/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/151201.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, December 1, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 239 Headlines 117 AVENUE: Faces "Perez" Class Suit Alleging FLSA Violations AMERICAN HONDA: "Romaya" Suit Consolidated in CR-V Vibration MDL AMEX CARD: Class Action Waiver in Arbitration Agreement Unlawful ANTHEM LIFE: "Smilow" Suit Consolidated in Data Breach MDL APPLE INC: Beats Class Suit Filed by Retail Store Employees ARKANSAS: High Court Flips Cert. of Suit vs. Veterans Agency ARSENAULT CHIROPRATIC: Faces "Messnick" Suit for FLSA Breach ASHDON FARMS: Recalls Honey Mustard Pretzel Mix Due to Milk AUSTRALIA: Live Export Suit Ready to Launch, Lawyers Say BARCLAYS PLC: Settles LIBOR Class Suit for $120 Million BERTAGNI 1882: Recalls Butternut Squash Ravioli Due to Nuts BIG LOT: Faces Class Action for Violating FCRA BLUE BUFFALO: Recalls Cub Size Wild Chews Bones Due to Salmonella BOIRON INC: Judge Deies Class Status to Suit Over Flu Remedy BOYLE'S FAMOUS: Recalls Beef Products Due to Wheat Protein CAMPBELL SOUP: Recalls SpaghettiOs Products Due to Choking Hazard CASEY'S BAKERY: Recalls Snickers Cake Due to Peanuts CHS INC: Recalls Feeds for Mature Cattle, Horses, Goats & Sheep DELTA PETROLEUM: Feb. 19 Fairness Hearing of $3.2MM Settlement DR. REDDY'S: Lundin Law Files Class Suit Over FDA Approvals EAGLE BOYS: Faces Class Suit Over Alleged Wage Fraud EMC CORP: Faces Suit Over Plan to Sell Co. to Dell for $64BB EXPERIAN HOLDINGS: Faces Suit Due to Loss of Info in Cyber-Attack FACEBOOK: Austrian Supreme Court to Decide on Privacy Suit FIT FIRM: Recalls Herbal Slimcap Capsules Due to Sibutramine FIVE PAWNS: Faces Multimillion Dollar Suit for False Advertising FLINT, MI: Show Cause Hearing in Water Bill Increase Suit Set FUNERARIAS DE LAS: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit for FLSA Violation GIANT EAGLE: Recalls Apricot Logs and Poppyseed Logs Due to Milk GENERAL MOTORS: Cassels Brock Continues Appeal for $45MM Costs GLANBIA PERFORMANCE: Sued Over Slack-Fill Packaging of Products GOOGLE INC: Must Face Consolidated Suit Over Internet Cookies HOBBY LOBBY: NLRB Steps Up Enforcement Against Class Suit Waivers HOMESTAT FARM: Recalls Organic Oats & Chia with Flax and Rye HOWARD SCHNEIDER: Embattled Dentist Jailed for Medicaid Fraud JOE ARPAIO: Judge Doubts Truth of Sheriff's Testimony KAISER PERMANENTE: Agrees to Settle with Mental Health Clinicians LOWELL ELECTRICAL: Accused of Violating FLSA in E.D. New York LSB INDUSTRIES: Tostrud Law Files Securities Class Suit LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Elson" Suit Included in China Flooring MDL MI TIENDA: Recalls Masa and Tostadas Due to Metal Fragments MISSISSIPPI: Moss Point to Stop Jailing Impoverished People MONROE COUNTY, NY: Residents Ink $59MM Settlement of Wage Suit NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Sued Over Athletic Scholarships Prohibition NATIONAL GRID: Plaintiffs Seek Class Suit Status NATION PIZZA: Recalls Frozen Pizza Products Due to Soy NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Faces "Pham" Suit for FDCPA Violation OSIRIS THERAPEUTICS: Bronstein Files Securities Class Suit PITTSBURGH, PA: Judge OKs Settlement with ACLU RALEY'S FAMILY: Recalls Sweet Pumpkin Ravioli Due to Cashew ROCKLAND COUNTY, NY: Parents of Yeshiva Sue Educ. Department SAFEWAY INC: Faces "Soto" Suit Over Underfilled Canned Tuna SECURITAS SECURITY: Reaches $2.5-Mil. Settlement of Labor Suit SEMPRA ENERGY: Calif. Man Sues Over Month-Long Gas Leak SPACE EXPLORATION: Blumenthal Files Wage Class Suit SPECIAL NEED AND INTERGIRTY: Sued Over Violation of Fiduciary Duty STARZ: Morgan & Morgan Files Securities Class Suit STRAIGHT PATH: Andrews LLC Files Securities Fraud Class Suit SUMMERSET VILLAGE: Sued Over Failure to Provide Apartment Gas TERRAFORM GLOBAL: Pyramid Files Suit for Securities Act Violation TITO'S: Bid to Oust Lawsuit Dismissed TRADER JOE'S: Recalls Butternut Squash Triangoli Due to Tree Nuts TYSON FOODS: Recalls Chicken Wing Products Due to Off Odor UBER: Faces Suit Filed by St. Louis Taxi Drivers VIRGINIA DINER: Recalls Pecan Candies Due to Peanuts VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Powell" Suit Over Defeat Devices WEGMANS FOOD: Recalls Butternut Squash Ravioli Due to Nuts YAHOO: Autodialer Class Suit Revived ZAFFEN INC: Faces Probe Over Violations of Securities Exchange Act * Serial Class Suit Objector Smacked with Serious Sanctions * Shareholder Filings Drop After Chancery Crackdown on M&A Deals ********* 117 AVENUE: Faces "Perez" Class Suit Alleging FLSA Violations ------------------------------------------------------------- Ignacio Camargo Perez, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. 117 Avenue of the Americas Food Corp., Case No. 1:15-cv-08151 (S.D.N.Y., October 15, 2015), is brought over alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. 117 Avenue of the Americas Food Corp. is a corporation based in New York City. AMERICAN HONDA: "Romaya" Suit Consolidated in CR-V Vibration MDL ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Vivian Romaya v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-03938, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (Columbus). The Ohio District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-02913-MHW- EPD to the proceeding. The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned In re: American Honda Motor Co., Inc., CR-V Vibration Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, MDL No. 2:15-md-02661- MHW-EPD. The actions in the litigation -- most of which are either putative nationwide or statewide class actions -- share factual questions arising from allegations that the 2015 Honda CR-V has a defect or defects that cause the vehicle to vibrate excessively. American Honda Motor Company, Inc. is a California corporation with its national headquarters in Torrance, California. American Honda is a subsidiary of Honda Motor Co., Ltd., a Japanese corporation, and is one of the largest distributors of automobiles in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Suzanne Havens-Beckman, Esq. David C. Parisi, Esq. PARISI AND HAVENS LLP 212 Marine Street, Suite 100 Santa Monica, CA 90405 Telephone: (818) 990-1299 Facsimile: (818) 501-7852 E-mail: shavens@parisihavens.com dcparisi@parisihavens.com The Defendant is represented by: Michael L. Mallow, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 555 West 5th Street, Suite 4000 Los Angeles, CA 90013 Telephone: (213) 896-6000 Facsimile: (213) 896-6600 E-mail: mmallow@sidley.com - and - Daniel A. Spira, Esq. Johnnet S. Jones, Esq. Livia M. Kiser, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP One South Dearborn Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 853-7274 Facsimile: (312) 853-7036 E-mail: dspira@sidley.com simone.jones@sidley.com lkiser@sidley.com AMEX CARD: Class Action Waiver in Arbitration Agreement Unlawful ---------------------------------------------------------------- The National Law Review reported that the NLRB has once again held that a mandatory arbitration agreement including a class/collective action waiver violates the National Labor Relations Act. With barely an acknowledgment that the Fifth Circuit reversed its last two decisions reaching the same conclusion, the Board ruled in Amex Card Service Co., No. 28-CA- 123865 (Nov. 10, 2015), that Amex committed an unfair labor practice by maintaining and enforcing an arbitration policy that required employees, as a condition of their employment, to resolve all claims against the company through individual arbitration. Despite the Fifth Circuit's rejection of NLRB rulings striking down class/collective action waivers in D.R. Horton (2013) and again recently in Murphy Oil (2015), the Board appears undeterred. In the NLRB's view, mandatory resolution of employment claims through individual arbitration infringes upon the protected right to engage in concerted activity, regardless of what the Fifth Circuit has to say about it. In fact, the NLRB stressed in its Amex decision that the company's policy violated the (subsequently invalidated) precedent the Board had established in D.R. Horton and Murphy Oil. The NLRB also found the policy unlawful because employees would reasonably believe it waived or limited their right to pursue an NLRB charge and held that Amex committed an additional violation when it moved to compel arbitration of its employees' FLSA claims in accordance with the policy. The Board ordered Amex to cease and desist from enforcing the policy and to reimburse the employees' expenses, including attorneys' fees, with interest. Several NLRB observers have noted that the Board may be playing the long game here by attempting to obtain rulings on the validity of class action waivers in federal appeals courts beyond the Fifth Circuit. In the Amex decision, the employees worked in Arizona and any appeal would be heard in the Ninth or D.C. Circuit, thus raising the real possibility of a circuit split and eventual Supreme Court review. For this reason, the effectiveness of class/collective action waivers in reducing legal exposure for employment claims remains uncertain. ANTHEM LIFE: "Smilow" Suit Consolidated in Data Breach MDL ---------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Smilow, et al. v. Anthem Life & Disability Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-02380, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Jose). The California District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:15-cv-04739-LHK to the proceeding. The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned In re: Anthem, Inc., Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, Case No. 5:15-md-02617-LHK. The lawsuits arise from a data security breach that allegedly occurred sometime between December 10, 2014, and February 4, 2015, and resulted in the electronic theft of personally identifiable information and personal health information of, by one estimate, some 80 million current and former health insurance plan members and employees of Anthem or its affiliated health insurance companies. Anthem Life & Disability Insurance Company operates as a subsidiary of Anthem, Inc., one of the nation's largest health insurance companies. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph Harry Weiss, Esq. Joshua M. Rubin, Esq. WEISSLAW LLP 1500 Broadway,16th Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 682-3025 Facsimile: (212) 682-3010 E-mail: jweiss@weisslawllp.com jrubin@weisslawllp.com The Defendants are represented by: Lisa Fried, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 875 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 918-3000 Facsimile: (212) 918-3100 E-mail: lisa.fried@hoganlovells.com APPLE INC: Beats Class Suit Filed by Retail Store Employees ----------------------------------------------------------- Jon Steingart, writing for Bloomberg News, reported that Apple Inc. prevailed in a class action brought by more than 12,400 California retail store employees who claim they should have been paid for the time they spent undergoing anti-theft searches at the end of their shifts. Even though Apple won this class action under California's wage laws, it could still be exposed to disability discrimination claims, Orly Lobel, a professor of law at the University of San Diego, told Bloomberg BNA Nov. 9. The Apple employees chose to bring bags to work and subject themselves to the company's search policy, so they didn't satisfy the state wage law's compensable time requirement of being "subject to the control of the employer," according to the summary judgment ruling, issued Nov. 7 by Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. When the court certified the class (33 HRR 766, 7/20/15), Alsup distinguished between carrying certain items out of necessity and others out of convenience. He invited employees with "special needs" who fell into the former category to intervene so the court could address whether they faced an "illusory choice," but none did, he said. Employees who need to carry items for medical reasons could pursue disability discrimination claims, Lobel said. Supreme Court Provides 'Useful Guidance.' Courts often have been asked to decide whether non-work time spent at a work site is compensable. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2014 that workers at an Amazon.com warehouse weren't entitled to wages for time spent undergoing end-of-shift searches to prevent theft. Alsup distinguished that case from Apple's because the Amazon case was decided under federal wage laws. But the high court's ruling in Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk, 135 S. Ct. 513, 190 L. Ed. 2d 410, 23 WH Cases2d 1485 (U.S. 2014), provided "useful guidance" in the Apple case, Alsup said (32 HRR 1321, 12/15/14). Alsup dismissed the Apple workers' federal claims following the Supreme Court's Integrity Staffing Solutions ruling. Citing that decision, he found the workers were not "suffered or permitted to work." That's because the time they spent awaiting and going through searches had no "relationship to their job responsibilities," he said. Bags Conceal Medications, Mustache Wax At the end of their shifts, the employees are required to clock out before being searched by a store manager or security guard. The serial numbers of any Apple products in the employee's possession are checked against a list of company products the worker owns. Employees estimate the wait time as up to 20 minutes and even longer during busy periods such as product launches and holiday seasons, but the company contends it only takes a few seconds, Alsup said. In a 2012 e-mail to CEO Tim Cook, an unidentified Apple Store employee called the searches demoralizing. "Managers are required to treat 'valued' employees as criminals," the worker wrote. Cook forwarded the message the same day to two executives, asking, "Is this true?" When Alsup certified the class, he found some employees brought bags in which they carried "necessities of life," such as prescription medications. Others brought items of "nothing more than personal convenience," such as makeup and mustache wax, the judge said. Employee Choice Dooms Claims Apple could have safeguarded its property by prohibiting employees from bringing bags and Apple products to work, Alsup said. Allowing them to bring these items was an "optional benefit," conditioned upon compliance with the company's security screening, the judge said. In order to be "subject to the control of an employer" during a putative compensable period, employee action must be constrained and the activity must be mandatory, Alsup said. There is no question that the searches constrained employees by requiring them to wait when they wanted to leave, but the searches weren't mandatory for employees who didn't bring bags or personal Apple products, he said. "Employee choice is dispositive," Alsup said. "That free choice is fatal to their claims," he said. But was it really free? asked Catherine Fisk, a University of California at Irvine law professor. "I'm not sure that is a meaningful choice," she told Bloomberg BNA Nov. 9. For example, she said, employees who drive to work can leave their belongings in their cars, but "employees who take the bus or public transportation" don't have that option. Calling it a free choice was "unrealistic," she said. McLaughlin & Stern LLP, the Kralowec Law Group and the Law Firm of Louis Ginsberg P.C. represented the workers. Littler Mendelson P.C. represented Apple. ARKANSAS: High Court Flips Cert. of Suit vs. Veterans Agency ------------------------------------------------------------ Robert Iafolla, writing for Rueters.com, reported that the Arkansas Supreme Court torpedoed a wage and hour class action against the state's Department of Veterans Affairs on, holding that issues about unpaid meal time common to the workers failed to outweigh individual considerations. In its 4-3 decision, the high court reversed a lower court ruling that certified a class of about 150 workers. Each of those workers held one of more than 20 different positions with the department, from cook to security officer, administrative assistant to maintenance technician, the court noted. ARSENAULT CHIROPRATIC: Faces "Messnick" Suit for FLSA Breach ------------------------------------------------------------ Suzanne Messnick, and others similarly situated, v. Arsenault Chiropratic, P.A., and Robert Arsenault, Jr., Dcm, individually, Case No. 5:15-cv-00569-MMH-PRL (M.D.Fla., Nov. 5, 2015) seeks to recover overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act, among others. Chiropractors at Arsenault Chiropractic PA diagnose and treat common spinal misalignments that can occur from lifestyle or injuries causing pain, discomfort and degenerative conditions. The Plaintiff is represented by: James N. Turner, Esq. 37 N. Orange Avenue, Suite 500 Orlando, FL 32801 Phone: (888) 877-5103 ASHDON FARMS: Recalls Honey Mustard Pretzel Mix Due to Milk ----------------------------------------------------------- Ashdon Farms, Waukesha, WI 53188 is alerting consumers that Honey Mustard Pretzel Mix sold under the Girl Scouts of the USA brand and Honey Mustard Mix sold under the Ashdon Farms brand distributed to consumers on or before November 15, 2015 are being recalled because milk is not declared in the contains statement on the label. People with an allergy to milk should not consume these products. People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to milk run the risk of serious or life threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products. Girl Scouts of the USA branded product packaged in 7 oz bags (no UPC code) has been sold through Girl Scout Councils and online sales nationwide. Ashdon Farms branded product in 8 oz bags (UPC 79113-41184) has been sold through fund raising distributors nationwide. Ashdon Farms is currently correcting the label at the distribution level so that all product distributed to consumers on or after Nov 16, 2015 will correctly declare the milk allergen. ONLY PRODUCT DISTRIBUTED TO CONSUMERS ON OR BEFORE NOVEMBER 15, 2015 IS AFFECTED. Due to correction at the distribution level the product cannot be identified based on code date. Affected packages can be identified by the contains statement found immediately below the ingredient listing. The contains statement on incorrect labels reads "Contains: Cashews, Almonds, Soy, Wheat." Packages with the correct label read "Contains: Cashews, Almonds, Soy, Wheat, Milk." There have been no reports of illness or injury associated with this product. Milk allergic consumers who have purchased the product may contact Ashdon Farms at 800-274-3666. AUSTRALIA: Live Export Suit Ready to Launch, Lawyers Say -------------------------------------------------------- Kristy O'Brien, writing for ABC News, reported that Lawyers working on a class action against the Federal Government over the 2011 live export suspension say they are set to reveal strong evidence to support their case. The Northern Territory Cattlemen's Association said it had nearly completed gathering evidence for its live export class action, which is calling for millions of dollars in compensation for pastoralists and industry members. The industry body said the suit, which is being launched by law firm Minter Ellison, would launch after three years of unsuccessfully trying to negotiate its claim with the Federal Government. The Brett Cattle Company, the lead claimant in the class action, would now be able to view the material that the former minister for agriculture Joe Ludwig used when he suspended live exports due to animal cruelty allegations in 2011. NT Cattlemen's Association CEO Tracey Hayes said their claim that the suspension of trade was wrong would be vindicated. "The material reviewed by law firm Minter Ellison supports Brett Cattle Company's points of claim and builds on the industry's long-held theory that the decision to suspend the trade in 2011 was rushed, made without real consultation and did little to actually improve trade or animal welfare conditions," Ms Hayes said. Members of the Brett family, owners of the Brett Cattle Company, are leading the fight after losing millions of dollars when they could not send cattle to Indonesia from their station on the Northern Territory and West Australian border. The open class action is believed to include the full breadth of industry players, from major corporates to smaller family-run pastoral stations. "The next significant task is to complete the picture of what actually happened in the department and the minister's office in the days leading up to the ban and present our evidence to the court," Ms Hayes said. Minter Ellison said it had also sought advice on the case from retired judge Roger Gyles QC. A representative from the law firm said in Mr Gyles' evaluation of the draft statement of claim filed to the Federal Court, the action had a "meaningful prospect of liability being established". Mr Gyles' report traced the events from when Mr Ludwig made his first order on June 2 banning the trade to 12 Indonesian abattoirs, to his blanket ban on all live exports to Indonesia five days later. Ms Hayes said all potentially affected parties would now have the opportunity to opt out of the class action, which is the final formal step before the case proceeded to court. The first hearing is expected to be in the second half of 2016. BARCLAYS PLC: Settles LIBOR Class Suit for $120 Million ------------------------------------------------------- Zacks.com, reported that Barclays PLC is strictly abiding by its plans to quickly resolve "legacy litigation and conduct issues", which it announced at a conference call following its third- quarter earnings release. Per a Bloomberg report, Barclays has agreed to shell out $120 million for settlement of charges related to manipulation of London Interbank Offered Rate ("LIBOR"), raised by private investors in 2011. Notably, a group of 27 plaintiffs had accused 16 banks for reporting artificially low borrowing costs to ramp up earnings and appear financially healthy. Lower borrowing costs resulted in lower LIBOR, which adversely impacted individuals, and institutions that invested in the bond market as well as pension funds, mutual funds, money market funds, bank loan funds and several derivative products whose rates are tied to LIBOR. However, after initially dismissing the case in Mar 2013, U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald had allowed these plaintiffs to proceed with the same in August this year, based on a "viable legal theory". Taking note of such approval, Barclays geared up for a potential legal fine by creating an additional provision of œ270 million ($419 million) during the third quarter of 2015. Besides legacy benchmark litigations, the provision also serves as a reserve against the potential settlement of two residential mortgage- backed securities claims with the National Credit Union Administration. Nonetheless, the settlement still remains subject to approval from Buchwald. Notably, the plaintiffs include investment broker The Charles Schwab Corporation. The latest agreement follows a $94-million settlement to resolve similar claims raised against the bank for manipulating European Interbank Offered Rate (Euribor), the euro-denominated equivalent to LIBOR. Notably, Barclays is the first defendant bank to resolve claims among 16 banks that were accused for manipulation of LIBOR and 11 banks charged with rigging Euribor. Apart from Barclays, Frankfurt-based Deutsche Bank AG and London- headquartered HSBC Holdings plc have been charged for rigging these benchmark interest rates. According to Hausfeld LLP, the law firm representing the 27 plaintiffs, Barclays' settlement "is an icebreaker that could open up this litigation to future settlements." Moreover, Barclays will likely aid in the resolution of litigations against other accused banks. BERTAGNI 1882: Recalls Butternut Squash Ravioli Due to Nuts ----------------------------------------------------------- Bertagni 1882 SPA of Arcugnano, Italy is recalling Bertagni fresh Sweet Butternut Squash Ravioli and Meijer frozen Butternut Squash Ravioli because the products may contain undeclared cashew and almond. People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to cashew or almond run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products. Bertagni product is packaged in a paper tray inside a plastic bag and wrapped around with paper band, and was distributed nationwide between 5/11/15 and 11/12/15. The affected lot code can be found on the front of the Bertagni package. Meijer product is packaged in a paper box and was distributed in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin between 6/12/15 to 10/26/15. The affected lot code can be found on the side panel of Meijer package. The recalled products are listed in the table below: Brand Product UPC Lot Expiration Retail Unit Name Name --- Codes dates Size ---- ------- ----- ---------- ----------- Bertagni Sweet 8001020- 506B, from 8/3/16 8.8 oz. Butternut 110139 508C, to 1/29/17 Squash 511D, Ravioli 512C, 513B, 516B, 520A, 522B, 522F, 523B, 523C, 529C, 530F, 531F, 535C, 536A Meijer Butternut 760236- 519E 11/5/2016 12 oz. Squash 398479 Ravioli There have been no injuries or illnesses reported to date associated with these products. The recall was initiated because tests by an outside agency showed the presence of almond and cashew on raw material used in production of these products. Customers who purchased the recalled product should return it to the point of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact Bertagni at quality@bertagni1882.it. Meijer customers may contact Meijer directly at 877-363-4537. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/kcutJi BIG LOT: Faces Class Action for Violating FCRA ---------------------------------------------- Thomas Ahearn, writing for ESR Check, reported that A class action lawsuit filed in Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania against Big Lots Stores Inc. claims the retail discount store chain allegedly conducted improper background checks on employees in violation of the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), according to a report from TopClassActions.com. TopClassActions.com reports the lead plaintiff, Aaron Abel, claims extraneous information was included in the form Big Lots used to obtain consent from job applicants for background checks in violation of the FCRA when Abel applied to work at a Big Lots store in November 2013. Abel argues that the form he signed called 'Consent to Request Consumer Report & Investigative Consumer Report Information' is not a sufficient "disclosure that a consumer report may be obtained for employment purposes nor an authorization for the procurement of a consumer report." The lawsuit claims that the form also contains the statement "that all employment decisions are based on legitimate non- discriminatory reasons." Abel seeks statutory damages in the amount of $100 and $1,000 for each job applicant whose FCRA rights were allegedly violated by Big Lots. The lawsuit is Aaron Abel v. Big Lots Stores Inc., Case No. 151100286, in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas. The FCRA requires that "a clear and conspicuous disclosure has been made in writing to the consumer at any time before the report is procured or caused to be procured, in a document that consists solely of the disclosure, that a consumer report may be obtained for employment purposes." This requirement for "a clear and conspicuous disclosure" is by far the most common claim made in recent FCRA class action lawsuits. In 2015 alone, companies such as Food Lion, Home Depot, Chuck E. Cheese, BMW, and Whole Foods paid settlements in FCRA lawsuits ranging from $803,000 to $3 million. In addition, an article in The National Law Review describes a new breed of "phony job seekers" looking for FCRA violations instead of work by submitting job applications "solely to position themselves as the named plaintiff in class action litigation and secure a windfall settlement or litigation recovery." Employment Screening Resources (ESR) reminds readers that allegations made in FCRA class action lawsuits are not proof that a business violated any law, rule, or regulation. For more blogs about FCRA class action lawsuits, visit www.esrcheck.com/wordpress/tag/class-action-lawsuits/ BLUE BUFFALO: Recalls Cub Size Wild Chews Bones Due to Salmonella ----------------------------------------------------------------- Blue Buffalo Company is voluntarily recalling one production lot of Cub Size Wilderness Wild Chews Bones. This is being done in an abundance of caution, as the product has the potential to be contaminated with Salmonella. Salmonella can affect animals eating the product and there is risk to humans from handling contaminated pet products, especially if they have not thoroughly washed their hands after having contact with the products or any surfaces exposed to these products. Healthy people infected with Salmonella should monitor themselves for some or all of the following symptoms: nausea, vomiting, diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, abdominal cramping and fever. Rarely, Salmonella can result in more serious ailments including arterial infections, endocarditis, arthritis, muscle pain, eye irritation and urinary tract symptoms. Consumers exhibiting these signs after having contact with this product should contact their healthcare provider. Pets with Salmonella infections may have decreased appetite, fever and abdominal pain. Other clinical signs may include lethargy, diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, and vomiting. Infected but otherwise healthy pets can be carriers and infect other animals or humans. If your pet has consumed the recalled product and has these symptoms, please contact your veterinarian. The product was distributed starting November 19, 2015 in PetSmart stores located in the following 9 states: California, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Washington. The recalled product comes individually shrink-wrapped in plastic with the UPC number 840243110087 printed on a sticker affixed to the product, and an expiration date of November 4, 2017, printed as "exp 110417" on the shrink-wrap. Consumers should look at the UPC Code and expiration date on the product package to determine if it is subject to the voluntary recall. The voluntary recall is limited to the following product and production lot: Product Name UPC Code Expiration Date ------------ -------- --------------- Cub Size Wilderness 840243110087 November 4, 2017 Wild Chews Bone Routine testing at the manufacturing site revealed the presence of Salmonella in the product. No illnesses have been reported to date and no other Blue Buffalo products are affected. Consumers who have purchased the product subject to this recall are urged to dispose of the product or return it to the place of purchase for full refund. Consumers with questions may contact Blue Buffalo at: 888-641-9736 from 8 AM to 5 PM Eastern Time Monday through Friday and the weekend of November 28, 2015, or by email at Bluebuffalo4260@stericycle.com for more information. About Blue Buffalo Blue Buffalo, based in Wilton, CT, is a pet products company that makes natural foods and treats for dogs and cats. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/WYH98w BOIRON INC: Judge Deies Class Status to Suit Over Flu Remedy ------------------------------------------------------------ Dana Herra, writing for Cook Country Record, reported that A federal judge has denied class certification in a lawsuit against the maker of a homeopathic flu remedy, but is permitting the man who filed the suit to proceed with his claim for individual relief. Plaintiff Chad Conrad sued Boiron Inc. and Boiron USA Inc., manufacturer of a homeopathic remedy called Oscillococcinum, sold under the name Oscillo. According to the lawsuit, Boiron claimed the remedy would relieve flu-like symptoms. "The principal allegation . . . has been that Oscillo is nothing more than a sugar pill because its active ingredient, Anas Barbariae (a combination of duck hearts and livers) is diluted so extensively in the homeopathic manufacturing process that there is no statistical possibility that even a single molecule of it remains in the final product," wrote U.S. District Judge William T. Hart in his opinion issued Nov. 12. Because Oscillo is a homeopathic remedy, it is not regulated by the FDA, which does not regulate vitamins, herbs and homeopathic supplements. In his suit, Conrad, who purchased Oscillo in late July 2012, sought to represent all people who purchased the drug on or after the same date, as permitted by the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. The judge noted similar allegations have already been made against Oscillo, including a case in the Southern District of California that resulted in a class settlement and was affirmed on appeal. That settlement, reached in October 2012 and affirmed in 2015, provided reimbursement to past purchasers of Oscillo, required changes to the product's labeling and set up a refund program under which customers could obtain refunds within 14 days of purchase by providing their contact information, the product UPC and the original cash register receipt. The judge noted Conrad could have benefited from the refund period, but purchased the drug outside of the class period of the settlement. He also noted that class certification has been denied in two other lawsuits regarding Oscillo. Conrad's case was stayed pending resolution of the appeal in the Southern California case. Once that case was settled, Boiron moved to dismiss the case or at least to strike the class allegations. Among the company's arguments was that Conrad's claim was rendered moot by the existing refund program and the fact that the company offered to settle with him before he filed his lawsuit. The judge found the circumstances did not moot the case, but the offer Boiron made to Conrad before he filed the suit -- reimbursing him the cost of the drug plus an additional 25 percent and reasonable attorney fees and costs -- mean that he cannot be an adequate class representative, because the amount of the offer "exceeds any refund he could have obtained, as well as any actual damages that he suffered." The class certification was denied, and the claims of the putative class were dismissed. The judge dismissed Conrad's claim for injunctive relief, finding Conrad cannot suffer future harm because he has no intention of buying Oscillo again. While the offer fully compensates the individual damages claim, it also asks for complete judgment in return, preventing Conrad from ever appealing. That finding resulted in the court's opinion that the offer is not one of full compensation. Hart ruled that Conrad may proceed with his individual damages claim, and ordered the parties to discuss settlement before the next status hearing, scheduled for Nov. 19. Conrad is represented in the action by the firms of Siprut PC and Boodell & Domanskis, of Chicago, and Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint, of Phoenix. Boiron is represented by the firms of Arnstein & Lehr, of Chicago, and Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, of Washington, D.C. BOYLE'S FAMOUS: Recalls Beef Products Due to Wheat Protein ---------------------------------------------------------- Boyle's Famous Corned Beef Co., a Kansas City, Mo. establishment, is recalling an undetermined amount of beef products due to misbranding and an undeclared allergen, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The product contains hydrolyzed wheat protein, a known allergen which is not declared on the product label. The Beef Top Round was produced between Nov. 24, 2013 and Nov. 24, 2015. The following product is subject to recall: --- Approximately 20-lb. cases containing "Boyle's FAMOUS USDA CHOICE SEASONED-COOKED BEEF TOP ROUND." The products subject to recall bear establishment number "EST. M- 469" inside the USDA mark of inspection. The items were shipped to distributors in Iowa, Kansas and Missouri. The problem was discovered by FSIS personnel while conducting allergen verification tasks. The inspector discovered that a seasoning pack containing hydrolyzed wheat protein was added into the product without listing wheat on the final product label. There have been no confirmed reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about an injury or illness should contact a healthcare provider. Consumers who have purchased these products are urged not to consume them. These products should be thrown away or returned to the place of purchase. FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls. Consumers and Media with questions about the recall can contact Gregg Ouverson, General Manager, at (816) 221-6284. Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a day. The online Electronic Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a day at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem. CAMPBELL SOUP: Recalls SpaghettiOs Products Due to Choking Hazard ----------------------------------------------------------------- Campbell Soup Company (NYSE:CPB) is voluntarily recalling 14.2 ounce cans of SpaghettiOs Original due to a potential choking hazard posed by pieces of red plastic found in a small number of cans. This plastic material is from parts of the can lining which may peel off. The affected 14.2 ounce SpaghettiOs Original product has a date of February 22, 2017 which is stamped on the base of the can, and a UPC code of 51000 22432 printed under the bar code. The issue was identified after the company received consumer complaints. This recall affects 355,000 cans and is limited to the United States. This product should not be eaten. People who have bought the affected product should return it to the store where it was purchased for an exchange or full refund. For more information call 1-866-535-3774 between 9 a.m. to 7 p.m. EST, Monday to Friday or visit Facebook/SpaghettiOs. Campbell Soup Company apologizes for the inconvenience. Campbell (NYSE:CPB) is driven and inspired by our Purpose, "Real food that matters for life's moments." The company makes a range of high-quality soups and simple meals, beverages, snacks and packaged fresh foods. For generations, people have trusted Campbell to provide authentic, flavorful and readily available foods and beverages that connect them to each other, to warm memories, and to what's important today. Led by its iconic Campbell's brand, the company's portfolio includes Pepperidge Farm, Bolthouse Farms, Arnott's, V8, Swanson, Pace, Prego, Plum, Royal Dansk, Kjeldsens and Garden Fresh Gourmet. Founded in 1869, Campbell has a heritage of giving back and acting as a good steward of the planet's natural resources. The company is a member of the Standard & Poor's 500 and the Dow Jones Sustainability Indexes. For more information, visit www.campbellsoupcompany.com or follow company news on Twitter via @CampbellSoupCo. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/rqFADW CASEY'S BAKERY: Recalls Snickers Cake Due to Peanuts ---------------------------------------------------- Casey's Bakery Inc. of Sioux Center, Iowa is voluntarily recalling all Snickers 8x8 cakes produced prior November 14, 2015, because the cakes contain undeclared peanuts. People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to peanuts run the risk of serious or life- threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products. Snickers 8x8 cake was distributed to stores in Orange City, Hartley and Hawarden by delivery to grocery stores. The cakes were also sold out of the Casey's Bakery retail store in Sioux Center. The cakes were only distributed within the state of Iowa. All cakes with date codes prior to 696 or purchased before Nov. 14, 2015 are being recalled. The code may be found on the back of the product package. Cakes come in individual foil trays with clear plastic lids and are sold frozen. Net weight is 23 oz. No Illnesses have been reported to date. The recall was voluntarily initiated after a label inspection was performed and it was discovered the label did not properly claim peanuts in the toppings as an ingredient. The labeling has been updated and all current Snickers 8x8 cakes properly declare the peanuts in the toppings on the Ingredient List. This recall does not apply to any other Casey's Bakery Products. Consumers may return the product to Casey's Bakery Inc. for a full refund. For more information, contact Kathy De Groot at 712-722- 2551 9 am to 5 pm CST Monday through Friday. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/uWnIjq CHS INC: Recalls Feeds for Mature Cattle, Horses, Goats & Sheep --------------------------------------------------------------- CHS Inc. announced it has implemented a voluntary recall of 50- pound packages of its Kountry Buffet 14% Text and Provider 15% Pellet, both for Mature Cattle, Horses, Goats & Sheep due to excessive levels of copper. No illnesses or deaths have been reported to date. Consumption of the affected product may cause potential health risks, including death, in sheep. Symptoms of copper toxicity in sheep include lethargy, anemic appearance, excessive teeth grinding, extreme thirst, pale membranes (jaundice) and bloody urine. The recalled products were manufactured in September 2015 and October 2015 at CHS Inc.'s Harrisburg, Ore., feed mill and distributed to 42 customers in Oregon and Washington. Kountry Buffet 14% Text features a salmon-colored label attached to a brown bag. Provider 15% Pellet features a yellow label attached to a brown bag. Affected Lot numbers for either product can be found at the bottom of the label and are as follows: Kountry Buffet 14% Text Lot # Provider 15% Pellet Lot # ----------------------------- ------------------------- 85092415-M702660 85101415-M732580 85100615-M720130 85101515-M734810 85101215-M728050 85101515-M734590 85102315-M748470 The potential presence of high copper levels was detected by routine sample tests of the product conducted by a third-party lab. After notifying the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in early November, the company began to proactively contact affected dealers and end consumers to inform each of the voluntary recall of all unconsumed product in the listed Lot numbers. Consumers who purchased this product and have remaining quantities should immediately discontinue use and are urged to return them to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact the company at (800) 398-0327 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. CDT. Information also is available at http://www.paybacknutrition.com. CHS Inc. (www.chsinc.com) is a leading global agribusiness owned by farmers, ranchers and cooperatives across the United States. Diversified in energy, grains and foods, CHS is committed to helping its customers, farmer-owners and other stakeholders grow their businesses through its domestic and global operations. CHS, a Fortune 100 company, supplies energy, crop nutrients, grain marketing services, animal feed, food and food ingredients, along with business solutions including insurance, financial and risk management services. The company operates petroleum refineries/pipelines and manufactures, markets and distributes Cenex(R) brand refined fuels, lubricants, propane and renewable energy products. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/BKEKq3 DELTA PETROLEUM: Feb. 19 Fairness Hearing of $3.2MM Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- A summary in RE: issued by Federman & Sherwood regarding the Delta Petroleum Corporation Securities Litigation. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Christine M. Arguello Civil Action No. 12-cv-01038-CMA-CBS (Consolidated for all purposes with Civil Action No. 12-cv-01521-CMA-CBS) PATIPAN NAKKHUMPUN, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DANIEL J. TAYLOR, JOHN R. WALLACE, CARL E. LAKEY, and KEVIN K. NANKE, Defendants. SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF ACTION AND SETTLEMENT HEARING THEREON TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED THE COMMON STOCK OF DELTA PETROLEUM CORPORATION ("DELTA") DURING THE PERIOD FROM MARCH 11, 2010 THROUGH NOVEMBER 9, 2011, INCLUSIVE. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, that Lead Plaintiff in the above-captioned litigation (the "Litigation") have reached a proposed settlement with Defendants for $3,200,000.00 in cash, plus interest earned (the "Settlement"). A hearing will be held on February 19, 2016, at 2:00 p.m., before the Honorable Christine M. Arguello, United States District Judge, in Courtroom A602 of the United States District Court, Alfred A. Arraj Courthouse, 901 19th Street, Denver, CO 80294, for the purpose of determining: (1) whether the Court should certify the Settlement Class for purposes of the Settlement pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23; (2) whether the proposed Settlement of $3,200,000.00 in cash, plus any return thereon, should be approved by the Court as fair, just, reasonable, and adequate; (3) whether the Litigation should be dismissed with prejudice as against Defendants and their Corresponding Released Parties as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement dated as of September 18, 2015; (4) whether the Plan of Allocation is fair, reasonable, and adequate and, therefore, should be approved; (5) whether the application of Plaintiffs' Counsel for the payment of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of costs and expenses incurred in connection with the Litigation should be approved; and (6) such other matters as the Court may deem appropriate. If you purchased Delta's common stock during the period of March 11, 2010 through November 9, 2011, inclusive, your rights may be affected by the settlement of the Litigation. If you have not received a detailed Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action and Settlement Hearing Thereon (the "Notice") and a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release, you may obtain copies by writing to Delta Petroleum Securities Litigation, c/o Heffler Claims Group, Claims Administrator, P.O. Box 59028, Philadelphia, PA 19102-9028, or by calling 1-855-887-3480. You may also obtain copies on the internet at www.DeltaPetroleumSettlement.com. Complete information concerning the Litigation may be obtained from the Court files on this matter. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must timely submit a Proof of Claim to the Claims Administrator's address provided above and postmarked no later than January 29, 2016. If you are a member of the Settlement Class and do not submit a proper Claim Form, you will not share in the distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement but you will nevertheless be bound by any judgment or orders entered by the Court. If you desire to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you must submit to the Claims Administrator a request for exclusion, at the address above and postmarked no later than January 29, 2016, in the manner and form detailed in the Notice. If you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not be bound by any judgment or orders entered by the Court in the Litigation and you will not be eligible to share in the proceeds of the Settlement. Any objection to the proposed Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, and/or Fee and Expense Application must be filed in the manner detailed in the Notice with the Clerk of the Court and delivered to Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs and Counsel for Defendants, such that it is received by each party no later than January 29, 2016, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING THIS NOTICE. Any questions, should be directed to: Claims Administrator: Delta Petroleum Securities Litigation c/o Heffler Claims Group P.O. Box 59028 Philadelphia, PA 19102-9028 (855) 887-3480 www.DeltaPetroleumSettlement.com Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs: William B. Federman, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 N. Pennsylvania Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73120 (405) 235-1560 wbf@federmanlaw.com DATED: November 23, 2015 BY ORDER OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF COLORADO DR. REDDY'S: Lundin Law Files Class Suit Over FDA Approvals ----------------------------------------------------------- Rita Mcdonald, writing for Observer Leader Daily News, reported that an American law firm Lundin Law PC said it is initiating an investigation against the Indian drug maker related to the FDA action. The development comes days after the home-grown pharma giant received warning letters from the US Food and Drug Administration (USFDA) over inadequate quality controls at three of its manufacturing facilities in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. The warning means the company would not receive USA approvals for drugs made at the plants until it fixes the problems. Most stocks have already corrected before law suits filed against them. Shares of Dr Reddy's Laboratories are trading at Rs 3,330.45, down Rs 45.1, or 1.34% at the Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE) on at 12:15 p.m. A class action lawsuit involves one or several persons suing a company on behalf of a larger group of persons. In FY2015, Dr Reddy's registered an annual sales of Rs 10,010.94 crore. Since the announcement, the market cap of DRL has slumped by close to Rs 16,000 crore. If you have information that could assist in this investigation, or if you are a Dr Reddy's shareholder and are interested in learning more about the investigation or your legal rights and remedies, please contact Jim Baker (jimb@johnsonandweaver.com) by e-mail or by phone at 619-814-4471. The other US-based global law firms including Goldberg Law PC, Rosen Law Firm, Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC, Khang and Khang LLP, Howard G Smith, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP have also announced investigating claims of potential misrepresentations by Dr Reddy's Laboratories of possible violations of federal securities laws. Subsequent to the ANDA filings for Nexium generic by Dr Reddy's a few years ago, the Dr Reddy's petition said AZ had sued Dr Reddy's for patent infringement and during that suit, DRL produced portions of its ANDA and physical samples, which disclosed the ingredients, form, packaging and look of its proposed generic product, including that its proposed capsule was purple. Lundin Law PC was created by Brian Lundin, a securities litigator based in Los Angeles, according to the firm's statement. Brian Lundin, Esq LUNDIN LAW PC 10 Post Office Rd #300 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Tel: 888-713-1033 Email: brian@lundinlawpc.com EAGLE BOYS: Faces Class Suit Over Alleged Wage Fraud ---------------------------------------------------- Adele Ferguson, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reported that one of the country's biggest pizza chains, Eagle Boys, is battling to raise up to $20 million in capital, amid a savage price war, a fractious relationship with some of its franchisees and allegations of wage fraud in some of its stores. An information memorandum, obtained by Fairfax Media, says Eagle Boys "makes available access to participation in the ownership of up to 100 per cent of this unique Australian-owned quick service food franchising brand". It says the funds will be used to retire a "significant" amount of debt, open 50 corporate stores, invest in technology and expand the franchise network ahead of an IPO in the next three to five years. The information memorandum was issued in September with a closing date of October 31 and new shares to be issued on November 30. However, speculation is rife that the raising has not been a success. The company refused to confirm whether the raising had closed and if the speculation was correct. It said in a statement: "The Eagle Boys board of directors is looking to partner with investors across Pan Asia to help develop and grow the brand of this legendary Australian business." Eagle Boys is 85 per cent owned by private equity outfit NBC Capital, which acquired the majority stake in the third biggest pizza chain in 2007. However, since the acquisition, Eagle Boys has been dogged by a string of controversies, including a legal stoush with some franchisees, a revolving door of management and a dramatic reduction in stores to 155 in Australia and 200 globally. At its peak Eagle Boys was the nation's second biggest pizza chain with 340 Australian stores. The information memorandum says on a normalised basis, EBITDA was $1.6 million in 2015, compared with $1.4 million in 2014. The document, which says "forward looking statements should not be regarded as a representation or warranty with respect to their accuracy or their accuracy of the underlying assumptions", estimates a massive spike in EBITDA to $5 million by 2018. Franchise fight Sydney lawyer Richard Mitry, of Mitry Lawyers, told this columnist a class action by franchisees could not be ruled out. Mitry is representing two franchisees in a cross claim against Eagle Boys. He said in the past 18 months at least 30 franchisees had contacted him in relation to taking legal action against Eagle Boys. He said many of them had become insolvent or bankrupt as a result of their dealing with Eagle Boys. There are also allegations that some franchisees, who have been squeezed by savage price wars, have underpaid workers and delivery drivers. Eagle Boys said it wasn't aware of any "current" allegations or complaints by delivery workers in relation to any of the Eagle Boys franchisee stores. It follows revelations that franchisees at Australia's second- biggest pizza chain, Pizza Hut, are using "sham" contracts to pay delivery drivers as little as $12 an hour without super or WorkCover. It comes hot on the heels of a joint investigation by Four Corners and Fairfax Media that revealed systemic worker exploitation at 7- Eleven. Workers at a range of fast-food chains, nail salons, restaurants and retail stores have also been caught out underpaying and mistreating workers, many of whom are international students. During the past few years, savage price wars have erupted in the pizza industry as the big chains, Pizza Hut, Domino's and Eagle Boys, have slugged it out to get market share. The price war sent some franchisees to the wall, and in Pizza Hut's case, it prompted 90 per cent of franchisees to launch a class action in the federal court, alleging unconscionable conduct under the franchising code. Fairfax Media reported that a number of Eagle Boy franchisees were facing bankruptcy or insolvency. The article cited a number of franchisees who said their problems began when NBC Capital bought into the business and stopped radio, television and letterbox advertising. Advertising a common complaint The issue of advertising has been a common theme among franchisees. Under the terms of the franchise agreement, Eagle Boys set up an advertising fund that it administered and controlled to improve the advertising support of franchisees. The arrangement required that franchisees pay an advertising levy based on the weekly calculations of the franchisee's gross sales for the previous week. Legal documents lodged in the Magistrates Court of Queensland between Eagle Boys and two franchisees, allege that at a Western Australian franchisee meeting franchisees were told that Eagle Boys didn't have the "requisite funds to advertise". It alleges from May 2013 Eagle Boys had not advertised and had removed advertising from all mediums, which is in breach of the agreement. Asked if there was any inappropriate use of the AdFund, the company's response was a perfunctory: "the AdFund has been audited each year and is compliant with the Franchising Code of Conduct." When asked why the information memorandum didn't mention its relationship with some franchisees or threat of a legal action, it said: "Eagle Boys remains committed to protecting the Eagle Boys brand and maintaining focus on the business in a competitive industry." But the information memorandum does discuss competitor activity and the trading environment. "The pizza war between Domino's and Pizza Hut which started has had an impact on the group's business. There was a lag effect of eight weeks, in line with standard consumer behaviour. Franchisees did not support reacting to the price war until 10 weeks after the start." Whether that means the franchisees are to blame for dragging their heels, or something else, is hard to tell. Whatever the case, Eagle Boys, in its information memorandum, says it has waded into price wars and is offering $4.95 pizzas across two menu categories on. Meanwhile, franchisees continue to complain, some workers and delivery drivers allege underpayment of wages and the company is trying to expand its footprint and find new shareholders. It will be an interesting next chapter. EMC CORP: Faces Suit Over Plan to Sell Co. to Dell for $64BB ------------------------------------------------------------ Su Ma, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. Joseph M. Tucci, Jose E. Almeida, Michael W. Brown, Donald J. Carty, Randolph L. Cowen, James S. Distasio, John R. Egan, William D. Green, Edmund F. Kelly, Jami Miscik, Paul Sagan, Laura J. Sen, EMC Corporation, Denali Holding Inc., Dell Inc., and Universal Acquisition Co., Case no: 15-3281 (Commonwealth of Massachusetts Suffolk County, SS. Superior Court Department of the Trial Court, Nov. 29, 2015), was brought on behalf of purported shareholders of EMC Corporation against EMC's Board of Directors for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty arising from their attempt to sell the Company to Denali Holding Inc. and Dell Inc. for a Proposed Transaction valued at approximately $64 billion. EMC purports to be a global leader in enabling businesses and service providers to transform their operations and deliver IT as a service. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey C. Block, Esq. Jason M. Leviton, Esq. Steven P. Harte, Esq. Jacob A. Walker, Esq. Joel A. Fleming, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 155 Federal Street, Suite 400 Boston, MA 0211 0 Phone: (617) 398-5600 Fax: (617) 507-6020 E-mail: jeff@blockesq .com jason@blockesq.com steven@blockesq.com jake@blockesq.com joel@blockesq.com - and - Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. Innessa S. Melamed, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 369 Lexington Avenue, lOth Floor New York, New York 10017 Phone: (212)-983-9330 Fax: (212)-983-9331 E-mail: jmonteverde@faruqilaw.com imelamed@faruqilaw.com EXPERIAN HOLDINGS: Faces Suit Due to Loss of Info in Cyber-Attack ----------------------------------------------------------------- David Vazquez and Jenifer Gonzalez, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Experian Holdings, Inc., Case No. 8:15-cv-01813 (C.D.Cal., Nov. 5, 2015), asserts claims for negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, California Unfair Competition Law, California Business & Professional Code, and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act because of the loss of sensitive personal information of an alleged 15 million consumers due to a cyber-attack. Experian is a consumer reporting agency, which regularly engages in the practice of assembling or evaluating consumer credit information or other information on consumers for the purpose of furnishing consumer reports to third parties on a nationwide basis. The Plaintiffs are represented by Betsy C. Manifold, Esq. Rachele R. Rickert, Esq. Marisa C. Livesay, Esq. Brittany N. Dejong , Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 750 B Street, Suite 2770 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619/239-4599 Fax: 619/234-4599 E-mail: manifold@whafh.com rickert@whafh.com livesay@whafh.com dejong@whafh.com - and - Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq. Nancy Kulesa, Esq. Courtny E. Maccarone, Esq. LEVI & KORSINKSY, LLP 30 Broad Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 10004 Phone: (232) 363-7500 Fax: (866) 367-6510 E-mail: shopkins@zlk.com nkulesa@zlk.com cmaccarone@zlk.com FACEBOOK: Austrian Supreme Court to Decide on Privacy Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Peter Sayer, writing for PCWorld.com, reported that the Austrian privacy activist who has become a thorn in Facebook's side will have his case considered by his country's supreme court as it weighs whether a class action suit against the social networking company can go ahead. Max Schrems sued Facebook in the local court in his home town of Vienna, alleging that the company breached European Union privacy laws. He also sought to join complaints from thousands of other Facebook users with his own in a sort of class action. When the local court rejected his case, saying it did not have jurisdiction, Schrems turned to the Vienna court of appeal.It overturned 20 of the 22 procedural and jurisdictional objections upheld by the local court, allowing Schrems' individual case to proceed, but still turned down his planned class action. On Nov. 2, Schrems sought a ruling from the Austrian supreme court that the class action could go ahead -- while Facebook also turned to the supreme court seeking to overturn the appeals court ruling. Now the supreme court has agreed to hear the case, Schrems said. The supreme court may choose not to decide the class action question for itself, and may instead refer it to the Court of Justice of the European Union -- the same court that recently struck down the Safe Harbor transatlantic data sharing agreement in another case brought by Schrems against Facebook, this time in the Irish courts. Also on, Schrems published his legal team's response to Facebook's appeal filing. In it he asked the supreme court not to delay the entire case in the Vienna local court if it should choose to refer questions to the CJEU, but only to stay those parts of the action regarding which it had questions. He did this in the interests of a speedy and inexpensive case, he wrote. There will be no hearing in the supreme court case, according to Schrems: all arguments are written, and the ruling will come early. Facebook had little new to say on the record about the case. "We're awaiting the decision," a Facebook spokeswoman said via email. She also repeated remarks made by company representatives when the Vienna appeals court announced its ruling: "This litigation was unnecessary. We're pleased that the court affirmed the key rulings that these claims could not proceed as a global class action and that the Austrian court does not have jurisdiction to hear these claims." FIT FIRM: Recalls Herbal Slimcap Capsules Due to Sibutramine ------------------------------------------------------------ Fit Firm and Fabulous is voluntarily recalling lots 05/02/2015 to 05/01/2017 of Ultimate Herbal Slimcap capsules, to the consumer level. FDA analysis has found the product to contain undeclared sibutramine. Sibutramine was a previously approved controlled substance that was removed from the U.S. market in October 2010 for safety reasons. This ingredient makes Ultimate Herbal Slimcap an unapproved drug for which safety and efficacy have not been established and, therefore, subject to recall. Products containing sibutramine pose a threat to consumers because sibutramine is known to substantially increase blood pressure and/or pulse rate in some patients and may present a significant risk for patients with a history of coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure, arrhythmias or stroke. These products may also interact in life threatening ways with other medications a consumer may be taking. To date, Fit Firm and Fabulous has not received any reports of adverse events related to this recall. The product is a dietary supplement marketed for weight loss and is packaged in 30-count bottles, labeled Part 1 of 3, UPC 5 42423 25422 1. The affected Ultimate Herbal Slimcap lots include the following lots 05/02/2015 to 05/01/2017. The product can be identified by. Ultimate Herbal Slimcaps was distributed Nationwide via the website. Fit Firm and Fabulous has notified its distributors and customers by telephone and has arranged for return or destroy of all recalled products. Consumers/distributors/retailers that have product which is being recalled should stop using and discard. Consumers with questions regarding this recall can contact Fit Firm and Fabulous by e-mail at customerservice@fitfirmandfabulous.com on Monday through Friday from 9 am EST and 5 pm EST Consumers should contact their physician or healthcare provider if they have experienced any problems that may be related to taking or using this drug product. Adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use of this product may be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting program either online, by regular mail or by fax. Complete and submit the report Online: www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm Regular Mail or Fax: Download form www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htm or call 1-800-332-1088 to request a reporting form, then complete and return to the address on the pre-addressed form, or submit by fax to 1-800-FDA-0178. This recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/Ea5qKd FIVE PAWNS: Faces Multimillion Dollar Suit for False Advertising ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kaleigh Rogers, writing for Motherboard, reported that a group of three vapers has filed a multimillion-dollar class action lawsuit for false advertising against a US company that makes flavored liquids for e-cigarettes. The suit alleges that Five Pawns, a high-end e-liquid manufacturer, violated state and federal false advertising laws by misleading consumers about certain flavoring chemicals found in some of its liquids. The chemicals have been linked to lung disease when inhaled and are found in many vaping products, but the lawsuit claims Five Pawns lied to its consumers about using the chemicals. Five Pawns, which is based out of California, has made a name for itself in the vaping market as a luxury brand. It offers hand- made, small-batch e-liquids-the flavored, usually nicotine-laced liquids used in vaporizers like e-cigs-with a luxury price tag to match. A 30 mL bottle of one of Five Pawns's flavors will run you $27.50, compared to as little as $8 per 30 mL for some other brands. However, the company landed in hot water earlier this year after it published test results that revealed many of its liquids contained high levels of a chemical commonly used in food flavoring called acetyl propionyl (AP). AP gives foods (and vapor) a creamy, buttery taste and texture (it's commonly used in microwave popcorn) and is nearly identical to another chemical called diacetyl (DA), which has been linked to serious lung disease when inhaled by factory workers. Though the long-term effects of inhaling DA or AP through vaping have not been studied, some vapers prefer to avoid the chemicals. Five Pawns is far from the only company to use the chemicals-AP and diacetyl are very common in certain kinds of e-liquid flavors, like butterscotch and caramel. But the lawsuit asserts that Five Pawns e-liquids misled customers about its use of the chemicals. The lawsuit alleges that Five Pawns claimed to have eliminated all diacetyl from its products, but later tests showed many liquids still contained trace amounts. It also claims that Five Pawns purposely told consumers its products were free of DA and AP despite having test results that showed the contrary, and asserts that the levels of AP were egregiously high: Since the vaping market is unregulated in the US, there are no laws about having to disclose certain ingredients to consumers or warn about potential harm. However, the suit is specifically accusing Five Pawns of misleading and deceiving its customers, which is illegal. John Bowerbank, the attorney representing Five Pawns, told me via email that the company refutes the claims, and that the company said the lawsuit is "unfounded and without merit." "Five Pawns is leading the industry with regard to safety and transparency on this issue and we intend to vigorously dispute the claims and allegations in the lawsuit," the company wrote in a statement sent by Bowerbank. "Five Pawns will fight aggressively on behalf of itself and the entire vaping industry to set a precedent to avoid copycat lawsuits against other vaping companies that are driven by the improper motive to line one's pockets by forcing undue monetary settlements." The three plaintiffs brought forward the lawsuit in California, under the representation of a New York law firm. Though it doesn't demand a specific amount in damages, the suit states that the damages sought exceed $5 million. The suit is open for any other customer who bought Five Pawns liquids in the last three years to join in. Filing a suit is the easy part, but getting that suit certified class action and actually making it to trial is a difficult task, so it's yet to be seen whether or not Five Pawns will have to face these allegations in court. But the filing highlights the growing tension between a passionate consumer base and unregulated manufacturers. There's clearly a need for some structure in the market, which is expected to hit $3.5 billion globally this year. And whether this lawsuit makes it to court or not, as the industry tries to cope with its rapid growing pains, more lawsuits could easily be on the horizon. FLINT, MI: Show Cause Hearing in Water Bill Increase Suit Set ------------------------------------------------------------- MLive.com reported that a court hearing has been set to see if the city of Flint is complying with a mid-August ruling preventing it from shutting off water for some past-due bills. Attorney Val