undisclosed to the purchaser. It is the NFL's attempt to take over the secondary market and keep ticket prices, which were already sold once, from being resold at low prices." The lawsuit also cites a 2010 FTC complaint against Ticketmaster for steering customers to a website where they unknowingly paid up to four times the face value of tickets for concerts and other events in 2008 and 2009. Kazemzadeh claims the conspiracy restrains competition in the secondary ticket market, reducing the number of 49ers tickets for sale on other websites while increasing the number on the NFL Ticket Exchange. The NFL is not a party to the complaint. Ticketmaster's NFL Ticket Exchange charges buyers 15 percent extra, with a 10 percent surcharge for season ticketholders and a 15 percent service fee, the complaint estimates. "Competition by and among ticket websites would produce consumer benefits, including by stabilizing ticket prices and associated fees," Kazemzadeh says. He says the 49ers and Ticketmaster blocked his access to his own tickets: property that he rightfully owns. "On a commercial level, you're being mandated to go through Ticketmaster, which charges a higher rate," said Kazemzadeh's attorney, Abbas Kazerounian. "You're being forced into one channel of commerce, which is the Ticketmaster avenue." Kazerounian said the size of Ticketmaster's transaction fees suggests the 49ers are "getting a piece" of the action, and that this "double dipping" restricts consumer choice and competition. Kazemzadeh seeks class certification, an injunction, disgorgement and distribution of money received, and punitive damages. Neither Ticketmaster's parent company, Live Nation Entertainment, nor the San Francisco 49ers responded to requests for comment. SENSATA TECHNOGLIES: Faces Hassett Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------- Sensata Technologies Holding N.V. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that on March 19, 2015, two named plaintiffs filed a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan against Chrysler and Schrader-Bridgeport International, Inc., styled Hassett v. FCA US, LLC et al., case number 2:2015cv11030 (E.D. Michigan). The lawsuit alleges that faulty valve stems were used in Schrader TPMS installed on Chrysler vehicles model years 2007 through 2014. It alleges breach of warranty, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Michigan consumer protection act and the federal Magnuson-Moss warranty act, and is seeking compensatory and punitive damages. Both the size of the class and the damages sought are unspecified. The plaintiffs, now joined by an additional individual, have filed an amended complaint dated June 2, 2015. "On July 23, 2015, along with Chrysler, we filed motions to dismiss. The court has scheduled a hearing on these motions for October 7, 2015. We do not believe a loss is probable, and as of June 30, 2015, we have not recorded an accrual related to this matter," the Company said. SIRIUS XM: Updates on Pre-1972 Sound Recording Matters ------------------------------------------------------ Sirius XM Holdings Inc. provided updates on "Pre-1972 Sound Recording Matters," in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015. The Company said, "In August and September 2013, we were named as a defendant in three putative class action suits and one additional suit challenging our use and public performance via satellite radio and the Internet of sound recordings fixed prior to February 15, 1972 ("pre-1972 recordings") under California, New York and/or Florida law. The plaintiffs in the putative class action suits purport to seek in excess of $100,000 in compensatory damages along with unspecified punitive damages and injunctive relief. The plaintiffs in the individual lawsuit seek unspecified compensatory damages, punitive damages, and injunctive relief." "These cases are titled Flo & Eddie Inc. v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., No. 2:13-cv-5693-PSG-RZ (C.D. Cal.), Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., No. 1:13-cv-23182-DPG (S.D. Fla.), and Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., No. 1:13-cv-5784-CM (S.D.N.Y.) (collectively, the "Flo & Eddie cases"), and Capitol Records LLC et al. v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., No. BC-520981 (Super. Ct. L.A. County) (the "Capitol Records case"). Additional information concerning each of these actions is publicly available in court filings under their docket numbers. "Each of these cases is at varying stages: * Flo & Eddie California Case. In September 2014, the United States District Court for the Central District of California ruled that California Civil Code Section 980(a), which provides that the owner of a pre-1972 recording has "exclusive ownership" therein, includes the exclusive right to control public performances of that recording. The Court granted Flo & Eddie's motion for summary judgment on liability, holding that we were liable for unfair competition, misappropriation, and conversion under California law for publicly performing Flo & Eddie's pre-1972 recordings without authorization. We intend to appeal that decision. In May 2015, the Court granted Flo & Eddie's motion for class certification and certified a class of owners of pre-1972 recordings that have been performed and used by us in California without authorization. In June 2015, we filed a motion with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit seeking interlocutory review of that class certification decision. * Flo & Eddie New York Case. In November 2014, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that New York common law grants a public performance right to owners of pre-1972 recordings. The Court denied our motion for summary judgment on liability. In April 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted our petition for interlocutory review of that decision. * Flo & Eddie Florida Case. In June 2015, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ruled that Florida common law does not grant a public performance right to owners of pre-1972 recordings. In July 2015, Flo & Eddie filed a notice of appeal of that decision. * Capitol Records Case. In October 2014, the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles adopted the Flo & Eddie California court's interpretation of California law and granted plaintiffs' motion for a jury instruction providing, in relevant part: "The owner of a sound recording 'fixed' (i.e., recorded) prior to February 15, 1972, possesses a property interest and exclusive ownership rights in that sound recording . . . [that] include[s] the exclusive right to publicly perform, or authorize others to publicly perform, the sound recording by means of digital transmission." The Court did not make any finding of liability. In June 2015, we entered into a settlement agreement with the plaintiffs, Capitol Records LLC, Sony Music Entertainment, UMG Recordings, Inc., Warner Music Group Corp. and ABKCO Music & Records, Inc., to settle the case in its entirety. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, we agreed to pay the plaintiffs, in the aggregate, $210,000 on or before July 31, 2015 and the plaintiffs will dismiss the case with prejudice. The settlement resolves all past claims as to our use of pre-1972 recordings owned or controlled by the plaintiffs and enables us, without any additional payment, to reproduce, perform and broadcast such recordings in the United States through December 31, 2017. "As part of the settlement, we have the right, to be exercised before December 31, 2017, to enter into a license with each plaintiff to reproduce, perform and broadcast pre-1972 recordings owned or controlled by the plaintiffs from January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2022. The royalty rate for each such license will be determined by negotiation or, if the parties are unable to agree, binding arbitration. The plaintiffs have represented and warranted to us that in the United States they own, control or otherwise have the right to settle with respect to approximately 80% of the pre-1972 recordings we have historically played. "Pursuant to this settlement, we recorded $210,000 to Accounts payable and accrued expenses within our unaudited consolidated balance sheets as of June 30, 2015 and recognized $107,658 to Revenue share and royalties within our unaudited statements of comprehensive income during the three and six months ended June 30, 2015 related to the period prior to June 30, 2015. Of the remaining $102,342 of the settlement, $38,665 was recorded to Other current assets and $63,677 was recorded to Other long-term assets within our unaudited consolidated balance sheets as of June 30, 2015, which will be amortized to Revenue share and royalties within our unaudited statements of comprehensive income over the future service period of July 2015 through December 2017. "At this point we cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss, or range of loss, which could be incurred if the plaintiff in the Flo & Eddie cases were to prevail in its allegations, but we believe we have substantial defenses to the claims asserted. We are defending these actions vigorously." SIRIUS XM: Defending Against TCPA Suits --------------------------------------- Sirius XM Holdings Inc. still defending against Telephone Consumer Protection Act Suits, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015. The Company said, "We are a defendant in several purported class action suits, which were commenced in February 2012, January 2013, January 2015, April 2015 and July 2015, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Newport News Division, the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida that allege that we, or certain call center vendors acting on our behalf, made numerous calls which violate provisions of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (the "TCPA"). The plaintiffs in these actions allege, among other things, that we called mobile phones using an automatic telephone dialing system without the consumer's prior consent or, alternatively, after the consumer revoked their prior consent and, in one of the actions, that we violated the TCPA's call time restrictions. The plaintiffs in these suits are seeking various forms of relief, including statutory damages of five- hundred dollars for each violation of the TCPA or, in the alternative, treble damages of up to fifteen-hundred dollars for each knowing and willful violation of the TCPA, as well as payment of interest, attorneys' fees and costs, and certain injunctive relief prohibiting violations of the TCPA in the future. Plaintiffs in certain of these suits have filed a motion with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to transfer these purported class actions, and other allegedly related cases, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois for consolidated or coordinated pretrial proceedings. We believe we have substantial defenses to the claims asserted in these actions, and we intend to defend them vigorously." "We have notified certain of our call center vendors of these actions and requested that they defend and indemnify us against these claims pursuant to the provisions of their existing or former agreements with us. We believe we have valid contractual claims against certain call center vendors in connection with these claims and intend to preserve and pursue our rights to recover from these entities." These purported class action cases are titled Erik Knutson v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., No. 12-cv-0418-AJB-NLS (S.D. Cal.), Francis W. Hooker v. Sirius XM Radio, Inc., No. 4:13-cv-3 (E.D. Va.), Brian Trenz v. Sirius XM Holdings, Inc. and Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., No. 15-cv-0044L-BLM (S.D. Cal), Yefim Elikman v. Sirius XM Radio, Inc. and Career Horizons, Inc., No. 1:15-cv-02093 (N.D. Ill.) and Anthony Parker v. Sirius XM Radio, Inc., No. 8:15- cv-01710-JSM-EAJ (M.D. Fla). Additional information concerning each of these actions is publicly available in court filings under their docket numbers. SPIRIT AIRLINES: Rosen Action Transferred to Florida ---------------------------------------------------- Spirit Airlines, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 24, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Rosen class action has been transferred to Florida. In August 2014, two cases (entitled Rosen v. Spirit Airlines and Legg v. Spirit Airlines) were filed against the Company in federal court in Illinois and Florida, respectively. The Rosen case has now been transferred to Florida. The Company said, "The cases, which contain identical claims, allege violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA) based on incidents of unlawfully including more information on the electronically printed credit card receipts provided to customers from our airport kiosk machines than FACTA permits. Both cases are styled as class actions and the Legg case has been certified. The plaintiffs seek statutory damages, attorney's fees, litigation expenses and costs." "We believe we have valid arguments in our defense and intend to vigorously defend against these claims. We believe the estimate of probable losses is not material. However, the outcome of any litigation is inherently uncertain and any resolution may differ materially and could have a material adverse effect on the our business and financial position." SPOA INC: "Lugo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jessica Lugo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SPOA, Inc. d/b/a/ Downtown Grill Steaks and Seafood and Mike Piperis, Jo Ann Talarantas, George Piperis, Sophia Piperis, Case No. 2:15-cv-00348 (C.D. Tex., August 13, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate Downtown Grill restaurant in Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Trang Q. Tran, Esq. TRAN LAW FIRM L.L.P. 9801 Westheimer Rd., Suite 302 Houston, TX 77042 Telephone: (713) 223-8855 Facsimile: (713) 623-6399 E-mail: Ttran@tranlawllp.com SPS TECHNOLOGIES: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT & Penalties ------------------------------------------------------------- Gabriel G. Alonzo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SPS Technologies, LLC d/b/a Faber Fluid Fittings, Precision Castparts Corp., and Does 1 through 100, Case No. BC591290 (D. Cal., August 13, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and penalties pursuant to the California Labor Code. The Defendants own and operate an airplane component parts manufacturing facility in Los Angeles, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul Haines, Esq. Fletcher W. Schmidt, Esq. Kristina R. Sherry, Esq. BOREN, OSHER & LUFTMAN, LLP 222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 2222 El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (310) 322-2220 Facsimile: (310) 322-2228 E-mail: phaines@bollaw.com fschmidt@bollaw.com ksherry@bollaw.com STANCORP INSURANCE: Being Sold Cheaply to Meiji, Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ Courthouse News Service reports that directors are selling StanCorp insurance too cheaply through an unfair process to Meiji Yasuda Life Insurance Co., for $115 a share or $5 billion, shareholders claim in Multnomah County Court. STARCRAFT: Recalls Launch Ultra Lite 2015 Models ------------------------------------------------ Starting date: August 10, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Travel Trailer Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Accessories Units affected: 94 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015360TC ID number: 2015360 On certain travel trailers, the furnace may not be properly secured to the floor. If the furnace were to move excessively and pull loose from the exhaust, it could allow hazardous fumes to escape into the trailer which could result in a risk of asphyxiation or fire, possibly resulting in injury and/or property damage. Correction: Dealers will inspect the securing bracket of the furnace and will ensure it is secured with the correct bracket and screws if it is found to be incorrect. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- STARCRAFT LAUNCH ULTRA LITE 2015 SUPERVALU INC: Defending Against Class Action Filed in Wisconsin ---------------------------------------------------------------- Supervalu Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2015, for the quarterly period (16 weeks) ended June 20, 2015, that in September 2008, a class action complaint was filed against the Company, as well as International Outsourcing Services, LLC ("IOS"); Inmar, Inc.; Carolina Manufacturer's Services, Inc.; Carolina Coupon Clearing, Inc. and Carolina Services in the United States District Court in the Eastern District of Wisconsin. The plaintiffs in the case are a consumer goods manufacturer, a grocery co-operative and a retailer marketing services company that allege on behalf of a purported class that the Company and the other defendants (i) conspired to restrict the markets for coupon processing services under the Sherman Act and (ii) were part of an illegal enterprise to defraud the plaintiffs under the Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The plaintiffs seek monetary damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief. The Company intends to vigorously defend this lawsuit; however, all proceedings have been stayed in the case pending the result of the criminal prosecution of certain former officers of IOS. SUPERVALU INC: Parties Appeal Magistrate Judge's Order ------------------------------------------------------ Supervalu Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2015, for the quarterly period (16 weeks) ended June 20, 2015, that all parties in a class action lawsuit have appealed a magistrate judge's order. In December 2008, a class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin against the Company alleging that a 2003 transaction between the Company and C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc. ("C&S") was a conspiracy to restrain trade and allocate markets. In the 2003 transaction, the Company purchased certain assets of the Fleming Corporation as part of Fleming Corporation's bankruptcy proceedings and sold certain assets of the Company to C&S that were located in New England. Since December 2008, three other retailers have filed similar complaints in other jurisdictions. The cases were consolidated and are proceeding in the United States District Court in Minnesota. The complaints allege that the conspiracy was concealed and continued through the use of non-compete and non- solicitation agreements and the closing down of the distribution facilities that the Company and C&S purchased from each other. Plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees. On July 5, 2011, the District Court granted the Company's Motion to Compel Arbitration for those plaintiffs with arbitration agreements and plaintiffs appealed. On July 16, 2012, the District Court denied plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and on January 11, 2013, the District Court granted the Company's Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissed the case regarding the non- arbitration plaintiffs. On February 12, 2013, the 8th Circuit reversed the District Court decision requiring plaintiffs with arbitration agreements to arbitrate and remanded to the District Court. On October 30, 2013, the parties attended a District Court ordered mandatory mediation, which was not successful in resolving the matter. On May 21, 2014, a panel of the 8th Circuit (1) reversed the District Court's decision granting summary judgment in favor of the Company, and (2) affirmed the District Court's decision denying class certification of a class consisting of all retailers located in the States of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio and Wisconsin that purchased wholesale grocery products from the Company between December 31, 2004 and September 13, 2008, but remanded the case for the District Court to consider whether to certify a narrower class of purchasers supplied from the Company's Champaign, Illinois distribution center and potentially other distribution centers. On January 16, 2015, the Company filed a Petition for Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court seeking to appeal certain aspects of the 8th Circuit decision and on June 8, 2015, the United States Supreme Court denied the Petition. On June 19, 2015, the District Court Magistrate Judge entered an order that decided a number of matters including granting plaintiffs' request to seek class certification for certain Midwest Distribution Centers and denying plaintiffs' request to add an additional New England plaintiff. All parties have appealed the Magistrate Judge's order. SUPERVALU INC: Response in Customer Data Security Breach Case Due ----------------------------------------------------------------- Supervalu Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2015, for the quarterly period (16 weeks) ended June 20, 2015, that in August and November 2014, four class action complaints were filed against the Company relating to the criminal intrusions into its computer network announced by the Company in fiscal 2015 (the "Criminal Intrusion"). The cases have been consolidated as In Re: Supervalu Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation and are proceeding in the United States District Court in Minnesota. On June 26, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Complaint. The Company's response was due August 10, 2015. SWAGGIN WAGON: Faces "Rangel" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Brian Rangel and Josue Gutierrez, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Swaggin Wagon, Inc., Case No. 7:15- cv-00122 (W.D. Tex., August 13, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Swaggin Wagon, Inc. is engaged in the business of transporting and delivering frac sand to its customers' fracking sites. The Plaintiff is represented by: Allen R. Vaught, Esq. BARON & BUDD, P.C. 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 521-3605 Facsimile: (214) 520-1181 E-mail: avaught@baronbudd.com TECHNOSPORT INC: Recalls Black Scuba Diving Masks ------------------------------------------------- Starting date: August 11, 2015 Posting date: August 11, 2015 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Sports/Fitness Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Physical Hazard Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-54614 This recall involves Omersub Zero Cube black scuba diving mask manufactured before November 2012. The mask is designed to cover the eyes and nose. The mask and strap are made with soft black rubber, with hard rubber around the two glass lenses. "O.M.E.R." appears on the forehead area of the mask in raised letters. Only the black scuba diving masks manufactured before November 2012 are subject to the recall. They are recognizable by a shiny silicone facial skirt while those produced after November 2012 have the facial skirt in matte finish silicone. The Zero Cube mask in colours "Mud" and "Olive" are not involved in this recall. The UPS Code 801 773 612 2298 and Omersub MFG Part #603NCF appear on the original packaging. Non-conforming glass was used for the lens, which can shatter during normal use, posing an injury hazard. Neither Health Canada nor Technosport has received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of the product in Canada. Approximately 12 units were sold in Canada. The recalled products were sold from April 2012 to April 2014. Manufactured in China. Manufacturer: Omersub S.p.A. Sovico, Monza Brianza ITALY Distributor: Technosport Inc. Virginia Beach Virginia UNITED STATES Consumers should immediately stop using the diving mask and contact Technosport for a replacement mask. For more information, consumers may contact Technosport at (757) 428-4744, Monday through Friday, from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. ET or by email. Consumers can also visit the Omer Diving website and click on "click here for Technosport Recalls" at the bottom of the homepage for more information. Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given away in Canada. Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any health or safety incidents related to the use of this product or any other consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the Consumer Product Incident Report Form. This recall is also posted on the OECD Global Portal on Product Recalls website. You can visit this site for more information on other international consumer product recalls. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/bhZ3xS TRANE US: Recalls Accessory Heaters Due to Fire Hazard ------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Trane U.S. Inc., of Tyler, Texas, announced a voluntary recall of about 3,900 Accessory heaters installed in TAM7 and TAM8 air handlers. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. Heaters installed with reverse polarity on one of the breakers can cause the heater to overheat, posing a fire hazard. This recall involves Trane and American Standard brand accessory heaters manufactured between November 2014 and March 2015 and installed in TAM7 and TAM8 air handlers as a primary or secondary heat source. Models included in the recall are BAYEVBC15BK1BAA (15 KW Electric Heater) with serial numbers 1447B2BP1X through 1512B2CDDX and Model BAYEVCC25BK1BAA (25 KW Electric Heater) with serial numbers 1503B2AP0X through 1513B2BHXX. Due to the electrical risk, only a certified HVAC repair person should verify the model and serial numbers on the nameplate on the inside of the air handler. The firm has received 10 reports of the heaters tripping circuit breakers, including one report of heat-related damage to the unit. No injuries have been reported. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/dN5C0F The recalled products were manufactured in Mexico and sold at Trane and American Standard independent dealers nationwide from January 2015 to April 2015 for about $120. Consumers should immediately stop using the heater function by switching the system to cooling mode or off, and contact their Trane or American Standard independent dealer to schedule an inspection and replacement. The system's air conditioning or cooling function may still be used. Trane is contacting its customers directly. TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Lawsuit by Hamilton and Macon Stayed -------------------------------------------------------- Trinity Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 24, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company is aware of three class action lawsuits involving claims pertaining to the ET Plus. The Company has been served in a lawsuit filed November 6, 2014, titled Hamilton County, Illinois and Macon County, Illinois, Individually and on behalf of all Other Counties in the State of Illinois vs. Trinity Industries, Inc. and Trinity Highway Products, LLC, Case No. 3:14-cv-1320 (Southern District of Illinois). This complaint was later amended to substitute St. Clair County, Illinois for Hamilton County as a lead plaintiff. The case is being brought by plaintiffs for and on behalf of themselves and the other 101 counties of the State of Illinois. The plaintiffs allege that the Company and Trinity Highway Products made a series of un-tested modifications to the ET Plus and falsely certified that the modified ET Plus was acceptable for use on the nation's highways based on federal testing standards and approval for Federal-aid reimbursement. The plaintiffs also allege breach of express and implied warranties, violation of the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act and unjust enrichment, for which plaintiffs seek actual damages related to purchases of the ET Plus, compensatory damages for establishing a common fund for class members, punitive damages, and injunctive relief. This lawsuit has been stayed by order of the Court. TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Sued by Corporation of City of Stratford ------------------------------------------------------------ Trinity Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 24, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company has been served in a lawsuit filed February 11, 2015 titled The Corporation of the City of Stratford and Trinity Industries, Inc., Trinity Highway Products, LLC, and Trinity Industries Canada, Inc., Case No. 15-2622 CP, pending in Ontario Superior Court of Justice. The alleged class in this matter has been identified as persons in Canada who purchased and/or used an ET Plus guardrail end terminal. The plaintiff alleges that Trinity Industries, Inc., Trinity Highway Products, LLC, and Trinity Industries Canada, Inc., failed to warn of dangers associated with undisclosed modifications to the ET Plus guardrail end terminals, breached an implied warranty, breached a duty of care, and were negligent. The plaintiff is seeking $400.0 million in compensatory damages and $100.0 million in punitive damages. Alternatively, the plaintiff claims the right to an accounting or other restitution remedy for disgorgement of the revenues generated by the sale of the modified ET Plus in Canada. TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Faces La Crosse County Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------- Trinity Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 24, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company has been served in a lawsuit filed February 25, 2015, titled La Crosse County, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated vs. Trinity Industries, Inc. and Trinity Highway Products, LLC, Case No. 15-cv-117 (Western District of Wisconsin). The case is being brought by the plaintiffs for and on behalf of themselves and all other purchasers of allegedly defective ET Pluses, including proposed statewide and nationwide classes. The plaintiff alleges that the Company and Trinity Highway Products made a series of un-tested modifications to the ET Plus and falsely certified that the modified ET Plus was acceptable for use on the nation's highways based on federal testing standards and approval for Federal-aid reimbursement. The plaintiff also alleges strict liability design defect, breach of contract, breach of express and implied warranties, violation of the Wisconsin Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and unjust enrichment. The plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that the ET Plus is defective, actual damages related to class-wide purchases of the ET Plus, punitive damages, statutory penalties, interest, and injunctive relief. TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Defending Product Liability Lawsuits -------------------------------------------------------- Trinity Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 24, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company is currently defending a number of product liability lawsuits in several different states that are alleged to involve the ET Plus. These cases are diverse in light of the randomness of collisions in general and the fact that each accident involving roadside devices such as an ET Plus, or any other fixed object along the highway has its own unique facts and circumstances. Report 350 recognizes that performance of even the most carefully researched roadside device is subject to physical laws and the crash worthiness of vehicles. The Company expects the judgment in the FCA case, coupled with the media attention such judgment has generated, will prompt the plaintiff's bar to seek out individuals involved in collisions with an ET Plus as potential clients, which may result in additional product liability lawsuits being filed against the Company. The Company carries general liability insurance to mitigate the impact of adverse judgment exposures in these product liability cases. TRINITY INDUSTRIES: To Defend Against Nemky and Isolde Cases ------------------------------------------------------------ Trinity Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 24, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that on April 27, 2015, The White Family Trust, Individually and On Behalf of All Other Similarly Situated v. Trinity Industries, Inc., Timothy R. Wallace, and James E. Perry, Case No. (3:15-CV-1304) was filed in U.S. District Court in the Northern District of Texas. The complaint alleges that defendants Trinity Industries, Inc., Timothy R. Wallace, and James E. Perry violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making materially false and misleading statements and/or by failing to disclose material facts about Trinity's ET Plus and the FCA case styled Joshua Harman, on behalf of the United States of America, Plaintiff/Relator v. Trinity Industries, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:12-cv-00089-JRG (E.D. Tex.). The White Family Trust voluntarily dismissed its case on June 22, 2015. Three complaints alleging similar claims have also been filed. Paul Panes, Individually and On Behalf of All Other Similarly Situated v. Trinity Industries, Inc., Timothy R. Wallace, and James E. Perry, Case No. (3:15-CV-1316) was filed in U.S. District Court in the Northern District of Texas on April 28, 2015 ("Panes"). Panes voluntarily dismissed its case on June 18, 2015. Thomas Nemky, Individually and On Behalf of All Other Similarly Situated v. Trinity Industries, Inc., Timothy R. Wallace, and James E. Perry, Case No. (2:15-CV-00732) was filed in U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Texas on May 15, 2015 ("Nemky"). Richard J. Isolde, Individually and On Behalf of All Other Similarly Situated v. Trinity Industries, Inc., Timothy R. Wallace, and James E. Perry, Case No. (3:15-CV-2093) was filed in U.S. District Court in the Northern District of Texas on June 19, 2015 ("Isolde"). Pending before the courts in both the Nemky and Isolde cases are competing motions filed by the Department of the Treasury of the State of New Jersey, Division of Investment and the Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension Fund and the United Association Local Union Officers & Employees' Pension Fund to be appointed the lead plaintiff. Pending before the court in the Nemky case are motions by the Company, Mr. Wallace, and Mr. Perry to transfer venue to the Northern District of Texas. Pending before the court in the Isolde case is a motion by the Department of the Treasury of the State of New Jersey, Division of Investment to transfer venue to the Eastern District of Texas. Trinity denies and intends to vigorously defend against the allegations in the Nemky and Isolde matters. "Based on the information available to the Company, we currently do not believe that a loss is probable with respect to these shareholder class actions; therefore no accrual has been included in the accompanying consolidated financial statements. Because of the complexity of these actions as well as the current status of certain of these actions, we are not able to estimate a range of possible losses with respect to these matters," the Company said. U.S. MONEY RESERVE: Continue to Abuse Elders, Calif. Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that U.S. Money Reserve Inc. and Fidelity Gold and Bullion LLC continue to rip off old people despite orders to pay $5 million in restitution in Texas alone, a class action claims in federal court in Los Angeles, California. UCLA HEALTH: Faces "Urnovitz" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach ----------------------------------------------------------- A. Urnovitz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Regents of the University of California and Does 1-25, Case No. BC591192 (D. Cal., August 13, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to keep safe their patients' sensitive private, financial, medical, and personal information safe from intrusion and for failure to timely notify customers that their sensitive and private information had been breached within a reasonable time. The Regents of the University of California is the legal entity responsible for UCLA Health. UCLA Health is made up of the following hospitals and medical centers: Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center, UCLA Medical Center, Santa Monica, Resnick Neuropsychiatric Hospital at UCLA, Mattel Children's Hospital UCLA, the UCLA Medical Group, the Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, and the Olive View-UCLA Medical Center. The Plaintiff is represented by: Caleb Marker, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED, PLLP 555 E. Ocean Boulevard, Suite 500 Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (877) 500-8780 Facsimile: (877) 500-8781 E-mail: calebmarker@zimmreed.com UNION PACIFIC: Class Certification Hearing to Begin November 2 -------------------------------------------------------------- Union Pacific Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 24, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a class certification hearing will begin November 2, 2015, in the lawsuit filed by rail shippers. The Companys said, "20 rail shippers (many of whom are represented by the same law firms) filed virtually identical antitrust lawsuits in various federal district courts against us and four other Class I railroads in the U.S. Currently, UPRR and three other Class I railroads are the named defendants in the lawsuit. The original plaintiff filed the first of these claims in the U.S. District Court in New Jersey on May 14, 2007. The number of complaints reached a total of 30. These suits allege that the named railroads engaged in price-fixing by establishing common fuel surcharges for certain rail traffic." "In addition to suits filed by direct purchasers of rail transportation services, a few of the suits involved plaintiffs alleging that they are or were indirect purchasers of rail transportation and sought to represent a purported class of indirect purchasers of rail transportation services that paid fuel surcharges. These complaints added allegations under state antitrust and consumer protection laws. "On November 6, 2007, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered that all of the rail fuel surcharge cases be transferred to Judge Paul Friedman of the U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Following numerous hearings and rulings, Judge Friedman dismissed the complaints of the indirect purchasers, which the indirect purchasers appealed. On April 16, 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia affirmed Judge Friedman's ruling dismissing the indirect purchasers' claims based on various state laws. "With respect to the direct purchasers' complaint, Judge Friedman conducted a two-day hearing on October 6 and 7, 2010, on the class certification issue and the railroad defendants' motion to exclude evidence of interline communications. On April 7, 2011, Judge Friedman issued an order deferring any decision on class certification until the Supreme Court issued its decision in the Wal-Mart employment discrimination case. "On June 21, 2012, Judge Friedman issued his decision, which certified a class of plaintiffs with eight named plaintiff representatives. The decision included in the class all shippers that paid a rate-based fuel surcharge to any one of the defendant railroads for rate-unregulated rail transportation from July 1, 2003, through December 31, 2008. This was a procedural ruling, which did not affirm any of the claims asserted by the plaintiffs and does not affect the ability of the railroad defendants to disprove the allegations made by the plaintiffs. On July 5, 2012, the defendant railroads filed a petition with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia requesting that the court review the class certification ruling. On August 28, 2012, a panel of the Circuit Court of the District of Columbia referred the petition to a merits panel of the court to address the issues in the petition and to address whether the district court properly granted class certification. "The Circuit Court heard oral arguments on May 3, 2013. On August 9, 2013, the Circuit Court vacated the class certification decision and remanded the case to the district court to reconsider the class certification decision in light of a recent Supreme Court case and incomplete consideration of errors in the expert report of the plaintiffs. On October 31, 2013, Judge Friedman approved a schedule agreed to by all parties for consideration of the class certification issue on remand. "On October 2, 2014, the plaintiffs informed Judge Friedman that their economic expert had a previously undisclosed conflict of interest. Judge Friedman ruled on November 26, 2014, that the plaintiffs had until April 1, 2015, to file a supplemental expert report to support their motion for class certification. The plaintiffs filed their supplemental expert report on April 1, 2015. Judge Friedman issued a scheduling order on June 19, 2015, with dates for additional briefing and depositions. The order also states that the class certification hearing will begin November 2, 2015." UNITIL CORPORATION: Discovery Continuing Into 2016 -------------------------------------------------- Unitil Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 23, 2015, for quarter ended June 30, 2015, that the Court has accepted the parties' joint schedule with discovery continuing into 2016 and trial likely in late 2016. In early 2009, a putative class action complaint was filed against Unitil's Massachusetts based utility, Fitchburg, in Massachusetts' Worcester Superior Court (the "Court"), (captioned Bellermann et al v. Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light Company). The Complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages, including the cost of temporary housing and alternative fuel sources, emotional and physical pain and suffering and property damages allegedly incurred by customers in connection with the loss of electric service during the ice storm in Fitchburg's service territory in December 2008. The Complaint, as amended, includes M.G.L. ch. 93A claims for purported unfair and deceptive trade practices related to the December 2008 ice storm. Following several years of discovery, the plaintiffs in the complaint filed a motion with the Court to certify the case as a class action. On January 7, 2013, the Court issued its decision denying plaintiffs' motion to certify the case as a class action. The plaintiffs appealed this decision to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (the "SJC"), and the SJC has now upheld the lower Court's order. Plaintiffs filed a renewed motion to certify a class under a different theory than previously argued. The Company filed its opposition to this motion and also filed a motion for summary judgment. Oral arguments on both motions were held in June 2015, and a decision is pending. The Town of Lunenburg has filed a separate action in the Court arising out of the December 2008 ice storm. The Court accepted the parties' joint schedule with discovery continuing into 2016 and trial likely in late 2016. The Company continues to believe that both of these suits are without merit and will continue to defend itself vigorously. VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Parties in Allergan Case Dismiss Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the parties in the Allergan Securities Litigation have filed a stipulation providing for the voluntary dismissal of all claims. On August 1, 2014, Allergan Inc. ("Allergan") commenced the federal securities litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against the Company, Valeant, Valeant's subsidiary AGMS Inc. ("AGMS"), Pershing Square Capital Management, L.P. ("Pershing Square"), PS Management, GP, LLC, PS Fund 1, LLC ("PS Fund 1") and William A. Ackman (Allergan, Inc. et al. v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc., et al., Case No. 14-cv-01214-DOC). The lawsuit alleged violations of Sections 13(d), 14(a), 14(e) and 20A of the Exchange Act and rules promulgated by the SEC under those Sections. On August 19, 2014, the Company, Valeant, AGMS, PS Fund 1 and William A. Ackman filed Counterclaims against Allergan and the members of the Allergan Board of Directors alleging violations of Sections 14(a), 14(e) and 20A of the Exchange Act and rules promulgated by the SEC under those Sections. On November 4, 2014, the Court denied in part and granted in part a motion filed by plaintiffs seeking a preliminary injunction. The Court directed the defendants to make certain additional disclosures, and otherwise denied the motion. On January 28, 2015, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, alleging that all defendants violated Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act and SEC rules under that section. The amended complaint also asserted violations of Sections 13(d) and Schedule 13D thereunder and Section 20A of the Exchange Act against Pershing Square, PS Management, GP, LLC, PS Fund 1 and William A. Ackman. On April 9, 2015, the parties filed a stipulation providing for the voluntary dismissal of all claims. VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: No Response Yet on Amended Complaint ------------------------------------------------------------- Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that Defendants have not yet responded to the amended 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). On June 26, 2015, lead plaintiffs the State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio, the Iowa Public Employees Retirement System and Patrick T. Johnson filed an amended complaint against the Company, Valeant, J. Michael Pearson, Pershing Square, PS Management, GP, LLC, PS Fund 1 and William A. Ackman. The amended complaint alleges claims on behalf of a putative class of sellers of Allergan securities between February 25, 2014 and April 21, 2014, against all defendants asserting violations of Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act and rules promulgated by the SEC thereunder and Section 20A of the Exchange Act. The amended complaint also alleges violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against Pershing Square, PS Management, GP, LLC, William A. Ackman and J. Michael Pearson. The amended complaint seeks, among other relief, money damages, equitable relief, and attorneys' fees and costs. Defendants have not yet responded to the amended complaint. The Company is reviewing these claims and intends to vigorously defend these matters. VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Salix Shareholder Suit Remains Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the defendants' motions to dismiss the Salix Shareholder Class Actions remain pending. 