/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/160304.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, March 4, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 46 Headlines AFEXA LIFE: Plaintiff Seeks Class Certification of Cold-FX Suit ALLIANCE SECURITY: "Chester" Suit Moved from Minn. to N.D. W. Va. AMERICAN ASSOCIATION: Sued Over Telemarketing Law Violation ARIZONA: Fails to Make Improvements in Prisoner Health Care AUTOLIV INC: May 11 Settlement Approval Hearing Set BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: CNB Suit Moved from S.D. Ala. to S.D.N.Y. BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: "Smith" Consolidated in MDL 2673, S.D.N.Y. BARNES & NOBLE: Plaintiff Drops Case Over Defective Charger BAYER: Class Action Won't Offer More Benefits to Essure Patients BENCO DENTAL: Judge Keeps Antitrust Class Action Secret BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ: Court Reopens Suit Over Kickback Scheme BHP BILLITON: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action BHP BILLITON: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action BLACKSTONE GROUP: "Caples" Sues over Onerous Merger Deal BUMBLE BEE: Benjamin Foods Suit Consolidated in MDL 2670 BUMBLE BEE: Central Grocers Suit Consolidated in MDL 2670 BUMBLE BEE: Associated Grocers Suit Consolidated in MDL 2670 BUMBLE BEE: "Christensen" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2670 BUMBLE BEE: "Damske" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2670 BUMBLE BEE: "Waterman" Suit Moved and Consolidated in MDL 2670 BUMBLE BEE: "Machin" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2670 CANADA: Plaintiffs Oppose St. John's Bid to Get Victims List CAPITOL VALLEY ELECTRIC: "Brooks" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay CARESOUTH HHA HOLDINGS: "Simpson" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay CHARLES SCHWAB: Averts Bond Fund Securities Class Action CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Under DoJ Investigations Over E.Coli Outbreak COLUMBIA GAS: 6th Cir. Reviews First-to-File Rule in Class Action COOK MEDICAL: Faces Two Class Actions in Canada Over IVC Filters COOPER TIRE: 3rd. Circ Hears Oral Arguments in Merger Suit CRYPTSY: Updated Class Action Lawsuit Names New Defendant CRYPTSY: Founder's Ex-Wife Likely Involved in Lost Funds DALLAS, TX: Sued Over Proposed Ban of Porn Convention DOW CHEMICAL: Growing Political Uncertainties Prompt Settlement DOW CHEMICAL: Settlement Decision Encouraging for Plaintiffs Bar DOW CHEMICAL: Some Politics Behind Settlement, Bland Says ENCORE ENERGY: "Goldman" Sues over Termination, Retaliation EXXON MOBIL: Landowners' Attorneys Appeal Class Action Dismissal FLINT, MI: Attorney Provides Update on Water Crisis Class Action FORD: Can't Duck Power Steering Class Action, Judge Rules FOX SEARCHLIGHT: Interns' Bid for Rehearing of Class Action Nixed G. WILLI-FOOD: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action GRAND THEFT: 9th Circuit Reverses Dismissal of Class Action GRENVILLE CHRISTIAN: Abused Students Relate Harrowing Stories HEARTWARE INTERNATIONAL: Faces St. Paul Fund Securities Suit HOME DEPOT: Judge OKs $2.1MM Wage Class Action Settlement HORTONWORKS INC: April 29 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline IRSA INVERSIONES: Pomerantz LLP Files Securities Class Action JEFFERSON PARISH, LA: Red Light Camera Refund Checks Mailed JPMORGAN CHASE: Shareholders Attempt to Revive Madoff Suit JPMORGAN CHASE: May 10 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set KRAFT HEINZ: Faces Another Class Action Over Parmesan Cheese MASIMO CORP: Appeals Court Reinstates $5.3MM Arbitration Award MATCH GROUP: April 26 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set MDL 2672: 55 Class Suits v. Volkswagen et al. Transferred MOHONK MOUNTAIN: Settles Class Action Over Norovirus MONTREAL INSTITUTE: Settles Sexual Abuse Class Suit for $30MM MORGAN & MORGAN: Settles Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages MORGAN KEEGAN: 8th Circuit Limits American Pipe Tolling NAPW INC: "Martin" Suit to Recover Commissions, OT, Missed Breaks NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Loses Bid to Avert Compensation Limits Suit NEW YORK: NYPD Commissioner Dismisses Job Quota Claims NEWS AMERICA: Settles Antitrust Class Action NU SKIN: Settles Securities Class Action for $47 Million PDS TRANSPORTATION: "Lopez" Suit Asserts Labor Law Violations PFIZER INC: Seeks to Strike Two Experts in Zoloft MDL RALPH'S GROCERY: NLRB Panel Invalidates Arbitration Policy RECKITT BENCKISER: Sued Over Misleading Nurofen Pain Drug Claims REMINGTON: Rifle Settlement Deadline Extended Until April 29 REPLANET LLC: "Medina" Suit to Recover Missed Break Compensation ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Faces Class Action Over Storm Cruise SAN BERNARDINO, CA: Faces Class Action Over Inmate Abuse SAINT-GOBAIN: NY Firm Sues Over Chemicals in Village Water SCRANTON, PA: Judge Nixes Part of Rental Fee Class Action SEMPRA ENERGY: Faces Class Action, May 2 Lead Plaintiff Deadline SHORE MEDICAL: Law Firm Expects More Patients to Come Forward SLATER & GORDON: Aggrieved Investors Mull Class Action SLATER & GORDON: Financial Woes Pile Up as Class Action Looms SOLVAY SPECIALTY: Settlement Gets Preliminary Court Approval SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS: "Lopez" Sues over Gas Leaks SUBWAY: Class Action Settlement Gets Final Court Approval TEEKAY CORP: Scott+Scott Files Class Action in Connecticut TIDAL: Faces Class Action Over $5MM in Past-Due Royalties TIDAL: Denies Claims in Class Action Over Unpaid Royalties TOKYO ELECTRIC: 3 Former Execs Indicted Over Fukushima Disaster TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Donald May Testify in Civil Class Action TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Opposes Lead Plaintiff Removal in Fraud Case TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Fraud Class Action Can Proceed, Court Rules UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Defends Driver Background Check Policy UBS AG: Settles Price Rigging Class Action for $100-Mil. UNION PACIFIC: Employees File ADA Class Action in Washington UNITED STATES: Finalizes $940MM Settlement with Tribes UNITED STATES: Health Republic Files $2.5-Bil. Suit UTICA, NY: Refugees' Discrimination Class Action Ongoing VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Seeks to Centralize Emissions Fraud Suits WALGREEN CO: "Legget" Sues over Overcharging on Prescriptions WESTERN PACIFIC: "Centria Homeowners" Sues Over Building Flaws WHOLE FOODS: Judge Tosses Pre-pack Food Overpricing Class Action * Oklahoma Takes Measures to Address Fracking-Related Quakes * Scalia's Death Poses Challenges for Class Action Defendants * U.S. Supreme Court Won't Consider Class Membership Test Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mich. Man Sues 15 Companies Over Lung Cancer ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pipe Tests Positive For Asbestos in Regina Bldg. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found in Alpena County Courthouse ASBESTOS UPDATE: Victims, Lawyers Fear Bill May Delat Payment ASBESTOS UPDATE: Unexpected Asbestos Adds Costs to Bldg Demo ASBESTOS UPDATE: Connecticut's Asbestos Docket Finally Shrinks ASBESTOS UPDATE: Canada's Asbestos Workers Condemn Ruling ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hazardous Asbestos Waste Dumped Over Bridge ASBESTOS UPDATE: Border Force Dusts Off Asbestos Controls ASBESTOS UPDATE: Beech-Nut Plant Developer Sued in Scrap Dispute ASBESTOS UPDATE: Miss. Jury Awards $1-Mil. to Plaintiff ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found at Tauranga Historic Village ASBESTOS UPDATE: Victory in Compensation Battle for Veterans ASBESTOS UPDATE: Imported Asbestos Creating Danger for Workers ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Find Means Longer Closure for Court ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fincantieri To Pay EUR1.1MM to Welder ASBESTOS UPDATE: Saints Coach Dies of Asbestos-Caused Cancer ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found in Retirement Village ASBESTOS UPDATE: Civil Court Filings Down in Illinois ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Wash. AG Pushes Back on FACT Act Critics ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duncan Medical Bldg. Shut Down Due to Asbestos ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Considers Application of Fairchild Test ASBESTOS UPDATE: Company Fined GBP20,000 For Disturbing Asbestos ASBESTOS UPDATE: Taskforce Releases Pics of Fluffy Contamination ASBESTOS UPDATE: B.C. Judge Clears Contractor of Contempt ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mammoth Trial Scheduled in Kentucky ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Dumped Near Homes in Western Sydney ASBESTOS UPDATE: Orlando Firefighters Exposed to Asbestos at Work ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alexandria Subject to Environmental Liability ASBESTOS UPDATE: Meritor Insurance Recovery Offsets Revenue Cuts ASBESTOS UPDATE: Maremont Corp. Had 5,700 Claims at Jan. 3 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Maremont Had $38-Mil. Recoveries at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: ArvinMeritor Had $14-Mil. Recoveries at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harris Corp. Continues to Defend Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Cases Still Pending v. Tidewater Inc. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carpenter Tech Continues to Defend PI Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Haynes Int'l Continues to Defend PI Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dow Incurs $78MM Pretax Charge in 4Q 2014 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Briggs Still Subject to Product Liability Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Seeks Review of "Amato" Ruling ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Continues to Pursue Appeal in "Peraica" ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Appeal on "DeLisle" Ruling Set for Q1 2016 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Shipowners Lose Summary Judgment Bid "Griffin" ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Arroyo" to Proceed Against Shipowners ASBESTOS UPDATE: Shipowners Fail in Bid to Dismiss "Zuegg" ASBESTOS UPDATE: Illinois Court Refuses to Transfer "Watts" ASBESTOS UPDATE: MSA Obtains Partial Win in Coverage Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cal. App. Partially Flips Judgment in "Lapore" ********* AFEXA LIFE: Plaintiff Seeks Class Certification of Cold-FX Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- John McKinley, writing for Nanaimo News Bulletin, reports that a blunt-spoken Ladysmith senior is at the epicentre of a legal battle that could have a huge impact on not only a popular cold remedy, but on the country's entire natural health industry. Don Harrison is the lead plaintiff in a lawsuit seeking class- action certification against the makers of Cold-Fx, which bills itself Canada's number-one selling cold remedy. On April 4-8, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Janice Dillon will rule on whether or not Harrison's case can be expanded to include virtually anyone who used the product between 2004 and 2012. "We still must show that there are common issues and that a class action is the preferable way of resolving all class members' claims, but based on the recent Supreme Court of Canada case law, we are confident that this hurdle can be met," Harrison's lawyer John Green said. The particulars of the suit are many, but its thrust is straightforward: it alleges Afexa Life Sciences and Valeant Pharmaceuticals misled consumers into thinking Cold-Fx was capable of relieving flu and cold symptoms if taken for periods of less than two months. Essentially, it argues that the Cold-Fx packaging promised something it could not deliver. "At trial, we may prove fraud by showing that the statements on the boxes we say are false, were also material to a person's purchase," Green said. "Given that the statements we say were fraudulent concerned efficacy, dosage, and dosage duration (all regulated by Health Canada), we are confident that the defendants have an uphill battle now." The claims remain unproven. The defendants have thus far declined to discuss the case in the media. They did attempt to have it thrown out of court, but Supreme Court Justice John Truscott ruled Jan. 21 that it could proceed. "Since the matter is before the courts, it would be inappropriate for us to comment at this time," spokesperson Caroline De Silva said on behalf of the defendants. "We believe the action is without merit and are defending it vigorously." Green, who specializes in lawsuits regarding the pharmaceuticals industry asked Harrison to be the representative plaintiff after watching a CBC documentary on the product and reading a letter Harrison wrote to the Ladysmith Chronicle on the topic. "I said 'in a goddamn heartbeat," Harrison said. "They've got a hell of a case." Filed in New Westminster in March of 2012, the suit alleges Harrison purchased Cold-Fx in February 2011 after reading marketing material that suggested the product would supply immediate relief for cold and flu symptoms, a suggestion the plaintiff maintains the defendants knew to be false. The suit states that while the firm's own research indicates the product may address cold and flu symptoms, that same research is based on participants who took the product for periods of two to six months. "Afexa and Valeant had (other) research as far back as 2004 which showed Cold-Fx was less effective than a placebo at treating cold or flu symptoms if taken during a short duration," Green said. Green's trial plan is to prove the marketing statements are false, determine the number of boxes of the product sold with those statements, and then estimate the value paid by British Columbians. "On top of this there would be interest, which began compounding about decade ago, and so that amount by itself is expected to be quite large," he said. The National Post reported "more than $117 million worth of the ginseng-based product was sold in Canada as recently as 2011." Green said the point of the lawsuit is not to earn money for the plaintiffs. Instead, it aims to make anyone who may have misled the public accountable for their actions, while delivering a stern warning to any health remedy company making, or considering making, false claims. The likelihood of any lawsuit proceeds ending up in the hands of Cold-Fx customers is slim, given the relatively small expense of their individual purchases and the difficulty reimbursing people. Rather the judge would more likely direct any reward to a charitable public service fund in a related area. Harrison hopes a statement will be made. "Those natural products, they can get away with murder almost,"he said. "I hope that the judge rules in our favour. That damned money doesn't belong to them." ALLIANCE SECURITY: "Chester" Suit Moved from Minn. to N.D. W. Va. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Chester v. Alliance Security Inc., Case No. 0:15-cv-04231, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia (Clarksburg). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-00010-IMK-MJA to the proceeding. Alliance Security provides security services. The Company provides burglar, fire, and medical protection, as well as provides home automation services. The Company is based in Warwick, Rhode Island. The Plaintiff is represented by: Seyed Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400 6808 Facsimile: (800) 520 5523 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com - and - Patrick J Helwig, Esq. Peter F Barry, Esq. BARRY & HELWIG, LLC 2701 University Avenue SE, Suite 209 Minneapolis, MN 55414 Telephone: (612) 379 8800 Facsimile: (612) 379 8810 E-mail: phelwig@lawpoint.com pbarry@lawpoint.com The Defendant is represented by: Barbara P Berens, Esq. Erin K Fogarty Lisle, Esq. BERENS & MILLER, PA 80 S 8th St Ste 3720 Mpls, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 349 6171 Facsimile: (612) 349 6416 E-mail: bberens@berensmiller.com elisle@berensmiller.com AMERICAN ASSOCIATION: Sued Over Telemarketing Law Violation ----------------------------------------------------------- John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that weeks before the head of a national trial lawyers group condemned a legal maneuver used by businesses in attempts to fight class action lawsuits, the group was accused of using the same move by one of its own members. The American Association for Justice -- a lobbying group for plaintiffs lawyers that was formerly known as the Association of Trial Lawyers of America -- was a defendant in a lawsuit filed by Miami attorney Timothy Blake, who alleged he'd received a fax that violated a federal telemarketing law. Mr. Blake, who wrote in his 2014 complaint that he's been a member of AAJ for more than three decades, alleged the AAJ benefited from faxes sent regarding a health insurance plan because it receives royalty payments from the insurer when AAJ members sign up. While fighting the lawsuit, the AAJ made a Rule 68 offer of judgment in December to Blake. The AAJ offered Blake an amount equal to or greater than what he was requesting as an individual in an effort to end the case before it became a full-fledged class action, though Blake wished to continue the lawsuit as the lead plaintiff of a class. The offer was $2,000, enough to cover the costs of one violation of the federal law. "This judgment amount represents AAJ's total liability for any and all of Plaintiff's losses, claims, damages and any other amounts or expenses that may have been recoverable . . . from AAJ on Plaintiff's individual claims in this action," the AAJ wrote in its Rule 68 offer. "This offer is intended to fully satisfy Plaintiff's individual claim asserted in this action or which could have been asserted in this action." According to the AAJ's own president, using Rule 68 offers to end class actions in preliminary stages is unfair. In the wake of a January U.S. Supreme Court ruling that said those offers couldn't moot class action lawsuits, Linda Lipsen released a statement praising the 6-3 decision. "Class actions are necessary to help ensure fairness and efficiency in our judicial system," Ms. Lipsen's statement said. "By allowing groups of similarly harmed individuals to join together, the Supreme Court ensured that Americans with even the most limited means can hold the most powerful corporations accountable for wrongdoing. "An alternative result in this case would have upended that balance and, as Justice Ginsburg writes, 'would place the defendant in the driver's seat' of the civil justice system." The AAJ release said Rule 68 offers threatened the viability of class actions and threatened to allow defendants to pick off named plaintiffs in order to extinguish entire class actions. In the case against the AAJ, the plaintiff, Mr. Blake, attempted to strike the Rule 68 offer on Dec. 11. His concern about the Rule 68 offer made to him was similar to the stance the AAJ took more than a month later, after the U.S. Supreme Court ruling. Mr. Blake said the offer was "merely an attempt to pick-off the named Plaintiff, create a conflict between Plaintiff and the putative class, and undermine this consumer class action." Mr. Blake said courts have ruled that Rule 68 offers like the one he received create conflicts of interest between class representatives and the putative classes they seek to represent. "Accordingly, Defendant AAJ's Offer of Judgment is an improper attempt to thwart this class action and create a conflict between the named Plaintiff and the class he seeks to represent," Mr. Blake's attorneys wrote. "Based upon the weight of the above authority, Defendant AAJ's purported Offer of Judgment should be stricken and deemed ineffective." Mr. Blake was represented by the Social Justice Law Collective and Bennett & Bennett in Coral Gables, Fla. Ten days after the motion to strike, Blake and his attorneys voluntarily dismissed their case without prejudice, meaning they could refile in the future. Court records do not offer the reason for their decision. The fax in question was sent to AAJ members about the organization's creation of a Health Care Marketplace for them and their employees. It included seven listed benefits of joining the program, but Blake said it did not include instruction on how to opt out of receiving future faxes, in violation of federal law. The AAJ, in a motion to dismiss that was denied on Sept. 1, said there is a debate as to whether opt-out notices are required for solicited faxes. The AAJ was represented by Podhurst Orseck in Miami and Jones Foster Johnston & Stubbs in West Palm Beach, Fla. The U.S. Supreme Court ruling came in Jose Gomez's case over unsolicited text messages against Campbell-Ewald, which had made a Rule 68 offer to him -- $1,503 per violation and reasonable costs. When he denied the offer, the company said the offer of judgment should have ended the case. The court affirmed a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. ARIZONA: Fails to Make Improvements in Prisoner Health Care ----------------------------------------------------------- Jacques Billeaud, writing for The Associated Press, reports that attorneys who won a settlement in a class-action lawsuit over the quality of health care in Arizona's prisons say the state is dragging its feet in carrying out the improvements it promised when it agreed to resolve the case. The lawyers contend health care in the state's prisons hasn't improved since the October 2014 settlement, saying Arizona has dramatically inflated its compliance figures and failed to carry out many requirements called for by the agreement. The requirements include having sick inmates see registered nurses within 24 hours of requesting help and having medical providers tend to inmates with chronic diseases as specified by their treatment programs. A hearing over the lawyers' complaints was scheduled on March 1 before U.S. Magistrate John Buttrick. The settlement was won on behalf of 33,000 Arizona inmates after some complained that their cancer went undetected or they were told to pray to be cured after begging for treatment. As part of the settlement, state officials agreed to seek more money from the Legislature to increase health care staffing, offer cancer screenings to certain prisoners, follow requirements in treating patients with chronic diseases, and provide more out-of- cell time to prisoners kept in isolated cells. The Legislature gave the Department of Corrections an additional $6.6 million in health care funding last year in response to the settlement. Don Specter, one of the attorneys for the inmates, said another problem is that the people monitoring the state's compliance are employees of the Arizona Department of Corrections. "They aren't trained," Mr. Specter said. "They don't have specific instructions, and their interpretations of what the agreement requires are often wrong." Andrew Wilder, a spokesman for the Arizona Department of Corrections, declined to comment. The lawsuit against Arizona Corrections Director Charles Ryan and another prison official alleged the failure of medical personnel at one prison to diagnose the metastasized cancer of one inmate resulted in his liver enlarging to the belly size of a pregnant woman at full term. It said another inmate with a history of prostate cancer had to wait more than two years for a biopsy, and nothing was done for a prisoner who suffered from depression and told staff members he was suicidal before killing himself. Prison officials have denied the allegations and didn't acknowledge any wrongdoing when making the settlement. The prisoners who filed the lawsuit weren't seeking monetary damages and instead asked for a court order declaring that Arizona's prisons violated the Eighth Amendment right of inmates against cruel and unusual punishment. AUTOLIV INC: May 11 Settlement Approval Hearing Set --------------------------------------------------- If You Bought or Leased a New Motor Vehicle, or Bought Certain Replacement Parts for a Motor Vehicle in the U.S. Since 1998 You Could Get Money from Settlements Totaling Approximately $225 Million. Eleven Defendant groups and their affiliates ("Settling Defendants") have agreed to Settlements resolving claims that they fixed the price of certain motor vehicle components. This may have caused individuals and businesses to pay more for new motor vehicles and certain replacement parts. The Settling Defendants deny any claims of wrongdoing. Am I included? You may be included if, from 1998 to 2015, you: (1) bought or leased a new motor vehicle in the U.S. (not for resale), or (2) indirectly paid for a motor vehicle replacement part. Indirectly means you bought the replacement part from someone other than the manufacturer of the part. New motor vehicles include, but are not limited to, automobiles, cars, light trucks, pickup trucks, crossovers, vans, mini-vans, and sport utility vehicles. Visit the website, www.AutoPartsClass.com or call 1-877-940-5043 for a full list of Settling Defendants and applicable time periods. What do the Settlements provide? The Settlements provide money for consumers in 30 states and the District of Columbia as well as non-monetary relief, including cooperation, and they also include agreements by certain Settling Defendants not to engage in certain conduct for a period of 24 months. The 30 states are: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. How can I get a payment? No money will be distributed yet. Class Counsel will pursue the lawsuits against the Non-Settling Defendants. All funds received in this case will be distributed at the conclusion of the lawsuits or as ordered by the Court. You will need to file a valid claim to receive a payment. Notice about the claims process will be provided at a later date. If you want to receive notice about the claims process or future settlements, you should register at www.AutoPartsClass.com What are my rights? Even if you do nothing, you will be bound by the Court's decisions concerning these Settlements. If you want to keep your right to sue the Settling Defendants regarding a particular motor vehicle component part, you must exclude yourself from that Settlement Class by April 11, 2016. If you stay in a Settlement Class, you may object to one or more of the Settlements by April 11, 2016. The Court will hold a hearing on May 11, 2016, to consider whether to approve the Settlements and approve Class Counsel's request that up to $11.25 million be set aside for future litigation costs and expenses. Class counsel will also request at the hearing, or at a later date, attorneys' fees of up to one-third of the Settlement funds, plus reimbursement of costs and expenses. You or your own lawyer may appear and speak at the hearing at your own expense. If the cases are not dismissed or settled, Class Counsel will have to prove their claims against the Non-Settling Defendants at trial. Date for the trials have not been set yet. For More Information or to Register: 1-877-940-5043 www.AutoPartsClass.com BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: CNB Suit Moved from S.D. Ala. to S.D.N.Y. -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled CNB Bancorp, Inc. v. Bank of Nova Scotia, New York Agency et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-00595, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley Square). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-00030-PGG to the proceeding. The Defendants allegedly colluded and manipulated the market for U.S. Treasury securities, including Treasury bills, notes, bonds, Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities and floating rate notes (Treasury Securities), and derivative instruments based on such securities, including U.S. Treasury futures and options (Treasury Instruments). The Bank of Nova Scotia provides financial services in North America, Latin America, the Caribbean and Central America, and parts of Asia. The company serves 23 million customers through a range of advice, products and services, including personal and commercial banking, wealth management and private banking, corporate and investment banking and capital markets. The bank is headquartered in Halifax, Canada. The CNB case is being consolidated with MDL 2673 in re: Treasury Securities Auction Antitrust Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on December 8, 2015. It consists of allegations that over 20 financial institutions, referred to as primary dealers, conspired to manipulate the pricing of U.S. Treasury securities (Treasury bills, notes, bonds, and related debt instruments) at Treasury auctions overseen by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York; and derivative financial products. In its December 8, 2015 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that centralization will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Judge Paul G. Gardephe, United States District Judge and experienced transferee Judge. The lead case is 1:15-md-02673-PGG. The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick Charles Cooper, Esq. WARD & WILSON, L.L.C. 2100A Southbridge Parkway, Suite 580 Birmingham, AL 35209 Telephone: (205) 871 5404 E-mail: patrickcharles003@yahoo.com The Defendants are represented by: Robert G. Houck, Esq. David J. Yeres, Esq. John D. Friel, Esq. CLIFFORD CHANCE US, LLP (NYC) 31 West 52nd Street New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 878 3224 Facsimile: (212) 878 8375 E-mail: robert.houck@cliffordchance.com david.yeres@cliffordchance.com john.friel@cliffordchance.com - and - Jay B. Kasner, Esq. Paul Madison Eckles, Esq. Shepard Goldfein, Esq. SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP (NYC) Four Times Square New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 735 3000 Facsimile: (212) 735 2000 E-mail: jkasner@skadden.com pmeckles@skadden.com sgoldfei@skadden.com - and - Kenneth Ian Schacter, Esq. MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP (NY) 101 Park Avenue New York, NY 10178 Telephone: (212) 309 6815 Facsimile: (212) 309 6001 E-mail: kenneth.schacter@morganlewis.com BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: "Smith" Consolidated in MDL 2673, S.D.N.Y. -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Smith v. Bank of Nova Scotia, New York Agency et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-08634, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley Square). The Southern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-00005-PGG to the proceeding. According to the complaint, the Defendants allegedly conspired to fix and manipulate the markets for U.S. Treasuries and related Auctions and derivative financial products (i.e., Treasury- Predicated Instruments), including Treasury-predicated futures and options traded on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME). The Bank of Nova Scotia provides financial services in North America, Latin America, the Caribbean and Central America, and parts of Asia. The company serves 23 million customers through a range of advice, products and services, including personal and commercial banking, wealth management and private banking, corporate and investment banking and capital markets. The bank is headquartered in Halifax, Canada. The Smith case is being consolidated with MDL 2673 in re: Treasury Securities Auction Antitrust Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on December 8, 2015. It consists of allegations that over 20 financial institutions, referred to as primary dealers, conspired to manipulate the pricing of U.S. Treasury securities (Treasury bills, notes, bonds, and related debt instruments) at Treasury auctions overseen by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York; and derivative financial products. In its December 8, 2015 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that centralization will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Judge Paul G. Gardephe, United States District Judge and experienced transferee Judge. The lead case is 1:15-md-02673-PGG. The Plaintiff is represented by: David P. Germaine, Esq. Joseph M Vanek, Esq. VANEK, VICKERS & MASINI, P.C. 55 W. Monroe, Suite 3500 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 224 1500 Facsimile: (312) 224 1510 E-mail: dgermaine@vaneklaw.com jvanek@vaneklaw.com - and - Alberto Rodriguez NYC LAW DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF THE CORPORATION COUNSEL 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 788 1328 Facsimile: (212) 788 0940 E-mail: alrodrig@law.nyc.gov The Defendant is represented by: Robert G. Houck, Esq. David J. Yeres, Esq. John D. Friel, Esq. CLIFFORD CHANCE US, LLP (NYC) 31 West 52nd Street New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 878 3224 Facsimile: (212) 878 8375 E-mail: robert.houck@cliffordchance.com david.yeres@cliffordchance.com john.friel@cliffordchance.com - and - Jay B. Kasner, Esq. Paul Madison Eckles, Esq. Shepard Goldfein, Esq. SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP (NYC) Four Times Square New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 735 3000 Facsimile: (212) 735 2000 E-mail: jkasner@skadden.com pmeckles@skadden.com sgoldfei@skadden.com - and - Kenneth Ian Schacter, Esq. MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP (NY) 101 Park Avenue New York, NY 10178 Telephone: (212) 309 6815 Facsimile: (212) 309 6001 E-mail: kenneth.schacter@morganlewis.com - and - Robert Y. Sperling, Esq. Elizabeth P Papez, Esq. Winston & Strawn LLP (IL) 35 West Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 558 5600 Facsimile: (312) 558 5700 E-mail: rsperling@winston.com epapez@winston.com - and - Jonathan Lucas Shapiro, Esq. Penny Shane, Esq. Stephen Ehrenberg, Esq. SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP 125 Broad St. New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 558 3410 Facsimile: (212) 291 9490 E-mail: shapirojl@sullcrom.com shanep@sullcrom.com ehrenbergs@sullcrom.com - and - Joseph Laurence Motto, Esq. Susannah P. Torpey, Esq. Winston & Strawn LLP 35 W. Wacker Dr. Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 558 3728 E-mail: jmotto@winston.com storpey@winston.com - and - Brad Scott Karp, Esq. Kenneth Anthony Gallo, Esq. Richard A. Rosen, Esq. Susanna Michele Buergel, Esq. PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 373 2384 Facsimile: (212) 373 2384 E-mail: bkarp@paulweiss.com kgallo@paulweiss.com rrosen@paulweiss.com sbuergel@paulweiss.com - and - Pamela Addison Miller, Esq. Edward Nathaniel Moss, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS, LLP 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 326 2088 Facsimile: (212) 326 2061 E-mail: pmiller@omm.com emoss@omm.com BARNES & NOBLE: Plaintiff Drops Case Over Defective Charger ----------------------------------------------------------- Karen Kidd, writing for Pennrecord.com, reports that the plaintiff in a class action lawsuit against Barnes & Noble who claimed the company's Nook e-reader chargers are defective has voluntarily dismissed the case without prejudice, retaining the right to bring the case again. A Barnes & Noble spokesperson declined comment to the Pennsylvania Record. The case, Hainley vs Barnes & Noble, Inc. et al, was filed Oct. 7 in the Allentown federal court by Michelle Hainley, who claimed the Nook chargers split apart, frayed and stopped working. Hainley said Barnes & Noble provided a replacement charger the first time she contacted the company but was denied a replacement the second time because the company claimed her warranty period had expired. Two models named in the case were the Nook Color and Nook Simple Touch. Hainley claimed hundreds were affected by the defect. Hainley based that claim on complaints about the chargers on Barnes & Noble's website and on other retailer websites that Nook e-readers. In December, Barnes & Noble filed a motion to dismiss the case, maintaining that Hainley failed to properly plead her claims or to demonstrate that the limitation provision in the company's express warranty is unconscionable. The following month, Hainley filed her opposition to that dismissal, stating "while warranty limitations such as the ones at issue here are not by themselves procedurally unconscionable as a matter of law, under the circumstances of this case Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that she had not meaningful choice with respect to the limitations provision." Hainley's motion summarized, "In short, B&N took advantage of its knowledge of the defect and plaintiff's relative lack of sophistication in order to impose a warranty term that (1) plaintiff had no reason to expect, and (2) was unfair in light of the fact that B&N knew it was providing a flawed product." In another filing on Feb. 8, Barnes & Noble maintained its motion was not premature and that her case could not achieve class action status. In particular, Barnes and Noble claimed the basis upon which Hainley sought class action status in the case "is vastly overbroad" because it included everyone in Pennsylvania who purchased a Nook Color or Simple Touch during an unspecified class period. "In short, B&N has identified a fatal flaw in Plaintiff's class allegations apparent on the face of the complaint," the motion said. "Plaintiff's response fails to explain how this flaw could be remedied with or without additional discovery. Her class claims should be stricken." A few days later, Hainley's attorney -- Jonathan Shub of Kohn, Swift & Graf in Philadelphia -- filed notice with the court that he had withdrawn as counsel for the plaintiff. Hainley filed her own motion of voluntary dismissal, without prejudice, Feb. 13, with Hainley represented by Los Angeles attorney Kevin S. Conlogue of Kabateck Brown Kellner. BAYER: Class Action Won't Offer More Benefits to Essure Patients ---------------------------------------------------------------- Legal Herald reports that Essure sterilization implants have been aggressively marketed as a highly effective, hassle-free method of permanent contraception for women ever since their U.S. market debut in 2002. But the FDA has been receiving high volumes of Essure complaints describing complications such as persistent, intense pain, abnormal heavy bleeding, perforation of internal organs, and dangerous ectopic pregnancies. These unexpected side effects often render patients unable to work or care for their families. Many patients feel that Essure's manufacturer, Bayer Healthcare, should be held responsible for the declining health, emotional distress, and financial hardship they've had to endure over what was advertised as simple, safe birth control. The legal community anticipates that a large number of lawsuits will be filed in the coming years, opening up the possibility of group litigation. However, joining an Essure class action won't likely offer as many benefits for victims as filing individual personal injury lawsuits. Why Joining An Essure Class Action May Be Ill-Advised Since the idea behind class action is to have one or a few plaintiffs represent a whole class of current and future claimants, it works best in situations where most claimants are expected to have very similar cases. Yet there's considerable reason to believe that Essure cases will differ dramatically from one another, which suggests that class action would be a poor choice for Essure litigation. Possible Differences Among Essure Cases Though many Essure victims have a story that starts with the expectation of straightforward permanent birth control and progresses to an onslaught of horrifying side effects, the similarities often stop there. Every woman's experience is different, and certain details can bear heavily on how the lawsuit should be presented, such as: Training of Physician. The lawsuit needs to be formulated differently if insufficient training of the implanting physician might be an issue. According to Heather Walsh, who filed one of the first Essure lawsuits, the lack of training received by her doctor directly caused her injuries, which included perforation of the colon by a migrated implant and the need for removal of an extraneous implant that the doctor accidentally inserted. Because of this, Walsh included negligence in training as a cause for action (reason to ask for compensation).. On the other hand, in a case where the implanting physician is acknowledged as an expert in hysteroscopy, the matter of training would not be a valid cause for action. Specific Complications Experienced. The appropriate amount of restitution to request could vary widely, depending on the number and severity of the side effects or complications experienced. A plaintiff who suffered pain, emotional trauma, and financial loss from multiple correction surgeries or from the development of chronic diseases would likely be entitled to more compensation than a plaintiff who only encountered short-term side effects. Amount Of Information Received Prior To Implantation. Since another common cause of action is "failure to warn," there's an important distinction between cases in which plaintiffs felt they were adequately warned about possible risks before being implanted with Essure and those in which patients believe that risks were not discussed, downplayed, or even concealed from them. Such variations between cases often translate into differing amounts of appropriate compensation, and we can imagine how claimants could potentially lose out if they join a class action that's represented by a plaintiff who suffered from less severe side effects than they had. Other Drawbacks of Class Action In addition to the difficulty of properly representing the majority of Essure cases with one lawsuit, class action has a number of other potential disadvantages for Essure claimants. Lack of Control Over Direction Of Lawsuit. In class action, only the lead plaintiff(s) are allowed to be full participants in the legal processes necessary for the case. This means that the other class members are effectively entrusting the fate of their legal claim to the lead plaintiff, most likely a stranger who they may never even get the chance to speak with. Shared Compensation. Even if a class action receives a large court award or settlement, the money must be divided up between class members. In cases where class action suits end up with staggeringly high member numbers, individual members may receive very little or nothing at all. Loss of Legal Rights. It's very common in class action lawsuits to require class members to sign away their right to initiate any further legal action for the claim in question. This means that claimants who end up unsatisfied with the outcome of a class action are usually legally barred from filing their own individual lawsuits afterward. Luckily, class action isn't the only form of group litigation that could be employed to help streamline Essure litigation. Could Essure Cases Be Consolidated By Multi-District Litigation (MDL)? Consolidating individual lawsuits exclusively for pre-trial, which allows the lawsuits to still be resolved individually, can still help save considerable resources and time for all parties involved. Such consolidation has already happened for the 5 first Essure lawsuits, all of which were filed in Pennsylvania. If high numbers of Essure lawsuits are filed all across the country, as anticipated, they may eventually be consolidated via Multi-District Litigation (MDL). In MDL, similar cases from different federal districts are transferred to a single court to be handled together for pre-trial proceedings. An well-known example of a pre-trial event is discovery, the formal process through which parties obtain information from one another that may be used in trial. MDL holds many potential benefits for Essure plaintiffs: Efficiency. Having one judge preside over pre-trial for multiple cases saves time and energy because the judge becomes well-versed in the common details after reviewing one or two of the cases, eliminating or at least reducing redundancies such as having the same witnesses testify multiple times. Consistency. When pre-trial rulings for similar cases are made by the same judge, it's likely that the rulings will be more consistent than if they were made by judges from different district courts. Individual Rights And Control. Constituent cases in an MDL remain separate lawsuits, so the individual plaintiffs maintain control over decision-making for their cases, and retain all of their legal rights. Compensation Awarded Individually. After pre-trial, individual cases are typically either "remanded" (sent to trial in their original district) or proceed to settlement. Because the suits are handled individually after pre-trial, there is no sharing of compensation. Make The Most Of Your Legal Rights -- Contact An Experienced Attorney We've seen here how joining an Essure class action suit could put claimants seeking fair compensation at a distinct disadvantage, but many injured patients may end up unwittingly choosing it after seeing a convincing class action ad. This is why it's important to get help from trusted, experienced lawyers, especially since litigation for complicated medical devices like Essure often proves to be challenging and complex. BENCO DENTAL: Judge Keeps Antitrust Class Action Secret ------------------------------------------------------- James Halpin, writing for The Citizen's Voice, reports that a consolidated complaint being filed against Benco Dental and its two largest competitors in a class-action antitrust lawsuit will be secret. At least 31 separate federal complaints by dentists across the country have targeted the Pittston-area dental supply company in recent months, alleging it conspired with industry giants Patterson Cos. Inc., of St. Paul, Minnesota, and Henry Schein Inc., of Melville, New York, to stifle competition and keep their profit margins high. U.S. District Judge Brian M. Cogan in Brooklyn, New York, consolidated most of the cases into a single docket, giving the plaintiffs until Feb. 26 to file a single amended complaint. In a court filing, plaintiffs' attorney John Radice, of Long Beach, New Jersey, says the defendants claim information in the amended complaint is confidential. The motion says the plaintiffs do not agree with all of the claims but requests permission to file the complaint under seal. Cogan approved the request, giving the defendants two weeks to propose redactions for a version of the complaint that will be made public. They will have to show a need for each redaction, he ruled. The dentists allege the trio of suppliers, which together hold an estimated 80 percent share of the market, have boycotted or threatened to boycott industry trade shows to pressure dental associations into giving discounters the cold shoulder. In 2015, Benco reached a $300,000 settlement with the state of Texas over what that state's attorney general's office described as an "illegal boycott." The company has also acknowledged being investigated by prosecutors in Arizona as well as by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission. Benco officials maintain they have done nothing wrong. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ: Court Reopens Suit Over Kickback Scheme ----------------------------------------------------------- John O'Brien, writing for The Legal Newsline, reports that a federal appeals court has unsealed a lawsuit filed by a former member of a prominent class action firm that he claims forced him to resign for exposing a kickback scheme during the firm's representation of a Mississippi pension fund. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ordered the unsealing of Bruce Bernstein's now-settled lawsuit against Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman. Bernstein alleges the firm, in the course of helping Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood's office represent a public employees retirement fund, gave unnecessary work to an attorney and wife of a member of Hood's staff that resulted in that wife being paid more than $100,000. Bernstein claimed he was forced to resign after blowing the whistle and filed the lawsuit in 2014. It was to be under seal for 14 days, with a settlement coming on the 13th. Three Second Circuit judges affirmed a district court ruling that said the complaint must be opened to the public against objections from both sides, who asked that it remain permanently sealed. "(T)he complaint does not include information that is 'likely to be embarrassing or detrimental to the client if disclosed,'" the decision says. "Of course, the information may be seriously embarrassing to counsel (BLB&G and the AG's Office), but not to the client, (Mississippi Public Employees' Retirement System). The decision, authored by Judge John Walker, details allegations of a kickback scheme that included more than $100,000 in legal fees paid from Bernstein Litowitz to the wife of one of Hood's staffers. Bernstein Litowitz had used her as local counsel in the case. "If anything, MPERS would appear to benefit from disclosure (of the complaint); the worst that can be said about it is that it was unlucky in its choice of counsel," Walker wrote. The issue arose in Bernstein Litowitz's contract to represent MPERS in a class action against Satyam Computer Services. MPERS was one of four lead plaintiffs in the case. Bernstein Litowitz used a Jackson, Miss., solo practitioner named Vaterria Martin as local counsel. It is alleged that she was to "occasionally check on the status of the case for MPERS, even though (Bernstein Litowitz) was already providing this information directly" to Hood's office. The case was settled in principle in 2010 for $125 million. After the settlement, Bernstein Litowitz partner Max Berger assigned an allegedly unnecessary legal research project to Martin. Bernstein said he objected to the project. Eventually, Martin produced an 18-page memorandum and billed for 207 hours of work. Bernstein said the memo drafted by Martin addressed the wrong pleading, contained no meaningful analysis and was "ridiculous." Martin was paid $112,500 from the funds received in the Satyam settlement. In a 2011 fee petition to the court, it did not disclose that payment. As it turned out, Martin was married to DeShun Martin, then an assistant attorney general for Mississippi. When he had protested the unnecessary project given to Martin's wife, Bernstein says he was told by a fellow partner, "Do you ever want us to work with Mississippi again?" Bernstein says he raised his concerns about what had happened in several contentious meetings with partners at the firm and was threatened to be blackballed if he blew the whistle. Still, Bernstein reported his concerns to federal prosecutors in New York City in December 2011. After that, he says he became concerned with another agreement with local counsel that he says did not have relevant experience with the case. He resigned in 2012 and claims the firm attempted to buy his silence by offering him funds from a future settlement in another case. Bernstein did not file a brief regarding the unsealing of his lawsuit but says it should remain sealed. He doesn't want to risk unwinding the settlement. The Second Circuit held that pleadings, even in settled cases, are judicial records subject to a presumption of public access. "Logical considerations also support a presumption of public access," the decision says. "Public access to complaints allows the public to understand the activity of the federal courts, enhances the court system's accountability and legitimacy, and informs the public of matters of public concern." Bernstein Litowitz gave $10,000 to Hood's campaign fund in 2007. Hood also hired Vaterria Martin for a case against Standard & Poor's, though the major firm hired for that case is Cohen Milstein. BHP BILLITON: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announced that a class action has been commenced on behalf of an institutional investor in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of BHP Billiton Limited ("BHP Ltd.") (NYSE: BHP) and BHP Billiton Plc ("BHP Plc") (NYSE: BBL) (together, "BHP" or the "Company") American Depositary Receipts ("ADRs") during the period between September 25, 2014 and November 30, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from today. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Samuel H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231- 1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com. If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the complaint as filed or join this class action online at http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/bhp/. Any member of the putative 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. The complaint charges BHP and certain of its current and former executive officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. BHP is a leading global resources company and is among the world's top producers of major commodities, including iron ore, metallurgical and energy coal, conventional and unconventional oil and gas, copper, aluminum, manganese, uranium, nickel and silver. The Company operates under a Dual Listed Company structure, with parent companies BHP Ltd. and BHP Plc operated as a single economic entity by a unified board and management team. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants knew or recklessly disregarded the precarious condition of mining operations and facilities at the Samarco mine, a Brazilian mining operation jointly owned by BHP and Vale S.A., yet made materially false and misleading statements concerning the Company's commitment to safety and the implementation of safety and monitoring protocols at the mine sites. On November 5, 2015, a dam burst at the Samarco mining site, flooding the nearby town and river with 60 million cubic meters of mud and mine waste. On that date and thereafter, the complaint alleges that the price of BHP ADRs declined in concert with the disclosure of news and analyst reports regarding the cause of the dam failure, the Company's failure to adhere to safety standards that defendants emphasized during the Class Period, and BHP's potential liability and financial exposure for the dam failure. When the truth about the Company's operations was revealed between November 5 and 30, 2015, the price of BHP ADRs declined significantly, harming investors. As a result of this news, the trading price of BHP Ltd.'s ADRs declined from $33.43 on November 4, 2015 (the day before the incident) to $26.68 on November 30, 2015 -- a decline of more than 20%. The trading price of BHP Plc's ADRs declined similarly, falling from $32.84 on November 4, 2015 to $24.25 on November 30, 2015 -- a decline of more than 26%. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of BHP Ltd. and BHP Plc ADRs during the Class Period (the "Class"). The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions involving financial fraud. Robbins Geller, with 200 lawyers in ten offices, represents U.S. and international institutional investors in contingency-based securities and corporate litigation. The firm has obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in history and was ranked first in both the amount and number of shareholder class action recoveries in ISS's SCAS Top 50 report for 2014. Please visithttp://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/BHP/for more information. Contact: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP Samuel H. Rudman, 800-449-4900 David A. Rosenfeld djr@rgrdlaw.com BHP BILLITON: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of BHP Billiton Limited American Depositary Receipts (NYSE:BHP) from September 25, 2014 through November 30, 2015, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for BHP Billiton investors under the federal securities laws. To join the BHP Billiton class action, go to the firm's website at http://rosenlegal.com/cases-842.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for more information on the class action. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants issued false and misleading statements concerning BHP Billiton's commitment to safety and the implementation of safety and monitoring protocols at the mine sites despite knowing or recklessly disregarding the precarious condition of mining operations and facilities at the Samarco mine, a Brazilian mining operation jointly owned by BHP and Vale S.A. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than April 25, 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, go to the firm's website at http://rosenlegal.com/cases-842.htmlfor more information. You may also contact Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via email at pkim@rosenlegal.com orkchan@rosenlegal.com. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Contacts The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. Kevin Chan, Esq. 275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com kchan@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com BLACKSTONE GROUP: "Caples" Sues over Onerous Merger Deal -------------------------------------------------------------- Joseph Caples and David Romero, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated stockholders of Vivint Solar, Inc., Plaintiffs, v. Gregory S. Butterfield, Todd R. Pedersen, Joseph S. Tibbetts, Jr., David F. D'Alessandro, Bruce Mcevoy, Alex J. Dunn, Peter F. Wallace, The Blackstone Group L.P., 313 Acquisition LLC, Sunedison, Inc. and Sev Merger Sub Inc., Defendants, Case 11888 (Del. Ch., January 11, 2016), seeks damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs, expenses including all reasonable attorneys' fees and other relief for breach of fiduciary duties. Vivint is a distributor of solar energy to residential customers through various regions in the United States. It is controlled by The Blackstone Group L.P. as majority stockholder. The complaint says the Vivint Board made questionable merger negotiations with SunEdison, Inc. that were disadvantageous to the minority stockholders. Plaintiffs are owners of stock of Vivint. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy Friedman, Esq. Spencer Oster, Esq. David Tejtel, Esq. FRIEDMAN OSTER & TEJTEL PLLC 240 East 79th Street, Suite A New York, NY 10075 Tel: (888) 529-1108 - and - Peter B. Andrews, Esq. Craig J. Springer, Esq. David M. Sborz, Esq. ANDREWS & SPRINGER, LLC 3801 Kennett Pike, Building C, Suite 305 Wilmington, DE 19807 Tel: (302) 504-4957 BUMBLE BEE: Benjamin Foods Suit Consolidated in MDL 2670 -------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Benjamin Foods LLC v. Bumble Bee Foods LLC et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-04733, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (San Diego). The Southern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-00045-JLS-MDD to the proceeding. According to the complaint, the Defendants conspired to fix, raise, maintain, and/or stabilize prices for packaged seafood products (PSPs) within the United States, its territories and the District of Columbia in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Bumble Bee Foods produces and markets seafood products. It offers canned and pouched tuna products, salmon products, shrimps, sardines and mackerel products, clams, crabs, oysters, salads, chicken, ready-to-eat kits, and specialty seafood products; and fresh frozen seafood products. The company also provides frozen tuna and other fish products to North American multi-unit restaurant chains, food retailers, distributors, and value-added processors. The Benjamin Foods case is being consolidated with MDL 2670 in re: packaged seafood products antitrust litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on December 9, 2015. These actions share factual questions arising out of an alleged Conspiracy by the Defendants -- the three largest producers of packaged seafood products in the U.S. with an alleged collective market share of more than 70% to fix prices of packaged seafood products. In its December 9, 2015 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that centralization of this litigation in the Southern District of California will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. Presiding Judges in the MDL are Judge Gilliam, Judge Sammartino, United States District Judges. The lead case is 3:15-md-02670-JLS- MDD. The Plaintiff is represented by: John M Potter, Esq. Sami H Rashid, Esq. Stephen Randall Neuwirth, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART OLIVER AND SULLIVAN, LLP 50 California Street, 22nd Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 875 6600 Facsimile: (415) 875 6700 E-mail: johnpotter@quinnemanuel.com samirashid@quinnemanuel.com - and - Dana Statsky Smith, Esq. Ronald J. Aranoff, Esq. BERNSTEIN LIEBHARD LLP 10 East 40th Street New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 779 1414 Facsimile: (212) 779 3218 E-mail: dsmith@bernlieb.com aranoff@bernlieb.com stephenneuwirth@quinnemanuel.com The Defendants are represented by: Ashley M. Bauer, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 391 0600 Facsimile: (415) 395 8095 E-mail: ashley.bauer@lw.com - and - Belinda S Lee, Esq. Daniel M. Wall, Esq. LATHAM AND WATKINS 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111-6538 Telephone: (415) 391 0600 Facsimile: (415) 395 8095 E-mail: belinda.lee@lw.com dan.wall@lw.com BUMBLE BEE: Central Grocers Suit Consolidated in MDL 2670 --------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Central Grocers, Inc. v. Bumble Bee Foods, LLC et al., Case No., 3:15-cv-04241, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the District of. Southern District of California (San Diego). The Southern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-00024-JLS-MDD to the proceeding. According to the complaint, the Defendants conspired to raise, fix, stabilize, or maintain prices, allocate customers, and restrict capacity in the market for shelf-stable packaged seafood, including tuna, clam, crab, mackerel, oyster, salmon, sardines, and shrimp (Packaged Seafood) sold in the United States. Bumble Bee Foods produces and markets seafood products. It offers canned and pouched tuna products, salmon products, shrimps, sardines and mackerel products, clams, crabs, oysters, salads, chicken, ready-to-eat kits, and specialty seafood products; and fresh frozen seafood products. The company also provides frozen tuna and other fish products to North American multi-unit restaurant chains, food retailers, distributors, and value-added processors. The Central Grocers case is being consolidated with MDL 2670 in re: packaged seafood products antitrust litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on December 9, 2015. These actions share factual questions arising out of an alleged Conspiracy by the Defendants--the three largest producers of packaged seafood products in the U.S. with an alleged collective market share of more than 70% to fix prices of packaged seafood products. In its December 9, 2015 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that centralization of this litigation in the Southern District of California will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. Presiding Judges in the MDL are Judge Gilliam, Judge Sammartino, United States District Judges. The lead case is 3:15-md-02670-JLS- MDD. