/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/151022.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, October 22, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 211 Headlines 850 COMMERCE: Accused of Sexual Harassment and Sex Discrimination AGL RESOURCES: Faces Shareholder Suit Over Attempt to Sell Firm AHED OF OHIO: Sued for Refusing to Pay for Overtime Hours Worked AMPIO PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces "Napoli" and "Stein" Actions APOLLO GLOBAL: Class Certification to be Fully Briefed by Nov. 30 APOLLO GLOBAL: Twin City Pipe Filed Consolidated Class Action APOLLO GLOBAL: Silva & Hudson Suit v. Aviva in Early Stage APOLLO GLOBAL: No Hearing on Merits Yet in OM Group Suit APPLE AMERICAN: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Suit Says ARYZTA LLC: Faces "Cipres" Suit Over Cal. Labor Law Violations ASSOCIATED NATIONAL: Recalls Sambucol Cold & Flu Capsules ATMEL CORPORATION: Faces Suit Over Breaches of Fiduciary Duty BANK OF NEW YORK: Settlement in Forex Litigation Pending BGHA INC: Recalls Climbing Tree Stands Due to Fall Hazard CALUMET SPECIALTY: Settlement in "Wolfe" Collective Suit Pending CALUMET SPECIALTY: Settlement in "Niver" Collective Suit Pending CANADA HERB: Recalls NGO OM (Water Mint) Due to Salmonella CLYDE ANDERSON: "Rousset" Suit Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duty COAST TO COAST: Faces "Cutrer" Suit Over Labor Law Violations COLLECTO INC: "Bozin" Suit Alleges TCPA Violation COMCAST CABLE: Accused of Retaliation & Disability Discrimination CONCORDE LIMOUSINE: "Mediratta" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation DENSO CORPORATION: Suit Alleges Antitrust Violation DINDOLLY ENTERPRISES: Recalls Chevdo and Pickle Products DIRECTV LLC: Faces Suit Over Labor Code Violations DRAFTKINGS INC: "Guarino" Suit Claims Website Operation Illegal DUCATI: Recalls Multistrada 1200 & 1200s 2015 Models EAST GREENHILL: "Estrada" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation ELDER CARE: "Hackworth" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages EXPERIAN INFORMATION: "Bhuta" Suit Alleges Negligence EXPERIAN NORTH: "Moore" Suit Alleges Breach of Contract FIRM APOTEX: Recalls Apo-Risperidone Solutions FLORIDA FIRE: Accused of Failing to Properly Pay Class Members GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Sierra & Silverado 2014 Models GLOBAL MANUFACTURING: Recalls Tree Stands Due to Fall Hazard GLOBUS MEDICAL: Nov. 30 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set GOLDEN HORSE: Recalls Children's Denim Pants GOODWILL SERVING: Accused of Not Paying Minimum & Overtime Wages GRADIENT INSURANCE: Faces "Jacobs" Suit for FLSA Violations HITE USA: "Shin" Suit Alleges Calif. Labor Code Violations HORIZON HOBBY: Recalls Battery Chargers Due to Fire Hazard ILLINOIS BELL: "LaMarr" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations IMPERVA INC: Motion to Dismiss Class Action Pending J JACOBO FARM: Faces "Gomez" Suit Over PAGA Claim KISKADEE VENTURES: Recalls Finger Mint Due to Salmonella KKR & CO: Oral Argument Held in Class Action Appeal KMART CORP: Sued for Writing Down PII on Credit Card Transactions KRUD KUTTER: Recalls Adhesive Remover Products Due to Injury Risk LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Defending Against "Fernandez" Class Action LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Appeal in Securities Actions Remains Pending LEONARDO BROS: "Garybo" Suit Seeks to Recover Wages LOGITECH INC: Faces Suit in Calif. Over Defective Alert Systems LOUISIANA BANCORP: Defending Against "Smith" Action LULULEMON USA: Faces Lawsuit in N.Y. Over Labor Law Violations LUOWYANG LLC: Rents Out Units Unfit for Human Occupancy, Says Suit MACK: Recalls CXU and CHU 2012 Models Due to Crash Risk MIAMI SHORES: Faces "Aloma" Suit Under Fair Labor Standards Act MIMEDX GROUP: Class Action Currently in Discovery MUSTANG SURVIVAL: Recalls Flotation Devices & Life Jackets NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Compensation Rules Violate Antitrust Law OREXIGEN THERAPEUTICS: Defending Consolidated Class Action PHARMERICA CORP: Final Deal Approval Hearing Set for Nov. 12 PLASTIC2OIL INC: Settlement in Stockholders' Suit Has Final OK SAN GABRIEL TRANSIT: Sued for Failing to Pay All Compensation SANTA FE NATURAL: Faces "Brattain" Suit Over "Natural" Cigarettes SEASONS HOSPICE: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Class Suit Claims SEONG CHAN: Illegally Fired Female Employee, New York Suit Claims SNAKE RIVER: Recalls Horse Trailer 2015 Models Due to Crash Risk SPENCER GIFTS: Recalls Feather Witch Hat Due to Noncompliance TCC COOKING: Recalls Vertical Roaster Products Due to Burn Hazard TURTLE BEACH: Recalls Gaming Headsets Due to Infection Risk UBER: Drivers' Labor Dispute Ruling to Impact Other Tech Startups VALEANT PHARMA: Faces "Nilsen" Suit Over Breach of Fiduciary Duty VOLKSWAGEN: Bernstein Litowitz to Expand Emissions Investigation VOLKSWAGEN: Clean Air Act Loophole May Avert Criminal Charges VOLKSWAGEN: Emission Tests Scandal Costs May Reach $6.5 Billion VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "G.T. Leasing" Suit Over Defeat Devices VOLVO TRUCKS: Recalls VNL 2013 Model Due to Crash Risk VOLVO TRUCKS: Recalls VNL 2012 Models Due to Injury Risk WILLIAMS COS: Faces "Blystone" Suit Over Sale to Energy Transfer ZYNGA INC: Supplemental Briefing Required on Settlement ZYNGA INC: "Reyes" Class Action Voluntarily Dismissed ZYNGA INC: Hearing Date Has Not Been Set in Lee v. Pincus * Competitive Enterprise Inst. & Class Action Fairness to Merge * Predatory Class Action Trial Lawyers Target Food Companies ********* 850 COMMERCE: Accused of Sexual Harassment and Sex Discrimination ----------------------------------------------------------------- Yesica Cordova, and other similarly situated individuals v. 850 Commerce Restaurant, LLC d/b/a Porfirios Restaurant, a Florida Limited Liability Company and Renato Alvarado, Individually, Case No. 2015-018287-CA-01 (Fla. Cir. Ct., August 10, 2015) arises from the Defendant's alleged sexual harassment and sex discrimination against the Plaintiff in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act. 850 Commerce Restaurant, LLC, does business as Porfirios Restaurant. The Company is a Florida Limited Liability Company having its main place of business in Miami Dade County, Florida, where the Plaintiff worked. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason S. Remer, Esq. Brody 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 bshulman@rgpattorneys.com AGL RESOURCES: Faces Shareholder Suit Over Attempt to Sell Firm --------------------------------------------------------------- Manuel ABT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AGL Resources, Inc., Sandra N. Bane, Thomas D. Bell Jr., Norman R. Bobins, Charles R. Crisp, Brenda J. Gaines, Arthur E. Johnson, Wyck A. Knox, Dennis M. Love, Dean R.O'Hare, Armando J. Olivera, John E. Rau, James A. Rubright, John W. Somerhalder II, Bettina M. Whyte, and Henry C. Wolf, Case 1:15-cv-03597-WSD (N.D.Ga., October 9, 2015), is a shareholder class action complaint filed on behalf of the holders of the common stock of AGL Resources, Inc. against AGL's Board of Directors for alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by their attempt to sell the Company to The Southern Company through its wholly- owned subsidiary, AMS Corp. The Company is an Atlanta-based energy services holding company with operations in natural gas distribution, retail operations, wholesale services and midstream operations. The Company's securities trade on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol "GAS." The Plaintiff is represented by: David A. Bain, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF DAVID A. BAIN, LLC 1050 Promenade II 1230 Peachtree Street, NE Atlanta, GA 30309 Phone: (404) 724-9990 Fax: (404) 724-9986 E-mail: dbain@bain-law.com - and - Shane Rowley, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 30 Broad Street, 15th Floor New York, NY 10004 Phone: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: srowley@zlk.com AHED OF OHIO: Sued for Refusing to Pay for Overtime Hours Worked ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jody Sexton v. AHED of Ohio, Inc., Stautzenberger College Education Corporation, John Girard, and Dean Susan Alexander, Case No. CV-15-850318 (Ohio Comm. Pleas, August 26, 2015) alleges that throughout her employment, the Defendants refused to pay the Plaintiff for overtime hours worked and, instead, required her to alter her timesheets to show an artificially reduced 40-hour workweek. AHED of Ohio, Inc., and Stautzenberger College Education Corporation Ohio corporations, are the owners of an educational institution known as Stautzenberger College, located in the City of Brecksville, County of Cuyahoga, Ohio. John Girard and Dean Susan Alexander, residents of Cuyahoga County, were employed by the Corporate Defendants and were the Plaintiff's supervisors. The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew M. Ries, Esq. HARRINGTON, HOPPE & MITCHELL, LTD. 108 Main Ave. SW, Suite 500 Warren, OH 44481 Telephone: (330) 392-] 541 Facsimile: (330) 394-6890 E-mail: mries@hhmlaw.com AMPIO PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces "Napoli" and "Stein" Actions --------------------------------------------------------- Ampio Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that on May 8, 2015 and May 14, 2015, purported stockholders of the Company brought two putative class action lawsuits in the United States District Court in the Central District of California, Napoli v. Ampio Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-03474-TJH and Stein v. Ampio Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv- 03640-TJH, alleging that Ampio and certain of its current and former officers violated federal securities laws by misrepresenting and/or omitting information regarding the STEP study. The lawsuits seek unspecified damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs. The Company believes these claims are without merit and intends to defend these lawsuits vigorously. "We currently believe the likelihood of a loss contingency related to these matters is remote and, therefore, no provision for a loss contingency is required," the Company said. APOLLO GLOBAL: Class Certification to be Fully Briefed by Nov. 30 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Apollo Global Management, LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a court ordered class certification to be fully briefed by November 30, 2015. In March 2012, plaintiffs filed two putative class actions, captioned Kelm v. Chase Bank (No. 12-cv-332) and Miller v. 1-800- Flowers.com, Inc. (No. 12-cv-396), in the District of Connecticut on behalf of a class of consumers alleging online fraud. The defendants included, among others, Trilegiant Corporation, Inc. ("Trilegiant"), its parent company, Affinion Group, LLC ("Affinion"), and Apollo Global Management, LLC ("AGM"), which is affiliated with funds that are the beneficial owners of 68% of Affinion's common stock. In both cases, plaintiffs allege that Trilegiant, aided by its business partners, who include e-merchants and credit card companies, developed a set of business practices intended to create consumer confusion and ultimately defraud consumers into unknowingly paying fees to clubs for unwanted services. Plaintiffs allege that AGM is a proper defendant because of its indirect stock ownership and ability to appoint the majority of Affinion's board. The complaints assert claims under the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act; the Electronic Communications Privacy Act; the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act; and the California Business and Professional Code, and seek, among other things, restitution or disgorgement, injunctive relief, compensatory, treble and punitive damages, and attorneys' fees. The allegations in Kelm and Miller are substantially similar to those in Schnabel v. Trilegiant Corp. (No. 3:10-cv-957), a putative class action filed in the District of Connecticut in 2010 that names only Trilegiant and Affinion as defendants. The court has consolidated the Kelm, Miller, and Schnabel cases under the caption In re: Trilegiant Corporation, Inc. and ordered that they proceed on the same schedule. On June 18, 2012, the court appointed lead plaintiffs' counsel, and on September 7, 2012, plaintiffs filed their consolidated amended complaint ("CAC"), which alleges the same causes of action against AGM as did the complaints in the Kelm and Miller cases. Defendants filed motions to dismiss on December 7, 2012, plaintiffs filed opposition papers on February 7, 2013, and defendants filed replies on April 5, 2013. On December 5, 2012, plaintiffs filed another putative class action, captioned Frank v. Trilegiant Corp. (No. 12- cv-1721), in the District of Connecticut, naming the same defendants and containing allegations substantially similar to those in the CAC. On January 23, 2013, plaintiffs moved to transfer and consolidate Frank into In re: Trilegiant. On July 24, 2013 the Frank court transferred the case to Judge Bryant, who is presiding over In re: Trilegiant, and on March 28, 2014, Judge Bryant granted the motion to consolidate. On September 25, 2013, the court held oral argument on defendants' motions to dismiss. On March 28, 2014, the court granted in part and denied in part motions to dismiss filed by Affinion and Trilegiant on behalf of all defendants, and also granted separate motions to dismiss filed by certain defendants, including AGM. On that same day, the court directed the clerk to terminate AGM as a defendant in the consolidated action. On April 28, 2014, plaintiffs moved for interlocutory review of certain of the court's motion-to-dismiss rulings, not including its order granting AGM's separate dismissal motion. Defendants filed a response on May 23, 2014, and plaintiffs replied on June 5, 2014. On November 13, 2014, plaintiffs and the remaining defendants filed a Joint Status Report Regarding Discovery stating that no discovery had taken place since plaintiffs filed their interlocutory-review motion. On March 26, 2015, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for interlocutory review. On April 30, 2015, plaintiffs and the remaining defendants filed a joint report under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) that, among other things, requested that the Court extend the deadlines in its standing order for (i) plaintiffs to file an amended complaint until May 29, 2015; (ii) the close of fact discovery until January 15, 2016; and (iii) full briefing of class certification until June 1, 2016. On May 29, 2015, the Court denied plaintiffs' request to file an amended complaint and set (i) a December 31, 2015 discovery cutoff, (ii) a February 29, 2016 deadline for dispositive motions, and (iii) jury selection for November 1, 2016 (if dispositive motions are filed, or May 3, 2016, if they are not). On June 15, 2015, the court held a pre-motion hearing on class certification, and on June 16, 2015, the Court ordered class certification to be fully briefed by November 30, 2015. APOLLO GLOBAL: Twin City Pipe Filed Consolidated Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Apollo Global Management, LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a consolidated shareholder class action complaint has been filed by by Twin City Pipe Trades Pension Trust that did not name as defendants Apollo, Queso Holdings Inc., Q Merger Sub Inc., Apollo Management VIII, L.P., or AP VIII Queso Holdings, L.P. Following the January 16, 2014 announcement that CEC Entertainment, Inc. ("CEC") had entered into a merger agreement with certain entities affiliated with Apollo (the "Merger Agreement"), four putative shareholder class actions were filed in the District Court of Shawnee County, Kansas on behalf of purported stockholders of CEC against, among others, CEC, its directors and Apollo and certain of its affiliates, which include Queso Holdings Inc., Q Merger Sub Inc., Apollo Management VIII, L.P., and AP VIII Queso Holdings, L.P. The first purported class action, which is captioned Hilary Coyne v. Richard M. Frank et al., Case No. 14C57, was filed on January 21, 2014 (the "Coyne Action"). The second purported class action, which was captioned John Solak v. CEC Entertainment, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 14C55, was filed on January 22, 2014 (the "Solak Action"). The Solak Action was dismissed for lack of prosecution on October 14, 2014. The third purported class action, which is captioned Irene Dixon v. CEC Entertainment, Inc. et al., Case No. 14C81, was filed on January 24, 2014 and additionally names as defendants Apollo Management VIII, L.P. and AP VIII Queso Holdings, L.P. (the "Dixon Action"). The fourth purported class action, which is captioned Louisiana Municipal Public Employees' Retirement System v. Frank, et al., Case No. 14C97, was filed on January 31, 2014 (the "LMPERS Action") (together with the Coyne and Dixon Actions, the "Shareholder Actions"). A fifth purported class action, which was captioned McCullough v. Frank, et al., Case No. CC-14-00622-B, was filed in the County Court of Dallas County, Texas on February 7, 2014. This action was dismissed for want of prosecution on May 21, 2014. Each of the Shareholder Actions alleges, among other things, that CEC's directors breached their fiduciary duties to CEC's stockholders in connection with their consideration and approval of the Merger Agreement, including by agreeing to an inadequate price, agreeing to impermissible deal protection devices, and filing materially deficient disclosures regarding the transaction. Each of the Shareholder Actions further alleges that Apollo and certain of its affiliates aided and abetted those alleged breaches. As filed, the Shareholder Actions seek, among other things, rescission of the various transactions associated with the merger, damages and attorneys' and experts' fees and costs. On February 7, 2014 and February 11, 2014, the plaintiffs in the Shareholder Actions pursued a consolidated action for damages after the transaction closed. Thereafter, the Shareholder Actions were consolidated under the caption In re CEC Entertainment, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, Case No. 14C57, and the parties engaged in limited discovery. On July 21, 2015, a consolidated class action complaint was brought by Twin City Pipe Trades Pension Trust in the Shareholder Actions that did not name as defendants Apollo, Queso Holdings Inc., Q Merger Sub Inc., Apollo Management VIII, L.P., or AP VIII Queso Holdings, L.P., continued to assert claims against CEC and its former directors, and added The Goldman Sachs Group Inc. ("Goldman Sachs") as a defendant. The consolidated complaint alleges, among other things, that CEC's former directors breached their fiduciary duties to CEC's stockholders by conducting a deficient sales process, agreeing to impermissible deal protection devices, and filing materially deficient disclosures regarding the transaction. It further alleges that two members of the board who also served as the senior managers of the company had material conflicts of interest and that Goldman Sachs aided and abetted the board's breaches as a result of various conflicts of interest facing the bank. The consolidated complaint seeks, among other things, to recover damages, attorneys' fees and costs. Although Apollo cannot predict the ultimate outcome of the above actions, and therefore no reasonable estimate of possible loss, if any, can be made at this time, Apollo believes that such actions are without merit. APOLLO GLOBAL: Silva & Hudson Suit v. Aviva in Early Stage ---------------------------------------------------------- Apollo Global Management, LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a putative class action was commenced on June 12, 2015, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California by Rachel Silva and Don Hudson, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, against