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 Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. Shareholder Litigation, Consolidated C.A. 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 allegedly inadequate sales process and for allegedly inadequate consideration and by agreeing to allegedly preclusive deal protections. The complaint also alleges that the Schedule 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: Walgreen and Rite Aid Cases Stayed ----------------------------------------------------------- Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Walgreen and Rite Aid cases have been stayed pending the outcome of the pending motion to dismiss 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, 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. 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 (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); International Union of Operating Engineers Local 132 Health and Welfare Fund (N.D. Cal. filed Aug 1, 2013; voluntarily dismissed and re-filed in E.D. Pa on Aug. 30, 2013, as Case No. 2:13-cv-05108); 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); 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).). By order dated February 25, 2014, the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") centralized the cases in the District of Massachusetts, and 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. 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)). The JPML transferred the Walgreen and Rite Aid complaints to the District of Massachusetts on April 8, 2015, and May 1, 2015, respectively, where they are now included in the MDL. The Walgreen and Rite Aid cases have been stayed pending the outcome of the pending motion to dismiss the class action complaints. The Company intends to vigorously defend these actions. VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: New Cert. Hearing Expected in Early 2016 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a new certification hearing is expected to be held in early 2016 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. The Court allowed certain amendments and a new certification hearing is expected to be held in early 2016. The Company denies the allegations being made and is vigorously defending this matter. VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Decision Pending in Appeal --------------------------------------------------- Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a decision is pending on an appeal related to a MoistureLoc(TM) product liability lawsuit. 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, which was denied on May 21, 2015. Plaintiffs filed their motion for leave to appeal from that decision to the New York State Court of Appeals on July 1, 2015. B&L filed its brief in opposition on July 13, 2015 and a decision is pending. 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). Currently, 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 is one active fusarium claim involving a claimant outside of the United States that remains pending. The parties in this active matter are involved in settlement discussions, and the Company currently expects that any potential settlement amounts would not be material. VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: "Grignon" Case Voluntarily Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------------- Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the action, Grignon v. Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. et al. (Case No. 5:14-cv-00804-D) has been voluntarily dismissed. 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. VENTAS INC: Parties to Class Action Agreed to MOU ------------------------------------------------- Ventas, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the parties to the federal class action action agreed to a memorandum of understanding regarding settlement of all claims asserted on behalf of each alleged class of HCT stockholders. "In the weeks following the announcement on June 2, 2014 of our agreement to acquire HCT, a total of 13 putative class actions were filed by purported HCT stockholders challenging the transaction," the Company said. "Certain of the actions also purport to bring derivative claims on behalf of HCT. Among other things, the lawsuits allege that the directors of HCT breached their fiduciary duties by approving the transaction and that we and our subsidiaries, Stripe Sub, LLC and Stripe OP, LP, aided and abetted this purported breach of fiduciary duty. The complaints seek injunctive relief and damages." "Ten of these actions were filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland and consolidated under the caption In re: American Realty Capital, Healthcare Trust, Inc. Shareholder & Derivative Litigation, Case No. 24-C-14-003534, two actions were filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, and one action was filed in the United States District Court of Maryland. "On January 2, 2015, the parties to the consolidated state court action agreed to a memorandum of understanding regarding settlement of all claims asserted on behalf of each alleged class of HCT stockholders. In connection with the settlement contemplated by that memorandum of understanding, each action and all claims asserted therein will be dismissed, subject to approval by each applicable court. The proposed settlement terms require HCT to make certain additional disclosures related to the merger, which were set forth in HCT's Current Report on Form 8-K dated January 2, 2015. The memorandum of understanding further contemplates that the parties will enter into a stipulation of settlement, which will be subject to customary conditions, including confirmatory discovery and court approval following notice to HCT's stockholders. If the parties enter into a stipulation of settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at which the court will consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement. There can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement, that the applicable court will approve any proposed settlement, or that any eventual settlement will be under the same terms as those contemplated by the memorandum of understanding. "On January 5, 2015, the parties to the federal action also agreed to a memorandum of understanding regarding settlement of all claims asserted on behalf of each alleged class of HCT stockholders. In connection with the settlement contemplated by that memorandum of understanding, each action and all claims asserted therein will be dismissed, subject to approval by each applicable court. The proposed settlement terms require HCT to make certain additional disclosures related to the merger, which were set forth in HCT's Current Report on Form 8-K dated January 5, 2015. The memorandum of understanding further contemplates that the parties will enter into a stipulation of settlement, which will be subject to customary conditions, including confirmatory discovery and court approval following notice to HCT's stockholders. If the parties enter into a stipulation of settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at which the court will consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement. There can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement, that the applicable court will approve any proposed settlement, or that any eventual settlement will be under the same terms as those contemplated by the memorandum of understanding." "We believe that each of these actions is without merit." VERISK ANALYTICS: Served With "John Weber" Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Verisk Analytics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that on April 20, 2015, the Company was served with a putative class action titled John Weber v. Interthinx, Inc. and Verisk Analytics, Inc. The plaintiff, a former employee of the Company's former subsidiary Interthinx, Inc. in Missouri, filed the class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on behalf of all review appraisers and individuals holding comparable positions with different titles who were employed by Interthinx for the last three years nationwide and who were not paid overtime wages. The class complaint claims that the review appraiser employees were misclassified as exempt employees and, as a result, were denied certain wages and benefits that would have been received if they were properly classified as non-exempt employees. It pleads a Collective Action under section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act for unpaid overtime and seeks overtime wages, liquidated damages, declaratory relief, interest, costs and attorneys' fees. On March 11, 2014, the Company sold 100 percent of the stock of Interthinx, Inc. At this time, it is not possible to determine the ultimate resolution of, or estimate the liability related to this matter. VERISK ANALYTICS: 2nd Circuit Court Denied Petition for Rehearing ----------------------------------------------------------------- Verisk Analytics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied a Petition for a Re- Hearing in an appeal related to the Insurance Services Office, Inc. Litigation. In October 2013, the Company was served with a summons and complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in an action titled Laurence J. Skelly and Ellen Burke v. Insurance Services Office, Inc. and the Pension Plan for Insurance Organizations. The plaintiffs, former employees of the Company's subsidiary Insurance Services Office, Inc. ("ISO"), bring the action on their own behalf as participants in the Pension Plan for Insurance Organizations and on the behalf of similarly situated participants of the pension plan and ask the court to declare that a certain amendment to the pension plan as of December 31, 2001, which terminated their right to calculate and define the value of their retirement benefit under the pension plan based on their compensation levels as of immediately prior to their "retirement" (the "Unlawful Amendment"), violated the anti-cutback provisions and equitable principles of ERISA. The First Amended Class Action Complaint (the "Amended Complaint") alleges that (1) the Unlawful Amendment of the pension plan violated Section 502(a)(1)(B) of ERISA as well as the anti-cutback rules of ERISA Section 204(g) and Section 411(d)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code; (2) ISO's failure to provide an ERISA 204(h) notice in a manner calculated to be understood by the average pension plan participant was a violation of Sections 204(h) and 102(a) of ERISA; and (3) the Living Pension Right was a contract right under ERISA common law and that by terminating that right through the Unlawful Amendment ISO violated plaintiffs' common law contract rights under ERISA. The Amended Complaint seeks declaratory, equitable and injunctive relief enjoining the enforcement of the Unlawful Amendment and ordering the pension plan and ISO retroactive to the date of the Unlawful Amendment to recalculate the accrued benefits of all class members, indemnification from ISO to the pension plan for costs and contribution requirements related to voiding the Unlawful Amendment, bonuses to the class representatives, costs and attorney's fees. On September 12, 2014, the District Court granted ISO's motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint finding that ISO provided ample, clear and sufficient notice of the 2002 Amendment to the Plan and that plaintiffs' claims were time barred. Plaintiffs filed their Notice of Appeal on October 14, 2014. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court's dismissal of the Amended Complaint on April 27, 2015 and denied the Appellants' Petition for a Re-Hearing on June 16, 2015. VERISK ANALYTICS: Snyder, et. al. v. ACORD Still Pending -------------------------------------------------------- On August 1, 2014 Verisk Analytics, Inc. was served with an Amended Complaint filed in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado titled Snyder, et. al. v. ACORD Corp., et al. The action is brought by nineteen individual plaintiffs, on their own behalf and on behalf of a putative class, against more than 120 defendants, including the Company and its subsidiary, Insurance Services Office, Inc. ("ISO"). Except for the Company, ISO and the defendant Acord Corporation, which provides standard forms to assist in insurance transactions, most of the other defendants are property and casualty insurance companies that plaintiffs claim conspired to underpay property damage claims. Plaintiffs claim that the Company and ISO, along with all of the other defendants, violated state and federal antitrust and racketeering laws as well as state common law. On September 8, 2014, the Court entered an Order striking the Amended Complaint and granting leave to the plaintiffs to file a new complaint. On October 13, 2014, plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint, which was re-filed by plaintiffs to correct errors as the Third Amended Complaint. The Third Amended Complaint similarly alleges that the defendants conspired to underpay property damage claims, but does not specifically allege what role the Company or ISO played in the alleged conspiracy. It claims that the Company and ISO, along with all of the other defendants, violated state and federal antitrust and racketeering laws as well as state common law, and seeks all available relief including, injunctive, statutory, actual and punitive damages as well as attorneys' fees. No updates were provided in Verisk Analytics's Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015. VERMEER: Recalls 2012 Brush Chipper Units Due to Injury Risk ------------------------------------------------------------ Starting date: August 11, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Equipment Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Accessories Units affected: 64 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015362TC ID number: 2015362 On certain brush chipper units, the mounting flanges for the discharge chute could crack or fail due to stress and/or fatigue. This could result in the chute separating from the brush chipper while the unit is being towed down a roadway, creating a road hazard for other motorists, increasing the risk of a crash causing injury and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers will reposition the discharge chute rotation clamp locations and add and additional rotation clamp. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- VERMEER 2012 VITAL RECOVERY: "Walker" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Patricia Walker, and all others similarly-situated v. Vital Recovery Services, Inc., Vital Solutions, Inc., and Christopher J. Shuler, Case No. 1:15-cv-02747 (N.D. Ga., August 4, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, reasonable expenses of litigation and attorneys' fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants operate a debt collection agency in Norcross, Georgia. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alan H. Garber, Esq. THE GARBER LAW FIRM, P.C. Suite 14 4994 Lower Roswell Road Marietta, GA 30068 Tel: (678) 560-6685 Fax: (678) 560-5067 E-mail: ahgarber@garberlaw.net WAL-MART STORES: Fails to Provide Workers Seats, Verge Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- La Britt Verge, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and Does 1 through 30, Case No. BC591286 (D. Cal., August 13, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to provide suitable seating for employees who work in Wal-Mart pharmacies. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that operates retail stores with pharmacies throughout California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ari E. Moss, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ARI MOSS 15300 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 207 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone: (310) 982-2984 Facsimile: (310) 861-0389 E-mail: ari@arimoss.com - and - Dennis F. Moss, Esq. 15300 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 207 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone: (310) 773-0323 Facsimile: (310) 861-0389 E-mail: dennis@dennismosslaw.com WASTE MANAGEMENT: Settlement of Fla. and Ala. Cases Has Final OK ---------------------------------------------------------------- Waste Management, Inc. has received court approval for final settlement of the Florida and Alabama class action cases, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 23, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015. "In October 2011 and January 2012, we were named as a defendant in a purported class action in the Circuit Court of Sarasota County, Florida and the Circuit Court of Lawrence County, Alabama, respectively," the Company said. "These cases primarily pertained to our fuel and environmental charges included on our invoices, generally alleging that such charges were not properly disclosed, were unfair and were contrary to the customer service contracts. "We received court approval for final settlement of the Florida and Alabama cases on April 28, 2015 and June 9, 2015, respectively. The settlements will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows." WASTE MANAGEMENT: Ruling by Kansas Court Currently on Appeal ------------------------------------------------------------ The ruling by a Kansas court in the class actions against Deffenbaugh is currently on appeal, Waste Management, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 23, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015. On March 26, 2015, the Company acquired Deffenbaugh. In May 2012 and December 2013, Deffenbaugh was named as a defendant in purported class actions filed in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. These cases also pertain to fuel, environmental and base rate charges included on invoices. In February 2015, the Kansas Court certified a class of plaintiffs with respect to the fuel surcharge only. This ruling is currently on appeal and is not a final adjudication. "We do not anticipate that the outcome of these cases will have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows," the Company said. WEATHERFORD INTERNATIONAL: Settlement Reached in "Freedman" Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- Weatherford International public limited company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 24, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a settlement agreement has been reached in the "Freedman" securities class action. The Company said, "In March 2012, a purported securities class action captioned Freedman v. Weatherford International Ltd., et al., No. 1:12-cv-02121-LAK (SDNY) was filed in the Southern District of New York against us and certain current and former officers. That case alleges violation of the federal securities laws related to the restatement of our historical financial statements announced on February 21, 2012, and later added claims related to the announcement of a subsequent restatement on July 24, 2012. In the three months ended December 31, 2014, we advanced settlement negotiations such that settlement was deemed probable, and we maintained an accrual of the estimated probable loss." "As a result of ongoing negotiations in the second quarter of 2015, a settlement agreement was reached on June 30, 2015, subject to notice to the class, approval by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and other conditions. The settlement agreement requires payments totaling $120 million in exchange for the dismissal with prejudice of the litigation and the unconditional release of all claims, of which $95 million was accrued during the second quarter of 2015." WEINBERG & ASSOCIATES: Faces Suit Over Junk Fax Violation --------------------------------------------------------- JT's Frames, Inc., and all others similarly-situated v. Weinberg & Associates, Inc., Ohio National Financial Services, Inc., The Ohio National Life Insurance Company, Ohio National Life Assurance Corporation, Ohio National Equities, Inc., Ohio National Mutual Holdings, Inc., Ohio National Investments, Inc. and John Does 1- 10, Case No. 1:15-cv-06788 (N.D. Ill., August 4, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for violating the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005. The case challenges the Defendants' practice of sending unsolicited facsimiles. The Defendants is a group of insurance and financial services companies in Ohio. Weinberg & Associates, Inc. is an agent for the Ohio National Defendants. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian J. Wanca, Esq. ANDERSON & WANCA 3701 Algonquin Road, Ste. 760 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Tel: (847) 368-1500 E-mail: buslit@andersonwanca.com WEST BANCORPORATION: Oral Argument Not Yet Set in Appeals --------------------------------------------------------- West Bancorporation, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 24, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the appeals in a class action lawsuit have not yet been assigned a date for oral argument. On September 29, 2010, West Bank was sued in a class action lawsuit that, as amended, asserts nonsufficient funds fees charged by West Bank to Iowa resident customers on debit card transactions are usurious under the Iowa Consumer Credit Code, rather than allowable fees, and that the sequence in which West Bank formerly posted debit card transactions for payment violated various alleged duties of good faith and ordinary care. Plaintiffs are seeking alternative remedies that include injunctive relief, damages (including treble damages), punitive damages, refund of fees and attorney fees. The case is currently being brought by Darla and Jason T. Legg, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, in the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Iowa. West Bank believes it has substantial defenses and is vigorously defending the action. The trial court entered orders on preliminary motions on March 4, 2014. It dismissed one of the plaintiffs' claims and found that factual disputes precluded summary judgment in West Bank's favor on the remaining claims. In addition, the court certified two classes for further proceedings. West Bank appealed the adverse rulings to the Iowa Supreme Court. The Iowa Supreme Court has indicated that the appeal will be heard during the 2015-2016 court term. The appeals have not yet been assigned a date for oral argument. The amount of potential loss, if any, cannot be reasonably estimated now because of the unresolved legal issues and because, among other things, the multiple alternative claims involve different time periods, burdens of proof, defenses and potential remedies. WING PARTNERS: "Randall" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Tabares Randall, and other similarly situated individuals v. Wing Partners 6408, LLC and Tina D. Howell, Case No. 30844284 (D. Fla., August 13, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime and minimum wage compensation, an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, obtain declaratory relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. Based in Miami Dade County, Florida, Wing Partners 6408, LLC, is engaged in interstate commerce. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason S. Remer, Esq. Brady M. Shulman, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC 44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416-5000 Facsimile: (305) 416-5005 E-mail: jremer@rgpattorneys.com XIAOQING LI: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Repair Units Defects -------------------------------------------------------------- Kaliya Morgan and Timothy Wright v. Xiaoqing Li, Mengzhen He and Does 1-30, Case No. RG15781782 (D. Cal., August 13, 2015), is brought on behalf of the tenants who suffered emotional distress, physical injury, over-payment of rent, and out-of-pocket expenses as a result of the Defendants' failure and refusal to make repairs of the habitability defects to the subject premises. The Defendants own and operate a real estate agency doing business in the County of Alameda, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Wolff, Esq. Chris Beatty, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW WOLFF, PC 1970 Broadway, Ste. 210 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 834-3300 Facsimile: (510) 834-3377 E-mail: andrew@awolfflaw.com chris@awolfflaw.com Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Inc. Has $335-Mil. in Fibro Trust ---------------------------------------------------------- Ashland Inc. placed $335 million of the settlement funds received from the underwriters settlement into a renewable annual trust restricted to pay for ongoing and future litigation defense and claim settlement costs incurred in conjunction with asbestos claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015. On January 13, 2015, Ashland and Hercules entered into a comprehensive settlement agreement related to certain insurance coverage for asbestos bodily injury claims with Underwriters at Lloyd's, certain London Companies and Chartis (AIG) member companies, along with National Indemnity and Resolute Management, Inc., under which Ashland and Hercules received a total of $398 million. In exchange, all claims were released against these entities for past, present and future coverage obligations arising out of the asbestos coverage-in-place agreements that were the subject of the pending arbitration proceedings. In addition, as part of this settlement, Ashland and Hercules released all claims against National Indemnity and Resolute Management, Inc. in the Kentucky state court action. As a result, the arbitration proceedings and the Kentucky state court action have been terminated. As a result of this settlement, Ashland recorded an after-tax gain of $120 million within the discontinued operations caption of the Statements of Consolidated Comprehensive Income during the three months ended March 31, 2015. The Ashland insurance receivable balance was also reduced as a result of this settlement by $227 million within the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. In addition, Ashland placed $335 million of the settlement funds received into a renewable annual trust restricted for the purpose of paying for ongoing and future litigation defense and claim settlement costs incurred in conjunction with asbestos claims. Ashland Inc. (Ashland) is a specialty chemical company that provides products, services and solutions to industries. The Company's segments are: Ashland Specialty Ingredients offers products, technologies and resources in key markets including personal and home care, pharmaceutical, food and beverage, coatings, construction, energy and other industries; Ashland Water Technologies is a supplier of specialty chemicals and services to the pulp, paper, mining, food and beverage, power generation, refining, chemical processing, general manufacturing and municipal markets. Ashland Performance Materials helps customers to create substitutes for traditional materials through higher performing, cost-efficient resin and adhesive technologies that improve the manufacturing, fabrication and design process, and Ashland Consumer Markets delivers premium-branded automotive, commercial and industrial lubricants, automotive chemicals and car-care products. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Inc. Has $162MM Receivable at March 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- Ashland Inc. had $162 million insurance receivable, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015. At March 31, 2015, Ashland's receivable for recoveries of litigation defense and claim settlement costs from insurers amounted to $162 million, of which $18 million relates to costs previously paid. Receivables from insurers amounted to $402 million at September 30, 2014. During the June 2014 quarter, the annual update of the model used for purposes of valuing the asbestos reserve, and its impact on valuation of future recoveries from insurers, was updated. This model update resulted in a $7 million increase in the receivable for probable insurance recoveries. In 2014, subsequent to the model update, a $15 million increase to the receivable was recorded to reflect a change to certain model assumptions related to the timing of receipts. Ashland Inc. (Ashland) is a specialty chemical company that provides products, services and solutions to industries. The Company's segments are: Ashland Specialty Ingredients offers products, technologies and resources in key markets including personal and home care, pharmaceutical, food and beverage, coatings, construction, energy and other industries; Ashland Water Technologies is a supplier of specialty chemicals and services to the pulp, paper, mining, food and beverage, power generation, refining, chemical processing, general manufacturing and municipal markets. Ashland Performance Materials helps customers to create substitutes for traditional materials through higher performing, cost-efficient resin and adhesive technologies that improve the manufacturing, fabrication and design process, and Ashland Consumer Markets delivers premium-branded automotive, commercial and industrial lubricants, automotive chemicals and car-care products. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Inc. Had 21,000 Hercules PI Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- Ashland Inc.'s wholly-owned subsidiary, Hercules, had 21,000 asbestos-related personal injury claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015. Hercules has liabilities from claims alleging personal injury caused by exposure to asbestos. Such claims typically arise from alleged exposure to asbestos fibers from resin encapsulated pipe and tank products which were sold by one of Hercules' former subsidiaries to a limited industrial market. The amount and timing of settlements and number of open claims can fluctuate from period to period. Ashland Inc. (Ashland) is a specialty chemical company that provides products, services and solutions to industries. The Company's segments are: Ashland Specialty Ingredients offers products, technologies and resources in key markets including personal and home care, pharmaceutical, food and beverage, coatings, construction, energy and other industries; Ashland Water Technologies is a supplier of specialty chemicals and services to the pulp, paper, mining, food and beverage, power generation, refining, chemical processing, general manufacturing and municipal markets. Ashland Performance Materials helps customers to create substitutes for traditional materials through higher performing, cost-efficient resin and adhesive technologies that improve the manufacturing, fabrication and design process, and Ashland Consumer Markets delivers premium-branded automotive, commercial and industrial lubricants, automotive chemicals and car-care products. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Inc. Had $320MM Hercules Claims Reserve ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ashland Inc.'s wholly owned subsidiary, Hercules, had $320 million total reserves for asbestos claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015. From the range of estimates, Ashland records the amount it believes to be the best estimate of future payments for litigation defense and claim settlement costs, which generally approximates the mid-point of the estimated range of exposure from model results. Ashland reviews this estimate and related assumptions quarterly and annually updates the results of a non-inflated, non- discounted approximate 50-year model developed with the assistance of HR&A. As a result of the most recent annual update of this estimate, completed during the June 2014 quarter, it was determined that the liability for Hercules asbestos-related claims should be increased by $10 million. Total reserves for asbestos claims were $320 million at March 31, 2015 compared to $329 million at September 30, 2014. Ashland Inc. (Ashland) is a specialty chemical company that provides products, services and solutions to industries. The Company's segments are: Ashland Specialty Ingredients offers products, technologies and resources in key markets including personal and home care, pharmaceutical, food and beverage, coatings, construction, energy and other industries; Ashland Water Technologies is a supplier of specialty chemicals and services to the pulp, paper, mining, food and beverage, power generation, refining, chemical processing, general manufacturing and municipal markets. Ashland Performance Materials helps customers to create substitutes for traditional materials through higher performing, cost-efficient resin and adhesive technologies that improve the manufacturing, fabrication and design process, and Ashland Consumer Markets delivers premium-branded automotive, commercial and industrial lubricants, automotive chemicals and car-care products. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Inc.'s Hercules Had $55MM Receivable ------------------------------------------------------------- Ashland Inc.'s wholly-owned subsidiary, Hercules, had $55 million insurance receivable, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015. For the Hercules asbestos-related obligations, certain reimbursement obligations pursuant to coverage-in-place agreements with insurance carriers exist. As a result, any increases in the asbestos reserve have been partially offset by probable insurance recoveries. Ashland has estimated the value of probable insurance recoveries associated with its asbestos reserve based on management's interpretations and estimates surrounding the available or applicable insurance coverage, including an assumption that all solvent insurance carriers remain solvent. The estimated receivable consists exclusively of domestic insurers. Of the insurance companies rated by A. M. Best, all have a credit rating of A+ or higher as of March 31, 2015. As of March 31, 2015 and September 30, 2014, the receivables from insurers amounted to $55 million and $77 million, respectively. During the June 2014 quarter, the annual update of the model used for purposes of valuing the asbestos reserve and its impact on valuation of future recoveries from insurers was completed. This model update caused a $3 million increase in the receivable for probable insurance recoveries. As a result of the January 2015 asbestos insurance settlement previously described, Hercules has resolved all disputes with Chartis (AIG) member companies under their existing coverage-in- place agreement for past, present and future Hercules asbestos claims. As a result, during the March 2015 quarter, a $22 million reduction in the insurance receivable balance within the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets was recorded. Projecting future asbestos costs is subject to numerous variables that are extremely difficult to predict. In addition to the significant uncertainties surrounding the number of claims that might be received, other variables include the type and severity of the disease alleged by each claimant, the long latency period associated with asbestos exposure, dismissal rates, costs of medical treatment, the impact of bankruptcies of other companies that are co-defendants in claims, uncertainties surrounding the litigation process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case to case, and the impact of potential changes in legislative or judicial standards. Furthermore, any predictions with respect to these variables are subject to even greater uncertainty as the projection period lengthens. In light of these inherent uncertainties, Ashland believes that the asbestos reserves for Ashland and Hercules represent the best estimate within a range of possible outcomes. As a part of the process to develop these estimates of future asbestos costs, a range of long-term cost models was developed. These models are based on national studies that predict the number of people likely to develop asbestos- related diseases and are heavily influenced by assumptions regarding long-term inflation rates for indemnity payments and legal defense costs, as well as other variables mentioned previously. Ashland has currently estimated in various models ranging from approximately 40 to 50 year periods that it is reasonably possible that total future litigation defense and claim settlement costs on an inflated and undiscounted basis could range as high as approximately $870 million for the Ashland asbestos- related litigation and approximately $670 million for the Hercules asbestos-related litigation (or approximately $1.5 billion in the aggregate), depending on the combination of assumptions selected in the various models. If actual experience is worse than projected, relative to the number of claims filed, the severity of alleged disease associated with those claims or costs incurred to resolve those claims, Ashland may need to further increase the estimates of the costs associated with asbestos claims and these increases could be material over time. Ashland Inc. (Ashland) is a specialty chemical company that provides products, services and solutions to industries. The Company's segments are: Ashland Specialty Ingredients offers products, technologies and resources in key markets including personal and home care, pharmaceutical, food and beverage, coatings, construction, energy and other industries; Ashland Water Technologies is a supplier of specialty chemicals and services to the pulp, paper, mining, food and beverage, power generation, refining, chemical processing, general manufacturing and municipal markets. Ashland Performance Materials helps customers to create substitutes for traditional materials through higher performing, cost-efficient resin and adhesive technologies that improve the manufacturing, fabrication and design process, and Ashland Consumer Markets delivers premium-branded automotive, commercial and industrial lubricants, automotive chemicals and car-care products. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ensco plc Continues to Defend Fibro Suits ---------------------------------------------------------- Ensco plc reported that it continues to defend itself against numerous asbestos lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015. The Company states: "We and certain subsidiaries have been named as defendants, along with numerous third-party companies as co- defendants, in multi-party lawsuits filed in Illinois, Mississippi, Texas, Louisiana and the U.K. by approximately 125 plaintiffs. The lawsuits seek an unspecified amount of monetary damages on behalf of individuals alleging personal injury or death, primarily under the Jones Act, purportedly resulting from exposure to asbestos on drilling rigs and associated facilities during the 1960s through the 1980s. "During 2013, we reached an agreement in principle with 58 of the plaintiffs to settle lawsuits filed in Mississippi for a nominal amount. A special master reviewed all 58 cases and made an allocation of settlement funds among the parties. The District Court Judge reviewed the allocations and accepted the special master's recommendations and approved the settlements. The settlement documents and final documentation for the individual plaintiffs are being processed. "We intend to vigorously defend against the remaining claims and have filed responsive pleadings preserving all defenses and challenges to jurisdiction and venue. However, discovery is still ongoing and, therefore, available information regarding the nature of all pending claims is limited. At present, we cannot reasonably determine how many of the claimants may have valid claims under the Jones Act or estimate a range of potential liability exposure, if any. "In addition to the pending cases in Illinois, Mississippi, Texas, Louisiana and the U.K., we have other asbestos or lung injury claims pending against us in litigation in other jurisdictions. Although we do not expect final disposition of these asbestos or lung injury lawsuits to have a material adverse effect upon our financial position, operating results or cash flows, there can be no assurances as to the ultimate outcome of the lawsuits." Ensco plc (Ensco) is the United Kingdom-based offshore contract drilling company. The Company offers offshore drilling rig fleet, ultra-deepwater fleet and jackup fleet. Ensco owns and operates an offshore drilling rig fleet of 74 rigs. The Company's target market includes oil companies, in addition to many independent operators. The Company's operations and drilling contracts span across 20 countries on six continents around the world. The markets in which the Company operates include the U.S. Gulf of Mexico, Mexico, Brazil, the Mediterranean, the North Sea, the Middle East, West Africa, Australia and Southeast Asia. The Company provides drilling services on a day-rate contract basis. It operates through three segments: Floaters, Jackups and Other. The Floaters segment includes the Company's drillships and semisubmersible rigs. The Jackups segment offers contract drilling services. The other segment comprises management services on rigs owned by third parties. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Company Has 2,150 PI Claimants at March 31 -------------------------------------------------------------- 3M Company is a named defendant in numerous lawsuits purporting to represent 2,150 individual claimants alleged asbestos-related personal injury claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015. As of March 31, 2015, the Company is a named defendant, with multiple co-defendants, in numerous lawsuits in various courts that purport to represent approximately 2,150 individual claimants, compared to approximately 2,220 individual claimants with actions pending at December 31, 2014. The vast majority of the lawsuits and claims resolved by and currently pending against the Company allege use of some of the Company's mask and respirator products and seek damages from the Company and other defendants for alleged personal injury from workplace exposures to asbestos, silica, coal mine dust or other occupational dusts found in products manufactured by other defendants or generally in the workplace. A minority of the lawsuits and claims resolved by and currently pending against the Company generally allege personal injury from occupational exposure to asbestos from products previously manufactured by the Company, which are often unspecified, as well as products manufactured by other defendants, or occasionally at Company premises. The Company's current volume of new and pending matters is substantially lower than it experienced at the peak of filings in 2003. The Company expects that filing of claims by unimpaired claimants in the future will continue to be at much lower levels than in the past. Accordingly, the number of claims alleging more serious injuries, including mesothelioma and other malignancies, will represent a greater percentage of total claims than in the past. The Company has prevailed in all nine cases taken to trial, including seven of the eight cases tried to verdict (such trials occurred in 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003, 2004, and 2007), and an appellate reversal in 2005 of the 2001 jury verdict adverse to the Company. The ninth case, tried in 2009, was dismissed by the court at the close of plaintiff's evidence, based on the court's legal finding that the plaintiff had not presented sufficient evidence to support a jury verdict. The Company has demonstrated in these past trial proceedings that its respiratory protection products are effective as claimed when used in the intended manner and in the intended circumstances. Consequently the Company believes that claimants are unable to establish that their medical conditions, even if significant, are attributable to the Company's respiratory protection products. Nonetheless the Company's litigation experience indicates that claims of persons with malignant conditions are costlier to resolve than the claims of unimpaired persons, and it therefore believes the average cost of resolving pending and future claims on a per-claim basis will continue to be higher than it experienced in prior periods when the vast majority of claims were asserted by the unimpaired. The State of West Virginia, through its Attorney General, filed a complaint in 2003 against the Company and two other manufacturers of respiratory protection products in the Circuit Court of Lincoln County, West Virginia and amended its complaint in 2005. The amended complaint seeks substantial, but unspecified, compensatory damages primarily for reimbursement of the costs allegedly incurred by the State for worker's compensation and healthcare benefits provided to all workers with occupational pneumoconiosis and unspecified punitive damages. The case has been inactive since the fourth quarter of 2007, other than a case management conference in March 2011. In November 2013, the State filed a motion to bifurcate the lawsuit into separate liability and damages proceedings. At the hearing on the motion, the Court declined to bifurcate, and set a status conference during the second quarter of 2015. No liability has been recorded for this matter because the Company believes that liability is not probable and estimable at this time. In addition, the Company is not able to estimate a possible loss or range of loss given the lack of any meaningful discovery responses by the State of West Virginia, the otherwise minimal activity in this case and the fact that the complaint asserts claims against two other manufacturers where a defendant's share of liability may turn on the law of joint and several liability and by the amount of fault, if any, a jury might allocate to each defendant if the case is ultimately tried. 3M Company is a diversified technology company. The Company's business segments: Industrial, which serves a range of markets, such as automotive original equipment manufacturer (OEM) and automotive aftermarket, electronics, appliance, paper and printing, packaging, food and beverage, and construction; Safety and Graphics, which serves a range of markets for the safety, security and productivity of people, facilities and systems; Electronics and Energy, which serves customers in electronics and energy markets, including solutions for electronic devices, telecommunications networks, electrical products, power generation and distribution, and infrastructure protection; Health Care, which serves markets that include medical clinics and hospitals, pharmaceuticals, dental and orthodontic practitioners, and health information systems, among others, and Consumer, which serves markets that include consumer retail, office retail, home improvement, building maintenance and other markets. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Company Has $41-Mil. Insurance Receivable ------------------------------------------------------------- 3M Company's receivable for insurance recoveries related to the respirator mask/asbestos litigation was $41 million, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015. The Company estimates its respirator mask/asbestos liabilities, including the cost to resolve the claims and defense costs, by examining: (i) the Company's experience in resolving claims, (ii) apparent trends, (iii) the apparent quality of claims (e.g., whether the claim has been asserted on behalf of asymptomatic claimants), (iv) changes in the nature and mix of claims (e.g., the proportion of claims asserting usage of the Company's mask or respirator products and alleging exposure to each of asbestos, silica, coal or other occupational dusts, and claims pleading use of asbestos-containing products allegedly manufactured by the Company), (v) the number of current claims and a projection of the number of future asbestos and other claims that may be filed against the Company, (vi) the cost to resolve recently settled claims, and (vii) an estimate of the cost to resolve and defend against current and future claims. Developments may occur that could affect the Company's estimate of its liabilities. These developments include, but are not limited to, significant changes in (i) the number of future claims, (ii) the average cost of resolving claims, (iii) the legal costs of defending these claims and in maintaining trial readiness, (iv) changes in the mix and nature of claims received, (v) trial and appellate outcomes, (vi) changes in the law and procedure applicable to these claims, and (vii) the financial viability of other co-defendants and insurers. As a result of the Company's cost of resolving claims of persons who claim more serious injuries, including mesothelioma and other malignancies, the Company increased its accruals in the first quarter of 2015 for respirator mask/asbestos liabilities by $14 million. In the first quarter of 2015, the Company made payments for fees and settlements of $10 million related to the respirator mask/asbestos litigation. As of March 31, 2015, the Company had accruals for respirator mask/asbestos liabilities of $144 million (excluding Aearo accruals). This accrual represents the low end in a range of loss. The Company cannot estimate the amount or upper end of the range of amounts by which the liability may exceed the accrual the Company has established because of the (i) inherent difficulty in projecting the number of claims that have not yet been asserted or the time period in which future claims may be asserted, (ii) the complaints nearly always assert claims against multiple defendants where the damages alleged are typically not attributed to individual defendants so that a defendant's share of liability may turn on the law of joint and several liability, which can vary by state, (iii) the multiple factors that the Company considers in estimating its liabilities, and (iv) the several possible developments that may occur that could affect the Company's estimate of liabilities. As of March 31, 2015, the Company's receivable for insurance recoveries related to the respirator mask/asbestos litigation was $41 million. The Company estimates insurance receivables based on an analysis of its policies, including their exclusions, pertinent case law interpreting comparable policies, its experience with similar claims, and assessment of the nature of each claim and remaining coverage, and then records an amount it has concluded is likely to be recovered. Various factors could affect the timing and amount of recovery of this receivable, including (i) delays in or avoidance of payment by insurers; (ii) the extent to which insurers may become insolvent in the future, and (iii) the outcome of negotiations with insurers and legal proceedings with respect to respirator mask/asbestos liability insurance coverage. The Company has unresolved coverage with claims-made carriers for respirator mask claims. The Company is also seeking coverage under the policies of certain insolvent insurers. Once those claims for coverage are resolved, the Company will have collected substantially all of its remaining insurance coverage for respirator mask/asbestos claims. 3M Company is a diversified technology company. The Company's business segments: Industrial, which serves a range of markets, such as automotive original equipment manufacturer (OEM) and automotive aftermarket, electronics, appliance, paper and printing, packaging, food and beverage, and construction; Safety and Graphics, which serves a range of markets for the safety, security and productivity of people, facilities and systems; Electronics and Energy, which serves customers in electronics and energy markets, including solutions for electronic devices, telecommunications networks, electrical products, power generation and distribution, and infrastructure protection; Health Care, which serves markets that include medical clinics and hospitals, pharmaceuticals, dental and orthodontic practitioners, and health information systems, among others, and Consumer, which serves markets that include consumer retail, office retail, home improvement, building maintenance and other markets. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Company Unit Accrues $23MM Fibro Liabilities ---------------------------------------------------------------- 3M Company, through its Aearo subsidiary, accrued $23 million for product liabilities and defense costs related to current and future Aearo-related asbestos and silica-related claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015. Respirator Mask/Asbestos Litigation -- Aearo Technologies On April 1, 2008, a subsidiary of the Company purchased the stock of Aearo Holding Corp., the parent of Aearo Technologies ("Aearo"). Aearo manufactured and sold various products, including personal protection equipment, such as eye, ear, head, face, fall and certain respiratory protection products. As of March 31, 2015, Aearo and/or other companies that previously owned and operated Aearo's respirator business (American Optical Corporation, Warner-Lambert LLC, AO Corp. and Cabot Corporation ("Cabot")) are named defendants, with multiple co-defendants, including the Company, in numerous lawsuits in various courts in which plaintiffs allege use of mask and respirator products and seek damages from Aearo and other defendants for alleged personal injury from workplace exposures to asbestos, silica-related, or other occupational dusts found in products manufactured by other defendants or generally in the workplace. As of March 31, 2015, the Company, through its Aearo subsidiary, had accruals of $23 million for product liabilities and defense costs related to current and future Aearo-related asbestos and silica-related claims. Responsibility for legal costs, as well as for settlements and judgments, is currently shared in an informal arrangement among Aearo, Cabot, American Optical Corporation and a subsidiary of Warner Lambert and their insurers (the "Payor Group"). Liability is allocated among the parties based on the number of years each company sold respiratory products under the "AO Safety" brand and/or owned the AO Safety Division of American Optical Corporation and the alleged years of exposure of the individual plaintiff. Aearo's share of the contingent liability is further limited by an agreement entered into between Aearo and Cabot on July 11, 1995. This agreement provides that, so long as Aearo pays to Cabot a quarterly fee of $100,000, Cabot will retain responsibility and liability for, and indemnify Aearo against, any product liability claims involving exposure to asbestos, silica, or silica products for respirators sold prior to July 11, 1995. Because of the difficulty in determining how long a particular respirator remains in the stream of commerce after being sold, Aearo and Cabot have applied the agreement to claims arising out of the alleged use of respirators involving exposure to asbestos, silica or silica products prior to January 1, 1997. With these arrangements in place, Aearo's potential liability is limited to exposures alleged to have arisen from the use of respirators involving exposure to asbestos, silica, or silica products on or after January 1, 1997. As of March 31, 2015, Aearo has elected to pay the quarterly fee. Aearo could potentially be exposed to additional claims for some part of the pre-July 11, 1995 period covered by its agreement with Cabot if Aearo elects to discontinue its participation in this arrangement, or if Cabot is no longer able to meet its obligations in these matters. In March 2012, Cabot CSC Corporation and Cabot Corporation filed a lawsuit against Aearo in the Superior Court of Suffolk County, Massachusetts seeking declaratory relief as to the scope of Cabot's indemnity obligations under the July 11, 1995 agreement, including whether Cabot has retained liability for coal workers' pneumoconiosis claims, and seeking damages for breach of contract. In June 2014, the court granted Aearo's motion for summary judgment on all claims. Cabot filed a motion for reconsideration, and Aearo filed a motion for clarification of the court's order granting Aearo summary judgment. In October 2014, the court denied Aearo's motion for clarification. The court also denied, in part, Cabot's motion for reconsideration and reaffirmed its ruling that Cabot retained liability for claims involving exposure to silica in coal mine dust. The court granted Cabot's motion, in part, ruling that Aearo was not entitled to summary judgment on Cabot's claim for equitable allocation, and on whether the 258 underlying claims were Cabot's responsibility. These two issues remain in the case for further proceedings and the parties have engaged in discovery related to them. New motions for summary judgment will be presented to the court in the third quarter of 2015. Developments may occur that could affect the estimate of Aearo's liabilities. These developments include, but are not limited to: (i) significant changes in the number of future claims, (ii) significant changes in the average cost of resolving claims, (iii) significant changes in the legal costs of defending these claims, (iv) significant changes in the mix and nature of claims received, (v) trial and appellate outcomes, (vi) significant changes in the law and procedure applicable to these claims, (vii) significant changes in the liability allocation among the co-defendants, (viii) the financial viability of members of the Payor Group including exhaustion of available coverage limits, and/or (ix) a determination that the interpretation of the contractual obligations on which Aearo has estimated its share of liability is inaccurate. The Company cannot determine the impact of these potential developments on its current estimate of Aearo's share of liability for these existing and future claims. If any of the developments were to occur, the actual amount of these liabilities for existing and future claims could be significantly larger than the amount accrued. Because of the inherent difficulty in projecting the number of claims that have not yet been asserted, the complexity of allocating responsibility for future claims among the Payor Group, and the several possible developments that may occur that could affect the estimate of Aearo's liabilities, the Company cannot estimate the amount or range of amounts by which Aearo's liability may exceed the accrual the Company has established. 3M Company is a diversified technology company. The Company's business segments: Industrial, which serves a range of markets, such as automotive original equipment manufacturer (OEM) and automotive aftermarket, electronics, appliance, paper and printing, packaging, food and beverage, and construction; Safety and Graphics, which serves a range of markets for the safety, security and productivity of people, facilities and systems; Electronics and Energy, which serves customers in electronics and energy markets, including solutions for electronic devices, telecommunications networks, electrical products, power generation and distribution, and infrastructure protection; Health Care, which serves markets that include medical clinics and hospitals, pharmaceuticals, dental and orthodontic practitioners, and health information systems, among others, and Consumer, which serves markets that include consumer retail, office retail, home improvement, building maintenance and other markets. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Armstrong World PI Trust Holds 12% of Shares ------------------------------------------------------------- Armstrong World Industries, Inc., reported that 12% of its outstanding shares was held by the Asbestos PI Trust, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015. In December 2000, AWI filed a voluntary petition for relief (the "Filing") under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (the "Bankruptcy Code") in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the "Bankruptcy Court") in order to use the court-supervised reorganization process to achieve a resolution of AWI's asbestos-related liability. In October 2006, AWI's court- approved plan of reorganization became effective and AWI emerged from Chapter 11. All claims in AWI's Chapter 11 case have been resolved and closed. In October 2006, the Armstrong World Industries, Inc. Asbestos Personal Injury Settlement Trust (the "Asbestos PI Trust") was created to address AWI's personal injury (including wrongful death) asbestos-related liability. All present and future asbestos-related personal injury claims against AWI, including contribution claims of co-defendants but excluding certain foreign claims against subsidiaries, arising directly or indirectly out of AWI's pre-Filing use of, or other activities involving, asbestos are channeled to the Asbestos PI Trust. From the fourth quarter of 2012 through the fourth quarter of 2014, the Asbestos PI Trust sold 20,448,362 shares of our common stock. In the first quarter of 2015, the Asbestos Trust sold 2,739,944 shares of our common stock. See Note 9 for discussion of the related income tax impact. We did not sell any shares and did not receive any proceeds from these transactions. As a result of these transactions the Asbestos PI Trust held approximately 12% of our outstanding shares as of March 31, 2015. Armstrong World Industries, Inc. (AWI) is a producer of flooring products and ceiling systems for use in construction and renovation of residential, commercial and institutional buildings. AWI designs; manufactures and sells flooring products, and ceiling systems across the world. AWI operates in four business segments include: building products, resilient flooring, wood flooring and unallocated corporate. Building products produces suspended mineral fiber, soft fiber and metal ceiling systems for use in commercial, institutional and residential settings. Resilient flooring produces and sources floor coverings for homes and commercial and institutional buildings. Wood flooring produces and sources wood flooring products for use in new residential construction and renovation, with some commercial applications in stores, restaurants and high-end offices. The unallocated corporate segment includes assets, liabilities, income and expenses that have not been allocated to the business units. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Corp. Had 424 Claims Pending at March 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rogers Corporation had 424 pending asbestos-related claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015. The Company states: "A significant number of asbestos-related product liability claims have been brought against numerous United States industrial companies where the third-party plaintiffs allege personal injury from exposure to asbestos-containing products. We have been named, along with hundreds of other companies, as a defendant in some of these claims. In virtually all of these claims filed against us, the plaintiffs are seeking unspecified damages, or, if an amount is specified, such amount merely represents a jurisdictional amount. However, occasionally specific damages are alleged and in such situations, plaintiffs' lawyers often sue dozens of defendants, frequently without factual basis or support. As a result, even when a specific amount of damages is alleged, such action can be arbitrary, both as to the amount being sought and the defendant being charged with such damages. "We did not mine, mill, manufacture or market asbestos; rather we made a limited number of products which contained encapsulated asbestos. Such products were provided to industrial users. We stopped manufacturing these products in the late 1980s. "We have been named in asbestos litigation primarily in Illinois, Pennsylvania and Mississippi. As of March 31, 2015, there were 424 pending claims compared to 438 pending claims at December 31, 2014. The number of pending claims at a particular time can fluctuate significantly from period to period depending on how successful we have been in getting these cases dismissed or settled. Some jurisdictions prohibit specifying alleged damages in personal injury tort cases such as these, other than a minimum jurisdictional amount which may be required for such reasons as allowing the case to be litigated in a jury trial (which the plaintiffs believe will be more favorable to them than if heard only before a judge) or allowing the case to be litigated in federal court. This is in contrast to commercial litigation, in which specific alleged damage claims are often permitted. The prohibition on specifying alleged damages sometimes applies not only to the suit when filed but also during the trial -- in some jurisdictions the plaintiff is not actually permitted to specify to the jury during the course of the trial the amount of alleged damages the plaintiff is claiming. Further, in those jurisdictions in which plaintiffs are permitted to claim specific alleged damages, many plaintiffs nonetheless still choose not to do so. In those cases in which plaintiffs are permitted to and choose to assert specific dollar amounts in their complaints, we believe the amounts claimed are typically not meaningful as an indicator of a company's potential liability. This is because (1) the amounts claimed may bear no relation to the level of the plaintiff's alleged injury and are often used as part of the plaintiff's litigation strategy, (2) the complaints typically assert claims against numerous defendants, and often the alleged damages are not allocated against specific defendants, but rather the broad claim is made against all of the defendants as a group, making it impossible for a particular defendant to quantify the alleged damages that are being specifically claimed against it and therefore its potential liability, and (3) many cases are brought on behalf of plaintiffs who have not suffered any medical injury, and ultimately are resolved without any payment or payment of a small fraction of the damages initially claimed. "We believe the rate at which plaintiffs filed asbestos-related suits against us increased in 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004 because of increased activity on the part of plaintiffs to identify those companies that sold asbestos-containing products, but which did not directly mine, mill or market asbestos. A significant increase in the volume of asbestos-related bodily injury cases arose in Mississippi in 2002. This increase in the volume of claims in Mississippi was apparently due to the passage of tort reform legislation (applicable to asbestos-related injuries), which became effective on September 1, 2003 and which resulted in a higher than average number of claims being filed in Mississippi by plaintiffs seeking to ensure their claims would be governed by the law in effect prior to the passage of tort reform. The number of asbestos related suits filed against us decreased slightly in 2005 and 2006, but increased slightly in 2007, declined in 2008 and increased again in 2009 and 2010. The number of lawsuits filed against us in 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 and the first quarter of 2015 (annualized) was significantly higher than in 2010. These new lawsuits are reflected in the National Economic Research Associates, Inc. ("NERA") and Marsh USA, Inc. ("Marsh") reports. "In many cases, plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate that they have suffered any compensable loss as a result of exposure to our asbestos-containing products. We continue to believe that the trend will continue and that a majority of the claimants in pending cases will not be able to demonstrate exposure or loss. This belief is based in large part on the limited number of asbestos-related products manufactured and sold by us and the fact that the asbestos was encapsulated in such products. In addition, even at sites where the presence of an alleged injured party can be verified during the same period those products were used, our liability cannot be presumed because even if an individual contracted an asbestos-related disease, not everyone who was employed at a site was exposed to the asbestos containing products that we manufactured. Based on these and other factors, we have and will continue to vigorously defend ourselves in asbestos- related matters. "Cases involving us typically name 50-300 defendants, although some cases have had as few as one (1) and as many as 833 defendants. We have obtained the dismissal of many of these claims. For the three months ended March 31, 2015, 62 claims were dismissed and no (0) claims were settled. For the year ended December 31, 2014, 104 claims were dismissed and 13 were settled. The majority of costs have been paid by our insurance carriers, including the costs associated with the small number of cases that have been settled. Nothing was paid on settlements for the three months ended March 31, 2015, compared to $3.2 million for the year ended 2014. Although these figures provide some insight into our experience with asbestos litigation, no guarantee can be made as to the dismissal and settlement rates that we will experience in the future. "Settlements are made without any admission of liability. Settlement amounts may vary depending upon a number of factors, including the jurisdiction where the action was brought, the nature and extent of the disease alleged and the associated medical evidence, the age and occupation of the claimant, the existence or absence of other possible causes of the alleged illness of the alleged injured party and the availability of legal defenses, as well as whether the action is brought alone or as part of a group of claimants. To date, we have been successful in obtaining dismissals for many of the claims and have settled only a limited