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Richard Saveri, Esq. JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, INC. 555 Montgomery Street, Suite 1210 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 500 6800 Facsimile: (415) 395 9940 E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com - and - Solomon B Cera, Esq. Thomas C Bright, Esq. GOLD BENNETT AND CERA 595 Market Street, Suite 2300 San Francisco, CA 94105-2835 Telephone: (415) 777 2230 Facsimile: (415) 777 5189 E-mail: scera@gbcslaw.com tcb@gbcslaw.com - and - Joseph R. Saveri, Esq. Andrew M. Purdy, Esq. Matthew S. Weiler, Esq. JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM 555 Montgomery Street, Suite 1210 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 500 6800 Facsimile: (415) 395 9940 E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com apurdy@saverilawfirm.com mweiler@saverilawfirm.com - and - Louis Kessler, Esq. KAPLAN FOX AND KILSTEIMER 555 Montgomery Street, Suite 1501 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 772 4700 E-mail: lkessler@kaplanfox.com - and - Matthew Sinclair Weiler, Esq. Dewey Ballantine, Esq. 333 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2600 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 621-6000 BUMBLE BEE: Associated Grocers Suit Consolidated in MDL 2670 ------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit titled Associated Grocers of Florida, Inc. v. Bumble Bee Foods, LLC, et al, Case No. 3:15-cv-04536, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of. California, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (San Diego). The Southern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-00026-JLS-MDD to the proceeding. According to the complaint, the Defendants conspired to raise, fix, stabilize, or maintain prices, allocate customers, and restrict capacity in the market for shelf-stable packaged seafood, including tuna, clam, crab, mackerel, oyster, salmon, sardines, and shrimp (Packaged Seafood) sold in the United States. Bumble Bee Foods produces and markets seafood products. It offers canned and pouched tuna products, salmon products, shrimps, sardines and mackerel products, clams, crabs, oysters, salads, chicken, ready-to-eat kits, and specialty seafood products; and fresh frozen seafood products. The company also provides frozen tuna and other fish products to North American multi-unit restaurant chains, food retailers, distributors, and value-added processors. The Associated Grocers case is being consolidated with MDL 2670 in re: packaged seafood products antitrust litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on December 9, 2015. These actions share factual questions arising out of an alleged Conspiracy by the Defendants--the three largest producers of packaged seafood products in the U.S. with an alleged collective market share of more than 70% to fix prices of packaged seafood products. In its December 9, 2015 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that centralization of this litigation in the Southern District of California will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. Presiding Judges in the MDL are Judge Gilliam, Judge Sammartino, United States District Judges. The lead case is 3:15-md-02670-JLS- MDD. The Plaintiff is represented by: Solomon B. Cera, Esq. GOLD BENNETT AND CERA 595 Market Street, Suite 2300 San Francisco, CA 94105-2835 Telephone: (415) 777 2230 Facsimile: (415) 777 5189 E-mail: scera@gbcslaw.com BUMBLE BEE: "Christensen" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2670 ------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Christensen et al. v. Bumble Bee Foods LLC et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-04093, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (San Diego). The Southern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-00021-JLS-MDD to the proceeding. According to the complaint, the Defendants allegedly conspired to fix, raise, maintain, and/or stabilize prices for packaged seafood products within the United States, its territories and the District of Columbia in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act and state antitrust, consumer protection and unfair competition statutes. Bumble Bee Foods produces and markets seafood products. It offers canned and pouched tuna products, salmon products, shrimps, sardines and mackerel products, clams, crabs, oysters, salads, chicken, ready-to-eat kits, and specialty seafood products; and fresh frozen seafood products. The company also provides frozen tuna and other fish products to North American multi-unit restaurant chains, food retailers, distributors, and value-added processors. The Christensen case is being consolidated with MDL 2670 in re: packaged seafood products antitrust litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on December 9, 2015. These actions share factual questions arising out of an alleged Conspiracy by the Defendants--the three largest producers of packaged seafood products in the U.S. with an alleged collective market share of more than 70% to fix prices of packaged seafood products. In its December 9, 2015 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that centralization of this litigation in the Southern District of California will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. Presiding Judges in the MDL are Judge Gilliam, Judge Sammartino, United States District Judges. The lead case is 3:15-md-02670-JLS- MDD. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Marvin Alan Miller, Esq. MILLER LAW LLC 115 South LaSalle Street, Suite 2910 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 332 3400 Facsimile: (312) 676 2676 E-mail: Mmiller@millerlawllc.com The Defendants are represented by: Ashley M. Bauer, Esq. Belinda S Lee, Esq. Daniel M. Wall, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 391 0600 Facsimile: (415) 395 8095 E-mail: ashley.bauer@lw.com belinda.lee@lw.com dan.wall@lw.com BUMBLE BEE: "Damske" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2670 -------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Damske et al. v. Bumble Bee Foods LLC et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-04025, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (San Diego). The Southern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:16- cv-00019-JLS-MDD to the proceeding. According to the complaint, the Defendants allegedly conspired to fix, raise, maintain, and/or stabilize prices for packaged seafood products within the United States, its territories and the District of Columbia in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act and state antitrust, consumer protection and unfair competition statutes. Bumble Bee Foods produces and markets seafood products. It offers canned and pouched tuna products, salmon products, shrimps, sardines and mackerel products, clams, crabs, oysters, salads, chicken, ready-to-eat kits, and specialty seafood products; and fresh frozen seafood products. The company also provides frozen tuna and other fish products to North American multi-unit restaurant chains, food retailers, distributors, and value-added processors. The Damske case is being consolidated with MDL 2670 in re: packaged seafood products antitrust litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on December 9, 2015. These actions share factual questions arising out of an alleged Conspiracy by the Defendants--the three largest producers of packaged seafood products in the U.S. with an alleged collective market share of more than 70% to fix prices of packaged seafood products. In its December 9, 2015 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that centralization of this litigation in the Southern District of California will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. Presiding Judges in the MDL are Judge Gilliam, Judge Sammartino, United States District Judges. The lead case is 3:15-md-02670-JLS- MDD. The Plaintiff is represented by: Marvin A. Miller, Esq. Andrew Szot, Esq. Matthew E. Van Tine, Esq. MILLER LAW LLC 115 S. LaSalle St., No. 2910 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 332 3400 Facsimile: (312) 676 2676 E-mail: mmiller@millerlawllc.com aszot@millerlawllc.com mvantine@millerlawllc.com The Defendant is represented by: Ashley M. Bauer, Esq. Belinda S Lee, Esq. Daniel M. Wall, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 391 0600 Facsimile: (415) 395 8095 E-mail: ashley.bauer@lw.com belinda.lee@lw.com dan.wall@lw.com BUMBLE BEE: "Waterman" Suit Moved and Consolidated in MDL 2670 -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Waterman v. Bumble Bee Foods LLC et al. Case No., 3:15-cv-04094 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (San Diego). The Southern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:16- cv-00022-JLS-MDD to the proceeding. According to the complaint, the Defendants allegedly conspired to fix, raise, maintain, and/or stabilize prices for packaged seafood products within the United States, its territories and the District of Columbia in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act and state antitrust, consumer protection and unfair competition statutes. Bumble Bee Foods produces and markets seafood products. It offers canned and pouched tuna products, salmon products, shrimps, sardines and mackerel products, clams, crabs, oysters, salads, chicken, ready-to-eat kits, and specialty seafood products; and fresh frozen seafood products. The company also provides frozen tuna and other fish products to North American multi-unit restaurant chains, food retailers, distributors, and value-added processors. The Waterman case is being consolidated with MDL 2670 in re: packaged seafood products antitrust litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on December 9, 2015. These actions share factual questions arising out of an alleged Conspiracy by the Defendants--the three largest producers of packaged seafood products in the U.S. with an alleged collective market share of more than 70% to fix prices of packaged seafood products. In its December 9, 2015 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that centralization of this litigation in the Southern District of California will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. Presiding Judges in the MDL are Judge Gilliam, Judge Sammartino, United States District Judges. The lead case is 3:15-md-02670-JLS- MDD. The Plaintiff is represented by: Marvin A. Miller, Esq. Andrew Szot, Esq. Matthew E. Van Tine, Esq. MILLER LAW LLC 115 S. LaSalle St., No. 2910 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 332 3400 Facsimile: (312) 676 2676 E-mail: mmiller@millerlawllc.com aszot@millerlawllc.com mvantine@millerlawllc.com The Defendants are represented by: Ashley M. Bauer, Esq. Belinda S Lee, Esq. Daniel M. Wall, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 391 0600 Facsimile: (415) 395 8095 E-mail: ashley.bauer@lw.com belinda.lee@lw.com dan.wall@lw.com BUMBLE BEE: "Machin" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2670 -------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Machin v. Bumble Bee Foods LLC et al., Case No. 4:15-cv-00545, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (San Diego).The Southern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:16- cv-00018-JLS-MDD to the proceeding. According to the complaint, the Defendants allegedly conspired to fix, raise, maintain, and/or stabilize prices for shelf-stable seafood products (PSPs) within the United States. The PSPs refers to shelf-stable seafood products (predominantly tuna) that are sold in cans, pouches, or ready-to-eat serving packages. Bumble Bee Foods produces and markets seafood products. It offers canned and pouched tuna products, salmon products, shrimps, sardines and mackerel products, clams, crabs, oysters, salads, chicken, ready-to-eat kits, and specialty seafood products; and fresh frozen seafood products. The company also provides frozen tuna and other fish products to North American multi-unit restaurant chains, food retailers, distributors, and value-added processors. The Machin case is being consolidated with MDL 2670 in re: packaged seafood products antitrust litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on December 9, 2015. These actions share factual questions arising out of an alleged Conspiracy by the Defendants--the three largest producers of packaged seafood products in the U.S. with an alleged collective market share of more than 70% to fix prices of packaged seafood products. In its December 9, 2015 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that centralization of this litigation in the Southern District of California will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. Presiding Judges in the MDL are Judge Gilliam, Judge Sammartino, United States District Judges. The lead case is 3:15-md-02670-JLS- MDD. The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas P. Thrash, Esq. Marcus N. Bozeman, Esq. THRASH LAW FIRM, P.A. 1101 Garland Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 374 1058 Facsimile: (501) 374 2222 E-mail: tomthrash@sbcglobal.net bozemanmarcus@hotmail.com CANADA: Plaintiffs Oppose St. John's Bid to Get Victims List ------------------------------------------------------------ Connell Smith, writing for CBC News, reports that the lawyer for the plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit is fighting an attempt by the City of Saint John to get a list of names of people alleging abuse by former police officer Kenneth Estabrooks. John McKiggan told a court the names are protected by solicitor- client privilege. He said the people who have contacted his office may yet choose to opt out of the court action or choose to pursue individual claims against the municipality. The suit was launched by Robert (Bobby) Hayes on behalf of himself and other people allegedly abused by Mr. Estabrooks between 1953 and 1998. The suit lists the City of Saint John, its police commission and the city police department as defendants. Mr. Estabrooks was a Saint John police sergeant. When confronted in 1975, he admitted to sexually abusing children but was not charged or fired. Instead, he was transferred out of the police department into the city works department, where he was in charge of tire maintenance for city vehicles until he retired. In 1997, after new complainants came forward, a formal investigation was launched resulting in his conviction. He was sentenced to six years in prison. He died in 2005. Mr. McKiggan argued before Court of Queen's Bench Justice William Grant the city is over-reaching in its application for the names. He argued there is no reason anyone would need them at this stage unless they intended to "harass, intimidate and investigate my clients in advance." Speaking to reporters after the Feb. 29 hearing, Mr. McKiggan would not say how many individuals have approached his firm, only that the number is "significant." In September 2013, a private investigator hired by the city said 53 individuals had contacted him alleging they were sexually abused by Mr. Estabrooks. But the total number of victims, said Dave Perry of Toronto-based Investigative Solutions, could be as high as 263. A need for separate class actions The city is represented in the case by lawyer Michael Brenton, who told the court his clients are trying to sort out whether claims are being filed by people alleging abuse while Mr. Estabrooks was a police officer, while he was a city works employee, or during the period after Mr. Estabrooks retired in 1984. Mr. Brenton said Mr. Estabrooks' relationship with the city during each period is different and he argued there may be a need for three separate class actions, rather than one covering 45 years. "We say the class period [1953 to 1998] may be too broad," said Mr. Brenton. He told the court his clients would accept, if necessary, a number or some other type of identifier for each individual, instead of the person's name. All sides are scheduled to be in court in July for a certification motion to determine whether the case may proceed as a class action. "We'd like to have the information in advance so we know what we're dealing with," said Mr. Brenton. CAPITOL VALLEY ELECTRIC: "Brooks" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay --------------------------------------------------------- Jacob Brooks, Plaintiff, v. Capitol Valley Electric Inc. and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case CIV536903 (Cal. Super., San Mateo County, January 12, 2016), seeks overtime compensation with prejudgment interest, damages for failing to provide rest periods pursuant to Labor Code Sec. 226.7 and Wage Order No. 7- 2001, Sec. 11(B), statutory penalties pursuant to Labor Code Section 226 and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs for violations of California Labor Code Section 512 and Industrial Wage Order 16-2001. Capitol Valley Electric Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of California with its principal place of business in the county of Sacramento. It is an electrical subcontractor on multi- unit commercial and residential building projects for general contractors. Plaintiff claims to have worked through meal and rest breaks, rendered in excess of 40 hours per workweek without overtime compensation and did not receive any wage statements. The Plaintiff is represented by: Frank E. Mayo, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF FRANK E. MAYO 4962 El Camino Real Suite 104 Los Altos, CA 94022 Tel: (650) 964 8901 CARESOUTH HHA HOLDINGS: "Simpson" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay --------------------------------------------------------- Linda Simpson and Tera Miller, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Caresouth HHA Holdings, LLC, Defendant, Case 3:16-cv-00079 (M.D. Tenn., January 25, 2016), seeks compensation for all unpaid and underpaid wages, prejudgment interest, liquidated damages, litigation costs, expenses and attorneys' fees and other and further relief for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendant is a Georgia corporation headquartered at One Tenth Street, Suite 500, Augusta Georgia 30901. It has forty five home health and hospice operations across seven states. Plaintiffs attend to the patients during home visits homes, charting patient visits and completing other mandatory paperwork, making phone calls to doctors and patients, driving between patient homes, office and the laboratory during the workday, attending mandatory meetings and training sessions and performing various office duties. These activities routinely took over 50 hours per week and the Defendant denied of them of overtime pay due, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jerry E. Martin, Esq. David W. Garrison, Esq. Scott P. Tift, Esq. Seth M. Hyatt, Esq. Joshua A. Frank, Esq. BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON LLC 414 Union Street, Suite 900 Nashville, TN 37219 Tel: (615) 244-2202 Fax: (615) 252-3798 Email: jmartin@barrettjohnston.com dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com stift@barrettjohnston.com shyatt@barrettjohnston.com jfrank@barrettjohnston.com - and - Peter Winebrake, Esq. R. Andrew Santillo, Esq. WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC 715 Twining Road, Suite 211 Dresher, PA 19025 Tel: (215) 884-2491 Fax: (215) 884-2492 Email: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com asantillo@winebrakelaw.com CHARLES SCHWAB: Averts Bond Fund Securities Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Jenna Greene, writing for The Litigation Daily, reports that Dechert litigators Matthew Larrabee and Joshua Hess plus co-counsel from Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan scored a win for Charles Schwab Investment Management and the trustees of the Schwab Total Bond Fund, killing a would-be class action that had dragged on for eight years. On Feb. 23, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh of the Northern District of California dismissed Northstar Financial Advisors Inc.'s complaint (which had already been amended four times) with prejudice, putting an end to a case that was appealed twice to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Northstar first sued Schwab in 2008 seeking $150 million in damages. Represented by Berman DeValerio, Greenbaum Rowe Smith & Davis, Wolf Popper and Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, the investment manager argued that Schwab breached state law fiduciary and contract duties owed to shareholders by investing too aggressively during the financial crisis. Northstar claimed that the Schwab Total Bond Market Fund was supposed to track the Lehman Brothers U.S. Aggregate Bond Index, but instead bought much riskier collateralized mortgage obligations. According to Northstar, this resulted in a negative return of 4.8 percent for the period of Sept. 1, 2007, through Feb. 27, 2009, compared with a positive return of 7.85 percent for the Lehman Index over this same period. Schwab originally retained Morrison & Foerster as counsel. The company brought the Dechert team on board in 2015, and firm lawyers were lead counsel in the successful motion for judgment on the pleadings. They joined Quinn partners John Potter -- johnpotter@quinnemanuel.com -- Karin Kramer -- karinkramer@quinnemanuel.com -- Patrick Doolittle -- patrickdoolittle@quinnemanuel.com -- and Richard Schirtzer as co- counsel to the fund trustees. The key question before Judge Koh (who, according to sibling publication The Recorder, is about to be tapped for a spot on the Ninth Circuit): Was Northstar's cause of action precluded by the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998? "The central theme in Northstar's five complaints is that defendants committed a misrepresentation or omission of material fact because defendants promised to manage the fund according to certain fundamental investment objectives, but did not actually do so," Judge Koh wrote. She found that such allegations are precluded by the act, which bars private plaintiffs from bringing a class action based on state law claims alleging a misrepresentation or omission in connection with the purchase or sale of securities. Northstar argued that its breach of fiduciary duty claims didn't require proof of a material misrepresentation or omission, but Judge Koh didn't buy it. "Northstar's fiduciary duty claims have hinged upon and continue to hinge upon the same material misrepresentation or omission, even though Northstar has now filed five complaints," she wrote. "The court finds that providing Northstar additional leave to amend would be futile." CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Under DoJ Investigations Over E.Coli Outbreak --------------------------------------------------------------- Rebekah Mintzer, writing for Corporate Counsel, reports that customers hungry for a burrito or taco last fall in Washington state or Oregon may have reached the door of their local Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc. restaurant only to find the following sign: "FYI: We are sorry. But we are temporarily closed due to a supply chain issue. We will reopen as soon as possible." A "supply chain issue" sounds fairly harmless, but what was actually happening at the Denver-based, fast-casual food company was anything but. Chipotle temporarily shuttered 43 restaurants in the two states because of an E. coli outbreak linked to its restaurants. And the mess stretched far beyond just the Pacific Northwest and the E. coli bug. Salmonella, norovirus and E. coli traced back to Chipotle's Tex-Mex-themed chain restaurants wrecked havoc in 2015 from coast to coast, sickening more than 500 people. The consequences for Chipotle, which declined to comment for this report, have been severe. Between October and December 2015, its stock price plummeted 22 percent, and the company's image as a more wholesome alternative to other fast-food chains (one Chipotle tagline: "food with integrity") is under fire. Consumers sickened by Chipotle have filed civil lawsuits, and shareholders have filed securities class actions, claiming that the company duped them about its food safety practices. But what may be even more disturbing from the perspective of the company's legal department is that in Simi Valley, California, Chipotle has received a grand jury subpoena from the U.S. Department of Justice along with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, seeking information about a norovirus outbreak that happened there. Chipotle might be the highest-profile company under investigation by the DOJ for distributing contaminated food, but it isn't the only one. Just days before Chipotle's Jan. 6 disclosure of the probe in a regulatory filing, a leak to news outlets revealed that Blue Bell Creameries, the fifth-largest ice cream producer in the U.S., is under investigation over a listeria outbreak linked to three deaths and 10 illnesses. Other food companies may also be under DOJ investigation, but as private companies, they haven't had to disclose to the public. For Chipotle, Blue Bell and others, DOJ investigations could lead to criminal sanctions. This could be through prosecution of the company as a whole. In 2015, for instance, Omaha-based ConAgra Foods Inc. pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charges for its role in a salmonella outbreak and paid the government a $11.2 million criminal fine. But a spate of recent cases shows that the DOJ is also targeting food company executives in criminal prosecutions. This new avenue of legal action, virtually unused by the federal government in the food safety realm until the last few years, is making company officials sit up and take notice. With the very real possibility of prison time now on the table, even deep corporate pockets won't be of much help to food company leaders if their companies' practices sicken consumers or kill them. Shawn Stevens, an attorney whose firm, Food Industry Counsel, exclusively defends companies in food safety cases, sees a profound shift occurring. "The world has changed overnight," he says. "It used to be that we were worried about civil and regulatory liability. But for the first time ever, executives have to worry about going to jail." For the consumer, of course, eating contaminated food is no small threat. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, foodborne illness, whether infection is limited to just a few people or expands to hundreds, happens frequently and all too often proves fatal. In 2014, the CDC estimated that around 48 million Americans get sick per year from contaminated food, and about 3,000 die. Many fatalities are young children, the elderly and others with compromised immune systems. The awareness of the frequency and potential severity of foodborne illness has grown dramatically in the last 20 years. Many experts believe the turning point came in 1993, when popular outrage followed the revelation that E. coli-tainted meat from San Diego- based, fast-food chain Jack in the Box Inc. had infected 732 people. The outbreak killed four children under the age of 10, and left 178 other victims with permanent health problems, including brain and kidney damage. Bill Marler, managing partner at law firm Marler Clark, was one of the attorneys who sued Jack in the Box on behalf of victims. He says that in the decades since this disaster, public attention on food safety has increased. Consumer lawsuits have also become more common when an outbreak occurs. "I think it's a combination of Jack in the Box and the Internet that have led to consumers having way more information about when there's an outbreak and who is doing what," says Mr. Marler, who is perhaps the best known plaintiffs attorney for foodborne illness in the country. Mr. Marler has sued giants such as ConAgra, McDonalds Corp. and Subway Inc. on behalf of consumers. He is suing Chipotle over its recent outbreaks. Despite this uptick in litigation and awareness, it has only been in the last four years that the government has turned up the prosecutorial heat on food executives. Stuart Delery, acting associate attorney general of the U.S., has articulated this new focus. "We've made clear to people in the industry that the safety of the public is important, and where [executives] are responsible for an outbreak, and we can make the showings we need to make under the law, we will hold them individually accountable," he says. This focus on the individual matches up well with recent guidance from the DOJ. U.S. deputy attorney general Sally Yates explained in a September 2015 memo that the department will focus on individuals' culpability in future cases, and will refuse to give companies cooperation credit unless relevant facts about individual misconduct are disclosed. Mr. Delery confirms that the Yates memo will be a consideration when looking at foodborne illness cases going forward. "It obviously won't always be the case that criminal prosecution is appropriate, or even where a criminal prosecution or resolution is appropriate, that it would be appropriate to pursue individuals," he explains. "But that is something we will have our eye on in this area." COLUMBIA GAS: 6th Cir. Reviews First-to-File Rule in Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Justin Jennewine, Esq., of Squire Patton Boggs, in an article for Lexology, reports that the first-to-file rule is a doctrine that has grown out of the need to manage overlapping litigation across multiple courts. The doctrine provides that when actions involving nearly identical parties and issues have been filed in two different district courts, the court that first acquires jurisdiction usually retains the suit to the exclusion of the other court. Courts generally evaluate three factors when applying the first-to-file rule: 1) the chronology of the events, 2) the similarity of the parties involved, and 3) the similarity of the issues or claims at stake. In addition to the three factors, courts will also determine if equitable considerations merit not applying the first-to-file rule. The Sixth Circuit reviewed the application of the first-to-file rule in Baatz, et al. v. Columbia Gas Transmission. A group of almost 40 landowners in Medina, Ohio brought suit against Columbia Gas Transmission in the Northern District of Ohio. Just over a year and a half earlier, another group of landowners, who have not yet been certified as a class, brought a class action against Columbia in the Southern District of Ohio. Both the Medina case and the class action include claims of inverse condemnation under the Natural Gas Act. Due to the similarities between the two claims, Columbia moved to dismiss the Medina claim, arguing that the class action was the first filed and that the Medina landowners should litigate their claims in that action. The district court agreed and dismissed the case. The Sixth Circuit reviewed the district court's decision under an abuse of discretion standard. While acknowledging that all three factors of the first-to-file rule were satisfied in this case and that there were no equitable considerations that justified not applying the first-to-file rule, the Sixth Circuit nevertheless found that the dismissal of the Medina claim was an abuse of discretion. While the Sixth Circuit recognized that the district court has the discretion to dismiss a duplicative action, it agreed with the Seventh Circuit that "a district court can abuse its discretion by dismissing a case under the first-to-file rule when doing so could adversely affects the party's interest." The Sixth Circuit's decision in Baatz that a dismissal is not appropriate under the first-to-file rule when the party will be adversely affected by the decision is in line with both the Fifth Circuit and the Seventh Circuit. The decision represents an interesting interpretation moving forward because the Sixth Circuit made it very clear that "this is not one of those rare cases" where equitable considerations justify not applying the first-to-file rule. However, the decision to vacate the district court's dismissal was based on the separate equitable considerations, namely the realization that dismissal would adversely affect the Medina landowner's interests. The court's decision seems to represent a conscious desire to avoid unnecessarily inequitable consequences of the application of the first-to-file rule, whether that may be the actual application of the rule or when determining how a duplicative case should be handled. COOK MEDICAL: Faces Two Class Actions in Canada Over IVC Filters ---------------------------------------------------------------- Laura Woods, writing for Injury Lawyer News, reports that two class action lawsuits have been formed against Cook Medical in Canada, resulting from allegations that the manufacturer's inferior vena cava filters are faulty. Plaintiffs claim the small cone-shaped devices broke apart inside their bodies, which resulted in excruciating complications. One of the plaintiffs, Wendy Kopeck, has a Cook Medical IVC filter implanted in August 2013. Doctors inserted the device as a precautionary measure to prevent a PE from forming if a blood clot in her leg moved in the direction of her heart or lungs. When Ms. Kopeck underwent surgery to have the IVC filter removed in October, her doctors realized proceeding with the procedure was too much of a risk. Results of a subsequent PET scan exposed a broken filter inside the body of the Reed Deer, Alta. woman, with one of the device's legs impaling her internal jugular vein and the remainder shifting into the small intestines. Since she cannot have the broken filter removed, Kopeck is now forced to take blood thinners forever. She now lives in fear that it's only a matter of time until the device kills her. In January, Ms. Kopeck and her husband filed a class action lawsuit seeking $200 million in damages from Cook Medical, claiming she was not warned about potential IVC filter complications prior to implementation. Canadians file second class action against Cook Medical On February 22, Arie Kulper formed another class action against the manufacturer, claiming his doctors have made two unsuccessful attempts to remove his IVC filter and a third is scheduled at the end of the month. In his claim, Mr. Kulper alleges that he has suffered from dizzy spells and doctors have informed him of the possibility that his device is gradually clogging, which is obstructing blood flow. The Courtice, Ont. man is asking for $500,000 in damages for every patient that has one of the company's IVC filters and an additional $20 million in damages. Similar IVC filter lawsuits have been filed in the U.S. involving the G2 filter, manufactured by C.R. Bard, which is also available in Canada. IVC filter implementation The inferior vena cava is the body's largest vein. It is responsible for moving de-oxygenated blood from the lower extremities of the body to the heart's right atrium, subsequently proceeding into the lungs. An IVC filter is implanted in the inferior vena cava to catch an embolism and keep it from reaching the heart or lungs. When the device functions properly, it eliminates the potential of an embolism blocking a pulmonary artery -- known as pulmonary embolism -- which can cause chest pains, trouble breathing and can even result in death. When a clot enters the IVC filter, the device effectively sanctions the flow of blood around it and it eventually breaks down. IVC filters are commonly implanted if anticoagulants fail to stop the development of pulmonary emboli or deep vein thrombosis, and in patients who cannot take blood thinning medications. COOPER TIRE: 3rd. Circ Hears Oral Arguments in Merger Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Matt Fair, Matt Chiappardi and Linda Chiem, writing for Law360, report that a Delaware federal judge improperly limited his analysis when he agreed to dismiss a putative class action from investors accusing Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. of obscuring potential roadblocks to its now-failed $2.5 billion merger with Apollo Tyres Ltd., the Third Circuit heard during oral arguments on March 1. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP attorney James Harrod -- jim.harrod@blbglaw.com -- told a three-judge panel in Philadelphia that the district court had improperly narrowed his analysis of the sweeping class action to individual allegations, rather than looking more broadly for potential knowledge of wrongdoing -- also known as scienter -- by Cooper in statements it made to investors before the proposed merger with Apollo fell apart. "One of the principle errors that we see in the district court's decision was that he looked at scienter on a statement-by- statement basis, basically took those facts as they related to a specific statement in insolation, and didn't consider them holistically as the Supreme Court and this court and other courts had acknowledged is the proper methodology," he said. A group of investors filed suit in January 2014 alleging that Cooper and its chairman hid the risks behind the $2.5 billion all- cash deal -- in which Apollo first offered to buy Cooper for $35 per share -- by touting it as an unbeatable offer. The plaintiffs alleged that Cooper's top brass knew, yet hid from investors and the public, that the Chinese joint venture partner in Cooper's most important subsidiary, Cooper Chengshan Tire Co. Ltd., vigorously opposed the transaction, had the ability to thwart the deal, and demanded as much as $400 million in exchange for agreeing to not block the Apollo deal. While the deal was announced in June 2013, it fell apart six months later after hitting major snags including a strike by workers at the Chinese facility, Apollo having to renegotiate labor contracts for Cooper's Arkansas and Ohio plants after the union filed grievances, and litigation over potential breaches of the merger agreement in Delaware state court. U.S. District Judge Richard Andrews dismissed the investors' case in July after asking the plaintiffs to submit to the court five of what they believed to be the biggest misrepresentations or omissions by Cooper in the run-up to the merger's collapse. The plaintiffs argued in their brief that this attempt to limit the analysis resulted in many other allegations being entirely ignored. On March 1, Judge Kent Jordan pressed Mr. Harrod on whether the investors had properly objected to the district court's approach to the case. "I'm trying to find where you said to the district court, 'Wait a second, this is unfair to us, we have five additional things for you to look at and you really do need to look at these five additional things,'" he said. Geoffrey Ritts -- gjritts@jonesday.com -- an attorney with Jones Day representing Cooper, told the panel there was nothing improper about the district court's attempts to organize the allegations leveled by the investors. "There was nothing unreasonable about asking the parties to focus on what the plaintiffs themselves thought were the strongest allegations in their complaint and then to hear over two hours of argument on that," he said. Mr. Ritts, however, also faced tough questioning over whether a statement from an August 2013 proxy statement expressing continued confidence in Cooper's ability to close the merger could be considered misleading given the company's lack of control over financial information from their Chinese subsidiary. "Common sense tells you that most mergers aren't going to go through if you don't have key financial information," Judge Thomas Ambro said. Judge Ambro suggested that the case could be remanded in order to allow for discovery and summary judgment motions. "Why decide this on a motion to dismiss?" he asked. "Why not allow at least additional information to be gathered through discovery and then possibly have this case decided, if it can be, at a motion for summary judgment?" The panel said it would take the matter under advisement. The case was argued for the plaintiffs by James Harrod of Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP. The case was argued for Cooper by Geoffrey Ritts of Jones Day. The case is OFI Asset Management et al. v. Cooper Tire & Rubber et al., case number 15-2664, before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. CRYPTSY: Updated Class Action Lawsuit Names New Defendant --------------------------------------------------------- Gola Yashu, writing for NewsBTC, reports the class action lawsuit filed against Bitcoin exchange Cryptsy has just been updated with the name of one more defendant. The updated lawsuit filed by Silver Law Group (SLG) and Wites & Kapetan names Lorie Ann Nettles -- Paul Vernon's former wife -- as the new defendant. It says that both the individuals, who operated an online business for public to trade and exchange Bitcoin and similar cryptocurrencies, prevented customers from accessing around $USD5 million worth of assets. Instead, the defendants misused these funds for their own business and personal use, including the cash purchase of a $USD1 million worth waterfront villa in West Palm Beach, Florida. The lawsuit goes on accusing that Vernon and Nettles took part in a deceptive marriage resolution to improperly transfer the said villa's ownership to Nettles. The marriage dissolution, according to the available court documents, was concluded within four months. The accusations made in the lawsuit has brought Vernon and Nettles under the purview of multiple criminal charges, including Claims for Negligence, Conversion of Funds and Property, Violation of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practice Act, and Unjust Enrichment. "The class action lawsuit is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida under Case No. 9:16-cv- 80060," SLG confirmed via mail. A Look into Cryptsy's Past Cryptsy was launched in 2013 under the flag of Project Investors Inc, owned and operated by Paul Vernon. The new Bitcoin exchange later registered itself with the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) as a "Money Services Business", which legitimately enabled it to solicit public to register, deposit and trade bitcoin and other digital currencies for fiat. In May 2015, Cryptsy reported on its blogpost that millions of dollars in customers' funds were disappeared from its online wallets. During the same time, many customers and media outlets accused Cryptsy of not complying with the FinCEN regulations after discovering that it never filed a Suspicious Activity Report with the regulators after the "alleged theft" of $USD5 million. Sometime around November 2015, many of Cryptsy customers reported of difficulties in withdrawing funds from Cryptsy accounts. Vernon however blamed it on a "server failure" and assured the issue will be resolved. In another tweet, he said the official website www.cryptsy.com had faced a DDOS attack. Two days after the commencement of lawsuit -- on January 15th 2016 -- Cryptsy admitted on its blog that it had concealed facts regarding the insolvency of $USD5 million from customers and regulators. The exchange also admitted that it had lied to customers about the nature of the problems all this time. Vernon however tried to reason with customers, saying that he didn't want to cause any panic. He also sought help from the Bitcoin community to recover the lost funds. CRYPTSY: Founder's Ex-Wife Likely Involved in Lost Funds -------------------------------------------------------- James Moreau, writing for CCN.LA, reports that in what has been one strange and cryptic piece of news after another about the troubles that Cryptsy and its founder have been surrounded by, an update of the class action lawsuit against them has been released and it expands the subjects of whom is liable for the lost assets over the past year and a half. In what seems to be a mixture of both information compiled from Cryptsy's last updates of their blog, the founder Paul Vernon's Twitter account and some individually investigated findings, the class-action lawsuit's updates increase the level of criminal allegations against Cryptsy substantially. In the updated class-action lawsuit originally filed by Silver Law Group, more details were released support the original assertions leveled against Vernon and Cryptsy. These details stem from his recent divorce filings with ex-wife Lorie Ann Nettles. Ms. Nettles, whose name is now listed among the defendants with Mr. Vernon and Cryptsy, divorced from Mr. Vernon a few months after they made an all-cash purchase of a $1,374,881 waterfront mansion in Palm Beach County, Florida in March 2015. This added information is alarming due to the nature of the timeline and publicized information that Vernon has publicly admitted to on his company blog, on Twitter and as well in several court documents which show Vernon's admittance that Cryptsy was insolvent and likely to go out of business. Vernon attempted to claim that he was attempting to locate the funds through his own brand of vigilante justice on his blog and that he was nervous to disclose to authorities that his company had lost $5,000,000 in Bitcoin of their customer's assets. He's also made small attempts to show that Cryptsy is slowly working to open up and un-freeze some wallets within their system so that some customers can withdraw remaining funds. However, the class-action lawsuit suggests that all of this is a complex, but not well-masked ploy on behalf of Mr. Vernon and his ex-wife Nettles to move assets away from Cryptsy into private hands so that when the company did go under, Nettles would be in possession of a large amount of the $5,000,000 which went missing through Mr. Vernon's activities. The lawsuit makes no qualms about stating outright that those filing this claim don't believe anything that Mr. Vernon has said about being the victim of online theft and that he has in fact stolen this money for his and in extension, his ex-wife's personal use. DALLAS, TX: Sued Over Proposed Ban of Porn Convention ----------------------------------------------------- H. Drew Blackburn, writing for Texas Monthly, reports that the bizarre saga of the Exxxotica sex expo in Dallas continues. In February, the Dallas City Council voted 8-7 to ban the expo from returning to the the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center in May. This effort was led by Dallas' self appointed "Chief Brand Officer," Mayor Mike Rawlings. In an unsurprising move, the expo is now suing, and the city's prudishness might have rolled out the red carpet for a class action lawsuit. Surprisingly, the first entity to sue Dallas over banning Exxxotica wasn't the expo itself, but a potential patron and vendor. Or, as the Dallas Morning News put it, just a guy that wanted to go. Chino Salas, owner of Gentlemen's Texas Magazine and ToplessFinder.com, is seeking a temporary and permanent injunction that would ban Dallas from, uh, banning Exxxotica. Salas's attorney, Gary Krupkin, said that it's a "possibility this might turn into a class-action suit where the city could be prosecuted by everybody who would like to attend Exxxotica." Krupkin noted that what "Exxxotica would file would be a suit particular to them. My suit offers the possibility of having other class members join at some point in the future." So, Dallas could see itself sued by vendors, patrons, participants, and Exxxotica over a porn convention. It didn't seem like a lawsuit was Exxxotica's end goal; it just wanted to have its sexpo in peace. This is made apparent by an ultimatum (or plea, however you want to slice it) sent out by the Exxxotica organizer's attorney, Roger Albright, and an open letter by Exxxotica to the city of Dallas. Albright, by the way, has been on the city's public transportation board and was the city plan commissioner. In his letter he says he has been "personally, professionally and positively involved with the city for over four decades. This is not a litigation I want to file nor do I think it's in the best interest of the City. Our collective tax dollars can be much more wisely spent than hiring yet more lawyers to defend what I consider an unnecessary lawsuit and/or presumably paying my fees as might be awarded by the Court." Essentially, if the council overturned the ban during a meeting, bygones would be bygones and chain and whips would excite thousands of people at the convention center in May. But alas, that didn't happen and a lawsuit has officially been filed. Meanwhile, Exxotica's biggest competitor, Adultcon, has inquired about available dates at the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center. They did this one day after Dallas banned Exxxotica. Potentially, here's another lawsuit, or maybe Dallas will just give up and stop fighting for purity. DOW CHEMICAL: Growing Political Uncertainties Prompt Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- Lydia Wheeler, writing for The Hill, reports that the vacancy on the Supreme Court left by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia is shaking up the legal system and forcing some attorneys to rethink their litigation strategy. A dramatic example came on Feb. 26, when Dow Chemical Co. settled a class-action lawsuit for $835 million. The company cited uncertainties on the Supreme Court in announcing its decision. "Growing political uncertainties due to recent events within the Supreme Court and increased likelihood for unfavorable outcomes for business involved in class-action suits have changed Dow's risk assessment of the situation," the company said in a statement. "Dow believes this settlement is the right decision for the company and our shareholders." Dow, which is in the midst of merging with Dupont, had appealed to the Supreme Court after a federal jury found it guilty of conspiring to inflate polyurethane prices. A judge issued a $1.06 billion judgment against the company. In its petition, the company cited multiple violations of class- action law and asked the high court to set aside the judgment. With Justice Scalia's death, the Supreme Court lost its leading conservative and a member known for pro-business rulings. His death has created an even split between liberal and conservative justices that legal experts predict will lead to a slew of 4-4 ties in the months ahead. "Between 20 to 30 percent of all cases over the last few years have been divided 5-4," said Jake Faleschini, director of the Courts Program for Legal Progress at the Center for American Progress. "And in 20 to 30 percent of all cases this term and next term, the court will not be able to come to a consensus." The possibility of deadlock on the Supreme Court is likely to change the way some attorneys litigate, because in the case of a 4-4 tie, the lower court ruling stands. "It will certainly lead to much more jurisdiction picking, where attorneys pick the circuit where they think they're going to win," Mr. Faleschini said. But that strategy could prove difficult, with a number of lower circuit courts stacked with Democratic appointments seen as less friendly to business. "The courts have been the backstop to the executive overreach and regulatory overreach over the last seven years to a greater extent, and there are very few circuits left that, generally speaking, are favorable from a management perspective," said Michael Lotito, who co-chairs the Workplace Policy Institute at Littler Mendelson P.C. "The last hope was to go to the Supreme Court, and that's being put into serious question." Cases that could now face a tougher climb, Mr. Lotito said, include a challenge to the National Labor Relation Board's "ambush election" rule that's now before the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and a petition before the Supreme Court asking the justices to weigh the legality of the Obama administration's decision to make homecare providers eligible for minimum wages and overtime pay. "I think the appointment, or the inability to appoint someone and the significance of this election, is so incredibly important and far-reaching," Mr. Lotito said. "I don't think the country has completely grasped what's at stake here." While some court watchers accept the Dow Chemical litigation as a casualty of Scalia's vacancy, others are skeptical of the company's explanation. To settle a case of that size, Paul Bland, executive director of Public Justice, said Dow would have had to hammer out the vast majority of the settlement terms before Scalia died on Feb. 13. "I think they are looking for a way to spin it politically," he said. "I don't think they are sincere." Dow's case before the Supreme Court was pending a decision in Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Peg Bouaphakeo, et al. In that case, the justices were asked to weigh new limits on class-action lawsuits. In oral arguments in November, the justices seemed skeptical of requiring that all members of a class-action lawsuit show injuries to have a legal right to damages. Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is known as the court's swing voter, appeared to side with the court's more liberal wing. Justice Kennedy said he couldn't understand the company's argument. Though an opinion is still pending in the Tyson case, Bland predicts the company will lose -- and a loss for Tyson is a loss for Dow. Though Dow did not admit to any wrongdoing in its settlement, Bland believes it cited Scalia to distract the public from a violation of anti-trust laws. "Dow would have lost regardless," he said. DOW CHEMICAL: Settlement Decision Encouraging for Plaintiffs Bar ---------------------------------------------------------------- Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that The Dow Chemical Co. has agreed to pay $835 million to settle price-fixing litigation over urethane sales, citing uncertainties about the prospects of class actions before the U.S. Supreme Court given the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. The Feb. 26 announcement comes as Dow, represented by Carter Phillips of Sidley Austin, had petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn a $1.06 billion judgment against it in multidistrict litigation brought by a class of purchasers of urethane, which is used in everything from mattress pads to car seats. Dow's decision is encouraging news to the plaintiffs bar that other defendants in the same procedural situation will make similar moves, faced with the uncertainty of the Supreme Court. Dow's petition was on hold pending the outcome of a separate case, Tyson Foods v. Bouaphakeo, a class action brought over wage-and- hour violations in which the Supreme Court held oral arguments on Nov. 10. In both cases, the defendants made broad arguments against class actions -- in particular, the growing concern about statistical formulas used by plaintiffs attorneys to demonstrate classwide damages. "Growing political uncertainties due to recent events within the Supreme Court and increased likelihood for unfavorable outcomes for business involved in class action suits have changed Dow's risk assessment of the situation," the company said. "Dow believes this settlement is the right decision for the company and our shareholders." With Justice Scalia's death, Dow faced a predicament: If the Supreme Court granted the petition, it could have waited until the unknown ninth justice got appointed to hear the case, said plaintiffs attorney Irving Scher -- ischer@hausfeld.com -- a former chair of the American Bar Association's Section of Antitrust who is not connected to the case. On the other hand, Mr. Scher said, "If they deny cert, then you have a $1.06 billion judgment that's final." Mr. Scher is senior counsel to Hausfeld in Washington. Dow's predicament left some plaintiffs attorneys cautiously optimistic that other defendants could make similar moves, particularly in class actions -- although that's far from definite given the uncertainties surrounding Scalia's replacement, said Paul Bland, executive director of Public Justice in Washington. "That's the first case I'm aware of that that reaction is triggered," Mr. Bland said. "Hopefully, there should be others." Justice Scalia was a powerful voice against class actions on the Supreme Court. In its petition, Dow cited two of the Supreme Court's most pivotal class action decisions -- the 2011 ruling in Wal-Mart Stores v. Dukes and a 2013 opinion in Comcast v. Behrend -- both of which Justice Scalia authored. But observers of the oral arguments in Tyson Foods found the justices to be less focused on the broader class action issue. That doesn't mean the same issue won't resurface. A spokesman for the American Tort Reform Association, which filed amicus briefs in both Dow and Tyson Foods, said it would continue to support petitions that bring similar challenges before the Supreme Court. "ATRA hopes that, despite its current vacancy, the Supreme Court will continue to take and decide cases with an eye toward reducing costly class action abuses," said spokesman Darren McKinney. The judgment against Dow was the largest verdict in 2013. U.S. District Judge John Lungstrum, applying antitrust law, trebled a $400 million jury verdict awarded to a class of 2,400 companies that purchased urethane from Dow. He then reduced the judgment to reflect prior settlements with other defendants. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the judgment. Dow, in its statement, said it "continues to strongly believe that it was not part of any conspiracy" and noted that its settlement was conditioned on the Supreme Court holding its petition in abeyance and on Lungstrum approving the deal. DOW CHEMICAL: Some Politics Behind Settlement, Bland Says --------------------------------------------------------- Perry Cooper, writing for Bloomberg BNA, reports that Dow Chemical Co. announced Feb. 26 that it will settle a major antitrust class action pending before the U.S. Supreme Court in light of Justice Antonin Scalia's death less than two weeks ago. One prominent consumer advocate, however, says a fair amount of spin could be at play here. Dow cited "growing political uncertainties due to recent events within the Supreme Court and increased likelihood for unfavorable outcomes for business involved in class action suits" in its statement announcing the $835 million deal (Dow Chem. Co. v. Indus. Polymers Inc., U.S., No. 14-1091, settlement announced 2/26/16). But F. Paul Bland Jr., executive director of Public Justice, which often supports consumers in class action cases, said that there might be some politics behind the settlement's announcement. "There's something political going on outside of the legal calculus that made them issue this press release saying, 'We settled this case because of Justice Scalia,'" Mr. Bland told Bloomberg BNA. Dow is hoping the Senate will hold fast and not move forward on any nominee President Barack Obama may appoint to replace Scalia, Bland said. An Obama nominee isn't likely to be as hostile to class actions as Scalia was. A Dow spokesperson didn't respond directly to requests about Mr. Bland's comments and instead referred Bloomberg BNA to its press statement. Other attorneys involved in the case also wouldn't comment. Doesn't Change Calculus It was already looking like the court wouldn't rule for Dow even if it took up the company's certiorari petition, Mr. Bland said. Dow's petition challenged the plaintiffs' use of extrapolations to prove classwide impact and damages, calling it improper "trial by formula." Mr. Bland acknowledged that Justice Scalia was the author of the underlying ruling banning that practice, Wal-Mart Stores Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541, 2011 BL 161238 (2011) , and that his death took away a very strong vote in Dow's favor had the court agreed to hear the suit. But, he said, the top court heard oral argument three months ago in Tyson Foods Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, U.S., No. 14-1146, argued 11/10/15 , a case that raised similar arguments to those in Dow. It appeared unlikely, Bland said, based on that argument, that the top court had the appetite to extend further. There was also a signal as far back as June that a settlement was in the works between Dow and the other antitrust parties when they filed-and then promptly withdrew-an emergency joint motion to hold the certiorari petition in temporary abeyance. A case like this doesn't get settled in a day, or even in the two weeks since Scalia died, Bland said. "Since I have a million cases that have been struggling and hanging on for years, I really hope that this Dow thing turns out to be right and that defendants start opening their checkbooks across the country and settle every case on the grounds that Justice Scalia's death changes everything," he said. But so far, his phone hasn't been ringing off the hook with defendants offering settlements, he said. ENCORE ENERGY: "Goldman" Sues over Termination, Retaliation ----------------------------------------------------------- Wayne Goldman, as an individual and on behalf of all Aggrieved Employees, Plaintiff, v. Encore Energy, Inc., a California corporation and Does 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case BC606773 (Cal. Super., County of Los Angeles, January 12, 2016), seeks a temporary restraining order, preliminary and permanent injunction, enjoinment, recovery of wages, disgorgement of profits, pre- judgment and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the California Labor Code Sec. 1194. Encore Energy Inc. is a California corporation with principal place of business located at 2029 Century Park East, Suite 200N, Los Angeles, California 90067. Goldman worked as a salesperson for the Defendants, selling investment opportunities to prospective investors. Goldman was misclassified as an independent contractor instead of an employee, thus was not provided wage statements. He was terminated for his complaints. The Plaintiff is represented by: Neil Pedersen, Esq. Armond M. Jackson, Esq. PEDERSEN MCQUEEN, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION 17910 Skypark Circle, Suite 105 Irvine, CA 92614 Tel: (949) 260-1181 Fax: (949) 260-1185 EXXON MOBIL: Landowners' Attorneys Appeal Class Action Dismissal ---------------------------------------------------------------- Debra Hale-Shelton, writing for Arkansas Online, reports that a judge erred when he reversed his own decision and, without notice, dismissed a class-action lawsuit against Exxon Mobil, attorneys for landowners along the Pegasus pipeline argued in a document appealing that ruling. "What had changed in two weeks?" attorneys for landowners Arnez and Charletha Harper and Rudy and Betty Webb, argued, "The facts had not." The attorneys filed the document in the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis in response to Exxon Mobil's arguments in support of U.S. District Judge Brian Miller's March 2015 ruling. In that ruling, the judge overturned his August 2014 decision to grant class-action status to landowners whose property is crossed by the pipeline that extends from Corsicana, Texas, to Patoca, Ill. Such status stood to affect thousands of landowners in Arkansas, Missouri, Texas and Illinois. The Pegasus pipeline, built in 1947-48, cracked open in Mayflower's Northwoods subdivision March 29, 2013, sending tens of thousands of gallons of heavy crude oil into the neighborhood, drainage ditches and a cove of Lake Conway. The oil giant shut down the entire, roughly 850-mile line after the accident. All but a 211-mile section running from Corsicana to Nederland, Texas, remains idle. Exxon Mobil spokesman Ashley Smith Alemayehu sent an email late on Feb. 29 saying the company doesn't comment on ongoing litigation. Exxon Mobil has said previously it is pleased with the District Court's March 2015 decision and believes "it properly applied the law to the facts of this case." But in the newest case filing on Feb. 25, landowners' attorneys wrote that the judge had essentially "pivoted and reversed direction, for the first time, adopting Exxon's argument, regarding it as incorrect to refer to the Pegasus Pipeline as a 'single entity.'" Though the facts remained the same, "the court now accepted, apparently as an article of faith, that 'Exxon's actions, or inactions, on one individual's land would not necessarily implicate the interests of other landowners,'" the attorneys added. Further, Exxon's corporate policies and actions led to its misuse of the Pegasus and to contamination of all affected landowners' property, the landowners argued. "Rather than operating in an isolation fashion, Exxon made a unified corporate policy decision to continue using the entire Pegasus Pipeline after twice its original intended life of 30 years," they wrote. The company also consciously chose to transport "heavy tar sands [oil] rather than sweet Texas crude through the entire pipeline" and to reverse the product's flow, the attorneys said. Exxon Mobil further opted "to increase the pressure of the product flowing through the entire Pegasus Pipeline," the plaintiffs' attorneys said. They also referred to the pipe's "antiquated cancer-causing asbestos coating." "The sacrifice of the Pegasus Pipeline to a corporate purpose comes straight out of one place: the corporation," they said. If Exxon Mobil considers such actions "reasonable, the showing must be made to a jury, not a district court judge faced with a Rule 23 [class-action] certification question," the attorneys said. The plaintiffs' lawyers again accused the oil giant of tying their hands by "producing one corrupted document dump after filing its motion for summary judgment." "Not only did Exxon prevent access to information, but the database produced by Exxon was corrupted," they wrote. The landowners disputed Exxon Mobil's argument that the federal Pipeline Safety Act pre-empts the residents' common-law claims. "The district court's reliance on Exxon's argument was misplaced and resulted in an error of law," they wrote. "A pipeline is not a segmented mechanism. While Exxon argues it can be viewed as made of of pieces, it is not those pieces that define its use. "The use of a pipeline is to provide a single, uninterrupted delivery system. Alone, the links are not a pipeline but have to be put together to form a pipeline. The pipeline is all or nothing at all." FLINT, MI: Attorney Provides Update on Water Crisis Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Laura Chapman, writing for KITV, reports that as the water crisis plays itself out, there's a common sentiment in Flint. "We need to be able to know what to do, we don't know what to do," said resident Patsy Sutton. Ms. Sutton lives near downtown and knows the water will one day be safe again. But she worries about the future for her granddaughter, who's had rashes and tested positive for lead. "I'm not going to be around in 15-20 years, and I want to make sure she's taken care of," Ms. Sutton said. On Feb. 29, Sutton joined hundreds of others in the same boat. "A lot of people need to be held accountable. And it's been kind of evasive and the facts are elusive to everybody," said resident Matthew Willbrodt. They listened to attorney Ven Johnson lay out possible courses of action. "Our position, of course, is no one out there should ever do this on their own. It's a huge, legal endeavor," Mr. Johnson said. Mr. Johnson is a Saginaw native and now is lead attorney for Johnson Law in Detroit and Grand Rapids. He updated people on the status of a class action he, along with an environmental class action law firm, are behind. Mr. Johnson said a federal judge in Detroit has taken it up, but also reminded people they can get an individual lawyer to help them through litigation that could take years to resolve. "The only way we can make sure this never happens again is hold these people accountable under the law," Mr. Johnson said. Mr. Johnson hopes added pressure will get families answers and help fast-track a fund to help compensate those impacted. Ms. Sutton said this whole thing has been a nightmare and said she hopes she can get some answers she desperately needs. "All of a sudden, it's like bam. So we don't know what to do. So we've got to open our ears and listen and go from there," Ms. Sutton said. FORD: Can't Duck Power Steering Class Action, Judge Rules --------------------------------------------------------- Mike Heuer, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that, a federal judge refused to dismiss a class action about faulty power steering in Ford Fusions and Focuses despite Ford's recall of 420,000 of the cars. U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh denied Ford's motion to dismiss for lack of standing and mootness. Lead plaintiff William Philips says Ford concealed defects in its Electronic Power-Assisted Steering (EPAS) system on the used 2011 Ford Fusion he bought in March 2012 to avoid costly repairs. He seeks to represent a class of Californians who bought or leased 2010-2014 Fusions, and 2012-2014 Focuses. Ford recalled the defective cars last year, and moved to dismiss the class action as moot. Koh refused, finding "Ford's standing argument involves factual disputes that implicate the merits of California plaintiffs' claims." She said that resolution of these disputes "is essential to determining what caused the defects at issue, whether and when Ford knew about these defects, and whether these defects were isolated." Philips claims that "Ford concealed the fact that the EPAS system is prone to sudden and premature failure from consumers so that the warranty period on the defective vehicles would expire before consumers were aware of the problem." He says Ford "recklessly risked the safety of occupants of the defective vehicles and the public at large" by concealing defects and continuing to market the EPAS system as a "reliable and beneficial product." Ford's EPAS system includes a power steering control motor, electronic control unit, torque sensor and steering wheel position sensor, but Philips says it has a defect that "renders the system prone to sudden and premature failure." Philips says that after complaining repeatedly to Ford about the problem, it told him it would cost $2,000 to fix, and offered to pay only half of it. He did not repair it then, in 2013, but Ford recalled his car in July 2015 and fixed the problem. When the EPAS system fails, drivers "experience significantly increased steering effort and an increased risk of losing control" when their cars suddenly switch to manual steering, according to the complaint. Philips et al. say their personal experiences, a National Highway Traffic Safety Administration investigation of the EPAS steering system in the Ford Explorer, and similar complaints by other California drivers amply demonstrate their claims. Ford recalled 422,131 defective cars in 2015 and has repaired about 51 percent of them, including the EPAS system in 8,000 cars as of December 2015. FOX SEARCHLIGHT: Interns' Bid for Rehearing of Class Action Nixed ----------------------------------------------------------------- Patrick Boyle, writing for Law360, reports that the Second Circuit on Feb. 29 declined a bid by interns at Fox Searchlight to reconsider its decision to toss out the standards they said should be used to determine if they should have been paid as employees. The circuit court rejected the interns' request for a rehearing by the three-judge panel that overturned the decisions of a New York federal judge, or for a hearing by the full appeals court, sticking with its July ruling that a "primary beneficiary test" should be applied to determine employee status rather than a test that would give them that status if the company gained an immediate advantage for their work. "We continue to believe that the Second Circuit's test is inconsistent with the Fair Labor Standards Act and binding U.S. Supreme Court precedent," Rachel Bien, an attorney for the interns, told Law360. "We are evaluating our next steps, including potentially petitioning the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari." The decision leaves the case pending in the district court that ruled in June 2013 that Fox misclassified unpaid interns when it did not call them employees, saying Eric Glatt and Alexander Footman provided free labor but got little of educational value when they worked on "Black Swan," a movie produced by Fox Searchlight Pictures Inc. The appeals court said U.S. District Judge William H. Pauley III incorrectly relied on a U.S. Department of Labor six-part test, presented in a 2010 fact sheet offering guidance on unpaid internships, saying the test is basically a distillation of facts discussed in the U.S. Supreme Court's 1947 decision in Walling v. Portland Terminal Co. The court called the DOL test "too rigid" and unpersuasive. The panel agreed with Fox that the right question was whether the intern or the employer was the primary beneficiary of their relationship, and laid out seven factors to consider when assessing when a worker qualifies as an employee under the FLSA. Those factors include whether there's a clear understanding that there's no expectation of compensation, whether interns receive training similar to what they'd get an educational environment and to what the extent the internship is tied to a formal education program. In January the Second Circuit amended its opinion, in part by adding another feature to the primary beneficiary test. The court acknowledged that the relationship between interns and employers should not be analyzed in the same way as employer-employee relationships, noting that an intern enters the relationship "with the expectation of receiving educational or vocational benefits" that employees do not. The amended opinion also said when considering whether a case can proceed as a collective action, the lower court can take into account evidence about an internship program as a whole rather than just about a specific intern in question. The appeals court had handled the Fox case in tandem with an intern payment case brought against Hearst Corp., although the denial of a rehearing involved an appeal by the Fox interns. The circuit court panel was composed of Circuit Judges John M. Walker, Dennis G. Jacobs and Richard C. Wesley. Attorneys for Fox did not respond to requests for comment. The interns are represented by Adam T. Klein, Rachel M. Bien and Juno Turner of Outten & Golden LLP. Fox is represented by Elise M. Bloom, Mark D. Harris, Chantel L. Febus and Amy F. Melican of Proskauer Rose LLP and Neal Katyal, Mary Helen Wimberly and Frederick Liu of Hogan Lovells. The cases are Glatt et al. v. Fox Searchlight Pictures Inc. et al., case numbers 13-4478 and 13-4481, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. G. WILLI-FOOD: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Feb. 29 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of G. Willi-Food International Ltd. securities (WILC) from April 30, 2014 through February 18, 2016, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for G. Willi-Food investors under the federal securities laws. To join the G. Willi-Food class action, go to the firm's website at http://rosenlegal.com/cases-840.htmor call Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for more information on the class action. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants issued false and misleading statements to investors and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Defendant Gregory Gurtovoy, along with others, illegally transferred money out of G. Willi-Food; and (2) as a result, G. Willi-Food'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. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than April 29, 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, go to the firm's website at http://rosenlegal.com/cases-840.htmlfor more information. You may also contact Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via email at pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. GRAND THEFT: 9th Circuit Reverses Dismissal of Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Anthony V. Lupo, Esq., Sarah L. Bruno, Esq. -- sarah.bruno@arentfox.com -- Eva J. Pulliam, Esq. -- eva.pulliam@arentfox.com -- and B. Thorne Maginnis, Esq., of Arent Fox LLP, in an article for Lexology, report that in a recent opinion, the Ninth Circuit reversed the dismissal of a lawsuit against the developer of the highly-anticipated videogame Grand Theft Auto V. Two plaintiffs filed a putative class action, claiming that the game's packaging made promises that the company did not keep. In particular, the plaintiffs asserted that the packaging suggested the game included an online, interactive component, when in fact this functionality was not available to users at the time the game was released. While the district court found that the plaintiffs had not properly stated a claim for relief in their complaint, the Ninth Circuit disagreed, stressing the plaintiff-friendly standard for a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The case presents an interesting issue for advertising related to videogame capabilities. The District Court's Opinion In 2013, plaintiffs Bruce McMahon and Christopher Bengston filed a putative class action complaint against Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc., a videogame developer and distributor well-known for its Grand Theft Auto series. Their lawsuit related to Take- Two's latest installment in the series, Grand Theft Auto V. In particular, the plaintiffs claimed that Take-Two misled consumers to be believe, through representations on the product packaging, that the game permitted purchasers to interact with other players online. According to the plaintiffs, however, when they purchased the game, it was not configured for online play as advertised. Rather, the game could only be played in single-player mode without the ability to interact with any other videogame players. The plaintiffs alleged violations of California false advertising and unfair competition laws. The US District Court for the Central District of California dismissed both the false advertising and unfair competition claims as unactionable, finding that the Grand Theft Auto V packaging did not include any unlawfully false or misleading statements. Specifically, the court agreed with Take-Two that the packaging never claimed that the game's online capabilities would be available immediately: "nowhere does the [Grand Theft Auto V] game packaging use the word 'immediate[,]' nor is there any specific language that suggests such gameplay was 'immediately' available . . . " The court also denied leave to amend the complaint, finding that an amended complaint was unlikely lead to valid claims and, thus, would be futile. The plaintiffs appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit's Recent Opinion In a brief opinion, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal. At the motion dismiss stage, the court explained, the district court is required to review the claims in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Stating a claim under both California's false advertising law and unfair competition laws required the plaintiffs to allege that "members of the public [were] likely to be deceived" by the Grand Theft Auto V packaging. Here, the court recounted, plaintiffs alleged that they read all of the game's packaging; that it led them to believe the game's online capabilities would be available immediately; and that, contrary to those representations, the game was not available online at the time of their purchase. These allegations, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, was enough to overcome Take-Two's motion to dismiss, the court held. In so holding, the Ninth Circuit reminded the district court that "whether a business practice is deceptive will usually be a question of fact not appropriate on [a motion to dismiss]." The Takeaway This case is a reminder to companies operating in the videogame space of the need to ensure that advertising and promotional claims are sufficiently substantiated by the game's actual features and to include any necessary disclosures regarding current and future capabilities. While this is true for all games, developers of new, highly-anticipated games such as Grand Theft Auto V are an especially likely target for disgruntled consumers and class action lawyers. Developers should, thus, be particularly cautious in such cases. Moreover, it is very difficult to clear the motion to dismiss hurdle, meaning that defendants will often find themselves stuck in litigation into discovery and perhaps until summary judgment, unless a settlement is reached. This advice is equally applicable mobile app game developers, who should likewise make sure that they accurately describe their games' features -- including what users are able to win by playing, and whether the game is entirely free or certain aspects are pay-to-play. This also presents a good rationale for including class action waivers and arbitration provisions in applicable consumer terms, as this may provide defendants with additional arguments to avoid lengthy and costly litigation. GRENVILLE CHRISTIAN: Abused Students Relate Harrowing Stories ------------------------------------------------------------- Ben Spurr, writing for The Star, reports that it's been nearly a decade since the Grenville Christian College closed, but some of the institution's former students say they're still haunted by what happened behind its doors. From 1973 until it shut down in 2007, the elite private boarding school northeast of Brockville, Ont. promised pupils a world-class religious and academic education at an idyllic campus on the shores of the St. Lawrence River. But a $225-million class action lawsuit alleges that pupils who lived and studied there got something much more damaging -- a strict regime of arbitrary discipline, bizarre religious practices, and systemic abuse that left them "sexually, physically, mentally, emotionally and spiritually traumatized." Grenville denied the accusations in the suit, which was launched in 2008 and certified in 2014. According to a statement of defence the college filed in 2010 "there is no truth whatsoever" to the allegations. "The representative plaintiffs were never, advertently or inadvertently, subjected to any conduct in the nature of physical or mental abuse," the statement said. In fact, the school's defense stated, "Grenville enjoyed a good reputation over the years in Ontario and elsewhere for its academic prowess, extracurricular activities and caring approach toward the betterment of young people in its charge." In affidavits to support the class action, five former students described life at the school as being dominated by fear, humiliation and occasionally violence. Two more Grenville alumni interviewed by the Star described similarly traumatizing experiences. The class action covers people who attended the school between 1973 and 1997, and according to a lawyer representing the plaintiffs, so far 182 former pupils have come forward expressing interest in making a claim. Dan Michielsen enrolled at the college in 1985 when he was 15 years old. In an interview with the Star, he said that by the time he left four years later, he was "a wreck." He alleged that two weeks after arriving at Grenville a staff member woke him up by punching him in the groin, an apparent punishment for talking in his sleep. Mr. Michielsen said he was then dragged into the washroom and forced to clean it with a toothbrush. The staff member urinated on him as he scrubbed the floor, he said. Mr. Michielsen said he was often berated by staff, who called him "disgusting," "evil," a "pig," and a "mutt." Now 46, he says he has been left with debilitating self-esteem problems as a result of the alleged abuse. "After a while, I just accepted that I was a loser, that I was a s---, that I should just shut my mouth," he said. "The doubt is always there." Another former student, Andrew Hale-Byrne, alleged in his affidavit that while at Grenville, he was physically assaulted, punished with sleep deprivation and forced labor, and even subjected to an exorcism to "cure" his dyslexia. In an interview, he said he left the college believing that he deserved to be abused and that he was "damned" to hell. "(Grenville) destroyed you to the point where you thought you couldn't achieve in life, and you didn't deserve to achieve," he said. He likened life at the college to "waking up in a horror movie." Central to the lawsuit are allegations of close ties between Grenville faculty and a small religious sect founded in Massachusetts in the 1970s called the Community of Jesus. A 1981 Boston magazine story reported that former members of the Community described it as a cult that practiced physical and psychological abuse. The group's leadership at the time denied the report. According to the plaintiffs' statement of claim, while the school presented itself as Anglican, the college's staff engaged in a "systematic campaign . . . to promote and indoctrinate students in the teachings" of the Community of Jesus. Fathers Charles Farnsworth and J. Alastair Haig, who co-founded Grenville,were members of the Community of Jesus, but in 1977 they were also ordained Anglican priests. Father Haig served as headmaster until 1983, at which point Farnsworth took over until 1997. In affidavits for the suit, two former teachers said many staff were either members of the Community of Jesus or shared its values, but the college's statement of defense denied the school promoted the sect's beliefs to students. In an interview with CTV's investigative news program W5 that aired Feb. 6, Joan Childs, who was a teacher and administrator at Grenville for 32 years beginning in 1972, said one of the techniques Grenville staff imported from the Community of Jesus were so-called "light sessions." The former students who filed affidavits and spoke to the Star described these sessions as a form of ritual humiliation in which they were compelled to confess sins, real or imagined, while staff screamed abuse at them. The sessions could occur day or night, in front of a group or alone. Ms. Childs told W5 the sessions "could get out of hand. It could get verbally abusive, it could get physically abusive at times," she said. "They were intensely frightening," according to the affidavit sworn by Lisa Cavanaugh, who boarded at the school for two years, beginning in 1987. "The only way to make it stop was to cry and to tell them that I accepted that I had sinned." Ms. Cavanaugh, who was 14 when she entered the school, said that girls were often singled out during light sessions and "accused of being whores." The statement of claim alleges that other abuses included putting students "on discipline," periods of excessive or abusive punishment during which children could be forbidden to speak or forced to perform tasks like scrubbing the kitchen with a toothbrush or cleaning out grease traps with their hands. Richard Van Dusen, who was a boarding student for two years beginning in 1979 when he was 18, swore in his affidavit that when two teachers found out he bought a younger pupil a case of beer, they bent him over a chair and beat him with a wooden paddle. Afterward his underwear was "soaked through with blood." The Ontario Provincial Police investigated allegations of abuse at Grenville in 2007, but a spokesperson for the force told the Star that after consultation with the crown attorney, a decision was made not to press charges. The spokesperson couldn't say why that decision was reached. The two men in charge of the school during the alleged abuses are no longer living -- Father Haig died in 2009, and Father Farnsworth passed away in March 2015. Not everyone has bad memories of Grenville. Nine former students presented evidence in support of the school's defense, denying there was abuse. David Webb, who attended the college from 1984 to 1987, said in an affidavit that staff exhibited "the kindest and most caring spirit imaginable" and pushed the students to achieve more they thought themselves capable of. Donald Farnsworth, Father Charles Farnsworth's son, conceded in an affidavit he filed as part of the suit that Grenville was strict, but asserted "that was one of its strengths." Donald attended grades nine to 13 at the college, and after graduating in 1976 went on to serve for two decades as a teacher and administrator at Grenville. In an interview, he said the school gave him "a fantastic education." Even though Grenville staff sometimes "disciplined me in a way that I found painful at the time," he said, "I am very grateful for the growth that I experienced." HEARTWARE INTERNATIONAL: Faces St. Paul Fund Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ St. Paul Teachers' Retirement Fund Association, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Heartware International, Inc., Douglas E. Godshall and Peter McAree, Defendants, Case 1:16-cv-00520 (S.D. N.Y., January 22, 2016), seeks damages, including interest, reasonable costs and attorneys' fees and other or further relief for violation of Section 10(b), 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule l0b-5. HeartWare is a medical device company that develops and manufactures ventricular assist devices to treat patients suffering from advanced heart failure. The device malfunctioned and HeartWare shares of stock dropped significantly upon disclosure. St. Paul Teachers' Retirement Fund Association is a non-profit organization that provides retirement, survivor, and disability benefits to public school educators in St. Paul, Minnesota. They purchased HeartWare common stock at artificially inflated prices and lost substantially. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald H. Silk, Esq. Avi Josefson, Esq. Michael Blatchley Esq. Adam D. Hollander, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Tel: (212) 554-1400 Fax: (212) 554-1444 Email: jerry@blbglaw.com avi@blbglaw.com michaelb@blbglaw.com adam.hollander@blbglaw.com HOME DEPOT: Judge OKs $2.1MM Wage Class Action Settlement --------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Siegal, writing for Law360, reports that a California judge on March 1 approved Home Depot's agreement to pay $2.1 million to end a class action alleging the retailer shorted sales managers in its roofing division on overtime pay and meal breaks, ruling the parties had resolved his prior concerns about notifying the class. At the March 1 hearing, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Elihu M. Berle noted that he had given his stamp of approval to the fundamental terms of the deal in February. HORTONWORKS INC: April 29 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline -------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP on Feb. 29 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Hortonworks, Inc. ("Hortonworks" or the "Company") and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Northern District of California, and docketed under 16-cv-00980, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased Hortonworks securities between November 4, 2015 and January 15, 2016 inclusive (the "Class Period"). This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). If you are a shareholder who purchased Hortonworks securities during the Class Period, you have until April 29, 2016 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. Hortonworks focuses on the development, distribution, and support of the Hadoop open source project in the United States and internationally. The Company offers Hortonworks Data Platform, an enterprise-grade data management platform that purportedly enables its customers to capture, store, process, and analyze increasing amounts of existing and new data types without the need to replace their existing data center infrastructure. The Company also provides Hortonworks Sandbox, a personal, portable, and free to use Hadoop environment purportedly designed to offer the easiest way to get started with Enterprise Grade Hadoop and the Hortonworks Data Platform. In addition, Hortonworks provides support subscription, and training and consulting services -- from which it derives substantially all of its revenues. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, cash position, prospects, and internal controls. Specifically, in November 2015, Defendants: (i) misrepresented that Hortonworks had sufficient cash and cash equivalents to fund 12 months of working capital and capital expenditure needs; (ii) failed to disclose that Hortonworks in actuality lacked adequate cash to meet those working capital and capital expenditure requirements over that period of time; (iii) failed to disclose that, as a result, Defendants were contemplating a significant offering to fund its operations; and (iv) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On January 15, 2016, post-market, Hortonworks announced it had retained Goldman Sachs to raise $100 million in a secondary offering. Analysts expressed surprise, with one stating, "We believe it will be incumbent on HDP during its roadshow to show why this offering, announced in this way, at this time, should not be interpreted as evidence of serious difficulty." On this news, Hortonworks's stock fell $6.13, or nearly 37%, to close at $10.44 on January 19, 2016, the next trading day. With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and Los Angeles, The Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 70 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. IRSA INVERSIONES: Pomerantz LLP Files Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against IRSA Inversiones y Representaciones S.A ("IRSA" or the "Company") (NYSE:IRS) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Central District of California, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased IRSA securities between November 3, 2014 and December 30, 2015 inclusive (the "Class Period"). This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). If you are a shareholder who purchased IRSA securities during the Class Period, you have until April 25, 2016 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby atrswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. IRSA is a real estate company that engages in a range of diversified real estates-related activities in Argentina. The Company is incorporated in the Republic of Argentina with principal executive offices located at Bol¡var 108 (C1066AAB) Buenos Aires, Argentina. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period Defendants issued false and misleading statements to investors and/or failed to disclose that: (1) IRSA's subsidiary, Netherlands B.V. ("Dolphin"), does not adequately qualify as a Venture Capital Organization, and therefore, IDB Development Corporation Limited's ("IDBD") $6.7 billion net debt should be consolidated with the Company's financial statements; (2) the impending consolidation of IDBD's debt would violate IRSA's Global Notes Indenture; (3) the terms of the February 10, 2015 related party transaction between Dolphin and Inversiones Financieras Del Sur S.A.; and (4) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On November 19, 2015, Spruce Point Capital Management published a report on IRSA asserting, among other things, that IRSA is keeping roughly $7 billion of net debt off the Company's books by not consolidating its controlling investment in Israel's IDB Development Corp., and that IRSA may therefore be in violation of its debt covenant under its existing $300 million Global Bond indenture that requires it to maintain an EBITDA/Interest coverage of 1.75x. In addition, the Spruce Point report alleged that certain of IRSA's related party transactions had not been fully disclosed. On this news, shares of IRSA fell $1.25, or 7.7%, to close at $15.06 on November 20, 2015. The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and Los Angeles, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com CONTACT: CONTACT: Robert S. Willoughby Pomerantz LLP rswilloughby@pomlaw.com JEFFERSON PARISH, LA: Red Light Camera Refund Checks Mailed ----------------------------------------------------------- Diana Samuels, writing for NOLA.com, reports that about 182,000 refund checks were sent on Feb. 26 to drivers who were ticketed under Jefferson Parish's now-discontinued red light camera program. "They're hitting mailboxes over the weekend, and for the next couple of days," said Steve Mauterer, one of the attorneys representing drivers in the class-action lawsuit. Anyone who received a red light camera ticket in Jefferson Parish between 2007 and 2010 was automatically included in the suit and will be sent a check, unless they opted out of the settlement. Those who received a ticket and paid it without contesting it in court receive a refund of $23.18. Those who challenged the ticket in court and lost, paying court fees along the way, get $38.93. The refunds are significantly less than the $110 that the tickets cost drivers. About 177,000 of the checks are going to those who simply paid the fine. Another 5,000 or so are going to people who challenged the tickets, Mr. Mauterer said. Anyone with questions about their checks may call 800.290.2151. The checks are being mailed by a dispersing agent, a specialty company that handles notices related to class action lawsuits. Parish officials and the lawyers involved in the case can't help with any questions about the checks. Jefferson collected $21 million from the camera tickets. The settlement judgment split the pot between: Redflex Traffic Systems, the contractor, which is getting $9 million The ticketed drivers and their attorneys, $7 million. Under the terms of the settlement, a large portion of the drivers' $7 million pot went to pay $2.3 million to the attorneys. Local government agencies, $5 million. This is divided among the parish government, the Sheriff's Office and 1st and 2nd Parish Courts. JPMORGAN CHASE: Shareholders Attempt to Revive Madoff Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Tom McParland, writing for Delaware Business Court Insider, reports that attorneys appealing the dismissal of a derivative suit against directors of JPMorgan Chase & Co. appeared on Feb. 24 before the Delaware Supreme Court to beat back assertions that they had improperly severed claims central to the case in the Court of Chancery. The City of Providence, an institutional investor, had sought to hold directors personally liable for about $2 billion in damages resulting from the company's failure to comply with federal anti- money laundering laws and regulations. The total damages claimed included a $1.7 billion forfeiture, made as a part of a deferred prosecution agreement, relating to the Bernard Madoff Ponzi scheme. Vice Chancellor Donald F. Parsons Jr. tossed the case in July, saying previous cases brought in the Southern District of New York barred the city's suit under New York's doctrine of res judicata. In opening briefs to the Delaware Supreme Court, Providence said it no longer sought to recoup the $1.7 billion or any other damages related to the Madoff affair. The city focused, instead, on an $88.3 million payment to settle potential civil liability claims for failing to adhere to U.S. economic sanctions. "This attempt at a post-dismissal amendment of the complaint, and argument to this court based on a limitation of claims that was not presented to the court below, is not permissible," attorneys for JPMorgan and its directors responded in their answering brief. Jeffrey P. Campisi -- jcampisi@kaplanfox.com -- of the New York firm Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer tried to differentiate his client's case from the prior derivative suit Central Laborers' Pension Fund v. Dimon, saying that the New York complaint brought claims primarily involving settlements relating to Madoff's Ponzi scheme. The Delaware derivative case, City of Providence v. Dimon, related only to breaches of fiduciary duties associated with money- laundering in violation of U.S. sanctions laws, he argued. But John F. Savarese -- JFSavarese@wlrk.com -- arguing on behalf of JPMorgan's director defendants, called the argument a "13th- hour effort" to "salvage the case on appeal," pointing out that the alternative was never briefed or argued in the Chancery Court. Mr. Savarese, of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz in New York, said Providence in the lower court associated the deferred prosecution agreement with the economic sanctions violations and other orders from federal regulators. The case amounted to the same Caremark claim made in the Central Laborers' case because both addressed the same transactions, and Parsons was correct to dismiss the case under New York's doctrine of res judicata, he said. JPMORGAN CHASE: May 10 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ------------------------------------------------------ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK IN RE JPMORGAN CHASE & CO. SECURITIES LITIGATION Master File No. 1:12-cv-03852-GBD SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION, CLASS CERTIFICATION, AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES TO: All persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of JPMorgan Chase & Co. ("JPMorgan") during the period from April 13, 2012 through May 21, 2012, inclusive (the "Class Period"), and who were damaged thereby (the "Class"): PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT, AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE $150,000,000 SETTLEMENT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, that the parties in the above-captioned litigation (the "Action") have reached a proposed settlement for $150,000,000 in cash (the "Settlement"), that, if approved, will resolve all claims in the Action. YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that the Action has been certified as a class action on behalf of the Class. Certain persons and entities are, however, excluded from the Class by definition as set forth in the full printed Notice of (I) Pendency of Class Action, Class Certification, and Proposed Settlement; (II) Settlement Hearing; and (III) Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses (the "Notice"), which more completely describes the Settlement and your rights thereunder. If you have not yet received the Notice and Claim Form, you may obtain copies of these documents by contacting the Claims Administrator at In re JPMorgan Chase & Co. Securities Litigation, c/o KCC Class Action Services, P.O. Box 30204, College Station, TX 77842-3204, 1-877- 368-8161. Copies of the Notice and Claim Form can also be downloaded from www.jpmorgansecuritieslitigation.com A hearing will be held on May 10, 2016 at 11:15 a.m., before the Honorable George B. Daniels at the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, Courtroom 11A, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007, to determine: (i) whether the proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against Defendants, and the Releases specified and described in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated December 18, 2015 (and in the Notice) should be granted; (iii) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved as fair and reasonable; and (iv) whether Co-Lead Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses should be approved. If you are a member of the Class, in order to be eligible to receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you must submit a Claim Form postmarked no later than June 13, 2016. If you are a Class Member and do not submit a proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement, but you will nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action. If you are a member of the Class and wish to exclude yourself from the Class, you must submit a request for exclusion such that it is received no later than April 19, 2016, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. If you properly exclude yourself from the Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action and you will not be eligible to share in the proceeds of the Settlement. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, or Co-Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses, must be filed with the Court and delivered to Co-Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that they are received no later than April 19, 2016, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, JPMorgan, or its counsel regarding this notice. All questions about this notice, the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be directed to Co-Lead Counsel or the Claims Administrator. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP Salvatore J. Graziano, Esq. 1251 Avenue of the Americas, 44th Floor New York, NY 10020 (800) 380-8496 blbg@blbglaw.com GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A. Daniel L. Berger, Esq. 485 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 (646) 722-8505 dberger@gelaw.com KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP Andrew L. Zivitz, Esq. 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 (610) 667-7706 info@ktmc.com Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to: In re JPMorgan Chase & Co. Securities Litigation c/o KCC Class Action Services P.O. Box 30204 College Station, TX 77842-3204 1-877-368-8161 www.jpmorgansecuritieslitigation.com By Order of the Court KRAFT HEINZ: Faces Another Class Action Over Parmesan Cheese ------------------------------------------------------------ Dana Herra, writing for Cook County Record, reports that class action lawsuits against Kraft Heinz and Walmart have begun to accumulate in the aftermath of a February news investigation turned up evidence of wood-based fillers in the companies' grated Parmesan cheese products. On Feb. 26, in a case docketed in Chicago federal court as No. 16-cv-02626, plaintiff Yvonne Averhart brought the first action locally against Chicago-based Kraft Heinz over the controversy, saying she paid a premium price for Kraft grated Parmesan cheese on multiple occasions, including as recently as January, because the product's label says "100 percent Parmesan." But on Feb. 16, Bloomberg News published an article discussing common ways cheese manufacturers allegedly doctor grated hard Italian cheeses to offset their expense. The article said the news agency sent samples of several brands of Parmesan cheese to "an independent laboratory" for testing. According to the story and the lawsuit, tests indicated the Kraft cheese contained 3.9 percent cellulose, a common food additive derived from ground wood chips. Ms. Averhart's complaint was joined Feb. 29 in Chicago federal court by a similar class action complaint, docketed as 16-cv- 02687, filed by plaintiffs Janine Hechmer and Elizabeth Bidgood, both of Florida, who also included Walmart with Kraft in their complaint. Their lawsuit noted the Bloomberg article indicated the Walmart store brand Parmesan contained as much as 7.8 percent cellulose. The FDA has approved the use of cellulose as a filler, in quantities up to 4 percent. The lawsuits conceded Kraft's product may contain a legal amount of cellulose, but argued the company misleads consumers by advertising the product as pure Parmesan cheese. "Defendant has consistently marketed the product as consisting of a single ingredient: 100% Parmesan cheese," Ms. Averhart's lawsuit said. "However, the product is not 100% Parmesan cheese. Rather, a significant percentage of the product consists of filler material that not only isn't Parmesan cheese, but isn't cheese at all." The plaintiffs said they bought the product and paid the premium price for the brand because they believed it was a higher quality product than other cheeses on the shelf that were not labeled 100 percent Parmesan. The Chicago lawsuits closely followed the filing of similar lawsuits against Kraft Heinz and Walmart in New York, California, Missouri, southern Illinois, Minnesota and Florida. The lawsuits have estimated a potential class of additional plaintiffs who similar purchased the Parmesan cheese products in the last five years likely numbers in the thousands and could seek millions of dollars in damages. The lawsuits all alleged Kraft Heinz and Walmart violated state consumer fraud law, were willfully negligent, were unjustly enriched and breached implied warranties with consumers, among other claims. The Illinois fraud and deceptive practices charges argued Kraft and Walmart deliberately misled consumers by marketing the product as 100 percent cheese, even going so far as to include the claim on the packaging. The breach of warranty charges claimed the description on the product packaging amounts to a binding agreement between the manufacturer and the consumer, and if that description is untrue, the manufacturer has broken that contract. The unjust enrichment charges claimed that, by using cellulose as a filler while advertising the product as pure cheese, Kraft reduced its manufacturing cost while convincing consumers to pay a premium price for a lower quality product. This combination of cost savings and increased profits resulted in "ill-gotten revenue." Ms. Averhart is being represented by attorneys James P. Batson and Christopher V. Langone, each of Chicago. Attorneys with the firms of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, with offices in Chicago and New York, and Levi & Korsinsky, of New York, filed the action on behalf of Hechmer and Bidgood. MASIMO CORP: Appeals Court Reinstates $5.3MM Arbitration Award -------------------------------------------------------------- Ross Todd, writing for The Recorder, reports that a federal appeals court on Feb. 22 reinstated a $5.3 million employment arbitration award against medical-device maker Masimo Corp. in a case where the company made an issue of the arbitrator's family ties to Cooley chairman Stephen Neal. Masimo's appellate team at Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear had claimed JAMS neutral Richard Neal, a former justice on the Second District Court of Appeal, was biased because his brother had lost two big-ticket cases against the company. The argument persuaded U.S. District Judge Cormac Carney of the Central District of California to toss the arbitration award in 2014, finding that Richard Neal was partial to two former Masimo employees suing the company and had imposed excessive punitive damages. (Richard Neal died on Jan. 1, 2015, while the appeal was pending.) In an unpublished decision issued on Feb. 22, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit said that Masimo had failed to demonstrate partiality and the arbitration award should stand. Kathryn Dickson of Oakland's Dickson Geesman, who argued for the plaintiffs at the Ninth Circuit, said that she was "thrilled" with the decision. "This is one of the big problems with arbitration," she said. "If a plaintiff wins big, the employers and companies will stop at nothing to drag it out." She added: "The thing that I am most pleased by is that the Ninth Circuit has recognized that the bias challenge was baseless. There was never a more respected, fairer arbitrator" than Justice Neal. Ms. Dickson's clients, former Masimo sales representatives Michael Ruhe and Vicente Catala, sued the company in federal court in 2011 claiming that Masimo had created intolerable working conditions by forcing them to sell blood-testing devices that didn't work as promised. The company forced the suit into arbitration, then chose Neal from the plaintiffs' slate of potential arbitrators. The company's lawyers at Paul Hastings and Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo asked Neal to recuse himself just three days before scheduled closing arguments in 2014. They claimed Neal, who had issued an interim ruling siding with the plaintiffs, was biased because his brother Stephen had represented a Masimo competitor in a pair of trials in 2004 and 2005 in which Masimo was awarded $164 million and $420 million. respectively. Neal stated that he had no prior knowledge of his brother's cases and refused to step aside. He later handed down an award that included $5 million in punitive damages. Overturning the award in March 2014, Jduge Carney criticized Neal's decision to handle the recusal request himself rather than referring it to JAMS as required under the arbitration house's rules. "The arbitrator's decision to decide Masimo's challenge himself, without even making additional disclosures or providing facts on the record to refute the alleged conflict, undermined the fairness of the proceeding and demonstrated his partiality," Judge Carney wrote. But the Ninth Circuit panel -- which included Circuit Judges Harry Pregerson and Kim Wardlaw -- found that Masimo hadn't established specific facts showing that Neal was biased. Circuit Judge Andrew Hurwitz wrote in concurrence that he was "troubled" by the case but had to side with his colleagues because of the extraordinary deference given to arbitrator's decisions. "In general, an arbitrator should not himself determine whether he should be recused, given his financial interest in continued employment," Judge Hurwitz wrote. However, he noted the recusal request came "very late in an extended arbitration" and that Neal had already earned virtually all of his fees. Though the punitive damages award of 16 times the amount of compensatory damages raised "obvious due process concerns," Judge Hurwitz wrote, it did not meet the very high bar for overturning an arbitration award. Knobbe Martens partner Joseph Re, who argued for Masimo at the Ninth Circuit, wrote in an email that the company was "disappointed" with the decision. Mr. Re didn't say whether or not the company plans to seek further review. The same panel, Mr. Re pointed out, upheld a lower court decision dismissing a related qui tam case against Masimo, which claimed that the company had misled customers and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration about its products. "Unfortunately, although the panel found that the arbitrator committed error, and one of the panel noted that the arbitration award 'raises obvious due process concerns,' the panel found that the error did not rise to the level of affirmative misconduct that would justify setting aside the arbitration award," Mr. Re said. MATCH GROUP: April 26 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set -------------------------------------------------------------- Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, the former Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that they have until April 26, 2016 to file lead plaintiff applications in a securities class action lawsuit against Match Group, Inc., if they purchased the Company's securities pursuant or traceable to the company's initial public offering ("IPO") on November 18, 2015. This action is pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. What You May Do If you purchased shares of Match Group and would like to discuss your legal rights and how this case might affect you and your right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, call toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or email KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn -- lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you must petition the Court by April 26, 2016. About the Lawsuit Match Group and certain of its executives are charged with failing to disclose material information in connection with the IPO, violating federal securities laws. On February 2, 2016, less than three months after its IPO, Match Group reported its fourth quarter 2015 and full year 2015 results, revealing that it experienced a decline in total user growth and per-user revenue, and the cannibalization of users and revenues across competing platforms. Match Group also disclosed that its net income had fallen 25% year over year to $35.6 million and dropped 44% on a per-share basis, and that there had been a decline in revenue in its Princeton Review segment. On this news, the price of Match Group's stock plummeted. About Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC KSF -- http://www.ksfcounsel.com-- whose partners include the Former Louisiana Attorney General Charles C. Foti, Jr. -- is a law firm focused on securities, antitrust and consumer class actions, along with merger & acquisition and breach of fiduciary litigation against publicly traded companies on behalf of shareholders. The firm has offices in New York, California and Louisiana. MDL 2672: 55 Class Suits v. Volkswagen et al. Transferred --------------------------------------------------------- Fifty-five class action lawsuits against Volkswagen Group of America Inc., et al., have been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. The transfers are pursuant to the Transfer Order entered in In re: Volkswagen "Clean Diesel" Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2672, on Dec. 8, 2015. The Hon. Charles R. Breyer oversees In re: Volkswagen "Clean Diesel" MDL, Case No. 15-MD-2672-CRB (JSC) (N.D. Calif.), and at http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/crb/vwmdlthe Court Clerk is making additional information about this proceeding available to practitioners and the public. Cases Transferred to MDL No. 2672 --------------------------------- Behncke, et al. v. Volkswagen Group of America Inc. Docket No. 3:15-cv-06293 (N.D. Cal., December 30, 2015) Case in other court: New Jersey, 2:15-cv-07176 Plaintiffs' Counsel: Stephen Lawrence Dreyfuss, Esq. HELLRING LINDEMAN GOLDSTEIN SIEGAL LLP One Gateway Center Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 621-9020 E-mail: sldreyfuss@hlgslaw.com Counsel to Volkswagen Group of America Inc.: Jeffrey L. Chase, Esq. HERZFELD AND RUBIN 125 Broad Street New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 471-8500 Facsimile: (212) 344-3333 E-mail: jchase@herzfeld-rubin.com - and - Michael R. McDonald, Esq. Jennifer Marino Thibodaux, Esq. Thomas R. Valen, Esq. GIBBONS PC One Gateway Center Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 596-4500 Facsimile: (973) 596-0545 E-mail: mmcdonald@gibbonslaw.com jmarino@gibbonslaw.com tvalen@gibbonslaw.com - and - Natalie Marie Lefkowitz, Esq. CHASE KURSHAN HERZFELD & RUBIN LLC 354 Eisenhower Pkway., Suite 1100 Livingston, NJ 07039 Telephone: (973) 535-8840 Facsimile: (973) 535-8841 E-mail: nlefkowitz@herzfeld-rubin.com Underwood v. Volkswagen Group of America Inc. Docket No. 3:15-cv-06294 (N.D. Cal., December 30, 2015) Case in other court: New Jersey, 2:15-cv-07178 Plaintiff's Counsel: Dianne M. Nast, Esq. NASTLAW LLC 1101 Market Street, Suite 2801 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Telephone: (215) 923-9300 Facsimile: (215) 923-9302 E-mail: dnast@nastlaw.com Husserl v. Volkswagen Group of America Inc. Docket No. 3:15-cv-06297 (N.D. Cal., December 30, 2015) Case in other court: New Jersey, 2:15-cv-07184 Plaintiff's Counsel: James E. Cecchi, Esq. CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 994-1700 Facsimile: (973) 994-1744 E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com Wolf v. Volkswagen Group of America Inc. Docket No. 3:15-cv-06288 (N.D. Cal., December 30, 2015) Case in other court: New Jersey, 2:15-cv-07899 Plaintiff's Counsel: Bruce Daniel Greenberg, Esq. LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG LLC Two Gateway Center, 12th Floor Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 623-3000 Facsimile: (973) 623-0858 E-mail: bgreenberg@litedepalma.com Cua, et al. v. Volkswagen Group of America Inc. Docket No. 3:15-cv-06298 (N.D. Cal., December 30, 2015) Case in other court: New Jersey, 2:15-cv-07195 Plaintiffs' Counsel: Alexander H. Schmidt, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 270 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 545-4600 Facsimile: (212) 545-4677 E-mail: schmidt@whafh.com Minkina, et al. v. Volkswagen Group of America Inc. Docket No. 3:15-cv-06170 (N.D. Cal., December 30, 2015) Case in other court: New Jersey, 2:15-cv-07020 Plaintiffs' Counsel: Alexander H. Schmidt, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 270 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 545-4600 Facsimile: (212) 545-4677 E-mail: schmidt@whafh.com Counsel to Volkswagen Group of America Inc.: Jeffrey L. Chase, Esq. HERZFELD AND RUBIN 125 Broad Street New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 471-8500 Facsimile: (212) 344-3333 E-mail: jchase@herzfeld-rubin.com - and - Michael R. McDonald, Esq. Jennifer Marino Thibodaux, Esq. Thomas R. Valen, Esq. GIBBONS PC One Gateway Center Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 596-4500 Facsimile: (973) 596-0545 E-mail: mmcdonald@gibbonslaw.com jmarino@gibbonslaw.com tvalen@gibbonslaw.com - and - Natalie Marie Lefkowitz, Esq. CHASE KURSHAN HERZFELD & RUBIN LLC 354 Eisenhower Pkway., Suite 1100 Livingston, NJ 07039 Telephone: (973) 535-8840 Facsimile: (973) 535-8841 E-mail: nlefkowitz@herzfeld-rubin.com Allen, et al. v. Volkswagen Group of America Inc., et al. Docket No. 3:15-cv-06310 (N.D. Cal., December 30, 2015) Case in other court: New Jersey, 2:15-cv-07284 Plaintiffs' Counsel: Daniel O. Rose, Esq. KREINDLER AND KREINDLER LLP 750 Third Avenue, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 973-3433 Facsimile: (212) 973-9432 E-mail: drose@kreindler.com - and - Noah H. Kushlefsky, Esq. KREINDLER & KREINDLER LLP 100 Park Avenue New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 687-8181 Facsimile: (212) 972-9432 E-mail: NKushlefsky@kreindler.com Barger v. Volkswagen Group of America Inc. Docket No. 3:15-cv-06292 (N.D. Cal., December 30, 2015) Case in other court: New Jersey, 2:15-cv-07175 Plaintiff's Counsel: James E. Cecchi, Esq. CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 994-1700 Facsimile: (973) 994-1744 E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com McKenna, et al. v. Volkswagen Group of America Inc. Docket No. 3:15-cv-06304 (N.D. Cal., December 30, 2015) Case in other court: New Jersey, 2:15-cv-07236 Plaintiffs' Counsel: James E. Cecchi, Esq. CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 994-1700 Facsimile: (973) 994-1744 E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com Springfield v. Volkswagen Group of America Inc. Docket No. 3:15-cv-06300 (N.D. Cal., December 31, 2015) Case in other court: New Jersey, 2:15-cv-07219 Plaintiffs' Counsel: James E. Cecchi, Esq. CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 994-1700 Facsimile: (973) 994-1744 E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com Solnick, et al. v. Volkswagen Group of America Inc. Docket No. 3:16-cv-00009 (N.D. Cal., January 4, 2016) Case in other court: New Jersey, 2:15-cv-07292 Plaintiffs' Counsel: James E. Cecchi, Esq. CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 994-1700 Facsimile: (973) 994-1744 E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com Jeanice v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. Docket No. 3:16-cv-00016 (N.D. Cal., January 4, 2016) Case in other court: Louisiana Eastern, 2:15-cv-04784 Plaintiff's Counsel: Scott R. Bickford, Esq. Jason Zachary Landry, Esq. Lawrence J. Centola, III, Esq. Neil Franz Nazareth, Esq. MARTZELL & BICKFORD 338 Lafayette St. New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 581-9065 Facsimile: (504) 581-7635 E-mail: jzl@mbfirm.com lcentola@mbfirm.com nnazareth@mbfirm.com Counsel to Volkswagen Group of America Inc.: Joy Goldberg Braun, Esq. April L. Watson, Esq. SESSIONS, FISHMAN, NATHAN & ISRAEL 201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 3815 New Orleans, LA 70170 Telephone: (504) 582-1500 Facsimile: (504) 582-1555 E-mail: jgb@sessions-law.com alw@sessions-law.com Niegelsen v. Volkswagen AG, et al. Docket No. 3:16-cv-00028 (N.D. Cal., January 4, 2016) Case in other court: Michigan Eastern, 2:15-cv-13714 Plaintiff's Counsel: E. Powell Miller, Esq. Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq. THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C. 950 W. University Dr., Suite 300 Rochester, MI 48307 Telephone: (248) 841-2200 Facsimile: (248) 652-2852 E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com ssa@millerlawpc.com - and - Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq. Joshua J. Rissman, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC Canadian Pacific Plaza 120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 333-8844 Facsimile: (612) 339-6622 E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com jrissman@gustafsongluek.com Ligeti, et al. v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. Docket No. 3:15-cv-06205 (N.D. Cal., January 5, 2016) Case in other court: Virginia Eastern, 1:15-cv-01598 Plaintiffs' Counsel: Stephen Earl Baril, Esq. Kaplan Voekler Cunningham & Frank PLC 1401 East Cary Street Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 823-4003 Facsimile: (804) 823-4099 E-mail: sbaril@kv-legal.com Cunningham v. Volkswagen Group of America Inc. Docket No. 3:15-cv-06176 (N.D. Cal., January 5, 2016) Case in other court: New Jersey, 2:15-cv-07079 Plaintiff's Counsel: James E. Cecchi, Esq. CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 994-1700 Facsimile: (973) 994-1744 E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com The George Leon Family Trust v. Volkswagen AG, et al. Docket No. 3:15-cv-06166 (N.D. Cal., January 5, 2016) Case in other court: New Jersey, 2:15-cv-07283 Plaintiff's Counsel: Mark Hanna, Esq. MURPHY ANDERSON PLLC 1701 K Street NW, Suite 210 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 223-2620 Facsimile: (202) 223-9600 E-mail: mhanna@murphypllc.com - and - Joseph E. White, III, Esq. Lester R. Hooker, Esq. SAXENA WHITE P.A. 5200 Town Center Circle, Suite 601 Boca Raton, FL 33486 Telephone: (561) 394-3399 Facsimile: (561) 394-3382 E-mail: jwhite@saxenawhite.com lhooker@saxenawhite.com - and - Katharine M. Ryan, Esq. Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. RYAN & MANISKAS, LLP 995 Old Eagle School Road, Suite 311 Wayne, PA 19087 Telephone: (484) 588-5516 Facsimile: (484) 450-2582 E-mail: kryan@rmclasslaw.com rmaniskas@rmclasslaw.com Counsel to Volkswagen Group of America Inc.: Michael R. McDonald, Esq. Thomas R. Valen, Esq. Samuel Isaac Portnoy, Esq. GIBBONS PC One Gateway Center Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 596-4500 Facsimile: (973) 596-0545 E-mail: mmcdonald@gibbonslaw.com tvalen@gibbonslaw.com sportnoy@gibbonslaw.com Counsel to Movant Arkansas State Highway Employees Retirement System: James E. Cecchi, Esq. CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 994-1700 Facsimile: (973) 994-1744 E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com Ivanoski v. Volkswagen Group of America Inc., et al. Docket No. 3:15-cv-06165 (N.D. Cal., January 5, 2016) Case in other court: Oklahoma Western, 5:15-cv-01063 Plaintiff's Counsel: Carin L. Marcussen, Esq. MARUCUSSEN LAW FIRM PLLC P.O. Box 714 Shawnee, OK 47802-0714 Telephone: (405) 245-0111 E-mail: clm@federmanlaw.com - and - William B. Federman, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 N. Pennsylvania Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Telephone: (405) 235-1560 Facsimile: (405) 239-2112 E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com Counsel to Volkswagen Group of America Inc. and Volkswagen A.G.: Colin H. Tucker, Esq. John H. Tucker, Esq. RHODES HIERONYMUS JONES TUCKER & GABLE PO Box 21100 Tulsa, OK 74121-1100 Telephone: (918) 582-1173 Facsimile: (918) 592-3390 E-mail: chtuckercourts@rhodesokla.com jtuckercourts@rhodesokla.com Brown Daub Chevrolet of Nazareth, Inc. v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al. Docket No. 3:15-cv-06245 (N.D. Cal., January 5, 2016) Case in other court: Pennsylvania Eastern, 5:15-cv-06045 Plaintiff's Counsel: John K. Weston, Esq. Jeremy E. Abay, Esq. SACKS WESTON DIAMOND LLC 1845 Walnut Street, Suite 1600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 925-8200 Facsimile: (267) 639-5422 E-mail: jweston@sackslaw.com jabay@sackslaw.com Counsel to Volkswagen Group of America Inc.: Patricia Rodriguez Britton, Esq. NELSON MULLINS RILEY SCARBOROUGH LLP 201 17th Street NW, Suite 1700 Atlanta, GA 30363 Telephone: (404) 322-6112 E-mail: patricia.britton@nelsonmullins.com Fugate, et al. v. Volkswagen Group of America Inc., et al. Docket No. 3:15-cv-06186 (N.D. Cal., January 5, 2016) Case in other court: Pennsylvania Eastern, 2:15-cv-05440 Plaintiffs' Counsel: John A. Corr, Esq. STARK & STARK PC 777 Township Line Road, Suite 120 Yardley, PA 19067-5559 Telephone: (267) 759-9683 Facsimile: (267) 907-9659 E-mail: jcorr@stark-stark.com Counsel to Volkswagen Group of America Inc.: Jo E. Peifer, Esq. Gerard Cedrone, Esq. LAVIN, O'NEIL, RICCI, CEDRONE & DISIPIO 190 N. Independence Mall West, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 627-0303 Facsimile: (215) 627-2551 E-mail: jpeifer@lavin-law.com gcedrone@lavin-law.com Feeney v. Volkswagen Group of America Inc. Docket No. 3:15-cv-06185 (N.D. Cal., January 5, 2016) Case in other court: Pennsylvania Eastern, 2:15-cv-05738 Plaintiff's Counsel: Brian D. Ketterer, Esq. JANET JENNER & SUGGS LLC 1777 Reisterstown Road, Suite 165 Baltimore, MD 21208 Telephone: (410) 653-3200 E-mail: bketterer@myadvocates.com Counsel to Volkswagen Group of America Inc.: Gerard Cedrone, Esq. LAVIN, O'NEIL, RICCI, CEDRONE & DISIPIO 190 N. Independence Mall West, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 627-0303 Facsimile: (215) 627-2551 E-mail: gcedrone@lavin-law.com Judy v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. Docket No. 3:15-cv-06195 (N.D. Cal., January 5, 2016) Case in other court: West Virginia Northern, 2:15-cv-00074 Plaintiff's Counsel: Carrie Goodwin Fenwick, Esq. Richard D. Owen, Esq. Johnny M. Knisely, II, Esq. GOODWIN & GOODWIN LLP P.O. Box 2107 Charleston, WV 25328-2107 Telephone: (304) 346-7000 Facsimile: (304) 344-9692 E-mail: cgf@goodwingoodwin.com rdo@goodwingoodwin.com jmk@goodwingoodwin.com Counsel to Volkswagen Group of America Inc.: Meghan Mitchell Cloud, Esq. MCGUIRE WOODS P. O. Box 1288 Charlottesville, VA 22902 Telephone: (434) 977-2534 Facsimile: (434) 980-2254 E-mail: mcloud@mcguirewoods.com Klahn v. Volkswagen Group of America Inc. Docket No. 3:15-cv-06295 (N.D. Cal., January 5, 2016) Case in other court: New Jersey, 2:15-cv-07179 Plaintiff's Counsel: Dianne M. Nast, Esq. NASTLAW LLC 1101 Market Street, Suite 2801 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Telephone: (215) 923-9300 Facsimile: (215) 923-9302 E-mail: dnast@nastlaw.com Hayashi v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al. Docket No. 3:15-cv-06175 (N.D. Cal., January 5, 2016) Case in other court: New Jersey, 2:15-cv-07060 Plaintiff's Counsel: Hunter J. Shkolnik, Esq. NAPOLI BERN RIPKA SHKOLNIK & ASSOCIATES, LLP 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7413 New York, NY 10118 Telephone: (212) 267-3700 E-mail: hunter@napolilaw.com Klinkov v. Volkswagen Group of America Inc. Docket No. 3:15-cv-06266 (N.D. Cal., January 5, 2016) Case in other court: New Jersey, 2:15-cv-07352 Plaintiff's Counsel: James E. Cecchi, Esq. CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 994-1700 Facsimile: (973) 994-1744 E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com Gibbons v. Volkswagen Group of America Inc. Docket No. 3:15-cv-06265 (N.D. Cal., January 5, 2016) Case in other court: New Jersey, 2:15-cv-07336 Plaintiff's Counsel: James E. Cecchi, Esq. CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 994-1700 Facsimile: (973) 994-1744 E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com Akyaz v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. Docket No. 3:15-cv-06156 (N.D. Cal., January 5, 2016) Case in other court: Florida Southern, 0:15-cv-62356 Plaintiff's Counsel: Michael Thomas Fraser, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD W. RUBINSTEIN, P.A. One Embarcadero Center, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (800) 436-6437 Facsimile: (415) 692-6607 E-mail: mfraser@thefraserlawfirm.net - and - Joseph M. Pustizzi, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH PUSTIZZI, PA 3440 Hollywood Boulevard Hollywood, FL 33021 Telephone: (954) 241-4244 E-mail: joseph@pustizzilaw.com Counsel to Volkswagen Group of America Inc.: Larry Martin Roth, Esq. RUMBERGER, KIRK & CALDWELL, PA 300 S Orange Ave., Suite 1400 P.O. Box 1873 Orlando, FL Telephone: (407) 841-2133 Facsimile: (407) 841-2133 E-mail: lroth@rumberger.com Brad Barber v. Volkswagen Group of America Inc., et al. Docket No. 3:15-cv-06256 (N.D. Cal., January 5, 2016) Case in other court: California Central, 8:15-cv-01942 Plaintiff's Counsel: Julie R. Trotter, Esq. Scott R. Hatch, Esq. Matthew R. Orr, Esq. CALL AND JENSEN APC 610 Newport Center Drive, Suite 700 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 717-3000 Facsimile: (949) 717-3100 E-mail: jtrotter@calljensen.com shatch@calljensen.com moor@calljensen.com Verez v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. Docket No. 3:15-cv-06255 (N.D. Cal., January 5, 2016) Case in other court: New Jersey, 2:15-cv-07123 Plaintiff's Counsel: James E. Cecchi, Esq. CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 994-1700 Facsimile: (973) 994-1744 E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com Sprague v. Volkswagen Group of America Inc. Docket No. 3:15-cv-06305 (N.D. Cal., January 5, 2016) Case in other court: New Jersey, 2:15-cv-07237 Plaintiff's Counsel: James E. Cecchi, Esq. CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 994-1700 Facsimile: (973) 994-1744 E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com Moreau v. Volkswagen Group of America Inc., et al. Docket No. 3:15-cv-06285 (N.D. Cal., January 5, 2016) Case in other court: New Jersey, 2:15-cv-07758 Plaintiff's Counsel: Jeremy Edward Abay, Esq. SACKS WESTON DIAMOND LLC 1845 Walnut Street, Suite 1600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 928-8200 E-mail: jabay@sackslaw.com Kelley, et al. v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al. Docket No. 3:15-cv-06246 (N.D. Cal., January 5, 2016) Case in other court: Tennessee Eastern, 1:15-cv-00271 Plaintiffs' Counsel: Van Bunch, Esq. BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C. 2325 E. Camelback Road, Suite 300 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Telephone: (602) 274-1100 Facsimile: (602) 274-1199 E-mail: vbunch@bffb.com Counsel to Volkswagen Group of America Inc.: John Randolph Bibb, Jr., Esq. Ryan Nelson Clark, Esq. LEWIS, THOMASON, KING, KRIEG & WALDROP, P.C. 424 Church Street, Suite 2500 Nashville, TN 37219 Telephone: (615) 259-1366 Facsimile: (615) 259-1389 E-mail: rbibb@lewisthomason.com rclark@lewisthomason.com Dennis Burden, et al. v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al. Docket No. 3:16-cv-00062 (N.D. Cal., January 5, 2016) Case in other court: California Central, 2:15-cv-09125 Plaintiffs' Counsel: John B. Quinn, Esq. Shon Morgan, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 865 S Figueroa St., Floor 10 Los Angeles, CA 90017-2543 Telephone: (213) 443-3000 Facsimile: (213) 443-3100 E-mail: johnquinn@quinnemanuel.com shonmorgan@quinnemanuel.com - and - Thomas E. Loeser, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 E-mail: toml@hbsslaw.com Truong, et al. v. Volkswagen Group of America Inc., et al. Docket No. 3:15-cv-06276 (N.D. Cal., January 6, 2016) Case in other court: New Jersey, 2:15-cv-07577 Plaintiffs' Counsel: John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq. KEEFE BARTELS 170 Monmouth St. Red Bank, NJ 07701 Telephone: (732) 224-9400 Facsimile: (732) 224-9494 E-mail: jkeefe@keefebartels.com Clarke, et al. v. Volkswagen Group of America Inc. Docket No. 3:15-cv-06275 (N.D. Cal., January 6, 2016) Case in other court: New Jersey, 2:15-cv-07549 Plaintiffs' Counsel: James E. Cecchi, Esq. CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 994-1700 Facsimile: (973) 994-1744 E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com Spiker v. Volkswagen Group of America Inc. Docket No. 3:15-cv-06306 (N.D. Cal., January 6, 2016) Case in other court: New Jersey, 2:15-cv-07241 Plaintiff's Counsel: James E. Cecchi, Esq. CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 994-1700 Facsimile: (973) 994-1744 E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com Manuel-Adams, et al. v. Volkswagen Group of America Inc. Docket No. 3:15-cv-06296 (N.D. Cal., January 6, 2016) Case in other court: New Jersey, 2:15-cv-07183 Plaintiffs' Counsel: James E. Cecchi, Esq. CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 994-1700 Facsimile: (973) 994-1744 E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com Halper v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. Docket No. 3:16-cv-00010 (N.D. Cal., January 7, 2016) Case in other court: New Jersey, 2:15-cv-07293 Plaintiff's Counsel: James E. Cecchi, Esq. CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 994-1700 Facsimile: (973) 994-1744 E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com Stone, et al. v. VW Credit Inc., et al. Docket No. 3:16-cv-00096 (N.D. Cal., January 7, 2016) Case in other court: Ohio Southern, 1:15-cv-00686 Plaintiffs' Counsel: Jeffrey Phillip Harris, Esq. Sylvie Derrien, Esq. Alan J. Statman, Esq. STATMAN, HARRIS & EYRICH, LLC 3700 Carew Tower 441 Vine Street Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 621-2666 Facsimile: (513) 621-4896 E-mail: jharris@statmanharris.com sderrien@statmanharris.com ajstatman@statmanharris.com Counsel to Volkswagen Group of America Inc., Volkswagen A.G. and VW Credit Inc., doing business as: Volkswagen Credit and Audi Financial Services and Ducati Financial Services: Hugh J. Bode, Esq. REMINGER & REMINGER CO. LPA 1400 Midland Building 101 Prospect Avenue West Cleveland, OH 44115 Telephone: (216) 687-1311 E-mail: hbode@reminger.com Yeoman, et al. v. Volkswagen Group of America, et al. Docket No. 3:16-cv-00092 (N.D. Cal., January 7, 2016) Case in other court: Utah, 2:15-cv-00692 Plaintiffs' Counsel: Mark S. Schwarz, Esq. PINPOINT LAW PLLC 75 E 400 S, Suite 201 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Telephone: (801) 413-3442 E-mail: mark@pinpointlaw.com Bourn, et al. v. Volkswagen AG, et al. Docket No. 3:16-cv-00090 (N.D. Cal., January 7, 2016) Case in other court: Virginia Eastern, 1:15-cv-01295 Plaintiffs' Counsel: Bernard J. DiMuro, Esq. Harvey B. Cohen, Esq. DIMUROGINSBERG, P.C. 1101 King Street, Suite 610 Alexandria, VA 23314 Telephone: (703) 684-4333 Facsimile: (703) 548-3181 E-mail: bdimuro@dimuro.com hcohen@dimuro.com - and - Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq. Walter D. Kelley, Jr., Esq. James Pizzirusso, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 1700 K Street NW, Suite 650 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 540-7200 Facsimile: (202) 540-7201 E-mail: mhausfeld@hausfeld.com wkelley@.hausfeld.com jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com - and - Michael P. Lehmann, Esq. Bonny E. Sweeney, Esq. Christopher L. Lebsock, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3200 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 633-1908 Facsimile: (415) 217-6813 E-mail: mlehmann@hausfeldllp.com bsweeney@hausfeldllp.com clebsock@hausfeldllp.com - and - Lesley E. Weaver, Esq. Whitney E. Street, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 520 Third Street, Suite 108 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (415) 968-8999 Cellphone: (415) 797-2617 E-mail: lweaver@blockesq.com wstreet@blockesq.com Counsel to Volkswagen Group of America Inc.: Howard Feller, Esq. MCGUIRE WOODS BATTLE & BOTHE LLP One James Center 901 East Gary St. Richmond, VA 23219-4030 Telephone: (804) 775-4393 Facsimile: (804) 698-2051 E-mail: hfeller@mcguirewoods.com - and - Casey Erin Lucier, Esq. Seth Abram Schaeffer, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS LLP Gateway Plaza 800 East Canal Street Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 775-1000 Facsimile: (804) 775-1061 E-mail: clucier@mcguirewoods.com sschaeffer@mcguirewoods.com Miguel C. Fernandez, et al. v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. Docket No. 3:16-cv-00088 (N.D. Cal., January 7, 2016) Case in other court: California Central, 2:15-cv-08699 Plaintiffs' Counsel: Brian Samuel Clayton Conlon, Esq. Nicholas A. Carlin, Esq. PHILLIPS, ERLEWINE, GIVEN & CARLIN LLP 39 Mesa Street, Suite 201 The Presidio San Francisco, CA 94129 Telephone: (415) 398-0900 Facsimile: (415) 398-0911 E-mail: bsc@phillaw.com nac@phillaw.com Plemmons v. Volkswagen AG, et al. Docket No. 3:16-cv-00094 (N.D. Cal., January 7, 2016) Case in other court: Tennessee Eastern, 1:15-cv-00275 Plaintiff's Counsel: David M. Wilkerson, Esq. Larry S. McDevitt, Esq. THE VAN WINKLE LAW FIRM 11 North Market Street Asheville, NC 28801 Telephone: (828) 258-2991 E-mail: dwilkerson@vwlawfirm.com lmcdevitt@vwlawfirm.com - and - Joseph R. White, Esq. Scott N. Brown, Jr., Esq. Joseph Alan Jackson, II, Esq. SPEARS, MOORE, REBMAN & WILLIAMS P O Box 1749 Chattanooga, TN 37401-1749 Telephone: (423) 756-7000 Facsimile: (423) 756-4801 E-mail: jrw@smrw.com snb@smrw.com JAJ@smrw.com Counsel to Volkswagen Group of America Inc.: John Randolph Bibb, Jr., Esq. Ryan Nelson Clark, Esq. LEWIS, THOMASON, KING, KRIEG & WALDROP, P.C. 424 Church Street, Suite 2500 Nashville, TN 37219 Telephone: (615) 259-1366 Facsimile: (615) 259-1389 E-mail: rbibb@lewisthomason.com rclark@lewisthomason.com Stempien v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. Docket No. 3:16-cv-00093 (N.D. Cal., January 7, 2016) Case in other court: Tennessee Eastern, 1:15-cv-00269 Plaintiff's Counsel: Alison C. Harke, Esq. Howard M. Bushman, Esq. Lance A. Harke, Esq. HARKE, CLASBY & BUSHMAN, LLP 9699 NE Second Avenue Miami Shores, FL 33138 Telephone: (305) 536-8220 E-mail: aharke@harkeclasby.com sengel@harkeclasby.com lharke@harkeclasby.com - and - Patrick M. Barrett, III, Esq. BARRETT LAW OFFICE, PLLC 4205 Hillsboro Pike, Suite 303 Nashville, TN 37215 Telephone: (615) 463-4000 Facsimile: (615) 463-3717 E-mail: pbarrett@barrettlawofficetn.com - and - Charles F. Barrett, Esq. NEAL & HARWELL, PLC 150 Fourth Avenue North, Suite 2000 Nashville, TN 37219 Telephone: (615) 244-1713 Facsimile: (615) 726-0573 E-mail: cbarrett@nealharwell.com Counsel to Volkswagen Group of America Inc.: John Randolph Bibb, Jr., Esq. Ryan Nelson Clark, Esq. LEWIS, THOMASON, KING, KRIEG & WALDROP, P.C. 424 Church Street, Suite 2500 Nashville, TN 37219 Telephone: (615) 259-1366 Facsimile: (615) 259-1389 E-mail: rbibb@lewisthomason.com rclark@lewisthomason.com Kevin Yazdi v. Volkswagen Group of America Inc., et al. Docket No. 3:16-cv-00357 (N.D. Cal., January 22, 2016) Case in other court: California Central, 8:15-cv-02157 Plaintiff's Counsel: Alexandra T. Steele, Esq. Thomas V. Girardi, Esq. GIRARDI KEESE 1126 Wilshire Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 977-0211 E-mail: asteele@girardikeese.com tgirardi@girardikeese.com Counsel to Volkswagen Group of America Inc., a New Jersey Corporation, and Solazyme, a Delaware Corporation: Andrew Zachary Edelstein, Esq. John Nadolenco, Esq. Neil Michael Soltman, Esq. Matthew Henry Marmolejo, Esq. MAYER BROWN LLP 350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2500 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 229-9500 Facsimile: (213) 625-0248 E-mail: AEdelstein@mayerbrown.com jnadolenco@mayerbrown.com nsoltman@mayerbrown.com mmarmolejo@mayerbrown.com Counsel to Defendant Amyris Inc.: Laurie Carr Mims, Esq. KEKER & VAN NEST, LLP 633 Battery Street San Francisco, CA 94111-1809 Telephone: (415) 391-5400 Facsimile: (415) 397-7188 E-mail: lmims@kvn.com Fidler, et al. v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al. Docket No. 3:16-cv-00359 (N.D. Cal., January 22, 2016) Case in other court: California Southern, 3:15-cv-02935 Plaintiffs' Counsel: Alexandra T. Steele, Esq. Thomas V. Girardi, Esq. GIRARDI KEESE 1126 Wilshire Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 977-0211 E-mail: asteele@girardikeese.com tgirardi@girardikeese.com Counsel to Volkswagen Group of America Inc., a New Jersey Corporation, and Solazyme, a Delaware Corporation: Andrew Zachary Edelstein, Esq. John Nadolenco, Esq. Neil Michael Soltman, Esq. Matthew Henry Marmolejo, Esq. MAYER BROWN LLP 350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2500 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 229-9500 Facsimile: (213) 625-0248 E-mail: AEdelstein@mayerbrown.com jnadolenco@mayerbrown.com nsoltman@mayerbrown.com mmarmolejo@mayerbrown.com Counsel to Defendant Amyris Inc.: Laurie Carr Mims, Esq. KEKER & VAN NEST, LLP 633 Battery Street San Francisco, CA 94111-1809 Telephone: (415) 391-5400 Facsimile: (415) 397-7188 E-mail: lmims@kvn.com Amy Campion Scoggins v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al. Docket No. 3:16-cv-00369 (N.D. Cal., January 22, 2016) Case in other court: California Central, 2:15-cv-09567 Plaintiff's Counsel: Alexandra T. Steele, Esq. Thomas V. Girardi, Esq. GIRARDI KEESE 1126 Wilshire Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 977-0211 E-mail: asteele@girardikeese.com tgirardi@girardikeese.com Counsel to Volkswagen Group of America Inc., a New Jersey Corporation, and Solazyme, a Delaware Corporation: Andrew Zachary Edelstein, Esq. John Nadolenco, Esq. Neil Michael Soltman, Esq. Matthew Henry Marmolejo, Esq. MAYER BROWN LLP 350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2500 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 229-9500 Facsimile: (213) 625-0248 E-mail: AEdelstein@mayerbrown.com jnadolenco@mayerbrown.com nsoltman@mayerbrown.com mmarmolejo@mayerbrown.com Counsel to Defendant Amyris Inc.: Laurie Carr Mims, Esq. KEKER & VAN NEST, LLP 633 Battery Street San Francisco, CA 94111-1809 Telephone: (415) 391-5400 Facsimile: (415) 397-7188 E-mail: lmims@kvn.com Ross v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. Docket No. 3:16-cv-00365 (N.D. Cal., January 22, 2016) Case in other court: Maryland, 1:15-cv-03973 Plaintiff's Counsel: Melanie Joustra Garner, Esq. LOCKS LAW FIRM 601 Walnut St., Suite 720 East Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 893-0100 Facsimile: (215) 893-3444 E-mail: mgarner@lockslaw.com - and - Stephen J. Nolan, Esq. STEPHEN J. NOLAN CHARTERED 222 Bosley Ave., Suite A1 Baltimore, MD 21204 Telephone: (410) 821-8600 Facsimile: (410) 821-8613 E-mail: steve@sjnolan.com Counsel to Volkswagen Group of America Inc.: John L. Hone, Esq. Ronald G. DeWald, Esq. LIPSHULTZ AND HONE CHTD 8630 Fenton Street, Suite 108 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: (301) 587-8500 Facsimile: (301) 495-9759 E-mail: jhone@lhlegal.com rdewald@lhlegal.com Stroming v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. Docket No. 3:16-cv-00364 (N.D. Cal., January 22, 2016) Case in other court: Illinois Northern, 1:15-cv-11686 Plaintiff's Counsel: Brian LaCien, Esq. Carolyn Daley Scott, Esq. POWER ROGERS SMITH P.C. 70 W. Madison Street, 55th Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 236-9381 Facsimile: (312) 236-0920 E-mail: blacien@prslaw.com cdaley@prslaw.com Walker v. Volkswagen Group of America, et al. Docket No. 3:16-cv-00368 (N.D. Cal., January 22, 2016) Case in other court: Utah, 1:15-cv-00161 Plaintiff's Counsel: Karra J. Porter, Esq. George W. Burbidge, II, Esq. CHRISTENSEN & JENSEN PC 257 E 200 S, Suite 1100 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Telephone: (801) 323-5000 E-mail: karra.porter@chrisjen.com george.burbidge@chrisjen.com - and - Robert J. Fuller, Esq. FULLER LAW OFFICE LC 1090 N 5900 E PO BOX 835 Eden, UT 84310 Telephone: (801) 791-7736 E-mail: fullerlawyer@aol.com Counsel to Volkswagen Group of America Inc.: Dan R. Larsen, Esq. Kimberly Neville, Esq. DORSEY AND WHITNEY LLP 136 South Main, Suite 1000 Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Telephone: (801) 933-7360 Facsimile: (801) 933-7373 E-mail: larsen.dan@dorsey.com neville.kimberly@dorsey.com Hoekstra, et al. v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al. Docket No. 3:16-cv-00397 (N.D. Cal., January 22, 2016) Case in other court: Illinois Northern, 1:15-cv-10274 Plaintiffs' Counsel: Todd Allen Smith, Esq. Carolyn Daley Scott, Esq. POWER ROGERS AND SMITH, PC 70 W. Madison Street, 55th Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 236-9381 Facsimile: (312) 236-0920 E-mail: tsmith@prslaw.com cdaley@prslaw.com Johnson v. Volkswagen AG, et al. Docket No. 3:16-cv-00483 (N.D. Cal., January 28, 2016) Case in other court: Virginia Eastern, 1:16-cv-00028 Plaintiff's Counsel: Daniel M. Cohen, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA LLP 211 North Union Street, Suite 100 Alexandria, VA 22314 Telephone: (202) 789-3960 Facsimile: (202) 789-1813 E-mail: danielc@cuneolaw.com Greenberg, et al. v. VWI, LLC Docket No. 3:16-cv-00535 (N.D. Cal., February 1, 2016) Case in other court: Florida Southern, 0:16-cv-60083 Plaintiffs' Counsel: Albert L. Frevola, Jr., Esq. GORDON HARGROVE & JAMES 2400 East Commercial Blvd., Suite 1100 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33308-3092 Telephone: (954) 958-2500 E-mail: afrevola@conradscherer.com - and - Bruce S. Rogow, Esq. BRUCE S. ROGOW PA Plaza 100 100 Northeast 3rd Ave., Suite 1000 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 767-8909 Facsimile: (954) 764-1530 E-mail: brogow@rogowlaw.com - and - Tara A. Campion, Esq. BRUCE S. ROGOW, P.A. 500 East Broward Blvd., Suite 1930 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394 Telephone: (954) 767-8909 Facsimile: (954) 764-1530 E-mail: tcampion@rogowlaw.com - and - Ivan John Kopas, Esq. William R. Scherer, Esq. CONRAD & SCHERER, LLP 633 South Federal Highway, Eighth Floor Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 462-5500 Facsimile: (954) 463-9244 E-mail: ikopas@conradscherer.com wscherer@conradscherer.com Counsel to VWI, LLC, doing business as: Palmetto 57 Volkswagen, on behalf of itself and all authorized Florida Volkswagen dealerships and similarly situated: Larry Martin Roth, Esq. RUMBERGER, KIRK & CALDWELL, PA 300 S Orange Ave., Suite 1400 P.O. Box 1873 Orlando, FL Telephone: (407) 841-2133 Facsimile: (407) 841-2133 E-mail: lroth@rumberger.com - and - Myron Shapiro, Esq. Michael Roland Holt, Esq. RUMBERGER KIRK & CALDWELL Brickell Bayview Centre 80 SW 8th Street, Suite 3000 Miami, FL 33130-3047 Telephone: (305) 358-5577 Facsimile: (786) 536-3451 E-mail: mshapiro@rumberger.com mholt@rumberger.com Vigran v. Porsche Cars North America, Inc., et al. Docket No. 3:16-cv-00619 (N.D. Cal., February 5, 2016) Case in other court: Georgia Northern, 1:15-cv-04089 Plaintiff's Counsel: Alan J. Statman, Esq. Jeffrey P. Harris, Esq. Sylvie Derrien, Esq. STATMAN HARRIS & EYRICH 441 Vine Street, Suite 3700 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 621-2666 Facsimile: (513) 621-4896 E-mail: ajstatman@statmanharris.com jharris@statmanharris.com sderrien@statmanharris.com - and - Darren W. Pennsylvania, Esq. Jed Davis Manton, Esq. Jeffrey R. Harris, Esq. Madeline Elizabeth McNeeley, Esq. Stephen G. Lowry, Esq. HARRIS PENN LOWRY LLP 400 Colony Square, Suite 900 1201 Peachtree Street, NE Atlanta, GA 30361 Telephone: (404) 961-7650 Facsimile: (404) 961-7651 E-mail: darren@hpllegal.com jed@hpllegal.com jeff@hpllegal.com molly@hpllegal.com steve@hpllegal.com Counsel to Porsche Cars North America, Inc., and Porsche Financial Services, Inc.: Cari K. Dawson, Esq. Kristine McAlister Brown, Esq. ALSTON & BIRD LLP One Atlantic Center 1201 West Peachtree Street NW Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 881-7000 Facsimile: (404) 881-7777 E-mail: cari.dawson@alston.com kristy.brown@alston.com Brown v. Porsche Cars North America, Inc., et al. Docket No. 3:16-cv-00621 (N.D. Cal., February 5, 2016) Case in other court: Georgia Northern, 1:15-cv-03867 Plaintiff's Counsel: Darren W. Penn, Esq. Jed Davis Manton, Esq. Jeffrey R. Harris, Esq. Kristy Sweat Davies, Esq. Madeline Elizabeth McNeeley, Esq. Stephen G. Lowry, Esq. HARRIS PENN LOWRY LLP 400 Colony Square, Suite 900 1201 Peachtree Street, NE Atlanta, GA 30361 Telephone: (404) 961-7650 Facsimile: (404) 961-7651 E-mail: darren@hpllegal.com jed@hpllegal.com jeff@hpllegal.com kristy@hpllegal.com molly@hpllegal.com steve@hpllegal.com Counsel to Porsche Cars North America, Inc.: Cari K. Dawson, Esq. Kristine McAlister Brown, Esq. ALSTON & BIRD LLP 1201 West Peachtree Street NW Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 881-7000 Facsimile: (404) 881-7777 E-mail: cari.dawson@alston.com kristy.brown@alston.com Thompson v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. Docket No. 3:16-cv-00675 (N.D. Cal., February 10, 2016) Case in other court: Louisiana Eastern, 2:15-cv-04805 Plaintiff's Counsel: Daniel E. Becnel, Jr., Esq. Jennifer L. Crose, Esq. Matthew B. Moreland, Esq. Salvadore Christina, Jr., Esq. BECNEL LAW FIRM, L.L.C. 106 West Seventh Street P.O. Drawer H Reserve, LA 70084-2095 Telephone: (985) 536-1186 Facsimile: (985) 536-6445 E-mail: dbecnel@becnellaw.com jcrose@becnellaw.com mmoreland@becnellaw.com schristina@becnellaw.com - and - Mekel Smith Alvarez, Esq. Morris Bart, III, Esq. MORRIS BART, LLC 909 Poydras St., Suite 2000 New Orleans, LA 70112-4000 Telephone: (504) 599-3385 Facsimile: (504) 599-3380 E-mail: malvarez@morrisbart.com morrisbart@morrisbart.com Counsel to Volkswagen Group of America Inc.: Joy Goldberg Braun, Esq. April L. Watson, Esq. SESSIONS, FISHMAN, NATHAN & ISRAEL 201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 3815 New Orleans, LA 70170 Telephone: (504) 582-1500 Facsimile: (504) 582-1555 E-mail: jgb@sessions-law.com alw@sessions-law.com MOHONK MOUNTAIN: Settles Class Action Over Norovirus ---------------------------------------------------- Abbott Brant, writing for Poughkeepsie Journal, reports that those affected by the gastrointestinal virus that sickened guests and employees at the Mohonk Mountain House in New Paltz back in 2014 may receive money from a proposed $875,000 settlement, according to an online class action notice. The lawsuit was filed in February 2014 when class representatives of the lawsuit Louis Bellotti and Anna Marie Bellotti of New Jersey, "acting on behalf of themselves and those similar situated," brought the lawsuit against Mohonk Mountain House, according to the notice. The Bellottis were two of many stricken by the norovirus, which according to the notice, led to "nausea, vomiting, diarrhea and/or abdominal pain" as well as lethargy, weakness, muscle aches, headaches and fever. According to the class action notice, subject to upcoming court approval, the Mohonk Mountain House has agreed to a settlement fund of $875,000 to resolve this litigation. Of that amount, $290,868 will be paid out of the settlement for "costs and expenses related to the suit." Plaintiffs Bellotti and Bellotti will "apply to the court" to receive $10,000 each, with the remaining funds being distributed to class members who participate in the settlement. Calls to Mohonk Mountain House were not returned by press time. Anyone who visited the resort between Jan. 27, 2014 and Feb. 28, 2014 may be members of the class action suit, according to the notice. To benefit from the settlement, class members must submit a claim form prior to May 2. Though the exact number of those affected is not known, surveys conducted by the Ulster County and New York State Departments of Health found that 200 class members claimed to be stricken by the norovirus after staying at Mohonk. In the 12-page lawsuit filed in state Supreme Court, attorney Donald W. Boyajian of Albany claimed gross negligence, stating that Mohonk knew the norovirus was present and failed to warn visiting guests who stayed at the resort between late January and early February of that year. Mohonk "denies any liability for the claims," according to the notice. However the court preliminary approved the proposed settlement on Jan. 15 of this year, finding the proposed settlement "to be within the range of reasonableness." State Supreme Court Justice Judge Richard Mott will hold a hearing at the Ulster County Courthouse March 14 to determine whether the proposed settlement should be officially approved. Norovirus is the most common cause of acute gastroenteritis, in which a person's stomach, intestines or both become inflamed. It is the most common cause of food-borne disease outbreaks in the United States, according to the website for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Norovirus is "very contagious" and can be caught from an infected person, contaminated food or water, or by touching contaminated surfaces. It causes a person's stomach, intestines or both to get inflamed, according to the CDC. According to Journal archives, Mohonk hired Texas-based disaster relief company, BMS CAT, to disinfect all the buildings on the property at the time of the outbreak. The resort was closed from Feb. 7 to Valentine's Day, the longest it has been closed since it began operation in 1869. MONTREAL INSTITUTE: Settles Sexual Abuse Class Suit for $30MM ------------------------------------------------------------- Francois Gloutnay, writing for The Catholic Register, reports that about 150 former pupils and boarders of the former Montreal Institute for the Deaf who were sexually abused between 1940 and 1982 will share $30 million after their class action was settled. The record amount includes the $20 million the Clerics of St. Viateur, whose members worked at the institute, agreed to pay in November. A second settlement of $10 million, was reached Feb. 10 with the Raymond-Dewar Institute, the name for the Montreal Institute for the Deaf as of 1984. Superior Court Judge Eva Petras approved the settlements in mid- February and asked attorney Andre Forget, a former judge at Quebec's Court of Appeal, to review the victims' claims. Forget was the court's assessor during other class actions against the Brothers of the Holy Cross and the Redemptorists that were settled in recent years. The settlement is "by far the most important sum ever paid in Quebec for sex abuse against minors," said a statement released by Kugler Kandestin, the law firm representing the victims. Officials with the Clerics of St. Viateur, known as the Viatorians, declined comment on the settlements. The order also refused to disclose the canonical status of congregation members named in the lawsuit. In November, Fr. Nestor Fils-Aime, the order's superior, said his congregation would "have to submit itself to stringent financial sacrifices to pay the agreed sums." Meanwhile, the order released the 2014 update of its 28-page policy regarding sexual misconduct within the community. The lawsuit first filed in 2012 included the names of 27 priests and brothers of the congregation. A seven-page table inserted into the court record associated the initials of the victims with the names of the 24 brothers and three priests accused of sexually abusing the minors. One of the priests named was identified by 24 victims. MORGAN & MORGAN: Settles Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- R. Robin McDonald, writing for Daily Report, reports that a law firm that represents plaintiffs in wage-related cases is settling two suits with former Atlanta employees who claimed the firm violated federal labor laws by requiring them to work overtime without fully compensating them. Morgan & Morgan, the personal injury firm that advertises it is "for the people, not the powerful," has agreed to settle suits by former case manager Wanda Rosado and former paralegal Sheryl Kolacki. For now, those settlements remain confidential, and both sides in Ms. Rosado's case have said because her claims will be paid in full, court approval of the deal -- which would likely make the terms public -- is unnecessary. But the federal judge in Ms. Rosado's case has rejected arguments that would keep the settlement agreement secret. Judge Mark Cohen has directed the parties to submit the settlement agreement to him for review, citing a 1945 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Brooklyn Savings Bank v. O'Neil, 324 U.S. 697, that "absent some compelling reason, the sealing from public scrutiny of FLSA [Fair Labor Standards Act] agreements between employees and employers would thwart the public's independent interest in assuring that employees' wages are fair and thus do not endanger the national health and well-being." Jim Kelleher, managing partner of Morgan & Morgan in Atlanta, said in a statement that "resolving these cases very early in the process was a business decision, and in NO WAY constitutes an admission of any improper conduct on our part." "The amount of the settlements represents our cost of defense," he added. "At Morgan and Morgan, we recognize that our employees are our greatest asset. We treat them with great respect and believe our firm culture and work environment are second to none." His attorney, Christopher Butler of Ford & Harrison, could not be reached. Alpharetta attorney Paul Sharman, who represents Ms. Rosado and Ms. Kolacki, said the settlement agreements "are not necessarily something I want to discuss," but he acknowledged "It's very rare when FLSA agreements will be sealed." The cases were assigned to two different judges, and Mr. Sharman said he will be submitting the settlement agreements with motions to dismiss both cases later this week. He added that he doesn't want to reveal the terms for fear he might jeopardize the agreements before they are approved. "I do not believe either of the judges will subscribe to" sealing the terms of the settlements, he said. Morgan & Morgan's website touts the firm's expertise in federal wage-and-hour cases, saying that it has handled more than 6,000 wage-and-hour suits and recovered millions on behalf of its clients who were wrongly denied overtime, underpaid or forced to work off-the-clock. The website promotes the firm's attorneys as "dedicated to fighting for those who weren't paid properly and are not afraid to take their cases to court to get their clients the money they deserve." Ms. Rosado worked for Morgan & Morgan for three years as a case manager before she sued last year, seeking unpaid wages, an overtime wage differential, attorneys' fees and litigation costs. Although her suit was billed as a collective action on behalf of anyone who worked as a Morgan & Morgan case manager between 2012 and 2015, Mr. Sharman said that only one other case manager joined the litigation. Ms. Rosado left the firm last year. Ms. Rosado's suit contended that Morgan & Morgan had misclassified its case managers as exempt from federal wage-and-hour provisions that apply to hourly workers. As a result, the suit said, Morgan & Morgan did not pay Ms. Rosado time and a half whenever she worked more than 40 hours in a single week. Ms. Rosado was paid $44,720 a year and estimated in her complaint that she worked, on average, about 45 hours a week at the law firm. Ms. Rosado's suit also claimed that even though her title described her as a manager, it was a misnomer. Her job required her to provide updates to clients, send letters of representation, coordinate with the firm investigator, and review files with firm lawyers, according to the complaint. She was not required to have any specialized training, and a firm lawyer who supervised her had discretion over her working hours, her employment status and any overtime compensation -- all characteristics of an hourly worker not exempt from federal overtime statutes. MORGAN KEEGAN: 8th Circuit Limits American Pipe Tolling ------------------------------------------------------- Grant & Eisenhofer, in an article for LGC, reports that in a recent decision, Zarecor, et al. v Morgan Keegan & Co, Inc., the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that American Pipe tolling -- pausing the statute of limitations in a class action -- is limited to the exact claims asserted in the earlier class action. The court also held that the pursuit of arbitration through the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) does not toll statutes of limitations. The decision reinforces the need for institutional investors who are filing an individual action to carefully consider the timing of their filing and the circuit in which they file. In 2007, investors in mutual fund securities filed a class action against several defendants, including Morgan Keegan & Co, Inc. Before the class action was resolved by settlement, several of the class members 'opted out' of the class. In 2009, the opt-out plaintiffs filed a statement of claim in arbitration with FINRA alleging that Morgan Keegan had violated state and federal securities laws. The FINRA arbitration panel found in favour of the plaintiffs but a federal district court later revoked the award. Then, in 2011, the opt-out plaintiffs filed a complaint in federal court alleging that Morgan Keegan was involved in preparing and approving false and misleading Securities and Exchange Commission filings, prospectuses and marketing materials and thereby violated state, and federal securities laws. Morgan Keegan filed a motion to dismiss, which the district court granted on the basis that all the claims were time-barred. The district court rejected the opt-out plaintiffs' argument that either the class action tolled the applicable statutes of limitations under the US Supreme Court's decision in American Pipe and Construction Co v Utah, or that the pendency of the FINRA arbitration tolled the statutes of limitations. The district court held that American Pipe tolling applies only to claims that are identical to those asserted by the earlier class action, and found that the opt-out plaintiffs' claims did not meet this standard. The court also held that the FINRA arbitration did not toll the statute of limitations. The opt-out plaintiffs filed an appeal. Update On September 1, 2015, the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that American Pipe tolling applies only to claims identical to those asserted by the earlier class action. The court further held that the pursuit of FINRA arbitration does not toll statutes of limitations at all. In American Pipe, the US Supreme Court held that the commencement of a class action suspends the statute of limitations for class members. Agreeing with the district court, however, the Eighth Circuit held that such tolling is limited to claims in a later-filed action that are the same as those pleaded in the class action. The court stated that the Supreme Court's concern in American Pipe was that without tolling, putative class members would needlessly move to intervene or file their own claims, undermining the purpose of allowing class actions. However, claims that are not asserted in the class action, the court reasoned, are not subject to this logic. Moreover, the court added, tolling statutes of limitations for claims not asserted in the class action would be unfair to defendants because the class action would not give them notice of those claims. Although plaintiffs' claims were similar to those asserted in the class action, the court ruled that they were significantly different and therefore not eligible for American Pipe tolling. The court also held that the pursuit of FINRA arbitration did not toll the federal statute of limitations. The court noted that a plaintiff pursuing arbitration need not await its outcome to bring an action in court. Rather, there is an accepted procedure for pursuing both arbitration and a lawsuit simultaneously: a plaintiff may file suit and then seek to stay the action pending arbitration, thereby preserving the timeliness of the plaintiff's claims. Therefore, the court said, there is no reason to toll a statute of limitations during the pursuit of arbitration. The court therefore affirmed the district court's dismissal of opt-out plaintiffs' federal claims as time-barred. Implications The court's decision endorses a very narrow view of the scope of claims that may benefit from American Pipe tolling. This view is shared by some other US federal courts, although the Second Circuit has held to the contrary and does not limit American Pipe tolling to claims that are strictly identical to those asserted in an earlier class action. Until this disagreement is eventually resolved by the US Supreme Court, members of putative classes who are considering pursuing their own cases need carefully to consider in which circuit to file their case if they contemplate pursuing claims different from those asserted in the class action. NAPW INC: "Martin" Suit to Recover Commissions, OT, Missed Breaks -------------------------------------------------------------- Crystal Martin, Jeanette Infield, Jennifer Hess, Suzie James, Kristin Lerner, Ilana Youngheim, Nili Sinai and Aggrieved Employees, Plaintiffs, v. NAPW, INC. d/b/a National Association of Professional Women, a corporation, Professional Diversity Network LLC, a limited liability company and DOES 1-80, Defendants, Case BC606543 (Cal. Super., County of Los Angeles, January 11, 2016), seeks general, compensatory and special damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest on any lost or unpaid wages and reasonable attorneys' fees, equitable relief, statutory and civil penalties, treble damages and all other such relief pursuant to California Labor Code Sec. 218.4, 226.7, 226(g) and 1194. The complaint says the Defendants have withheld commission wages from the Plaintiffs, imposed illegal pay deductions, failed to pay overtime wages, failed to compensate for missed meal and/or rest periods and failed to provide accurate time records. Defendants own and operate sales facilities in Century City, California where the Plaintiffs worked as call center agents. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kyle J. Todd, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF KYLE TODD 611 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1112 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Tel: (323) 208-9171 Fax: (323) 693-0822 Email: kyle@kyletodd.com NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Loses Bid to Avert Compensation Limits Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Berkowitz, writing for USA TODAY Sports, reports that the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has rejected a bid from the NCAA and 11 major conferences to appeal a district judge's decision to grant class-action status to a pair of lawsuits seeking an injunction against the NCAA's current limits on the compensation athletes can receive while playing college sports. The ruling was made on Feb. 26 and filed with the district court on Feb. 29. In early December, U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken decided to allow the cases to proceed as class actions, rejecting the NCAA's and the conferences' argument that lifting the limits would result in star athletes getting much greater compensation than they can now while scholarship and playing opportunities for other athletes would be eliminated because schools would need ways to find the money to pay the stars. On Dec. 18, the NCAA and the conferences field documents seeking permission to appeal that ruling. On Feb. 29, Judges Ronald Gould and Johnnie Rawlinson -- without comment -- denied that permission. This means that, barring further appeal, the cases will be allowed to go forward as class actions seeking injunctions against the NCAA's compensation limits. Lawyers for the plaintiffs in one of the two cases on Feb. 17 filed documents that began the process of asking Judge Wilken to grant class-action status to groups of athletes seeking monetary damages based on the difference between the value of a traditional athletic scholarship and one that also covers the full cost of attending college. Judge Wilken is the same judge who handled the Ed O'Bannon lawsuit and found that the NCAA's limits on what major-college football and men's basketball players can receive for playing sports "unreasonably restrain trade" in violation of antitrust laws. The damages and the injunctive relief are being sought in the case being led primarily by lawyers from Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. It began on behalf of former West Virginia football player Shawne Alston. Mr. Alston remains a named plaintiff, but the initial case was consolidated with other suits involving athletes in other sports. According to a revised filing of the suit in July 2014, it now seeks to cover Bowl Subdivision football players, Division I men's basketball players and Division I women's basketball players who received athletic scholarships. Although the NCAA and 11 conferences are named as defendants, other Division I schools and conferences are alleged to have been co-conspirators. The related case, which seeks the injunction -- but not damages -- is being directed primarily by Jeffrey Kessler. It is being pursued on behalf of plaintiffs led by former Clemson football player Martin Jenkins and two current Wisconsin athletes: basketball player Nigel Hayes and football player Alec James. It covers football and men's basketball players in the power conferences. NEW YORK: NYPD Commissioner Dismisses Job Quota Claims ------------------------------------------------------ NBC New York reports that the current and former officer suing the NYPD over alleged arrest quotas fired back at police Commissioner Bill Bratton on March 1 after the city's top cop dismissed their claims with an expletive. The dozen minority officers listed as plaintiffs in the federal class action lawsuit against the NYPD said on March 1 that the alleged practice took umbrage with Mr. Bratton -- who said the claims that the NYPD still enforce quotas and punish officers who don't play along were "bulls---." "For Commissioner Bratton to use profanity to address legitimate concerns of employees is disrespectful and callous," said Chukwuemeka Nwokoro. The lead plaintiff on the case, Edwin Raymond, told the I-Team's Sarah Wallace in an exclusive interview that he alleged "black and Hispanic neighborhoods are hunted" under the quota system and that he secretly recorded conversations with other officers confirming its existence. At a news conference on March 1, Mr. Raymond and other officers outlined ways that they felt the department retaliated against them for taking action. Mr. Raymond was bounced around for a promotion, while officer Adnyl Polanco said he had been bounced around for speaking up. "Quotas bring problems to the most vulnerable," said Adnyl Polanco, a cop who works in the 94th precinct in Greenpoint, Brooklyn. They said that they hope their lawsuit will lead to better community policing. The city, meanwhile has asked a judge to toss the suit. A ruling is expected within a couple of months. NEWS AMERICA: Settles Antitrust Class Action -------------------------------------------- News Corp on Feb. 29 announced the settlement of a class action lawsuit alleging various antitrust claims arising out of past operations at its News America Marketing division. The company made the following statement: "News America Marketing has consistently denied any wrongdoing in this case, which involves allegations relating to historical conduct reaching back as far as 1997. We are pleased to have concluded this settlement, which allows us to avoid the expense and uncertainty of further litigating this matter. While we had full confidence in our case, we believe this decision is in the best interests of our company and stockholders." Under the terms of the settlement with the plaintiffs, who consist of consumer packaged goods companies, the company will pay approximately $250 million, and the pending litigation will be dismissed, subject to court approval. Additionally the company will pay approximately $30 million to resolve related claims. The case was first brought in December 2012, prior to the separation of News Corporation from 21st Century Fox in 2013. The trial began on Feb. 29 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. About News Corp News Corp. -- http://www.newscorp.com-- is a global, diversified media and information services company focused on creating and distributing authoritative and engaging content to consumers throughout the world. The company comprises businesses across a range of media, including: news and information services, book publishing, digital real estate services, cable network programming in Australia, and pay-TV distribution in Australia. Headquartered in New York, the activities of News Corp are conducted primarily in the United States, Australia, and the United Kingdom. NU SKIN: Settles Securities Class Action for $47 Million -------------------------------------------------------- Labaton Sucharow LLP on March 1 disclosed that the Firm reached a $47 million settlement, subject to court approval, on behalf of Boston Retirement System in a securities class action against Nu Skin Enterprises, Inc. (Nu Skin) and others, In re Nu Skin Enterprises, Inc., Securities Litigation, No. 14-cv-0033. Founded in 1984 and headquartered in Provo, Utah, Nu Skin is an international, multilevel marketing company that distributes personal care products and nutritional supplements. Led by Labaton Sucharow partner Jonathan Gardner, Esq. -- jgardner@labaton.com -- the Firm served as lead counsel representing lead plaintiff Boston Retirement System, alleging that Nu Skin misled its investors, failing to disclose material facts about the success and viability of Nu Skin's "direct selling" business model and practices in China -- specifically 1) Nu Skin's business practices violated Chinese laws and regulations; and 2) Nu Skin's rapid expansion and growth in revenues could not continue without its Chinese operations. During the class period (October 25, 2011 - January 16, 2014), Nu Skin's Chinese operations accounted for a large portion of the company's revenues, and Nu Skin repeatedly highlighted the sharp expansion of its China operations as indicative of the success and viability of its business model. However, an August 2012 report alleged that Nu Skin's operations in China were nothing more than a pyramid scheme based on multilevel marketing, a sales strategy prohibited in China. On this news, Nu Skin's stock price declined, and Nu Skin's response was to issue a press release assuring investors that the company was "confident that [its] China operations [we]re in compliance with applicable regulations as interpreted and enforced by the government of China." In January 2014, the damaging allegations about Nu Skin's practices reached a larger audience when China's leading newspaper, People's Daily, published a separate report asserting that the company's Chinese operations violated Chinese law and were suspected to be an illegal pyramid scheme. The article further reported, among other things, that the company sold more products than Chinese regulations allowed. In response to these revelations, the company's stock price fell more than 15 percent that day. The next two days, two separate Chinese agencies announced they initiated investigations into Nu Skin following the People's Daily report. The company acknowledged the existence of the investigations, noting that revenues could be negatively affected. Following these disclosures, the company's stock price plummeted more than 26 percent, and the following day, an additional six percent. According to Boston Retirement System Chairman Daniel J. Greene, "We are very pleased with this recovery and look forward to returning it to the class. Boston Retirement System is committed to protecting our members' interests, and when those interests have suffered due to fraud, we believe it is our mission to pursue recovery for our members and the class." About Labaton Sucharow LLP Labaton Sucharow -- http://www.labaton.com-- prosecutes precedent-setting class actions, recovering billions of dollars on behalf of defrauded investors and consumers. The Firm's successful reputation is built not only on its team of more than 60 attorneys, but also on its industry-leading in-house investigators, financial analysts, and forensic accountants. The Firm litigates in the areas of securities, antitrust, and consumer protection law. PDS TRANSPORTATION: "Lopez" Suit Asserts Labor Law Violations ------------------------------------------------------------- Horacio Lopez, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. PDS Transportation, Inc., Intermodel Container Services, Inc. dba Harbor Rail Transport, Pacer Cartage, Inc. and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case BC606692 (Cal. Super., County of Los Angeles, January 11, 2016), seeks a temporary restraining order, preliminary and permanent injunction, enjoinment, recovery of wages, disgorgement of profits, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs in accordance with the California Labor Code Sec. 226.7 and Industrial Wage Order No. 9-2001, Sec. 11(a). Defendants misclassified its drivers as contractors, failed to pay for all time worked every pay period at required minimum wages, failed to provide off-duty meal and rest periods, failed to reimburse business expenses and did not provide accurate wage statements, the complaint says. Defendants are transport companies based in California providing various trucking and shipping service to its clients. Lopez works as a driver for the Defendants. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian S. Kabateck, Esq. Joshua H. Haffner, Esq. Levi Plesset, Esq. KABATECK BROWN KELLNER LLP 644 S. Figueroa Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 Tel: (213) 217-5000 Fax: (213) 217-5010 Email: bsk@kbklawyers.com jhh@kbklawyers.com lp@kbklawyers.com PFIZER INC: Seeks to Strike Two Experts in Zoloft MDL ----------------------------------------------------- P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that almost three months after a summary judgment motion in the Zoloft birth-defect MDL had been filed, Pfizer has asked a federal judge to strike the testimony of two experts the plaintiffs put forward after the judge's decision to bar testimony from their last key witness. Pfizer's motion to strike reports from Michael Levin and Thomas Sadler were filed on Feb. 24. Dianne Nast, lead counsel for the plaintiffs, said the expert reports were recently filed as part of a response to Pfizer's summary judgment motion. The plaintiffs' papers in opposition to summary judgment were filed under seal. Mark Cheffo, an attorney for Pfizer, referred comment to a company spokesperson who said in an email that the "plaintiffs' submission of these reports is procedurally improper and is another attempt at a Daubert do-over by resubmitting opinions that this court already excluded." U.S. District Judge Cynthia Rufe of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruled last December to exclude the testimony of the plaintiffs' general causation expert, Dr. Nicholas Jewell, a professor of biostatistics at the University of California, Berkeley. Judge Rufe had earlier barred testimony from the plaintiffs' noncardiac birth injury expert, Dr. Anick Berard, as a factor in the decision to dismiss the cases. With the main plaintiffs experts out of the case, the MDL appeared to be on the verge of collapse. However, Judge Rufe has not yet ruled on Pfizer's motion for summary judgment. Judge Rufe's December ruling came after the dismissal of hundreds of noncardiac birth defect cases in the litigation over the summer -- halving the litigation in size. Dr. Jewell was put forth as the expert for the remaining, cardiac-related cases. At one point the MDL numbered around 600 cases. According to Judge Rufe's December opinion, Dr. Jewell opined that "maternal use of Zoloft during early pregnancy is capable of causing, or contributing to cause, cardiovascular birth defects." However, the judge held that Dr. Jewell's opinion was inadmissible because he used unreliable science to reach his conclusions. Judge Rufe said Dr. Jewell's opinion was based upon his review and analysis of the medical literature, and his reanalysis of data from published Zoloft studies. The plaintiffs argued that Jewell, a statistician, used well-accepted methods in arriving at his conclusions, while drugmaker Pfizer argued that while the methods he advocated may have been sound, he did not apply them in his Zoloft opinions. As a statistics expert, Judge Rufe said Dr. Jewell would have to explain why he believes that the positive associations between mothers' use of Zoloft and cardiac birth defects, reported in some studies, are accurate and not the result of statistical flaws or biases and reconcile those studies that claimed there was no increased risk of cardiac birth defects with his opinion. According to Judge Rufe, Dr. Jewell "has deviated from or downplayed certain well-established principles of his field, and has inconsistently applied methods and standards to the data so as to support his a priori opinion. It is improper for an expert to take a results-driven approach to a question, molding his methodology and selectively relying upon data so as to confirm his preconceived opinion." "As Pfizer pointed out to the court, Dr. Jewell's testimony directly conflicts with the findings of a range of independent expert organizations, such as the American Psychiatric Association, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Heart Association, all of whom have found that Zoloft's use--during pregnancy is not associated with birth defects," a spokesperson for Pfizer said in an email. Ms. Nast previously said the plaintiffs moved to dismiss the noncardiac cases and proceed in cardiac-only matters for greater efficiency. Ms. Nast said cases can be refiled with the understanding that the statute of limitations will not be running. Ms. Nast also pointed to Judge Rufe's decision to exclude the testimony Dr. Berard as a factor in the decision to dismiss the cases. "I'm not saying we would have made a different decision if she had passed muster with the court," Ms. Nast had said, because efficiency was the primary concern. RALPH'S GROCERY: NLRB Panel Invalidates Arbitration Policy ---------------------------------------------------------- Michael L. Stevens, Esq. -- michael.stevens@arentfox.com -- of Arent Fox LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that following a recent trend that has not been received well by the courts, a divided panel of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or Board) invalidated an arbitration policy that required employees to waive their rights to pursue class or collective actions in employment-related claims in all forums, whether arbitral or judicial. Ralph's Grocery Company, 363 NLRB No. 128 (Feb. 23, 2016). The Mediation and Binding Arbitration Policy Ralph's Grocery maintained a Mediation and Binding Arbitration Policy (MBAP). The MBAP, which is four pages long and contains an introduction and 14 separate untitled paragraphs, is deemed accepted by an applicant upon submitting an application and by an employee upon acceptance or continuation of employment. The MBAP is binding on the employee and the Company. The introductory paragraph states, in relevant part: This Arbitration Policy applies to all Employees' employment (or application for employment) and is aimed at resolving employment- related disputes quickly and fairly, to the benefit of everyone involved. This Arbitration Policy is not meant to supplant the purpose, role and effect of managers, supervisors, administrators, any applicable grievance and arbitration procedure contained in a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) and applicable internal grievance and complaint/dispute resolution procedures available to Employees for resolving workplace issues, including, for example, complaints of unlawful harassment, discrimination or retaliation. Employees should continue to seek resolution of employment-related disputes through such channels to the extent they are applicable to their disputes. However, this Arbitration Policy is the exclusive mechanism for formal resolution of disputes and awards of relief that otherwise would be available to Employees or the Company in a court of law or equity or in an administrative agency. Paragraph 2 partially defines the term "Covered Disputes" and states in part: Except for Excluded Disputes, this Arbitration Policy applies to any and all other employment-related disputes that exist or arise between Employees and Ralphs (or any of them) that would constitute cognizable claims or causes of action in a federal, state or local court or agency under applicable federal, state or local laws (referred to in this Arbitration Policy as "Covered Disputes"). Paragraph 4 begins by stating that arbitration is the sole and exclusive remedy for present and future "Covered Disputes" and instructing that the MBAP requires "to the fullest extent permitted by law" resolution of all "Covered Disputes" by final and binding arbitration. Paragraph 6 discusses the MBAP's effect on employees' access to administrative processes, and states in part: Notwithstanding any other provision of this Arbitration Policy all Employees retain the right under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) to file charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), and to file charges with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) under federal equal employment opportunity laws within the EEOC's administrative jurisdiction. Paragraph 8 states: [T]here is no right or authority for Covered Disputes to be heard or arbitrated on a class action basis, as a private attorney general, or on bases involving claims or disputes brought in a representative capacity on behalf of the general public, of other Ralph's employees (or any of them), or of other persons alleged to be similarly situated. The paragraph then defines "Representative Action" as: Any action or proceeding brought against Ralphs (or any of them) by any person (whether an Employee bound by this Arbitration Policy or not) or entity in a representative capacity on behalf of or for the benefit of (in whole or in part) any Employee bound by this Arbitration Policy." Paragraph 8 concludes by stating that, while the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure apply," "there are no Judge or Jury trials and there are no class actions or Representative Actions permitted under this Arbitration Policy. [Emphasis in original.] On July 31, 2013, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) invalidated the policy. The case was then appealed to the NLRB. The Board's Decision Writing for the majority, Chairman Pearce and Member McFerran ruled that the ALJ properly applied the Board's decision in D. R. Horton, 357 NLRB No. 184 (2012), enf. denied in part, 737 F.3d 344 (5th Cir. 2013), and found that Ralph's violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act) by maintaining and enforcing a policy that required employees, as a condition of employment, to waive their rights to pursue class or collective actions in employment-related claims in all forums, whether arbitral or judicial. The majority observed that in Murphy Oil USA, Inc., 361 NLRB No. 72 (2014), enf. denied in relevant part 808 F.3d 1013 (5th Cir. 2015), the Board reaffirmed the relevant holdings of D. R. Horton. The majority also agreed with the ALJ that the MBAP violated Section 8(a)(1) by interfering with employees' right to file charges with the Board. The Board will find that a policy upon which employment is conditioned violates Section 8(a)(1) if employees "would reasonably believe the policy interferes with their ability to file a Board charge or otherwise access the Board's processes." Ralph's argued that employees would not reasonably conclude that the MBAP prevents them from filing unfair labor charges with the Board because paragraph 6 on page 3 of the policy informs employees that they retain the right to file charges with the Board. However, the Board disagreed that this sentence saved the policy. According to the majority, "[p]aragraphs 2 and 4 of the policy emphasize that all employment-related disputes must be resolved through final and binding arbitration. Paragraph 6 reiterates this requirement, declaring in the second sentence that final and binding arbitration is the sole and exclusive remedy for Covered Disputes (which, as defined elsewhere in the document, would include disputes involving unfair labor practices under the Act)." They reasoned that "while the last sentence of paragraph 6 allows for charges to be filed with the Board, employees would reasonably be confused as to their possession of this statutory right when the sentence is read together with the previous two sentences that state explicitly that arbitration is the sole forum for the resolution of employment disputes." The majority went on to observe that the ambiguity surrounding the right to file Board charges is further demonstrated by an employment application that all employees were required to sign acknowledging that they read, understood, and agreed to follow the MBAP. The application contains a one-paragraph summary of the MBAP, but any reference to employees' right to file Board charges is conspicuously absent from that summary. Instead, the summary focuses exclusively on the requirement that employees waive the right to resolve employment-related disputes before any Federal court or agency. "In these circumstances, we find that employees would reasonably believe that the MBAP interfered with their statutory right to have the Boarddetermine whether their Section 7 rights have been violated." The Dissent Member Miscimarra dissented from the majority for the same reasons explained in his partial dissenting opinion in Murphy Oil USA, Inc. He reasoned that Ralph's did not violate the Act by attempting to enforce the arbitration agreement. He also disagreed with the majority's finding that the policy unlawfully prohibited employees from filing charges with the Board: "In the instant case, it is clear that the Arbitration Policy does not prohibit NLRB charge-filing. To the contrary, the Policy makes crystal clear that employees retain the right to file charges with the Board." He observed that the policy states: "Notwithstanding any other provision of this Arbitration Policy, all Employees retain the right under the National Labor Relations Act ('NLRA') to file charges with the National Labor Relations Board ('NLRB') . . . ." Takeaways The Board continues to invalidate mandatory arbitration agreements with class action waivers, even though the Fifth, Second, Eighth, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits have reversed that position. The issue may very well be headed for resolution by the Supreme Court, making the recent Scalia vacancy even more significant. If you have any questions about this post, please contact the author or the Arent Fox professional who regularly handles your matters. RECKITT BENCKISER: Sued Over Misleading Nurofen Pain Drug Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Marianna Papadakis, writing for Financial Review, reports that a consumer class action has been launched against the makers of Nurofen, Reckitt Benckiser, over drugs the company advertised as targeting pain for specific areas. The court action lodged by Bannister Law seeks a refund and damages for customers who bought the drug company's Nurofen Specific Pain Range products. The pharmaceuticals company said it was aware some consumers were seeking compensation but that it could not comment on the proceedings. It follows a Federal Court ruling on December 11 that packaging for Reckitt Benckiser's Nurofen Back Pain, Nurofen Period Pain, Nurofen Migraine Pain, and Nurofen Tension Headache products misled consumers that the drugs were formulated to treat a specific kind of pain. The drug company admitted that the products were identical, with each containing the same active ingredient, ibuprofen lysine 342mg. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, which brought the case, also alleged the products were being sold at about double the cost of Nurofen's standard ibuprofen products, but the court made no finding on this issue. A spokeswoman for Reckitt Benckiser said all Nurofen products which had the same active ingredient, the same format and the same formulation had the same manufacture's recommended retail price. FEES HEARING A hearing on how much the pharmaceutical company should pay in fines and penalties has been set for April 12. Court documents filed in the Federal Court on the class action, show Bannister Law, on behalf of consumers, seeks declarations that Reckitt Benckiser failed to comply with statutory guarantees concerning acceptable quality, the description of the products and warranties. Correspondingly, it wants the court to order the pharmaceutical company to honor the guarantees by refunding consumers for purchases of the drugs made between January 2011 and December last year. The firm argues consumers would not have bought the products if they knew it would be no more effective than other Nurofen products. The two lead applicants for the case made multiple purchases of the products regularly, the first over 18 months, while the second plaintiff bought the products over five years. REMINGTON: Rifle Settlement Deadline Extended Until April 29 ------------------------------------------------------------ Scott Cohn, writing for CNBC, reports that millions of allegedly defective Remington firearms will remain in the public's hands for at least a while longer, after attorneys for the gun maker and class action plaintiffs said they need more time to come up with a plan to notify owners about a program to fix the guns. The parties had faced a deadline on Feb. 29 to submit the plan to a federal judge in Missouri, but in a joint filing they cited "the complexity of the issues" in asking for a 60-day extension. On Feb. 29, U.S. District Judge Ortrie Smith agreed to give them until April 29, the second time he has extended the deadline. Under a proposed nationwide settlement reached more than a year ago, Remington agreed to replace the triggers on its popular Model 700 rifle and a dozen other firearms with similar designs. While Remington maintains the guns are safe, plaintiffs say the guns include a deadly design flaw that can cause them to fire without the trigger being pulled. Lawsuits have linked the alleged defect to some two dozen deaths and hundreds of injuries. Remington blames user errors, but says it agreed to replace the triggers anyway in order to avoid drawn out litigation. The proposed settlement covers an estimated 7.5 million guns, some manufactured as early as the 1940s. Judge Smith sent the parties back to the drawing board in December, the same day CNBC published a new investigation into what the company knew about the alleged defect and when. CNBC first investigated Remington in 2010. Among other things, the judge said he was concerned that a relative handful of gun owners -- just over 2,000 out of more than 7 million -- had filed claims since the tentative settlement was announced. He said the numbers convinced him the parties were not doing enough to alert the public. "The Court cannot conceive that an owner of an allegedly defective firearm would not seek the remedy being provided pursuant to this Settlement Agreement," Judge Smith wrote on Dec. 8. Since then, according to the filing, both sides have been "working diligently" to come up with a new plan, but they say it is not ready. Among other issues, the attorneys say, is the need to work with unidentified "third parties" to formulate the plan. "This motion is not made for the purpose of delay," the filing says. In addition to the Model 700, the settlement covers the following Remington firearms: Seven, Sportsman 78, 673, 710, 715, 770, 600, 660, 721, 722 and 725 rifles, and the XP-100 bolt-action pistol. REPLANET LLC: "Medina" Suit to Recover Missed Break Compensation -------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Medina, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated and on behalf of the general public, Plaintiff, v. Replanet, LLC dba Replanet Recycling, LLC, and DOES 1-1000, Defendants, Case RG16799801 (Cal. Super., County of Alameda, January 12, 2016), seeks missed rest/meal break compensation, restitution and disgorgement, injunctive relief and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under California Labor Code Sec. 226.7 and 512 and the California Business and Professions Code Sec. 17200 et seq. under Unfair Business Practices. Steve Medina worked as a recycling specialist at the Fremont, California location of the Defendant. He usually could not take any break unless specifically relieved of duties by his supervisor. The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Craig Clark, Esq. James M. Tregiio, Esq. Dawn M. Berry, Esq. CLARK & TREGLIO 205 West Date Street San Diego, CA 92101 Tel: (619) 239-1321 Fax: (888) 273-4554 - and - Walter Haines, Esq. UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP 5500 Bolsa Avenue, Suite 201 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Tel: (562) 256-1047 Fax: (562) 256-4554 ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Faces Class Action Over Storm Cruise ----------------------------------------------------- Celia Ampel, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. should be required to pay punitive damages to passengers on its Anthem of the Seas for "knowingly sailing directly into" a strong winter storm with 120-mph winds, a class action lawsuit filed in Miami federal court claimed on Feb. 25. The scheduled seven-day cruise from New Jersey to the Bahamas and back ended early after the ship ran into the storm. The Miami- based cruise operator reported four minor injuries among more than 6,000 people on board. Passengers reported the captain alerted them as they were leaving the port Feb. 6 that a weather system was building but he would try to outrun it. People aboard the Anthem of the Seas were "subjected to hours of sheer terror as the gigantic cruise ship was battered by hurricane-force winds and more than 30-foot waves," said the complaint filed on behalf of passenger Frank DeLuca. Passengers said the ship tilted up to 45 degrees, and Coast Guard inspectors found damage to the ship's propulsion system. The complaint filed by his Miami attorney, Michael Winkleman of Lipcon, Margulies, Alsina & Winkleman, includes claims of negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Royal Caribbean said it does not comment on pending litigation. The company apologized when the cruise ended and offered passengers a full refund plus a certificate for half-off a future cruise. "It is our responsibility to eliminate every surprise we possibly can," its Feb. 10 statement said. "We are strengthening our storm avoidance policy and have added resources at our Miami headquarters to provide additional guidance to our ships' captains." SAN BERNARDINO, CA: Faces Class Action Over Inmate Abuse -------------------------------------------------------- Joe Nelson, writing for The Sun, reports that in a continuing series of lawsuits alleging inmate abuse and other civil rights violations in San Bernardino County jails, a prisoners rights organization filed a class action lawsuit on Feb. 29 against the county on behalf of two inmates. The lawsuit, filed by the Berkeley-based Prison Law Office on behalf of George Topete and Zachery Shovey, both inmates at the West Valley Detention Center in Rancho Cucamonga, comes after nearly two years of talks between the prisoner rights nonprofit and the county in an effort to remedy the situation. "San Bernardino County is violating the constitutional rights of the nearly 6,000 people it incarcerates in its jails," according to the lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Riverside. "Jail medical, mental health and dental care is so deficient that it is harming the people it aims to serve." The lawsuit alleges "jail staff use excessive force against inmates they are charged with protecting and fail to take even the most basic steps to prevent violence." Mr. Topete is physically disabled and has difficulty walking without use of a cane, which he is routinely denied. He was provided a wheelchair, but was not housed in a unit that is wheelchair accessible, according to the lawsuit. "As a result he has fallen and is at risk of falling when trying to access the visiting area, his cell and the toilet," the lawsuit states, which also alleges Mr. Topete was denied access to a machine he requires to treat his sleep apnea. Mr. Shovey, according to the lawsuit, has a long history of psychiatric problems including multiple suicide attempts, uses psychiatric medications and spent nine months in a state psychiatric hospital. He was denied mental health treatment and medications for one year after he was booked at West Valley, despite symptoms including hallucinations, delusions, anxiety and insomnia. In addition, the lawsuit alleges jail staff failed to provide Mr. Shovey with timely medical treatment for his seizure disorder. The San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department issued a news release on Feb. 29 denying the allegations, saying the health care provided to inmates is "high quality," that inmates with disabilities are accommodated and that prisoners are housed in a safe and secure environment. It blamed prison realigment for the issues at the jails, which has forced the county to pour millions of dollars into security upgrades and additional law enforcement, medical and mental health staff. "Since prison realignment, counties, including San Bernardino, have faced significant challenges in housing more inmates for longer periods of time than they have historically," Sheriff John McMahon said in a statement on Feb. 29. In a news release, Prison Law Office Director Donald Specter said Sheriff McMahon has been "transparent about the conditions in the jails and has cooperated fully with the investigation" and that cooperation was expected to continue during the litigation in hopes that the matter can be resolved as soon as possible. "These people are entirely dependent on the jail for their health care and well-being -- they have no other options," said Prison Law Office attorney Kelly Knapp regarding inmates housed in San Bernardino County jails. Prison Law Office attorneys corresponded with more than 700 inmates and reviewed the medical records of more than 250 inmates during its investigation, concluding there was an "apparent culture of violence" in the jails. It began investigating jail conditions in San Bernardino County in the wake of an FBI investigation into allegations of inmate abuse at West Valley including Taser gun torture involving inmates, including food servers who claim they were repeatedly stunned on various parts of their bodies as part of a brutal hazing ritual. Many of the inmates still had electrical burn scars on their bodies when the criminal investigation began. The allegations resulted in the filing of seven federal lawsuits to date on behalf of dozens of current and former inmates at West Valley, the latest being two lawsuits filed in December by Victorville attorneys Jim Terrell, Sharon Brunner and Stanley Hodge, which name a combined total of 21 plaintiffs. San Bernardino County is not the first law enforcement agency the Prison Law Office has sued over jail conditions. In March 2013, it sued Riverside County alleging inhumane treatment of inmates who were denied access to timely and proper medical treatment. In September 2014, the lawsuit was elevated to class action status in U.S. District Court in Riverside. In 2011, the Prison Law Office, according to its website, filed a class action lawsuit seeking to remedy cruel and unusual conditions in the Fresno County Jail. In its statement, the Sheriff's Department said the county has "devoted significant resources over the last several years to ensuring that conditions in its jails meet all relevant constitutional, statutory and regulatory standards." "We have appreciated the willingness of the Prison Law Office to work constructively with the county on these issues, look forward to continued cooperative discussions, and are optimistic that the case can be resolved amicably" McMahon said in his statement. Sharon Brunner and Jim Terrell, two of the three Victorville defense attorneys representing dozens of current and former inmates in four of the federal lawsuits, said they receive, on average, 40 to 50 letters and telephone calls daily from inmates or family members of inmates complaining about jail conditions. They said their litigation, which remains suspended via court order pending the outcome of the FBI investigation, has done little to improve the situation at the jails, especially West Valley, the county's most bustling jail. "We actually have not seen an improvement," Brunner said. "We wish that we could take more of these cases. There's clearly things happening at West Valley, and they're (inmates) not getting the proper treatment." Mr. Terrell said it appears the only thing that is going to effect change is going to be through the federal court system. "The only possible way is to get this in federal court, in front of a federal judge with power," Mr. Terrell said. SAINT-GOBAIN: NY Firm Sues Over Chemicals in Village Water ---------------------------------------------------------- The North Country Public Radio reported that a New York City law firm has filed a federal lawsuit against two companies identified by state regulators as potentially responsible for toxic chemical contamination in an upstate village's water supply. The lawsuit accuses Honeywell International and Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics of negligence for the Teflon-related chemical PFOA in Hoosick Falls' water. The lawsuit was filed by Weitz & Luxenberg. Consumer advocate Erin Brockovich is working with the firm. She met with residents in January after the federal government warned against drinking tap water. Saint-Gobain is providing free bottled water while a new filtration system is installed. A Honeywell spokeswoman says the company hasn't seen the suit but is cooperating with the state investigation. Saint-Gobain also noted its cooperation and says it respects the right of people to sue. SCRANTON, PA: Judge Nixes Part of Rental Fee Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Terrie Morgan-Besecker, writing for The Times Tribune, reports that a Lackawanna County judge issued a mixed ruling on March 1 in a lawsuit that challenges Scranton's rental registration fee, finding that individual landlords cannot proceed as a class to recover excess fees they contend are illegal. The decision by Judge Terrence Nealon does not end the case, however. He must still decide whether to certify the lawsuit as a class action relating to the underlying issue of the legality of the fees. Adam Guiffrida, the owner of multiple rental properties, sued the city in May, alleging a 2014 increase in rental registration it enacted is illegal because the money generated will exceed the cost to run the program. Mr. Guiffrida wants to certify the case as a class action, which would allow all landlords in the city to join in the case. Should the judge decide against class certification, the landlords would have to file individual lawsuits against the city. The city filed a motion to dismiss the action seeking class certification, arguing state law does not allow a person seeking a refund of money owed to them by the government to transfer their claim to a class. Judge Nealon on March 1 granted the motion. The judge noted Mr. Guiffrida's attorney, Paul Batyko, agreed with the city's interpretation of the law and conceded that part of the lawsuit cannot proceed as a class action. The judge denied the city's motion to dismiss Mr. Guiffrida's request to certify the landlords as a class relating to the underlying claim, however. He is scheduled to hear arguments regarding that matter today. Should the judge rule in Mr. Guiffrida's favor, the case would proceed as a class action, which means the legal ruling regarding the legality of the fees would apply to all landlords. If the fees are later found to be illegal, the landlords would have to individually seek refunds from the city, however. SEMPRA ENERGY: Faces Class Action, May 2 Lead Plaintiff Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP on March 1 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Sempra Energy ("Sempra" or the "Company"), and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Southern District of California, and docketed under 16-cv-00512, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased Sempra securities between May 14, 2015 and November 23, 2015 inclusive (the "Class Period"). This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). If you are a shareholder who purchased Sempra securities on or after May 14, 2015, you have until May 2, 2016 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529 (or 888-4-POMLAW), toll free, ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. Sempra operates as an energy services holding company worldwide. The Company's Southern California Gas Company ("SoCalGas") segment transmits, distributes, and stores natural gas. As of February 6, 2015, this segment served approximately 21 million consumers through 5.8 million meters in 500 communities. This segment's service territory comprises approximately 20,000 square miles throughout Central and Southern California. On October 23, 2015, Sempra's subsidiary SoCalGas discovered a natural gas leak from the Company's Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility near the Porter Ranch neighborhood in Los Angeles (the "Porter Ranch Leak"). On October 28, 2015, after a strong gas odor became noticeable to Porter Ranch residents, SoCalGas publicly acknowledged the Porter Ranch Leak. For the next several months, SoCalGas attempted unsuccessfully to plug the well. Meanwhile, local residents reported symptoms including headaches, nausea, and severe nosebleeds, and thousands of families were relocated from the area as SoCalGas unsuccessfully attempted to seal the well. Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, cash position, prospects, and internal controls. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) SoCalGas lacked the capability to expeditiously repair gas leaks, causing a public hazard; (ii) an extended hazardous gas leak would constitute a serious threat to public health and safety; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On November 23, 2015, displaced Porter Ranch residents filed a class action lawsuit against SoCalGas, seeking damages and an order requiring SoCalGas to disclose information related to the health risks associated with the Porter Ranch Leak. With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and Los Angeles, The Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. SHORE MEDICAL: Law Firm Expects More Patients to Come Forward ------------------------------------------------------------- Don E. Woods, writing for NJ.com, reports that an Atlantic City law firm is talking to two clients but expect more to come forward who were potentially exposed to HIV and hepatitis at Shore Medical Center for a class action lawsuit. The alleged negligence of a former Shore Medical Center pharmacist may have exposed 213 patients to HIV and hepatitis. The hospital informed patients of the possible exposure through letters sent to them. Frederick P. McLeish, 53, of Egg Harbor Township, will appear in court March 7 for a status conference for allegedly taking morphine vials intended for patients and replacing it with saline solution. Mr. McLeish was suspended in September 2014 and arrested on Jan. 21, 2016. He was charged with drug tampering, theft by unlawful taking and possession of a controlled dangerous substance. Mr. McLeish's attorney John Zarych declined to comment on the matter as of Feb. 29. GMS Law is putting together the class action lawsuit against Shore Medical Center. The status of the class action lawsuit is pending the determination of a judge. According to GMS Law attorney Mark Pfeffer, the hospital violated the Pure Food and Drug Ac, which protects consumers from tainted drugs. Claims in the lawsuit also involve McLeish's employment and the hospital's delay in notifying patients of their possible exposure to HIV, hepatitis B or hepatitis C. According to a Shore Medical Center spokesman, the hospital does not comment on pending litigation but all employees are mandated to follow strict policies when it comes to treating patients. Shore Medical Center officials are notifying 213 patients that are at risk due to an employee's violation of hospital protocol, according to spokesman Brian Cahill. The investigation period is between June 1, 2013 and Sept. 17, 2014. Officials originally began investigating between July 1, 2014, and Sept. 17, 2014 but, as a precaution, the timeframe was expanded. According to the state Department of Health, the hospital is providing the testing for patients. The tests will be free of charge, according to the hospital. According to public records, Mr. McLeish surrendered his New Jersey pharmacist license in 2002 after stealing pain medicine from a CVS where he worked. The license was reinstated in 2004. Ever since first getting his license in Pennsylvania in 1986, Mr. McLeish was disciplined multiple times over the decades for various reasons, including a sting in rehabilitation for substance abuse. He surrendered his New Jersey license on December 2014. SLATER & GORDON: Aggrieved Investors Mull Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ David Hellier, writing for The Guardian, reports that Slater & Gordon, the Australian law firm brought low by a clampdown on whiplash claims in Britain and its purchase of the scandal-hit UK insurer Quindell, faces further problems after being targeted for possible class actions on behalf of aggrieved investors. The Sydney-based legal firm ACA Lawyers said it had finalized a funding agreement that would allow claimants to recover the money they have lost on buying shares in Slater & Gordon. A rival law firm, Maurice Blackburn Lawyers, has opened registrations to shareholders aggrieved over the company's performance and share price losses. The firm found itself embroiled in scandal after its purchase of Quindell in March last year. Shares in the insurer were suspended in June and the Serious Fraud Office opened an investigation in August. Bruce Clarke, principal with ACA Lawyers, said investors have many questions about the UK acquisition. "The directors have a lot of explaining to do. It was only in November shareholders and the market were being told the company was in good shape. Now three months later there are massive losses and writedowns. "It is not only institutional investors who have been burnt. Mum and dad investors and the company's own staff took up shares in the rights issue in reliance on what the company said. It now looks like they have done with their money." Slater & Gordon, which has 3,800 employees in the UK, has reported a AUS$958 million (GBP494 million) net loss for the six months, due primarily to the large writedown in the value of its UK business. It emerged during a conference call with analysts that Andrew Grech, the group's chief executive, offered to resign. "Clearly the results are very disappointing. In particular the decline in business performance in the UK is of serious concern to all at Slater & Gordon and equally will be of concern to our investors," Mr. Grech said. "We will therefore be taking a number of necessary and significant steps to improve the operational performance of both the UK business and the broader Slater & Gordon group." The firm said it had agreed to produce an operating plan and restructuring proposal by the end of April. Slater & Gordon bought the professional services arm of Quindell for GBP673m in a transaction partly financed by an equity capital raising. It renamed the company Watchstone. Mr. Clarke said there was "a wide net for recoverability" for actions of this type, with company advisers and insurers potentially in the line of fire if a claim were to be successful. He said there had been a significant number of successful cases in Australia. SLATER & GORDON: Financial Woes Pile Up as Class Action Looms ------------------------------------------------------------- Felicity Nelson, writing for Lawyers Weekly, reports that listed law firm Slater and Gordon has experienced a sharp decline in share value after releasing its half-year financial results on March 1. The value of the firm's shares have decreased more than 50 per cent since resuming trading on Feb. 29, dropping from $0.83 per share on February 23 to $0.38 per share on March 1, says the report. On Feb. 29, Slater and Gordon announced almost a $1 billion loss in the first half of FY2015-16. A banking syndicate, lead by National Australia Bank and Westpac, have set a one-month deadline for the firm to plan changes to its operations to ensure the viability of the business. Slater and Gordon has until April 30 to negotiate changes to the terms of its existing loans. If the firm does not present an operating plan and restructuring proposal, the banks are able to demand a full debt repayment by March 31, 2017. At the close of 2015, Slater and Gordon's net debt position was at $741 million. Managing director Andrew Grech offered to step down following the release of the financial results, but his resignation was rejected by the board of Slater and Gordon. Class actions spurred on by crushing financial results Maurice Blackburn has said it is "almost certain" that a class action on behalf of shareholders will proceed following the release of Slater and Gordon's financial results. Rival plaintiff firm Maurice Blackburn announced the launch of the class action in December last year. Andrew Watson, national head of class actions at Maurice Blackburn, released a statement saying: "The sheer size and scale of this write down casts enormous doubt on the adequacy of disclosures made by Slater and Gordon in relation the true value of the Quindell assets." "[The] announcement of an $876 million impairment in goodwill and a near $1 billion loss strengthens the themes our class action investigation is pursuing," he said. Similarly, ACA Lawyers has finalized a funding agreement with two leading litigation funding groups to investigate bringing a shareholder class action against Slater and Gordon. Bruce Clarke, principal at ACA Lawyers, said the potential class action had received a lot of interest from investors. "There is real anger among Slater and Gordon investors, from small mum and dad investors to large institutional investors who are looking for some way to recover the millions of dollars that have been lost over the past 10 months," he said. SOLVAY SPECIALTY: Settlement Gets Preliminary Court Approval ------------------------------------------------------------ David Bailey, writing for Reuters, reports that a federal judge has given preliminary approval to a proposed settlement of a class action that alleged a plastics plant had caused elevated levels of a chemical compound in the water supply of a small New Jersey town. Solvay Specialty Polymers USA and Arkema, a previous owner of the plant, which deny responsibility, would provide money for blood tests for residents and payments to property owners under the proposed settlement over perfluorinated chemicals in the drinking water in Paulsboro, an industrial town across the Delaware River from Philadelphia. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS: "Lopez" Sues over Gas Leaks ---------------------------------------------------- Arthur L, Lopez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Southern California Gas Company, Sempra Energy, State Of California, Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources and Does 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case BC606776 (Cal. Super., January 12, 2016), seeks unpaid minimum wage, overtime wage and gratuities, liquidated damages and reasonable attorney's fees, costs, prejudgment and post-judgment interest pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Lopez resides in Porter Ranch community of Los Angeles where a gas well leaked at Defendants' Aliso Canyon storage-facility releasing dangerous levels of toxic gases into the air. Southern California Gas Company is a natural gas distribution utility with Sempra Energy as its parent company. They are under the supervision of the State Of California, Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert C. Baker, Esq. Phillip A. Baker, Esq. Kenneth F. Spencer, Esq. BAKER, KEENER & NAHRA, LLP 633 West 5th Street, Suite 4900 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Tel: (213) 241-0900 Fax: (213) 241-0990 - and - Gregory G. Petersen, Esq. 21163 Newport Court Drive, Suite 600 Newport Coast Drive Newport Coast, CA 92657 Tel: (949) 864-2200 Fax: (949) 640-8983 SUBWAY: Class Action Settlement Gets Final Court Approval --------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that Subway customers can finally rest assured that their "Footlong" sandwiches will be as long as promised. A judge granted final approval to a settlement of a class-action suit filed against Subway after an Australian teenager posted an image on Facebook of a sandwich that was a mere 11 inches. The photo of a turkey sub alongside a tape measure shared by Matt Corby, from Perth, on the company's Facebook page garnered international media attention back in 2013. The New York Post found that four out of seven Footlongs it purchased in New York "measured only 11 or 11.5 inches." A judge in Wisconsin gave preliminary approval in October to a settlement between Subway's parent company Doctor's Associates and plaintiffs' lawyers, with final approval granted on February 25. As part of the settlement, Subway agreed to institute practices for at least four years to ensure its bread is at least 12 inches long. The judge approved $520,000 in legal fees and $500 for each of the 10 individuals who were representatives of the class, but no monetary claims were awarded to potential members of the class. "It was difficult to prove monetary damages, because everybody ate the evidence," said lawyer Thomas Zimmerman, adding that the fees were being split between 10 law firms. Subway said in a statement that it was pleased the judge found no wrongdoing on its part. "This allows us to move forward, without distractions, on our goal to provide great tasting sandwiches and salads, made exactly as each guest likes," the statement said. "We have already taken steps to ensure each guest receives the Footlong or six-inch sandwich they order." Lynn Adelman, judge for the US District Court Eastern District of Wisconsin, wrote in the final approval that the plaintiffs' lawyers realised their claims "were quite weak" after an initial mediation session. Instead of trying to get class certification for monetary damages, he said plaintiffs decided to focus on injunctive relief requiring Doctor's Associates to ensure its sandwiches are at least 12 inches long. Ms. Adelman wrote that the plaintiffs' lawyers learned Subway makes its bread with "dough sticks" that weigh the same when they arrive at stores frozen. The dough is then thawed and stretched before baking, a process that can lead to variability in the size and shape of the bread. While the dough may have different shapes, it still has the same quantity of ingredients, Ms. Adelman wrote. The amount of meat and cheese is also standardized, the judge observed, but it was possible a shorter bread loaf might lead to less filling. For instance, "a sandwich that was 1-inch shorter than advertised might be missing a few shreds of lettuce or a gram or two of mayonnaise," the judge wrote. Bu Ms. Adelman also noted that sandwiches are made in front of the customer, who can ask for more filling. "Thus, the plaintiffs learned that, as a practical matter, the length of the bread does not affect the quantity of food the customer receives," he added. Subway nevertheless agreed as part of the settlement to take steps to ensure its bread is at least 12 inches long, including requiring franchisees to "use a tool for measuring bread." TEEKAY CORP: Scott+Scott Files Class Action in Connecticut ---------------------------------------------------------- Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court of Connecticut on behalf of investors who purchased Teekay Corporation ("Teekay" or the "Company") common stock between June 30, 2015 and December 17, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Teekay was founded in 1973 as a regional shipping company and tanker operator. Today, Teekay has a diversified fleet with over $12 billion in assets and some of the world's largest fleets in the Company's core markets. On December 16, 2015, Teekay issued a press release in which it announced that the Company's "Board of Directors has approved a plan to reduce the Company's quarterly dividend to $0.055 per share, down from $0.55 per share in the third quarter of 2015, commencing with the fourth quarter of 2015 dividend payable in February 2016." On this news, Teekay's share price declined 58%. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company's repeated assurances that it would maintain a quarterly dividend of at least $0.55 per share were baseless; (2) the Company knew, based on then-present facts, that it could not support future dividend payments in excess of $0.55 per share; (3) the cash flows from the Company's master limited partnerships ("MLPs") -- Teekay LNG Partners LP ("TGP") and Teekay Offshore Partners LP ("TOO") -- could not possibly sustain such high dividends; and (4) Teekay misled the market about the strength of its business and financial condition. If you purchased Teekay stock and wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in the action, you must move the Court no later than May 2, 2016. Any member of the class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of its choice or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. If you wish to discuss this action or have questions concerning this notice or your rights, please contact Scott+Scott -- scottlaw@scott-scott.com -- (800) 404-7770, (860) 537-5537) or visit the Scott+Scott website for more information: http://www.scott-scott.com Scott+Scott has significant experience in prosecuting major securities, antitrust, and employee retirement plan actions throughout the United States. The firm represents pension funds, foundations, individuals, and other entities worldwide and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars on behalf of their clients. TIDAL: Faces Class Action Over $5MM in Past-Due Royalties --------------------------------------------------------- Bryan Clark, writing for TheNextWeb, reports that it seems the 'artist friendly' streaming option, Tidal, has run into a roadblock after failing to pay some $5 million in past-due royalties. After the relaunch of Tidal nearly a year ago, the service promised to take a more artist-centric focus by paying a fair share of revenue to each artist under the Tidal banner. The royalties, Jay Z bragged, were higher than any other streaming platform on the market. A class-action lawsuit filed by Yesh Music Publishing and John Emanuele (of the duo American Dollar) sought to prove that this artist friendly persona was nothing more than lip service. The lawsuit, which seeks $5 million in unpaid royalties and copyright infringement damages, claims that Tidal licensed at least 118 of American Dollar's songs without the duo's permission and has yet to pay a royalty for any of those streams. In a statement to Vulture, Tidal claims that Yesh Music and Emanuele are misinformed about who owed them royalties. Tidal has since removed American Dollar's music from its service. Since its launch, Tidal has always set out to differentiate itself from the likes of Spotify and Apple Music as the 'artist friendly' alternative. But the confusion over who Tidal is actually paying and may owe money to makes it seem decidedly unfriendly. TIDAL: Denies Claims in Class Action Over Unpaid Royalties ---------------------------------------------------------- The Source reports that since the recent $5 million class action lawsuit filed by John Emanuele of American Dollar, who claims that his band was not paid royalties, Shawn "Jay-Z" Carter has begun firing employees at Tidal streaming service. The company has recently issued a statement denying the claims in the suit, however, this hasn't stopped Jigga from handing out pink slips. Tidal also mentioned in their statement that they let go of COO Nils Juel and CFO Chris Hart. This is another instance where the young streaming service has managed to fire an employee within their executive ranks, especially after bad press. The streaming service still isn't starving for subscribers with their numbers doubling since the release of Kanye's The Life Of Pablo album release. TOKYO ELECTRIC: 3 Former Execs Indicted Over Fukushima Disaster --------------------------------------------------------------- Mayumi Negishi, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that Three former executives of Tokyo Electric Power Co. were indicted on Feb. 29 over the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster, a sign of public anger that no one had been charged with a crime over the biggest nuclear disaster since Chernobyl. Court-appointed lawyers acting as prosecutors charged former Tepco chairman Tsunehisa Katsumata and the former heads of the utility's nuclear division, Sakae Muto and Ichiro Takekuro, with professional negligence resulting in death and injury. The criminal charges were the first to result from the disaster, five years after a 13.1 meter tsunami swamped the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant, triggering meltdowns at three of the plant's six reactors. Tepco knew it was possible the plant could be hit by a tsunami bigger than it was designed to withstand, but made cost saving a higher priority than long-term safety, the prosecuting lawyers said in the indictment. The executives are expected to plead not guilty. They have repeatedly said the possibility of such a massive tsunami was unrealistic. Legal experts say they are likely to be acquitted, with the onus on the prosecution to prove that failure to protect the power plant from a tsunami was an act of criminal oversight. Prosecutors had twice decided not to indict the executives, saying it was impossible to charge them with criminal negligence for failing to take immediate action based on the unlikely threat of such an unusually large tsunami over the long term. Citizen panels twice challenged that decision, arguing that nuclear plant operators should prepare even for unlikely natural disasters, and that Tepco should have considered shutting down the plant until adequate safety measures had been taken. The second committee's decision was binding, requiring the appointment of independent prosecutors to try the case. Many Japanese are still angry about the Fukushima disaster, blaming Tepco and the government for both the accident itself and the way it has been handled. Nearly 100,000 people have been prevented from returning to their homes as entire towns around the plant have become temporary dumping grounds for radiation-contaminated soil. Communities have been destroyed and families torn apart. The nuclear meltdowns sent Tepco to the brink of bankruptcy, requiring a 1 trillion ($8.77 billion) government bailout. Tepco plans to spend about 2 trillion on the daunting task of decommissioning the plant, and has paid 5.9 trillion in compensation to residents so far. The compensation has done little to cool people's anger. "Tepco won't acknowledge that they are the perpetrators," said Ruiko Muto, one of 1,324 Fukushima residents who filed the original criminal complaint against 42 Tepco executives and government officials in 2012. " We hope the court proceedings will show that executives had years to take action against the tsunami, but did nothing." The crux of the legal battle ahead is Tepco's internal calculation in 2008 that a 15.7-meter tsunami could hit the plant, based on a projection by a government earthquake research body. Tepco has argued in court that the risk of such a tsunami was so low that it was outside the realm of realistic possibilities. According to the indictments, the victims of Tepco's decision include 13 people -- employees and members of Japan's Self-Defense Forces -- who were exposed to rubble from two hydrogen explosions, and 44 patients who died while being evacuated from a nearby hospital to avoid the fallout. Tepco is also fighting a class-action suit filed by a group of shareholders. The criminal trial won't start for about a year, due to the amount of documents that need to be vetted by both sides, according to Shozaburo Ishida, one of the court-appointed lawyers. TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Donald May Testify in Civil Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- CBS8.com reported that Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump is on the witness list in a class-action lawsuit set for trial in San Diego federal court, alleging fraud by his now-closed Trump University. According to pretrial documents reviewed by City News Service, Trump is listed as one of 23 potential witnesses for the plaintiffs. Two different lawsuits filed in 2010 allege Trump University engaged in deceptive practices and scammed thousands of students hoping to make it rich in real estate. One suit is a nationwide class-action and the other -- the one in which Trump may testify -- is a class-action case in Florida, New York and California. If Trump were to take the witness stand, it would be in May, just as voters cast ballots in Nebraska, West Virginia, Oregon and Washington state. Trump's attorneys have contended the lawsuits are politically motivated. TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Opposes Lead Plaintiff Removal in Fraud Case -------------------------------------------------------------- Maggie Severns, writing for Politico, reports that in the latest turn in the class-action lawsuit accusing Trump University of fraud, Donald Trump's lawyers have asked a judge to block the lead plaintiff from removing herself from the case -- which she is seeking to do in part because of his presidential bid. The plaintiff, Tarla Makaeff, has been deeply involved in the case against Mr. Trump's education business since it was filed in federal court in San Diego in 2010. But as the case crept closer to a trial, she filed paperwork asking to leave the class action. She said she is grieving the death of her mother, has developed health and anxiety issues, and never anticipated she could be heading to court to testify against the leading presidential candidate. "No one could have anticipated that he would become a viable presidential candidate and a 24/7 media obsession as this case neared trial," Ms. Makaeff's lawyers wrote in January. "Subjecting herself to the intense media attention and likely barbs from Mr. Trump and his agents and followers simply would not be healthy for her." But Mr. Trump's lawyers wrote in a filing submitted on Feb. 26 that it's too late for her change of heart. Mr. Trump argues that the entire court battle would have played out differently -- with the defense doing different discovery in the months leading up to trial -- has Ms. Makaeff not been front and center. They also point out apparent discrepancies in Ms. Makaeff's case against Trump, namely that she rated a number of her experiences at Trump University highly while she was taking the coursework. (Ms. Makaeff and others have said they were pressured to praise the courses.) "Makaeff brought this lawsuit, allowed herself to become the public poster child for it, and should be required to finish what she started," the filing says. Mr. Trump also brought Ms. Makaeff's fears to realization on Feb. 27 when he attacked her -- although he mangled her name -- at a rally in Arkansas, pointing to her positive ratings for Trump University. "Her name is Tarloff or something," he said. "She is a horrible, horrible witness. She's got in writing that she loves it." TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Fraud Class Action Can Proceed, Court Rules ------------------------------------------------------------- Dareh Gregorian, writing for New York Daily News, reports there's bad news for The Donald on Super on March 1 as court rules N.Y. attorney general's Trump University fraud lawsuit can proceed. On a day of Super Tuesday wins for Donald Trump, he suffered a loss in New York -- a state appeals court gave a green light to a civil fraud claim against the GOP front-runner and his Trump University. In a unanimous ruling, a four-judge panel of the state Appellate Division said the state attorney general's office is "authorized to bring a cause of action for fraud" -- despite the bloviating billionaire's claims to the contrary. Lawyers for Trump and his now-defunct school -- a signature issue in Republican primary race -- have contended that Attorney General Eric Schneiderman's suit should be tossed. They say the statute of limitations on the case had expired -- but the appeals court disagreed. Mr. Schneiderman charged Trump University, which operated between 2004 and 2010, was a sham that ripped off its students, beginning with a "free" seminar. Through "their deceptive and unlawful practices, (Trump and the school) intentionally misled over 5,000 individuals nationwide, including over 600 New Yorkers, into paying as much as $35,000 each to participate in live seminars and mentorship programs with the promise of learning Donald Trump's real estate investing techniques," the AG's office said. Mr. Schneiderman's office filed suit in August 2013 after getting almost 70 complaints from students who said they were duped into paying thousands for investment advising services they never received after getting lured in for "free" seminars. UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Defends Driver Background Check Policy --------------------------------------------------------- Rebekah Mintzer, writing for Corporate Counsel, reports that tragedy struck in Kalamazoo, Michigan, when a local man, Jason Dalton, carried out a seemingly random shooting spree that left six people dead. Many observers were surprised to find out that Dalton drove for Uber Technologies Inc. and may have even been transporting passengers between murders. Dalton had no criminal history and good customer reviews, so perhaps no employer could have seen this coming. But the shooting has nonetheless