Aviva plc; Athene Annuity and Life Company f/k/a Aviva Life and Annuity Company ("Aviva"); Athene USA Corporation f/k/a Aviva USA Corporation; Athene Holding; Athene Life Re Ltd.; Athene Asset Management; and AGM. The defendants' time to answer, move or otherwise respond to the complaint has been extended and thus no answer, motion, etc. addressed to the complaint has been served or filed. Additionally, no party has served any discovery request in this case and thus no discovery has been taken or given yet. The complaint in this action alleges violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections 1962(c) and (d). The plaintiffs basically allege that commencing in 2007 and continuing thereafter Aviva and its then management engaged in a scheme to, among other things, falsely represent the financial strength of and hide the true financial condition of Aviva by, among other things, allegedly ceding risky liabilities to Aviva's undercapitalized subsidiaries and affiliates and misvaluing assets, and that after Athene Holding purchased all of the outstanding stock of Aviva's parent effective October 2, 2013 the scheme was unwound and rewound so as to continue, and that as a result thereof some of the purchasers of annuity products issued by Aviva were charged an excessive price and were damaged as a result thereof. The defendants will deny the material allegations of the complaint and will vigorously defend themselves against these claims. Although Apollo cannot predict the ultimate outcome of this case, it believes that it is without merit, and because the case is in its early stages, no reasonable estimate of possible loss, if any, can be made at this time. APOLLO GLOBAL: No Hearing on Merits Yet in OM Group Suit -------------------------------------------------------- Apollo Global Management, LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that following the June 1, 2015 announcement that OM Group, Inc. ("OM Group") had entered into a merger agreement (the "OM Group Merger Agreement") with certain entities affiliated with AGM and an entity affiliated with Platform Specialty Products Corporation ("PSP"), six putative class actions were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware on behalf of purported OM Group stockholders against certain current and former OM Group directors, the merger entities affiliated with AGM, which include Duke Acquisition Holdings, LLC and Duke Acquisition, Inc. (together with AGM, the "Apollo Parties"), and, except in one action, the merger entity affiliated with PSP, MacDermid Americas Acquisitions Inc. (together with PSP, the "PSP Parties"). AGM, PSP, and OM Group were also named as defendants in some of these putative class actions. On July 16, 2015, these six actions were consolidated into a putative class action captioned In re OM Group Inc. Stockholders Litigation, Consol. Case No. 11216-VCN (the "Consolidated Action"). The plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action subsequently designated the complaint previously filed in the action captioned City of Sarasota Firefighters' Pension Fund v. Apollo Global Management, LLC, Case No. 11249-VCN as the Consolidated Action's operative complaint. That complaint challenges, among other things, the OM Group Merger Agreement and the transactions contemplated thereby, alleging, among other things, that OM Group's directors breached their fiduciary duties to OM Group stockholders by engaging in a flawed sales process, agreeing to a price that does not adequately compensate OM Group stockholders, agreeing to certain unfair deal protection terms in the OM Group Merger Agreement and by failing to disclose material information to OM Group stockholders. The complaint also alleges that the Apollo Parties and the PSP Parties aided and abetted these alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The complaint seeks various remedies, including declaratory relief and preliminary and permanent injunctive relief. While plaintiffs had declared their intent to pursue preliminary injunctive relief, and a hearing had been scheduled for August 6, plaintiffs dropped that request on August 2, 2015. The court has not yet set a schedule for resolving the case on the merits. Because this action is in its early stages, no reasonable estimate of possible loss, if any, can be made. Apollo believes that the allegations in the complaint are without merit and intends to vigorously defend the Consolidated Action. APPLE AMERICAN: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Taelyn Lewis as an individual and on behalf of all employees similarly situated v. Apple American Group, LLC, and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. BC590908 (Cal. Super. Ct., August 10, 2015) alleges that the Company's policies resulted in, among other things, the failure to pay all minimum and overtime wages due. Apple American Group, LLC, is a corporation operating restaurants throughout California and is the employer of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff is unaware of the true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Mahoney, Esq. Bicvan T. Brown, Esq. Jennifer Han, Esq. MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC 249 E. Ocean Blvd., Suite 814 Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (562) 590-5550 Facsimile: (562) 590-8400 E-mail: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net bbrown@mahoney-law.net jhan@mahoney-law.net ARYZTA LLC: Faces "Cipres" Suit Over Cal. Labor Law Violations -------------------------------------------------------------- Bernabe Cipres, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. ARYZTA LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; Real Time Staffing Services, LLC, a California limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive, Case No.:BC5 97 45 0 (Cal. Super., County Of Los Angeles, October 9, 2015), alleges that the Defendants have had a consistent policy of failing to pay wages, including overtime wages, to Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees in the State of California in violation of California state wage and hour laws as a result of, including but not limited to, unevenly rounding time worked. ARYZTA LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, provides global food services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Nourmand, Esq. JamesA. De Sario, Esq THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM, APC 8822 West Olympic Boulevard Beverly Hills, California 90211 Phone: (310) 553-3600 Fax: (310)553-3603 ASSOCIATED NATIONAL: Recalls Sambucol Cold & Flu Capsules --------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: October 8, 2015 Posting date: October 13, 2015 Type of communication: Drug Recall Subcategory: Drugs Hazard classification: Type II Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Product Safety Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals Identification number: RA-55324 Contraindication for people allergic to acetylsalicylic acid or other salicylates not stated on product label. Depth of distribution: Wholesalers and retailers. (BC, AB, SK, MB, ON, QC, NB, NS, NF) Affected products: Sambucol Cold & Flu DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM NPN 80060823 Dosage form: Capsule Strength: Echinacea purpurea - 44.5mg Salix alba - 77.4mg (15.5:1) Sambucus nigra subsp. nigra - 30mg (50:1) Vitamin C - 245mg Zinc - 12mg Lot or serial number: 60048811 Recalling Firm: Associated National Brokerage Inc. (ANB) 199 Mathew Boyd Cres. Newmarket L3X 3C7 Ontario CANADA Marketing Authorization: Holder PAC Health (Canada) Inc. 1235 Bay St., Suite 400 Toronto ON M5R 3K4 Toronto M5R 3K4 Ontario CANADA ATMEL CORPORATION: Faces Suit Over Breaches of Fiduciary Duty ------------------------------------------------------------- Kevin Crosby, and all others similarly-situated v. Atmel Corporation, Steve Laub, Tsung-Ching Wu, David M. Sugishita, Jack L. Saltich, Edward Ross, Charles P. Carinalli, Papken S. Der Torossian, Dialog Semiconductor PLC, and Avengers Acquisition Corporation, Case No. 11564 (Del. Ch., October 2, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for breaches of fiduciary duty. On September 20, 2015, Atmel announced that it had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated September 19, 2015, pursuant to which Merger Sub will be merged with and into Atmel with Atmel surviving as the wholly-owned subsidiary of Dialog in a mixed stock-cash transaction valued at approximately $4.6 billion (the "Proposed Transaction"). Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, Atmel stockholders will receive $4.65 in cash and 0.112 Dialog American Depositary Shares ("ADS"), or $5.77 in value based on Dialog's closing price on September 18, 2015 (the "Merger Consideration"). The Individual Defendants are officers and/or directors of Atmel. Headquartered in San Jose, California, Defendant Atmel designs, develops, manufactures, and sells semiconductor integrated circuit products primarily in the United States, Asia, Europe, South Africa, and Central and South America. The Company markets its products worldwide to a diverse base of original equipment manufacturers serving primarily commercial markets. Defendant Dialog is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of England and Whales with principal executive offices located at Neue Strasse 95 D-73230 Kirchheim/Teck-Nabern, Germany. Dialog supplies chips used in Apple Inc.'s iPhone and iPad. Dialog's common stock trades on the Frankfurt Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol "DLG." Defendant Merger Sub is a Delaware corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Dialog. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian D. Long, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120 Wilmington, DE 19803 Tel: (302) 295-5310 - and - Shane T. Rowley, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 733 Summer Street, Suite 304 Stamford, CT 06901 Tel: (212) 363-7500 BANK OF NEW YORK: Settlement in Forex Litigation Pending -------------------------------------------------------- The Bank Of New York Mellon Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that BNY Mellon reached on May 21, 2015, a settlement in principle on a previously disclosed pending foreign exchange-related putative class action lawsuit asserting securities law violations. Under the terms of the settlement, BNY Mellon will make a payment of $180 million, which resulted in a pre-tax charge of $50 million in the second quarter of 2015. This settlement effectively resolves virtually all of the currently pending foreign exchange-related actions, with the exception of several lawsuits brought by individual customers. The settlement is subject to court approval. On March 19, 2015, BNY Mellon announced that it has resolved substantially all of the FX-related actions currently pending, resulting in a total of $714 million in settlement payments. BNY Mellon reached settlements with the DOJ and NYAG under which it will pay each of them $167.5 million and provide functionality allowing customers to compare pricing for BNY Mellon's "defined spread" and "session range" standing instruction FX products. In addition, BNY Mellon reached settlements with the plaintiffs in the outstanding customer class actions, as well as with the U.S. Department of Labor ("DOL"). BNY Mellon will pay $335 million under the class action settlement, which is subject to court approval, and an additional $14 million to the DOL. BNY Mellon has also reached a settlement in principle with the SEC. Under the terms of the agreement with the SEC staff, which is subject to Commission approval, BNY Mellon will pay a $30 million penalty. On May 21, 2015, BNY Mellon reached a settlement in principle with the plaintiffs in the putative class action lawsuit asserting securities law violations. Under the terms of the settlement, which is subject to court approval, BNY Mellon will make a payment of $180 million. With these settlements, BNY Mellon has effectively resolved virtually all of the currently pending FX- related actions, with the exception of several lawsuits brought by individual customers. BGHA INC: Recalls Climbing Tree Stands Due to Fall Hazard --------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with BGHA, Inc. dba Big Game, of Windom, Minn., announced a voluntary recall of about 12,200 Climbing tree stands. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The cable assembly on the climbing tree stand can release, posing a fall hazard to the user. This recall involves three model year 2014 Big Game climbing tree stands models: CL050 (The Outlook) with batch number 9B-0414, CL100-A (The Cobalt) with batch numbers 9B-0214 and 9B-0514, and CL500-AP (The Fusion) with batch numbers 9B-0214 and 9B-0514. These climbing tree stands are used to hunt from an elevated position and were sold with an accessory bag. The black metal tree stands include the main stand platform with a nylon hanging strap assembly. The Outlook has a nylon netted seat without a backrest. The Cobalt and The Fusion have a camouflage-print, padded seat with the Big Game logo at the front of the backrest. The batch number starts with BN and can be found on a small tag located on the frame below the seat. Big Game has received one report of the cable assembly releasing which resulted in injuries to the knee, wrist and hip. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/606ife The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Bass Pro Shop, Cabela's, Menards, Rogers Sporting Goods and Sportsman's Guide stores nationwide and online from June 2014 through June 2015 for between $130 and $380. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled tree stands and return them for free replacement cables. CALUMET SPECIALTY: Settlement in "Wolfe" Collective Suit Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a tentative settlement in a nationwide collective action lawsuit filed by Jonathan Wolfe remains pending. On November 12, 2014, a nationwide collective action lawsuit alleging that Anchor, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, failed to pay drilling fluid engineers overtime in compliance with the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") was filed titled Jonathan Wolfe v. Anchor Drilling Fluids USA, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania ("Wolfe"). The Company filed its answer to the complaint on January 9, 2015 and the Wolfe plaintiff filed an amended complaint on February 26, 2015, adding that Anchor's failure to pay overtime to a subclass of drilling fluid engineers violated the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (the "Pennsylvania Act"). For this subclass, the Wolfe plaintiff seeks certification of a class action under the Pennsylvania Act. The Wolfe plaintiff seeks to recover overtime pay, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs. The portion of the potential liability that relates to the period prior to March 31, 2014, the date on which the Company acquired Anchor, is eligible for indemnification under the securities purchase agreement that effected that transaction; however, the right to indemnification under the securities purchase agreement for the potential Wolfe liability is subject to a deductible and limitations otherwise set forth in the securities purchase agreement. On May 1, 2015, the parties engaged in mediation and agreed to a tentative settlement of this litigation. The tentative settlement must be approved by the U.S. District Court. The tentative settlement amount is not material to the unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements. CALUMET SPECIALTY: Settlement in "Niver" Collective Suit Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a tentative settlement in a nationwide collective action lawsuit filed by Timothy Niver remains pending. On November 21, 2014, a nationwide collective action lawsuit alleging that Anchor and the Company, as well as SOS, failed to pay solids control technicians overtime in compliance with the FLSA was filed titled Timothy Niver v. Specialty Oilfield Solutions, Ltd., et al. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania ("Niver"). The Niver plaintiff filed an amended complaint on January 21, 2015, adding that defendants' failure to pay overtime to a subclass of solids control technicians violated the Pennsylvania Act. For this subclass, the Niver plaintiff seeks certification of a class action under the Pennsylvania Act. The Niver plaintiff seeks to recover overtime pay, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs. Anchor and the Company filed their answer to the amended complaint on February 2, 2015. The Company consented to conditional certification in the case, and notice of the collective action has been issued to potential class members. The portion of the potential liability that relates to the period prior to August 1, 2014, the date on which the Company acquired the assets of SOS, was retained by, and is the responsibility of, SOS. To the extent Anchor or the Company is found liable for damages relating to the period prior to the acquisition of the assets of SOS, Anchor and the Company are eligible for indemnification under the asset purchase agreement that effected that transaction, and no deductible is applicable; however, the right to indemnification is subject to limitations otherwise set forth in the asset purchase agreement. On June 1, 2015, the parties engaged in mediation and agreed to a tentative settlement of this litigation. The tentative settlement must be approved by the U.S. District Court. The tentative settlement amount is not material to the unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements. CANADA HERB: Recalls NGO OM (Water Mint) Due to Salmonella ---------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: October 7, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning Subcategory: Microbiological - Salmonella Hazard classification: Class 2 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Canada Herb Distribution: Ontario, Quebec Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 10089 Canada Herb is recalling NGO OM (water mint) from the marketplace due to possible Salmonella contamination. Consumers should not consume and distributors, retailers and food service establishments such as hotels, restaurants, cafeterias, hospitals and nursing homes should not sell or use the recalled product described below. Only NGO OM (water mint) imported by Canada Herb and sold from September 29, 2015 to October 7, 2015 is affected by this recall. This product may have been sold in clear plastic bags bearing the name Canada Herb or may have been repackaged or sold in bulk without a label or coding. Consumers who are unsure if they have purchased the affected product are advised to contact their retailer. Check to see if you have recalled product in your home or in your establishment. Recalled product should be thrown out or returned to the location where it was purchased. Food contaminated with Salmonella may not look or smell spoiled but can still make you sick. Young children, pregnant women, the elderly and people with weakened immune systems may contract serious and sometimes deadly infections. Healthy people may experience short-term symptoms such as fever, headache, vomiting, nausea, abdominal cramps and diarrhea. Long-term complications may include severe arthritis. There have been no reported illnesses associated with the consumption of this product. This recall was triggered by Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) test results. The CFIA is conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings. The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product from the marketplace. Brand Common name Size Code(s) on UPC name ----------- ---- product --- ----- ---------- None NGO OM Variable None None (water mint) Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/dojfLq CLYDE ANDERSON: "Rousset" Suit Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duty --------------------------------------------------------------- Jean-Marc Rousset, and all others similarly-situated v. Clyde B. Anderson, Terrence C. Anderson, Ronald G. Bruno, Ronald J. Domanico, Edward W. Wilhelm, Terrance G. Finley, R. Todd Noden, James F. Turner, Family Acquisition Holdings, Inc., and Family Merger Sub, Inc., Case No. 11559 (Del. Ch., October 1, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for breaches of fiduciary duty. This is a class action brought on behalf of the public stockholders of Books-A-Million, Inc. in connection with a proposed transaction pursuant to which the Company will be taken private by the Company's Executive Chairman Clyde B. Anderson, his brother and fellow BAM director Terrence C. Anderson, and certain family members for the unfair price of $3.25 per share in cash (the "Proposed Transaction"). The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of Book-A- Million. Family Acquisition Holdings, Inc. and Family Merger Sub, Inc. are entities formed by the Anderson Family to facilitate the Proposed Transaction. Its corporate headquarters is located at 2801 Highway 280 South, Suite 350, Birmingham, Alabama 35223. The Plaintiff is represented at: Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120 Wilmington, DE 19803 Tel: (302) 295-5310 COAST TO COAST: Faces "Cutrer" Suit Over Labor Law Violations ------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Cutrer, on behalf of similarly situated members of the general public v. Coast To Coast Computer Products, Inc., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. BC597512 (Cal. Super, County of Los Angeles, October 9, 2015), alleges that the Defendants engaged in a systematic pattern of wage and hour violations under the California Labor Code and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders. C2C provides computer and printing supplies to businesses and governmental agencies nationwide. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kashif Haque, Esq. Samuel A. Wong, Esq. Jessica L. Campbell, Esq. AEGIS LAW FIRM, P.C. 9811 Irvine Center Drive Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 Phone: 949-379-6250 Fax: 949-379-6251 COLLECTO INC: "Bozin" Suit Alleges TCPA Violation ------------------------------------------------- Dan Bozin, and all others similarly-situated v. Collecto Inc. dba EOS CCA, Case No.2:15-cv-07710 (C.D. Calif., October 1, 2015), seeks damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the Defendant's violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Defendant, Collecto Inc. dba EOS CCA, is a company involved in consumer debt buying and recovery/collection. The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 324 S. Beverly Dr., #725 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Tel: (877) 206-4741 Fax: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com COMCAST CABLE: Accused of Retaliation & Disability Discrimination ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ernest Deloney v. Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC and Comcast Cable, Case No. 2015-L-008163 (Ill. Cir. Ct., August 10, 2015) alleges retaliation and disability discrimination in violation of the Illinois Human Rights Act. Mr. Deloney began working for the Defendant as an Enterprise Account Executive/Direct Sales Representative in August 2011. As a DSR, among other things, he sold fiber optic Metro Ethernet, private networking and internet services, and Broadband Internet Services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael L. Fradin, Esq. FRADIN LAW 8401 Crawford Ave., Suite 104 Skokie, IL 60076 Telephone: (847) 644-3425 Facsimile: (847) 673-1228 E-mail: mike@fradinlaw.com CONCORDE LIMOUSINE: "Mediratta" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation ----------------------------------------------------------- Ashish Mediratta, and all others similarly situated v. Concorde Limousine, Inc. dba Concorde Worldwide and John Does 1-10, Case No. 3:15-cv-07300 (D.N.J., October 2, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for unpaid overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendant Concorde Limousine, Inc. dba Concorde Worldwide is a company operating a limousine company in New Jersey. Defendants John Doe 1 through John Doe 5 are presently unknown persons who, directly or indirectly, directed, aided, abetted, and/or assisted with creating and/or executing the policies and practices of Defendant. The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew D. Miller, Esq. SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC 1101 Kings Highway N., Suite 402 Cherry Hill, NJ 08034 Tel: (856) 685-7420 Fax: (856) 685-7417 DENSO CORPORATION: Suit Alleges Antitrust Violation --------------------------------------------------- Martens Cars of Washington, Inc., Hammett Motor Company, Inc., Superstore Automotive, Inc., Lee Pontiac-Oldsmobile-GMC Truck, Inc., Westfield Dodge City, Inc., V.I.P. Motor Cars Ltd., Green Team of Clay Center Inc., McGrath Automotive Group, Inc., Table Rock Automotive, Inc., dba Todd Archer Hyundai, Archer-Perdue, Inc., dba Archer-Perdue Suzuki, Bonneville and Son, Inc., Pitre, Inc., dba Pitre Buick GMC, Patsy Lou Chevrolet, Inc., John Greene Chrysler Dodge Jeep, LLC, Herb Hallman Chevrolet, Inc., dba Champion Chevrolet, Charles Daher's Commonwealth Motors, Inc., dba Commonwealth Chevrolet, Commonwealth Kia, Commonwealth Honda, Commonwealth Volkswagen, Inc., dba Commonwealth Volkswagen, Commonwealth Nissan, Inc., dba Commonwealth Nissan, Ramey Motors, Inc., Thornhill Superstore, Inc., dba Thornhill GM Superstore, Dave Heather Corporation, dba Lakeland Toyota Honda Mazda Subaru, Central Salt Lake Valley GMC Enterprises, LLC, dba Salt Lake Valley Buick GMC, Capitol Chevrolet Cadillac, Inc., Capitol Dealerships, Inc., dba Capitol Toyota, Stranger Investments dba Stephen Wade Toyota, John O'Neil Johnson Toyota, LLC, Hartley Buick GMC Truck, Inc., Lee Oldsmobile-Cadillac, Inc. dba Lee Honda, Lee Auto Malls-Topsham, Inc. dba Lee Toyota of Topsham, Cannon Nissan of Jackson, LLC, Shearer Automotive Enterprises III, Inc., Empire Nissan of Santa Rosa, LLC, Hodges Imported Cars, Inc. dba Hodges Subaru, Ancona Enterprise, Inc. dba Frank Ancona Honda, Bill Pearce Motors dba Bill Pearce Courtesy Honda, HC Acquisition, LLC dba Toyota of Bristol, and Apex Motor Corporation, and all others similarly situated v. DENSO Corporation, DENSO International America, Inc., DENSO Automotive Deutschland GmbH, NGK Spark Plug Co. Ltd., NGK Spark Plugs (U.S.A.), Inc., Robert Bosch GmbH, Robert Bosch LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-13465 (E.D. Mich., October 1, 2015), seeks damages, injunctive relief, and other relief pursuant to federal antitrust laws and state antitrust, unfair competition, unjust enrichment and consumer protection laws. This lawsuit is brought against the Defendants and unnamed coconspirators, manufacturers and/or suppliers of Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors globally and in the United States, for engaging in a long-running conspiracy to unlawfully fix, artificially raise, maintain and/or stabilize prices, rig bids for, and allocate the market and customers in the United States for Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors. The Defendants owned and/or controlled -- manufactured, marketed and/or sold Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors that were purchased throughout the United States. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gerard V. Mantese, Esq. MANTESE HONIGMAN P.C. 1361 E. Big Beaver Road Troy, MI 48083 Tel: (248) 457-9200 E-mail: gmantese@manteselaw.com - and - Jonathan W. Cuneo, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 507 C Street, N.E. Washington, DC 20002 Tel: (202) 789-3960 E-mail: jonc@cuneolaw.com - and - Thomas P. Thrash, Esq. THRASH LAW FIRM, P.A. 1101 Garland Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Tel: (501) 374-1058 E-mail: tomthrash@sbcglobal.net - and - Charles Barrett, Esq. CHARLES BARRETT, P.C. 6518 Highway 100, Suite 210 Nashville, TN 37205 Tel: (615) 515-3393 E-mail: charles@cfbfirm.com - and - Don Barrett, Esq. BARRETT LAW GROUP, P.A. P.O. Box 927 404 Court Square Lexington, MS 39095 Tel: (662) 834-2488 E-mail: dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com - and - Shawn M. Raiter, Esq. LARSON KING, LLP 2800 Wells Fargo Place 30 East Seventh Street St. Paul, MN 55101 Tel: (651) 312-6500 E-mail: sraiter@larsonking.com - and - Phillip Duncan, Esq. DUNCAN FIRM, P.A. 900 S. Shackleford, Suite 725 Little Rock, AR 72211 Tel: (501) 228-7600 E-mail: phillip@duncanfirm.com - and - Dewitt Lovelace, Esq. LOVELACE & ASSOCIATES, P.A. Suite 200 12870 US Hwy 98 West Miramar Beach, FL 32550 Tel: (850) 837-6020 E-mail: dml@lovelacelaw.com - and - Gregory Johnson, Esq. G. JOHNSON LAW, PLLC 6688 145th Street West, Apple Valley, MN 55124 Tel: (952) 930-2485 E-mail: greg@gjohnsonlegal.com DINDOLLY ENTERPRISES: Recalls Chevdo and Pickle Products -------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: October 7, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Mustard, Allergen - Peanut, Allergen - Sesame Seeds, Allergen - Tree Nut Hazard classification: Class 1 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Dindolly Enterprises Ltd. Distribution: British Columbia Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 10086 Dindolly Enterprises Ltd. is recalling various Zeenaz brand Chevdo and Pickle products from the marketplace because they contain peanuts, tree nuts, mustard and sesame which are not declared on the label. People with an allergy to peanuts, tree nuts, mustard or sesame should not consume the recalled products described below. Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalled products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they were purchased. If you have an allergy to peanuts, tree nuts, mustard or sesame, do not consume the recalled products as they may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction. There have been no reported reactions associated with the consumption of these products. This recall was triggered by a consumer complaint. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) is conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings. The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product from the marketplace. Brand Common name Size Code(s) on UPC name ----------- ---- product ---- ---- ---------- Zeenaz Deluxe Chevdo 400 g All codes where 8 48910 01600 7 {Nut Free} peanuts, tree nuts, mustard and sesame are not declared on the label. Zeenaz Deluxe Chevdo 400 g All codes where 8 48910 02200 8 {Sugar Free} mustard and sesame are not declared on the label. Zeenaz Deluxe Chevdo 400 g All codes where 8 48910 01700 4 Mild mustard and sesame are not declared on the label. Zeenaz Deluxe Chevdo 400 g All codes where 8 48910 01800 1 Medium mustard and sesame are not declared on the label. Zeenaz Deluxe Chevdo 400 g All codes where 8 48910 01900 8 Hot mustard and sesame are not declared on the label. Zeenaz Deluxe Chevdo 400 g All codes where 8 48910 04000 2 Nairobi Style mustard and sesame are not declared on the label. Zeenaz Cassava Chevdo 400 g All codes where 8 48910 01400 3 Medium mustard and sesame are not declared on the label. Zeenaz Cassava Chevdo 400 g All codes where 8 48910 01500 0 Mild mustard and sesame are not declared on the label. Zeenaz Deluxe Chevdo 400 g All codes where 8 48910 06000 0 DESI mustard and sesame are not declared on the label. Zeenaz Gur Keri 13 oz All codes where 8 48910 02900 7 Sweet & Spicy mustard is not Mango Pickle declared on the label. Zeenaz Mango Pickle 13 oz All codes where 8 48910 02100 1 mustard is not declared on the label. Zeenaz Chilli Ginger 13 oz All codes where 8 48910 01300 6 Pickle mustard is not declared on the label. Zeenaz Mango Mix 13 oz All codes where 8 48910 02000 4 Pickle mustard is not declared on the label. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/oKRrww DIRECTV LLC: Faces Suit Over Labor Code Violations -------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Giannoulis, and all others similarly-situated v. DIRECTV, LLC, Case No. BC596668 (Cal. Super., October 1, 2015), seeks damages for the Defendant's alleged violations of the California Labor Code. The Defendant is a provider of satellite television services in the U.S. Its principal place of business is in El Segundo, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan D. O'Dell, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 500 West C Street, Suite 1750 San Diego, CA 92101 Tel: (619) 400-5822 Fax: (619) 400-5832 E-mail: odell@stuevesiegel.com DRAFTKINGS INC: "Guarino" Suit Claims Website Operation Illegal --------------------------------------------------------------- Thomas Guarino, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Draftkings, Inc. and Fanduel Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv- 1123 (S.D.Ill., November 9, 2015), seeks damages, restitution, injunctive relief, and other relief for the Defendants' alleged operation of daily fantasy sports websites in a manner that violates Illinois, New York and Massachusetts law. The Plaintiff is represented by: Megan Meyers, Esq. GORI JULIAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 156 N. Main St. Edwardsville, IL 62025 Phone: 618/659-9833 Fax: 618/659-9834 E-mail: todd@gorijulianlaw.com DUCATI: Recalls Multistrada 1200 & 1200s 2015 Models ---------------------------------------------------- Starting date: October 8, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Motorcycle Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Structure Units affected: 121 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015459TC ID number: 2015459 Manufacturer recall number: RCL-15-003 On certain motorcycles, the side-stand support tube may have an improper weld in the area that joins the support tube to the forged upper part of the side-stand. This could result in the side-stand breaking at that weld, which could cause the motorcycle to fall over, increasing the risk of injury to the rider and/or passenger. Correction: Dealers will inspect, and if necessary, replace the side-stand support tube with a new part. Affected products Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- DUCATI MULTISTRADA 1200 2015 DUCATI MULTISTRADA 1200S 2015 EAST GREENHILL: "Estrada" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation ----------------------------------------------------- Wilmer Estrada, and all others similarly situated v. East Greenhill, LLC, t/a Bestway Supermarket, Daniel B. Choi, Pyoung R. Choi, Michael K. Choi, and Gwang Jik Kim, Case No. 1:15-cv-01260 (D. Md., November 12, 2014), 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 supermarket located in Adelphi, Maryland, and trading as Bestway Supermarket. The Plaintiff is represented by: Roberto N. Allen, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF ROBERTO ALLEN, LLC 11002 Veirs Mill Rd., Suite 700 Wheaton, MD 20902 Tel: (301) 861-0202 Fax: (410) 864-8895 E-mail: rallen@robertoallenlaw.com ELDER CARE: "Hackworth" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- Sharon Hackworth, Felicia Payne, and all others similarly situated v. Elder Care Social Services, LLC, Priority One Transportation, LLC, Johnny Lee Williamson, Sharon Brown, Shantel Jordan, Case No. 2:15-cv-02659 (W.D. Tenn., October 2, 2015), seek to recover unpaid minimum wage and overtime compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate a non-emergency and non-medical transportation service located in Memphis, Tennessee. The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Russ Bryant, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Tel: (901) 754-8001 Fax: (901) 754-8524 E-mail: rbryant@jsyc.com EXPERIAN INFORMATION: "Bhuta" Suit Alleges Negligence ----------------------------------------------------- Dipak Bhuta, and all others similarly situated v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Case No. 8:15-cv-01592 (C.D. Calif., October 2, 2015), seeks damages, restitution and injunctive relief against the Defendant for alleged negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code, the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, the New Jersey Data Breach Act and the California Data Breach Law. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. is an information services company that provides data and analytical tools to clients around the world. It offers credit report, credit score, credit monitoring, and identity theft protection services to individuals. The Plaintiff is represented by: Tina Wolfson, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 1016 Palm Avenue West Hollywood, CA 90069 Tel: (310) 474-9111 Fax: (310) 474-8585 E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com - and - Michael A. Galpern, Esq. LOCKS LAW FIRM, LLC 801 N. Kings Highway Cherry Hill, NJ 08034 Tel: (856) 663-8200 Fax: (856) 661-8400 EXPERIAN NORTH: "Moore" Suit Alleges Breach of Contract ------------------------------------------------------- Brendan Moore, Matthew De Vito, and all others similarly situated v. Experian North America, Inc. and T-Mobile, Case No. 1:15-cv- 08771 (N.D. Ill., October 2, 2015), seeks statutory and actual damages under the Fair Credit Reporting Act against the Defendants' alleged breach of contract and negligence. This is a class action lawsuit brought by, and on behalf of, a nationwide class of individuals whose personal information, data provided to the mobile service provider T-Mobile was compromised by Experian North America, Inc. T-Mobile provides cellular phone services to consumers, processes the credit applications of customers and potential customers through Experian North America, Inc., an information services group which provides, among other things, credit check services to corporations. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Edward A. Wallace, Esq. WEXLER WALLACE LLP 55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3300 Chicago, IL 60603 Tel: (312) 346-2222 - and - Gary E. Mason, Esq. WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP 1625 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Ste. 605 Washington, DC 20036 Tel: (202) 429-2290 - and - Gregory F. Coleman, Esq. GREG COLEMAN LAW PC First Tennessee Plaza 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Tel: (865) 247-0090 FIRM APOTEX: Recalls Apo-Risperidone Solutions ---------------------------------------------- Starting date: October 6, 2015 Type of communication: Drug Recall Subcategory: Drugs Hazard classification: Type III Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Product Safety Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals Identification number: RA-55308 Apotex initiated recall of one lot due to out of specification result for an unidentified impurity. Affected products: Apo-Risperidone DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM DIN 02280396 Dosage form: Solution Strength: 1 mg/ml Lot or serial number: KV2311 Recalling: Firm Apotex Inc. 150 Signet Drive Toronto M9L 1T9 Ontario CANADA Marketing Authorization Holder: Apotex Inc. 380 Elgin Mills Road East Richmond Hill L4C 5H2 Ontario CANADA FLORIDA FIRE: Accused of Failing to Properly Pay Class Members -------------------------------------------------------------- Ydelme Perdigon and Osnel Linen and other similarly situated individuals v. Florida Fire Stop, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company and Gaston Alonso, Individually, Case No. 2015-018284-CA- 01 (Fla. Cir. Ct., August 10, 2015) accuses the Defendants of failing to pay the amount due to the Plaintiffs for services provided and performed under their agreement in violation of the laws of the United States and the state of Florida. Florida Fire Stop, LLC, has its main place of business in Miami Dade County, Florida, where the Plaintiffs worked. Gaston Alonso is a corporate officer of Florida Fire. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jason S. Remer, Esq. Brody 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 bshulman@rgpattorneys.com GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Sierra & Silverado 2014 Models ------------------------------------------------------ Starting date: October 8, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Light Truck & Van Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Electrical Units affected: 138 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015458TC ID number: 2015458 Manufacturer recall number: 15573 On certain vehicles, a defect in the ignition lock actuator may make turning the ignition key difficult or cause the key to get stuck in the "start" position. This may be more likely to occur at higher interior ambient temperatures. If the vehicle is driven with the key stuck in the "start" position, and the vehicle experiences a significant jarring event or the vehicle's interior temperature cools, the ignition key could move out of the "start" position, rotate past the "run" position, and move into the "accessory" position, causing the engine to shut off. This would result in a loss of motive power and affect power steering and power brake system function, which could increase the risk of a crash causing injury and/or damage to property. The timing of the key movement out of the "run" position, relative to the activation of the sensing algorithm in a crash event, may also result in the airbags not deploying in a subsequent collision, increasing the risk of injury. Correction: Dealers will replace the ignition lock housing. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- GMC SIERRA 2014 CHEVROLET SILVERADO 2014 GLOBAL MANUFACTURING: Recalls Tree Stands Due to Fall Hazard ------------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Global Manufacturing Company, of Windom, Minn., announced a voluntary recall of about 5,300 Climbing tree stands. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The cable assembly on the climbing tree stand can release, posing a fall hazard to the user. This recall involves model year 2014 API Outdoors climbing tree stands model GCL300-A (The Marksman) with batch numbers 9G-0114 and 9G-0614. The climbing tree stands are used to hunt from an elevated position and were sold with an accessory bag. The light green metal tree stands include the main stand platform with a nylon hanging strap assembly. They have a nylon netted seat without a backrest. The batch number starts with BN and can be found on a small tag located on the frame below the seat. Global Manufacturing Company has received one report of the cable assembly releasing; which resulted in a broken vertebra, fractured rib and sprained shoulder. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/eyWBac The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Menards and Rogers Sporting Goods stores nationwide and online from June 2014 through June 2015 for between $140 and $180. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. GLOBUS MEDICAL: Nov. 30 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set ---------------------------------------------------------------- Goldberg Law PC on Oct. 1 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Globus Medical, Inc. Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares between February 26, 2014 and August 5, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period"), have until November 30, 2015, to file a motion to be appointed as lead plaintiff. If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss during the Class Period, we advise you to contact Michael Goldberg or Brian Schall, of Goldberg Law PC, 13650 Marina Pointe Dr. Suite 1404, Marina Del Rey, CA 90292, at 800-977-7401, to discuss your rights without cost to you. You can also reach us through the firm's website at http://www.Goldberglawpc.comor by email at info@goldberglawpc.com The class in this case has not yet been certified, and until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. According to the complaint, the Company made misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company's relationship with an important distributor was deteriorating; and (2) that this deterioration was hurting the Company's financial performance. When the truth was revealed, shares dropped causing investors harm. If you have any questions concerning your legal rights in this case, please immediately contact Goldberg Law PC at 800-977-7401, or visit our website at http://www.Goldberglawpc.comor email us at info@goldberglawpc.com Goldberg Law PC represents shareholders around the world and specializes in securities class actions and shareholder rights litigation. GOLDEN HORSE: Recalls Children's Denim Pants -------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Golden Horse Enterprise NY Inc., of New York, N.Y., announced a voluntary recall of about 8,300 Children's denim pants. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The zipper pull can detach, posing a choking hazard to young children. The recall involves "Nursery Rhyme Play" brand children's five pocket 100% denim pants. The pants have a zipper fly, two front pockets with a coin pocket and two back pockets. The pants were sold in infant sizes 6/9M through 24M. The size label is sewn in on the back of the waistband. Only pants with style number 4122186 or 4122185 printed on a white tracking label sewn into the lower left inside seam are included in the recall. Manufacture date codes 0415 or 0515 are also printed on the tracking label. No consumer incidents have been reported. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/zansac The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Belk stores nationwide and online at www.Belk.com from June 2015 through September 2015 for about $24. Consumers should immediately stop using the denim pants and return them to a Belk store for a full refund. GOODWILL SERVING: Accused of Not Paying Minimum & Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Joshua Brantner, an individual, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Goodwill, Serving the People of Southern Los Angeles County, a California corporation; and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. BC590922 (Cal. Super. Ct., August 10, 2015) accuses the Defendants of failure to, among other things, pay minimum and overtime wages. Goodwill, Serving the People of Southern Los Angeles County, is a California corporation. The Plaintiff does not know the true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants. The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Matern, Esq. Roy K. Suh, Esq. MATERN LAW GROUP 1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Telephone: (310) 531-1900 Facsimile: (310) 531-1901 E-mail: rsuh@maternlawgroup.com MMatern@maternlawgroup.com GRADIENT INSURANCE: Faces "Jacobs" Suit for FLSA Violations ----------------------------------------------------------- Hollie Jacobs, individually and on behalf of herself and other similarly situated individuals v. Gradient Insurance Brokerage, Inc. dba Gradient Annuity Brokerage and Gradient Life Brokerage, and Gradient Financial Group, LLC, Case 0:15-cv-03820-DSD-JJK (D.Minn., October 8, 2015), seeks to recover overtime compensation for Defendants' alleged violations of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act. Gradient Financial Group, LLC, claims that through its various member companies, it provides a diverse portfolio of financial products and services including insurance, investment advisory services, asset management, securities, mortgage banking, compliance, and the KonnexME platform. The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew H. Morgan, Esq. Eleanor E. Frisch, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 4600 IDS Center 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 256-3200 E-mail: morgan@nka.com efrisch@nka.com HITE USA: "Shin" Suit Alleges Calif. Labor Code Violations ---------------------------------------------------------- George Shin, and all others similarly situated v. HITE USA, Inc. and Does 1 through 250, Case No. BC596140 (Cal. Super., September 29, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code. Defendant HITE USA, Inc. is a beer distributing company that distributes Korean beer. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ana L. Dela Torre, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF CARLIN & BUCHSBAUM LLP 555 East Ocean Blvd., Suite 818 Long Beach, CA 90802 Tel: (562) 432-8933 Fax: (562) 435-1656 E-mail: ana@carlinbuchsbaum.com HORIZON HOBBY: Recalls Battery Chargers Due to Fire Hazard ---------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Horizon Hobby LLC, of Champaign, Ill., announced a voluntary recall of about 1,300 E-flite Ultra Micro-4 AC/DC Battery Chargers. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The chargers can overcharge the batteries and overheat, which could result in a fire, property damage and injury. This recall involves the EFLC1105 E-flite Ultra Micro-4, 4x9W, AC/DC Battery Charger from E-flite. The charger has four independently functioning charge circuits with a LED status display. Each port can charge one 30-150mAh, 1S UM cell, a 1S MCPX cell, or one 120-300mAh 2S pack equipped with a JST-PH, 3-wire connector. The charger measures 5 inches tall by 7 inches wide by 1.5 inches deep. The charger is blue with a gray, black and blue faceplate with white and black type. "Eflite Celectra UMX-$ Battery Charger" is printed across the center of the charger. No consumer incidents have been reported. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/VklG6m The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Horizon Hobby stores nationwide and online at www.HorizonHobby.com from March 2015 through June 2015 for about $70. Consumers should stop using the recalled chargers immediately and contact Horizon Hobby for a replacement charger. ILLINOIS BELL: "LaMarr" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations ---------------------------------------------------- Jacquelyne LaMarr, Doretta Wagner, and all others similarly situated v. Illinois Bell Telephone Company, AT&T Midwest, and AT&T National, Case No. 1:15-cv-08660 (N.D. Ill., September 30, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay straight time and overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Illinois Minimum Wage Law and the Wage Payment and Collection Act. Illinois Bell Telephone Company is an Illinois corporation doing business as a telecommunications firm in the Chicago, Illinois area. The Defendant is engaged in the business of, among other things, operating a call center in Arlington Heights, Illinois, specifically engaged in the activity of "customer retention", i.e., attempting to retain current customers of the Company and certain related affiliates of the Company who subscribe to various internet and/or telephone services provided by the Company. "AT&T Midwest" is an assumed name used to refer to a group of entities consisting of the Company; Indiana Bell Telephone Company, Inc.; AT&T Teleholdings, Inc.; and AT&T Services, Inc. "AT&T National" is an assumed name used to refer to a group of entities consisting of AT&T Corp. and AT&T Operations, Inc. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Glenn J. Dunn, Jr., Esq. GLENN J. DUNN & ASSOCIATES, LTD. 221 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1414 Chicago, IL 60601 Tel: (312) 546-5056 - and - Jeffrey Grant Brown, Esq. JEFFREY GRANT BROWN, P.C. 221 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1414 Chicago, IL 60601 Tel: (312) 786-9700 IMPERVA INC: Motion to Dismiss Class Action Pending --------------------------------------------------- Imperva, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit is now fully briefed and pending before the court. On April 11, 2014, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and certain of its officers. On August 7, 2014, the Court entered an order appointing lead plaintiff and counsel for the purported class. The lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on October 10, 2014. The lawsuit again names the Company and certain of its officers and purports to bring suit on behalf of those investors who purchased the Company's publicly traded securities between May 2, 2013 and April 9, 2014. The plaintiff alleges that defendants made false and misleading statements about the Company's operations and business and financial results and purports to assert claims for violations of the federal securities laws. The amended complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages, interest thereon, costs incurred in the action and equitable/injunctive or other relief. On January 6, 2015, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. That motion is now fully briefed and pending before the court. J JACOBO FARM: Faces "Gomez" Suit Over PAGA Claim ------------------------------------------------- Marisol Gomez, and all others similarly situated v. J. Jacobo Farm Labor Contractor, Inc., Bedrosian Farms, LLC, and DOES 1-20, Case No. 1:15-at-00796 (E.D. Calif., September 30, 2015), seeks penalties and other remedies under the California Private Attorney General Act, Labor Code sections 2698 et seq. ("PAGA" claim). The core violations Plaintiff alleges against the Employer Defendants are: -- failure to pay all minimum wages owed; -- failure to pay all overtime wages owed; -- failure to provide timely and complete meal periods, and/or provide appropriate compensation in lieu thereof; and -- failure to provide timely, complete, and paid rest periods, and/or provide appropriate compensation in lieu thereof. The Defendants are farm labor contractors and crew leaders. The Plaintiff is represented by: Stan S. Mallison, Esq. MALLISON & MARTINEZ 1939 Harrison Street, Suite 730 Oakland, CA 94612-3547 Tel: (510) 832-9999 Fax: (510) 832-1101 E-mail: stanm@themmlawfir.com KISKADEE VENTURES: Recalls Finger Mint Due to Salmonella -------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: October 13, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning Subcategory: Microbiological - Salmonella Hazard classification: Class 2 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Kiskadee Ventures Limited Distribution: Ontario Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 10097 Kiskadee Ventures Limited is recalling freshKIS brand finger mint from the marketplace due to possible Salmonella contamination. Consumers should not consume the recalled product described below. The following product was sold at Real Canadian Superstore, 3050 Argentina Road, Mississauga, Ontario. What you should do Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalled products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they were purchased. Food contaminated with Salmonella may not look or smell spoiled but can still make you sick. Young children, pregnant women, the elderly and people with weakened immune systems may contract serious and sometimes deadly infections. Healthy people may experience short-term symptoms such as fever, headache, vomiting, nausea, abdominal cramps and diarrhea. Long-term complications may include severe arthritis. There have been no reported illnesses associated with the consumption of this product. This recall was triggered by Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) test results. The CFIA is conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings. The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product from the marketplace. Brand Common name Size Code(s) on UPC name ----------- ---- product --- ----- ----------- freshKIS Finger mint Variable PLU56831 Starting with 24.09.15 256831 Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/u87FGg KKR & CO: Oral Argument Held in Class Action Appeal --------------------------------------------------- KKR & CO. L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that oral argument was scheduled for September 16, 2015, in a class action appeal in the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware. From December 19, 2013 to January 31, 2014, multiple putative class action lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, the United States District Court of the District of Northern California, and the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware by KKR Financial Holdings LLC ("KFN") shareholders against KFN, individual members of KFN's board of directors, KKR, and certain of KKR's affiliates in connection with KFN's entry into a merger agreement pursuant to which it would become a subsidiary of KKR. The merger transaction was completed on April 30, 2014. The actions filed in California state court were consolidated, and prior to the filing or designation of an operative complaint for the consolidated action, the consolidated action was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on December 1, 2014. The complaint filed in the California federal court action, which was never served on the defendants, was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on May 6, 2014. Two of the Delaware actions were voluntarily dismissed without prejudice, and the remaining Delaware actions were consolidated. On February 21, 2014, a consolidated complaint was filed in the consolidated Delaware action which all defendants moved to dismiss on March 7, 2014. On October 14, 2014, the Delaware Court of Chancery granted defendants' motions to dismiss with prejudice. On November 13, 2014, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware, the oral argument for which was scheduled for September 16, 2015. The consolidated complaint in the Delaware action alleges that the members of the KFN board of directors breached fiduciary duties owed to KFN shareholders by approving the proposed transaction for inadequate consideration; approving the proposed transaction in order to obtain benefits not equally shared by other KFN shareholders; entering into the merger agreement containing preclusive deal protection devices; and failing to take steps to maximize the value to be paid to the KFN shareholders. The Delaware action also alleges that KKR, and certain of KKR's affiliates, aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties and that KKR is a controlling shareholder of KFN by means of a management agreement between KFN and KKR Financial Advisors LLC, a subsidiary of KKR, and KKR breached a fiduciary duty it allegedly owed to KFN shareholders by causing KFN to enter into the merger agreement. The relief sought in the Delaware action includes, among other things, declaratory relief concerning the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties, compensatory damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief. KMART CORP: Sued for Writing Down PII on Credit Card Transactions ----------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Pietrantonio, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KMart Corporation, Case No. MICV2015-05292 (Mass. Super. Ct., August 10, 2015) arises from KMart's alleged violation of the Massachusetts General Laws through its practice of writing the Plaintiff's and the class members' personal identification information on a credit card transaction form. KMart is a Michigan corporation with its principal place of business located in Hoffman Estates, Illinois. KMart conducts business throughout Massachusetts and operates retail locations in Saugus and Somerville, Massachusetts. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph J. Siprut, Esq. Michael L. Silverman, Esq. SIPRUT PC 17 North State Street, Suite 1600 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 236-0000 Facsimile: (312) 948-9196 E-mail: jsiprut@siprut.com msilverman@siprut.com - and - Alexander Shapoval, Esq. SIPRUT PC 84 Winnisimmet Street Chelsea, MA 02150 Telephone: (617) 889-5800 Facsimile: (617) 409-9994 E-mail: ashapoval@siprut.com KRUD KUTTER: Recalls Adhesive Remover Products Due to Injury Risk ----------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: October 7, 2015 Posting date: October 7, 2015 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Chemicals Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Product Safety Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-55248 This recall involves Krud Kutter(R) Ultra Power Specialty Adhesive Remover sold in 473 mL containers and can be identified by the model number 287858 and the UPC 020066296131. The product is packaged in a clear plastic bottle with an attached spray nozzle. The product does not meet child-resistant packaging requirements for consumer chemicals products required by the Consumer Chemicals and Containers Regulations, 2001 under the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act. This lack of child resistant packaging could result in unintentional exposure to the product and lead to serious illness, injury, or death. Neither Health Canada nor Rust-Oleum Consumer Brands Canada has received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of this product. Approximately 3,954 units of the recalled products were sold at various retailers across Canada. The recalled products were sold from February 2015 to September 2015. Manufactured in United States. Manufacturer: Krud Kutter Inc. Cumming Georgia UNITED STATES Distributor: Rust-Oleum Consumer Brands Canada Concord Ontario CANADA Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled product and return it to the point of purchase or dispose of it according to municipal Hazardous Waste Guidelines. For additional information, consumers may contact Rust-Oleum Consumer Brands Canada at 1-800-387-3625, by email, or find more information on the firm's website. Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given away in Canada. Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any health or safety incidents related to the use of this product or any other consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the Consumer Product Incident Report Form. 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/xJn5rP LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Defending Against "Fernandez" Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Leidos Holdings, Inc. and Leidos, Inc. said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company is defending against the class action lawsuit filed by Martin Fernandez over data theft. The Company was previously a defendant in a putative class action, In Re: Science Applications International Corporation ("SAIC") Backup Tape Data Theft Litigation, which was a Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL") action in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia relating to the theft of computer back-up tapes from a vehicle of a company employee. In May 2014, the District Court dismissed all but two plaintiffs from the MDL action. In June 2014, Leidos and its co-defendant, TRICARE, entered into settlement agreements with the remaining two plaintiffs who subsequently dismissed their claims with prejudice. On September 20, 2014, the Company was named as a defendant in a putative class action, Martin Fernandez, on Behalf Of Himself And All Other Similarly Situated v. Leidos, Inc. in the Eastern District Court of California, related to the same theft of computer backup tapes. The recent complaint includes allegations of violations of the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, the California Unfair Competition Law, and other claims. The Company intends to vigorously defend against these claims. LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Appeal in Securities Actions Remains Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- Leidos Holdings, Inc. and Leidos, Inc. said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the plaintiffs' appeal related to securities class actions remains pending. Between February and April 2012, alleged stockholders filed three putative securities class actions. One case was withdrawn and two cases were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in In re SAIC, Inc. Securities Litigation. The consolidated securities complaint names as defendants the Company, a former chief financial officer, two former chief executive officers, a former group president and the former program manager on the CityTime program, and was filed purportedly on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's common stock from April 11, 2007 through September 1, 2011. The consolidated securities complaint asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegations that the Company and individual defendants made misleading statements or omissions about the Company's revenues, operating income and internal controls in connection with disclosures relating to the CityTime project. The plaintiffs sought to recover from the Company and the individual defendants an unspecified amount of damages class members allegedly incurred by buying Leidos' stock at an inflated price. On October 1, 2013, the District Court dismissed many claims in the complaint with prejudice and on January 30, 2014, the District Court entered an order dismissing all remaining claims with prejudice and without leave to replead. The plaintiffs moved to vacate the District Court's judgment or obtain relief from the judgment and for leave to file an amended complaint. On September 30, 2014, the District Court denied plantiffs' motions. The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on October 30, 2014 to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit where the appeal remains pending. LEONARDO BROS: "Garybo" Suit Seeks to Recover Wages --------------------------------------------------- Sandra Garybo, Agustin Vega, and all others similarly situated v. Leonardo Bros., Golden West Labor and DOES 1 through 20, Case No. 1:15-at-00799 (E.D. Calif., September 30, 2015), seeks to recover wages, compensation, and other relief due under the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act, the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code. The Defendants are labor contractors. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Stan S. Mallison, Esq. MALLISON & MARTINEZ 1939 Harrison Street, Suite 730 Oakland, CA 94612-3547 Tel: (510) 832-9999 Fax: (510) 832-1101 E-mail: stanm@themmlawfir.com - and - Mario Martinez, Esq. MARTINEZ AGUILASOCHO & LYNCH, APLC P.O. Box 11208 Bakersfield, CA 93389-1208 Tel: (661) 859-1174 Fax: (661) 840-6154 LOGITECH INC: Faces Suit in Calif. Over Defective Alert Systems --------------------------------------------------------------- Christopher Parker, individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Logitech, Inc., and Does 1-10, Case No. RG15781276 (Cal. Super. Ct., August 10, 2015) alleges that the Company's high-definition digital video home security systems ("Alert Systems") are defective because the cameras experienced a high-rate of failure and the "powerful" software needed to run the Alert Systems was rife with bugs and glitches that made the systems unreliable and inoperable, thus, leaving customers unprotected and at an increased safety risk. Logitech, Inc. is a California corporation with its North American headquarters and principal place of business located in Newark, California. Logitech is a global developer and provider of consumer products, including accessories for personal computers and tablets like keyboards, mice, webcams, speakers, and microphones, as well as the digital security systems that are the focus of this lawsuit. Logitech is a subsidiary of Logitech International, S.A., a holding company that maintains its headquarters in Lausanne, Switzerland. The Plaintiff is, as yet, ignorant of the true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants. The Plaintiff is represented by: Laurence D. King, Esq. Linda M. Fong, Esq. Matthew B. George, Esq. Mario M. Choi, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 350 Sansome Street, Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 772-4 700 Facsimile: (415) 772-4707 E-mail: lking@kaplanfox.com lfong@kaplanfox.com mgeorge@kaplanfox.com mchoi@kaplanfox.com LOUISIANA BANCORP: Defending Against "Smith" Action --------------------------------------------------- Louisiana Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a putative shareholder derivative and class action lawsuit relating to the proposed merger of Louisiana Bancorp, Inc. ("Louisiana Bancorp") with Home Bancorp, Inc. ("Home Bancorp"), captioned Smith v. Louisiana Bancorp, Inc., et al., was filed on July 31, 2015, in the 24th Judicial District Court for the Parish of Jefferson, State of Louisiana. In addition to Louisiana Bancorp, the complaint names as defendants each of Louisiana Bancorp's directors as well as Home Bancorp. The complaint alleges that the members of Louisiana Bancorp's board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to Louisiana Bancorp's shareholders and/or violated Louisiana law in connection with the negotiation and approval of the merger agreement. The complaint also alleges claims against Louisiana Bancorp and Home Bancorp for aiding and abetting these alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. Among other relief, the plaintiff seeks to enjoin the consummation of the proposed merger or, in the event the proposed merger is consummated, rescission thereof. Each of the defendants believes the claims asserted in this action are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against this lawsuit. However, at this time, it is not possible to predict the outcome of the proceeding or its impact on Louisiana Bancorp, Home Bancorp or the proposed merger. In addition, the plaintiff in the putative shareholder derivative and class action lawsuit relating to the proposed merger captioned Slemrod v. Louisiana Bancorp, Inc., et al. has filed a motion to dismiss such lawsuit. LULULEMON USA: Faces Lawsuit in N.Y. Over Labor Law Violations -------------------------------------------------------------- Rebecca Gathmann-Landini and Samanatha Andrade, individually and on behalf of other persons similarly situated v. Lululemon Usa Inc.; and any other related entities Index No. 606545/2015(N.Y. Super, County of Nassau), seeks compensation, including unpaid overtime wages, plus interest, attorneys' fees, and costs, for Defendant's alleged violation of the Labor Law Articles of the New York Codes, Rules and Regulations. Defendants presently operate 25 retail locations in New York State. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brett R. Cohen, Esq. David H. Rosenberg, Esq. Michael A. Tompkins, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, New York 11514 Phone: (516) 873-9550 E-mail: drosenberg@leedsbrownlaw.com LUOWYANG LLC: Rents Out Units Unfit for Human Occupancy, Says Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Alma Gumzan, Concepcion Guzman-Huerta, Consuelo Olivares-Ambirz, Cecilia Villegas, David Villegas, Erendira Silva, Jose Ibarra, Lucila Santa Cruz, and Juan Manuel Delgado v. Jimmy Kim, Chae Kim, Luowyang, LLC, Lumianda Properties, LLC and Does 1-30, Case No. RG15783406 (Cal. Super. Ct., August 26, 2015) alleges violations of applicable housing laws, including the Oakland Housing and Building Codes, and the California Civil Code and Health and Safety Code. The Defendants owned, controlled, or managed the unit that the Plaintiffs resided in during all relevant periods of time. All of the premises are units of the real property located at 320 105th Avenue and 324 105th Avenue, in Oakland, California. According to the complaint, throughout the Plaintiffs' tenancy, several substantial habitability defects existed in the Subject Premises, which rendered the Subject Premises unfit for human occupancy under California common law and statutes. The defects were allegedly due to the Defendants' failure to maintain the Subject Premises during their relevant periods of ownership or management of the Subject Premises. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew Wolff, Esq. Chris Beatty, Esq LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW WOLFF, PC 1970 Broadway, Suite 210 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 834-3300 Facsimile: (510) 834-3377 E-mail: andrew@awolfflaw.com chris@awolfflaw.com MACK: Recalls CXU and CHU 2012 Models Due to Crash Risk ------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: October 8, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Truck - Med. & H.D. Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Structure Units affected: 4 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015457TC ID number: 2015457 Manufacturer recall number: SC0395 On certain vehicles, the fifth wheel locking mechanisms could be susceptible to damage and/or wear. This could cause the locking mechanism to fail properly engage, potentially resulting in a towed trailer unit separating from the truck tractor. As a result, the trailer could strike another vehicle, stationary object, or bystander, causing injury and/or damage to property. Correction: Fontaine dealers will replace all Ultra LT fifth wheel units with Ultra NT model fifth wheel units. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- MACK CXU 2012 MACK CHU 2012 MIAMI SHORES: Faces "Aloma" Suit Under Fair Labor Standards Act --------------------------------------------------------------- Rosendo Lazaro Aloma, and others situated v. Miami Shores U-gas Inc., a Florida Corporation, and Ibet Valdes, individually, Case 1:15-cv-23780-JAL (S.D.Fla., October 9, 2015), seeks to recover monetary damages, liquidated damages, interests, costs and attorney's fees for alleged willful violations of minimum wage and overtime pay under the laws of the United States, the Fair Labor Standards Act. The corporate Defendant operates a gas station in Miami-Dade County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel T. Feld, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL T. FELD, P.A 20801 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 403 Aventura, FL 33180 Phone: (786) 923-5899 E-mail: DanielFeld.Esq@gmail.com - and - Isaac Mamane, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF ISAAC MAMANE, PA 1150 Kane Concourse, Second Floor Bay Harbor Islands, FL 33154 Phone: (786) 704 - 8898 E-mail: mamane@gmail.com MIMEDX GROUP: Class Action Currently in Discovery ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit against Mimedx Group, Inc. is currently in discovery, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015. On December 22, 2014, the FDA issued for comment "Draft Guidance for Industry: Minimal Manipulation of Human Cells, Tissues, and Cellular and Tissue-Based Products." Essentially the draft guidance takes the same position with respect to micronized amniotic tissue that it took in the Untitled Letter to MiMedx 16 months earlier. The period for submitting comments on the Draft Guidance expired on February 23, 2015. The Company has submitted comments to the Draft Guidance asserting that the Draft Guidance represents agency action that goes far beyond the FDA's statutory authority, is inconsistent with existing HCT/ P regulations and the FDA's prior positions, and is internally inconsistent and is scientifically unsound. Additionally, the Company asked the FDA to allow MiMedx to continue to market its micronized products until the guidance or regulations, as the case may be, have been fully vetted through a process of notice and comment rule making. Preliminarily, the FDA has indicated that it intends to issue for comment Draft Guidance on homologous use later this year and that industry and other interested parties will have an opportunity to comment on both guidance documents as a whole at that time. If the FDA does allow the Company to continue to market a micronized form of its sheet allografts either prior to or after finalization of the Draft Guidance, it may impose conditions, such as labeling restrictions and compliance with Current Good Manufacturing Practices ("cGMP"). It is also possible that the FDA will not allow the Company to market any form of a micronized product without a biologics license even prior to finalization of the Draft Guidance and could even require the Company to recall its micronized products. Revenues from micronized products comprised approximately 14% of the Company's revenues in 2014. Following the publication of the Untitled Letter from the FDA regarding the Company's micronized products in September 2013, the trading price of the Company's stock dropped sharply and several purported class action lawsuits were filed against the Company and certain of its executive officers asserting violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 with respect to various statements and alleged omissions related to the Company's belief that its products were 361 HCT/Ps, including its micronized products. These cases have now all been removed to, and consolidated in, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. By order dated December 9, 2013, the Court approved the appointment of a lead plaintiff and a lead counsel. A Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint, containing substantially the same causes of action and claims for relief as the initial complaints, was filed on January 27, 2014. The case is currently in the discovery phase. The Company currently believes that the outcome of this litigation will not have a material adverse impact on the Company's financial position or results of operations. Discovery in Del. Case Allowed Delaware District Judge Richard G. Andrews tossed out an objection by Organogenesis Inc., to a magistrate judge's Memorandum Order on MiMedx Group's motion to compel discovery in the case, IN RE: MIMEDX GROUP SECURITIES LITIGATION. MIMEDX GROUP INC., Petitioner, v. ORGANOGENESIS INC., Respondent, MISC. ACTION NO. 15-84-RGA (D. Del.), A copy of Judge Andrews' Memorandum Order dated Aug. 18 is available at http://is.gd/UPVxMSfrom Leagle.com. The Magistrate Judge granted MiMedx's motion to compel. According to Judge Andrews, "To do so was not an abuse of discretion. The discovery sought is relevant information. The Magistrate Judge applied the correct standard. The discovery . . . . is limited in time and scope. There is little burden on Organogenesis to produce the requeste[d] materials. In order to make sure that the discovery does seek only relevant information, I will modify the scope of the requested discovery." The Court held that the motion to compel is granted as to Requests 11, 12, 14, and 15, but not as to Requests 13 and 16. "I understand the "Injectable Products" to refer only to the "AmnioFix Injectable" and "EpiFix Injectable" products. Further, Requests 11, 12, 14, and 15 are specifically limited to the time period from December 4, 2012, to August 4, 2013. No costs or fees are granted to MiMedx," the Court said. MiMedx Group Inc., Petitioner, represented by Cathrine G. Dearlove, Richards, Layton & Finger, PA & Kevin Michael Gallagher, Richards, Layton & Finger, PA. Organogenesis Inc., Respondent, represented by Thomas E. Hanson, Jr., Morris James LLP. MUSTANG SURVIVAL: Recalls Flotation Devices & Life Jackets ---------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: October 8, 2015 Posting date: October 8, 2015 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Sports/Fitness Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Product Safety Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-55268 Mustang Survival MD3153/54 Recreational Personal Flotation Devices (PFD) and MD3157 Industrial Inflatable Life Jackets Product description This recall involves Mustang Survival HIT inflatable PFDs with the following model numbers: --- MD3157 --- MD3153 --- MD3154 Only select versions of these models are affected. Consumers should follow these steps to determine if their PFD is affected by this recall: Step 1. Look for model number on the approval label (shown as 1 in Image 2). If it matches one of the model numbers listed above, proceed to Step 2. Step 2. If your device is marked Made in Canada (shown as 2 in Image 2), proceed to Step 3. Step 3. If the manufacturing (MFG) DATE (shown as 3 in Image 2) is any date from Sep2014 to Sep2015 inclusively, proceed to step 4. Step 4. If you answer NO to any of Steps 1 to 3, then your PFD is NOT impacted by this recall. If the bladder in your device is fluorescent green (as seen in Image 3) and not yellow/gold, proceed to Step 5. Step 5. Check to see if your device has a Quality Assurance (QA) stamp. Mustang Survival PFDs with the QA Pass Stamp (shown as 4 in Image 2) are NOT affected by this recall. Mustang Survival PFDs without the QA Pass Stamp ARE affected by this recall. The bladder of the affected Mustang Survival HIT inflatable PFDs can tear causing the PFD to no longer function. Health Canada has not received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the affected products in Canada. Mustang Survival has received 2 reports of deflation related to the affected products. Approximately 740 units were sold in Canada. The recalled products were sold from September 2014 through September 2015. Manufactured in Canada. Manufacturer: Mustang Survival ULC Burnaby British Columbia CANADA Distributor: Mustang Survival Burnaby British Columbia CANADA Consumers should follow the steps above to determine if their PFD is affected by this recall. If their PFD is affected, consumers should immediately stop using the PFD and contact Mustang Survival's Customer Service directly. They do not need to contact the retailer as Mustang Survival will handle the repair. For more information, contact Mustang at: 1-800-526-0532 Monday to Friday from 7:30 am to 4:30 pm PST or email. 