Washington, who is representing Flint residents in a class action lawsuit, said in a Monday, Nov. 16, court hearing the city may not be complying with Genesee Circuit Judge Archie Hayman's August ruling. During nine months in 2011, city water customers saw a 57 percent increase in their water bills -- not the 35 percent increase that was used for the recent adjustments to city water bills, Washington said. "Now we know there was another illegal increase in January 2011," Washington said. He included 10 to 15 billing statements to show recently issued water adjustments but said those water customers' bills have not gone down. Hayman scheduled a hearing on Washington's claims and the steps the city made to inform Flint water customers about the recent changes made because of his August order. "It was a great concern to me that the information be communicated to the public correctly," Hayman said. "I think it was important to bring this back up ... Water is serious in every community. To me, I want to make sure that the improvement is protected." Hayman said he was primarily concerned with senior citizens who may not fully understand what is going on with their water bills. The city recently sent water bills showing adjustments based on Hayman's August judgment. Fraser Trebilcock, who is representing the city of Flint, said the city has followed the judge's order and this is an attempt to prevent the city from being able to smoothly move forward with the appeal process. "The government is immune to those proceedings that would prevent it from moving forward," he said. "The city has been in full compliance with the order." Washington also asked Hayman to prevent water shutoffs until all court proceedings are finished. Hayman said he would not. "We're trying to figure out if those delinquencies that they have are because of improper increases in water rates," Hayman said. "But once we get past that day...you can shut people water off if they don't pay. That's all I have said. Because I believe that is fair." "In my opinion there are a lot of people who pay their water bills," Hayman said. "People have to pay their water bills." Hayman also made it clear during the Nov. 16 hearing that there is still uncertainty where $15.7 million that was taken from the water fund went. "There is an issue here when you take the $15.7 million out of the water fund and you pay this lawsuit," Hayman said. "Is that an issue of maintenance, administration cost or operations cost of the water fund?" Hayman said according to law the water fund is only to be used for maintenance, administrative and operational costs. The class action lawsuit, which was prompted by Flint resident Larry Shears, claims the city illegally raised water and sewer rates in 2011. "People also need to know how it impacted them," Hayman added. "Are they paying higher water bills to put that money back?" The show cause hearing is scheduled for noon in Hayman's courtroom at the Genesee County Circuit Court building, 900 S. Saginaw St. FUNERARIAS DE LAS: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit for FLSA Violation ------------------------------------------------------------ Jorge L. Rodriguez and other similarly-situated individuals, v. Funerarias De Las Americas Internacional Inc., Signal Finance Company LLC, Miami Funeral Services & Crematories, Inc., Hilbert Mohabir, Dayana Sosa and Estrella Rodero, individually, Case No. 1:15-cv-24154-CMA (S.D.Fla., Nov. 5, 2015), seeks to recover money damages for alleged unpaid minimum and overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants provide funeral home and crematory services in the areas of Miami-Dade County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Phone: (305) 446-1500 Fax: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com GIANT EAGLE: Recalls Apricot Logs and Poppyseed Logs Due to Milk ---------------------------------------------------------------- All lots of Market District brand Apricot Logs and Poppyseed Logs prepared and sold individually from the Bakery department inside Giant Eagle and Market District supermarkets with sell by dates from November 7, 2015 through November 17, 2015 have been voluntarily recalled by Giant Eagle due to an undeclared milk allergen. People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to milk run the risk of a serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products. The product is safe for consumption by those who do not have milk allergies. Approximately 460 potentially affected Apricot Logs and Poppyseed Logs were purchased in various transactions in Giant Eagle and Market District supermarkets in Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia and Maryland. There are no reported illnesses to date associated with this recall. The logs were sold individually from the Bakery department with UPCs of: --- 219772 509998 Market District Apricot Log --- 219773 509997 Market District Poppyseed Log Giant Eagle became aware of the issue after a quality assurance review of the ingredient declaration. The product label for the bakery logs, which contain milk, omitted milk as an allergen. Customers with a milk allergy who have purchased the affected product should dispose of it or return it to their local Giant Eagle or Market District store for a refund. Customers with questions may call Giant Eagle Customer Care at 1-800-553-2324 Monday through Friday 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. EST. In addition to this public communication regarding this recall, Giant Eagle initiated its consumer recall telephone notification process. The consumer recall process uses purchase data and consumer telephone numbers housed in the Giant Eagle Advantage Card(R) database to alert those households that purchased the affected product and have updated telephone contact information in the database. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/fooN3j GENERAL MOTORS: Cassels Brock Continues Appeal for $45MM Costs -------------------------------------------------------------- Neil Etienne, writing for Law TimesNews, reported that litigation related to the class action involving Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP continues with the firm appealing the $45 million in damages assessed against it in July and its third-party claim against 150 lawyers from across the country heading to a jurisdictional hearing in early December. In its notice of appeal, Cassels Brock is seeking to have the judgment against it set aside, the actions against it dismissed with costs or, failing that, a new trial. "The reasons of the trial judge are deficient, internally inconsistent, fail to properly characterize the evidence at trial and do not demonstrate that the trial judge considered material aspects of the evidence before him," the firm stated in its notice of appeal. In his decision this summer in Trillium Motor World Ltd. v. General Motors of Canada Ltd., Justice Thomas McEwen found Cassels Brock had breached contractual and fiduciary duties it owed to some or all of the class members. As well, he found it had breached a duty of care. In 2009, General Motors eliminated about 200 dealers during the government's bailout of the auto sector. The class action against GM was seeking $750 million in damages on behalf of those dealers. Also named in the suit was Cassels Brock, which the dealers claimed to have retained during GM's restructuring through its retainer with the Canadian Automotive Dealers Association. The claim alleged Cassels Brock had failed to disclose it was also acting for the Canadian government in the bailout and had breached its duties to them. In its appeal of McEwen's ruling, Cassels Brock argues that contrary to the claims of Trillium Motor World, it never acted for the dealers as GM never made a filing under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act. It argues there was never an official retainer with the dealers and that the trial judge had erred in inferring that it acted differently in its representation of dealer interests as a result of its retainer with their association. In addition, it argues the judge erred in his application of the law of negligence and failed to define the standard of care for lawyers retained in a group retainer in the circumstances of the case. It also suggests the judge made findings that contradicted his findings in the case against GM and that he failed to consider or apply the concept of professional judgment to his findings. Cassels Brock states in its appeal there were errors in the findings of causation as that wasn't a certified common issue and it suggests the trial judge failed to provide a chain of reasoning that would link the breaches he attributed to the firm to any losses by the dealers. David Sterns, a partner in Sotos LLP who's acting for the class, says the plaintiffs believe the decision against Cassels Brock should stand. "We're responding. Our position is that the decision is very well reasoned and it's based on facts that are extraordinary," he says. Sterns says the appellants have all filed their notices of appeal and expects the appeals will move forward at once, most likely in May 2016. In the meantime, Cassels Brock's own third-party claim against 150 individual lawyers involved in the case is also moving forward. Although she was unable to provide further comment, Jo-Anne Demers, a senior partner with Clyde and Co. Canada LLP who's representing the Quebec-based lawyers, confirms a jurisdictional hearing in relation to the third-party claim will take place Dec. 3. The claim alleges those lawyers, and not Cassels Brock, were negligent in advising on the wind-down agreements the dealers signed at the time of the bailout and suggests they should have to cover any damages it may have to pay. The agreements required the dealers to obtain independent legal advice before executing them, according to the firm. Sterns says the Supreme Court has granted leave to hear the jurisdictional argument from Quebec-based lawyers named in the third-party claim. He says those lawyers want their matter heard in Quebec rather than Ontario. Since McEwen's ruling, the case has spawned a series of appeals and cross-appeals. As part of his decision, McEwen found GM hadn't breached the Arthur Wishart Act and dismissed the action against it. He also dismissed a counterclaim by GM against each of the class members. GM is cross-appealing that decision. Sterns says the class is cross-appealing as well as it seeks to increase the damages to at least $75 million from Cassels Brock. Sterns says the appeal against GM relates to the duty of fair dealing owed by the franchisor to the dealers. "In essence, our argument is that the duty of fair dealing is not diminished because a franchisor is in financial distress," says Sterns. "The answer to that is insolvency, and in this case, General Motors made a specific decision not to go into insolvency protection. The main argument in our appeal is that it had the exact same duties, if not heightened duties, to its dealers despite its own financial problems." Class action lawyer Ward Branch of Vancouver's Branch MacMaster LLP says the prospect of Cassels Brock's third-party claim against 150 lawyers is one many people are watching as "it's a case of there but for the grace of God go I." He says Cassels Brock will face a number of hurdles in stating its case and suggests bringing together 150 individual lawyers will be logistically challenging, especially in light of the current jurisdictional debates. "That group will stand together and make it very difficult on you," he says. "You're trying to herd 150 cats with 150 different calendars and suddenly you're having to defend against 150 bright ideas." Branch suggests Cassels Brock will likely pursue a strategy of passing blame that he says can be successful in dispersing financial responsibility but is generally far more effective against a smaller group than 150 individuals. "When you third-party 150 people, it's almost too deluded," says Branch. "I would think going up against 150 people like that would be more bother than a help." GLANBIA PERFORMANCE: Sued Over Slack-Fill Packaging of Products --------------------------------------------------------------- Sammer Zakhour and Aurelio Batista, Individually And On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated, v. Glanbia Performance Nutrition, Inc. d/b/a Optimum Nutrition, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-02513-AJB-WVG (S.D.Cal., Nov. 5, 2015), alleges that the Defendant's slack-fill packaging of Whey Products violates consumer protection and labeling laws. Optimum Nutrition sells Whey Products on a nationwide basis, in close to 10,000 independent natural product and specialty retail stores, gyms, and fitness centers, and several major grocery chain and drug stores. The Plaintiffs are represented by Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Phone: (800) 400-6808 Fax: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com - and - Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. Naomi Spector, Esq. HYDE & SWIGART 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108 Phone: (619) 233-7770 Fax: (619) 297-1022 E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com naomi@westcoastlitigation.com GOOGLE INC: Must Face Consolidated Suit Over Internet Cookies ------------------------------------------------------------- Jimmy H. Koo, writing for Bloomberg News, reported that Google Inc. and other defendants will have to face California tort law claims in a consolidated class action alleging that the search engine giant tricked Internet users' browsers into accepting advertising cookies, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held Nov. 10. The appeals court, however, affirmed the dismissal of claims under the Wiretap Act; the Stored Communications Act; and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. According to the plaintiffs, when a consumer using a Safari Web browser or Micrsoft Internet Explorer browser visited a website using third-party tracking cookies from the defendants, those tracking cookies allegedly circumvented the consumer's Internet browsers settings that blocked such cookies. The defendants allegedly used the cookies to intercept the consumers' Internet communications and activities, according to the plaintiffs. The appeals court said that Google agreed to pay a $22.5 million civil penalty to settle similar Federal Trade Commission claims and a California district court approved that settlement in December 2012. An online advertising company not named in the lawsuit agreed to pay $1 million in July 2013 to settle similar claims by the New Jersey Division of Consumer Affairs. California Invasion of Privacy Claim In October 2013, the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware dismissed the class action at hand, finding that the plaintiffs failed to satisfy Article III's injury in fact requirement because they didn't sufficiently allege that their ability to monetize their information was diminished or lost by Google's collection of it. The appeals court, however, disagreed, finding that "contrary to the contentions of the defendants, a plaintiff need not show actual monetary loss for purposes of injury in fact." Nonetheless, the appeals court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims under the three federal statutes. Because the defendants were parties to "all electronic transmissions," plaintiffs state no Wiretap Act violation, the appeals court said. "The Wiretap Act is a wiretapping statute, and just because a scenario sounds in fraud or deceit does not mean it sounds in wiretapping," it said. Similarly, the appeals court found that the alleged intrusion upon the consumer's personal computing devices fail to implicate a "facility" that is protected by the Stored Communications Act. Finally, it said that the plaintiffs failed to plead "cognizable losses" as required to plead a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. However, the appeals court found that a reasonable factfinder could conclude that the means by which the defendants accomplished the tracking-by overriding the cookie blockers-"marks the serious invasion of privacy contemplated by California law." As such, the appeals court vacated the lower court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' "freestanding privacy claims" under the California Constitution and California tort law. Judge Julio M. Fuentes wrote the majority opinion. Barnes & Associates, Bartimus Frickleton Robertson & Gorny, Finger & Slanina, Keefe Bartels, Bryant Law Center, Seeger Weiss, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer and Strange & Carpenter represented the plaintiffs. Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati represented Google. Venable and Richards, Layton & Finger represented Vibrant Media Inc. Ropes & Gray represented Media Innovation Group LLC. Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell and Ropes & Gray and WPP Plc. HOBBY LOBBY: NLRB Steps Up Enforcement Against Class Suit Waivers ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kenneth J. Yerkes, John T.L. Koenig, David B. Ritter, William A. Nolan, Mark S. Kittaka, and Robert W. Sikkel, writing for The National Law Review, reported that many companies have mandatory arbitration agreements with their employees. Those agreements often contain class and collective action waivers, meaning employees must bring their claims individually. In a recent decision against Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., regarding just such an agreement, an administrative law judge (ALJ) under the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) once again ruled that such waivers violated the National Labor Relations Act, which protects "concerted activity" on behalf of employees to promote their mutual aid and benefit. However, the ALJ went further in this opinion than the NLRB has previously ruled. First, the ALJ ruled that the Federal Arbitration Act (which many federal courts have invoked to uphold such class action waivers in mandatory arbitration agreements) is inapplicable, stating the mandatory arbitration agreement is not a "transaction that affects commerce," a requirement for coverage under the FAA. Second, and even more significant for employers, the ALJ (1) recommended that Hobby Lobby notify the federal district courts where it had previously enforced it arbitration agreement that it would be rescinding or revising its unlawful mandatory arbitration agreement; and (2) ordered the company to reimburse the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and litigation expenses. HOMESTAT FARM: Recalls Organic Oats & Chia with Flax and Rye ------------------------------------------------------------ Homestat Farm of Dublin, OH is recalling some of its 42-ounce packages only of "Organic Steel Cut Oats & Chia with Flax And Rye Flakes" because the flax seed ingredient has the potential to be contaminated with Salmonella, an organism which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons infected with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. In rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in the organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more severe illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e., infected aneurysms), endocarditis and arthritis. The recalled "Organic Steel Cut Oats & Chia with Flax And Rye Flakes" was distributed on a limited basis in Sams Club retail stores located in AK, CA, FL, GA, IL, IN, KS, MD, MI, MN, MS, NC, NH, OH, PA & TX. The product comes in a 42 ounce carton UPC 8 35882 00620 4 marked with Best Buy: 03/16/17-1, 03/16/18-1, 03/19/17-1, 03/19/17-2, 03/23/17-1, 03/23/17-2, 03/24/17-1, 03/26/17-1, 03/26/17-2, 04/08/17-2. The best buy date can be found embossed on the bottom flap of box next to the bar code. No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this issue. A supplier informed Homestat Farm of this after a contamination was found in flax seed provided to another customer. Consumers who have purchased these 42-ounce packages of "Organic Steel Cut Oats & Chia with Flax And Rye Flakes" should return them to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact the company at 1-800-819-3918 M-F 10AM-4PM. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/MqLdAo HOWARD SCHNEIDER: Embattled Dentist Jailed for Medicaid Fraud ------------------------------------------------------------- Beth Reese Cravey and Sebastian Kitchen, writing for Jacksonville.com, reported that Amanda Barry, holding her son Dominic who she claims was among the dozens of children brutally treated by dentist Howard Schneider, smiled hoping the arrest of the former Jacksonville dentist meant he could not harm any more children. In sign language, Barry communicated that Dominic threw his backpack in the air in joy when she informed him about the arrest on Monday. Although Barry and others are involved in civil action against Schneider, the dentist turned himself in to authorities on criminal charges of 11 counts of unauthorized Medicaid claims of $10,000 or less, according to a Sheriff's Office report. His bail was set at $110,000. Schneider, 78, gave up his license and left Jacksonville after complaints he hurt children at his practice. Attorney John Phillips, who represents 77 former patients and their families, said he knows there is also an investigation into the abuse and neglect. While he represents them in a civil case, Phillips said the families wanted to see criminal charges. "Trying to put dollar signs on the pain and suffering and the PTSD these children suffered is impossible," Phillips said. "This is definitely the justice I wanted since day one," said Brandi Motley, who also says her daughter Bri-el was a victim of Schneider. She said her Bri-el, who was quiet as Motley talked to reporters at Phillips's office, has suffered post-traumatic stress, distrusts men including her father and has a variety of other issues, including Motley's concerns about her eating habits. Motley said the case is headed in the right direction. "It's affected us big time," Motley said, adding they received threats and people said they had ruined Schneider's life after she spoke out about her daughter's treatment. Barry, who is deaf and communicated through an interpreter, and Motley were excited about Schneider being in jail. Phillips said anyone who saw the photos of Bri-el knows there was abuse. He referred to Schneider's use of restraints and questions about his use of medication or lack of medication. Bri-el went to Schneider's office Dec. 9 to have a tooth pulled. Three hours later, Motley said Schneider told her there had been "an incident." A visit to the emergency room revealed her daughter had a fractured nose, a black eye and a bruise on her neck, and seven teeth were gone. Motley previously told the Times-Union her daughter told her that "he threw her, sat on her, choked her and pulled her teeth." Schneider has claimed no wrongdoing when confronted about the abuse allegations. Schneider is facing multiple lawsuits in connection with abuse claims. In April, angry parents protested outside his 1871 University Blvd. S. office and accused him of performing unnecessary procedures as well as harming the youngsters. Protesters said Schneider pulled more teeth than necessary and did substandard work on their children. Those allegations also sparked a criminal investigation and caused the closing of his office. On May 6 four people joined for a class-action lawsuit against Schneider -- all of them parents who said their children were mistreated and hurt by the dentist -- and he surrendered his license May 30. The lawsuit and protests come on top of a criminal investigation by the Florida Attorney General's Office's Medicaid fraud unit. Schneider initially moved to Charleston, but his Sheriff's Office arrest report listed his address as an apartment on St. Simons Island, Ga. Phillips said he is nearing the end of the pre-lawsuit process required when filing legal action against a doctor. Schneider turned himself in at the office of his attorneys on N. Washington Avenue. The Times-Union could not reach an attorney at Sheppard, White, Kachergus & DeMaggio for comment. JOE ARPAIO: Judge Doubts Truth of Sheriff's Testimony ----------------------------------------------------- James Ross, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that during closing arguments, the federal judge overseeing Sheriff Joe Arpaio's contempt-of-court hearing questioned Arpaio's "willingness to tell the truth while he's on the stand." Arpaio and four of his top assistants are accused of civil contempt, for failing to deliver data to the court and failing to train deputies on how to make constitutional traffic stops without racially profiling Latinos, as required by a 2013 court order. The assistants are Maricopa County Sheriff's Chief Deputy Jerry Sheridan, Deputy Chief Jack MacIntyre, Lt. Joe Sousa and Brian Sands, a retired executive chief. In the underlying case, Melendres v. Arpaio , U.S. District Judge G. Murray Snow found that Arpaio's deputies violated the Fourth Amendment rights of Latinos by arresting them during traffic stops and so-called crime-suppression sweeps based on their race. After about 21 days of testimony, Judge Snow challenged the six- term lawman's "forthcomingness," asking one of Arpaio's attorneys what kind of orders he must make to ensure the plaintiff class is protected. "The substantial question is whether these gentlemen are trying to deceive the court," Snow told attorney John Masterson, with Jones, Skelton & Hoculi. "Are they telling the truth or are they having us incur hundreds of thousands of dollars?" Snow's questions came after Masterson mentioned Arpaio's involvement in an investigation by a confidential informant the sheriff hired to look into whether Judge Snow and the Department of Justice were conspiring against Arpaio. According to the informant, the federal government wiretapped Sheridan's and Arpaio's cellphones, possibly at the behest of Snow. "No one at MCSO was actively investigating you," Masterson told the judge. "We had a guy that was providing information for the most part we think now was completely false." Sheridan testified in September that the informant, Dennis Montgomery, was hired after he claimed the federal government had illegally accessed the bank records of about 150,000 Maricopa County residents. Montgomery, a former CIA consultant, gained notoriety for duping the federal government into awarding him millions of dollars in contracts for fake computer software to catch terrorists. Masterson said that Arpaio was merely "curious" about Montgomery's claims. "Was this information that I think should have been followed up on? I do," Masterson said. "I don't think the sheriff of this county can ignore a complaint that someone has hacked data." Plaintiff's attorneys painted a very different picture of Arpaio's actions, claiming he set out to violate the court's order to advance his "political imperative." The court has heard a number of testimonies that Arpaio had been told repeatedly by his aides and then-attorney, Tim Casey , that under a preliminary injunction order in the class action, his deputies must stop detaining people suspected to be in the country illegally. "I don't know if I heard the sheriff say a lot of times that he wasn't really sure about the injunction," Snow inquired of Stanley Young, an attorney for the plaintiffs. "The problem is the sheriff sets the policy for the department," Young answered. "He doesn't delegate that." Instead of complying with the injunction, the Sheriff's Office distributed a number of press releases that described ordering deputies -- as a "backup plan" -- to transport undocumented immigrants to U.S. Customs and Border Patrol despite having no criminal charges against them. The action was a direct violation of Snow's injunction, Young said. Arpaio also gave an interview to Fox News during the 2012 Republican National Convention, in which he said he had $7.5 million in campaign contributions because people supported his actions. "It's a political imperative that causes him to do it," Young said. "He sends out press releases because he wants everyone to know what he is doing." Failures by Arpaio and his aides did not stop after Snow's 2013 order instituted a long list of reforms , including appointment of a federal monitor, enhanced data collection, improved record- keeping and training, and a video recorder in every patrol vehicle. Arpaio and Sheridan have already admitted they are in contempt of Snow's order. They could face fines and criminal charges. "The sheriff's attorneys have argued or implied that somehow the sheriff should be able to rely on shady characters or criminals," Young said, mentioning Arpaio's involvement with Montgomery's investigation. In the process, he said, Arpaio and his aides became "shady and unsavory people themselves." According to Young, all this activity shows intentional contempt. "That activity is not worth the sacrifices that rank-and-file MCSO employees make every day and the risks they take to their lives," Young said. It is unclear when Snow will issue a ruling. KAISER PERMANENTE: Agrees to Settle with Mental Health Clinicians ----------------------------------------------------------------- Sharon Noguchi, writing for San Jose Mercury News, reported that after intense negotiations, Kaiser Permanente and its mental health clinicians reached a tentative contract settlement providing a raise of more than 15 percent over three years. The pact, reached late Sunday, averted a strike that had been planned to start Monday. If ratified by the union's 1,400 members, the new contract will award Kaiser psychologists, psychiatric social workers, and marriage and family therapists a 6 percent raise in the first year and 4 1/2 percent raises in each of the next two years. The agreement also provides for more return appointments in therapists' schedules, according to Kaiser. The tentative agreement allows therapists to advocate for their patients and meet their treatment needs without threat of discipline or discharge, according to the National Union of Healthcare Workers. The agreement also calls for a 1-to-4 ratio of new-to-return patients, which the union says would ensure timely access to ongoing care for Kaiser mental health patients. Patients and therapists have complained about the difficulty of scheduling follow-up care. "It's a positive first step," said Clement Papazian, a psychiatric social worker at Kaiser Oakland and president of the union's Northern California chapter of Kaiser mental health clinicians, in an emailed statement. "Kaiser has opened the door to a positive working relationship with us with the goal of providing timely, quality care to our patients by hiring hundreds more mental health professionals." Don Mordecai, regional director for Kaiser Permanente Northern California, said the agreement demonstrates "that Kaiser Permanente and our mental health professionals have a shared commitment to our members." In reaching the compromise mediated by former state Senate leader Darrell Steinberg of Sacramento, Kaiser also agreed to drop proposed cuts to pensions and create a joint committee to review retirement benefits. The pact also offers up to 5 percent in performance bonuses, higher supplemental pay for bilingual ability and the inclusion of staff on teams that anaylyze how to improve mental health services. Kaiser mental health care has been criticized not only by therapists but also by patients and the state. California fined Kaiser $4 million in 2013 for failing to provide mental health treatment in a timely manner. The state Department of Managed Health Care found that Kaiser violated state law requiring equal access for both mental and physical health treatment. Kaiser also faces class-action lawsuits from families who contend their loved ones did not receive adequate, timely mental health treatment. The contract negotiations were often contentious, with therapists walking out for a week in January. Union members will vote on the proposed three-year contract. LOWELL ELECTRICAL: Accused of Violating FLSA in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------- Terry Chervinski and Christopher Schaefer, on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated v. Lowell Electrical Contracting, Inc., and Frederick Fragola, Case No. 2:15-cv-05956 (E.D.N.Y., October 15, 2015), alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Lowell Electrical Contracting is based in Medford, New York. Lowell specializes in electrical contracting work in the Medford area. LSB INDUSTRIES: Tostrud Law Files Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------- Tostrud Law Group, P.C. reminds investors that a class action has been filed on behalf of investors of LSB Industries, Inc. ("LSB Industries" or the "Company") that purchased shares between May 8, 2015 and August 7, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors that have suffered a loss on their LSB Industries securities holdings are encouraged to contact Jon Tostrud, Esq. to discuss their legal rights prior to the November 24, 2015 lead plaintiff deadline. On August 7, 2015, the Company revealed that it intended to implement certain recommendations after the Strategic Committee of the LSB Industries Board of Directors reviewed the Company's business strategy, corporate governance structure, related party transactions and other governance practices of the Company. Additionally the Company announced that the total cost to complete the El Dorado Facility expansion would now be in the range of $660 million to $680, significantly higher that its previous estimates of $495 million to $520 million on May 8, 2015. On this news, shares of LSB declined $12.09 per share, over 34%, to close on August 7, 2015, at $23.01 per share, on heavy volume. Then on September 3, 2015, the Company announced that LSB President and Chief Executive Officer Barry H. Golsen had resigned effective immediately. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) that the Company's costs related to the expansion of the El Dorado Facility would be significantly higher than reported; and, (2) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. Recent Developments: On November 6, 2015, the Company reported third quarter 2015 earnings, announcing an EBITDA loss of $1.6 million, on net sales of $157 million. The Company further reported an increase in the cost of completion of its El Dorado Facility to $831 to $855 million. On this news shares of LSB Industries fell sharply in value. If you purchased shares of LSB Industries, if you have information or would like to learn more about these claims, or if you wish to discuss these matters or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Jon Tostrud, Esquire, of Tostrud Law Group, P.C., 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2125, Los Angeles, California 90067, at (310) 278-2600 or by e-mail at jtostrud@tostrudlaw.com. Jon Tostrud, Esq. TOSTRUD LAW GROUP,P.C. 1925 Century Park East Suite 2125 Los Angeles, CA 90067 (310) 278-2600 jtostrud@tostrudlaw.com LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Elson" Suit Included in China Flooring MDL --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Elson, et al. v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv-00107, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (Alexandria). The Eastern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-02767-AJT-TRJ to the proceeding. The case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned In re: Lumber Liquidators Chinese-Manufactured Flooring Products Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1:15-md-02627-AJT-TRJR. The actions in the litigation involve common factual questions regarding whether Lumber Liquidators falsely represented that its Chinese-manufactured laminate flooring complied with California Air Resources Board standards and other legal requirements governing the emissions of formaldehyde. Based in Toano, Virginia, Lumber Liquidators is the largest and fastest-growing retailer of hardwood flooring in North America. Lumber Liquidators operates as a multi-channel specialty retailer of hardwood flooring and hardwood flooring enhancements and accessories, and supervises and controls the manufacturing, packaging, distribution, marketing, and sales of laminate wood flooring products throughout the United States. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Benjamin L. Bailey, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP 209 Capitol St. Charleston, WV 25301 Telephone: (304) 340-7864 Facsimile: (304) 342-1110 E-mail: bbailey@baileyglasser.com - and - Gregory Yann Porter, Esq. James L. Kauffman, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 910 17th Street NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 543-0226 Facsimile: (202) 463-2103 E-mail: gporter@baileyglasser.com jkauffman@baileyglasser.com MI TIENDA: Recalls Masa and Tostadas Due to Metal Fragments ----------------------------------------------------------- Mi Tienda, committed to high-quality products, is issuing a precautionary recall for masa and tostadas produced in-store and packed on November 16 and November 17 only at the Mi Tienda #1 store located at 1630 Spencer Highway, South Houston, TX. The precautionary recall is due to the possible presence of metal fragments in the Masa Preparada by the pound, Tostadas Botoneras Rojas and Tostadas Siveria Large Tostadas. "Mi Tienda is committed to the highest standards of food safety for our customers," said Cyndy Garza-Roberts, Public Affairs Director. "We take every precaution necessary to ensure the integrity and quality of the products sold in our stores." The precautionary recall is isolated to only this one store and affects the following products: Masa Preparada by the pound packed on Monday, November 16 Tostadas Botoneras Rojas packed on Monday, November 16 and Tuesday, November 17 Tostadas Siveria Large Tostadas packed on Monday, November 16 and Tuesday, November 17 Customers who purchased the affected product can return the product to the store for a full refund. Customers with any questions or concerns may contact Customer Relations at 210-938- 8357. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/RgomI9 MISSISSIPPI: Moss Point to Stop Jailing Impoverished People ----------------------------------------------------------- The Equal Justice Under Law and the Roderick and Solange MacArthur Justice Center at the University of Mississippi School of Law announced the following: "Moss Point, a small city in Jackson County, Mississippi, has agreed to stop the practice of jailing impoverished people for up to a week while they wait to appear in court on misdemeanor cases. The agreement is part of a settlement reached in a federal civil rights class action lawsuit filed by Equal Justice Under Law, a non-profit civil rights organization in Washington, D.C., and the Roderick and Solange MacArthur Justice Center at the University of Mississippi School of Law. "The lawsuit challenged Moss Point's use of money bail without any individualized assessment of a defendant's ability to pay or the reasons for detaining or releasing the defendant. Under the challenged system, two defendants charged with the same alleged offense were treated differently based only on their wealth: those who could afford to pay a predetermined amount of money were released from jail with the requirement to appear in court at some later date, while those who were too poor to pay remained imprisoned at the City's expense. "The lawsuit alleged that this practice resulted in the incarceration of hundreds of indigent defendants for up to a week while they waited to see a judge in misdemeanor cases such as disorderly conduct and public intoxication. "Several cities in Mississippi use similar money bail systems, and could face similar class action lawsuits, according to Equal Justice Under Law and the MacArthur Justice Center. "Judge Louis Guirola Jr., Chief Judge of the U.S. District for the Southern District of Mississippi, entered a declaratory judgment finding that the practice in Moss Point "implicates the protections of the Equal Protection Clause when such a schedule is applied to the indigent. No person may, consistent with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, be held in custody after an arrest because the person is too poor to post a monetary bond. If the government generally offers prompt release from custody after arrest upon posting a bond pursuant to a schedule, it cannot deny prompt release from custody to a person because the person is financially incapable of posting such a bond." "As part of the settlement, the City of Moss Point has agreed to an injunction prohibiting the use of secured money bail and requiring that all defendants in misdemeanor cases prosecuted by the City of Moss Point be released upon their written agreement to appear for court hearings and to abide by specified conditions of pre-trial release. "Alec Karakatsanis, co-founder of Equal Justice Under Law, explained "no human being should be kept in a cage because she cannot make a monetary payment. The Constitution forbids it, and cities across the country are finally beginning to end the scourge of money bail." "When the lawsuit was filed in June, the City of Moss Point immediately ceased using its fixed bail schedule and began releasing misdemeanor defendants without imposing money bail. "We commend the leaders of Moss Point for the seriousness with which they approached this problem and their prompt response," said Cliff Johnson, Director of the MacArthur Justice Center at the University of Mississippi School of Law. "In addition to ending a policy that mandated the harmful and unnecessary detention of poor people at the City's expense, they saved Moss Point taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars in attorney's fees and allowed the City to avoid class action damages that, we believe, would have amounted to several million dollars." Johnson said the money bail system previously in place in Moss Point is not unusual in Mississippi and that similar litigation against other Mississippi cities is likely. "We recognize that Moss Point was not alone in the use of this unlawful practice," Johnson said. "We hope that other Mississippi cities and counties will follow the example of Moss Point and immediately cease the incarceration of their poorest citizens simply because they do not have the money to pay bail imposed without any consideration of their financial condition." MONROE COUNTY, NY: Residents Ink $59MM Settlement of Wage Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Sean Lahman, writing for Democrat & Chronicle, reported that thousands of Monroe County residents who had their wages garnished by unscrupulous debt collectors may be entitled to compensation. The settlement in a federal class action suit reached will provide $59 million to about 75,000 victims across New York state, and more than 115,000 judgments that the debt collectors obtained in court will be vacated. The lawsuit was brought by the New Economy Project, a Manhattan-based consumer advocacy group. Debra Greenberger, one of the attorneys representing the victims, said the ruling was a tremendous victory. "It's an excellent result for the class," she said, "and I'm hopeful that this leads to much needed reforms in the debt collection industry." Greenberger is a partner at Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady LLP, which is co-counsel in the case with the New Economy Project and MFY Legal Service. The suit alleged that a group of debt collectors filed false affidavits claiming to have notified individuals that they were being sued for an unpaid debt. It also accused them of telling the court they had evidence of the alleged debt when they did not. Consumers would not show up in court to defend themselves because they were unaware of the legal action, and that set off a legal proceeding that almost always resulted in a judgment against them. These consumers often didn't learn about this sequence of events until their bank accounts were frozen or their wages were garnished. These judgments would also leave a black mark on individuals' credit reports, which affected their ability to apply for credit, rent an apartment or get a job. Greenberger said as many as 5,000 individuals in Monroe County could be eligible for compensation as part of the settlement. 