number. Most of the settled claims were settled for nominal amounts, and the majority of such payments have been borne by our insurance carriers. In addition, to date, we have not been required to pay any punitive damage awards. * Potential Liability "NERA has historically been engaged to assist us in projecting our future asbestos-related liabilities and defense costs with regard to pending claims and future claims. Projecting future asbestos costs is subject to numerous variables that are extremely difficult to predict, including the number of claims that might be received, the type and severity of the disease alleged by each claimant, the long latency period associated with asbestos exposure, dismissal rates, costs of medical treatment, the financial resources of other companies that are co-defendants in claims, uncertainties surrounding the litigation process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case to case and the impact of potential changes in legislative or judicial standards, including potential tort reform. Furthermore, any predictions with respect to these variables are subject to even greater uncertainty as the projection period lengthens. In light of these inherent uncertainties, the variability of our claims history and consultations with NERA, we currently believe that ten years is the most reasonable period for recognizing a reserve for future costs, and that costs that might be incurred after that period are not reasonably estimable at this time. As a result, we also believe that our ultimate asbestos-related contingent liability (i.e., our indemnity or other claim disposition costs plus related legal fees) cannot be estimated with certainty. "Our applicable insurance policies generally provide coverage for asbestos liability costs, including coverage for both indemnity and defense costs. Following the initiation of asbestos litigation, an effort was made to identify all of our primary, umbrella and excess level insurance carriers that provided applicable coverage beginning in the 1950s through the mid-1980s. We located primary policies for all such years except for the early 1960s. With respect to this period, we entered into an arrangement with ACE Property & Casualty Insurance Company in 2005, pursuant to which we and they share in asbestos liabilities allocable to such period. We have located umbrella or excess layer policies for all such years except for the period from May 18, 1961 to May 18, 1964. We believe that a policy was purchased from Continental Casualty Company covering this period based upon documents we have found, but the insurer has denied coverage. This policy has not yet been triggered. "Where appropriate, carriers were put on notice of the litigation. Marsh has historically been engaged to work with us to project our insurance coverage for asbestos-related claims. Marsh's conclusions are based primarily on a review of our coverage history, application of reasonable assumptions on the allocation of coverage consistent with certain industry practices, an assessment of the creditworthiness of the insurance carriers, analysis of applicable deductibles, retentions and policy limits, the experience of NERA and a review of NERA's reports." Rogers Corporation is a supplier of specialty materials products across range of end markets, including portable communications, communications infrastructure, consumer electronics, mass transit, automotive, defense, and clean technology. The Company's products are sold into markets, including high technology applications such as cellular base stations and antennae, hand held wireless devices, energy efficient motor drives, wind and solar energy applications, and electric and hybrid-electric vehicles. The Company's has presence and serves three major geographic regions: North America, Europe, and Asia. The Company operates in two business segments: Core Strategic and Other. The Company's core strategic segment includes High Performance Foams (HPF), Printed Circuit Materials (PCM) and Power Electronics Solutions (PES). The Company's products were sold to over 3,000 customers worldwide in 2013. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Corp. Still Has Cost Sharing Agreement -------------------------------------------------------------- Rogers Corporation reported that its cost sharing agreement with insurance carriers has not been terminated, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015. The Company states: "As of March 31, 2015, our insurance carriers have paid for substantially all of the settlement and defense costs associated with our asbestos-related claims. The current cost sharing agreement between us and such insurance carriers is primarily designed to facilitate the ongoing administration and payment of such claims by the carriers until the applicable insurance coverage is exhausted. This agreement, which replaced an older agreement that had expired, can be terminated by election of any party thereto after January 25, 2015. Absent any such election, the agreement will continue until a party elects to terminate it. As of the report filing date for this report, the agreement has not been terminated. "In 2014, the primary layer insurance policies providing coverage for the January 1, 1966 to January 1, 1967 period exhausted. The cost sharing agreement contemplates that any excess carrier over exhausted primary layer carriers will become a party to the cost sharing agreement, replacing the coverage provided by the exhausted primary policies if the carrier providing such excess coverage is not already a party to the cost sharing agreement. The excess carrier providing coverage for the period is currently providing applicable insurance coverage in accordance with the allocation provisions of the cost sharing agreement, but has not yet signed that agreement. "The models developed for determining the potential exposure and related insurance coverage were developed by outside consultants deemed to be experts in their respective fields with the forecast for asbestos related liabilities generated by NERA and the related insurance receivable projections developed by Marsh. The models contain numerous assumptions that significantly impact the results generated by the models. We believe the assumptions made are reasonable at the present time, but are subject to uncertainty based on the actual future outcome of our asbestos litigation. We determined that a ten year projection period is now appropriate as we have experience in addressing asbestos related lawsuits over the last few years to use as a baseline to project the liability over ten years. However, we do not believe we have sufficient data to justify a longer projection period at this time. As of December 31, 2014, the estimated liability and estimated insurance recovery for the ten year period through 2024 was $56.5 million and $53.0 million, respectively. There were no changes to these projections during the first three months of 2015. We review our asbestos related forecasts annually in the fourth quarter of each year unless facts and circumstances materially change during the year, at which time we would analyze these forecasts. "The amounts recorded for the asbestos-related liability and the related insurance receivables were based on facts known at the time and a number of assumptions. However, projecting future events, such as the number of new claims to be filed each year, the average cost of disposing of such claims, the length of time it takes to dispose of such claims, coverage issues among insurers and the continuing solvency of various insurance companies, as well as the numerous uncertainties surrounding asbestos litigation in the United States could cause the actual liability and insurance recoveries for us to be higher or lower than those projected or recorded. "There can be no assurance that our accrued asbestos liabilities will approximate our actual asbestos-related settlement and defense costs, or that our accrued insurance recoveries will be realized. We believe that it is reasonably possible that we will incur additional charges for our asbestos liabilities and defense costs in the future, which could exceed existing reserves, but such excess amount cannot be reasonably estimated at this time. We will continue to vigorously defend ourselves and believe we have substantial unutilized insurance coverage to mitigate future costs related to this matter." Rogers Corporation is a supplier of specialty materials products across range of end markets, including portable communications, communications infrastructure, consumer electronics, mass transit, automotive, defense, and clean technology. The Company's products are sold into markets, including high technology applications such as cellular base stations and antennae, hand held wireless devices, energy efficient motor drives, wind and solar energy applications, and electric and hybrid-electric vehicles. The Company's has presence and serves three major geographic regions: North America, Europe, and Asia. The Company operates in two business segments: Core Strategic and Other. The Company's core strategic segment includes High Performance Foams (HPF), Printed Circuit Materials (PCM) and Power Electronics Solutions (PES). The Company's products were sold to over 3,000 customers worldwide in 2013. ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Inc. Has 12,500 Fibro Claims -------------------------------------------------------- BorgWarner Inc. had 12,500 pending asbestos-related product liability claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015. Like many other industrial companies who have historically operated in the U.S., the Company (or parties the Company is obligated to indemnify) continues to be named as one of many defendants in asbestos-related personal injury actions. We believe that the Company's involvement is limited because, in general, these claims relate to a few types of automotive products that were manufactured many years ago and contained encapsulated asbestos. The nature of the fibers, the encapsulation and the manner of use lead the Company to believe that these products are highly unlikely to cause harm. As of March 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014, the Company had approximately 12,500 and 13,300 pending asbestos-related product liability claims, respectively. The decrease in the pending claims is a result of the Company's continued efforts to obtain dismissal of dormant claims. The Company's policy is to vigorously defend against these lawsuits and the Company has been successful in obtaining dismissal of many claims without any payment. The Company expects that the vast majority of the pending asbestos-related product liability claims where it is a defendant (or has an obligation to indemnify a defendant) will result in no payment being made by the Company or its insurers. In 2015, of the approximately 1,300 claims resolved, 111 (9%) resulted in payment being made to a claimant by or on behalf of the Company. In the full year of 2014, of the approximately 6,500 claims resolved, 397 (6%) resulted in payment being made to a claimant by or on behalf of the Company. Prior to June 2004, the settlement and defense costs associated with all claims were paid by the Company's primary layer insurance carriers under a series of funding arrangements. In addition to the primary insurance available for asbestos-related claims, the Company has excess insurance coverage available for potential future asbestos-related product claims. In June 2004, primary layer insurance carriers notified the Company of the alleged exhaustion of their policy limits. A declaratory judgment action was filed in January 2004 in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois by Continental Casualty Company and related companies against the Company and certain of its historical general liability insurers. The court has issued a number of interim rulings and discovery is continuing. The Company has entered into settlement agreements with some of its insurance carriers, resolving their coverage disputes by agreeing to pay specified amounts to the Company. The Company is vigorously pursuing the litigation against the remaining insurers. In August 2013, the Los Angeles Superior Court entered a jury verdict against the Company in an asbestos-related personal injury action with damages of $35.0 million, $32.5 million of which was non-compensatory and will not be recoverable through insurance if the verdict is upheld. The Company has appealed this verdict. The Company posted a surety bond of $55.0 million related to the appeal. The Company cannot predict the outcome of this pending litigation and therefore cannot reasonably estimate the amount of possible loss, if any, that could result from this action. The Company's estimate of asbestos-related liabilities is subject to uncertainty because liabilities are influenced by numerous variables that are inherently difficult to predict. Key variables include the number and type of new claims, the litigation process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case to case, reforms that may be made by state and federal courts and the passage of state or federal tort reform legislation. The nature of the historical product being encapsulated and the lifecycle of the product allow the Company to aggressively defend against these lawsuits and, at present, management does not believe that asbestos-related product liability claims are likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations, financial position or cash flows. The Company has paid and accrued $353.1 million in defense and indemnity in advance of insurers' reimbursement and has received $195.9 million in cash and notes from insurers. The net balance of $157.2 million, is expected to be fully recovered. Timing of recovery is dependent on final resolution of the declaratory judgment action or additional negotiated settlements. At December 31, 2014, insurers owed $141.9 million in association with these claims. In addition to the $157.2 million net balance relating to past settlements and defense costs, the Company has estimated a liability of $113.2 million for claims asserted, but not yet resolved and their related defense costs at March 31, 2015. The Company also has a related asset of $113.2 million to recognize proceeds from the insurance carriers, which is expected to be fully recovered. Receipt of these proceeds is not expected prior to the resolution of the declaratory judgment action, which is expected to occur subsequent to March 31, 2016. At December 31, 2014, the comparable value of the accrued liability and associated insurance asset was $111.8 million. The Company does not believe that it can, at present, reasonably estimate possible losses in excess of those for which it has accrued. The Company's belief is based on a number of factors, including without limitation, because the Company cannot reasonably predict how many additional claims may be brought against the Company (or parties the Company has an obligation to indemnify) in the future, the particular illnesses or medical conditions that may be alleged in such claims, the allegations in such claims and the evidence submitted by claimants in support thereof, the possible outcomes in settling or litigating such claims, the time in which claims will proceed through courts in which they are asserted, or the impact of tort reform legislation that may be enacted at the state or federal levels. The Company reviews factors relevant to the asbestos claims that have been or may in the future be asserted against it on an ongoing basis. BorgWarner Inc., is a supplier of engineered automotive systems and components for powertrain applications. The Company's products are manufactured and sold across the world, to original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) of light vehicles (passenger cars, sport- utility vehicles (SUVs), vans and light-trucks). The Company's products are also sold to other OEMs of commercial vehicles (medium-duty trucks, heavy-duty trucks and buses) and off-highway vehicles (agricultural and construction machinery and marine applications). It also manufactures and sells its products to certain Tier One vehicle systems suppliers and into the aftermarket for light, commercial and off-highway vehicles. The Company operates in two business segments, which include Engine and Drivetrain. ASBESTOS UPDATE: AMETEK Inc. Continues to Defend PI Suits --------------------------------------------------------- AMETEK, Inc., continues to defend itself against asbestos-related lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015. The Company (including its subsidiaries) has been named as a defendant, along with many other companies, in a number of asbestos-related lawsuits. Many of these lawsuits either relate to businesses which were acquired by the Company and do not involve products which were manufactured or sold by the Company or relate to previously owned businesses of the Company which are under new ownership. In connection with many of these lawsuits, the sellers or new owners of such businesses, as the case may be, have agreed to indemnify the Company against these claims (the "Indemnified Claims"). The Indemnified Claims have been tendered to, and are being defended by, such sellers and new owners. These sellers and new owners have met their obligations, in all respects, and the Company does not have any reason to believe such parties would fail to fulfill their obligations in the future; however, one of these companies filed for bankruptcy liquidation in 2007. To date, no judgments have been rendered against the Company as a result of any asbestos-related lawsuit. The Company believes it has strong defenses to the claims being asserted and intends to continue to vigorously defend itself in these matters. AMETEK, Inc., (AMETEK) is a manufacturer of electronic instruments and electromechanical devices with operations in North America, Europe, Asia and South America. AMETEK markets and sells its products through two groups: Electronic Instruments (EIG) and Electromechanical (EMG). The Company's EIG segment designs and manufactures advanced instruments for the process, aerospace, power and industrial markets. It offers process control instruments for the oil and gas, petrochemical, pharmaceutical, semiconductor and factory automation industries. The Company's EMG segment offers electrical connectors and electronics packaging used in aerospace and defense, medical and industrial applications, as well as its advanced technical motor and motion control products, which are used in a range of medical devices, office and business equipment, factory automation, robotics and other applications. ASBESTOS UPDATE: MRC Global Has 421 Fibro Suits at March 31 ----------------------------------------------------------- MRC Global Inc., is named defendant in 421 lawsuits involving 1,059 asbestos-related personal injury claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015. The Company states: "We are one of many defendants in lawsuits that plaintiffs have brought seeking damages for personal injuries that exposure to asbestos allegedly caused. Plaintiffs and their family members have brought these lawsuits against a large volume of defendant entities as a result of the defendants' manufacture, distribution, supply or other involvement with asbestos, asbestos containing-products or equipment or activities that allegedly caused plaintiffs to be exposed to asbestos. These plaintiffs typically assert exposure to asbestos as a consequence of third- party manufactured products that our McJunkin Red Man Corporation subsidiary purportedly distributed. As of March 31, 2015, we are named a defendant in approximately 421 lawsuits involving approximately 1,059 claims. No asbestos lawsuit has resulted in a judgment against us to date, with a majority being settled, dismissed or otherwise resolved. Applicable third-party insurance has substantially covered these claims, and insurance should continue to cover a substantial majority of existing and anticipated future claims. Accordingly, we have recorded a liability for our estimate of the most likely settlement of asserted claims and a related receivable from insurers for our estimated recovery, to the extent we believe that the amounts of recovery are probable. It is not possible to predict the outcome of these claims and proceedings. However, in our opinion, the likelihood that the ultimate disposition of any of these claims and legal proceedings will have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial statements is remote." MRC Global Inc., is a global industrial distributor of pipe, valves and fittings (PVF) and related products and services to the energy industry. The Company offers products that are used in the construction, maintenance, repair and overhaul of equipment used in extreme operating conditions, such as high pressure, high/low temperature and high corrosive and abrasive environments. Its product types include valves, automation and instrumentation, carbon steel fittings and flanges and stainless steel and alloy pipe and fittings, line pipe and oil country tubular goods, among others. The Company offers around 230,000 stock keeping units, including an array of PVF, oilfield supply, automation, instrumentation and other general and specialty industry supply products. The Company operates through its U.S., Canadian, and International segments. It has operations in over 400 service locations. It provides services, such as product testing, volume purchasing and warehousing, among others. ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Corp. Has 47,000 Fibro Claims at March 31 -------------------------------------------------------------- ITT Corporation reported 47,000 asbestos-related claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015. The Company states: "ITT, including its subsidiary Goulds Pumps, Inc., has been sued, along with many other companies in product liability lawsuits alleging personal injury due to asbestos exposure. These claims generally allege that certain products sold by us or our subsidiaries prior to 1985 contained a part manufactured by a third party (e.g., a gasket) which contained asbestos. To the extent these third-party parts may have contained asbestos, it was encapsulated in the gasket (or other) material and was non-friable. As of March 31, 2015, there were 47 thousand pending active claims against ITT, including Goulds Pumps, filed in various state and federal courts alleging injury as a result of exposure to asbestos. "Frequently, plaintiffs are unable to identify any ITT or Goulds Pumps product as a source of asbestos exposure. Our experience to date is that a majority of resolved claims are dismissed without any payment from the Company. Management believes that a large majority of the pending claims have little or no value. In addition, because claims are sometimes dismissed in large groups, the average cost per resolved claim can fluctuate significantly from period to period. ITT expects more asbestos-related suits will be filed in the future, and ITT will continue to aggressively defend or seek a reasonable resolution, as appropriate. "Asbestos litigation is a unique form of litigation. Frequently, the plaintiff sues a large number of defendants and does not state a specific claim amount. After filing of the complaint, the plaintiff engages defendants in settlement negotiations to establish a settlement value based on certain criteria, including the number of defendants in the case. Rarely do the plaintiffs seek to collect all damages from one defendant. Rather, they seek to spread the liability, and thus the payments, among many defendants. As a result of this and other factors, the Company is unable to estimate the maximum potential exposure to pending claims and claims estimated to be filed over the next 10 years. "Estimating our exposure to pending asbestos claims and those that may be filed in the future is subject to significant uncertainty and risk as there are multiple variables that can affect the timing, severity, quality, quantity and resolution of claims. Any predictions with respect to the variables impacting the estimate of the asbestos liability and related asset are subject to even greater uncertainty as the projection period lengthens. In light of the uncertainties and variables inherent in the long-term projection of the Company's asbestos exposures, although it is probable that the Company will incur additional costs for asbestos claims filed beyond the next 10 years, which additional costs may be material, we do not believe there is a reasonable basis for estimating those costs at this time. "The asbestos liability and related receivables reflect management's best estimate of future events. However, future events affecting the key factors and other variables for either the asbestos liability or the related receivables could cause actual costs or recoveries to be materially higher or lower than currently estimated. Due to these uncertainties, as well as our inability to reasonably estimate any additional asbestos liability for claims which may be filed beyond the next 10 years, it is not possible to predict the ultimate cost of resolving all pending and unasserted asbestos claims. We believe it is possible that future events affecting the key factors and other variables within the next 10 years, as well as the cost of asbestos claims filed beyond the next 10 years, net of expected recoveries, could have a material adverse effect on our financial statements." ITT Corporation (ITT) is a diversified manufacturer of engineered critical components and customized technology solutions for industrial markets. Its product and service offerings are organized in four segments: Industrial Process, Motion Technologies, Interconnect Solutions (ICS), and Control Technologies. Industrial Process manufactures engineered fluid process equipment serving customers in industries such as oil & gas, mining, power generation, chemical and is a provider of plant optimization and efficiency solutions. Motion Technologies manufactures brake pads, shock absorbers and damping technologies for the global automotive, truck, trailer and public bus and rail transportation markets. Interconnect Solutions manufactures connector products that transfers signal and power in various electronic devices. Control Technologies manufactures equipments and regulators for the aerospace and defense, and industrial markets. ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Corp. Has $758.3-Mil. Fibro Exposure --------------------------------------------------------- ITT Corporation's estimated asbestos exposure for the resolution of all pending asbestos-related claims and claims estimated to be filed in the next 10 years was $758.3 million, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015. The Company states: "As part of our ongoing review of our net asbestos exposure, each quarter we assess the most recent qualitative and quantitative data available for the key inputs and assumptions, comparing the data to the expectations on which the most recent annual liability and asset estimates were based. Based on this evaluation, the Company determined that no change in the estimate was warranted for the period ended March 31, 2015 other than the incremental accrual to maintain a rolling 10-year forecast period. The net asbestos charge for the three months ended March 31, 2015 and 2014 was $15.4 million and $15.8 million, respectively. "The Company's estimated asbestos exposure, net of expected recoveries, for the resolution of all pending claims and claims estimated to be filed in the next 10 years was $758.3 million and $746.8 million as of March 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014, respectively." ITT Corporation (ITT) is a diversified manufacturer of engineered critical components and customized technology solutions for industrial markets. Its product and service offerings are organized in four segments: Industrial Process, Motion Technologies, Interconnect Solutions (ICS), and Control Technologies. Industrial Process manufactures engineered fluid process equipment serving customers in industries such as oil & gas, mining, power generation, chemical and is a provider of plant optimization and efficiency solutions. Motion Technologies manufactures brake pads, shock absorbers and damping technologies for the global automotive, truck, trailer and public bus and rail transportation markets. Interconnect Solutions manufactures connector products that transfers signal and power in various electronic devices. Control Technologies manufactures equipments and regulators for the aerospace and defense, and industrial markets. ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Corp. Records $1.2B Fibro Liability -------------------------------------------------------- ITT Corporation has recorded an undiscounted asbestos-related liability for pending claims and unasserted claims estimated to be filed over the next 10 years of $1,226.4 million, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015. The Company states: "ITT, including its subsidiary Goulds Pumps, Inc., has been joined as a defendant with numerous other companies in product liability lawsuits alleging personal injury due to asbestos exposure. These claims allege that certain of our products sold prior to 1985 contained a part manufactured by a third party (e.g., a gasket) which contained asbestos. To the extent these third-party parts may have contained asbestos, it was encapsulated in the gasket (or other) material and was non- friable. Frequently, the plaintiffs are unable to identify any ITT or Goulds Pumps product as a source of asbestos exposure. In addition, a large majority of claims pending against the Company have been placed on inactive dockets because the plaintiff cannot demonstrate a significant compensable loss. Our experience to date is that a substantial portion of resolved claims have been dismissed without payment by the Company. "We record a liability for pending asbestos claims and asbestos claims estimated to be filed over the next 10 years. While it is probable that we will incur additional costs for future claims to be filed against the Company, a liability for potential future claims beyond the next 10 years is not reasonably estimable due to the uncertainties and variables inherent in the long-term projection of the Company's asbestos exposures and potential recoveries. As of March 31, 2015, we have recorded an undiscounted asbestos-related liability for pending claims and unasserted claims estimated to be filed over the next 10 years of $1,226.4 million, including expected legal fees, and an associated asset of $468.1 million which represents estimated recoveries from insurers, resulting in a net asbestos exposure of $758.3 million." ITT Corporation (ITT) is a diversified manufacturer of engineered critical components and customized technology solutions for industrial markets. Its product and service offerings are organized in four segments: Industrial Process, Motion Technologies, Interconnect Solutions (ICS), and Control Technologies. Industrial Process manufactures engineered fluid process equipment serving customers in industries such as oil & gas, mining, power generation, chemical and is a provider of plant optimization and efficiency solutions. Motion Technologies manufactures brake pads, shock absorbers and damping technologies for the global automotive, truck, trailer and public bus and rail transportation markets. Interconnect Solutions manufactures connector products that transfers signal and power in various electronic devices. Control Technologies manufactures equipments and regulators for the aerospace and defense, and industrial markets. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Inc. Received $19MM for Non-PCC Cases -------------------------------------------------------------- Corning Incorporated received $19 million in insurance payments related to non-Pittsburgh Corning Corporation asbestos cases, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015. Corning and PPG Industries, Inc. ("PPG") each own 50% of the capital stock of Pittsburgh Corning Corporation ("PCC"). Over a period of more than two decades, PCC and several other defendants were named in numerous lawsuits involving claims alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos. On April 16, 2000, PCC filed for Chapter 11 reorganization in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. At the time PCC filed for bankruptcy protection, there were approximately 11,800 claims pending against Corning in state court lawsuits alleging various theories of liability based on exposure to PCC's asbestos products and typically requesting monetary damages in excess of one million dollars per claim. Corning has defended those claims on the basis of the separate corporate status of PCC and the absence of any facts supporting claims of direct liability arising from PCC's asbestos products. Corning, with other relevant parties, has been involved in ongoing efforts to develop a Plan of Reorganization that would resolve the concerns and objections of the relevant courts and parties. On November 12, 2013, the Bankruptcy Court issued a decision finally confirming an Amended PCC Plan of Reorganization (the "Amended PCC Plan" or the "Plan"). On September 30, 2014, the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (the "District Court") affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's decision confirming the Amended PCC Plan. On October 30, 2014, one of the objectors to the Plan appealed the District Court's affirmation of the Plan to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (the "Third Circuit Court of Appeals"). It will likely take many months for the Third Circuit Court of Appeals to render its decision. Under the Plan as affirmed by the Bankruptcy Court and affirmed by the District Court, Corning is required to contribute its equity interests in PCC and Pittsburgh Corning Europe N.V. ("PCE"), a Belgian corporation, and to contribute $290 million in a fixed series of payments, recorded at present value. Corning has the option to use its shares rather than cash to make these payments, but the liability is fixed by dollar value and not the number of shares. The Plan requires Corning to make: (1) one payment of $70 million one year from the date the Plan becomes effective and certain conditions are met; and (2) five additional payments of $35 million, $50 million, $35 million, $50 million, and $50 million, respectively, on each of the five subsequent anniversaries of the first payment, the final payment of which is subject to reduction based on the application of credits under certain circumstances. In addition to the claims against Corning related to its ownership interest in PCC, Corning is also the defendant in approximately 9,700 other cases (approximately 37,300 claims) alleging injuries from asbestos related to its Corhart business and similar amounts of monetary damages per case. When PCC filed for bankruptcy protection, the Court granted a preliminary injunction to suspend all asbestos cases against PCC, PPG and Corning -- including these non-PCC asbestos cases (the "stay"). The stay remains in place as of the date of this filing. Under the Bankruptcy Court's order confirming the Amended PCC Plan, the stay will remain in place until the Amended PCC Plan is finally affirmed by the District Court and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. These non-PCC asbestos cases have been covered by insurance without material impact to Corning to date. As of March 31, 2015, Corning had received for these cases approximately $19 million in insurance payments related to those claims. If and when the Bankruptcy Court's confirmation of the Amended PCC Plan is finally affirmed, these non-PCC asbestos claims would be allowed to proceed against Corning. In prior periods, Corning recorded in its estimated asbestos litigation liability an additional $150 million for these and any future non-PCC asbestos cases. Corning Incorporated (Corning) is engaged in the manufacture of specialty glass and ceramics. The Company operates in five segments: Display Technologies, Optical Communications, Environmental Technologies, Specialty Materials and Life Sciences. Its Display Technologies segment manufactures glass substrates for flat panel liquid crystal displays. Optical Communications segment manufactures carrier network and enterprise network components for the telecommunications industry. Its Environmental Technologies segment manufactures ceramic substrates and filters for automotive and diesel applications. Specialty Materials segment manufactures products that provides material formulations for glass, glass ceramics and fluoride crystals. Life Sciences segment manufactures glass and plastic labware, equipment, media and reagents. iBwave Solutions, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Corning and operates under its Optical Communications business segment. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Inc. Has $682MM Est. Fibro Liability ------------------------------------------------------------- Corning Incorporated reports that the liability for the Amended Pittsburgh Corning Corporation Plan and the non-PCC asbestos claims was estimated to be $682 million, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015. The liability for the Amended PCC Plan and the non-PCC asbestos claims was estimated to be $682 million at March 31, 2015, compared with an estimate of liability of $681 million at December 31, 2014. The $682 million liability is comprised of $242 million of the fair value of PCE, $290 million for the fixed series of payments, and $150 million for the non-PCC asbestos litigation, all referenced in the preceding paragraphs. With respect to the PCE liability, at March 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014, the fair value of $242 million and $241 million of our interest in PCE significantly exceeded its carrying value of $145 million and $162 million, respectively. There have been no impairment indicators for our investment in PCE and we continue to recognize equity earnings of this affiliate. At the time Corning recorded this liability, it determined it lacked the ability to recover the carrying amount of its investment in PCC and its investment was other than temporarily impaired. As a result, we reduced our investment in PCC to zero. As the fair value in PCE is significantly higher than book value, management believes that the risk of an additional loss in an amount materially higher than the fair value of the liability is remote. With respect to the liability for other asbestos litigation, the liability for non-PCC claims was estimated based upon industry data for asbestos claims since Corning does not have recent claim history due to the injunction issued by the Bankruptcy Court. The estimated liability represents the undiscounted projection of claims and related legal fees over the next 20 years. The amount may need to be adjusted in future periods as more data becomes available; however, we cannot estimate any additional losses at this time. For the three months ended March 31, 2015 and 2014, Corning recorded asbestos litigation expense of $1 million and $2 million, respectively. The entire obligation is classified as a non-current liability, as installment payments for the cash portion of the obligation are not planned to commence until more than 12 months after the Amended PCC Plan becomes effective and the PCE portion of the obligation will be fulfilled through the direct contribution of Corning's investment in PCE (currently recorded as a non-current other equity method investment). Several of Corning's insurers have commenced litigation in state courts for a declaration of the rights and obligations of the parties under insurance policies affecting the non-PCC asbestos cases, including rights that may be affected by the potential resolutions. Corning is vigorously contesting these cases, and management is unable to predict the outcome of the litigation. Corning Incorporated (Corning) is engaged in the manufacture of specialty glass and ceramics. The Company operates in five segments: Display Technologies, Optical Communications, Environmental Technologies, Specialty Materials and Life Sciences. Its Display Technologies segment manufactures glass substrates for flat panel liquid crystal displays. Optical Communications segment manufactures carrier network and enterprise network components for the telecommunications industry. Its Environmental Technologies segment manufactures ceramic substrates and filters for automotive and diesel applications. Specialty Materials segment manufactures products that provides material formulations for glass, glass ceramics and fluoride crystals. Life Sciences segment manufactures glass and plastic labware, equipment, media and reagents. iBwave Solutions, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Corning and operates under its Optical Communications business segment. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 Cos. Dropped as Defendants in "Presley" ---------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned VALERIE K. PRESLEY, etc., Plaintiff, v. BILL VANN COMPANY, INC., et al., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-0444- WS-N (S.D. Ala.), Chief District Judge William H. Steele of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama, Northern Division, in orders dated August 4, 2015, granted defendant Cummins, Inc., and Cameron International Corporation's motion for summary judgment based on the "bare metal defense." A full-text copy of Judge Steele's Decision with respect to Cummin is available at http://is.gd/XN10Yvfrom Leagle.com. A full-text copy of Judge Steele's Decision with respect to Cameron is available at http://is.gd/aB7LIjfrom Leagle.com. Valerie K. Presley, Plaintiff, represented by George M. Keahey, Grover Patterson Keahey, Jr. & Kevin D. Graham . Crane Co., Defendant, represented by F. Grey Redditt, Jr., Esq. -- gredditt@maynardcooper.com -- Maynard, Cooper & Gale, LLC, Roy Wallace Harrell, III & Timothy A. Clarke, Esq. -- tim.clarke@maynardcooper.com -- Maynard, Cooper & Gale, LLC. Cameron International Corp., Defendant, represented by Christopher S. Rodgers, Esq. -- crodgers@huielaw.com -- Huie, Fernambucq & Stewart & Stewart W. McCloud, Esq. -- smccloud@huielaw.com -- Huie, Fernambucq & Stewart, LLP. CBS Corporation, Defendant, represented by James A. Harris, III, Harris & Harris, LLP & Nicole Mapp Hardee . Dana Companies LLC, Defendant, represented by Evelyn Fletcher Davis . Dana Holding Corporation, Defendant, represented by Evelyn Fletcher Davis . Sepco Corporation, Defendant, represented by Frank E. Lankford, Jr., Huie, Fernambucq & Stewart, LLP, Stewart W. McCloud, Huie, Fernambucq & Stewart, LLP & Woodford W. Dinning, Jr., Lloyd & Dinning, L.L.C.. Honeywell International Inc., Defendant, represented by Frank E. Lankford, Jr., Huie, Fernambucq & Stewart, LLP, Jenelle R. Evans, Balch & Bingham, Stewart W. McCloud, Huie, Fernambucq & Stewart, LLP & Woodford W. Dinning, Jr., Lloyd & Dinning, L.L.C.. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Joi C. Scott, Christian & Small, LLP & Michael Anthony Vercher, Esq. - - mav@csattorneys.com -- Christian & Small LLP. Saint-Gobain Abrasives Inc., Defendant, represented by Robert H. Sprain, Jr., Sprain Law Firm, P.C.. Cummins Inc., Defendant, represented by David Carl Williams, Jr., Esq. -- dcw@phm-law.com -- Porterfield Harper Mills Motlow & Ireland, Robert Wayne Heath, Esq. -- rwh@phm-law.com -- and William T. Mills, II, Esq. -- wtm@phm-law.com -- Porterfield, Harper Mills & Motlow, P.A.. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Ruling in "Murat" Affirmed ------------------------------------------------------------ Mary Murat and Susan Murat filed suit against defendants Exxon Mobil Corporation and SeaRiver Maritime, Inc., alleging that their father, decedent Joseph Murat, owner of a vessel repair company, had developed mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos while working onboard defendants' vessels. The trial court granted defendants' motions for summary judgment based on the plaintiffs' inability to establish a violation of a duty of care owed to Mr. Murat. Finding no triable issues of material fact, the Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Four, in an opinion dated Aug. 11, 2015, affirmed the trial court's decision. The appeals case is MARY MURAT et al., individually and as successors-in-interest, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. EXXON MOBIL CORP. et al., Defendants and Respondents, NO. B247889 (Cal. App.). A full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/vurL4sfrom Leagle.com. Rose, Klein & Marias, Gregory Stamos, Brian J. Ramsey and Erin M. Beranek ; Bailey Perrin Bailey, Lou Thompson Black, Robert Cowan and Justin Jenson for Plaintiffs and Appellants. McKenna Long & Aldridge, Jayme C. Long, Frederic W. Norris and David K. Schulz for Defendants and Respondents. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodrich's Bid to Dismiss "Galasso" Denied ----------------------------------------------------------- Joseph A. Galasso was diagnosed with mesothelioma in March of 2014. His disease, he claims, is connected to his exposure to asbestos-containing dust during his employment as a carpenter from approximately 1952 until 1995. More specifically, Galasso claims that he was exposed to asbestos from work he did installing and cleaning up debris from BF Goodrich floor tiles. Goodrich is alleged to have manufactured, sold, and distributed asbestos- containing floor tiles used at various sites plaintiff worked at throughout the course of his career. It is undisputed that up until 1963, Goodrich sold both asbestos-containing and non- asbestos vinyl tiles. Goodrich moves for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's complaint and all claims and cross- claims against it. Judge Peter H. Moulton of the Supreme Court, New York County, denied Goodrich's motion, holding that Goodrich's argument that the plaintiff's deposition testimony is weak in light of the fact that plaintiff identifies other manufacturers of floor tile that he used and at times is non-committal is unpersuasive. The lengths to which Goodrich disagrees with the plaintiff's characterizations merely raises credibility issues for the jury, Judge Moulton ruled. Goodrich may take exception with the plaintiff's recollection, however, as the non-moving party on a motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff is entitled to have his deposition testimony viewed in a light most favorable to him, Judge Moulton further ruled. Ultimately, his credibility will be evaluated by a jury, Judge Moulton said. The case is IN RE NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to JOSEPH GALASSO and RUTH GALASSO Plaintiffs, v. ALUMINUM COMPANY OF AMERICA (ALCOA), et al., Defendant(s), DOCKET NO. 190156/2014 (N.Y. Sup.). A full-text copy of Judge Moulton's Decision is available at http://is.gd/9tpJ5Bfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Time to Appeal in NYCAL Suit Extended to Dec. -------------------------------------------------------------- The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department, in a decision dated Aug. 4, 2015, enlarged to the December 2015 Term the time to perfect appeal in the lawsuit captioned IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to LIMAN AIR AND LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION - CRANE CO., MOTION NO. M-3198 (N.Y. App. Div.). ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Hayden" Suit Remanded to Louisiana State Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, in an order and reasons dated Aug. 10, 2015, remanded to the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana, the asbestos-related lawsuit styled THOMAS HAYDEN AND JAQUELINE HAYDEN v. 3M COMPANY, et al., CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-2275 (E.D. La.). A full-text copy of Judge Engelhardt's Decision is available at http://is.gd/u5UPllfrom Leagle.com. Thomas H. Hayden, Plaintiff, represented by Mickey P. Landry, Landry & Swarr, LLC, Amanda Jones Ballay, Landry & Swarr, LLC, Frank J. Swarr, Landry & Swarr, LLC, Matthew C. Clark, Landry & Swarr, LLC & Philip C Hoffman, Landry & Swarr, LLC. Jacqueline S. Hayden, Plaintiff, represented by Mickey P. Landry, Landry & Swarr, LLC, Amanda Jones Ballay, Landry & Swarr, LLC, Frank J. Swarr, Landry & Swarr, LLC, Matthew C. Clark, Landry & Swarr, LLC & Philip C Hoffman, Landry & Swarr, LLC. Carrier Corporation, Defendant, represented by Joseph M. Guillot, Esq. -- jmguillot@christovich.com -- Christovich & Kearney, LLP & Patrick Ryan Plummer, Esq. -- prplummer@christovich.com -- Christovich & Kearney, LLP. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, as successor by merger to Buffalo Pumps Inc., Defendant, represented by Stacey Leigh Strain, Esq. -- strain@hubbardmitchell.com -- Hubbard, Mitchell, Williams & Strain, PLLC. Aurora Pump Company, Defendant, represented by Jennifer E. Adams, Esq. -- jadams@dkslaw.com -- Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP, William Claudy Harrison, Jr., Esq. -- wharrison@dkslaw.com -- Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP, Arthur Wendel Stout, III, Esq. - - astout@dkslaw.com -- Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP, Barbara Bourgeois Ormsby, Esq. -- BOrmsby@dkslaw.com -- Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP & Marc John Bitner, Esq. -- Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP. Caterpillar Inc, Defendant, represented by Robert S. Emmett, Esq. -- remmett@bakerdonelson.com -- Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz & Stephanie Noriea Murphy, Esq. -- smurphy@bakerdonelson.com -- Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz. CBS Corporation, 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., Kelsey A. Eagan, Frilot L.L.C., Meredith K. Keenan, Frilot L.L.C. & Peter R. Tafaro, Frilot L.L.C.. Champlain Cable Corporation, Defendant, represented by Christopher O. Massenburg, Manion Gaynor & Manning, LLP, Brandie Mendoza Thibodeaux, Manion Gaynor & Manning, LLP, Glenn L.M. Swetman, Manion Gaynor & Manning, LLP, Kevin R. Sloan, Manion Gaynor & Manning, LLP & Meaghan M. Donovan, Manion Gaynor & Manning, LLP. Crane Company, individually and as successor in interest to Chapman Valve Company, Jenkins Valve, and Cochrane Corporation, Defendant, represented by Barry C. Campbell, Dogan & Wilkinson, PLLC. DAP Products Inc., Defendant, represented by Leigh Ann Tschirn Schell, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Joseph Henry Hart, IV, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Lori Allen Waters, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Magali Ann Puente-Martin, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC & Thomas A. Porteous, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC. Deere & Company, Defendant, represented by Deborah DeRoche Kuchler, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Amber B. Barlow, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Janika D. Polk, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC & Lee Blanton Ziffer, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC. Eagle, Inc., Defendant, represented by Susan Beth Kohn, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Douglas Kinler, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, James R. Guidry, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP & Janice M. Culotta, Simon, Peragine, Smith and Redfearn, LLP. Ford Motor Company, Defendant, represented by Janika D. Polk, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Amber B. Barlow, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Deborah DeRoche Kuchler, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Lee Blanton Ziffer, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC & Monique M. Weiner, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC. General Electric Company, 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., Kelsey A. Eagan, Frilot L.L.C., Meredith K. Keenan, Frilot L.L.C. & Peter R. Tafaro, Frilot L.L.C.. Genuine Parts Company, 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., Kelsey A. Eagan, Frilot L.L.C., Meredith K. Keenan, Frilot L.L.C. & Peter R. Tafaro, Frilot L.L.C.. Georgia-Pacific LLC, Defendant, represented by Gary A. Bezet, Esq. -- gary.bezet@keanmiller.com -- Kean Miller, Alexandra E. Rossi, Esq. -- alexandra.rossi@keanmiller.com -- Kean Miller, Barrye Panepinto Miyagi, Esq. -- barrye.miyagi@keanmiller.com -- Kean Miller & Gayla M. Moncla, Esq. -- gayla.moncla@keanmiller.com -- Kean Miller. Goodrich Corporation, Defendant, represented by James K. Sticker, III, Esq. -- jksticker@leefegibbs.com -- Leefe, Gibbs, Sullivan, Dupre & Aldous, Michael R. Gelder, Esq. -- mrgelder@leefegibbs.com -- Leefe, Gibbs, Sullivan, Dupre & Aldous & Richard K. Leefe, Esq. -- rkleefe@lgsdalaw.com -- Leefe, Gibbs, Sullivan, Dupre & Aldous. IMO Industries, Inc., individually and as successor in interest to DeLaval Turbine Inc, Defendant, represented by Leigh Ann Tschirn Schell, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Joseph Henry Hart, IV, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Lori Allen Waters, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Magali Ann Puente-Martin, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC & Thomas A. Porteous, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC. J-M Manufacturing Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Gayla M. Moncla, Kean Miller, Jay Morton Jalenak, Jr., Kean Miller, Melanie Moreland Hartmann, Kean Miller & Sean J Whittington, Kean Miller. Maremont Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jennifer E. Adams, Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP, William Claudy Harrison, Jr., Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP, Arthur Wendel Stout, III, Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP, Barbara Bourgeois Ormsby, Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP & Marc John Bitner, Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Jay Morton Jalenak, Jr., Kean Miller & Patrick Dale Roquemore, Kean Miller. Nash Engineering Company, Defendant, represented by Paul D. Palermo, Esq. -- ppalermo@bluewilliams.com -- Blue Williams, LLP & Craig V. Sweeney, Esq. -- csweeney@bluewilliams.com -- Blue Williams, LLP. Navistar, Inc., Defendant, represented by Kay Barnes Baxter, Esq. -- kay@cs-law.com -- Cosmich Simmons & Brown, PLLC, Ashley A. Edwards, Esq. -- aedwards@cs-law.com -- Cosmich Simmons & Brown, PLLC, Georgia Noble Ainsworth, Esq. -- georgia@cs-law.com -- Cosmich Simmons & Brown, PLLC, Margaret Adams Casey, Esq., Cosmich Simmons & Brown, PLLC & Martin James Dempsey, Jr., Esq. -- jimmy@cs-law.com -- Cosmich Simmons & Brown, PLLC. Reilly-Benton Company, Inc., 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. Riley Power, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jennifer E. Adams, Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP, William Claudy Harrison, Jr., Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP, Arthur Wendel Stout, III, Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP, Barbara Bourgeois Ormsby, Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP & Marc John Bitner, Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP. Velan Valve Corporation, Defendant, represented by Forrest Ren Wilkes, Forman, Perry, Watkins, Krutz & Tardy, LLP. Warren Pumps, LLC, Defendant, represented by Lori Allen Waters, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC. OneBeacon America Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Samuel Milton Rosamond, III, Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC & Adam Devlin deMahy, Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC. Carlisle Industrial Brake & Friction Inc., 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., Kelsey A. Eagan, Frilot L.L.C., Meredith K. Keenan, Frilot L.L.C. & Peter R. Tafaro, Frilot L.L.C.. Dana Companies LLC, Defendant, represented by Jennifer E. Adams, Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP, William Claudy Harrison, Jr., Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP, Arthur Wendel Stout, III, Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP, Barbara Bourgeois Ormsby, Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP & Marc John Bitner, Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Defendant, represented by Robert S. Emmett, Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz, Gregory E. Bodin, Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz & Joseph A. Atiyeh, Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz. McCarty Corporation, Defendant, represented by Susan Beth Kohn, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Douglas Kinler, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, James R. Guidry, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP & Janice M. Culotta, Simon, Peragine, Smith and Redfearn, LLP. McCord Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jennifer Moran Young, Page, Mannino, Peresich & McDermott, PLLC. Meritor Inc, Defendant, represented by Jennifer E. Adams, Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP, William Claudy Harrison, Jr., Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP, Arthur Wendel Stout, III, Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP, Barbara Bourgeois Ormsby, Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP & Marc John Bitner, Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP. Pneumo Abex LLC, individually and as successor in interest to Abex Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jennifer E. Adams, Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP, William Claudy Harrison, Jr., Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP, Arthur Wendel Stout, III, Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP, Barbara Bourgeois Ormsby, Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP & Marc John Bitner, Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP. Tasco Auto Color Corporation, Defendant, represented by Kirk A. Patrick, III, Donohue, Patrick & Scott, Blake Anthony Altazan, Donohue, Patrick & Scott & Grant T. Herrin, Donohue, Patrick & Scott. Avondale Industries, Inc., Defendant, represented by Gary Allen Lee, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Anita Ann Cates, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Daphne M. Lancaster, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Michael Scott Minyard, Barfield & Associates, Michael Kevin Powell, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP & Richard Marshall Perles, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP. BASF Corporation, Defendant, represented by Gary A. Bezet, Kean Miller, Alexandra E. Rossi, Kean Miller, Barrye Panepinto Miyagi, Kean Miller & Gayla M. Moncla, Kean Miller. Exxon Mobil Corporation, Defendant, represented by David Mark Bienvenu, Jr., Bienvenu, Bonnecaze, Foco, Viator & Holinga, APLLC & Lexi T. Holinga, Bienvenu, Bonnecaze, Foco, Viator & Holinga, APLLC. Fluor Corporation, Defendant, represented by John Dennis Person, Aaron & Gianna, PLC, Lee M. Rudin, Aaron & Gianna, PLC, Lezly L. Petrovich, Aaron & Gianna, PLC & Omar Khalid Mason, Aaron & Gianna, PLC. Shell Oil Company, Defendant, represented by Gary A. Bezet, Kean Miller, Alexandra E. Rossi, Kean Miller, Barrye Panepinto Miyagi, Kean Miller & Gayla M. Moncla, Kean Miller. Wyeth Holdings Corporation, Defendant, represented by Erin Fury Parkinson, McGlinchey Stafford, PLLC & Shannon Suggs Sale, McGlinchey Stafford, PLLC. Foster Wheeler LLC, impropoerly named as Foster Wheeler USA Corporation, 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., Kelsey A. Eagan, Frilot L.L.C., Meredith K. Keenan, Frilot L.L.C. & Peter R. Tafaro, Frilot L.L.C.. Atwood & Morrill, Defendant, represented by Jennifer E. Adams, Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP, William Claudy Harrison, Jr., Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP, Arthur Wendel Stout, III, Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP, Barbara Bourgeois Ormsby, Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP & Marc John Bitner, Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP. Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant, represented by Deborah DeRoche Kuchler, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Francis Xavier deBlanc, III, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, McGready Lewis Richeson, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Michael H. Abraham, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC & Milele N. St. Julien, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Gary Allen Lee, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Michael Kevin Powell, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP & Richard Marshall Perles, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hopeman Wins Summary Judgment in "Haney" --------------------------------------------------------- Judge Marvin J. Garbis of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland granted defendant Hopeman Brothers, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment in the asbestos-related lawsuit styled CHARLES DEAN HANEY, Individually, and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Charles Ambrose Haney, et al., Plaintiffs. v. 3M COMPANY, et al., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. MJG-12-1396 (D. Md.). A full-text copy of Judge Garbis' Decision is available at http://is.gd/PZ3ZvFfrom Leagle.com. Charles Dean Haney, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew E Kiely, Matthew E Kiely LLC & Daniel Aaron Brown, Brown and Gould LLP. Jeffery William Haney, Individually, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew E Kiely, Matthew E Kiely LLC & Daniel Aaron Brown, Esq. -- dbrown@brownandgould.com -- Brown and Gould LLP. John Henry Haney, Individually, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew E Kiely, Matthew E Kiely LLC & Daniel Aaron Brown, Brown and Gould LLP. Burnham Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by F Ford Loker, Jr, Esq. -- floker@milesstockbridge.com -- Miles and Stockbridge PC & Leianne S McEvoy, Esq. -- lhelfrich@milesstockbridge.com -- Miles and Stockbridge PC. Cleaver-Brooks Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Douglas B Pfeiffer, Esq. -- dpfeiffer@milesstockbridge.com -- Miles and Stockbridge PC & Leianne S McEvoy, Miles and Stockbridge PC. Columbia Boiler Company of Pottstown, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Scott Patrick Burns, Esq. -- sburns@tydingslaw.com -- Tydings and Rosenberg LLP. Compudyne Corp., Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Benjamin D Whetzel, Segal McCambridge Singer and Mahoney Ltd. Dean Pump, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Neil Joseph MacDonald, MacDonald Law Group, LLC. Elof Hansson, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Peter Allan Woolson, P A Woolson PA & Scott J McDowell, P A Woolson PA. Gould Pumps, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Laura M Higgs, MacDonald Law Group LLP, Patrick C Smith, Dehay and Elliston LLP, Steven J Parrott, Dehay and Elliston LLP & Kira A Cook, DeHay and Elliston LLP. Graham Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Gerry H Tostanoski, Tydings and Rosenberg LLP & Kelly M Marzullo, Tydings and Rosenberg LLP. Hopeman Brothers, Inc,, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by David W Allen, Goodell DeVries Leech and Dann LLP, Malcolm Sean Brisker, Goodell DeVries Leech and Dann LLP & Terri Lynn Goldberg, Goodell DeVries Leech and Dann LLP. IMO Industries, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Joel D Newport, Moore and Jackson LLC. Ingersoll-Rand Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Deborah K St Lawrence Thompson, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Michael Alan Brown, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Christopher J Madaio, Miles and Stockbridge PC & Michael J Halaiko, Miles and Stockbridge PC. International Paper Company, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Clare Marie Maisano, Evert Weathersby Houff. John Crane, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Peter Allan Woolson, P A Woolson PA & Scott J McDowell, P A Woolson PA. The Marley Company, Defendant, represented by Benjamin D Whetzel, Segal McCambridge Singer and Mahoney Ltd. The Marley-Wylain Company, Defendant, represented by Benjamin D Whetzel, Segal McCambridge Singer and Mahoney Ltd. Noland Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Scott Hamilton Phillips, Semmes Bowen and Semmes PC. Oakfabco, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Neil Joseph MacDonald, MacDonald Law Group, LLC. Rapid-American Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Brendan Henderson Fitzpatrick, Venable LLP & Scott Mason Richmond, Venable LLP. Schneider Electric USA, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Neil Joseph MacDonald, MacDonald Law Group, LLC. Superior Boiler Works, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Robin Silver, Miles and Stockbridge PC & Leianne S McEvoy, Miles and Stockbridge PC. TACO, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Robert E Scott, Jr, Semmes Bowen and Semmes, Eric Michael Leppo, Semmes Bowen and Semmes PC & Marisa Anne Trasatti, Semmes Bowen and Semmes PC. Thos. Somerville Co., Cross Defendant, represented by Scott Patrick Burns, Tydings and Rosenberg LLP. Union Carbide Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Danielle Grilli Marcus, Whiteford Taylor and Preston LLP & Laura M Higgs, MacDonald Law Group LLP. Warren Pumps, LLC, Defendant, represented by Malcolm Sean Brisker, Goodell DeVries Leech and Dann LLP & Thomas M Goss, Goodell DeVries Leech and Dann LLP. Weil-McLain, Inc., Defendant, represented by Benjamin D Whetzel, Segal McCambridge Singer and Mahoney Ltd. Yarway Corporation, Defendant, represented by Allyson N Ho, Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP. Koppers Co., Defendant, represented by Joel D Newport, Moore and Jackson LLC. 3M Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Malcolm Sean Brisker, Goodell DeVries Leech and Dann LLP. Bayer Cropscience, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Danielle Grilli Marcus, Whiteford Taylor and Preston LLP & Laura M Higgs, MacDonald Law Group LLP. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Fails in Bid to Junk "Gonzales" ---------------------------------------------------------- Judge Peter H. Moulton of the Supreme Court, New York County, in a decision and order dated Aug. 4, 2015, denied in its entirety defendant Crane Co.'s motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff Russell Gonzales' asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit styled RUSSELL GONZALES AND PATRICIA GONZALES, Plaintiff, v. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS CO., et al Defendants, DOCKET NO. 190282/2012, MOTION SEQ. NO. 001 (N.Y. Sup.). A full-text copy of Judge Moulton's Decision is available at http://is.gd/cCynnUfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Footman" Consolidated with NY Inmates' Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Joanna Seybert of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, in an order dated Aug. 6, 2015, consolidated the case captioned KAROM FOOTMAN, Plaintiff, v. SUFFOLK COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, Defendant, NO. 15-CV- 2827(JS)(SIL)(E.D.N.Y.) with Butler, et al. v. DeMarco, et al., 11-CV-2602 (JS)(GRB). A full-text copy of Judge Seybert's Decision is available at http://is.gd/htHXzffrom Leagle.com. Karom Footman, Plaintiff, Pro Se. ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Anderson" Jury Verdict Reversed ------------------------------------------------- The Supreme Court of Montana, in an August 12, 2015, decision, reversed and remanded for new trial a judgment of the Eighth Judicial District Court, Cascade County, following a jury verdict against Robert Anderson and in favor of BNSF Railway Company. The case is ROBERT W. ANDERSON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. BNSF RAILWAY, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant and Appellee, 2015 MT 240 (Mont.). A full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/GuMNkNfrom Leagle.com. Erik B. Thueson (argued), Thueson Law Office; Helena, Montana Dennis Conner, Keith Marr, Conner & Marr; Great Falls, Montana James T. Towe, Towe & Fitzpatrick; Missoula, Montana, for Appellant. Jeff Hedger, Benjamin O. Rechtfertig (argued), Hedger Friend, PLLC; Billings, Montana, for Appellee. James P. Carey, Lamb & Carey; Helena, Montana For Amicus Curiae Association of American Railroads. Anthony Nicastro, Hall & Evans, LLC; Billings, Montana, for Amicus Curiae Montana Trial Lawyers Association. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Couple Sues Pneumo Abex, et al., for Exposure -------------------------------------------------------------- Donald Granada and Vivian Granada filed with the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, a lawsuit alleging that Donald Granada has used, handled or exposed to asbestos and asbestos- containing products produced or manufactured by Pneumo Abex LLC and several other defendants. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct or omissions of the defendants, their "alternate entities, and each of them, Mr. Granada's exposure to asbestos and asbestos-containing products caused severe and permanent injury, damage, loss, or harm to the plaintiff. ********* 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. Marion Alcestis A. Castillon, 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 * * *