breathed new life into a long-running debate over whether Uber is doing enough to vet drivers. Those concerns were amplified by a 2014 lawsuit filed by state prosecutors in California, which alleged that Uber's vetting process has missed registered sex offenders and other felons. Uber's critics say it needs stricter background checks on prospective drivers. Ride-booking companies rely on private record checkers to do name and Social Security number-based checks. Taxi companies, on the other hand, use government-run systems based on fingerprinting. "The fingerprint-based, government-conducted criminal background check can access more fully an individual's criminal history," says Dave Sutton, a spokesman for the Taxicab, Limousine & Paratransit Association initiative "Who's Driving You?" Others say Uber may also want to re-evaluate its policy of not doing in-person interviews with candidates. A well-trained interviewer can pick up cues from an interviewee about the risks he or she might pose, says Brad Hiles, a partner at the law firm Husch Blackwell. With Uber, "there's less of an examination at the time the [employment] relationship is initially established," Hiles says. "And then after that's established, you don't have the human contact to observe bad behavior." Uber representatives addressed these criticisms in a conference call with reporters on Feb. 22. According to Wired, the Uber officials argued that a fingerprint-based background check would not have raised red flags about Dalton's behavior. Uber also defended its policy of not doing in-person interviews. "The idea that simply by having someone look at someone, that they could determine if they were about to have a psychotic episode, is a faulty theory," Uber safety advisory board member Ed Davis told reporters. UBS AG: Settles Price Rigging Class Action for $100-Mil. -------------------------------------------------------- Lawyer Herald reported that UBS AG and four other banks including Natixis SA and JPMorgan Chase & Co, have agreed to pay more than $100 million over the plaintiffs' claim that they connived to rig prices for municipal securities. The defendants have agreed to pay the investors of $100.5 million. As per Yahoo, France's Natixis SA and Societe Generale, two of the defendants would pay investors of $2.8 million. . If the settlement would be approved by a federal judge, it would reportedly end a private class action lawsuit that has been going on for almost eight years. UBS and the four other banks and brokerages would also end up paying over $226 million fines. JPMorgan Chase & Co. would pay $44.6 million alone. "We will not tolerate this type of misconduct at any level," said New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, after announcing the states' settlement with Natixis and Societe Generale. The City of Baltimore and the Central Bucks School District in Pennsylvania are one of the plaintiffs accusing the defendants of colluding to arrange prices for municipal derivatives. The plaintiffs argued that the fixed price for municipal derivatives resulted to lower interest rates than they would have received in a an aggressive marketplace, HITC reports. Municipalities selling bonds usually invest proceeds to spend in other means. The plaintiffs alleged that UBS and other banks have abused this process by deliberately presenting non-winning bids and by getting advance peeks at their competitors' bids. The private settlement between UBS and other banks, and the investors was approved by U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero in Manhattan. Despite the agreement, the plaintiffs have dismissed the claims. UBS has agreed to pay $32 million, Natixis promised to pay $28.45 million, Societe Generale with $25.41 million, Piper Jaffray Cos with $9.75 million, Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc's National Westminster Bank with $3.5 million, and George K. Baum & Co promised to pay $1.4 million, Reuters claims. Aside from UBS, other banks that have settled with the investors include Bank of America Corp, Wells Fargo & Co, and General Electric Co. The U.S. Department of Justice and state regulators have also accused the municipal bond markets with corruption. Five banks have agreed to pay over $740 million in penalties, restitution and disgorgement. UNION PACIFIC: Employees File ADA Class Action in Washington ------------------------------------------------------------ On February 19, 2016, six current and former employees of Union Pacific Railroad Company filed a class action lawsuit in the Western District of Washington at Seattle (Case No. CV15-1865JCC), asserting that Union Pacific engaged in a pattern and practice of discrimination in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C 12101 et seq. The case alleges that Union Pacific has put numerous long-time employees out of work due to their actual or perceived disabilities even though they could perform their jobs. The suit explains that Union Pacific requires certain employees to disclose particular health events or conditions. Once an employee makes such a disclosure, Union Pacific removes the employee from service and conducts a so-called "Fitness-for-Duty" procedure, but the employees allege that this evaluation does not assess whether an employee can perform the essential functions of their job. The employee is not even physically evaluated, and Union Pacific routinely disregards the opinions of treating doctors who do evaluate the employee. Instead, Union Pacific collects extensive medical information from the employee and conducts a "file review" of the information. Plaintiffs allege that Union Pacific then mines the medical information and disqualifies the employees from service -- either by deeming them "medically disqualified" or by issuing permanent, unnecessary work restrictions that it then refuses to accommodate. The six named plaintiffs allege that Union Pacific discriminated against them through this "Fitness-for-Duty" protocol. The plaintiffs include the following employees, all of whom were taken out of service by Union Pacific: -- An individual who has had a pacemaker for more than 20 years as a Union Pacific employee, who had never had a work-related incident as a result; -- An individual with fully-controlled epilepsy who had never had a work-related incident as a result; -- An individual who had lightheadedness on a few isolated incidents outside of work; -- An individual with a fully-controlled heart condition who never had a work-related incident; -- An individual with fully-controlled seizure disorder; and -- An Iraq War veteran formerly diagnosed with PTSD who never had a work incident as a result. Plaintiffs seek to certify a class of: "Individuals who were removed from service over their objection, and/or suffered another adverse employment action, during their employment with Union Pacific for reasons related to a Fitness-for-Duty evaluation at any time from 300 days before the earliest date that a named Plaintiff filed an administrative charge of discrimination to the resolution of this action." Plaintiffs' Counsel James H. Kaster stated, "Our clients were capable of performing the essential functions of their jobs, and in fact were doing their jobs safely for a long time. In most cases, they had never had a work related incident as a result of their conditions, and their treating doctors informed Union Pacific they were fit to work. Nevertheless, Union Pacific apparently stopped them from working because they had once been diagnosed with certain conditions. Railroads are not exempt from the Americans with Disabilities Act and the ADA prohibits discrimination against disabled employees who can perform the essential functions of their jobs." The plaintiffs are represented by James H. Kaster, David E. Schlesinger, Bonnie M. Smith, Nicholas D. Thompson and Charles A. Delbridge of Nichols Kaster, PLLP; Bradley W. Wahrlich and Kristoffer S. Mayfield of Hildebrand McLeod and Nelson; and Joseph A. Grube and Karen K. Orehoski of Breneman Grube Orehoski, PLLC. Nichols Kaster is a plaintiffs firm that focuses on representing employees and consumers whose rights have been violated. UNITED STATES: Finalizes $940MM Settlement with Tribes ------------------------------------------------------ Kate Prengaman, writing for Yakama Herald, reports that Obama Administration has finalized a $940 million settlement with hundreds of tribes, including the Yakama Nation, ending a 25-year legal dispute over inadequate payments to tribal agencies. Officials announced the intended settlement in the case last fall, but it was approved in U.S. District Court in Albuquerque, N.M., and settlement checks should be heading to tribal governments soon. The Yakama Nation's share of the class action suit is $7.2 million, according to documents prepared by the attorneys handling the case. The case was filed by the Ramah Chapter of the Najavo Nation, the Oglala Sioux Tribe and the Zuni Pueblo on behalf of more than 600 tribes. It claimed that as tribes took control of programs such as education, law enforcement and forest management that previously had been run by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the government failed to provide sufficient funding to meet its contract agreements with the tribes. In 2012, the Supreme Court ruled in the tribes' favor and settlement negotiations began. "Tribes can now be confident that the federal government will pay sufficient costs to allow them to be successful in running federal programs," said Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs Kevin Washburn in a press release when the settlement plans were announced in September. It's the latest in a series of settlements by the Obama Administration with tribes across the country, including the $3.4 billion Cobell case over government mismanagement of Indian lands that was eventually paid out to individual tribal members. UNITED STATES: Health Republic Files $2.5-Bil. Suit --------------------------------------------------- Ayla Ellison, writing for Beckers Hospital Review, reports that claiming health insurers were shortchanged by the Affordable Care Act's risk corridor program, Health Republic Insurance Co. has filed a $2.5 billion class-action lawsuit against the U.S., although the CEO of the company says recoveries could be up to $5 billion. The risk corridor program is designed to temporarily level the financial playing field for payers by limiting both unexpectedly high gains and losses associated with participating in a new insurance market. Insurers that saw greater profits paid into a pool to compensate insurers with higher losses. The three-year program, which runs through 2016, fell short by more than $2.5 billion in its first year because so many insurers experienced losses in the individual market. In its lawsuit, Lake Oswego, Ore.-based Health Republic alleges the shortfall in 2014 caused financial distress for some insurers and put others out of business. In October, Health Republic announced it would not offer health plans in 2016. Health Republic claims insurers participating in the risk corridor program will incur even greater losses for 2015 because, like the year prior, HHS is prevented from making any risk corridor payments with government funds. "If not remedied, this paradigm will require insurers to sharply raise their rates and decrease benefits to protect against potential losses from this new risk pool that needs more time to stabilize, resulting in much higher costs to American taxpayers in the long run than the temporary risk corridor program itself, seemingly for perceived political gain," wrote Health Republic in its complaint. Health Republic is seeking full payment of the risk corridor payments for itself and all other similarly situated insurers, which Health Republic CEO Dawn Bonder said could be as much as $5 billion, according to the Portland Business Journal. Ms. Bonder said repayment of its risk corridor money would allow Health Republic to repay the $60 million in loans it owes the federal government, rather than defaulting. The lawsuit is pending in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. UTICA, NY: Refugees' Discrimination Class Action Ongoing -------------------------------------------------------- Hasi Lo Wang, writing for NPR, reports that whether or not you're a citizen in New York state, you have a right to attend a public high school and earn a diploma until you're 21. That was Pawsansoe Bree's plan after she left a refugee camp in Thailand when she was almost 19. She resettled about four hours north of New York City -- in the small, Rust Belt city of Utica, N.Y., which the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees once called "The Town That Loves Refugees." Ms. Bree says she knew she had a lot of work to do when she arrived. "I did not speak any English at all. I could barely say my name in English," says Ms. Bree, whose family fled Myanmar, also known as Burma, as refugees from the ethnic Karen community. In Utica, Ms. Bree went to a newcomers program, where a teacher from the local school district taught English to young refugees like her. Eventually, the students asked to move on to Thomas R. Proctor High School, Utica's only high school. "The teacher there told us, 'Oh, no, you cannot go to a high school,' " Ms. Bree recalls. "And we were like, 'Why?' And they told us, 'Oh, you are too old. You're 19 now, so by the time you're 21, you won't finish high school. You would just waste your time.' " 'An Open Secret' That conversation took place about eight years ago. Ms. Bree says since then, other district employees have given similar explanations to refugees who speak little or no English and want to go to high school. That's why she helped organize a group of students to sue the Utica City School District in federal court. Their class-action lawsuit, filed last April, says that for almost a decade, the district has discriminated against refugee students over 16, who are not required to go to school under New York state law. "It was an open secret that refugees just knew within the community that once you were at a certain age and you're arriving in the country, you're just not going to get a chance to go to high school," says Phil Desgranges, an attorney with the New York Civil Liberties Union, which is representing the students along with Legal Services of Central New York. Mr. Desgranges says the district funneled his clients to alternative programs, mainly to learn English. While some students could attend GED classes, he claims none were given the choice to earn high school diplomas. "They're putting them on a track where they can't become a doctor, where they can't become an engineer or a lawyer," he says. "And that is absurd. That's the exact opposite of what our country's been built on, right?" 'Utica Needs To Get Its Fair Share' NPR asked for an interview with the district's superintendent, Bruce Karam. His office directed requests to the district's attorney, who did not respond to multiple requests before publication. But in a sworn statement filed in federal court, Mr. Karam says that the district has not "denied enrollment to any eligible students based upon their age." He is also asking a judge to dismiss a second, similar lawsuit filed by the New York state attorney general in November. "We want to be able to provide the sound basic education, which is guaranteed under the state constitution to all students, including our refugee population," Mr. Karam recently told Utica radio station WIBX. "But in order to do this, the funding formula has got to be fixed, and Utica needs to get its fair share." Utica is one of New York's poorest school districts. It has faced hundreds of layoffs and regular budget deficits. In fact, it's involved in a separate lawsuit that says public schools in Utica and other small cities in New York have suffered from underfunding by the state. 'The Children Have A Right To Study' Still, the state attorney general's office argues that Utica is breaking federal funding rules by discriminating against immigrant students. Justin Deabler, an assistant attorney general for New York, adds that problems enrolling immigrants in schools have grown since the recent surge of unaccompanied children from Central America. "The settlements that our office has reached have spanned northern, western New York, southern New York," he says. "We see these problems cropping up all over New York state, not simply in Utica." More than 20 school districts have settled with New York's attorney general's office, which announced its latest agreement on Feb. 29 after an investigation found that the Westbury Union Free School District on Long Island was excluding immigrants over 16 from high school. Mr. Deabler says Utica is the first school district the state has taken to court on this issue. It's also the first district Patrick Tuyizere, 19, has ever sued. He's one of the refugee students who filed the class-action lawsuit claiming the district prevented them from going to high school. But now Mr. Tuyizere leaves his family's apartment most mornings with a backpack strapped on. After he filed the lawsuit, the district contacted him about enrolling at Proctor High School, which he and four other refugee students in the suit recently started attending. "We have a right to be in class to study. The children have a right to study," says Mr. Tuyizere, who was born in a refugee camp in Rwanda after his family fled from violence in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Both cases against the Utica City School District are still ongoing. Mr. Tuyizere's attorneys say they want to make sure other refugees can go to high school -- even if they don't have lawyers backing them up. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Seeks to Centralize Emissions Fraud Suits ----------------------------------------------------------- David Gialanella, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that facing litigation in numerous federal and state jurisdictions over alleged vehicle emissions fraud, Volkswagen is seeking to centralize suits pending in New Jersey state court. An application for multicounty litigation, posted Feb. 24 in a notice to the bar, said sending those matters to Atlantic County "is the most efficient, cost-effective, and non-prejudicial vehicle for the 'Clean Diesel' actions to be managed[.]" The company is likely to face opposition in that effort, an attorney for one of the plaintiffs said. According to the application, dated Feb. 11 and filed on Volkswagen's behalf by Gibbons of Newark, there were more than 600 suits nationwide against Volkswagen Group of America Inc. as of that date. A dozen had been filed in 10 New Jersey Superior Court vicinages, with two of those asserting claims on behalf of a class. In addition to Volkswagen, seven auto dealerships are named as defendants in the New Jersey suits, the application states. It seeks consolidation in Atlantic County -- one of three vicinages that handles MCL matters. The other two are Bergen and Middlesex. Atlantic currently has the lightest MCL docket of the three, according to the application. Federal litigation already has been centralized. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation directed those suits to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Dec. 18. As of that date, there were five Volkswagen suits pending in New Jersey Superior Court, according to the application, which points to the federal MDL as counseling in favor of centralizing the New Jersey cases. The application notes that former FBI Director Robert Mueller III, now a partner in the Washington, D.C., office of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, was appointed settlement master in the federal MDL on Jan. 19. MCL designation in New Jersey "would allow one . . .state court judge to coordinate case management and stay apprised of potential early settlement or mediation opportunities in the MDL and encourage similar efforts here" to expedite the matter, Volkswagen claimed in the application. "The MDL court, with which the MCL court is expected to coordinate, has reiterated its desire to resolve the federal matter quickly," the company added. "There is no reason to believe that a judge presiding over a consolidated MCL here will not be of the same mindset." Andrew Wolf of the Wolf Law Firm in North Brunswick, who represents the plaintiff in one New Jersey-based putative class action in Middlesex County, contended that expediency is not Volkswagen's goal when it comes to the New Jersey cases. "The apparent intent of Volkswagen is to try to delay the state court action while the federal action is pending," Mr. Wolf said. Mr. Wolf said "we plan on opposing" the MCL application, which he characterized as unnecessary given the relatively small number of cases in New Jersey court. WALGREEN CO: "Legget" Sues over Overcharging on Prescriptions -------------------------------------------------------------- Gregory Leggett, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Walgreen Co., d/b/a Walgreens, Defendant, Case BC606632 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles County, January 11, 2016), seeks damages, disgorgement of profits or restitution pursuant to California Civil Code. 1750 et seq., economic, monetary, actual, consequential and compensatory damages, injunction, reasonable attorneys' fees and further relief as may be necessary or appropriate for violation of Evidence Code 1158, the California Unfair Competition Law California Business & Professions Code Sec. 17200, et seq., the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, California Civil Code Sec. 1750, et seq. and breach of contract and of duty of good faith and fair dealing. Defendants charged Legget fees exceeding applicable statutory limitations for copies of their health records, specifically $55.00 for copies of prescription records. Walgreen Co. is an Illinois corporation having its principal place of business at 200 Wilmot Road, Deerfield, Illinois 60015. Walgreens is a pharmacy duly licensed under the laws of the state of California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Francis J. Flynn, Jr., Esq. CAREY, DANIS & LOWE Los Angeles, CA 90036 Tel: (314) 662-2836 Email: francisflynn@gmail.com - and - Tiffany M. Yiatras, Esq. CAREY, DANIS & LOWE 8235 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1100 Saint Louis, MO 63105-1643 Tel: (314) 725-7700 Email: tyiatras@careydanis.com WESTERN PACIFIC: "Centria Homeowners" Sues Over Building Flaws -------------------------------------------------------------- Centria Homeowners Association, a California non-profit corporation on behalf of itself, and in its representative capacity on behalf of its members, Plaintiff, v. Western Pacific Housing, Inc., a Delaware corporation and D.R. Horton, Inc., a Delaware corporation and Does 1-100, inclusive Defendants, Case 16CV289945 (Cal. Super., Sta. Clara County, January 11, 2016), seeks compensatory damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest for breach of contract, violation of Governing Documents and Breach of Fiduciary Duty. Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant failed to address problems in waterproofing, building envelope, window, deck, walkway, hardscape, landscape, irrigation and drainage, plumbing, roofing and structural and installation defects of the residential unit at the Centria Condominium Project. The Plaintiff is represented by: Randolph M. Paul, Esq. Jordan M. Rojas, Esq. BERDING, WELL LLP 2175 N. California Blvd, Suite 500 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Tel: (925) 838-2090 Fax: (925) 820-5592 Email: roaul@bcrdingweil.com jrojas@berdingweil.com WHOLE FOODS: Judge Tosses Pre-pack Food Overpricing Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kelly Knaub, Max Stendahl and Emily Field, writing for Law360, report that a New York federal judge on March 1 threw out a proposed class action accusing Whole Foods of overcharging for prepackaged foods by overstating their weight, saying the consumers leading the case had failed to show that they had purchased items affected by the alleged mislabeling. U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer agreed with Whole Foods that plaintiffs Joseph Bassolino and Sean John, who have said they regularly shop at Whole Foods stores and purchased the same kinds of items that were implicated in the investigation, failed to identify in their consolidated amended complaint any particular transaction in which they were allegedly overcharged. The complaint, Judge Engelmayer said, makes broad and conclusory generalizations about Messrs. Bassolino and John having purchased overweighed foods at Whole Foods, and such generalized claims cannot confer standing. He also found that the two men's exclusive reliance on the press release issued by the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs, which found that food sold by weight was "routinely" overpriced, in some cases by as much as 40 percent, doomed their claims as well, saying the release nowhere stated that every pre- packaged food product, or every package of some smaller subset of products, sold at every Whole Foods store in New York City was labeled with an overstated weight and thus, overpriced. "A claim based only on probabilistic evidence of injury, devoid of any factual allegations particular to the plaintiff and without a basis to plausibly infer that all covered products were implicated, does not adequately plead injury-in-fact," Judge Engelmayer said. The judge alternatively found that the consolidated amended complaint is defective on the ground that it fails to state a claim. The litigation stems from the DCA's announcement in June of its investigation, in which it tested 80 different prepackaged products, including berries, nuts, vegetables, meat and baked goods. The department found that 89 percent of the foods tested were missing more product than was allowed under federal guidelines. Whole Foods later acknowledged that some customers had been overcharged, but the company denied that the incorrect labeling was intentional. It reached a $500,000 settlement with the DCA on Dec. 28. Messrs. Bassolino and John claimed they purchased the same kinds of items that were implicated in the investigation, including prepackaged cheeses, chicken and cupcakes. The men had separately filed putative class actions against the upscale grocer not long after the DCA issued its press release, and the two suits were consolidated in October. Mr. Bassolino had tried remanding his case to state court, but lost his bid after the court found that Whole Foods had shown, with reasonable probability, that he had sought damages exceeding $5 million on the theory he had pled. Attorneys for the consumers did not respond on March 1 to a request for comment. An attorney for Whole Foods declined to comment. The consumers are represented by Jeremiah Frei-Pearson, D. Greg Blankinship and Todd Garber of Finkelstein Blankinship Frei- Pearson & Garber LLP and Marie Napoli and Annie Causey of Napoli Shkolnik PLLC. Whole Foods is represented by David Sellinger -- sellingerd@gtlaw.com -- Gregory Casas -- casasg@gtlaw.com -- and Todd Schleifstein of Greenberg Traurig LLP. The case is Sean John v. Whole Foods Market Group Inc., case number 1:15-cv-05838, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. * Oklahoma Takes Measures to Address Fracking-Related Quakes ------------------------------------------------------------ William Yardley, writing for Los Angeles Times, reports that more than five years after Oklahoma first saw a startling spike in earthquakes linked to the disposal of huge volumes of wastewater created by hydraulic fracturing for oil, the state continues to shake at an unprecedented rate and the number of strong quakes is increasing. In 2009, there were 20 quakes of magnitude 3.0 or higher, according to the United States Geological Survey. Last year, there were 890. In 2009, no quake measured 4.0 or greater. Last year, 30 did. Yet even as many anxious Oklahomans now track seismic data on their smartphones and struggle to sleep through the long, rumbling nights, there has been one notable location where people rarely seemed rattled. That is here, in the state capital, where the oil industry holds so much sway that for decades drill rigs have extracted crude from directly beneath the Capitol building. As one Democratic state lawmaker, Cory Williams, put it in an interview: "They own the place." Now, however, after quakes have shaken the homes of some top elected officials -- and those of the worried constituents who vote for them -- the state is taking new steps to address the problem, even as critics say it is too little, too late. The Oklahoma Corporation Commission, the agency that regulates the oil and gas industry, asked oil producers operating in the northwest part of the state to reduce the amount of wastewater they are disposing of deep underground by 40%. Scientists say natural faults in the area are being stirred by billions of gallons of water injected deep into the ground after it is used for hydraulic fracturing, commonly known as fracking. Water and chemicals are used to break oil and gas free from rock formations. A large amount of the water returns to the surface and, under federal law, must be disposed of in a way that does not affect freshwater supplies. Also, the speaker of the Oklahoma state House, Jeff Hickman, a Republican who represents Fairview, sponsored a bill that clarifies that the commission has the power to take enforcement actions -- not just to politely ask the industry to change. And late in January, Gov. Mary Fallin, a Republican who only last summer acknowledged the connection between quakes and oil production, announced that she would direct $1.4 million in emergency funds to the commission and to the Oklahoma Geological Survey to hire new staffers and improve technology and monitoring equipment. (Critics note that, days after making the announcement, the governor did not mention earthquakes in her annual State of the State speech.) All of it comes as quakes increasingly have been felt in more urban areas, leading to fear, frustration and larger crowds at town hall meetings. More than 500 people attended a public meeting on earthquakes at the University of Central Oklahoma in Edmond, with some participants having to watch from an overflow room. The environmental activist Erin Brockovich spoke, as did a Sierra Club official and a lawyer who is building a class-action lawsuit against the oil industry for personal property damage. The Sierra Club is also suing energy companies on grounds that they are endangering public health and the environment. "Write your story," Little-Rock, Ark.-based lawyer Scott Poynter wrote in a letter to people attending the meeting. "Describe the events that you and your family have experienced with the earthquakes. This case will take years, and you will need the story to refresh your memory. Also, it will help me keep everyone's problems straight." Richard Morrissette, a term-limited Democratic state lawmaker not previously known for being active on the issue, announced to the crowd that he planned to run for one of the three commission seats in the fall election. Among his promises: to fight for the repeal of a bill the Republican-controlled Legislature passed last year to prevent local governments from ordering moratoriums on wastewater injection wells. "The Legislature took away your rights," said Mr. Morrissette, whose district is on the south side of Oklahoma City. That prompted cheers from a crowd that grew raucous at times. Edmond, where the meeting was held, is one of the wealthiest areas of the state, and many of its residents have become more vocal as quakes have crept closer and grown stronger. On Feb. 13, a quake northwest of Fairview, about two hours away, registered a magnitude of 5.1, making it the third-strongest quake in the state's recorded history. The strongest was in 2011. The second-strongest was in 1952; and scientists now say it, too, may have been induced by nearby oil production. "What's changed is the earthquakes have come back, and they've come back to an area where the people know how to make noise," said Matt Skinner, a spokesman for the Oklahoma Corporation Commission. "They have the money. They have the power." Mr. Skinner said he was weary of hearing that the commission is in the pocket of the industry, that it is ignoring science and that it should simply order a moratorium to stop all disposal wells. The first and second are not true and the third would not stand up in court, he said, because of the challenge of directly linking specific disposal actions to specific quakes. "We have broad correlations but we don't have specific correlations," he said. Mr. Skinner emphasized that he and other staff members have suffered damage at their houses from quakes. He said the recent reductions, which critics note depend on voluntary compliance by the industry, have shown the potential to work -- but that it may take time. "There's going to be a time when we have to go back and say, 'What did we miss? Why did we miss this?'" he said. "But right now, we've got a fire on our hands and we've got to put it out." Mr. Williams, who represents Stillwater, said state officials are overstating the limitations they face and understating their authority. He says the state can order a moratorium, and he wants it to create financial incentives for companies to find safer ways to dispose of wastewater. "We're taking some action," he said of recent moves by the commission and the governor. "But we are taking it three years too late. We have gotten better, but that's not saying much." * Scalia's Death Poses Challenges for Class Action Defendants ------------------------------------------------------------- Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that Carter Phillips of Sidley Austin is one of the most experienced U.S. Supreme Court litigators in the country. According to his official bio, Mr. Phillips has argued 74 cases before the justices, more than anyone else in private practice, but if you hire Phillips, you're not just paying for his quick thinking at the podium. You want his strategic advice about how -- and whether -- you can win your case. So it's quite telling that Phillips seems to no longer believe that the Supreme Court will act as a savior for corporations facing class actions. On Feb. 26, as you've probably heard, Mr. Phillips' client Dow Chemical agreed to drop its bid for Supreme Court review of a jury verdict against the company for participating in a price-fixing conspiracy to inflate the cost of urethane chemicals. Dow had argued that the trial court improperly certified a class of urethane purchasers in which some class members suffered no actual injury -- a constitutional argument that has been a particular bugaboo for class action detractors in the past couple of years. Mr. Phillips persuaded the justices to take up the question of uninjured class members in another of his cases this term, Tyson Foods v. Bouaphakeo. But at oral arguments, the court seemed disinclined to use the Tyson case, which involved a jury verdict for unpaid overtime wages to a class of Tyson meat processing workers, as a vehicle for sweeping class action revisions. The already very slim chance that the Supreme Court would issue a ruling in Tyson that would help class action defendants like Dow became even thinner with the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, the court's leading class action skeptic. Indeed, as my Reuters colleague Lawrence Hurley reported on Feb. 26, Dow's announcement of its $835 million capitulation to urethane purchasers was unusually candid about how the uncertainty over Scalia's vacant seat has led to "increased likelihood for unfavorable outcomes for businesses involved in class action suits." As if to underline Dow's prediction, the Supreme Court refused to grant certiorari to the nutritional supplement seller Direct Digital, which wanted the justices to overturn a decision from the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that said plaintiffs' affidavits are a perfectly fine way to determine class membership. The court also denied review of a class action against Wal-Mart that presented the question of whether the filing of successive class actions can extend the statute of limitations for absent class members. For class action detractors, it's increasingly evident that Scalia's absence from the Supreme Court means at least a temporary halt in the long campaign to rein in these cases -- not just because Scalia won't be pushing his colleagues to circumscribe the rights of class action plaintiffs in written opinions but because there will be less appetite to take cases to begin with. Defendants might not even want to bring class action issues to the Supreme Court if they can't count on having Justice Scalia in their corner. Think about the Direct Digital case, for instance. In that decision, the 7th Circuit explicitly split with the 3rd Circuit on the standard for ascertaining class membership. In the 3rd Circuit, plaintiffs cannot rely on affidavits from people claiming to be in the class. In the 7th Circuit, they can. Without Justice Scalia, defendants have little chance of mustering a majority to hold that, in essence, consumer class actions cannot be based on sworn statements from consumers. Their best outcome would be a 4-4 tie, which would merely preserve the status quo. And the worst-case scenario would wipe out favorable precedent in the 3rd Circuit. Under those circumstances, defendants might better off leaving well enough alone, preserving a circuit split and uncertainty -- which at least gives them a little leverage in settlement talks -- rather than risking disadvantageous Supreme Court precedent. The Supreme Court hasn't yet issued opinions in Tyson Foods and the other potential class action blockbuster of this term, Spokeo v. Robins, which poses the question of whether Congress can legislate standing by creating a private right of action for violations of federal consumer protection laws. My prediction is that the justices opt for relatively narrow rulings in both Tyson and Spokeo. In Tyson Foods, the likeliest outcome is an opinion upholding the verdict against the company based on the class certification standards for a Fair Labor Standards Act collective action rather than Rule 23 class action standards. At oral arguments in Spokeo, the justices seemed to agree with the credit reporting company that Congress does not have absolute authority to grant standing by statute. But the court also appeared to take a broad view of what might constitute an injury under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the law at issue in the case. Ms. Frankel said "I'm not suggesting the Supreme Court is likely to roll back from the business-friendly class action opinions Justice Scalia has written. Wal-Mart v. Dukes, which raised the bar for class membership, and AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion and American Express v. Italian Colors, which upheld the primacy of class action bans in mandatory arbitration agreements, are securely in place. But as I've said before, Justice Scalia's most recent big class action opinion, Comcast v. Behrend, has turned out to be an underachiever. The justice included language in the Comcast opinion that class action opponents hope to use to prohibit class certification in cases involving individualized damages calculations. Lower appellate courts, however, have refused to read the opinion that way." At oral arguments in the Tyson and Spokeo cases, Justice Scalia was characteristically sharp in his questions about class certification and uninjured plaintiffs. But until and unless class action opponents bring another justice onto their side, defendants ought not count on the Supreme Court for a reprieve. * U.S. Supreme Court Won't Consider Class Membership Test --------------------------------------------------------- Perry Cooper, writing for Bloomberg BNA, reports that the U.S. Supreme Court declined Feb. 29 to consider how strict the test should be for determining who is a member of a class for certification purposes. The top court, in refusing to review a dietary supplement consumer suit, passed on what one defense attorney said was its best chance this term to rule on ascertainability, an issue that many say has divided the federal courts of appeal. The Third Circuit requires that sales records--or other reliable evidence of product purchases identifying class members--must be available for a class to be found ascertainable. The Sixth and Seventh Circuits have rejected that strict approach. The Sixth Circuit, and Seventh Circuit below in this case, both stayed dietary supplement suits while defendants challenged ascertainability at the Supreme Court, perhaps expecting that review was likely. But defense attorney Jonathan R. Chally told Bloomberg BNA in a Feb. 29 e-mail that he wouldn't read too much into the stays. Although the Seventh Circuit focused on the split, the plaintiffs "went to great lengths to downplay" it in briefs before the Supreme Court, Mr. Chally, a partner at King & Spalding in Atlanta, said. "My guess -- and you can only guess when it comes to trying to explain why cert was denied -- is that the respondent was effective in this regard," he said. Could this denial have something to do with the court's cooling interest in limiting the class action device after the death of its most vocal opponent, Justice Antonin Scalia? One consumer advocate says probably not. "While it is clear that Justice Scalia was not favorable to class actions, whether he would have adopted an argument that had no basis in Rule 23 itself seems unlikely given that it is contradictory to his steadfast notion of orginalism," Maia Kats, director of litigation at the Center for Science in the Public Interest in Washington, told Bloomberg BNA in a Feb. 29 e-mail. Not in Rule 23 Ascertainability is an implied prerequisite to class certification that doesn't appear in Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, the rule that governs class actions. "Rule 23 expressly sets forth the requirements for certification, and ascertainability is not and never was among them," Ms. Kats said. "I think the denial of cert in Mullins is a clear indication that challenges to class certification, and class actions more generally, cannot encompass factors that are extraneous to Rule 23 itself," she said. Plaintiffs' attorney Michael R. Reese of Reese LLP in New York agreed that denial of certiorari wasn't unexpected. "Ascertainability is a dubious concept, as it appears nowhere in Rule 23 and seems to run counter to the language and spirit of the Rule itself," he told Bloomberg BNA in a Feb. 29 e-mail. "Moreover, ascertainability as applied by some courts could have an adverse disparate impact on some minority groups that do not use credit cards to the same extent as other groups," he said. Credit card receipts create a better paper trial for identifying class members. Perceived Circuit Split The Third Circuit established a strict standard for ascertainability in 2013 in yet another consumer suit over weight- loss supplements. It held in Carrera v. Bayer Corp., 727 F.3d 300 (3d Cir. 2013) , that sales records or other reliable evidence of product purchases identifying class members must be available for a class to be found ascertainable. The Seventh Circuit roundly rejected the Third Circuit's Carrera strict standard for identifying class members in its July 2015 ruling in Mullins. It held that as long as the class definition is spelled out clearly and objectively, ascertainability is met. The court also endorsed class members' ability to self-identify through affidavits when other means of identification aren't available, which is often the case in false advertising suits over consumer goods. The Sixth Circuit followed suit in an August 2015 ruling in Rikos v. Procter & Gamble Co., 2015 BL 268080, No. 14-4088, 8/20/15. But Mr. Chally doesn't see the circuit split as significant. "The Third Circuit's approach was defendant-friendly, to be sure, but it did not announce a new standard," he said. "That means that one could harmonize Carrera and Mullins, and downplay the extent of a circuit split." Another Chance? The Supreme Court has another opportunity this term to get ascertainability on its docket. Procter & Gamble is seeking review of the Sixth Circuit's decision, No. 15-835, cert. petition filed 12/28/15. But that petition is unlikely to be granted solely on ascertainability grounds, Mr. Chally said. The Sixth Circuit, like the Seventh, described what it perceived as a circuit split on the issue, and refused to follow the Carrera approach, he said. But Rikos offers the court other grounds for granting review, he said. "In other words, ascertainability was not the focus in Rikos, as it was in Mullins, so one could conclude that if the court intends to address ascertainability soon, was the better vehicle to do so," he said. Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mich. Man Sues 15 Companies Over Lung Cancer ------------------------------------------------------------- Thomas Fallon filed a lawsuit with the Superior Court of the State of Delaware alleging that he was wrongfully exposed to, inhaled, ingested, and otherwise absorbed asbestos fibers emanating from various sources which were mixed, mined, manufactured, distributed, sold, removed, installed, and/or used by the Defendants including, but not limited to: asbestos-containing insulation, circuit breakers, panels, switch gears, substations, transformers, disconnects, explosion proof fittings, lights and fuse boxes. The Plaintiff, a resident of Taylor, Michigan, asserts that as a result of the Defendants' wrongful conduct, he suffers from an asbestos-related disease including, but not limited to, Lung Cancer. The Plaintiff first became aware that he suffered from the disease in or around August 2015, and, subsequently thereto, became aware that the same was wrongfully caused. As a result of developing Lung Cancer, the Plaintiff says he has endured, and continues to endure, great physical pain and suffering, mental anguish, emotional pain and suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life. Further, as a result of the Defendants' wrongful conduct, the Plaintiff is required to receive, and does receive, medical treatment to mitigate his asbestos related disease, thus incurring reasonable and necessary costs for medical care, diagnosis, and treatment. The Plaintiff seeks judgment against the Defendants and an award of compensatory damages in an amount to be proved at trial, but believed to exceed $100,000; and punitive damages in an amount sufficient to punish the Defendants for their misconduct and to deter similarly situated parties from committing like acts of misconduct in the future; and other and further relief that the Court deems appropriate. The case is THOMAS FALLON Plaintiff, v. AUTO ZONE, INC.; BW/IP INC., as successor to BYRON JACKSON PUMPS; CBS CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation, f/k/a VIACOM, INC., successor by merger to CBS CORPORATION, a Pennsylvania Corporation, f/k/a WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION, as successor in interest to THE BRYANT ELECTRIC COMPANY; EATON CORPORATION, individually as successor in interest to CUTLER-HAMMER, INC.; FORD MOTOR COMPANY; GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY; HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., f/k/a ALLIED SIGNAL, INC., as successor in interest to THE BENDIX CORPORATION; HUBBELL INCORPORATED, as successor in interest to THE BRYANT ELECTRIC COMPANY; PEPBOYS; ROCKWELL AUTOMATION, INC., as successor by merger to ALLEN-BRADLEY COMPANY; SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC USA, INC., individually and as successor in interest to SQUARE D COMPANY; SIEMENS INDUSTRY, INC., successor in interest to SIEMENS ENERGY & AUTOMATION, INC.; UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION; VIKING PUMP, INC., Defendants, Case No. N16C-02-213 ASB (Del. Sup.). The Plaintiff is represented by: A. Dale Bowers, Esq. Kenneth L. Wan, Esq. William J. P. Mulgrew, III, Esq. 203 North Maryland Avenue Wilmington, DE 19804 Tel: (302) 691-3786 Fax: (302) 691-3790 Email: dale@bowerslegal.com -- and -- Michelle Murtha, Esquire WEITZ & LUXENBERG, P.C. 200 Lake Drive East, Suite 205 Cherry Hill, NJ 08002 Tel: (856) 755-1115 Fax: (856) 755-1995 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pipe Tests Positive For Asbestos in Regina Bldg. ----------------------------------------------------------------- OHS Canada reported that Saskatchewan's government authority for occupational health and safety had to face a work-related safety crisis of its own from Feb. 23 to 24, when a building that houses some of its offices was evacuated over an asbestos scare. The Ministry of Labour Relations and Workplace Safety, which employs about 90 people on the third, fourth and sixth floors of a building at 1870 Albert Street in Regina, brought in a plumbing contractor on Feb. 19 after a leak in a sixth-floor ceiling water pipe was found at about noon that day, according to Ray Anthony, an executive director with the Ministry's oh&s division. The possibility of an asbestos presence was raised after the contractor's employees cut out a section of an orange concrete rainwater pipe in the process of repairing the leak. "Later on in the afternoon, one of our hygienists discovered this piece of pipe in the stairwell and asked these plumbing contractors if they had checked for asbestos," said Anthony, "and they said, well no, they hadn't, they had been told that there was no asbestos in the building." A test on the material came back positive for asbestos late on Feb. 22, although the Ministry management did not know about it until the following morning. "So we knew that they hadn't followed proper precautions," Anthony added, referring to the plumbers. The building was evacuated immediately, due to uncertainty about the air quality, and the Ministry brought in an independent third party to test the air for asbestos fibres. "We had basically all the floors cleaned up, and we did testing before and after, all of which were negative for asbestos fibres," said Anthony. "It was an incident, and that's the way we treated it." After all of the offices were cleaned up and vacuumed according to proper procedures, the building was declared safe and everybody returned to work at about noon on Feb. 24. "Basically, we're just trying to follow best practice," Anthony added. Since Nov. 2013, Saskatchewan has maintained an official public registry of government-owned buildings -- including schools, healthcare facilities and other buildings owned by provincial government organizations -- indicating whether they contain asbestos. The Saskatchewan Asbestos Registry resulted from the passing of The Public Health Amendment Act, or Howard's Law, on April 18 of that year (COHSN, Nov. 18, 2013). Ironically, the registry does not cover 1870 Albert Street, since the building is privately owned. "We don't own this building," said Anthony. "We just rent here." The Saskatchewan government does own more than 500 buildings around the province, he explained, "and those are registered, and the asbestos is mapped and listed in them under the registry." The oh&s division of the Ministry has an office on the Albert Street building's sixth floor, where the apparently contaminated pipe was located. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found in Alpena County Courthouse ----------------------------------------------------------- Aaron Parseghian, writing for WBKB11.com, reported that Alpena County is set to spend $3500.00 on asbestos clean up in the basement of the County Courthouse building. The asbestos was discovered after county clerk Bonnie Friedrichs was cleaning the clerk's vault and noticed debris on the pipes and on some of the court files. She then contacted the county's maintenance superintendent, Wes Wilder, who brought in an outside local specialist in testing and confirmed that the debris was in fact, the poisonous mineral. The professional clean?up will include both vaults within the basement of the court house, which stores files that date back centuries. "It will cost about thirty?five?hundred dollars to clean our vault and the county treasurer's vault. And we have a number of files down there, the files go back to 1859 and all our records go back to that. If you can imagine, row after row of files" County Clerk Bonnie Friedrichs said. In addition to the extensive clean?up, the county will also spend an additional $1600 dollars on training for county maintenance workers, so they are able to test for asbestos if found again. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Victims, Lawyers Fear Bill May Delat Payment ------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Gehrke, writing for The Salt Lake Tribune, reported that Dale Petersen didn't expect to live to see his 70th birthday. After retiring to St. George six years ago, Petersen bought a bike that he rode every day until he noticed about two years ago that he was getting winded on bike rides. Doctors found that mesothelioma, caused by years of exposure to asbestos when he was installing and removing residential boilers for Utah Power & Light, was attacking his lungs and would eventually take his life. "This is just a terrible disease and it's going to take me at an early age," Petersen said. "It's been very, very hard on my family and my wife, especially. It's been tough." Petersen marked his 70th birthday, and considered it "a blessing." He also visited his doctor to have fluid drained from his lungs so he would be well enough to travel to the Capitol to testify against a bill he says would make it harder for patients like him to sue over their asbestos-related ailments and likely mean many would die before they receive compensation. "I can't imagine some of my working friends who may get it later on would have to go through a law like this," Petersen said. "I can't imagine. And it's all in the name of slowing things down for the patient." Petersen is concerned about HB403, sponsored by Rep. Brad Wilson, R-Kaysville. The bill would : * Require plaintiffs to quantify the "dose" of their asbestos exposure, identify the source and establish that the exposure was "a substantial factor" in causing the disease; * Identify the beginning and end dates of each alleged exposure and the manufacturer of the asbestos product in each exposure; * File a declaration disclosing personal information including Social Security numbers and identifying any compensation the plaintiff may have received for prior claims; * Allow companies named as defendants to file motions to delay proceedings in order to dispute the information in plaintiffs' declarations. "It's not trying to slow the process down at all and if there's the perception that that's what the intention is, it's wrong," Wilson said. "I would not ever do that. These victims have been some victims of some bad stuff." Wilson said some trial lawyers are going to court and suing various asbestos businesses for damages, then, after receiving that award, going back to the trusts and filing claims for damages from the bankrupt companies' trusts, draining the resources. "It's meant to ensure, when the courts as well as the trusts are considering damages -- which are due, we're not arguing that at all -- that we look at all these things at the same time," he said. "Because, if we do double-dip, what happens is these trusts are going to get depleted fast and the victims down the road are not going to get their fair share." Petersen's attorneys were able to file a lawsuit against the companies that sold and distributed the asbestos products to which Petersen was exposed. They were also able to file claims for compensation from trust funds set up by companies that have gone bankrupt in order to pay future victims, although the trust funds pay out meager amounts in the settlements. "It's complicated trying to get full compensation for everyone knowing that we're going to get pennies on the dollar from" the trust funds, said Rick Nemeroff, Petersen's attorney. "We're doing the best we can to get as much as we can from the available resources." They were able to push the lawsuit through the courts in about a year and speed is important for mesothelioma patients who typically are given between six and 18 months to live, said Nemeroff. Petersen said the settlement -- the amount of which he could not disclose -- gives him peace of mind "that my wife and family will be OK after I'm gone." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Unexpected Asbestos Adds Costs to Bldg Demo ------------------------------------------------------------ Sarah Horner, writing for Twin Cities Pioneer Press, reported that the demolition of the former home of the Ramsey County adult detention center and the West Publishing buildings will continue in downtown St. Paul, despite climbing costs. The Ramsey County Board voted 6-1 to increase the project's budget by another $2 million to cover rising costs related to delays and unanticipated asbestos discovered at the site. The increase brings the total cost of demolition to about $17 million. Initial estimates for the work back in 2014 were about $11.5 million. The County Board voted then to raze the six-building former West Publishing complex and the former adult detention center on Kellogg Boulevard in an effort to make the parcel more attractive to developers. The county had tried to sell the properties as-is for more than a decade but developers balked at the unknowns associated with taking down a mammoth building built into the Mississippi river bluff. Before casting her no vote, Janice Rettman expressed concern about the amount of due diligence done to ascertain the scope of the work before the county signed off on the demolition. Other commissioners said that while they were disappointed in the rising costs, they knew this project might come with surprises because of the age of the buildings and their unique position along the bluff. They added that the investment continues to be worth the return the county hopes to receive once the site is clear and ready for redevelopment by the private sector. "When we made this decision, we knew there were risks," Commissioner Toni Carter said. "We determined that . . . if no one in the development community would take those risks, we needed to take them so we could gain on the riverfront . . . and re- create (our vision) there. . . That is an economic boon for all of us." County officials have pointed to the possibility of drawing $150 million in private development, which would yield about $7 million in annual tax revenue, including $1.9 million for the county. The site has been off the tax rolls since 1992, when West Publishing moved to Eagan and its river-bluff headquarters were later converted into government offices. Demolition of the site is just over 30 percent complete. The county expects to have the site ready for redevelopment by August of 2017. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Connecticut's Asbestos Docket Finally Shrinks -------------------------------------------------------------- John J. Robinson, Esq. -- jjrobinson@gordonrees.com -- Cullen W. Guilmartin, Esq. -- cguilmartin@gordonrees.com -- in an article for The Connecticut Law Tribune, wrote that the U.S. Supreme Court once referred to the asbestos litigation as an "elephantine mass." Although Connecticut's asbestos docket has never involved thousands of cases -- let alone the hundreds of thousands of claims pending nationwide in 1999 -- state judges and clerks have likely considered the hundreds of asbestos cases pending in Connecticut to be a considerable burden on our judicial system. However, an assessment of the numbers suggests that burden is rapidly declining. There is prior history to the Connecticut asbestos docket. But for all intents and purposes, the litigation froze in the 1990s and then became active again around the turn of the 21st century. In 2003, the defense liaison counsel function, in its current iteration, was created by agreement among the defendants and an order of the court. As such, the authors of this article have access to data dating to 2003. In 2003, approximately 600 cases were pending in a consolidated asbestos docket in Bridgeport Superior Court, titled Bridgeport Asbestos Litigation (BAL). Taking into account multiple-plaintiff cases, but not including loss of consortium claims, the total number of claims was likely closer to 650. At that time, there was a master BAL-assigned docket number for master filings and a series of pretrial orders existed for the purpose of managing the litigation. Those pretrial orders allowed for clusters of cases ranging from 10 to 15; they were grouped together for all pretrial proceedings, discovery and settlement conferences. The cases within a group also shared a mutual scheduling order. However, the clustered cases were never intended to be tried together, as plaintiffs' efforts at consolidation for trial have been consistently rejected by judges handling this docket. The groups were based on a first-in-first-out system (based on filing dates) with exceptions for cases involving living plaintiffs' malignancies, which were expedited into earlier groups. As a first case within a group reached a trial date, the next case would not be called for trial until two weeks after the verdict (which was a rarity) or complete resolution of the case before it. This would continue through a trial group's completion. The next trial group could not begin its first case until the trial group before it was completely resolved. There were also many "false starts" and trial dates were routinely pushed back, further slowing the process. The end result was that a relatively small number of asbestos cases were being resolved in the Connecticut court system for a number of years. However, some cases were resolved through negotiation by the parties. Despite the slow pace of resolution, as of Sept. 30, 2009 (the last time the Connecticut courts published a full census of the docket), the docket was reduced to 304 pending asbestos cases, all in Bridgeport. Accounting for multiplaintiff matters, the total number of individual plaintiffs exceeded 400. Between the 2009 census and the beginning of 2012, the courts resolved about 25 cases per year, while there were approximately 80 new filings in 2010 and 2011. And so at the beginning of 2012, there were likely 430 to 450 pending cases in state court. In addition, a number of Connecticut asbestos cases -- all now resolved -- were pending in federal court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania's multidistrict litigation. As such, over the course of 10 years (2003 to 2012), the Connecticut docket was reduced by fewer than 200 cases. In 2012, the judiciary assessed the aging asbestos docket and pushed for cases to be resolved or tried. Since then, the pace of resolution has drastically increased and the number of pending cases has fallen considerably. Of particular note is that the BAL master orders were disbanded, along with the master BAL docket, and cases have since been litigated more like other personal injury cases. At the beginning of 2015, there were 160 active asbestos cases in Connecticut (156 in state court and four in federal court). Plaintiffs firms in Connecticut often bring separate lawsuits against two different groups of defendants: those that remove cases to federal court and those that do not. For the purposes of this case count, these dual filings are considered as one case. As such, there are far more than four asbestos cases pending in federal court as some plaintiffs have cases concurrently pending in both state and federal courts. Moreover, when accounting for multiplaintiff filings, there were 191 individual plaintiffs with claims pending in Connecticut. Thus, over this recent four-year period, the docket was reduced by approximately 240 to 260 cases. While a 191-case docket is substantial, when considering the pace of resolution over the past four years, the numbers seem far less daunting. For example, 63 asbestos cases were trial listed in Connecticut in 2015 and resolved during that calendar year. Including multiplaintiff cases, the total number of individual plaintiffs with trial dates in 2015 was 95. All but two of the 95 cases resolved without the necessity of trial. Of the two cases that did go to trial, there was one plaintiff's verdict and one defense verdict. In addition to those 95 trial- listed cases that resolved, two state court cases trial listed in 2016 were withdrawn and one of the federal court cases was dismissed before the end of 2015. Therefore, the data suggests that 98 of the 191 Connecticut asbestos cases pending at the beginning of 2015 were resolved in 2015. The vast efforts of all involved, including the court, court personnel, plaintiffs counsel, defense counsel, and, of course, the clients, allowed for the efficient resolution of essentially half the remaining asbestos docket in just one calendar year. Looking at the pace of resolution, however, only tells half the story. Recent filings must be assessed as well. In 2015, there were 41 new asbestos cases filed by plaintiffs in Connecticut. That brought the number of pending asbestos cases in Connecticut to 134 as of Jan. 1, 2016. Of those, 99 are pending in Bridgeport, 32 are pending in New London and three are fully pending in federal court. Furthermore, absent an increase in filings, the volume of pending asbestos cases in Connecticut will decrease even further in coming years. For example, there are 60 cases trial listed in Connecticut state court in 2016 and three more cases pending in federal court which may or may not reach trial in 2016. As such, around 60 asbestos cases will likely resolve this year. When compared with the 41 new asbestos filings in 2015, and assuming a similar filing rate in 2016, the likely result is about 115 asbestos cases remaining at the end of 2016. Given the pace of case resolution in Connecticut, a docket of 115 cases does not seem "elephantine" at all. 2016 will also mark an interesting change in Connecticut's asbestos litigation. Over the past decade, all personal injury asbestos cases were docketed in Bridgeport and are assigned to Judge Barbara Bellis. Today, not all of the pending cases reside in that venue. Many cases are now being filed in New London and assigned to Judge Leeland Cole-Chu. The number of trial-listed cases will rise from just one in New London in 2016 to 27 in 2018. In that same period, the number of cases trial listed for Bridgeport will shrink to eight by 2018. In short, there may be a change in the dominant venue for the Connecticut asbestos litigation as soon as 2018. Where does Connecticut's asbestos litigation go from here? If recent filing and resolution statistics remain consistent, the asbestos trial docket will likely settle at approximately 40 trial-listed cases per year and the docket will be split between Bridgeport and New London, and may eventually slant toward New London. Whether the limited number of cases will encourage more trials remains to be seen. Given the state of the docket back in 2002, and what has occurred since 2012, a docket of approximately 120 cases on three-year trial tracks, with 40 trial-listed cases per year, does not seem "elephantine" at all. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Canada's Asbestos Workers Condemn Ruling --------------------------------------------------------- The Canadian Conference of Asbestos Workers (CCAW) expressed shock and anger on behalf of Canada's asbestos workers in response to a BC Supreme Court ruling rejecting health and safety claims on the grounds the safety regulations were too complicated for asbestos removal contractors to follow. "The health and safety of Canadian workers is never too complicated to protect," said Vince Engel, Western Canadian Vice- President of the International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Allied Workers. "The harmful effects of exposure to asbestos are undeniable. We are outraged that the court has decided health and safety laws are simply too complex to be enforced," Engel added. BC Supreme Court Justice George Macintosh dismissed a contempt of court application against asbestos removal contractors Mike and Shawn Singh of Seattle Environmental, despite significant testimony that safety laws were breached. WorkSafeBC filed the contempt of court application against Seattle Environmental after repeated warnings were ignored, including a 2013 BC Supreme Court order to follow safe asbestos removal regulations. In a stunning ruling, Justice Macintosh said that safe asbestos removal laws and regulations were "voluminous and complex", likening the complexity to "looking through the Income Tax Act". Asbestos exposure is the single largest workplace killer in Canada. Since 1996, almost 5,000 approved death claims stem from asbestos exposure, making it by far the top source of workplace death in Canada. In 2013, the 368 asbestos related death claims were greater than those from highway accidents, fires and chemical exposures combined. The CCAW and its members are calling on WorkSafeBC to appeal the ruling, which they insist sets a dangerous precedent allowing contractors to violate safety laws. "This decision sends a dangerous message to contractors that safety laws can be ignored if they seem too complicated to follow," said Fred Clare, Eastern Canadian Vice-President of the International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Allied Workers. "These health and safety laws are supposed to protect the lives of asbestos workers in Canada. But what good are these rules if they aren't enforced, and there are no penalties for breaking the law?" asked Clare. The CCAW calls on all levels of government to ensure better enforcement of the rules and regulations in place to protect the safety of asbestos workers in Canada. About the Canadian Conference of Asbestos Workers The CCAW is an association consisting of nine local unions in Canada affiliated with the International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Allied Workers. The CCAW represents approximately 6000 Insulators and Asbestos workers in Canada. For more information contact: Vince Engel Vice President (Western Canada) International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Allied Workers (306) 537-9699 vinengel@sasktel.net Robin MacLachlan Summa Strategies Canada 613-235-1400 rmaclachlan@summa.ca ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hazardous Asbestos Waste Dumped Over Bridge ------------------------------------------------------------ Mid-Ulster Mail reported that numerous sheets of asbestos were found to have been dumped over a bridge in Draperstown by a member of the public. The illegal waste, which was left lying right beside a river after being tipped over the Whitewater Bridge, was reported to the Environment Agency -- which has since been praised by Mid Ulster MLA Patsy McGlone for its quick action. Mr McGlone said: "I welcome the swift response from the waste management team at the Environment Agency on being alerted to the dumping of hazardous material, including asbestos, at the Whitewater Bridge. "They despatched the Flytipping Team to the site after being alerted to the danger, carried out an assessment, and engaged contractors to clear the asbestos waste, and take it to an authorised facility, under the Flytipping Programme. "Asbestos was removed from the banks of the river and the water itself. "On having the issue reported to me by a local resident I immediately contacted the Department of the Environment who, in turn, alerted the Environment Agency. "Their vigilance enabled this dangerous material to be dealt with promptly and safely removed from the area. "However, it is a matter of concern that the Mid Ulster Council was made aware of the danger a week before and had taken no action to protect the public. This hazardous material could have been spread by the river over a large area in that time. "I condemn utterly those responsible for dumping this dangerous material at a public site. Their irresponsible and illegal activity demonstrates contempt for the environment and the health of local residents. "I urge anyone with any information about the illegal dumping of hazardous material to contact the police." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Border Force Dusts Off Asbestos Controls --------------------------------------------------------- PS News reported that an independent review of Australia's asbestos border control management has been launched by the Australian Border Force (ABF). The review will examine the effectiveness of Australia's asbestos border control as enforced by the ABF. Announcing the review, the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, Peter Dutton said it would examine the Department of Immigration and Border Protection's internal processes and procedures for mitigating the risk that goods containing asbestos would enter Australia. "The review complements a range of ABF operations targeting asbestos importation, and ongoing education initiatives intended to prevent, detect and deter the importation of goods containing asbestos," Mr Dutton said. He said an Australia-wide ban on the importation, manufacture and use of asbestos and goods containing asbestos took effect on 31 December 2003. Mr Dutton said border control on asbestos complemented Commonwealth, State and Territory regulations that implemented the ban. He said the independent review would focus on a number of processes and procedures, including: the effectiveness of border control on asbestos; procedures for asbestos handling, storage and disposal; engagement with importers, other industry stakeholders and other Government Agencies; and engagement with international customs administrations. Mr Dutton said the review's findings would be used to determine whether Australia's asbestos border control measures required strengthening. He said it would be completed by the end of the first quarter of the year and was being conducted by KGH Border Services. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Beech-Nut Plant Developer Sued in Scrap Dispute ---------------------------------------------------------------- Brian Nearing, writing for Times Union, reported that an Ohio businessman linked to the partially demolished and stripped former Beech-Nut plant in Montgomery County is now embroiled in a federal lawsuit over valuable scrap metal from a former aerospace plant that he owns in Connecticut. Todd Clifford, owner of TD Development LLC, is being sued in U.S. District Court by Wisconsin-based Wood and Bricks LLC in a disagreement over demolition of the sprawling former Kaman Corp. in Moosup, about an hour's ride east of Hartford. Clifford, who bought the 550,000-square-foot vacant Kaman facility in 2014, hired Wood and Bricks as his demolition contractor in June. In the lawsuit, Wood and Bricks owner Arthur Sullivan claims damages of up to $1 million, and accuses Clifford of unjustly evicting him from the project in January after Sullivan's crews had collected valuable scrap metal and other materials. Clifford's company "intends to exert control over the salvage product that (Sullivan's company) has stockpiled on the site ... and sell the salvage on its own," according to a federal complaint filed by Sullivan on Jan. 28. Clifford has countered that Sullivan's crews had violated the contract -- under which Sullivan paid Clifford $100,000 up front and another $262,500 later for the right to take down the buildings, and collect and resell scrap materials. Clifford claims he fired Sullivan after his crews mishandled asbestos-tainted material and damaged part of the site, his court papers said. "We had piled up a half-million-dollars worth of salvage in the yard before Clifford threw me out. Now that scrap is already being moved off the site," said Sullivan. He denied his workers mishandled asbestos or damaged the site. This is a TU+ story. Click for more information. "The plant is now half-destroyed," Moosup Selectman Paul Sweet said. "We don't know where this is going, and I do not have a good feeling about it.'' Sweet added that "a lot of stuff has already been taken out of that mill ... we are very familiar with what happened at Beech-Nut." In Canajoharie, the former Beech-Nut plant, which Clifford purchased in December 2013, remains partially demolished after an ongoing series of disputes between Clifford and his contractors over unpaid bills, as well as issues with Clifford's failure to file proper federally required asbestos removal permits. Tons of valuable scrap metal from Beech-Nut, which Clifford initially vowed he would redevelop, are long gone, according to Village Mayor Francis Avery. He estimates it will cost millions of dollars to remove asbestos and finish demolition of the massive structure. Village Code Enforcement Officer Cliff Dorrough said he barred demolition workers from the main plant during 2014, because there were no permits sought for asbestos removal or demolition. Dorrough said he returned a few months later to find tons of valuable scrap metal had been cut out in areas tainted with asbestos. Avery said, the village issued arrest warrants for a principal of an Oklahoma-based company, B&B Recycling of Broken Arrow, hired by Clifford to take down a building, for leaving behind worthless piles of rubble around the 20-acre site. The warrants cite state building code violations. With work at Beech-Nut now at a standstill, Montgomery County officials are taking tentative steps to explore potential foreclosure on the property for more than a half-million dollars in delinquent property taxes. Kenneth Rose, CEO and director of the Montgomery County Business Development Center, said the county is seeking an environmental study of the property to see how much asbestos remains and how expensive it will be to remove so the site can be cleared for potential redevelopment. The troubled Beech-Nut demolition has been a major headache for the village, which saw the plant close in 2010, taking good-paying jobs and a big share of the village tax base with it. The state provided tens of millions of dollars in assistance for Beech-Nut to relocate to a new plant in the Montgomery County town of Florida, but no funds were earmarked to deal with the old plant. Beech-Nut later sold it to Clifford for $200,000. Clifford has claimed he has no further responsibility for the property due to its December 2014 sale to another Ohio-based company, TD Development Inc. This company is owned by an apparent Clifford business associate, Jeff Wendel. Garrett Flynn, Clifford's lawyer, confirmed TD Development Inc. is owned by Wendel. He declined comment on the situation in Connecticut. Avery called Clifford's claim "total baloney." The mayor said when Clifford first came to the village for meetings about his redevelopment plans for Beech-Nut, Wendel accompanied him. "They were working together. For Clifford to say now that he is no longer involved? We all know better," Avery said. In April 2015, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said that Clifford faced hefty fines for not filing required asbestos removal notices at Beech-Nut. So far, no enforcement action has been publicly forthcoming. EPA regional spokesman Elias Rodriguez had no additional information to provide. EPA regional officials in Connecticut referred questions regarding the dispute in Moosup, and potential issues with asbestos, to Connecticut state environmental officials. The state Department of Energy and Environmental Protection could not provide comment in time for deadline. Last summer, Clifford also acquired a former rubber factory in Derby, Conn., with a promise similar to the one he made at Beech- Nut to rehabilitate and redevelop the property. In Ohio in 2012, Clifford sought bankruptcy protection, according to records from U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Ohio. He faced about $1.3 million in claims from creditors, who received payments totaling about $36,700. In the bankruptcy records, an Ohio couple claimed they were defrauded by Clifford after hiring him to build a million-dollar home. He was paid $240,000, substituted inferior materials and walked off the job without finishing the work, according to a bankruptcy court filing by the couple, who said they lost about $400,000. They also alleged that Clifford filed a falsified mechanics lien against their property for more than $200,000. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Miss. Jury Awards $1-Mil. to Plaintiff ------------------------------------------------------- HarrisMartin Publishing reported that a Mississippi jury has awarded just over $1 million to an asbestos plaintiff, accepting the plaintiff's claims that exposure to Union Carbide's Visbestos and Super Visbestos in viscosifiers led him to develop asbestosis. The Mississippi Circuit Court for Jefferson County jury reached the verdict on Feb. 24, sources said. Union Carbide with the lone remaining defendant at the time of the verdict; Judge Lamar Pickard presided over the trial. The jury broke down its award into $36,000 in economic damages for future medical expenses; $800,000 in non-economic damages; and $200,000 in punitive damages. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found at Tauranga Historic Village ------------------------------------------------------------ Bay of Plenty Times reported that asbestos has been found at Tauranga Historic Village with one building will be demolished. Tauranga City Council will be carrying out removal works. The works, which are expected to take around two weeks, follow a survey of the village that found a number of instances of asbestos, the majority of which are low-risk. This means the asbestos is currently in a stable condition, and doesn't pose a health risk unless disturbed. Five areas have been identified as medium risk, which means there has been some minor damage and the asbestos should be removed. Most of the medium-risk asbestos is in small parts of the buildings such as external baseboards and soffits. These areas will be removed by specialised contractors. The workshop and storage building that was closed in September last year after testing positive for asbestos fibres has been identified as a high-risk area. The building, which also has structural and weather-tightness issues, will be demolished from March 7. The building was constructed in the 1980s from recycled material as a workshop and storage area. It is not classified as historic and has no noteworthy features. The village will remain open as usual during the asbestos removal works and building demolition. A full health and safety management plan will be in place during these works. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Victory in Compensation Battle for Veterans ------------------------------------------------------------ The Herald reported that a retired Westcountry Royal Navy officer is among a group of armed forces veterans with terminal asbestos related cancer contracted while serving their country who have won a compensation battle with the Government. Around 60 veterans with mesothelioma, including three from the Westcountry, are now in line for a 140,000 lump sum compensation payouts which had been denied them under a rule change. However, following a campaign by the Royal British Legion ministers have bowed to pressure and agreed to pay up. Commodore Rhod Palmer, a third-generation Royal Navy sailor who was diagnosed with mesothelioma in April 2015 and stood to miss out on the payments, described the move as a "real breakthrough". The 62-year-old, who lives in rural Somerset, also called for more research into the treatment of the "devastating" illness and thanked the Royal British Legion for its support. He said: "No amount of money will ever compensate sufferers and their families for a preventable death. "However, it is a real breakthrough that the Government will treat all current and future sufferers of mesothelioma exposed to asbestos during their service under comparable terms as civilians. "This payment allows patients with mesothelioma to make arrangements to maximise their quality of life during this terminal illness and to support the family that they leave behind." Mesothelioma is a particularly aggressive form of terminal cancer that affects the lining of the lungs and which is almost always caused by exposure to asbestos. The cancer can take decades to materialise but, once diagnosed most sufferers will have a life expectancy of only one to two years. After the Government launched its compensation scheme it emerged a group of 60 veterans were not eligible because they were diagnosed before it started. Chris Simpkins, director-general of the Royal British Legion, said the Government had done the right thing. "We are gratified that good sense has prevailed," he said. "The Government has done the right thing and we appreciate the effort that has gone into accommodating the 60 people who were missing out. "This has been a hard-fought campaign which began in 2013. To see the campaign finally reach this stage I'm sure will provide a huge sense of relief for dozens of proud servicemen and their families. "We are grateful to the Ministry of Defence for taking our campaign seriously and, in doing so, providing a fair result to all those who contracted this terrible terminal cancer in the service of their country." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Imported Asbestos Creating Danger for Workers -------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Heaton, writing for Sourceable.com, reported that materials imported from China which contain asbestos are creating new areas of danger for workers within the construction sector as well as home owners and building occupants, unions and workplace safety experts warn. Following media reports of asbestos-containing materials being found on more than 50 sites across the country, Electrical Trades Union spokesman Lachlan Williams said the union was alarmed at the situation, and feared that what was being reported may in fact be the ?tip of the iceberg.' "Our position is very clear," Williams said. "There has been a ban on the importation of asbestos in any form since 2003. There is no safe level of exposure to asbestos and it represents a significant danger. It's extremely disappointing to see repeated breaches of the asbestos importation ban. It puts all tradespeople who work with these materials at risk. It also puts members of the public at risk for many years." Williams said allowing those who import and export materials to ?self-certify' that materials are asbestos free creates a situation of inadequate levels of oversight. He says the union would like to see independent certification, meaningful levels of oversight and materials that have been certified at the point of export actually inspected to ensure they are indeed asbestos-free. Williams expressed anger that problems were still occurring in this area. "We are seeing materials containing a deadly substance that has been banned from importation into Australia for more than a decade entering the country and putting at risk workers, tradespeople and members of the public," he said. Williams' comments follow ABC reports in mid-February which quote Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency CEO Peter Tighe as indicating that he was aware of as many as 64 work sites were known to contain asbestos-tainted concrete fibre sheeting that has been used in construction. A Senate Inquiry into imported products which do not conform to local standards under the Building Code of Australia is set to report on March 16. Workplace safety expert and founder of safety systems provider Systems on a Shoestring Emma Bentton said imported materials were creating a significant health and safety management risk for employers in the construction sector. Bentton said the problem was not new and alarm bells should have been raised after recalls of 25,000 Great Wall and Chery Chinese cars after asbestos was found in the engine and exhaust gaskets in 2012 and earlier thousands of toys were recalled after being found to contain lead paint -- both of which got through customs. She said construction firms should double check everything and not rely on assurances from importers that materials coming in were free from asbestos. Bentton said imported asbestos was "absolutely" a significant emerging safety problem. "And what its saying is that we might be buying things that say their compliant out of China but the onus is now on us to double check that," she said. "I take it back to almost a quality issue, test it, before you give yourself a safety problem." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Find Means Longer Closure for Court ------------------------------------------------------------- Megi Rychlikova, writing for The Press, reported that asbestos is delaying the return of York magistrates to their courthouse in Clifford Street. They have not been able to hear cases in their own court since the Boxing Day floods inundated its cells and flooded their offices. On January 4, they started sitting at Leeds Magistrates Court, and HM Courts and Tribunal Service hoped that they would be able to return to York within eight weeks. But since then, workmen at the Clifford Street courthouse have found asbestos in the building, which had to be removed before some of the repairs and cleaning could be done. That has delayed the reopening of the building to normal operation until after Easter. Court staff, probation officers and solicitors are now expecting to have to continue their daily commute to Leeds until April 1, with the courthouse reopening for business on April 4. A courts service spokesman said: "We now expect York Magistrates' Court to re-open for business in early April. This is primarily as a result of the work required to bring the cells back into use. We have also had to remove asbestos so that repairs to the boiler could be carried out." It is not the first time the Clifford Street building has been flooded. Both the court offices and cells were put out of action by the November 2000 floods. On that occasion, the courtrooms reopened for business immediately but did not handle cases involving the cells, which did not reopen for five months after they were flooded. Custody cases were heard at the now-closed Selby courthouse during their closure. The cells are in the courthouse basement and were flooded by groundwater as the water table rose -- the same type of flooding that closed Jorvik Viking Centre's star attraction, also in a basement, this winter. The court offices on the river bank were flooded by river water because they are on the River Ouse bank. Immediately after the Boxing Day floods, York magistrates sat at York Crown Court because judges only heard cases on one day between Christmas and New Year. They are continuing to sit at the Crown Court to hear cases of people arrested overnight on Fridays and held in custody by police. They also sat at Harrogate Magistrates Court and at York County Court until the arrangement with Leeds Magistrates Court was set in place. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fincantieri To Pay EUR1.1MM to Welder ------------------------------------------------------ ANSA reported that a labour court judge sentenced Italian shipbuilder Fincantieri to pay 1.1 million euros in damages to the three children of a retired electrical welder who died of asbestos-related complications in 2006. The court found the company failed to adequately protect the welder from 1973 when he first joined the company to at least 1990, when he was exposed to asbestos on a daily basis. He took early retirement in 2000, because work-related accidents and illness agency INAIL recognized he had been exposed to asbestos for 17 years. He died in April 2006 aged 55. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Saints Coach Dies of Asbestos-Caused Cancer ------------------------------------------------------------ Daily Echo reported that he was the respected Saints coach who helped train many of today's Premier League stars. And during his work in football Roy Beazley helped raise more than GBP4 million for charity. But it was while working in Southampton docks decades earlier that he developed the illness that was to claim his life. The 78-year-old, who spent more than 40 years at Southampton, died in December, an inquest heard. Winchester Coroner's Court was told how the father-of-three continued his charity work for nearly a decade despite a tumour being found on his neck. The cancer was caused by asbestos exposure during his work as a stevedore in the docks, the coroner ruled. Born in the city in 1937, Mr Beazley was briefly a youth player at Saints before his career was cut short by injury. He started work on the docks as a deck boy aged 16 and rose to become a first hand, foreman and later superintendent. Iin a statement written weeks before his death, Mr Beazley told how toxic asbestos dust would "fall down like confetti" while he was unloading ships from South Africa. "We were often working in a cloud of asbestos dust," he said. Senior central Hampshire coroner Grahame Short recorded a verdict of death due to industrial disease. Mr Beazley coached the club's 16- to 18-year-olds during his career and retained close links to the academy after retiring at 63, helping ferry youngsters to games and training via minibus. He also co-founded the Ex-Saints charity and was awarded an MBE in 2006 for his fundraising totalling over GBP4 million. "I have always enjoyed helping others and doing what I can for my community," he said in the statement. "The diagnosis has come as a real shock to me and the family. I have always remained very fit and active, whilst I was working and even after retirement." News of the death sparked tributes from across the city, led by president Terry Paine, who described Mr Beazley as one of Saints' "greatest supporters". In January, midfielder James Ward-Prowse dedicated his free-kick goal against West Brom to the late coach, and was one of many Saints to visit him at home in the weeks before his death. Roy Beazley died at his home in Irving Road, Maybush Triangle, on December 27. He leaves a widow, Sheila, three children, two grandchildren and a great-granddaughter. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found in Retirement Village ----------------------------------------------------- Dan Dearth, writing for Herald-Mail Media, reported that a renovation project at a Williamsport senior-living facility has been put on hold after asbestos was found in wrapping around a pipe, the Maryland Department of the Environment said. MDE spokesman Jay Apperson said environmental officials received a complaint on Feb. 12 that asbestos was found at the Williamsport Retirement Village at 154 Artizan St. Samples were taken and tested positive for asbestos. As a result, MDE officials asked management at the facility to put the renovation project on hold and seal off the area in which the contamination was found, he said. "We expect (the project) will remain stopped," Apperson said. A small amount of asbestos was found in the pipe wrapping shortly after workers removed a portion of the floor during the renovation project, Williamsport Retirement Village Administrator Tim Berry said. Berry said a contracting company from Chambersburg, Pa., will enter the 96-bed facility to abate the contamination. "We are very interested in taking care of our residents and our staff," he said. Berry noted that the "very, very small amount" of asbestos has remained undisturbed since it was found. The contractor is required to notify MDE before the removal process begins, Apperson said in a follow-up email. "We are waiting for that notification, which includes details on when the work is to be done," he said. "We reserve the right to be present during any parts of that work, and our inspectors often check on such work as it is being done." When the work is done, the contractor is required to send MDE air- testing results, and a manifest to show that the asbestos has been disposed of properly, Apperson said. Asbestos usually is not a serious problem. The mere presence of asbestos in a home or a building is not hazardous. The danger is that asbestos materials may become damaged over time and release health-hazardous fibers, according to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. Breathing high levels of asbestos fibers can lead to an increased risk of mesothelioma, a cancer of the lining of the chest and the abdominal cavity; and asbestosis, a condition that causes the lungs to become scarred with fibrous tissue, the commission said. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Civil Court Filings Down in Illinois ----------------------------------------------------- Ann Maher, writing for Madison Record, reported that civil court filings declined by approximately 25 percent in Illinois between 2010 and 2014, according to the Illinois Supreme Court's most recent annual report. And while statistics from Madison and St. Clair counties reflect the overall statewide decline in civil lawsuit filings, they defy a statewide downward trend with respect to Law (L) Division cases, ones in which plaintiffs seek in excess of $50,000 in damages. In Madison County, which is host to the nation's busiest asbestos docket, the number of L cases filed in 2014 was up 38 percent from the number filed in 2010. In 2010, there were 1,292 L cases filed in Madison County; and in 2014, there were 1,787. Those totals include asbestos suits as well as a wide range of personal injury, wrongful death and other major civil cases. In St. Clair County, the number of L cases filed was up 8 percent, from 681 filed in 2010 to 830 in 2014. By contrast, the number of L cases statewide dropped by about 8 percent over that same period. In 2010, there were 33,614 L cases filed in Illinois; in 2014, there were 30,980. In looking at the total number of civil filings in these divisions of circuit court -- arbitration, chancery, eminent domain, law, law magistrate, miscellaneous remedy and small claims -- Madison County's numbers decreased by 15 percent from 2010 to 2014. In St. Clair County, the decrease in that same period was 26 percent. The biggest declines in civil filings from 2010 to 2014 can be seen in chancery court -- where foreclosure actions are filed -- as well as in arbitration and small claims. Here is a sample of the numbers by county and division: Madison County: 2010 Arbitration: 1,064 Chancery: 1,649 Law: 1,292 Small Claims: 5,374 2011 Arbitration: 892 Chancery: 1,194 Law: 1,451 Small Claims: 4,427 2012 Arbitration: 752 Chancery: 1,522 Law: 2,102 Small Claims: 4,622 2013 Arbitration: 673 Chancery: 994 Law: 2,206 Small Claims: 4,091 2014 Arbitration: 567 Chancery: 847 Law: 1,787 Small Claims: 4,424 St. Clair County: 2010 Arbitration: 1,862 Chancery: 1,759 Law: 681 Small Claims: 5,119 2011 Arbitration: 1,587 Chancery: 1,291 Law: 703 Small Claims: 3,871 2012 Arbitration: 1,460 Chancery: 1,405 Law: 686 Small Claims: 3,524 2013 Arbitration: 1,417 Chancery: 1,090 Law: 642 Small Claims: 3,599 2014 Arbitration: 1,422 Chancery: 875 Law: 830 Small Claims: 2,368 Figures for both counties in 2015 also show a general decline. In Madison County last year, there were about 21 percent fewer total civil cases filed than there were in 2010. Also, there were fewer L cases filed in 2015 than there were in 2014, but only by approximately 5 percent -- from 1,787 in 2014 to 1,698 in 2015. In St. Clair County last year, there were about 26 percent fewer total civil cases filed than there were in 2010. There were fewer L cases filed in 2015 than there were in 2014 by about 12 percent -- from 830 in 2014 to 733 in 2015. The Illinois Bar Journal reports on the downward trend of civil filings in the state in its March edition. The report, written by Matthew Hector, states that a possible reason for the decline is "that non-contract claims make up less of the total than they used to." Hector quotes findings from the Illinois Trial Lawyers' Association (ITLA), that indicate medical malpractice lawsuits in the state are down 43 percent since 2003. In addition, ITLA says that contract cases represent 64 percent of civil case filings nationwide, Hector reports. He also quotes Chicago attorney Joseph A. Power, Jr., a former president of ITLA, who observed that the perception that "many or most" civil suits are personal injury is "inaccurate." In the article, Power points to a RAND Institute study that shows that 1.3 percent of all civil cases are personal injury. While not all Law Division cases seek damages for bodily injury, they are considered major civil cases because they seek in excess of $50,000 in compensation. Figures in Madison County show that in 2015, nearly 20 percent (1,698) of all civil cases (8,505) were L cases -- ones that include personal injury, but which were predominantly asbestos cases. In St. Clair County, approximately 8 percent of the total civil case filings in 2015 (8,807) were L cases (733). ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Wash. AG Pushes Back on FACT Act Critics ---------------------------------------------------------------- Arizona Business Daily reports that sponsored by U.S. Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ), the Furthering Asbestos Claims Transparency (FACT) Act would restore openness to asbestos bankruptcy trusts and protect the ability of future claimants to be fairly compensated by the trusts. According to former Washington state Attorney General Rob McKenna, the FACT Act would address the inadequate disclosure and transparency in the asbestos trust system. That trust system was created to compensate injured victims but instead resulted in a system that enables claimants to file inconsistent claims among numerous trusts or against trusts and solvent companies in the tort system, said McKenna. "All this law does is bring sunlight to the process, creates communication between the tort system and the bankruptcy trusts -- and between the trusts themselves," McKenna told Arizona Business Daily. McKenna is a recognized leader in the development of data protection and privacy regulation. Not only would the bill discourage fraud and abuse in the asbestos compensation system; it also would protect asbestos trust claimants' sensitive personal information and confidential medical records from disclosure and misuse, according to McKenna, who is now a partner in the Seattle office of Orrick, Herrington and Sutcliffe LLP, where he is co-head of the firm's Public Policy Group. "There really is no issue in regard to identity theft . . . and no risk that people's confidentiality would be compromised because confidential medical records would not be allowed to be disclosed," McKenna said. "Bankruptcy courts already have a great deal of authority to protect sensitive information of all types and those rules would continue to be in place." Currently, the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee is considering S. 357, its own version of the FACT Act, which would amend federal bankruptcy law to require transparency and oversight of the asbestos trusts that have been created to compensate claimants who seek recovery for asbestos-related damages. A related bill, H.R. 1927, passed the House in January. During a Feb. 3 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, McKenna told congressional members that all state attorneys general also recognize the controversy surrounding asbestos litigation and the asbestos trusts that have been established to speed relief to victims of asbestos exposure. "Asbestos is a dangerous product that has harmed many people," McKenna said. "Companies with actual liability should be held accountable. Courts in both the tort system and bankruptcy system have worked hard to strike the appropriate balance between expeditiously compensating injured individuals who have filed claims and protecting future claimants' interests by safeguarding the asbestos trusts from inappropriate claims." At the same time, he stated, the attorneys general have a strong interest in maintaining the public's confidence in the judicial process concerning asbestos -- in the protection of both current and future asbestos trust beneficiaries. "Given the disturbing findings to date by several federal bankruptcy courts concerning misrepresentations in claims made on asbestos trusts, the public has a right to know how far and how deep these problems may or may not extend, and the courts need to know more about claims filed in other forums by the claimants who come before them," McKenna said. He explained that committee members wanted to understand more about how the bankruptcy trust claims process works. They wanted to understand how it differs from the tort litigation process and what the problem is with the system's lack of transparency that results in fraud and misrepresentations in a large number of claims that are filed with the bankruptcy trusts. "They wanted to know what the burdens would be on claimants, the people who are filing claims with the bankruptcy trusts as a result of the FACT Act," McKenna said. "The answer to that is none. There is no additional burden." That's because what the act would require is greater transparency in the claims process. Bankruptcy trusts would be required to put up the basic information on a claims file on a secure website, for instance, which would be available to the bankruptcy judges and other parties to view. "That raises the question about if there is any risk to claimants and their personal information and the answer to that is also no because the information that would be put up by the courts and made available to all the parties would be much less than what's made available in the tort system," McKenna said. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duncan Medical Bldg. Shut Down Due to Asbestos --------------------------------------------------------------- CBC News reported that a medical services building in Duncan has been shut down temporarily over concerns about asbestos. "It was determined that there is vermiculite contamination in the air plenum and various workspaces in the building," said Scott McCloy with WorkSafeBC. "It's always a concern when workers are exposed to asbestos, which is a known carcinogen." The Valley Medical Clinic on 335 Jubliee Street is home to a medical clinic, dental offices and a pharmacy. McCloy says the the fibres likely came from insulation that was disturbed during construction or maintenance work, although he could not confirm how many employees may have been exposed or for how long. "This is a complete and utter surprise to me and we are looking to see what caused the issue," said Doyle Childs, who bought the building a few months ago. He added that the building will remain closed until WorksafeBC is satisfied that the asbestos insulation material has been properly dealt with. 'Make sure it's safe' "What's really important to us is to make sure that workers that have been in there are safe," said Childs. "Absolutely we want to make sure it's safe." Meanwhile the Vancouver Island Health Authority says an interim location is being used at 256 Evans Street in Duncan and regular phone lines for the clinic are in place. "It is my understanding they are contacting patients with scheduled appointments to advise them of the new location," said spokesperson Valerie Wilson in an e-mail to CBC News. Asbestos is present in many pre-1990 buildings and can impact the health of people who breathe in the fibres, especially over long periods of time. WorksafeBC has an online registry for exposure because potential health effects may not appear for years or even decades. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Considers Application of Fairchild Test -------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Hopley, Esq. -- rhopley@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP, in an article for Lexology, wrote that in Heneghan v Manchester Dry Docks Ltd & Ors [2016] EWCA Civ 86, the Court of Appeal considered whether the Fairchild exception should be applied in a case of multiple exposures to asbestos leading to lung cancer. Like mesothelioma, lung cancer is regarded as an "indivisible" disease -- the severity does not depend upon the exposure to asbestos. Mr Heneghan was exposed to asbestos by the six defendants, who were responsible for 35.2% of the whole exposure over Mr Heneghan's working life. The claimant died of lung cancer. It was common ground that the cancer was caused by his exposure to asbestos; that he was exposed to asbestos while he was employed successively by each of the defendants; that biological evidence cannot establish which (if any) of the exposures actually caused the disease; but that epidemiological or statistical evidence can establish by how much the exposure attributable to each defendant increased the risk that he would contract the disease. The Court of Appeal identified the two stages of the causation question. The first question (the "what" question) is what probably caused the lung cancer. It was not in dispute that the epidemiological evidence showed that on the balance of probabilities the deceased's exposure to asbestos was the cause of his lung cancer. The second question (the "who" question) arises in a multi-contributor case where the issue is which contributor's asbestos caused the cancer. It was common ground that it could not be proved that the exposure attributable to any individual defendant had doubled the risk (and thus satisfied the necessary degree of probability) that Mr Heneghan would develop lung cancer. In the circumstances, the Court of Appeal decided that the Fairchild exception was the correct test for causation. In this case, causation was established as each defendant had materially increased the risk of the victim contracting lung cancer. The result was that each defendant was liable. The issue of apportionment of liability under the Fairchild exception had been addressed in the House of Lords in Barker v Corus; it was decided that a defendant was liable only in proportion to his own contribution to the exposure to the asbestos and therefore to the risk that the deceased would contract mesothelioma. Section 3 of the Compensation Act 2006 had reversed this aspect of Barker and had substituted joint and several liability for the whole of the damage. However, the Compensation Act applies only to mesothelioma. Therefore, in relation to lung cancer, the Fairchild exception resulted in each defendant being liable only for the exposure for which it was responsible as a proportion of the victim's total exposure. Accordingly, the claimant could recover only 35.2% of the damages from the defendants. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Company Fined GBP20,000 For Disturbing Asbestos ---------------------------------------------------------------- Nick Spoors, writing for Northampton Chronicle, reported that a company has been fined after risking possible exposure of children and staff to asbestos that was contained in the roof of a Northampton primary school. Northampton Magistrates' Court heard how Amey Communities Limited (ACL) were contracted to carry out roof refurbishment at Lings Primary School, Hayeswood Road, Northampton. During the course of the works, workers from ACL disturbed asbestos insulation boards in a small plant room. An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive found ACL failed to monitor and identify asbestos materials or ensure key personnel had suitable asbestos awareness training. The company pleaded guilty and was fined GBP20,000 and ordered to pay costs of GBP1,737. HSE inspector Sam Russell said after the hearing: "The serious health risks of asbestos, which is a class one carcinogen, are well-known and publicised. "Any maintenance or construction work undertaken in buildings built before 2000 must consider and manage the risk of possible asbestos-containing materials. "It is important this material is considered at every stage of a construction project and failure to do so places workers, buildings occupants and the public at risk to possible exposure to asbestos fibres." It is understood that quick reactions by the school caretaker saw the class next door secured soon after the incident, which happened on November 6. Safety checks and tests were carried out, during which time children were kept out of the area. However all air tests and checks came back negative and showed that there was no risk to anyone within the building. Afterwards, the area was cordoned off and the reception and year 1 class were taught in the year 5 and 6 area. Lings school was subsequently closed all students as further tests were undertaken. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Taskforce Releases Pics of Fluffy Contamination ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kirsten Lawson, writing for The Canberra Times, reported that the Asbestos Taskforce has released photographs of some of the worst contamination found to date of a Fluffy home, as it prepares the first 10 cleared blocks for sale. Taskforce head Andrew Kefford would not provide the address of the home where the wall cavities were found contaminated by the loose- fill asbestos, beyond saying it was in Weston Creek. Nor would the former owners be told, he said, with the taskforce unable to quantify the amount of Fluffy insulation for each home. Mr Kefford said the key issue for homeowners was the level of contamination in living areas -- and the significant finds in the walls did not necessarily translate to contamination of living areas. "What we found inside the walls was a very significant amount of asbestos insulation," he said. "We're releasing this really so that people get a sense of what's happening inside the houses ... and to demonstrate the extent to which, notwithstanding the removal of the visible and accessible asbestos in the original program, that product has migrated through the structures." Homes insulated in the 1970s by "Mr Fluffy" Dirk Jansen with loose asbestos were cleaned in the late 1980s and early 1990s, when the material was removed from ceilings. The government has decided to demolish them all after discovering the extent of asbestos contamination of wall cavities and subfloors in a Downer house in 2014. The photos were released as the government updated its demolition schedule, with 213 houses scheduled to come down this year. To date, demolition has focused on Weston Creek, especially Rivett and Chapman, where authorities wanted to move quickly to remove homes at risk of bushfire attack. Eighty-four houses have been demolished, half of them in Weston Creek. Now the new unit title rules have been passed by the ACT parliament, the government will begin selling cleared blocks, with 10 to be auctioned about April 12. Mr Kefford said five blocks had been sold back to owners already - - blocks that were either heritage listed or too small to be affected by the unit title rules. The unit title changes allow owners of Fluffy blocks of 700 square metres or more to divide the blocks into two titles for two homes -- a strategy deigned to maximise their value and claw back some of the cost of the scheme. Homes are being offered to former owners first, at a value determined by the Land Development Agency, with 657 owners wanting the first right of refusal. After that, they are offered to Housing ACT at the same price, then they go to auction. Owners of the first 10 did not want first right of refusal to buy. Mr Kefford said homes were being bundled for demolition contractors -- with a Kambah group of 35 homes offered as one package, to help bring down the cost of demolition. He would not reveal demolition costs. Also to keep costs down, the government was not demolishing garages, cubby houses, gardens or driveways and was not restoring blocks to level ground before selling them. Soil testing for asbestos contamination was limited to the footprint of the house and the demolition site. When the scheme was announced in 2014, the government said it would "scrape" the blocks clean, with then chief minister Katy Gallagher saying, "The block is essentially scraped, so the trees will go, the garden will go, the pool will go, everything will go." But Mr Kefford said the blocks were more attractive with established gardens and there was no reason to think the gardens would be contaminated if soil around the house itself had been tested and was clean. The government is also buying nine neighbouring houses, attached to Fluffy homes, where the Fluffy house could not be demolished without affecting the integrity of the neighbour. In all, 1022 houses are affected, housing 4000 people. One thousand owners had agreed to the buyback. To date, 971 had accepted offers and 828 homes were in government hands, with owners paying prices ranging from $360,000 to $3 million. Most of the Fluffy homes in Chapman and Rivett in Weston Creek have been demolished, with just five of the 24 Chapman homes and nine of the 27 Rivett homes remaining. ASBESTOS UPDATE: B.C. Judge Clears Contractor of Contempt --------------------------------------------------------- The Canadian Press reported that a British Columbia Supreme Court judge has concluded the province's workplace-safety laws are too vague in a decision union leaders say threatens to undermine B.C.'s entire regulatory regime. Justice George Macintosh tossed out allegations that an asbestos- removal contractor and his son disobeyed a 2012 court order to comply with the Workers Compensation Act, saying the law is too complex and difficult to understand. "If the court is to punish anyone for not carrying out its orders, the order must in unambiguous terms direct what is to be done," Macintosh said. "Even if every word of the act or the regulation (were) contained in the order, it would still be impossible in my view for the respondents to know when they went to work each day whether their work put them ... in contempt of this court." The 2012 order was directed at Seattle Environmental Consulting Ltd., owner Mike Singh and his son Shawn Singh. Between 2007 and 2012, WorkSafeBC issued 237 violation notices to the company and two men. It also imposed fines in excess of $200,000. Those breaches included failing to correctly identify asbestos during building surveys, neglecting to put up warning signs and leaving potentially contaminated drywall debris uncovered on countertops and carpets. Macintosh's ruling also dismissed the Singhs' application that the 2012 order be set aside, despite finding it "overly broad and unclear." Mike Singh said he was happy with the decision but that he would appeal Macintosh's decision upholding the court order. "I want to make it clear ... we do not expose people to asbestos, period," Singh said. Irene Lanzinger, president of the B.C. Federation of Labour, said the notion that a company with expertise in asbestos removal wouldn't understand the laws governing its industry is "nonsense." "We will be urging (the Workers Compensation Board) to appeal," she said. WorkSafeBC spokeswoman Trish Chernecki said the agency will review the ruling in detail and consider its legal options, including filing an appeal. The head of the Hazardous Materials Association, Don Whyte, said he was shocked by what he called "the wrong decision." "They teach me in elementary school that ignorance of the law is no excuse," Whyte said. "Now we have a judgment that is telling us that if the law is too complex you don't have to follow it." This ruling will call into question the entire regulatory regime governed by the Workers Compensation Act, he added. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mammoth Trial Scheduled in Kentucky ---------------------------------------------------- Gordon Gibb, writing for Lawyers and Settlements, reported that an asbestosis lawsuit brought by plaintiff Doris White and scheduled to go to trial underwent some changes in December of last year, although the case was preserved. The circumstances of the case, while not unique, are nonetheless a little different from the everyday fodder of the legal blotter. White, the plaintiff who suffers from an asbestos disease, was married at one time to Ronald Eades, an asbestos worker who spent much of his career as a union insulator at Triangle Insulation and Sheet Metal Co. Eades, according to court documents, would habitually wear his work clothes home. White would shake them out prior to laundering the clothing. White, who was married to Eades in the 1960s and 1970s before their divorce in 1985, inhaled asbestos dust her husband brought home on his work uniforms, or so it is alleged. Eades himself suffered from asbestosis disease, whereas White was diagnosed with asbestos mesothelioma, a similar form of asbestos cancer. Asbestosis and related asbestos diseases are almost always caused by exposure to asbestos, and are usually fatal. The aftereffects of such exposure can incubate and languish in the body for years and sometimes decades without the individual even being aware, before suddenly emerging without warning. It is not known if Eades is still living. According to the Messenger-Inquirer of Owensboro, Kentucky (12/24/15), White has previously reached settlement agreements with some of the plaintiffs in her asbestosis claim, including Big Rivers, Domtar, Goodrich and Hoosier Energy. Other plaintiffs in the asbestosis compensation lawsuit include General Electric, Goodyear, Indianapolis Light and Power, York International Corp. and Alcoa amongst other plaintiffs, together with Triangle Sheet Metal Co. Nine remaining defendants in total made a bid in December of last year to seek dismissal from the lawsuit based partially on an argument that there could not be a unified defense in the lawsuit. However, it has been reported that the trial judge dismissed most of their arguments. It's a complicated asbestosis lawsuit, in that White is litigating against Eades's employer -- Triangle -- as well as a host of companies that supplied materials allegedly containing asbestos to Triangle. Some of the defendants that acted as suppliers argued that Triangle had the duty to protect Eades as their employee, and thus to protect White by extension. NPR Reports on "Third Wave" of Asbestos Disease Appeals Court Rules in Favor of Asbestosis Lung Cancer Victim Most of the defendants argue that White was never a direct employee, never having set foot in, or on, their premises. According to the Messenger-Inquirer (9/18/15) in a report published in September of last year, Daviess County Circuit Court Judge Joe Castlen had characterized arguments and positions taken by the defendants as subterfuge, based on the undue delay it might cause. "?Subterfuge' can be defined in various ways," Castlen said, according to the report. "One of which is the real purpose of these motions is not to develop evidence from these people, because that can already be done, but to delay the trial that's scheduled for February. "We've got a lady that's dying." Case information was not available. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Dumped Near Homes in Western Sydney ------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Griffits and Jayne Margetts, writing for ABC News, reported that a 50-metre trail of asbestos-laden material has been dumped on a street in Sydney's west, close to a number of homes. Parramatta City Council said a white tip truck dumped its load onto Boundary Road at Chester Hill, sometime between 2:00am and 3:00am (AEDT) on Feb. 25. It left a trail of building waste approximately 50 metres long and three metres wide strewn along the road. Fire and Rescue New South Wales Hazmat crews were called to help prevent asbestos particles in the material from dispersing. The material has since been removed from the street. Parramatta Lord Mayor Paul Garrard described the dumping as an act of "vandalism". "This is a despicable act that definitely shows no care or concern for the community and it's the type of behaviour which is totally unacceptable," he said. "These are cowboys taking shortcuts. They take money off people to dispose of things correctly and of course they go and dump it illegally. "It's also the type of behaviour that is happening too prevalently in Parramatta." Councillor Garrard said it was the sixth incident of illegal dumping in the area in the past 12 months. "Those six occasions have all been in similar areas in the Woodville Ward, where this occurred [today]," he said. Councillor Garrard said it was the largest example of illegal dumping in the Parramatta area in the past 12 months. Dumpers should be named and shamed: residents Residents have reacted with anger at the latest dumping incident. "We should name them and shame them," one resident said. "This affects everyone in this area." Another resident, Anju Kalsh, said surveillance systems need to be installed to stop the repeated dumping in the area. "Cameras should be put up because it's always the same thing happening every time," she said. Ms Kalsh said waste had previously been dumped on each side of the same road "many times". She said the dumped waste had also caused traffic problems. The Council is seeking CCTV footage of the dumping and has commenced an investigation to identify those responsible. Councillor Garrard said those responsible for the dumping faced a fine of up to $1 million. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Orlando Firefighters Exposed to Asbestos at Work ----------------------------------------------------------------- 9 Investigates was first to discover that Orlando firefighters were sent to train in an apartment building filled with asbestos without knowing it. Orange County Environmental Protection officials launched an investigation and inspectors found the ceilings, floor tiles and duct work all had asbestos in them. The Orlando Fire Department shut down training operations at the Lakeside Village Apartments for good. A doctor met with the firefighters to explain the impact asbestos could have on their health and they learned that they'll have to monitor their lungs for years to find out if it will take a toll. The asbestos problem was well documented in city files before the firefighters were sent in to do the work. Dr. Stan Haimes told the firefighters that the risk of mesothelioma is low, but not zero. "On the other hand, I do think it's reasonable that they get medical testing on a regular basis, just to make sure that if anything does develop they'd be able to treat that early on," Haimes said. Each firefighter has had a record placed in their file documenting the risk in case they get sick in the future. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alexandria Subject to Environmental Liability -------------------------------------------------------------- Alexandria Real Estate Equities, Inc., disclosed that its properties that may have asbestos-containing building materials subjects the Company to potential environmental liability, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015. The Company states: "Some of our properties may have asbestos- containing building materials. Environmental laws require that asbestos-containing building materials be properly managed and maintained and may impose fines and penalties on building owners or operators for failure to comply with these requirements. These laws may also allow third parties to seek recovery from owners or operators for personal injury associated with exposure to asbestos-containing building materials." "In addition, some of our tenants routinely handle hazardous substances and wastes as part of their operations at our properties. Environmental laws and regulations subject our tenants, and potentially us, to liability resulting from these activities or from previous uses of those properties. Environmental liabilities could also affect a tenant's ability to make rental payments to us. We require our tenants to comply with these environmental laws and regulations. "Independent environmental consultants have conducted Phase I or similar environmental site assessments on the properties in our portfolio. Site assessments are intended to discover and evaluate information regarding the environmental condition of the surveyed property and surrounding properties and do not generally include soil samplings, subsurface investigations, or an asbestos survey. To date, these assessments have not revealed any material environmental liability that we believe would have a material adverse effect on our business, assets, or results of operations. Nevertheless, it is possible that the assessments on our properties have not revealed all environmental conditions, liabilities, or compliance concerns that may have arisen after the review was completed or may arise in the future; and future laws, ordinances, or regulations may impose additional material environmental liability." Headquartered in Pasadena, California, Alexandria Real Estate Equities, Inc., is a fully integrated, self-administered, and self-managed urban office REIT. It is the largest and leading urban office REIT uniquely focused on collaborative science and technology campuses in AAA innovation clusters locations. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Meritor Insurance Recovery Offsets Revenue Cuts ---------------------------------------------------------------- Meritor, Inc., disclosed that the Company's revenue declines, which impacted Adjusted EBITDA margin were more than offset by lower material costs and a favorable insurance recovery related to legacy asbestos liabilities, according to the Company's Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission dated February 3, 2016. Adjusted EBITDA was $76 million, compared to $79 million in the same period last year. Adjusted EBITDA margin was 9.4 percent for the quarter, compared to 9.0 percent in the same period last year. A copy of the Form 8-K is available at http://is.gd/mS0Dno Headquartered in Troy, Michigan, Meritor, Inc., is a global supplier of a range of integrated systems and components to original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and the aftermarket for the commercial vehicle, transportation and industrial sectors. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Maremont Corp. Had 5,700 Claims at Jan. 3 ---------------------------------------------------------- Meritor, Inc., reported that its subsidiary, Maremont Corporation, had 5,700 pending asbestos-related claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended January 3, 2016. Maremont Corporation, a subsidiary of Meritor, manufactured friction products containing asbestos from 1953 through 1977, when it sold its friction product business. Arvin Industries, Inc., a predecessor of the company, acquired Maremont in 1986. Maremont and many other companies are defendants in suits brought by individuals claiming personal injuries as a result of exposure to asbestos-containing products. Maremont had approximately 5,700 and 5,600 pending asbestos- related claims at December 31, 2015 and September 30, 2015, respectively. Although Maremont has been named in these cases, in the cases where actual injury has been alleged, very few claimants have established that a Maremont product caused their injuries. Plaintiffs' lawyers often sue dozens or even hundreds of defendants in individual lawsuits, seeking damages against all named defendants irrespective of the disease or injury and irrespective of any causal connection with a particular product. For these reasons, the total number of claims filed is not necessarily the most meaningful factor in determining Maremont's asbestos-related liability. Headquartered in Troy, Michigan, Meritor, Inc., is a global supplier of a range of integrated systems and components to original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and the aftermarket for the commercial vehicle, transportation and industrial sectors. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Maremont Had $38-Mil. Recoveries at Dec. 31 ------------------------------------------------------------ Meritor, Inc., disclosed that its subsidiary, Maremont Corporation, had $38 million asbestos-related recoveries as of December 31, 2015, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period January 3, 2016. Maremont has engaged Bates White LLC, a consulting firm with extensive experience estimating costs associated with asbestos litigation, to assist with determining the estimated cost of resolving pending and future asbestos-related claims that have been, and could reasonably be expected to be, filed against Maremont. Bates White prepares these cost estimates annually in September. Although it is not possible to estimate the full range of costs because of various uncertainties, Bates White advised Maremont that it would be possible to determine an estimate of a reasonable forecast of the cost of the probable settlement and defense costs of resolving pending and future asbestos-related claims, based on historical data and certain assumptions with respect to events that may occur in the future. As of September 30, 2015, Bates White provided a reasonable and probable estimate that consisted of a range of equally likely possibilities of Maremont's obligation for asbestos personal injury claims over the next ten years of $71 million to $100 million. Management recognized a liability of $71 million as of each of December 31, 2015 and September 30, 2015 for pending and future claims over the next ten years. The ultimate cost of resolving pending and future claims is estimated based on the history of claims and expenses for plaintiffs represented by law firms in jurisdictions with an established history with Maremont. Historically, Maremont has recognized incremental insurance receivables associated with recoveries expected for asbestos- related liabilities as the estimate of asbestos-related liabilities for pending and future claims changes. However, Maremont currently expects that its settled insurance coverage will not be sufficient to fully offset its expected asbestos- related liabilities through the end of the ten-year forecasted liability period. The following assumptions were made by Maremont after consultation with Bates White and are included in their study: * Pending and future claims were estimated for a ten-year period ending in fiscal year 2025; * Maremont believes that the litigation environment could change significantly beyond ten years and that the reliability of estimates of future probable expenditures in connection with asbestos-related personal injury claims will decline for each year further in the future. As a result, estimating a probable liability beyond ten years is difficult and uncertain; * On a per claim basis, defense and processing costs for pending and future claims will be at the level consistent with Maremont's prior experience; * Potential payments made to claimants from other sources, including other defendants and 524(g) trusts favorably impact Maremont's estimated liability in the future; and * The ultimate indemnity cost of resolving nonmalignant claims with plaintiffs' law firms in jurisdictions without an established history with Maremont cannot be reasonably estimated. Maremont has insurance that reimburses a substantial portion of the costs incurred defending against asbestos-related claims. The insurance receivable related to asbestos-related liabilities is $38 million and $41 million as of December 31, 2015 and September 30, 2015, respectively. The receivable is for coverage provided by one insurance carrier based on a coverage in place agreement. Maremont currently expects to exhaust the remaining limits provided by this coverage sometime in the next ten years. The difference between the estimated liability and insurance receivable is primarily related to exhaustion of settled insurance coverage within the forecasted period and proceeds from settled insurance policies. Amounts received from insurance settlements generally reduce recorded insurance receivables. Maremont maintained insurance coverage with other insurance carriers that management believes also covers indemnity and defense costs. During fiscal year 2013, Maremont re-initiated lawsuits against these carriers, seeking a declaration of its rights to coverage for asbestos claims and to facilitate an orderly and timely collection of insurance proceeds. One of these insurance policies has been partially settled in cash. On December 12, 2015, Maremont received $17 million, of which $5 million was recognized as reduction in asbestos expense and $12 million was recorded as a liability to the insurance carrier as it is required to be returned to the carrier if additional asbestos liability is not incurred. The settlement also provides additional recovery if certain spending thresholds are met. The amounts recorded for the asbestos-related reserves and recoveries from insurance companies are based upon assumptions and estimates derived from currently known facts. All such estimates of liabilities and recoveries for asbestos-related claims are subject to considerable uncertainty because such liabilities and recoveries are influenced by variables that are difficult to predict. The future litigation environment for Maremont could change significantly from its past experience, due, for example, to changes in the mix of claims filed against Maremont in terms of plaintiffs' law firms, jurisdictions and diseases; legislative or regulatory developments; Maremont's approach to defending claims; or payments to plaintiffs from other defendants. Estimated recoveries are influenced by coverage issues among insurers and the continuing solvency of various insurance companies. If the assumptions with respect to the estimation period, the nature of pending and future claims, the cost to resolve claims and the amount of available insurance prove to be incorrect, the actual amount of liability for Maremont's asbestos-related claims, and the effect on the company, could differ materially from current estimates and, therefore, could have a material impact on the company's financial condition and results of operations. Headquartered in Troy, Michigan, Meritor, Inc., is a global supplier of a range of integrated systems and components to original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and the aftermarket for the commercial vehicle, transportation and industrial sectors. ASBESTOS UPDATE: ArvinMeritor Had $14-Mil. Recoveries at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Meritor, Inc., disclosed that its subsidiary, ArvinMeritor, Inc., had $14 million asbestos-related recoveries as of December 31, 2015, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period January 3, 2016. ArvinMeritor, Inc. ("AM"), a subsidiary of Meritor, along with many other companies, has also been named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos used in certain components of Rockwell International products many years ago. Liability for these claims was transferred at the time of the spin-off of the automotive business from Rockwell in 1997. Rockwell had approximately 3,100 and 3,000 pending active asbestos claims in lawsuits that name AM, together with many other companies, as defendants at December 31, 2015 and September 30, 2015, respectively. A significant portion of the claims do not identify any of Rockwell's products or specify which of the claimants, if any, were exposed to asbestos attributable to Rockwell's products, and past experience has shown that the vast majority of the claimants will likely never identify any of Rockwell's products. Historically, AM has been dismissed from the vast majority of similar claims filed in the past with no payment to claimants. For those claimants who do show that they worked with Rockwell's products, management nevertheless believes it has meritorious defenses, in substantial part due to the integrity of the products involved and the lack of any impairing medical condition on the part of many claimants. The company has engaged Bates White to assist with determining whether it would be possible to estimate the cost of resolving pending and future Rockwell legacy asbestos-related claims that have been, and could reasonably be expected to be, filed against the company. Bates White prepares these cost estimates annually in September. As of September 30, 2015, Bates White provided a reasonable and probable estimate that consisted of a range of equally likely possibilities of Rockwell's obligation for asbestos personal injury claims over the next ten years of $55 million to $74 million. Management recognized a liability for the pending and future claims over the next ten years of $55 million as of each of December 31, 2015 and September 30, 2015. The ultimate cost of resolving pending and future claims is estimated based on the history of claims and expenses for plaintiffs represented by law firms in jurisdictions with an established history with Rockwell. The following assumptions were made by the company after consultation with Bates White and are included in their study: * Pending and future claims were estimated for a ten-year period ending in fiscal year 2025; * The company believes that the litigation environment could change significantly beyond ten years and that the reliability of estimates of future probable expenditures in connection with asbestos-related personal injury claims will decline for each year further in the future. As a result, estimating a probable liability beyond ten years is difficult and uncertain; * On a per claim basis, defense and processing costs for pending and future claims will be at the level consistent with the company's prior experience; * Potential payments made to claimants from other sources, including other defendants and 524(g) trusts favorably impact the company's estimated liability in the future; and * The ultimate indemnity cost of resolving nonmalignant claims with plaintiff's law firms in jurisdictions without an established history with Rockwell cannot be reasonably estimated. The insurance receivable related to asbestos-related liabilities was $14 million as of each of December 31, 2015 and September 30, 2015. Included in these amounts are insurance receivables of $9 million as of each of December 31, 2015 and September 30, 2015 that are associated with policies in dispute. Rockwell has insurance coverage that management believes covers indemnity and defense costs, over and above self-insurance retentions, for most of these claims. The company has initiated claims against certain of these carriers to enforce the insurance policies, which are in various stages of the litigation process. The company expects to recover some portion of the defense and indemnity costs it has incurred to date, over and above self-insured retentions, and some portion of the costs for defending asbestos claims going forward. The amounts recognized for policies in dispute are based on consultation with advisors, status of settlement negotiations with certain insurers and underlying analysis performed by management. The remaining receivable recognized is related to coverage provided by one carrier based on a coverage-in-place insurance arrangement. If the assumptions with respect to the estimation period, the nature of pending claims, the cost to resolve claims and the amount of available insurance prove to be incorrect, the actual amount of liability for Rockwell's asbestos-related claims, and the effect on the company, could differ materially from current estimates and, therefore, could have a material impact on the company's financial condition and results of operations. Headquartered in Troy, Michigan, Meritor, Inc., is a global supplier of a range of integrated systems and components to original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and the aftermarket for the commercial vehicle, transportation and industrial sectors. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harris Corp. Continues to Defend Suits ------------------------------------------------------- Harris Corporation, from time to time, faces product liability lawsuits related to the prior sale or use of former products allegedly containing asbestos or other restricted materials, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended January 1, 2016. Headquartered in Melbourne, Florida, Harris Corporation is an international communications and information technology company serving government and commercial markets in more than 150 countries. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Cases Still Pending v. Tidewater Inc. --------------------------------------------------------------- Tidewater Inc. is involved in various legal proceedings that relate to asbestos and other environmental matters, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2015. The Company says it is proactive in establishing policies and operating procedures for safeguarding the environment against any hazardous materials aboard its vessels and at shore-based locations. Headquartered in New Orleans, Louisiana, Tidewater Inc. provides offshore service vessels and marine support services to the global offshore energy industry through the operation of a diversified fleet of marine service vessels. The Company operates in two reportable segments: International and the United States, and it has one of the broadest global operating footprints in the offshore energy industry. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carpenter Tech Continues to Defend PI Suits ------------------------------------------------------------ Carpenter Technology Corp. continues to defend itself against lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to chemicals and substances in the workplace such as asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the the quarterly period ended December 31, 2015. The Company is defending various routine claims and legal actions that are incidental to its business and common to its operations, including those pertaining to product claims, commercial disputes, patent infringement, employment actions, employee benefits, compliance with domestic and foreign laws, personal injury claims and tax issues. Like many other manufacturing companies in recent years, the Company, from time to time, has been named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to chemicals and substances in the workplace such as asbestos. The Company provides for costs relating to these matters when a loss is probable and the amount of the loss is reasonably estimable. The effect of the outcome of these matters on the Company's future results of operations and liquidity cannot be predicted because any such effect depends on future results of operations and the amount and timing (both as to recording future charges to operations and cash expenditures) of the resolution of such matters. While it is not feasible to determine the outcome of these matters, management believes that the total liability from these matters will not have a material effect on the Company's financial position, results of operations or cash flows over the long-term. However, there can be no assurance that an increase in the scope of pending matters or that any future lawsuits, claims, proceedings or investigations will not be material to the Company's financial position, results of operations or cash flows in a particular future quarter or year. Headquartered in Reading, Pennsylvania, Carpenter Technology Corp. engages in the manufacture, fabrication, and distribution of specialty metals and engineered products. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Haynes Int'l Continues to Defend PI Suits ---------------------------------------------------------- Haynes International, Inc., continues to defend itself against asbestos-related personal injury suits, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2015. The Company is currently, and has in the past been, subject to claims involving personal injuries allegedly relating to its products and processes. For example, the Company is presently involved in two actions involving welding rod-related injuries, which were filed in California state court against numerous manufacturers, including the Company, in May 2006 and February 2007, respectively, alleging that the welding-related products of the defendant manufacturers harmed the users of such products through the inhalation of welding fumes containing manganese. The Company is also involved in three actions related to asbestos in its facilities, which were filed in 2012 and 2014. The Company believes that it has defenses to these lawsuits and that, if the Company were to be found liable, the cases would not have a material effect on its financial position, results of operations or liquidity. Headquartered in Kokomo, Indiana, Haynes International, Inc., develops and manufactures nickel- and cobalt-based alloys, high- temperature alloys and corrosion-resistant alloys. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dow Incurs $78MM Pretax Charge in 4Q 2014 ---------------------------------------------------------- During the fourth quarter of 2014, The Dow Chemical Company recorded a pretax charge of $78 million related to an increase in asbestos-related liability for pending and future claims, according to the Company's Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission dated February 2, 2016. Headquartered in Midland, Michigan, The Dow Chemical Company is as an integrated science and technology company. It is a worldwide manufacturer and supplier of products used primarily as raw materials in the manufacture of customer products and services. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Briggs Still Subject to Product Liability Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Briggs & Stratton Corporation disclosed that it is subject to various unresolved legal actions that arise in the normal course of its business, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended December 27, 2015. These actions typically relate to product liability, including asbestos-related liability, patent and trademark matters, and disputes with customers, suppliers, distributors and dealers, competitors and employees, Headquartered in Wauwatosa, Wisconsin, Briggs & Stratton Corporation is a producer of air cooled gasoline engines for outdoor power equipment. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Seeks Review of "Amato" Ruling ----------------------------------------------------- Crane Co. is asking the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania to review the verdict in the asbestos lawsuit filed by Thomas Amato, according to the Company's Form 8-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on January 25, 2016. On February 25, 2013, a Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, state court jury found the Company responsible for a 1/10th share of a $2.5 million verdict in the Thomas Amato claim and a 1/5th share of a $2.3 million verdict in the Frank Vinciguerra claim, which were consolidated for trial. The Company filed post-trial motions requesting judgments in the Company's favor notwithstanding the jury's verdicts or new trials, and also requesting that settlement offsets be applied to reduce the judgment in accordance with Pennsylvania law. These motions were denied. The Company has appealed, and on April 17, 2015, a panel of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the trial court's ruling. The Company's motion for reconsideration was denied, and it is seeking review before the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Crane Co. manufactures and sells engineered industrial products in the United States and internationally. It operates in four segments: Fluid Handling, Payment & Merchandising Technologies, Aerospace & Electronics, and Engineered Materials. Crane Co. was founded in 1855 and is based in Stamford, Connecticut. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Continues to Pursue Appeal in "Peraica" -------------------------------------------------------------- Crane Co. continues to pursue further appeal of the New York City state court's ruling in the asbestos lawsuit filed by Ivo Peraica, according to the Company's Form 8-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on January 25, 2016. On March 1, 2013, a New York City state court jury entered a $35 million verdict against the Company in the Ivo Peraica claim. The Company filed post-trial motions seeking to overturn the verdict, to grant a new trial, or to reduce the damages, which the Company argues were excessive under New York appellate case law governing awards for non-economic losses and further were subject to settlement offsets. After the trial court remitted the verdict to $18 million, but otherwise denied the Company's post-trial motion, judgment was entered against the Company in the amount of $10.6 million (including interest). The Company has appealed. The Company has taken a separate appeal of the trial court's denial of its summary judgment motion. The Court has consolidated the appeals, which were heard in the fourth quarter of 2014. On July 31, 2013, a Buffalo, New York state court jury entered a $3.1 million verdict against the Company in the Lee Holdsworth claim. The Company filed post-trial motions seeking to overturn the verdict, to grant a new trial, or to reduce the damages, which the Company argues were excessive under New York appellate case law governing awards for non-economic losses and further were subject to settlement offsets. Post-trial motions were denied, and the court entered judgment in the amount of $1.7 million. On June 12, 2015, the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, affirmed the trial court's ruling denying the Company's motion for summary judgment. The court denied reargument of that ruling. The Company is pursuing a further appeal of the trial court rulings and judgment. On September 11, 2013, a Columbia, South Carolina state court jury in the Lloyd Garvin claim entered an $11 million verdict for compensatory damages against the Company and two other defendants jointly, and also awarded exemplary damages against the Company in the amount of $11 million. The jury also awarded exemplary damages against both other defendants. The Company filed post-trial motions seeking to overturn the verdict, which were denied, except that the Court remitted the compensatory damages award to $2.5 million and exemplary damages award to $3.5 million. Considering settlement offsets, the Court further reduced the total damages award to $3.5 million. The Company has settled the matter. The settlement is reflected in the first quarter 2015 indemnity amount. Crane Co. manufactures and sells engineered industrial products in the United States and internationally. It operates in four segments: Fluid Handling, Payment & Merchandising Technologies, Aerospace & Electronics, and Engineered Materials. Crane Co. was founded in 1855 and is based in Stamford, Connecticut. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Appeal on "DeLisle" Ruling Set for Q1 2016 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Oral argument for Crane Co.'s appeal on a Fort Lauderdale, Florida state court jury's ruling in an asbesos lawsuit filed by Richard DeLisle is scheduled for the first quarter of 2016, according to the Company's Form 8-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on January 25, 2016. On September 17, 2013, a Fort Lauderdale, Florida state court jury in the Richard DeLisle claim found the Company responsible for 16 percent of an $8 million verdict. The trial court denied all parties' post-trial motions, and entered judgment against the Company in the amount of $1.3 million. The Company has appealed. Oral argument on the appeal is scheduled for the first quarter of 2016. Crane Co. manufactures and sells engineered industrial products in the United States and internationally. It operates in four segments: Fluid Handling, Payment & Merchandising Technologies, Aerospace & Electronics, and Engineered Materials. Crane Co. was founded in 1855 and is based in Stamford, Connecticut. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Shipowners Lose Summary Judgment Bid "Griffin" --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Willard E. Bartel and David E. Peebles, Administrators of the Estate of Freddie Griffin, allege that Mr. Griffin was exposed to asbestos while working aboard various ships. The Plaintiffs assert that Decedent developed two asbestos-related illnesses as a result of his exposure to asbestos aboard those ships. The Thompson Hine Shipowners moved for summary judgment, arguing that (1) Plaintiffs' non-malignancy claims are barred by way of judicial estoppel because Mr. Griffin failed to disclose the asbestos action as an asset in his bankruptcy filing, and (2) the Plaintiffs cannot pursue any of the asbestos claims in the asbestos action (neither the initial non-malignancy claims nor his post-petition malignancy claims) because the entire asbestos action is now owned by the bankruptcy estate. The Plaintiffs contend that the non-malignancy asbestos claims are not barred on grounds of judicial estoppel. First, the Plaintiffs contend that Mr. Griffin did not take inconsistent positions between his bankruptcy filing and the present asbestos action because at the time of his bankruptcy filing -- and throughout the entire duration of that action -- his non-malignancy asbestos claims were dismissed, such that he was not required to list them as an asset in his bankruptcy action. Moreover, Plaintiffs argue that even if Mr. Griffin should have identified the non-malignancy asbestos claims, the failure to do so was a good faith mistake such that judicial estoppel is not warranted. In a Memorandum dated January 29, 2016, which is available at http://is.gd/kiTf5Zfrom Leagle.com, Judge Eduardo C. Robreno of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied the Defendants' motion for summary judgment, concluding that Mr. Griffin's malignancy asbestos claims are not sufficiently rooted in his pre-bankruptcy past to constitute property of the bankruptcy estate. The case is WILLARD E. BARTEL, et al., (Administrators for Estate of Freddie L. Griffin), Plaintiffs, v. A-C PRODUCT LIABILITY TRUST, ET AL., Defendants, Consolidated Under No. MDL 875, E.D. PA Civil Action No. 2:11-32101-ER. WILLARD E. BARTEL, Plaintiff, is represented by DONALD A. KRISPIN, Esq. -- dkrispin@jaquesadmiralty.com -- THE JAQUES ADMIRALTY LAW FIRM, P.C., DUANE C. MARSDEN, Esq. -- dmarsden@jaquesadmiralty.com -- JAQUES ADMIRALTY LAW FIRM, P.C. & JOHN E. HERRICK, Esq. -- jherrick@motleyrice.com -- MOTLEY RICE LLC. DAVID C. PEEBLES, Plaintiff, is represented by DONALD A. KRISPIN, THE JAQUES ADMIRALTY LAW FIRM, P.C., DUANE C. MARSDEN, JAQUES ADMIRALTY LAW FIRM, P.C. & JOHN E. HERRICK, MOTLEY RICE LLC. A-C PRODUCT LIABILITY TRUST, Defendant, is represented by WILLIAM A. VISCOMI, Esq. ACANDS, INC., Defendant, is represented by MARY ELLEN FAIRFIELD, Esq. -- VORYS SATER SEYMOUR PEASE. ARGO INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, Defendant, is represented by MARIA A. KORTAN, GOODRICH CORPORATION. AUBURN MFG. CO., Defendant, is represented by EDWARD J. CASS, Esq. -- GALLAGHER SHARP FULTON NORMAN. AURORA PUMP DIVISION OF GENERAL SIGNAL CORP., Defendant, is represented by ERNEST W. AUCIELLO, Jr., Esq. -- ernest.auciello@tuckerellis.com -- TUCKER, ELLIS & WEST LLP. BETHLEHEM STEEL CORP., Defendant, represented by JILL G. OKUN, Esq. -- jokun@porterwright.com -- PORTER WRIGHT MORRIS & ARTHUR LLP. The BLACK & DECKER CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by BARRON LEGRANT STROUD, Jr., Esq. -- bstroud@wongfleming.com -- WONG FLEMING, PC. BOYD CO., A.B., Defendant, represented by EDWARD J. CASS, GALLAGHER SHARP FULTON NORMAN. BRYAN STEAM CORP., Defendant, represented by EDWARD J. CASS, GALLAGHER SHARP FULTON NORMAN. CHAMPION INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by SAMUEL R. MARTILLOTTA, Esq. -- smartillotta@mggmlpa.com -- MANSOUR, GAVIN, GERLACK & MANOS CO.. A.W. CHESTERTON COMPANY, Defendant, is represented by JOHN P. PATTERSON, Esq. -- john.patterson@tuckerellis.com -- TUCKER ELLIS WEST & THOMAS P. ERVEN, esq. -- terven@yandalaw.com -- YOUNG ALEXANDER LPA. DURABLA MANUFACTURING CO., Defendant, represented by BRUCE P. MANDEL, ULMER & BERNE. EVERLASTING VALVE CO., Defendant, represented by SAMUEL R. MARTILLOTTA, MANSOUR, GAVIN, GERLACK & MANOS CO.. FEDERAL-MOGUL CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by EDWARD J. CASS, GALLAGHER SHARP FULTON NORMAN. FEL-PRO INCORPORATED, Defendant, represented by JOHN C. CUBAR, MCNEAL, SCHICK, ARCHIBALD & BIRO. FELT PRODUCTS INCORPORATED, Defendant, represented by JOHN C. CUBAR, MCNEAL, SCHICK, ARCHIBALD & BIRO. FOSTER WHEELER COMPANY, Defendant, represented by JAMES E. MOSS, CUYAHOGA COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE. GATKE CORPORATION, Defendant, is represented by JOHN M. HERKE, Esq. -- SPYRIDON PALERMO & DORNAN. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Defendant, represented by REGINALD S. KRAMER, OLDHAM KRAMER. GENERAL REFRACTORIES, Defendant, represented by CHARLES R. JANES. GOODALL RUBBER CO., Defendant, represented by EDWARD J. CASS, GALLAGHER SHARP FULTON NORMAN. GOODRICH, B.F., Defendant, represented by RICHARD D. SCHUSTER, VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR AND PEASE. GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER CO., Defendant, represented by MARY ELLEN FAIRFIELD, VORYS SATER SEYMOUR PEASE. HAJOCA CORP., Defendant, represented by EDWARD J. CASS, GALLAGHER SHARP FULTON NORMAN. HARBISON-WALKER REFRACTORIES GROUP, Defendant, represented byMARY ELLEN FAIRFIELD, VORYS SATER SEYMOUR PEASE. INGERSOLL-DRESSER PUMP, Defendant, represented by EDWARD J. CASS, GALLAGHER SHARP FULTON NORMAN. INGERSOLL-RAND CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by EDWARD J. CASS, GALLAGHER SHARP FULTON NORMAN. JANOS INDUSTRIAL INSULATION CORP., Defendant, represented byEDWARD J. CASS, GALLAGHER SHARP FULTON NORMAN. JOHN CRANE, INC., Defendant, is represented by EVAN J. PALIK, Esq. -- epalik@mdllp.net -- MCMAHON DEGULIS & STEPHEN H. DANIELS, Esq. -- sdaniels@mdllp.net -- MCMAHON DEGULIS LLP. KEASBEY, ROBERT A. COMPANY, Defendant, represented by BRUCE P. MANDEL, ULMER & BERNE. MELRATH GASKET, INC., Defendant, represented by WILLIAM A. VISCOMI. NOLAND COMPANY, Defendant, represented by EDWARD J. CASS, GALLAGHER SHARP FULTON NORMAN. NORTH AMERICAN REFRACTORIES CO., Defendant, represented by ERIC H. MANN, GALLAGHER SHARP. NORTH AMERICAN TRAILING CO., Defendant, represented by CHRISTOPHER D. KUEBLER, RAY ROBINSON CARLE & DAVIES P.L.L., DAVID G. DAVIES, RAY, ROBINSON, CARLE, DAVIES & SNYDER, GENE B. GEORGE, RAY, ROBINSON, CARLE & DAVIES PLL & JULIA R. BROUHARD, RAY, ROBINSON, CARLE & DAVIES PLL. The OKONITE CO., Defendant, represented by WILLIAM A. VISCOMI. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLAS CORP., Defendant, represented by JAMES ARTHUR GIBB, OWENS CORNING FIBERGLAS CORP. PPG INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant, represented by DONALD A. POWELL, HANNA CAMPBELL & POWELL, LLP. PECORA CORP., Defendant, represented by EDWARD J. CASS, GALLAGHER SHARP FULTON NORMAN. PHOENIX SPECIALTY MANUFACTURING CO., INC., Defendant, represented by EDWARD J. CASS, GALLAGHER SHARP FULTON NORMAN. PREFERRED UTILITIES MFG. CORP., Defendant, represented by EDWARD J. CASS, GALLAGHER SHARP FULTON NORMAN. RHOPAC INC., Defendant, represented by ERNEST W. AUCIELLO, Jr., TUCKER, ELLIS & WEST LLP. SELBY BATTERSBY AND CO., Defendant, represented by MICHAEL JOSEPH SULLIVAN, WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE LLC. SHERWIN-WILLIAMS CO., Defendant, represented by MICHAEL D. EAGEN, DINSMORE & SHOHL. SKINNER ENGINE COMPANY, INC., Defendant, represented by EDWARD J. CASS, GALLAGHER SHARP FULTON NORMAN. WALWORTH CO., Defendant, represented by BRUCE P. MANDEL, ULMER & BERNE. WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORP., Defendant, represented by PERCY SQUIRE, PERCY SQUIRE CO., L.L.C.. WORTHINGTON PUMP, INC., Defendant, represented by MARY ELLEN FAIRFIELD, VORYS SATER SEYMOUR PEASE. ZIMMERMAN PACKING & MFG., INC., Defendant, represented by EDWARD J. CASS, GALLAGHER SHARP FULTON NORMAN. FIBERBOARD CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by DONA L. ARNOLD, BENESCH FRIEDLANDER COPLAN ARONOFF & ERIC LARSON ZALUD, BENESICH FRIEDLANDER COPLAN & ARONOFF. ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Arroyo" to Proceed Against Shipowners ------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Willard E. Bartel and David E. Peebles, Administrators of the Estate of Fernando Arroyo, allege that Mr. Arroyo was exposed to asbestos while working aboard various ships. The Plaintiffs assert that Decedent developed two asbestos-related illnesses as a result of his exposure to asbestos aboard those ships. The Thompson Hine Shipowners moved for summary judgment, arguing that (1) the Plaintiffs' non-malignancy claims are barred by way of judicial estoppel because Mr. Arroyo failed to disclose the asbestos action as an asset in his bankruptcy filing, and (2) the Plaintiffs cannot pursue any of the asbestos claims in the asbestos action (neither the initial non-malignancy claims nor his post-petition malignancy claims) because the entire asbestos action is now owned by the bankruptcy estate. The Plaintiffs contend that the non-malignancy asbestos claims are not barred on grounds of judicial estoppel. First, Plaintiffs contend that Mr. Arroyo did not take inconsistent positions between his bankruptcy filing and the present asbestos action because at the time of his bankruptcy filing -- and throughout the entire duration of that action -- his non-malignancy asbestos claims were dismissed, such that he was not required to list them as an asset in his bankruptcy action. Moreover, Plaintiffs argue that even if Mr. Arroyo should have identified the non-malignancy asbestos claims, the failure to do so was a good faith mistake such that judicial estoppel is not warranted. In a Memorandum dated January 29, 2016 which is available at http://is.gd/zMJsAnfrom Leagle.com, Judge Eduardo C. Robreno of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied the Defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding that Mr. Griffin's malignancy asbestos claims are not sufficiently rooted in his pre-bankruptcy past to constitute property of the bankruptcy estate. The case is WILLARD E. BARTEL, et al., (Administrators for Estate of Fernando Arroyo), Plaintiffs, v. A-C PRODUCT LIABILITY TRUST, ET AL., Defendants, Consolidated Under No. MDL 875, E.D. PA Civil Action No. 2:11-30108-ER. WILLARD E. BARTEL, Plaintiff, is represented by DONALD A. KRISPIN, Esq. -- dkrispin@jaquesadmiralty.com -- THE JAQUES ADMIRALTY LAW FIRM, P.C., & John David Hurst, Esq. -- jhurst@motleyrice.com -- MOTLEY RICE LLC. DAVID C. PEEBLES, Plaintiff, is represented by DONALD A. KRISPIN, THE JAQUES ADMIRALTY LAW FIRM, P.C., DUANE C. MARSDEN, JAQUES ADMIRALTY LAW FIRM, P.C. & JOHN E. HERRICK, MOTLEY RICE LLC. A.W. CHESTERTON COMPANY, Defendant, is represented by JOHN P. PATTERSON, Esq. -- john.patterson@tuckerellis.com -- TUCKER ELLIS WEST. GATKE CORPORATION, Defendant, is represented by JOHN M. HERKE, Esq. -- SPYRIDON PALERMO & DORNAN. GULF OIL COMPANY, Defendant, represented by RICHARD C. BINZLEY, Esq. -- Dick.Binzley@ThompsonHine.com -- THOMPSON, HINE AND FLORY. IMO INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant, is represented by COLLEEN A. MOUNTCASTLE, Esq. -- cmountcastle@gallaghersharp.com -- GALLAGHER SHARP, KEVIN C. ALEXANDERSEN, Esq. -- kalexandersen@gallaghersharp.com -- GALLAGHER SHARP & STEPHEN M. BEAUDRY, Esq. -- sbeaudry@gallaghersharp.com -- GALLAGHER SHARP. JOHN CRANE, INC., Defendant, is represented by STEPHEN H. DANIELS, Esq. -- sdaniels@mdllp.net -- MCMAHON DEGULIS LLP. MATHIASEN TANKER IND. INC., Defendant, is represented by HAROLD W. HENDERSON, THOMPSON, HINE LLP. UNITED FRUIT COMPANY, Defendant, is represented by HAROLD W. HENDERSON, Esq. -- Hal.Henderson@ThompsonHine.com -- THOMPSON, HINE LLP, RICHARD C. BINZLEY, THOMPSON, HINE AND FLORY & SUSAN K. DIRKS, Esq. -- Susan.Dirks@ThompsonHine.com THOMPSON HINE LLP. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Shipowners Fail in Bid to Dismiss "Zuegg" ---------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Willard E. Bartel and David E. Peebles, Administrators of the Estate of Joseph F. Zuegg, allege that Mr. Zuegg was exposed to asbestos while working aboard various ships. Plaintiffs assert that Decedent developed two asbestos-related illnesses as a result of his exposure to asbestos aboard those ships. The Thompson Hine Shipowners (THS) moved for summary judgment, arguing that (1) the Plaintiffs' non-malignancy claims are barred by way of judicial estoppel because Mr. Zuegg failed to disclose the asbestos action as an asset in his bankruptcy filing, and (2) the Plaintiffs cannot pursue any of the asbestos claims in the asbestos action (neither the initial non-malignancy claims nor his post-petition malignancy claims) because the entire asbestos action is now owned by the bankruptcy estate. The Plaintiffs contend that the non-malignancy asbestos claims are not barred on grounds of judicial estoppel. First, Plaintiffs contend that Mr. Zuegg did not take inconsistent positions between his bankruptcy filing and the present asbestos action because at the time of his bankruptcy filing -- and throughout the entire duration of that action -- his non-malignancy asbestos claims were dismissed, such that he was not required to list them as an asset in his bankruptcy action. Moreover, Plaintiffs argue that even if Mr. Zuegg should have identified the non-malignancy asbestos claims, the failure to do so was a good faith mistake such that judicial estoppel is not warranted. In a Memorandum dated January 29, 2016 which is available at http://is.gd/50RMhCfrom Leagle.com, Judge Eduardo C. Robreno of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied the Defendants' motion for summary judgment, concluding that Mr. Zuegg's malignancy asbestos claims are not sufficiently rooted in his pre-bankruptcy past to constitute property of the bankruptcy estate. The case is WILLARD E. BARTEL, et al., (Administrators for Estate of Joseph F. Zuegg), Plaintiffs, v. A-C PRODUCT LIABILITY TRUST, ET AL., Defendants, Consolidated Under No. MDL 875, E.D. PA Civil Action No. 2:11-31112-ER. WILLARD E. BARTEL, Plaintiff, is represented by DONALD A. KRISPIN, Esq. -- dkrispin@jaquesadmiralty.com -- THE JAQUES ADMIRALTY LAW FIRM, P.C., & John David Hurst, Esq. -- jhurst@motleyrice.com -- MOTLEY RICE LLC. DAVID C. PEEBLES, Plaintiff, is represented by DONALD A. KRISPIN, THE JAQUES ADMIRALTY LAW FIRM, P.C., DUANE C. MARSDEN, JAQUES ADMIRALTY LAW FIRM, P.C. & JOHN E. HERRICK, MOTLEY RICE LLC. A.W. CHESTERTON COMPANY, Defendant, is represented by JOHN P. PATTERSON, Esq. -- john.patterson@tuckerellis.com -- TUCKER ELLIS WEST. GATKE CORPORATION, Defendant, is represented by JOHN M. HERKE, Esq. -- SPYRIDON PALERMO & DORNAN. GULF OIL COMPANY, Defendant, represented by RICHARD C. BINZLEY, Esq. -- Dick.Binzley@ThompsonHine.com -- THOMPSON, HINE AND FLORY. IMO INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant, is represented by COLLEEN A. MOUNTCASTLE, Esq. -- cmountcastle@gallaghersharp.com -- GALLAGHER SHARP, KEVIN C. ALEXANDERSEN, Esq. -- kalexandersen@gallaghersharp.com -- GALLAGHER SHARP & STEPHEN M. BEAUDRY, Esq. -- sbeaudry@gallaghersharp.com -- GALLAGHER SHARP. JOHN CRANE, INC., Defendant, is represented by STEPHEN H. DANIELS, Esq. -- sdaniels@mdllp.net -- MCMAHON DEGULIS LLP. AMOCO SHIPPING CO., Defendant, represented by JOHN G. GAUL, Esq. - - jgg@maronmarvel.com -- MARON, MARVEL, BRADLEY & ANDERSON, P.A., LINA M. CARRERAS, Esq. -- lmc@maronmarvel.com -- MARON MARVEL BRADLEY ANDERSON PA & WAYNE A. MARVEL, Esq. -- wam@maronmarvel.com -- MARON MARVEL BRADLEY & ANDERSON PA. MARITIME OVERSEAS CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by HAROLD W. HENDERSON, Esq. -- Hal.Henderson@ThompsonHine.com -- THOMPSON, HINE LLP. SINCLAIR OIL CORP., Defendant, represented by JOHN M. DEITCH, Esq. -- COUGHLIN DUFFY LLP & JOSEPH P. FITENI, Esq. -- jfiteni@coughlinduffy.com -- COUGHLIN DUFFY LLP. UNITED FRUIT COMPANY, Defendant, represented by HAROLD W. HENDERSON, THOMPSON, HINE LLP. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Illinois Court Refuses to Transfer "Watts" ----------------------------------------------------------- In January 2014, Plaintiff Steven Watts filed an action in the Third Judicial Circuit, Madison County, Illinois, alleging injuries as a result of exposure to asbestos-containing products attributable to numerous defendants. On March 12, 2014, Defendant Crane Co. removed the action to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. Now pending before the Court is the Motion to Transfer Venue filed by Defendant Ingersoll-Rand Company. Defendant Borgwarner Morse Tec, Inc. joined the motion. The Defendants seek the transfer of the action to the United States District Court for the District of Alaska. In a Memorandum and Order dated January 29, 2016, which is available at http://is.gd/mBiZU3from Leagle.com, Judge Staci M. Yandle of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois denied the Defendants' Motion to Transfer Venue. The case is STEVEN WATTS, Plaintiff, v. 84 LUMBER COMPANY et al., Defendants, Case No. 14-CV-327-SMY-DGW. Steven Watts, Plaintiff, is represented by Eric D. Jackstadt, Esq. -- Napoli Bern, et al., Christopher Fonville, Esq. -- Napoli Bern et al. & Kardon Stolzman, Esq. -- Napoli Bern et al. Borgwarner Morse Tec, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Donald W. Ward, Esq. -- dww@herzogcrebs.com -- Herzog Crebs LLP, MO, Gary L. Smith, Esq. -- gls@herzogcrebs.com -- Herzog Crebs LLP/AC, James D. Maschhoff, Esq. -- jdm@herzogcrebs.com -- Herzog Crebs LLP, Mary Ann Hatch, Esq. -- mahw@herzogcrebs.com -- Herzog, Crebs et al. & Mordecai D. Boone, Esq. -- mordecai.boone@dentons.com -- Dentons US, LLP. Ingersoll-Rand Company, Defendant, is represented by Benjamin J. Wilson, Esq. -- bwilson@heplerbroom.com -- HeplerBroom LLC, Carl J. Geraci, Esq. -- cgeraci@heplerbroom.com -- HeplerBroom LLC, Deborah St. Lawrence Thompson, Esq. -- dstlawrence@milesstockbridge.com -- Miles & Stockbridge PC, Michael J Chessler, Esq. -- mchessler@heplerbroom.com -- HeplerBroom LLC & Robert H. Sands, Esq. -- rsands@heplerbroom.com -- HeplerBroom LLC. Asbestos Corporation LTD., Defendant, is represented by Anthony M. Goldner, Esq. -- anthony.goldner@wilsonelser.com -- Wilson Elser et al. & Karen E. Bettcher, Esq. -- Karen.bettcher@wilsonelser.com -- Wilson, Elser et al. Cleaver-Brooks, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Erin Renee Griebel, Esq. -- O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns L.L.C. & Meredith S Hudgens, Esq. -- O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns L.L.C. Georgia Pacific, LLC, Defendant, represented by Benjamin J. Wilson, HeplerBroom LLC, Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC & Michael J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC. Trane US, Inc., Defendant, represented by Benjamin J. Wilson, HeplerBroom LLC, Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC & Michael J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC. Excelsior Packing & Gaskets, Defendant, is represented by Keith B. Hill, Esq. -- khill@heylroyster.com -- Heyl, Royster et al., Lisa A. LaConte, Esq. -- llaconte@heylroyster.com -- Heyl, Royster et al., James R. Grabowski, Esq. -- jgrabowski@heylroyster.com -- Heyl, Royster et al., Michael D. Schag, Esq. -- mschag@heylroyster.com -- Heyl, Royster et al. & Patrick D. Cloud, Esq. -- pcloud@heylroyster.com -- Heyl, Royster et al.. Honeywell International, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Luke J. Mangan, Esq. -- lmangan@polsinelli.com -- Polsinelli PC, Allison K. Sonneveld, Esq. -- asonneveld@polsinelli.com -- Polsinelli Shughart PC, Kathleen Ann Hardee, Esq. -- khardee@polsinelli.com -- Polsinelli PC & Kirra N. Jones, Esq. -- kjones@polsinelli.com -- Polsinelli PC. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Defendant, represented by Kyler H. Stevens, Esq. -- Kurowski Shultz LLC & Jerome S. Warchol, Jr., Esq. -- Kurowski Shultz LLC. Viking Pumps, Inc., Defendant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al., James R. Grabowski, Heyl, Royster et al., Michael D. Schag, Heyl, Royster et al. & Patrick D. Cloud, Heyl, Royster et al. Warren Pumps, LLC, Defendant, is represented by Keith B. Hill, Esq. -- khill@heylroyster.com -- Heyl, Royster et al.. Warren Pumps, LLC, Defendant, is represented by James R. Grabowski Esq. -- jgrabowski@heylroyster.com -- Heyl, Royster et al., Michael D. Schag, Esq. -- mschag@heylroyster.com -- Heyl, Royster et al. & Patrick D. Cloud, Esq. -- pcloud@heylroyster.com -- Heyl, Royster et al.. William Powell Company, Defendant, is represented by Michael R. Dauphin, Esq. -- mdauphin@foleymansfield.com -- Foley & Mansfield, PLLP & Michael W. Newport, Esq. -- mnewport@foleymansfield.com -- Foley & Mansfield, PLLP. ASBESTOS UPDATE: MSA Obtains Partial Win in Coverage Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Mine Safety Appliances Company manufactured, distributed and sold products designed to protect miners from inhaling asbestos, silica and coal dust. Mine Safety purchased general liability and excess insurance policies from numerous insurers. MSA filed a declaratory judgment action seeking coverage for tort actions alleging bodily injuries from the use of MSA products. The Superior Court of Delaware decided 13 Phase I summary judgment motions by Memorandum Opinion decided August 10, 2015. On November 16, 2015, the Court heard argument on 13 Phase II motions. The analysis involves certain common legal authorities and public policy considerations. The parties agree that Pennsylvania law governs the disputes that are the subject of these motions. In a Memorandum Opinion on Phase II Summary Judgment Motions dated January 22, 2016, which is available at http://is.gd/VdBaIrfrom Leagle.com, the Superior Court of Delaware granted in part and denied in part MSA's motion. Among other things, the Superior Court held that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has applied continuous trigger for coal dust injuries. There appears no reason to usurp the prerogative of another jurisdiction to establish its governing principles on the basis of its own well-reasoned decisions. Therefore, the Insurers' motions for summary judgment on trigger of coverage for coal dust claims are denied and MSA's cross motion is granted. The Court deems other defenses waived as having not been actively pursued in a timely manner. Laches is an equitable defense that is not available in the Superior Court, which is a court of law. The defense of lack of justiciability already has been decided. The case is Mine Safety Appliances COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. AIU INSURANCE COMPANY, et al. Defendants, C.A. No. N10C-07-241 MMJ. Jennifer C. Wasson, Esq. jwasson@potteranderson.com, Michael B. Rush, Esq. -- mrush@potteranderson.com -- Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Mark A. Packman, Esq. (Argued) -- packmanm@gotofirm.com, Jenna A. Hudson, Esq. (Argued) -- hudsonj@gotofirm.com,Gabriel Le. Chevallier, Esq. (Argued) -- chevallierg@gotofirm.com, Jo?o Santa-Rita, Esq. -- santa- ritaj@gotofirm.com, Todd T. Itami, Esq. -- itamit@gotofirm.com, Ivan J. Snyder, Esq. -- snyderi@gotofirm.com, Gilbert LLP, Attorneys for Plaintiff Mine Safety Appliances Company. Megan T. Mantzavinos, Esq. -- mmantzavinos@moodklaw.com, Emily K. Silverstein, Esq. -- esilverstein@moodklaw.com, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C., Ellen G. Margolis, Esq. -- emargolis@moundcotton.com, Pamela Minetto, Esq.(Argued) -- pminetto@moundcotton.com -- Mound Cotton Wollan & Greengrass, Attorneys for Defendants American Home Assurance Company, Granite State Insurance Company, Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania, Lexington Insurance Company, National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA, AIU Insurance Company, Chartis Property Casualty Co f/k/a Birmingham Fire Insurance Co. Peter B. Ladig, Esq. -- pladig@morrisjames.com, David J. Soldo, Esq. -- dsoldo@morrisjames.com, Meghan A. Adams, Esq. -- madams@morrisjames.com -- Morris James LLP, Alan S. Miller, Esq. (Argued) --asmiller@jonesday.com, Henry M. Sneath, Esq. -- hsneath@psmn.com, Bridget M. Gillespie, Esq.-- bgillespie@psmn.com, Katherine C. Dempsy, Esq., Picadio Sneath Miller & Norton, PC, Dennis O. Brown, Esq. -- dbrown@gordonrees.com -- Gordon & Rees LLP, Attorneys for The North River Insurance Company. Richard M. Beck, Esq., Sean M. Brennecke, Esq., Klehr Harrison Harvey Branzburg LLP, James P. Ruggeri, Esq., Joshua D. Weinberg, Esq. (Argued),Michele L. Backus, Esq., Shipman & Goodwin LLP, Attorneys for Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, First State Insurance Company, and Twin City Fire insurance Company. Neal J. Levitsky, Esq., Seth A. Niederman, Esq., Fox Rothschild LLP, Daren S. McNally, Esquire (Argued), Barbara M. Almeida, Esquire (Argued) Clyde & Co US LLP, Attorneys for Travelers Casualty and Surety Company. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cal. App. Partially Flips Judgment in "Lapore" --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Geraldine Bierner Lepore, et al., appeal after the trial court granted summary judgment to defendants Ford Motor Company, Navistar, Inc., Gibbs International, Inc., and Kelsey- Hayes Company in a wrongful death action based on Lepore's exposure to asbestos. They contend the trial court erred in granting summary judgment and in excluding evidence submitted in support of their motion for a new trial. The operative complaint in the action alleged that Lepore was exposed to asbestos at his workplace and that as a result he contracted mesothelioma and died of it. The Plaintiffs asserted causes of action for negligence (wrongful death), strict liability, products liability, survivorship, and loss of consortium against multiple defendants. Motions for summary judgment brought by four of those defendants are at issue in this appeal. None of the defendants disputed that Lepore had been exposed to asbestos during the course of his work. All four motions relied on the theory that there was no admissible evidence that the products they supplied, distributed, or sold were a source of that exposure. In a Decision dated February 8, 2016, which is available at http://is.gd/B5bWh1from Leagle.com, the Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division Four, reversed the judgments as to Ford, Navistar, and Kelsey-Hayes and affirmed the judgment as to Gibbs. The case is GERALDINE BIERNER LEPORE et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. KELSEY-HAYES COMPANY et al., Defendants and Respondents, No. A137451. ********* 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 2016. 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 * * *