'Sewer service' The lawsuit, filed on behalf of four New York City residents, alleged that three companies -- a law firm, a debt-buying company and a process service company -- engaged in a scheme to fraudulently obtain default judgments against hundreds of thousands of consumers in New York. That law firm, Mel Harris and Associates, went out of business in September. The other defendants were Leucadia National Corp. and its various subsidiaries, which purchased consumer debt, and Samserv Inc, which claimed to deliver the legal notices to consumers. The suit alleged that Samserv engaged in a practice called "sewer service," where it would fail to serve the summons and complaint but still submit proof of service to the court. The phrase implies that rather than delivering the documents, the process servers throw them into a sewer drain, at least figuratively. New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said that this case was part of an ongoing battle to protect consumers. "I applaud the advocates and plaintiffs for bringing this case, and for achieving a settlement which represents an important victory against debt collectors who use abusive tactics," Schneiderman said. Since taking office in 2011, Schneiderman's office has sued and obtained dozens of settlements with process servers, debt collectors and debt collectors' attorneys for engaging in sewer service. Those actions have resulted in hundreds of thousands of dollars in restitution to consumers who were victims of deceptive and unlawful practices by debt collectors. "We remain committed to cracking down on those who use unscrupulous and illegal business practices to make a quick buck," Schneiderman said. In a 2009 investigation of another debt collection company, Long Island-based American Legal Process, the attorney general's office found that the process servers' own records often proved they couldn't have done what they claimed. For example, one individual process server claimed to have made 69 service attempts in a single day in two different New York counties that were 400 miles apart. At 8:19 a.m., he claimed to have attempted service on a defendant in Brooklyn, and one minute later on another defendant in Cattaraugus County. To have made all 69 delivery attempts, the server would have had to drive more than 10,000 miles in a single day. Not surprising to some For local consumer advocates, the circumstances of the class action suit did not come as a surprise. "We have clients who come to us with a judgment or notice but who haven't been adequately served," said Destiney Fraguada, counseling supervisor for the Consumer Credit Counseling Service of Rochester. According to Fraguada, the Mel Harris law firm was one of the largest debt collectors working in Western New York. She said this case highlights the need for people to be vigilant about their own credit records. "Most consumers don't pay too much attention because they assume they are OK," Fraguada said. She recommended that consumers take advantage of the website AnnualCreditReport.com to get a free copy of their credit report. Those without Internet access can call a toll free number (1- (877)-322-8228) and have a report mailed to them. What's most important, Fraguada said, is to be proactive when dealing with debt collectors. "The typical response is to bury your head in the sand and hope it goes away," she said. "There's always an opportunity to resolve a debt issue, even after a judgment has been entered." Next steps In fact, some of the plaintiffs in the class action suit believed that the debts in question weren't valid. They would have disputed the claims had they been given an opportunity to do so. "As the person trying to collect, the burden is on you to prove that the debt is legitimate," said Greenberger. But debt collectors often just receive a spreadsheet with a person's name, Social Security number, and the amount owed to a creditor. When seeking a judgment, they would tell the court they had detailed evidence of the debt -- specific dates of retail purchases, for example -- when they did not. Federal Judge Denny Chin gave preliminary approval to the terms of the settlement Nov. 16. "The expectation is that every person who had money collected pursuant to a judgment will get back all of the money they had taken from them," Greenberger said. "In addition, there will no more collection efforts made on any of these debts." Greenberger says that the settlement covers 195,000 judgments and $800 million worth of collections. It will take several weeks to identify and locate each of the individuals entitled to compensation, An administrator will start notifying those individuals by mail in early January, with instructions on how to proceed. As part of the settlement, the defendants also agreed to get out of the debt collection business. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Sued Over Athletic Scholarships Prohibition -------------------------------------------------------------- Devin Pugh, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Case No. 1:15-cv-01747-JMS-DML (S.D.Ind., Nov. 5, 2015), challenges the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) rules which prohibited multi-year athletic scholarships for Division I football players and the continuing cap on the number of football scholarships a Division I football team may award. These rules are allegedly horizontal restraints intended to reduce the cost of essential inputs in the production of high quality Division I football games. NCAA is an unincorporated association that acts as the governing body of college sports. The Plaintiff is represented by William N. Riley, Esq. Joseph N. Williams, Esq. RILEY WILLIAMS & PIATT, LLC Hammond Block Building 301 Massachusetts Avenue Indianapolis, IN 46204 Phone: (317) 633-5270 Fax: (317) 426-3348 E-mail: wriley@rwp-law.com jwilliams@rwp-law.com - and - Steve W. Berman, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 623-7292 Fax: (206) 623-0594 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com - and - Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 455 N. Cityfront Plaza Drive, Suite 2410 Chicago, IL 60611 Phone: (708) 628-4960 Fax: (708) 628-4950 E-mail: beth@hbsslaw.com - and - Jon T. King, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 715 Hearst Ave., Suite 202 Berkeley, CA 94710 Phone: (510) 725-3000 Fax: (510) 725-3001 E-mail: jonk@hbsslaw.com - and - Stuart M. Paynter, Esq. THE PAYNTER LAW FIRMPLLC 1200 G Street N.W., Suite 800 Washington, D.C. 20005 Phone: (202) 626-4486 Fax: (866) 734-0622 E-mail: stuart@smplegal.com NATIONAL GRID: Plaintiffs Seek Class Suit Status ------------------------------------------------ ABC reported that a judge is considering a request to grant class- action status to plaintiffs suing to stop National Grid from shutting off utilities of low-income and medically vulnerable individuals. The nonprofit Rhode Island Center for Justice is suing National Grid and the state Division of Public Utilities and Carriers on behalf of five named plaintiffs in Superior Court. It says the utility is violating the law and the state isn't enforcing it. The parties met with a judge Monday. The plaintiffs are asking a judge to certify their cases as a class action and order National Grid to restore service to medically vulnerable people who've lost it. The state's objection says a class action isn't necessary or appropriate. The justice center says the judge asked them to return and didn't rule. The defendants declined to comment. NATION PIZZA: Recalls Frozen Pizza Products Due to Soy ------------------------------------------------------ Nation Pizza, a Schaumburg, Ill. establishment, is recalling approximately 59,028 pounds of frozen Mama Cozzi's Pizza Kitchen products due to misbranding and undeclared allergens, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The products contain soy, a known allergen which is not declared on the product label. The Mama Cozzi's Pizza Kitchen Rising Crust Pepperoni Pizzas were produced between Aug. 25, 2015, and Nov. 9, 2015. The following products are subject to recall: --- 27.5 ounce carton containing one "MAMA COZZI'S RISING CRUST PEPPERONI PIZZA." The products subject to recall bear establishment number "EST. 1682A" inside the USDA mark of inspection. These items were shipped exclusively to ALDI grocery stores in Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee. The problem was discovered during in-plant review activities. There have been no confirmed reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about an injury or illness should contact a healthcare provider. Consumers who have purchased these products are urged not to consume them. These products should be thrown away or returned to the place of purchase. FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers. Consumers with questions about the recall can contact Teresa Martinez, Vice President of Quality Assurance, Research & Development, at (847) 348-5433. Media with questions about the recall can contact Richard Auskalnis, President, at (847) 348- 5454. Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a day. The online Electronic Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a day at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Faces "Pham" Suit for FDCPA Violation ---------------------------------------------------------- Tarn Anh Pham, Sun Young Pham v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC Formerly Known as Aurora Loan Services, LLC, Deutsche Bank, National Trust Company, Deutsche Bank, Trust Company Americas, Atlantic Law Group, LLC, Residential Funding Company, LLC, Residential Capital, LLC, Case 1:15-cv-01467-TSE-TCB (D.Va., Nov. 5, 2015), seeks relief under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act in the nature of an order of cease and desist ordering the Defendants to stop foreclosure proceedings and eviction, and to refrain from all foreclosure actions, including eviction, on the Plaintiffs' home unless or until they can show a documented enforceable interest in the note and mortgage, as required under state law, the Uniform Commercial Code, and federal law Title 15 US Code, Sections 1692(e) and 1692(f). Nationstar Mortgage is a residential mortgage servicer and originator focused on capitalizing on the consolidation of the mortgage servicing sector. OSIRIS THERAPEUTICS: Bronstein Files Securities Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Osiris Therapeutics, Inc. ("Osiris" or the "Company") (NasdaqGM: OSIR) and certain of its present and former officers. The class action filed in the United District Court for the District of Maryland is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased Osiris securities between May 12, 2014 and November 16, 2015 inclusive (the "Class Period"). This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). THE COMPLAINT ALLEGES AS FOLLOWS: Throughout the Class Period defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and financial information. Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company overstated revenues from several contracts and failed to follow GAAP standards, fixing its financial statements only a year and half later and causing millions in losses to the Company and Investors; and (ii) as a result of the foregoing, Osiris's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. It is alleged that on November 16, 2015, Osiris surprised investors by disclosing that it has "determined to correct the revenue recognition for three contracts which will result in a decrease in product revenues of $1.8 million in the first quarter of 2015, a decrease in product revenue of $1.0 million in the second quarter, an increase in product revenues of $0.8 million in the third quarter of 2015 and a decrease in product revenues of $1.1 million in 2014." Thus, three restatements were made related to distributor relationships, which completely removed about $3.1 million of sales and shifted about $3.9 million of sales between quarters. As a result of these errors, Osiris missed its revenue targets in three of the last four quarters. Following this news, Osiris shares fell sharply. They dropped $3.02, or 21.53%, to close at $10.97 on November 17, 2015, damaging investors. No Class has yet been certified in the above action. If you wish to review a copy of the Complaint, to discuss this action, or have any questions, please contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations Coordinator Eitan Kimelman of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484 or via email info@bgandg.com. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address and telephone number. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities arbitration. Peretz Bronstein, Esq. Eitan Kimelman, Esq. BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC 144 N Beverwyck Rd Lake Hiawatha, NJ 07034 Tel: 212-697-6484 Email: info@bgandg.com PITTSBURGH, PA: Judge OKs Settlement with ACLU ---------------------------------------------- Torsten Ove, writing for Pittsburgh Post Gazette, reported that a federal judge approved a settlement reached last spring between the city and the American Civil Liberties Union in a 2012 class- action suit over the hiring of black police officers. The settlement, announced last May, includes $985,000 in payments to black candidates who were rejected during the hiring process and another $600,000 in lawyers' fees and costs. U.S. District Judge David Cercone signed off on the deal after a short hearing. As part of the settlement, the city also has $250,000 set aside in its budget to monitor the hiring process in the next two years. The case began in 2012 when five black men sued the city, saying they were bypassed as police candidates because of their race. Vic Walczak, legal director of the ACLU of Pennsylvania, said the evidence revealed that a black candidate had one-fifth the chance of becoming a police officer as a white candidate. But, he said, the situation has improved. About 26 percent of the city's population is black, and the most recent police academy graduating class is 25 percent black, the highest percentage since the early 1990s. RALEY'S FAMILY: Recalls Sweet Pumpkin Ravioli Due to Cashew ----------------------------------------------------------- Raley's Family of Fine Stores removed Raley's Frozen Sweet Pumpkin Ravioli 10 oz. from our Raley's, Bel Air and Nob Hill stores on November 17, 2015. According to the manufacturer, the product may contain an undeclared cashew and almond allergen. The UPC Code for the product is 046567021218 and the recall is for all lot numbers. There is no health risk associated with these products for individuals who are not allergic to cashews and/or almonds. Raley's is not aware of any injuries or illnesses reported to date associated with this product. Raley's cares about the health and safety of our customers. Customers who purchased the recalled product from our stores should return the product and Raley's will refund you for your purchase of this product in our stores. Additional information can also be found at our website www.raleys.comdisclaimer icon. Customers with questions or concerns may contact Raley's at 1-800- 925-9989. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/PuTYGG ROCKLAND COUNTY, NY: Parents of Yeshiva Sue Educ. Department ------------------------------------------------------------ Lauren Evans, writing for Gothamist.com, reported that the parents of several Rockland County yeshiva students filed a class action lawsuit on against New York State's Department of Education and several yeshiva administrators for allegedly failing to offer adequate levels of secular education to students, which they say is badly handicapping their prospects for the future. While secular education for girls is generally fairly comprehensive -- including several hours of English and math instruction per day -- the same cannot be said for boys, the lawsuit alleges. Secular education begins around the equivalent of 4th grade and ceases when boys turn 13, though the lessons they do receive are reportedly lackluster, and amount to little more than unqualified teachers "babysitting" students. "Although a religious education may be cherished as integral to the ultra-Orthodox/Hasidic community life, the consequence of not providing a secular education is that students are never given the opportunity to learn even the basic Three R's that all American children receive: reading, writing, and arithmetic," the lawsuit says. "Because of their gender, male, and their religion, ultra- Orthodox/Hasidic, they have been and are being denied their right to receive a sound basic education as guaranteed by law. As a consequence, their lifelong earning power is greatly diminished, leaving many to become dependent on the public weal." The filings were made by a public interest law firm on behalf of seven unnamed plaintiffs, who declined to be identified for fear of retaliation from the Orthodox community. It does make clear, though, the deep sense of dissatisfaction that many students and their families appear to feel with the current status quo. "Regardless of whether children attend religious school or public school, all children are entitled to receive a meaningful education -- one that allows them the opportunity to become productive participants in our civic society -- able to serve meaningfully on a jury, able to participate meaningfully in public debates, and able to participate meaningful at the voting booth," the lawsuit says. "No parent or child should be forced to choose between substantive rights: the right to a religious education and the right to receive an education substantially equivalent to that received by public school students." Naftuli Moster, the executive director of Young Adults For A Fair Education, or Yaffed, knows firsthand the difficulty of finding a career after graduating from yeshiva. Having been raised in Borough Park as one of 17 kids in an ultra-Orthodox Jewish family, Moster's educational trajectory was the same as the rest of his peers: Many hours spent on Judaic studies, and very little time spent on general education. When he decided to go to college to study psychology, he found himself woefully unprepared. "There's no talk of college in yeshiva," Moster told Gothamist in August. "You never heard the word 'semester,' you never heard of financial aid...these concepts don't exist. I was asked about my high school diploma and I didn't know what that was." The DOE is currently investigating 39 yeshivas around New York City on similar allegations, though Moster is concerned that the probe won't go deep enough -- the agency, he said, is simply sending surveys to schools with the delusional expectation that questions will be answered honestly. In October, video of a yeshiva teacher allegedly giving students the answers to an English test surfaced online. The lawsuit is seeking a "graduated introduction" of secular subjects into a curriculum taught by qualified teachers, as well as three hours of enforced secular study per day. A spokesman for the State's Department of Education declined to comment, saying the agency does "not comment on pending litigation." SAFEWAY INC: Faces "Soto" Suit Over Underfilled Canned Tuna ----------------------------------------------------------- Ehder Soto, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, V. Safeway Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-05078 (N.D.Cal., Nov. 5, 2015), alleges that the Defendant is cheating purchasers by providing less tuna than they are paying for 5-ounce cans of Safeway Chunk Light Tuna in Water and 5-ounce cans of Safeway Solid White Albacore Tuna in Water because the cans are underfilled and thus substantially underweight. Plaintiff asserts claims on behalf of himself and a nationwide class of purchasers of Safeway Tuna for breach of express warranty, breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, breach of the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, unjust enrichment, violation of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, violation of California's False Advertising Law, negligent misrepresentation, and fraud. Safeway is an American supermarket chain. With over 2,200 stores and over 250,000 employees, Safeway is the second largest supermarket chain in North America. The Plaintiff is represented by Timothy L. Fisher, Esq. Julia A. Luster, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Phone: (925) 300-4455 Fax: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com jluster@bursor.com - and - Scott A. Bursor, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Phone: (212) 989-9113 Fax: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: scott@bursor.com SECURITAS SECURITY: Reaches $2.5-Mil. Settlement of Labor Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Gordon Gibb, writing for Lawyers and Settlements, reported that the California labor lawsuit that reached right across the nation is poised for a fair and reasonable outcome after plaintiffs urged the presiding judge to approve a settlement worth $2.5 million. The California labor lawsuit, which involves former and current security guards employed by Securitas, alleged various violations to California and federal statutes. The California and labor law settlement could affect more than 24,000 opt-in class members if approved. The action, originally filed in October 2013 by plaintiff Michael Deatrick, alleged various violations to California labor and employment law and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) concerning the issuance of vacation pay -- or lack thereof, according to the lawsuit. Deatrick, a former security guard once employed by the defendant, alleged that Securitas violated state and federal statutes by not providing employees with vacation pay, as required under California state labor laws. Guards were given sums of money, however, in the form of lump-sum payments once per year as compensation for vacation time. In his California labor code lawsuit, Deatrick asserts that the payment provided by Securitas was, in effect, a nondiscretionary retention bonus based on the number of hours worked, yet not dependent on vacation time taken. Not only was the lump sum payment denied to guards having left the employ of Securitas prior to their employment anniversary, or so it was alleged, but Deatrick claimed the lump sum payment was not included in overtime calculations, as required under the FLSA. Securitas responded to the lawsuit by moving for summary judgment, but its petition was denied in June of last year, with the court ruling that the annual payments did indeed need to be properly included as part of the regular rate for overtime pay calculation. The California labor employment lawsuit was certified as a class action some five months later, in November 2014. In sum, the lawsuit held that the Securitas vacation pay scheme is just a bonus program dressed up to appear as vacation pay, when it really isn't. After a settlement was hammered out between the two parties, plaintiffs urged US District Judge Jon S. Tigar to give initial approval to the settlement, calling it "fair, adequate and reasonable. "The payments to the class are appropriate in light of the risks and delays attendant to further litigation, and are reasonable in light of likely potential recovery at trial," the plaintiffs' motion said. The case is Michael Deatrick v. Securitas Security Services USA, Inc., case number 13-cv-05016, in the US District Court for the Northern District of California. SEMPRA ENERGY: Calif. Man Sues Over Month-Long Gas Leak ------------------------------------------------------- Paige Austin, writing for Patch.com, reported that a Porter Ranch man sued Southern California Gas Co. and its parent company Sempra Energy, alleging his home was negatively affected by odors and pollutants generated by the recent leak at the Aliso Canyon storage facility in the Northridge-Chatsworth area.. William Gandsey filed the proposed class-action lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court, alleging negligence and both public and private nuisance. He seeks unspecified damages. A Gas Co. representative said he may have a comment later on the lawsuit. County health officials directed the utility to expedite repairs and offer residents free temporary relocation options. The leak was discovered Oct. 23 by crews at the storage facility located near Northridge and was reported to the county five days later. The Gas Co. has said the leak, which could take months to repair, does not pose a threat because it is outdoors and over a mile away from and more than 1,200 feet higher than homes or public areas. Gandsey "lives well within the exposure zone within the Porter Ranch community," his suit states. He says his home has been "physically invaded by gases, chemicals, noxious odors, pollutants and contaminants" from the facility, which is located a mile from Porter Ranch and is the largest of four natural gas storage fields owned by the Gas Co. The Southern California Air Quality Management District has received nearly 500 complaints from residents having nausea, dizziness, vomiting, shortness of breath, nose bleeds and headaches, according to the lawsuit. SPACE EXPLORATION: Blumenthal Files Wage Class Suit --------------------------------------------------- On October 19, 2015, the Los Angeles employment attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik filed a class action complaint against Space Exploration Technologies Corp. for allegedly shorting non-exempt employees paid on an hourly basis all the overtime that was due to them. The pending class action lawsuit against SpaceEx, Case No. BC598297 is currently pending in the Los Angeles County Superior Court for the State of California. According to the class action complaint filed against SpaceEx, SpaceEx allegedly "caused of violation of the California Labor Code by directing its employees to alter the time records, or 'shave' the time worked by Plaintiff and other California Class members." As a result, the lawsuit against Spacex alleges that employees being paid on an hourly basis in California have been shorted their proper overtime wages. If you feel your rights have been violated by your current or former employer, call an experienced unpaid overtime attorney in Los Angeles at (310) 981-3918. Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik is a Los Angeles employment law firm that dedicates its practice to helping employees, investors and consumers fight back against unfair business practices, including violations of the California Labor Code and Fair Labor Standards Act. Norman B. Blumenthal,Esq. BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK 2255 Calle Clara La Jolla, CA 9203 Phone: +1 858-367-9913 SPECIAL NEED AND INTERGIRTY: Sued Over Violation of Fiduciary Duty ------------------------------------------------------------------ Marisa Kwiatkowski, writing for Indy Star, reported that an Indianapolis nonprofit is accused of withdrawing millions of dollars in excessive fees from trusts owned by people with disabilities, according to a lawsuit filed Monday. Monroe County resident Timothy Todd claims the National Foundation for Special Needs Integrity, which does business as Special Needs Integrity, violated its fiduciary duty by taking millions of dollars from people's trust funds to pay unjustified legal and other fees, according to the lawsuit filed in Marion Superior Court. The lawsuit, which seeks class-action status, also accuses the nonprofit of failing to respond to Todd's repeated requests for information about the expenditures. Special needs trusts are meant to help people with limited means retain their eligibility for government benefits, such as Social Security or Medicaid. Todd, who receives disability funds because of a job-related accident that left him unable to work, has a special needs trust that includes money he inherited from his mother after she died. He became concerned when he received a letter from Special Needs Integrity, which acts as his trustee, telling him thousands of dollars had been taken from his trust to pay "general fees," court records state. The nonprofit also withdrew "trustee fees" and excessive annual fees, according to the lawsuit. The letter from Special Needs Integrity, which Todd received in July, said the money withdrawn reflected Todd's "proportionate share" of fees paid to an Indianapolis-based law firm for "various legal services," including ensuring compliance with state, federal and local laws. The lawsuit estimates that Special Needs Integrity has used beneficiary funds to pay about $2.4 million to the law firm since 2011. In Internal Revenue Service filings, Special Needs Integrity reported spending far less than that on legal fees. A Star review of the nonprofit's filings found $274,163 spent on legal fees from 2011 through 2014. Special Needs Integrity also paid $146,411 to Carmel-based Special Needs Consultants, LLC, for legal and adviser services. Additional charges may be included in the nonprofit's "program fees" line item, which increased 89.5 percent during that time period. According to Todd's lawsuit, Special Needs Integrity improperly withdrew $9,630.18 from his trust. Special Needs Integrity did not return calls from The Indianapolis Star seeking comment. "We will never, ever, treat our beneficiaries as if they were means to an end," the nonprofit said on its website. "We will never ignore them or dismiss their concerns. We will treat each beneficiary as a human being, and we will be ever mindful of the frustrating situation in which our beneficiaries find themselves." Todd's attorney, Richard Shevitz, of the firm Cohen and Malad, said the nonprofit's behavior was "particularly troubling" because it happened to "some of the most economically vulnerable members of our society, who depend on various forms of social benefits to survive." The lawsuit seeks "to remedy the breaches of trust," including payment of damages and attorneys' fees and costs for those affected. "As a community, we're seeing some of our most vulnerable members become mistreated," Shevitz said. STARZ: Morgan & Morgan Files Securities Class Suit -------------------------------------------------- Morgan & Morgan announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of purchasers of Starz securities from August 1, 2014 through October 29, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Starz investors under the federal securities laws. If you purchased Starz securities during the Class Period, you may, no later than January 8, 2016, request that the Court appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed class. A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of all class members in directing the litigation. Any member of the purported class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. If you want more information about the Starz Securities Class Action, contact Morgan & Morgan at 1(800) 732-5200 or email info@morgansecuritieslaw.com. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants issued materially false and misleading statements to investors and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Starz lacked adequate internal controls; (2) according to a former Starz senior executive, Starz's contract with Comcast Corporation was a result of illicit business practices; and (3) as a result, Starz's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. On October 29, 2015, online magazine Deadline Hollywood revealed that the Company's former Senior Vice President of Sales and Affiliate Marketing Keno Thomas filed a lawsuit against the Company and several of its subsidiaries, Defendant Christopher P. Albrecht, the Company's Chief Revenue Officer Michael Thornton and Liberty Media Corp. Following this news, shares of STRZA fell $3.69 per share or over 9% from its previous closing price to close at $33.51 per share on October 30, 2015, and shares of STRZB fell $4.98 per share or over 13% to close at $32.73 per share on October 30, 2015, damaging investors. About Morgan & Morgan Morgan & Morgan is one of the nation's largest 200 law firms. In addition to shareholder rights, the firm also practices in the areas of antitrust, personal injury, consumer protection, overtime, and product liability. All of the Firm's legal endeavors are rooted in its core mission: provide investor and consumer protection and always fight "for the people." Peter Safirstein, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN 28 West 44th Street, Suite 2001 New York, NY 10036 Phone: (212) 564-1637 Email: psafirstein@forthepeople.com STRAIGHT PATH: Andrews LLC Files Securities Fraud Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Andrews & Springer LLC, a boutique securities class action law firm focused on representing shareholders nationwide, announced that a securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey, Case No. 2:15-cv- 08051, on behalf of investors of Straight Path Communications Inc. (NYSE:STRP) ("Straight Path Communications" or the "Company") that held shares between October 29, 2013 through November 5, 2015 (the "Class Period"). If you purchased Straight Path Communications securities during the Class Period, you may, no later than January 12, 2016, request that the Court appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed class. A copy of the complaint is available from the Court or from Andrews & Springer LLC. If you would like to join the class action, please visit our website or contact Craig J. Springer, Esq. at cspringer@andrewsspringer.com, or call toll free at 1-800- 423-6013. You may also follow us on LinkedIn -- https://www.linkedin.com/company/andrews-&-springer-llc, Twitter - - www.twitter.com/AndrewsSpringer or Facebook -- www.facebook.com/AndrewsSpringer for future updates. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. The lawsuit alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants issued materially false and misleading statements to investors and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the commercialization prospect for Straight Path Communications' spectrum assets is less than touted; (2) Straight Path Communications' spectrum licenses were improperly obtained; and (3) as a result, Straight Path Communications' public statements were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. On October 29, 2015, Kerrisdale Capital published a report that questioned the commercial viability of Straight Path Communications' spectrum licenses. On this news, Straight Path Communications' stock fell $18.23 per share, or over 38%, to close at $29.35 per share on October 29, 2015. Then, on November 5, 2015, Sinclair Upton Research published a report asserting that the company's licenses for the 39 Gigahertz wireless sites were renewed only after the company made fraudulent representations to the FCC. On this news, the company's stock fell $13.70 per share, or nearly 52%, to close at $12.81 per share on November 5, 2015. As a result of the foregoing news, Straight Path Communications' stock price has fallen substantially since October 20, 2015 causing shareholders to incur millions in losses. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than January 12, 2016. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Craig J. Springer, Esq. at cspringer@andrewsspringer.com, or call toll free at 1-800-423-6013. You may also follow us on LinkedIn -- www.linkedin.com/company/andrews-&-springer-llc, Twitter -- www.twitter.com/AndrewsSpringer or Facebook -- www.facebook.com/AndrewsSpringer for future updates. Andrews & Springer is a boutique securities class action law firm representing shareholders nationwide who are victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty or corporate misconduct. Having formerly defended some of the largest financial institutions in the world, our founding members use their valuable knowledge, experience, and superior skill for the sole purpose of achieving positive results for investors. These traits are the hallmarks of our innovative approach to each case our Firm decides to prosecute. For more information please visit our website at www.andrewsspringer.com Craig J. Springer, Esq ANDREWS & SPRINGER LLC 3801 Kennett Pike #305 Wilmington, DE 19807 Tel: 1-800-423-6013 Email: cspringer@andrewsspringer.com SUMMERSET VILLAGE: Sued Over Failure to Provide Apartment Gas ------------------------------------------------------------- Connie Tran, writing for Your Central Valley, reported that the organization Fresno Interdenominational Refugee Ministries or FIRM said it plans on helping tenants file a class-action lawsuit against the apartment owner of Summerset Village. Firm's executive director Zach Darrah said they'd like to work with a lawyer who can take on the case pro-bono. Darrah said they plan on pursuing legal action on. He said the residents have been living in uninhabitable conditions. "When it comes to things like this, it just required an advocate to really get involved. And that's where FIRM kinda got involved," stated Darrah. He said the property owner has not been helpful in getting the heat back on. We attempted to speak with the property owner, but they did not pick up our phone calls. Darrah said, "They are simply not been moving fast enough, so it seems to me, I spoke personally with the apartment owner, and he just said he's doing his best and this is just kinda how it is. That wasn't a good enough answer for me." Legal analyst Charles Magill said the apartment owners have to provide utilities in order for the complex to be inhabitable. "The tenants have a right to withhold their rent until that eviction changes. They also have the right to mediate the loss and that is they can go to hotel and charge the landlord for the costs," said Magill. We're told PG&E officials will be coming out on. But the apartment owner has to fix the broken pipes before gas is turned back on. TERRAFORM GLOBAL: Pyramid Files Suit for Securities Act Violation ----------------------------------------------------------------- Pyramid Holdings, Inc., Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. Terraform Global, Inc., Sunedison, Inc. Ahmad Chatila, Carlos Demonech Zornoza, Jeremy Avenier, Marin Tuong, Brian Wuebbels, J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Barclays Capital Inc., Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Morgan Stanley & CO. LLC, Goldman Sachs & Co., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc., Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., BTG Pactual US Capital LLC, Itau BBA USA Securities, Inc., SMBC Nikko Securities America, Inc., SG Americas Securities LLC, and Kotak Mahindra, Inc., (N.D.Cal.), was filed on behalf of purported purchasers of the common stock of TerraForm that was issued pursuant to and/or was traceable to the Registration Statement in its July 31, 2015 Initial Public Offering, and who were damaged thereby. Plaintiff seeks to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of 1933. TerraForm owns and operates "clean power" generation assets in emerging market countries. It is structured as a "YieldCo," which is an entity designed to generate dividends and grow by acquiring these power generation assets from its sponsor. The Plaintiff is represented by Ian D. Berg, Esq. Takeo A. Kellar, Esq. ABRAHAM, FRUCHTER & TWERSKY, LLP 11622 El Camino Real, Suite 100 San Diego, CA 92130 Phone: (858) 764-2580 Fax: (858) 764-2582 - and - Jack G. Fruchter, Esq. Cassandra L. Porsch, Esq. Mitchell M.Z. Twersky ABRAHAM, FRUCHTER & TWERSKY, LLP One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805 New York, NY 10119 Phone: (212) 279-5050 Fax: (212) 279-3655 TITO'S: Bid to Oust Lawsuit Dismissed ------------------------------------- Amy Hopkins, writing for The Spirits Business, reported that Judge Jeffrey T. Miller refused to reject a proposed class action against Tito's on the grounds of safe harbour during a hearing on 20 November, reports Law360. Safe harbour is a provision of law that states certain actions will be considered not to violate a given rule, usually in connection with a more vague, overall standard. The lawsuit, filed by plaintiff Gary Hofmann is a proposed class action accusing brand-owner Fifth Generation Inc. of misleading consumers over the "fact" its Tito's Handmade Vodka is made mostly with machines. Hofmann said the firm's claims cannot fall within California's safe harbour simply because the US Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Bureau (TTB) approved its use of the word "handmade". He added that Janet Scalese, director of Fifth Generation's advertising and labelling unit, said "labelling specialists" do not verify terms such as "handmade". Hofmann told Law360: "The TTB's issuance of a COLA [Certificate of Label Approval] is not subject to notice and comment rulemaking or anything like it. Thus, the TTB's approval of a given label -- one of roughly 135,000 such approvals carried out by the TTB -- is not the type of formal regulatory action sufficient to trigger the safe harbour. "The TTB's regulations are a floor on the regulation of alcohol beverage labelling, not a ceiling; thus, the TTB's approval of a label does not mean that the label is 'clearly permitted' by law." Judge Miller said that the TTB's COLA process is "insufficient" the grant Fifth Generation safe harbour protection, and thus end the proposed class action. In September, a federal district judge dismissed five out of six lawsuits against Tito's Handmade Vodka that accuse the brand of false advertising. TRADER JOE'S: Recalls Butternut Squash Triangoli Due to Tree Nuts ----------------------------------------------------------------- Trader Joe's of Monrovia, California is voluntarily recalling Trader Giotto's Butternut Squash Triangoli (UPC 00943482/SKU 94348) sold in the refrigerated deli section with "Use or Freeze by" codes 04 16 15 through 01 15 16, because it may contain undeclared tree nuts. All affected product has been removed from store shelves. People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to tree nuts run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products. The Trader Giotto's Butternut Squash Triangoli is packaged in an 8.8 oz. package, with code information printed on the upper-right corner of the front of the package. The product was distributed to Trader Joe's stores nationwide. Trader Joe's initiated the voluntary removal of this product after customers reported having an allergic reaction after consuming the product. The customers are allergic to tree nuts, which are not an intended ingredient in this product. Customers who have purchased the Trader Giotto's Butternut Squash Triangoli may return it to Trader Joe's for a full refund. Customers with questions may contact Trader Joe's customer relations at (626) 599- 3817, 6AM-6PM PST, Monday-Friday. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/ME4bgw TYSON FOODS: Recalls Chicken Wing Products Due to Off Odor ---------------------------------------------------------- Tyson Foods Inc., a Pine Bluff, Ark. establishment, is recalling approximately 52,486 pounds of chicken wing product that may be adulterated because of having an "off odor" scent, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The fully cooked buffalo style chicken wing section item was produced on October 24, 2015 and October 25, 2015. The following product is subject to recall: --- 28-oz. retail bags containing multiple pieces of "Tyson(R) Any'tizers(R) Fully Cooked Hot Wings(R) CHICKEN WING SECTIONS COATED WITH A FLAVORFUL HOT, TANGY SAUCE" with use by/sell by dates of October 24, 2016 and October 25, 2016, packaging dates 2975PBF0508-23/2985PBF0500-01 and case codes 2975PBF0508-23/2985PBF0500-01. The product subject to recall bear establishment number "P-13456" inside the USDA mark of inspection as well as on the back of the bag above the heating instructions. These items were shipped to retail locations nationwide. The problem was discovered when Tyson Foods Inc. received consumer complaints about the product being "off-odor" as well as mild illness associated with consumption. After these consumer complaints, Tysons Food Inc. brought this to the attention of FSIS. There have been no confirmed reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of these products by FSIS. Anyone concerned about an injury or illness should contact a healthcare provider. Consumers who have purchased these products are urged not to consume them. These products should be thrown away or returned to the place of purchase. FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers. Media with questions about the recall can contact Derek Burleson, Public Relations Manager, (479) 290-6466. Consumers with questions about the recall can contact Tyson Foods' Consumer Relations, (toll free) 866-328-3156. Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a day. The online Electronic Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a day at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem. UBER: Faces Suit Filed by St. Louis Taxi Drivers ------------------------------------------------ Leah Thorsen, writing for St. Louis Today, reported that four taxi drivers are suing Uber and seeking class-action status, alleging they've seen up to a 40 percent dip in business since the ride- hailing service began operating in violation of local regulations. The plaintiffs in the suit filed in St. Louis County Circuit Court are Aaron Vilcek and Jeffrey Hamilton, drivers for St. Louis County Cab; Robert Glynn, who drives for Laclede Cab; and Douglas Uchendi, an ABC Cab driver. On Sept. 18, the St. Louis Metropolitan Taxicab Commission voted to allow ride-hailing services such as UberX, an app-based service in which drivers use their own cars to ferry passengers, but directed that drivers be fingerprinted as part of a criminal background check. Drivers for ride-hailing services also are required to possess a class E Missouri commercial drivers license, also known as a chauffeur's license. Those requirements are mandated by Missouri law, the commission said. The state law that requires vehicle-for-hire drivers to have fingerprint checks is specific to St. Louis and St. Louis County. Local cabdrivers also must have drug tests, vehicle inspections and get notes from doctors to prove they're in good health. But Uber described the regulations as onerous, saying it conducts its own background checks of drivers, many of whom drive less than six hours a week -- but not fingerprint checks. On the same day the taxicab commission approved ride-hailing services, Uber launched UberX in defiance of commission regulations and filed a federal lawsuit against the commission alleging anti-competitive practices in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Uber has said St. Louis is the largest metropolitan area in the country not to allow UberX. Then in October, the taxi commission filed suit against Uber and sought a restraining order to bar it from operating in the city and in St. Louis County. Both suits are being heard in federal court. A hearing is set for Thursday. The latest suit, which was filed Friday, alleges that Uber's service and its drivers are "functionally and legally indistinguishable" from taxi services and taxi drivers in St. Louis and St. Louis County. "The purpose of the suit is to recognize that Uber is operating illegally and as a result of that, the existing taxi drivers are being harmed," said Gary Growe, the Clayton attorney representing the taxi drivers. He said if class-action status is granted, the suit could cover the roughly 1,100 cabdrivers licensed by the taxi commission. Since Uber began operating, the plaintiffs have seen a drop in revenue of 30 percent to 40 percent compared to the same time period last year due to a decrease in passenger calls, the suit alleges. It also says those drops were directly caused by Uber's entry into the local taxi market. An Uber spokeswoman said that the company had not yet seen the suit and declined to comment. The plaintiff's individual damages are less than $75,000 each, the suit says, and the damages sought in a class-action case would be less than $5 million. VIRGINIA DINER: Recalls Pecan Candies Due to Peanuts ---------------------------------------------------- Virginia Diner, Inc. is voluntarily recalling, as a precaution, 10 oz. cans of Happy Holidays Pecan Turtledoves Chocolate Caramel Pecan Clusters (Candy) at the company's Wakefield, VA location because they may contain peanuts and peanut allergens. People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to peanuts run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products. This problem was discovered by a consumer who received and opened a Pecan Turtledove can and found Peanut Turtledoves within. The Virginia Diner, Inc. is working with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in administering this voluntary recall. The Virginia Diner has not received any reports of illness or injury to date regarding this product. Only the following PRODUCT and LOT CODE is affected, found on the bottom of each can: --- UPC Code: 0 85582 01155 2 --- Weight: 10 oz --- Package Type: Can --- Label: Happy Holidays Pecan Turtledoves Chocolate Caramel Pecan Clusters --- Lot Code: 092915 PNT --- BEST BY: 09 23 16 The recall does not apply to any other Virginia Diner branded products. These Pecan Turtledoves were sold and distributed via fundraising organizations between September 30, 2015 and November 5, 2015. Participants accepted pre-orders on order forms, turned the completed forms in to the organization, which then turned the complete groups order in to the Virginia Diner for fulfillment. Orders were packed and shipped back to the organization for distribution within this 9/30/15-11/05/15 time frame. Each participant delivered the products to the end buyer. The Virginia Diner, Inc. is contacting affected groups and customers who may have received this mislabeled product, and are providing a list of participants of each group to be contacted. Consumers should return the product to the organization from which it was purchased for a replacement. Additionally, orders were entered by the end consumer on the www.virginiadiner.comdisclaimer icon website. The web orders were shipped directly to the consumer. Each buyer has been contacted via phone and/or email. Consumers who may have questions or concerns should contact the Virginia Diner at 800-935-4004, Monday through Friday, 9am to 5pm EDT. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/EdI6kY VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Powell" Suit Over Defeat Devices --------------------------------------------------------- Jon K. Powell, Marsha Powell, v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. A New Jersey Corporation Serve Registered Agent Corporation Service Company Bank of America Center 1111 East Main Street Richmond, VA 23219 And Volkswagen Ag, A Foreign Corporation Rubenkamp 2 Wolfsburg, Germany 38442, Case No. 4:15-cv-00863-SRB (W.D.Mo., Nov. 5, 2015), alleges breach of express warranty and violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, Missouri Revised Statutes in relation to the sale by Defendants of vehicles with "defeat devices" in the engine systems. Volkswagen manufactured, distributed, sold, leased, and warranted the Class Vehicles under the Volkswagen Audi brand names throughout the United States. Volkswagen or its agent designed, manufactured, and installed the CleanDiesel engine systems in the Class Vehicles, which included the "defeat device." The Plaintiffs are represented by: John M. Parisi, Esq. SHAMBERG, JOHNSON & BERGMAN, CHTD 2600 Grand Boulevard, Suite 550 Kansas City, MO 64108 Phone: (816) 474-0004 Fax: (816) 474-0003 E-mail: jparisi@sjblaw.com WEGMANS FOOD: Recalls Butternut Squash Ravioli Due to Nuts ---------------------------------------------------------- Wegmans Food Markets, Inc. is recalling Wegmans Italian Classics Butternut Squash Ravioli, 9 oz. (UPC #77890 36434), because the product may contain undeclared cashews and almonds. People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to cashews or almonds run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume this product. Approximately 54,000 units of Wegmans Italian Classics Butternut Squash Ravioli, 9 oz. was sold in 88 Wegmans stores located in New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Maryland, and Massachusetts. This product, packaged in a plastic tray, is sold in a refrigerated case in the dairy department. All date codes sold since June 6, 2015 are included in the recall. There have been no injuries or illnesses reported to date associated with this product. The recall was initiated because Wegmans was notified by the manufacturer that product testing showed the presence of almonds and cashews not declared on the label. Wegmans will place automated phone calls to customers who purchased the product using their Shoppers Club card. Customers who purchased the recalled product from Wegmans should return it to the service desk for a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact Wegmans consumer affairs department toll free at 1-855-934-3663 Monday through Friday, between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Eastern time. Wegmans Food Markets, Inc. is an 88-store supermarket chain with stores in New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Virginia, Maryland, and Massachusetts. The family-owned company, founded in 1916, is recognized as an industry leader and innovator. Wegmans has been named one of the '100 Best Companies to Work For' by FORTUNE magazine for eighteen consecutive years. In 2015, Wegmans ranked #7 on the list. The company also ranked #1 for Corporate Reputation, among the 100 'most-visible companies' nationwide in the 2014 Harris Poll Reputation Quotient (R) study. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/uVJkz6 YAHOO: Autodialer Class Suit Revived ------------------------------------ Hanna Nakano, writing for Penn Record, reported that a class action lawsuit against Yahoo has been revived after a federal appeals court ruled a man who received unsolicited text messages from the company may have another chance in court. Bill Dominguez claims he received 27,809 texts from Yahoo after purchasing a cell phone that used the number of its previous owner, who had signed up for a text alert every time an email was received, according to The Legal Intelligencer. Dominguez filed his class action lawsuit under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, but it was dismissed after the district court found his definition of an autodialer -- the device used to send him the text messages from Yahoo -- wasn't the same as the definition the TCPA used for an autodialer. Lauri Mazzuchetti, co-chair on the Kelley Drye TCPA defense group, told the Pennsylvania Record remanding this case has multiple ramifications. "First, The Third Court endorsed the FCC's clarification of the statutory definition of an automatic telephone dialing system (autodialer/ATDS) that could violate the TCPA in the recent July 2015 Order," Mazzuchetti said. Mazzachetti said that order states: "So long as the equipment is part of a 'system' that has latent 'capacity' to place autodialed calls, the statutory definition is satisfied." Second, she said the remand gives the district court the opportunity to reevaluate Yahoo's dialing equipment in light of the order. "The district court must decide anew whether Yahoo's notification text services utilizes an ATDS as a matter of law under the FCC's Order, or solicit further factual evidence from the parties about the texting platform's "capacity" (or lack thereof) to store or produce numbers to be called using a random or sequential number generator," Mazzuchetti said. The 2015 order updated the TCPA's 1992 definition of an autodialer, which was as Third Circuit Judge Thomas Ambro said, a reflection of the times. Before filing this suit, Dominguez claims he contacted Yahoo to be taken off the text message alert, but was told because he was not the account holder of the email address registered to the phone he couldn't authorize a removal. "The district court may come to the same conclusion as it did in 2014, or side with the plaintiff and permit the case to proceed beyond the summary judgment stage," Mazzuchetti said. ZAFFEN INC: Faces Probe Over Violations of Securities Exchange Act ------------------------------------------------------------------ Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC is conducting an investigation to determine whether Zafgen, Inc. ("Zafgen" or the "Company") and certain of its officers and directors made false and misleading statements and/or omissions in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. A class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts by another law firm on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Zafgen (NASDAQ:ZFGN) between January 12, 2015 and October 16, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Zafgen is a biopharmaceutical company dedicated to developing drugs for patients affected by obesity and complex metabolic disorders. The Company's lead product candidate is beloranib, which was undergoing testing in clinical trials. Zafgen describes beloranib as a "novel, first-in-class, twice-weekly subcutaneous, or SC, injection being developed for the treatment of multiple indications, including severe obesity." The complaint alleges that Zafgen and its Chief Executive Officer ("Defendants") misrepresented and/or failed to disclose that: (1) thrombotic events in the clinical studies of beloranib were underreported; and (2) thrombotic events all occurred in patients treated with beloranib, while none occurred in patients treated with a placebo. The claims in this case followed the drop in the Zafgen share price in response to the news that the FDA had placed a partial clinical hold on beloranib following the death of a patient in an ongoing Phase 3 trial of the drug. Zafgen reported that the clinical hold was due to "previously reported thromboembolic events in ongoing and prior clinical trials of beloranib and the unknown nature of the death." On October 16, 2015, the Company revealed that the patient who had died had been treated with beloranib rather than a placebo, and also reported that there had been a total of six thrombotic events in ongoing and previous trials of the drug. Moreover, it disclosed that all six instances of thrombotic events had occurred in patients treated with beloranib; no events occurred in any patients in the placebo arms of the studies. The price of Zafgen shares fell from $21.02 to $10.36 on October 16. Cohen Milstein encourages all investors who purchased Zafgen common stock between January 12, 2015 and October 16, 2015 or former employees with information concerning this matter to contact the firm. If you are a Zafgen shareholder and would like to discuss your right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without any cost or obligation, call Cohen Milstein's Managing Partner, Steven J. Toll at (888) 240-0775 or (202) 408-4600, or email him at stoll@cohenmilstein.com. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than December 21, 2015 to request appointment. Any member of the proposed class may retain Cohen Milstein or other attorneys to serve as your counsel in this action, or you may do nothing and remain an absent class member. Cohen Milstein has significant experience in prosecuting investor class actions and actions involving securities fraud, and is active in major litigation pending in federal and state courts throughout the nation. Cohen Milstein has taken a lead role in numerous important cases on behalf of defrauded investors, and has been responsible for a number of outstanding recoveries which, in the aggregate, total over two billion dollars. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. For more information visit www.cohenmilstein.com. If you have any questions about this notice or the action, or with regard to your rights, please contact either of the following: Steven J. Toll, Esq. Rhys Tucker Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC 1100 New York Avenue, N.W. West Tower, Suite 500 Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone: (888) 240-0775 or (202) 408-4600 Email: stoll@cohenmilstein.com * Serial Class Suit Objector Smacked with Serious Sanctions ----------------------------------------------------------- Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reported that pro tip for class action objectors hoping to extract six-figure payoffs in exchange for dropping protests to big-ticket settlements: Make sure you are actually a member of the class whose settlement you are trying to hold up. Michael Narkin, a onetime California lawyer turned serial class action objector, learned the unhappy consequences of defying that basic rule on, when U.S. District Judge Jack Zouhary of Cleveland hit him with $10,000 in sanctions for filing a frivolous objection to an antitrust settlement with two manufacturers of polyurethane foam. Judge Zouhary found that Narkin not only falsely claimed to be a member of the class but also "sought to extort money" from class counsel with an offer to drop his appeal of the judge's approval of a $150 million settlement. Dropping appeals in exchange for payments from class counsel is, as you probably recall, a common tactic of "serial objectors," whose business model is to stand in the way of big class action settlements until plaintiffs' lawyers get sick of waiting for their fees and pay the objector to go away. Class counsel in the polyurethane foam case -- William Isaacson of Boies Schiller & Flexner and Stephen Neuwirth of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan -- argued in their motion for sanctions last June that Narkin deserves that dubious distinction. The motion pointed out that he had cut and pasted big chunks of his filings in the foam case from allegations he previously raised in four different class actions. His objection to the foam settlement accused class counsel of misconduct in a case they weren't involved in, presumably because Narkin mistakenly copied material from a filing in a previous class action. He also referred to subclasses, although there aren't any in the foam litigation, and asserted legal fees were part of the settlement agreement when they were separately negotiated. "Narkin's objections are remarkable in that they reflect a complete ignorance about (or purposeful disregard of) the most basic facts related to this action and have no foundation in the law," the class counsel brief said. Narkin himself is remarkable, according to the brief. He resigned from the California bar in the 1980s, facing possible disbarment, and proceeded to open an Internet-based law school in 1996. By 2004, according to an article in the San Jose Mercury News, California regulators were investigating complaints from Narkin's students that he had taken their money and disappeared. Narkin brought his objection in the foam case without counsel, and, after Judge Zouhary approved the $150 million settlement despite Narkin's filings, asked the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to allow him to appeal without paying a filing fee. (Narkin actually brought his appeal at the Federal Circuit, which referred him to the 6th Circuit.) Judge Zouhary, who had previously raised doubts about Narkin's standing, ordered him to provide evidence that he had purchased polyurethane foam directly from manufacturers. Narkin eventually submitted a 2008 contract for carpet installation at his home in Eugene, Oregon. But as class counsel pointed out in a sanctions reply brief in July, Narkin's carpet suppliers are not defendants in the antitrust litigation so, if that's his only proof, he is not a class member. Moreover, according to the class counsel brief, when plaintiffs lawyers called Narkin to inform him he was not in the class, he revealed the motive for his objection. Narkin allegedly said he would drop his objection for "something additional," the brief said. Plaintiffs' lawyer Adam Wolfson of Quinn Emanuel asked what he meant. "Narkin refused to provide details, stating that he had been 'nailed down in previous situations,'" class counsel's brief said. "Narkin did say that in exchange for a generous 'contribution' to his charity, he would withdraw his objections and the related appeal." Narkin serves on the board of the charity but refused to say whether he controls the group's disbursements, according to a declaration by Wolfson. In a previous case in which Narkin requested a contribution to an animal-welfare charity in exchange for dropping an appeal, a judge concluded that his family apparently owned the charity. In his two responses to accusations by class counsel, Narkin did not attempt to justify his class membership or to deny he offered to drop his objection if class counsel contributed to his charity. He insisted that class counsel had inflated their hourly billings on the case and said he had standing to object as an indirect purchaser of foam products. Narkin claimed that because the direct purchasers passed overcharges on to consumers, he has a cause of action. In sanctions opinion, Judge Zouhary said that was absurd as a matter of longstanding U.S. Supreme Court precedent. Narkin's "shift in standing theory -- from his baseless sworn statement that he bought flexible foam from a defendant to his absurd theory of a 46,000-member price-fixing conspiracy -- is further proof of Narkin's improper purpose," he wrote. "Having had one theory exposed as meritless, Narkin simply fabricates a different theory so that he can further delay disbursement of the settlement funds." Narkin and his "meritless" objections have singlehandedly delayed a nearly $150 million settlement for 8 months, the judge said. But perhaps, he said, a $10,000 sanction will "deter Narkin's repeat frivolous conduct." Or perhaps not: According to the declaration from class counsel Wolfson, Narkin said he wasn't worried about sanctions because he is "judgment proof." In addition to objecting to the two-defendant foam settlement, Narkin objected to subsequent settlement with four other defendants that brings the total class recovery to $433.1 million. Judge Zouhary granted final approval to the settlements on and authorized a fee of $102.4 million, or 23 percent of the recovery, for class counsel, in addition to $9.3 million in expenses. (Plaintiffs' lawyers had asked for a 30 percent fee, or $130.6 million.) Judge Zouhary brushed off Narkin's objection to the second settlement in his approval opinion, reiterating that Narkin is not a class member -- and adding that he filed his second objection too late, in any event. I suppose Narkin, who did not respond to my email request for comment, could appeal this approval ruling. But I think it is safe to say that if he doesn't have much of a shot. * Shareholder Filings Drop After Chancery Crackdown on M&A Deals ---------------------------------------------------------------- Reuters reported that class action lawyers can't stay in business unless they earn contingency fees from settling cases. That's just a plain economic truth. And based on new data compiled by the indefatigable folks at The Chancery Daily, it has not taken long at all for shareholder lawyers to respond like the rational economic actors they are to the new reality of M&A litigation in Delaware. The judges of Delaware Chancery Court spent the summer and early fall warning shareholders and defendants that they would no longer approve deal-challenge settlements that benefited everyone but shareholders. One by one, Chancellor Andre Bouchard and the four vice-chancellors said they were sick and tired of being asked to bless broad releases for defendants and hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees for plaintiffs' lawyers in settlements granting investors no more than additional proxy disclosures that, more often than not, had no discernible impact. The judges' restlessness culminated on Sept. 18, when Vice- Chancellor Sam Glasscock said in a written decision in In re Riverbed that plaintiffs and defendants should no longer expect Chancery Court to approve disclosure-only settlements. As if to prove Glasscock's point, on Oct. 9, Vice-Chancellor Travis Laster not only rejected a proposed disclosure-only settlement in In re Aruba Networks but also dismissed the suit, finding that plaintiffs' lawyers hadn't done an adequate job of investigating HP's acquisition of the software company Aruba. To measure the impact of these decisions -- which have prompted geologically cataclysmic metaphors from The Chancery Daily -- the newsletter's staff went back to January 2015 to compile a month- by-month tally of the number of new shareholder class action complaints filed in Chancery Court. In raw numbers, there were fewer new cases, 16, filed in October than any previous month. November seems headed for an even lower total, with only five filings in the first half of November. As The Chancery Daily explained in a post accompanying the data, the trend held when the newsletter looked at shareholder class actions as a monthly percentage of all corporate and commercial disputes launched in Delaware. October's ratio, 23 percent, was the year's lowest. In the first half of November, shareholder class actions made up only 18 percent of Chancery Court's corporate docket. The drop-off in filings, according to The Chancery Daily, is not the result of fewer large M&A transactions being announced in October and November. To control for fluctuations in deal volume, the newsletter counted up announced transactions of more than $100 million in every month since the beginning of the year and calculated a ratio of shareholder class action filings per big deal. Between January and September, the ratio was greater than 1 -- meaning there were more class action suits than announced deals, probably because multiple shareholders challenged certain transactions -- in every month except May, when it dipped to .83 (24 announced deals of more than $100 million and 20 new shareholder class actions). In October, by contrast, there were only 16 new suits and 24 new deal announcements -- a ratio of .69. That's notably low, especially because most of the class actions were filed in the first half of the month, before Vice-Chancellor Laster's blistering ruling from the bench in the Aruba case. In the first half of November, shareholder firms filed only 5 new class actions, despite the announcement of 15 big new deals -- a ratio of .33. That's a pretty dramatic number. Studies in the past few years by law professor Steven Davidoff Solomon of Berkeley and Matthew Cain of the Securities and Exchange Commission have shown that shareholders bring class actions challenging more than 95 percent of deals involving at least $100 million. Not every case is filed in Delaware, of course. It could be that plaintiffs -- with the tacit acquiescence of defendants that understand the value of global releases -- are filing deal challenges outside of Chancery Court. And six weeks is not a long enough time period to declare a decisive trend. But if the numbers continue along the same lines, as they probably will, we're witnessing the death throes of reflexive M&A litigation. Corporate boards that run robust, unconflicted sales with untainted advisors will soon be able to stop assuming shareholder litigation is a cost of doing business. These are going to be challenging times for small plaintiffs' shops whose lawyers have made a nice living in the era of disclosure-only settlements. Delaware judges seem confident that ending incentives for reflexive deal tax litigation will encourage the shareholder bar to devote its time and money to suing over truly flawed deals. That would be an ideal outcome. I fear, however, that when boards stop worrying about suits, they will start getting sloppy. Chancery Court has given the pendulum of deal litigation a big shove. Let's hope the judges didn't push too far. ********* 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 * * *