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/1XqkqX NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Compensation Rules Violate Antitrust Law ---------------------------------------------------------- Reuters reports that NCAA compensation rules for college athletes violate antitrust law, a U.S. appeals court ruled on Sept. 30 in a case brought by athletes seeking a slice of the billions of dollars universities reap from football and basketball. The case came amid mounting public pressure for colleges to give athletes better benefits. A California federal judge last year had ruled against the NCAA, and said it should allow schools to pay athletes up to $5,000 per year in compensation. Critics say the NCAA's scholarship policy short-changes athletes who risk injury and devote many hours to practice sessions, travel and competition. The majority of college athletes do not go on to play professionally. In its ruling on Sept. 30, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the NCAA must permit schools to provide student- athletes sums covering up to their cost of attendance. However, it reversed the lower court's order providing for $5,000 per year. In a statement, NCAA president Mark Emmert said the association has allowed schools to provide up to the full cost of attendance since Aug. 1, and does not think that should be mandated by the courts. An attorney for the athletes could not immediately be reached for comment. More than 20 current and former athletes filed an antitrust class action against the NCAA. The NCAA says it is defending amateurism in college sports. Broadcasters including Walt Disney Co and CBS Corp have rallied behind the NCAA, arguing in court filings that the idea each participant in a team sporting event has an individual right of publicity, which entitles them to compensation, "is simply wrong." OREXIGEN THERAPEUTICS: Defending Consolidated Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the company continues to defend a consolidated class action lawsuit. On March 10, 2015, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and certain of its officers in the United States District Court, for the Southern District of California, captioned Colley v. Orexigen, et al. The following day, two additional putative class action lawsuits were filed in the same court, captioned Stefanko v. Orexigen, et al., and Yantz v. Orexigen, et al., asserting substantially similar claims. The complaints purport to assert claims on behalf of a class of purchasers of the Company's stock between March 3, 2015 and March 5, 2015. It alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by purportedly making false and misleading statements regarding the interim results of the Light Study. The complaints seek an unspecified amount of damages, attorneys' fees and equitable or injunctive relief. On June 22, 2015, the court consolidated the lawsuits and appointed a lead plaintiff. Plaintiff's deadline to file an amended consolidated complaint was August 21, 2015. Although management believes that the claims lack merit and intends to defend against them vigorously, there are uncertainties inherent in any litigation and the Company cannot predict the outcome. As this time, the Company is unable to estimate possible losses or ranges of losses that may result from such legal proceedings, and it has not accrued any amounts in connection with such legal proceedings other than ongoing attorney's fees. It is possible that additional securities class action litigation may be brought against the Company following stock price declines related to the release of information regarding Contrave or clinical trial results, including the Light Study or related to the matters alleged in the May 2013 shareholder demand and/or the Plan Amendment. Any adverse determination in such litigation could subject the Company to significant liabilities. PHARMERICA CORP: Final Deal Approval Hearing Set for Nov. 12 ------------------------------------------------------------ Pharmerica Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a court has scheduled a final settlement approval hearing for November 12, 2015. On October 29, 2013, a complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida by Pines Nursing Homes (77), Inc. as a putative class action against the Corporation. The complaint alleged that the Corporation sent unsolicited advertisements promoting the Corporation's goods or services by facsimile to individuals or entities, and that such communications did not include an opt-out clause, all in violation of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). The Complaint did not specify the amount of damages sought, but the TCPA provides a statutory remedy of $500 per facsimile communication sent in violation of the statute, which may be trebled in the event of a willful violation. On August 18, 2014, the Corporation entered into a Settlement Agreement with the putative class and class counsel resolving all claims raised in the complaint. The parties moved on September 8, 2014 for, among other things, certification of the putative class for the purposes of effectuating the settlement and preliminary approval of the parties' settlement, and have requested a hearing on that motion. On June 26, 2015 the court granted the Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of the parties' settlement. The court scheduled the final approval hearing for November 12, 2015. PLASTIC2OIL INC: Settlement in Stockholders' Suit Has Final OK -------------------------------------------------------------- A court has granted final approval of the settlement in a class action involving Plastic2Oil, Inc., the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015. Certain of the Company's stockholders filed a class action lawsuit (the "Class Action") against the Company and Messrs. John Bordynuik, founder and former chief of technology, and Ronald C. Baldwin, former Chief Financial Officer, former officers of the Company on behalf of purchasers of its securities. In an amended complaint filed on July 10, 2012, these stockholders sought to represent such purchasers during the period from August 28, 2009 through January 4, 2012. The original and amended complaints in that case, filed in federal court in Nevada, allege that the defendants made false or misleading statements, or both, and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations and prospects in press releases and filings made with the SEC. Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that the defendants made false or misleading statements or failed to disclose material information, or a combination thereof regarding: (1) that certain media credits were substantially overvalued; (2) that the Company improperly accounted for acquisitions; (3) that, as such, the Company's financial results were not prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles; and (4) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial control. During the quarter ended June 30, 2012, a lead plaintiff was appointed in the case and an amended complaint was filed. The defendants' answer to the amended complaint was filed during the fourth quarter of 2012. On August 8, 2013, the Company entered a stipulation agreement (the "Stipulation Agreement") in potential settlement of the Class Action. Under the Stipulation Agreement, the Company would agree to issue shares of its common stock that will comprise a settlement fund. The number of shares to be issued will be dependent on the price per share of the Company's common stock during a period preceding the date of the Court's entry of final judgment in the case (the "Judgment Date"). If the price of the Company's common stock is less than $0.50 per share based upon the average closing price for the 90 trading days preceding the Judgment Date, the Company would issue 3 million shares of its common stock. If the price of the Company's common stock is between $0.50 and $0.70 per share, based upon the same 90-day average closing price, the Company would issue 2.5 million shares of its common stock. If the price of the Company's common stock is more than $0.70 per share based upon the same 90-day average closing price the Company will issue 1.75 million shares of its common stock. The shares will not be distributed to class members in kind. At any time after final approval by the Court, class counsel would have the option to sell all or any portion of such shares for the benefit of class members, subject to certain volume limitations. Plaintiff's counsel's attorneys' fees, subject to Court approval, would be paid out of the settlement fund. The Company would also pay settlement-related costs up to a maximum of $200,000. The plaintiffs and each of the class members who purchased the Company's common stock during the proposed class period and alleged they were damaged would be deemed to have fully released all claims against the Company and other defendants upon entry of judgment. On September 10, 2013, that agreement was submitted to the Court, and class counsel moved for entry of an order granting preliminary approval of the settlement, including the mailing of a settlement notice that will include, among other things, the general terms of the settlement, proposed plan of allocation, and terms of plaintiff's counsel's fee application. On December 18, 2014, the Court granted that motion, and issued its Order granting preliminary approval of the settlement. On April 27, 2015, the Court held a hearing to determine if final approval of the settlement should be granted, and on April 28, 2015, the Court issued its Order granting final approval of the settlement and entering a Final Judgment in accordance therewith. Pursuant to the Final Judgement, the Company will be issuing 3 million shares of its stock to the Class through a Settlement Fund, and will be reimbursing the Class for its costs of settlement to a maximum of $200,000. SAN GABRIEL TRANSIT: Sued for Failing to Pay All Compensation ------------------------------------------------------------- Blanca Castaneda, as an individual and on behalf of all similarly situated employees v. San Gabriel Transit, Inc., a California Corporation; and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. BC590907 (Cal. Super. Ct., August 10, 2015) arises out of the Defendants' alleged failure to pay all compensation and to provide rest and meal periods. San Gabriel Transit, Inc., is a California corporation that provides public para-transit services in Southern California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Mahoney, Esq. Sean M. Blakely, Esq. Morgan E. Glynn, Esq. MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC 249 E. Ocean Blvd., Suite 814 Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (562) 590-5550 Facsimile: (562) 590-8400 E-mail: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net sblakely@mahoney-law.net mglynn@mahoney-law.net SANTA FE NATURAL: Faces "Brattain" Suit Over "Natural" Cigarettes ----------------------------------------------------------------- Russell Brattain, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc., Reynolds American, Inc., and Does 1 through 50, Civil Case No.: 15-4705 (N.D.Cal., October 9, 2015), seeks damages and equitable relief on behalf of all persons in the State of California who relied on the alleged misrepresentations and/or material omissions of Defendants and were induced to purchase Natural American Spirit Cigarettes as a result. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc., a subsidiary of Reynolds American, Inc., manufactures, markets, sells, and distributes Natural American Spirit Cigarettes throughout California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin M. Lopatin, Esq. Jill T. Lin, Esq. EGGNATZ, LOPATIN & PASCUCCI, LLP 2201 Market Street Suite H San Francisco, CA 94114 Phone: (415) 324-8620 Fax: (415) 520-2262 E-mail: blopatin@elplawyers.com jlin@elplawyers.com SEASONS HOSPICE: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Class Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Rena Sutton, Marybell Masferrer-Hoyd, and Irena Pawlak, individuals, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. Seasons Hospice & Palliative Care of California, Inc., a Corporation; and Does 1 through 50, Inclusive, Case No. BC590870 (Cal. Super. Ct., August 10, 2015) alleges that the Defendants failed and continues to fail to accurately calculate and pay the Plaintiffs and class members for their overtime wages. Seasons Hospice & Palliative Care of California, Inc., is a California corporation that provides hospice services on a 24- hour, seven-days a week basis. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq. Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq. Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq. BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK 2255 Calle Clara La Jolla, CA 92037 Telephone: (858) 551-1223 Facsimile: (858) 551-1232 E-mail: norm@bamlawlj.com kyle@bamlawca.com aj@bamlawlj.com SEONG CHAN: Illegally Fired Female Employee, New York Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Christine Clotsos v. Seong Chan Cho Physical Therapy, P.C., Case No. 708969/2015 (N.Y. Sup Ct., August 26, 2015) alleges that the Plaintiff was unlawfully terminated because of her gender and perceived disability in clear and malicious violation of her rights under the New York City Human Rights Law. Seong Chan Cho Physical Therapy, P.C., is a New York professional corporation headquartered in the County of Queens. The Company provides health care services and goes by the name "Seoul Pain Clinic." The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian Heller, Esq. Matthew T. Schatz, Esq. SCHWARTZ & PERRY, LLP 295 Madison A venue New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 889-6565 E-mail: mschatz@schwartzandperry.com bheller@schwartzandperry.com SNAKE RIVER: Recalls Horse Trailer 2015 Models Due to Crash Risk ---------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: October 6, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Light Trailer Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Suspension Units affected: 10 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015451TC ID number: 2015451 On certain trailers, the torsion axles may have been improperly welded by the axle manufacturer during the manufacturing process. As a result, the welds could break and allow the torsion arm to separate from the torsion bar/beam. A separated torsion arm could cause a wheel to separate from the trailer and to strike a vehicle, a stationary object or a bystander, increasing the risk of a crash causing injury and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers will inspect welds and, if necessary, replace one or both of the axles. Make Model Model year(s) affected --- ----- ---------------------- SRTC HORSE 2015 SPENCER GIFTS: Recalls Feather Witch Hat Due to Noncompliance ------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: October 16, 2015 Posting date: October 16, 2015 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Children's Products, Clothing and Accessories Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Product Safety, Flammability Hazard Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-55368 This recall involves the black feather witch women's hat, item # 00643569. Health Canada's sampling and evaluation program has determined that the feather witch women's hat does not meet the requirements for textile flammability under the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act. If exposed to flame such as from candles, matches or lighters, the feathers on the hat could catch fire and possibly cause burns to consumers. Neither Spirit Halloween nor Health Canada has received reports of consumer incidents or injuries to Canadians related to the use of these products. For tips to help consumers celebrate Halloween safely, see the following Health Canada's publications: Halloween Safety and Reminding Canadians to have a safe Halloween. An unknown number of the recalled products were sold at Spirit Halloween stores and on-line across Canada. The recalled products were sold from August 2015 to October 2015 and during previous Halloween seasons. Manufactured in China. Manufacturer: Spencer Gifts, LLC Egg Harbour Township New Jersey UNITED STATES Consumers should not wear nor let their children wear the recalled products and should either dispose of them or return them to Spirit Halloween for a refund. For additional information, consumers may contact Spirit Halloween at toll-free at 1-866-586-0155 between 9:00 am to 5:30 pm, EST, Monday to Friday or visit the firm's website. Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given away in Canada. Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any health or safety incidents related to the use of this product or any other consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the Consumer Product Incident Report Form. 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/VBHITe TCC COOKING: Recalls Vertical Roaster Products Due to Burn Hazard ----------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with TCC Cooking Company, of Colorado Springs, Colo., announced a voluntary recall of about 4,000 Vertical roasters. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The vertical roasters can break or shatter, posing burn and laceration hazards. This recall involves CHEFS-branded flameproof ceramic vertical roasters. The black roasters consist of a round roasting pan with handles and a removable insert. The roasting pan measures 11.75 in diameter on the inside and 2.5 inches high and the removable insert measures 7.5 inches in diameter at the base and 4.5 inches high. The underside of the handles are slightly recessed for grip. The CHEFS logo is at the center of the rimmed base. TCC Cooking Company has received 25 reports of the roasters breaking or shattering. No injuries have been reported. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/Uji1KC Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled roasters. Consumers who purchased the roaster through Target.com should return the product to any Target store for a full refund. All other consumers should discard the product and contact TCC Cooking Company to receive a gift card equal to the purchase price. The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Chefscatalog.com, Cooking.com, Target.com and other online retailers from April 2014 through May 2015 for between $35 and $50. TURTLE BEACH: Recalls Gaming Headsets Due to Infection Risk ----------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Turtle Beach Corporation, of San Diego, Calif., announced a voluntary recall of about 59,500 Ear Force(R) XO FOUR Stealth gaming headset. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. Mold spores were found on the headsets, posing a risk of respiratory or other infections in individuals with chronic health problems. This recall involves 2015 Ear Force XO FOUR Stealth gaming headsets. They are multi-use but marketed for use with Xbox One gaming systems. The headsets are black with green trim and have soft ear-cups, an audio controller and a removable microphone. They are packaged with an audio adapter. Recalled units have a 13- character alphanumeric serial number that includes C16 through C25 and do not have a green dot under the windscreen of the microphone. The serial number is printed on the inside of the headband of the headset and on the bottom flap of the box. Turtle Beach has received six reports of mold on the headsets. No injuries have been reported. The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Best Buy, GameStop, Target and Walmart nationwide and online at Amazon.com from June 2015 to September 2015 for about $100. Consumers should immediately place the recalled headset into a plastic bag with the original box and any components, tie or tape the bag closed, and contact Turtle Beach for instructions on how to return the product for a free replacement gaming headset. UBER: Drivers' Labor Dispute Ruling to Impact Other Tech Startups ----------------------------------------------------------------- Rehman Tungekar, writing for WPR.org, reports that a federal judge gave Uber drivers permission to go forward with a class-action lawsuit against the ride-hailing service. That was just the latest decision in a long-standing labor dispute over whether the company's drivers are employees -- and therefore, subject to benefits and mileage reimbursements -- or, as Uber officials insist, independent contractors. The final verdict has wide implications for other tech startups like Airbnb and Lyft, and highlights the changing nature of work in the new digital economy. As economist Guy Standing points out, however, it's also the end result of a set of economic policies that were set in motion more than three decades ago. Standing, who teaches at the University of London, traces this all back to the late 1970s when Western economies -- in an effort to promote competition and boost productivity -- began a process of labor deregulation, rolling back workplace protections that were set up after World War II. That, along with globalization and the decline of unions, led to an erosion of workers rights over the next 30 years that's created an entirely new class of worker who are resigned to a life of job insecurity. He calls them "the precariat." He said he believes the precariat is made up of a broad variety of jobs that include adjunct professors, freelancers, substitute teachers -- essentially any worker without long-term job stability. According to one estimate, at least one-third of the U.S. workforce falls into the category. Standing spoke with "To the Best of Our Knowledge" executive producer Steve Paulson about this new insecure class, the changing nature of work, and his proposed solution: A guaranteed basic income for everyone. Steve Paulson: What kind of work does the precariat do? Guy Standing: The jobs jump around, are insecure, and they don't lead anywhere. But that is actually not the most important aspect of the precariat. More important is the fact that people in the precariat have to do a hell of a lot of work that is not labor. They have to network, they have to be trained, they have to search for new jobs, they have to wait around, they have to do a lot of form filling and things like that, which in a real way is work. In addition, this is the first working class in history which has a level of education which is on average above the labor they expect to do. Is the rise of the on-demand economy linked to the precariat in any way? Without a doubt. What I think we should be talking about is that people in the on-demand economy (or the sharing economy) have to be seen as taskers. One of the fastest growing phenomena in the labor markets of the world is crowd labor, where you will find labor brokers going online and listing the tasks they need done, and then taking bids from people who are prepared to do these tasks. And this sort of thing is leading to competition between workers in Manila, in Goa, in Wisconsin and in Manchester. They're competing against one another to work for increasingly lower wages. That phenomenon is part of the on-demand economy. I'm wondering if there's a silver lining with some of these kinds of jobs, because it would seem that these workers no longer have to be wholly dependent on a single job. That's the upside of the growth of the precariat. I don't see the precariat solely as victims, and this sense of freedom goes with the desire for combining different types of activity, doing different sorts of work, and building your own sense of occupation -- that's the upside. The downside is that we're in a situation where the old 20th century income distribution system has broken down. Real wages have been stagnant or dropping in the U.S., Germany, France, Britain, and many other parts of the world. I don't think they're going to be reversed. Do we also need to redefine what we mean by work? That's Article 1 of my proposed Precariat Charter -- that we need to re-conceptualize what we mean by work. Work includes things like gardening, caring for your elderly mother, and searching for jobs. Also, people in the precariat have to apply to thousands of jobs before they actually get an interview, let alone a job offer, Are you saying we should get paid for this kind of work (i.e. searching for jobs or caring for my mother)? What we need to do is realize that we have an income distribution crisis. We want to encourage people like you and me to do activities like volunteering, caring for relatives, and so on. That's why I favor a basic income. We've got to think out of the box to address these issues. You'll have to explain what you mean by a basic income. A basic income would be to give every citizen a guaranteed minimum income that's paid each month in cash without conditions, on which they could survive. How do we afford it? Who pays for this? An example of a guaranteed income is the Alaska Permanent Fund, which takes part of the profits from oil. You could also finance a basic income from patents, from high tech industries, or other resources. The money then goes into a capital fund and is invested. Then each year they pay each citizen a basic income. Other countries are also moving in this direction. How big of a basic income would people get? What I'm proposing is a modest amount paid as a right, with supplements used as automatic stabilizers. In other words, if the economy is going into recession, you would top the basic income up. If it's in a high employment situation, then you could cut it back. If people were guaranteed a certain income, you wouldn't worry that they'd lose their incentive to find any job at all? We've done pilots in India and Africa where, in fact, what happens is that people who have basic security work more, not less. When they work, they're more productive, not less. People who have basic security tend to be more entrepreneurial in their approach. They make longer term rational decisions and are more cooperative. They also more tolerant of other people. What about the politics of some of this? Don't you have to convince the elites that your proposal -- a basic income -- is a good idea? That's exactly what is happening. I was recently invited to Silicon Valley to speak with a lot of high tech, affluent people who are in the 0.001 percent, and they all saw the logic. They realized that if we don't go in that direction, the inequalities and insecurities are going to become threatening to the whole system, and we'll all be losers. Do you think the days of the stable, permanent job are behind us? Is that whole idea of staying with one job for years disappearing? I think that it won't disappear, but we've got to deal with what is going to be the majority. In many countries, 40 percent of the total adult population are people in the precariat or feel that they are in it. That is a growing number, not a shrinking one . And it's not something to do just with the recession since 2008. It's a structural phenomenon that's been taking place over the last 30 years. VALEANT PHARMA: Faces "Nilsen" Suit Over Breach of Fiduciary Duty ----------------------------------------------------------------- Silvia Nilsen, and all others similarly-situated v. David M. Hable, Lawrence C. Cardinale, Juanita H. Hinshaw, D. Graeme Thomas, Robert H. Blankemeyer, Valeant Pharmaceuticals International and Blue Subsidiary Corp., Case No. 11552 (Del. Ch., September 29, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for breaches of fiduciary duty and for aiding and abetting the Individual Defendants' breaches of fiduciary duty. The Plaintiff alleges that the shareholder class action arises because Synergetics's President, CEO and Chairman of the Board David M. Hable forced through a sale of the Company in order to reap personal benefits he negotiated with Valeant and to the detriment of Synergetics's public stockholders. The Individual Defendants are members of Synergetic's board of directors. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International operates as a research- based, specialty pharmaceutical company. Valeant discovers, develops, manufactures, and markets a range of pharmaceutical products as well as focusing on products in the areas of infectious disease, neurology, and dermatology. Valeant Pharmaceuticals markets its products worldwide. Valeant is headquartered at 7545 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100, Irvine, CA 92618 and its common stock is traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol "VRX." Valeant is incorporated in Delaware. Following consummation of the Merger, Synergetics will become a wholly-owned subsidiary of Valeant. Defendant Blue Subsidiary Corp. ("Merger Sub") is a wholly owned subsidiary of Valeant formed for the purpose of consummating the Merger. Merger Sub is incorporated in Delaware. The Plaintiff is represented by: James R. Banko, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 20 Montchanin Road, Suite 145 Wilmington, DE 19807 Tel: (302) 482-3182 Fax: (302) 482-3612 VOLKSWAGEN: Bernstein Litowitz to Expand Emissions Investigation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP ("BLB&G"), representing a proposed nationwide class of owners and lessees of vehicles equipped with Volkswagen "TDI Clean Diesel" engines, is engaged in an extensive and exhaustive investigation and is actively consulting with top automotive industry experts concerning the massive and deliberate emissions cheating scandal at leading automaker Volkswagen AG. Without question, Volkswagen's "diesel deception" is one of the largest consumer fraud and public health scandals in history. BLB&G's Volkswagen Investigation Team, which includes experienced attorneys who have successfully prosecuted class action claims against the largest automobile manufacturers, is interviewing knowledgeable industry insiders and consulting with top auto software and control systems experts to investigate who is responsible and how Volkswagen was able to conceal its sophisticated emissions cheating system for nearly a decade. BLBG Partner Blair A. Nicholas stated: "VW and its management have admitted to deliberately cheating stringent federal and state emissions standards all the while falsely promising consumers environmentally friendly, high-performing and efficient cars. What VW hasn't told the public is who gave the orders and how they were able to deceive regulators and the public for so long. This was no 'honest mistake' at Volkswagen this was deliberate fraud and deceit at its very core. By combining BLB&G's Volkswagen Investigation Team with our team of leading auto industry experts, we will get to the bottom of this in order to right this egregious wrong on behalf of consumers." Anyone with information regarding the misconduct at Volkswagen is encouraged to contact BLB&G confidentially. Please contact Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (Rachel Felong, Esq.) at (888) 924-1888 or (858) 720-3180, or via e-mail at Rachel.Felong@blbglaw.com BLB&G partners Blair Nicholas and Benjamin Galdston are leading the firm's investigation and litigation team in the class action against Volkswagen. Additional information regarding the Volkswagen case, including a copy of the class action complaint, is available at www.blbglaw.com/volkswagen BLB&G is plaintiffs' class action law firm. It has recovered over $28 billion on behalf of victims of corporate wrongdoing. VOLKSWAGEN: Clean Air Act Loophole May Avert Criminal Charges ------------------------------------------------------------- Joel Hruska, writing for ExtremeTech.com, reports that ever since the VW scandal broke, there've been ongoing questions as to the types of penalties VW might face. Not only did the company deliberately include so-called "defeat devices," designed to allow their diesel vehicles to spew up to 40x more pollutants than allowed under US law, they lied to investigators and misrepresented the nature of the problem, all while continuing to market these vehicles as "clean diesel" and a practical alternative to hybrids or electric cars. Given that VW has admitted that it lied and defrauded more than 11 million customers (closer to 15 million if you include vehicles from Audi and Skoda), it may not be possible to bring criminal charges against the company. According to the Wall Street Journal, the section of the Clean Air Act of 1970 specifies criminal penalties for fixed sources of emissions (power plants), but only specifies civil penalties for automakers and other moving sources of air pollution. ExtremeTech.com's own cursory investigation of the Clean Air Act confirms this -- while an omission of this sort does not automatically mean the government cannot bring a criminal charges against a company, the law does not explicitly carve out criminal penalties. The WSJ reports that the government is looking to bring charges on different counts, including lying to federal officials, but the government may choose to pursue civil, rather than criminal charges in any case. Civil charges would allow VW's staff to avoid jail time, but could still carry staggering fines that could bankrupt the company. Pressure on VW has been growing from all sides; the company recently declared that it had a plan in place to bring all vehicles into proper compliance with both European and US law. The only way for VW to have developed that plan so quickly is if it simply intends to update vehicle software to turn the "test" mode feature on full-time. While likely to work, it's also likely to anger many VW drivers, who will see engine performance, fuel economy, or maintenance costs increase as a result of the changes. The first class action lawsuits against VW, needless to say, are already rolling forward. At Slate, David Auerbach makes the argument that the man almost certainly responsible for the VW scandal has, thus far, escaped notice. According to Auerbach, Ferdinand Piech, the grandson of Ferdinand Porsche and chairman of VW's board until this past spring, hand-selected the executives that ran the affected businesses and presided over the culture that allowed to him to be installed. VW, unlike most ostensibly public companies, holds the vast majority of its voting power in private hands and operates with a rigid, top-down, hierarchical and dynastic power structure. ExtremeTech.coms' Hruska said "We don't know yet which executives knew about the defeat devices or who ordered them installed, but given that problems are now cropping up across VW's various product families, it seems obvious that this problem went deeper than just the CEO." VOLKSWAGEN: Emission Tests Scandal Costs May Reach $6.5 Billion --------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Potter, writing for Reuters, reports that Volkswagen has admitted to cheating diesel emissions tests in the United States, sparking the biggest business crisis in its 78-year history. Following are some of the costs the company could have to pay, excluding any potential drop in car sales or prices: CAR RECALLS VW said on Sept. 29 it would recall up to 11 million vehicles worldwide that were fitted with illegal software. Some analysts have said this could cost more than $6.5 billion. REGULATORS The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said on Sept. 18 VW faced penalties of up to $18 billion, and Australia's competition regulator said on Oct. 1 VW could face millions of dollars in fines if it was found to have misled local consumers. The German transport ministry has said the company manipulated tests in Europe too and regulators across Europe and in parts of Asia and central America are investigating, though none have so far estimated likely penalties. NATIONAL AND LOCAL AUTHORITIES Analysts have said the company could face lawsuits under the U.S. Clean Air Act, and penalties if it is found guilty of any criminal wrongdoing. California is preparing a major enforcement action against VW, the state's top air official said on Sept. 24. Harris County, Texas, on Sept. 30 sued VW, accusing it of violating state environmental laws. It is seeking up to $25,000 per violation per day. German prosecutors said on Sept. 23 they were conducting a preliminary investigation into VW following a number of criminal complaints from citizens. Prosecutors in several other countries have followed suit. DEALER/CONSUMER/INVESTOR LAWSUITS Independent car dealerships sued VW in California on Sept. 24 over losses they said they would incur following the company's admission. Attorneys at Keller Rohrback LLP said on Oct. 1 they had filed seven nationwide class action lawsuits on behalf of plaintiffs in 43 states and Washington DC against VW. Italian consumer group Codacons said on Sept. 30 it had presented a class action lawsuit against VW, accusing it of deceiving car owners and potentially harming the environment. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP filed a class action suit against VW on Sept. 25 on behalf of an institutional investor. Some European shareholders said they were also considering claiming damages. SUBSIDY CLAWBACKS Spain said on Sept. 29 that VW had agreed to return state car purchase subsidies on vehicles fitted with rigged engines. The country had offered subsidies of 1,000 euros ($1,120) for energy efficient car purchases. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "G.T. Leasing" Suit Over Defeat Devices --------------------------------------------------------------- G.T. Leasing, Inc., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Volkswagen AG and Robert Bosch GmbH, Case 2:15-cv-07394-JLL-JAD (D.N.J., October 9, 2015), alleges violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, false advertising and consumer fraud by the Defendants in relation to the installation of so-called "defeat devices" on over 482,000 diesel Volkswagen and Audi vehicles sold in the United States since 2009. Volkswagen is in the business of leasing automobiles, including Volkswagen diesel engine vehicles, on behalf of itself and all similarly situated leasing businesses. The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Cecchi, Esq. Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq. CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068-1739 Phone: (973) 994-1700 Fax: (973) 994-1744 E-mail: JCecchi@carellabyrne.com LTaylor@carellabyrne.com - and - Stephen DeNittis, Esq. DENITTIS OSEFCHEN, P.C. 5 Greentree Centre, Suite 410 Mariton, NJ 08053 Phone:(856) 797-9951 E-mail: Sdenittis@denittislaw.com - and - Richard J. Lantinberg, Esq. THE WILNER FIRM, P.A. 444 E. Duval Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Phone:(904) 446-9817 E-mail: Rlantinberg@wi1nerfIrm.com - and - Eric J. Artrip Esq. D. Anthony Mastando Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF MASTANDO & ARTRIP LLC 301 Washington Street Suite 302 Huntsville, AL 35801 Tel.: (256) 532-2222 E-mail: ArLrip@mastandoartrip.com Tony@mastandoartrip.com VOLVO TRUCKS: Recalls VNL 2013 Model Due to Crash Risk ------------------------------------------------------ Starting date: October 7, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Truck - Med. & H.D. Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Electrical Units affected: 1 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015453TC ID number: 2015453 Manufacturer recall number: RVXX1506 On certain vehicles equipped with an Idle Free Model BA600 Electric Auxiliary Power Unit (APU), the mounting points on the housing of the APU could crack or tear. This could cause the power unit to possibly fail, or detach from the truck, creating a road hazard and increasing the risk of a crash causing injury and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers will inspect and, if necessary, install a welded gusset upgrade kit and stronger clamping brackets. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- VOLVO VNL 2013 VOLVO TRUCKS: Recalls VNL 2012 Models Due to Injury Risk -------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: October 8, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Truck - Med. & H.D. Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Structure Units affected: 6 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015456TC ID number: 2015456 Manufacturer recall number: RVXX1507 On certain vehicles, the fifth wheel locking mechanisms could be susceptible to damage and/or wear. This could cause the locking mechanism to fail properly engage, potentially resulting in a towed trailer unit separating from the truck tractor. As a result, the trailer could strike another vehicle, stationary object, or bystander, causing injury and/or damage to property. Correction: Fontaine dealers will replace all Ultra LT fifth wheel units with Ultra NT model fifth wheel units. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- VOLVO VNL 2012 WILLIAMS COS: Faces "Blystone" Suit Over Sale to Energy Transfer ---------------------------------------------------------------- Allison Blystone, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Williams Companies, Inc., Alan S. Armstrong, Joseph R. Cleveland, Kathleen B. Cooper, John A. Hagg, Juanita H. Hinshaw, Ralph Izzo, Frank T. Macinnis, Eric W. Mandelblatt, Keith A. Meister, Steven W. Nance, Murray D. Smith, Janice D. Stoney, Laura A. Suff, Energy Transfer Equity, L.P., Energy Transfer Corp. LP, Ete Corp. GP, LLC, LE GP, LLC, and Energy Transfer Equity GP, LLC, Case No. 11601 (Del.Ch., October 9, 2015), was filed against the members of Williams' Board of Directors for their alleged breaches of fiduciary duties arising out of their attempt to sell the Company to Energy Transfer Equity L.P. The Williams Companies, Inc. is an energy infrastructure company focused on connecting North America's hydrocarbon resource plays to markets for natural gas, natural gas liquids, and olefins. The Plaintiff is represented by: Donald J. Enright, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP 1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115 Washington, DC 20007 Phone: (202) 524-4290 - and - 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 Phone: (302) 295-5310 ZYNGA INC: Supplemental Briefing Required on Settlement ------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Oct. 8 heard oral argument regarding the motion of Lead Plaintiff David Fee for preliminary approval of a class action settlement in the pre-certification securities litigation action, IN RE ZYNGA INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 12-cv-04007-JSC, Consolidated with Case No. 12-CV-4048-JSC., 12-CV-4059-JSC. The Court raised several questions with Lead Plaintiff: 1. Lead Plaintiff's proposed Plan of Allocation provides for a lower rate of recovery for shares of Zynga common stock purchased between December 15, 2011 and the close of trading on February 14, 2012 (the Earlier Period) than for shares purchased after the close of trading on February 14, 2012 through the close of trading on July 25, 2012 (the Class Period). In his motion, Lead Plaintiff contends that the Settlement Class Members in the Earlier Period receive a smaller per-share recovery because their claims are weaker, evidenced by the fact that their claims were dismissed from the initial consolidated complaint and are not part of the operative pleading. But the district court's order dismissed the entire initial consolidated complaint, not just those from the Earlier Period. Lead Plaintiff chose not to replead the Earlier Period claims. Lead Plaintiff must file a supplemental submission that provides a more forthright and robust explanation reflecting the procedural history and Lead Plaintiff's position on why the Earlier Period claims are weaker. In addition, in the supplemental submission Lead Plaintiff shall make clear when he bought and sold his shares of Zynga common stock -- i.e., to the extent his claims fall in the Earlier Period or the Class Period. The Notice shall be amended to accurately reflect the procedural history. 2. The initial Stipulation and Notice required that all Settlement Class Members submit their claim forms by mail. In response to questioning from the Court, Lead Plaintiff agreed that Settlement Class Members may submit their claim forms electronically. The Stipulation and Notice should be amended to reflect this change. 3. The Notice is not entirely accurate regarding Settlement Class Members' opportunity to object. The objection provision reads in relevant part: "You can ask the Court to deny approval by filing an objection. You cannot ask the Court to order a larger settlement or otherwise modify the Settlement; the Court can only approve or deny the Settlement. If the Court denies approval, no Settlement payments will be sent out and the Action will continue. If this is what you want to happen, you must object." While technically true, the parties' language as currently written fails in this paragraph to notify Settlement Class Members that they can object to the amount of attorneys' fees and costs sought. The Notice should also include the deadline for Lead Counsel's attorneys' fees motion and note that the motion and supporting materials will be available for viewing on the Claims Administrator's website. See In re Mercury Interactive Corp. Sec. Litig., 618 F.3d 988, 993-94 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that under Rule 23(h), class members must be given a full and fair opportunity to examine and object to attorneys' fees motions); see, e.g., Hendricks v. StarKist Co., No. 13-cv-00729-HSG, 2015 WL 4498083, at *9 (N.D. Cal. July 23, 2015) (requiring the class notice to state the deadline for a motion for attorneys' fees and informing class members that the motion and supporting materials would be available on the class website). Lastly, the Notice makes no mention of any objections to the Plan of Allocation. The Notice shall be amended to advise of the possibility of such objection or Lead Plaintiff shall explain to the Court why such notice is not required. 4. Lead Plaintiff shall clarify that the relevant pleadings will be available on the Claims Administrator's website and, of course, shall make the pleadings so available. Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley directed the Lead Plaintiff to submit an amended stipulation and Notice and other filing that addresses these issues by October 15, 2015. Lead Plaintiff also was required to submit a red-lined version of any amended stipulation and proposed notice. A copy of the Court's Oct. 9 Order is available at http://is.gd/0PGwy1from Leagle.com. * * * Zynga Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that parties in a class action lawsuit reached an agreement in principle to settle In re Zynga Inc. Securities Litigation as to all defendants for $23.0 million. The Company said, "On July 30, 2012, a purported securities class action captioned DeStefano v. Zynga Inc. et al., Case No. 3:12-cv- 04007-JSW, was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company, and certain of our current and former directors, officers, and executives. Additional purported securities class actions containing similar allegations were filed in the Northern District. On September 26, 2012, the court consolidated various of the class actions as In re Zynga Inc. Securities Litigation, Lead Case No. 12-cv-04007-JSW." "On January 23, 2013, the court entered an order appointing a lead plaintiff and approving lead plaintiff's selection of lead counsel. On April 3, 2013, the lead plaintiff and another named plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint. On February 25, 2014, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint and provided plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint. "The lead plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on March 31, 2014. The First Amended Complaint alleges that the defendants violated the federal securities laws by issuing false or misleading statements regarding the Company's business and financial projections. The plaintiffs seek to represent a class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities between February 14, 2012 and July 25, 2012. The First Amended Complaint asserts claims for unspecified damages, and an award of costs and expenses to the putative class, including attorneys' fees. On March 25, 2015, the Court issued an order denying the defendants' motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint. On April 28, 2015, the Court denied the defendants' motion for leave to seek reconsideration of that order. "On June 12, 2015, the Court entered a scheduling order setting certain pretrial deadlines leading up to a hearing on any dispositive motions scheduled for May 12, 2017. On June 24, 2015, pursuant to a stipulation among the parties, the consolidated class actions were reassigned to Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley for all further proceedings. On June 26, 2015, Magistrate Judge Corley issued an order scheduling a case management conference for August 20, 2015. "Pursuant to court order, a mediation session was conducted before the Honorable Edward Infante (Ret.) on August 4, 2015. The parties reached an agreement in principle to settle In re Zynga Inc. Securities Litigation as to all defendants for $23.0 million. The settlement, which is subject to negotiation and execution of a final settlement document, notice to the class and court approval, would be funded entirely by insurance and lead to the dismissal of all claims against the defendants. Accordingly there would be no impact to Zynga's financial statements if the final settlement is consistent with the current agreement. Given its preliminary nature, it remains possible that the settlement in principle may not result in a final settlement, and that the assessment of the possibility of loss or adverse effect on our financial condition, if any, could therefore change in the near term." ZYNGA INC: "Reyes" Class Action Voluntarily Dismissed ----------------------------------------------------- Reyes v. Zynga Inc., et al. has been voluntarily dismissed, Zynga Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015. A purported securities class action captioned Reyes v. Zynga Inc., et al. was filed on August 1, 2012, in San Francisco County Superior Court. The action was removed to federal court, and was later remanded to San Francisco County Superior Court. The complaint alleged that the defendants violated the federal securities laws by issuing false or misleading statements in connection with an April 2012 secondary offering of Class A common stock. The plaintiff sought to represent a class of persons who acquired the Company's common stock pursuant or traceable to the secondary offering. On June 10, 2013, the defendants filed a motion to stay the action and a demurrer arguing that the complaint should be dismissed because the court lacks jurisdiction over the claims. On August 26, 2013, the court issued orders overruling the demurrer and granting the motion to stay all deadlines in the action pending a ruling on the motion to dismiss in the federal securities class action. On September 29, 2014, the court issued orders denying a motion to continue the stay of the action and overruling a demurrer arguing that the complaint failed to state a cause of action. On October 15, 2014, the defendants filed a petition in the California Court of Appeal seeking review of the denial of the motion to stay and of the trial court's ruling that it had jurisdiction to hear the claims. On January 29, 2015, the Court of Appeal denied defendants' petition. On February 11, 2015, the court granted plaintiff's request for voluntary dismissal of the action with prejudice as to the named plaintiff's claims and without prejudice as to the claims of any other members of the proposed class. ZYNGA INC: Hearing Date Has Not Been Set in Lee v. Pincus --------------------------------------------------------- A hearing date has not been set in the case, Lee v. Pincus, et al., Zynga Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015. The Company said, "On April 4, 2013, a purported class action captioned Lee v. Pincus, et al. was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against the Company, and certain of our current and former directors, officers, and executives. The complaint alleges that the defendants breached fiduciary duties in connection with the release of certain lock-up agreements entered into in connection with the Company's initial public offering. The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of certain of the Company's shareholders who were subject to the lock-up agreements and who were not permitted to sell shares in an April 2012 secondary offering." "On January 17, 2014, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. On March 6, 2014, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint and a motion to stay discovery while the motions to dismiss were pending. On November 14, 2014, the court denied the motion to dismiss brought by Zynga and the directors and granted the motion to dismiss brought by the underwriters who had been named as defendants. The Court endorsed a stipulation setting a briefing schedule for plaintiff's motion for class certification. "Plaintiff's motion was filed on July 13, 2015. Defendants' opposition is to be filed on or before September 4, 2015, and plaintiff's reply is to be filed on or before October 5, 2015. "On June 24, 2015, certain of the defendants filed a motion for relief from the court's November 14, 2014 decision denying the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint. An opposition to the motion was filed on July 24, 2015. A hearing date has not been set. "Although it is reasonably possible that our assessment of the possibility of loss could change in the near term due to one or more confirming events, the Company believes it has meritorious defenses in the Lee v. Pincus class action and will vigorously defend this action. Furthermore, given that we are in the early stages of the litigation process, we are unable to estimate the range of potential loss, if any." * Competitive Enterprise Inst. & Class Action Fairness to Merge --------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan H. Adler, writing for The Washington Post, reports that on Oct. 1 the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) and the Center for Class Action Fairness (CCAF) announced a merger. CEI is one of D.C.'s most aggressive and innovative free-market policy shops. CCAF aggressively polices the terms of class-action settlements, which too often look like collusive arrangements that enrich attorneys while doing little for the putative plaintiffs. The most likely effect of this merger will be to enhance the two groups' public interest litigation efforts, which are already significant. CEI has quarterbacked cases such as Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB, King v. Burwell and challenges to the tobacco Master Settlement Agreement, and regularly files amicus briefs in regulatory cases. Bringing CCAF's legal team aboard, led by CCAF founder Ted Frank, will undoubtedly enhance these efforts. The combined organization will retain the CEI name, and Frank has been named a CEI senior attorney and director of the Center for Class Action Fairness within CEI. * Predatory Class Action Trial Lawyers Target Food Companies ------------------------------------------------------------ Paul Betancourt, writing for The Fresco Bee, reports that trial lawyers looking to make a quick buck at the expense of productive businesses have found a good business model California: find a successful food product and sue its manufacturer. The preferred vehicle for these lawyers is the class-action lawsuit, in which consumers -- who are purportedly the "victims" in these cases -- receive coupons or mere pennies while lawyers walk away with millions of dollars. The recent revelation that the manufacturers of almond milk have been targeted by a new lawsuit is just one more indication that our lawsuit system benefits lawyers more than ordinary people and that reform is needed. The primary complaint in this lawsuit is that there are not enough almonds in almond milk, and that this somehow has hurt consumers. This line of reasoning fails to take into account that all ingredients and nutritional information are printed on product packaging, and that there is no evidence of any consumer experiencing harm. Look at the following products: Nutella, Ben & Jerry's ice cream, Chobani yogurt, Kellogg's Frosted Mini-Wheats, and Cap'n Crunch with Crunchberries. What do they all have in common? All have been the targets of class-action lawsuits. In recent years, California has seen a huge number of preposterous class- action lawsuits from attorneys eager to profit from our lawsuit system. So many lawsuits have been filed here that the state has become known nationally as the "food court." This trend is part of a broader movement towards increased litigation that benefits lawyers at the expense of everyone else. Just look at the recent explosion of lawsuits against small businesses alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act or Proposition 65. "Where I live in the Valley, these lawsuits have forced some small businesses to lay off workers and others to shut down completely. While the economically booming coastal areas may be able to afford this kind of lawsuit abuse against employers, the inland areas of California simply cannot," Frenso Bee's Betancourt said. Other enterprising plaintiffs' lawyers have found a way to sue small businesses under the Private Attorney General Act for minor paycheck stub mistakes, such as not listing the complete employer's name or address on pay stubs. One small Central California business was hit with one of these lawsuits and settled for $1.5 million. The company is now planning to move out of California -- taking jobs with it. "Trivial lawsuits like this do nothing for any of us except the trial lawyers," Mr. Betancourt said. "Of course, we want to protect consumers and employees. But, the continued abuse of the legal system with these pointless lawsuits wastes money, increases the cynicism of citizens and makes California a less friendly place for new businesses." "What company in their right mind would invest in California knowing it could be attacked by these types of lawsuits? "As a family farmer, I know that my business can be targeted by enterprising attorneys if I fill out regulatory forms improperly. The resulting lawsuit will result in handsome profits for them, and could force me to reduce my production or delay expansion, costing jobs either way. "The lawsuit arguing over the content of almond milk should be a wake-up call for California's elected leaders. It is far past time for our state to rein in the abuse of our lawsuit system that is holding back economic growth and costing jobs." ********* 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 * * *