/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/121121.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, November 21, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 231
Headlines
ABIOMED INC: Block & Leviton Files Securities Class Action
AMERICAN MEDICAL: Nov. 27 Final Hearing on Class Settlement Set
ARKANSAS BLUE: Faces Class Action Over Inflated Premiums
BERRES BROTHERS: Recalls Coffee Roasters Due to Nut Flavoring
BIG TOBACCO: Can't Drag Gov't. Into Class Action, Court Rules
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Employee Files Overtime Class Action
COPART INC: "Ortiz" Labor Class Suit Still Pending in Calif.
COPART INC: Still Awaits Approval of "Brizuela" Suit Settlement
CRUSADER SERVICING: "Boyer" Suit Consolidated with Other Cases
DAVIS SCHOOL: Faces Discrimination Class Action Over Book
FACEBOOK INC: Seeks Judge's Approval of Class Action Settlement
FEDEX CORP: Owner-Operator MDL Remains Pending in Indiana
FEDEX CORP: Sup. Ct. Remands "Anfinson" Suit to Trial Ct.
FEDEX CORP: Still Awaits Court OK of "Rascon" Suit Settlement
FEDEX CORP: "Scovil" Class Suit Still Pending
FEIHE INT'L: Faces Class Action Over $146-Million Buyout Deal
FERRELLGAS LP: Customer Pricing Class Action Pending in Kansas
FLUSHMATE: Parker Waichman Files Product Liability Class Action
FOCUS PRODUCTS: Recalls Cocoa Latte(TM) Hot Drink Makers
GENERAL MILLS: YoPlus Yogurt Class Suit to Go to Trial Next Year
GOOGLE: Sued for Allegedly Intercepting Minors' E-mails
GREENBERG TRAURIG: Faces Class Action Over Stanford Ponzi Scam
HOWREY LLP: Trustee Wants Judge to Halt Class Action
KIDCO INC: Recalls 220,000 PeaPod and PeaPod Plus Travel Beds
KNAUF PLASTERBOARD: Seeks Final Approval of Drywall Settlements
L'OREAL USA: Sued Over Unfair Advertising of Anti-Aging Products
LEGENDS HOSPITALITY: Banquet Servers File Overtime Class Action
LG ELECTRONICS: Judge Refuses to Reconsider Class Action Dismissal
MAGNOLIA BIRD: Recalls Peanuts and Seed Mixes With Peanuts
NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Fights Athletes' Class Certification Bid
NEIMAN MARCUS: To Appeal Arbitration Order in "Monjazeb" Suit
NETWORK TELEPHONE: Sued Over Unsolicited Text Messages
NEW JERSEY: ACLU Files Class Action Over Immigrant Detentions
PALL CORP: Fairness Hrg. on Securities Suit Deal Set for Dec. 14
PEREGRINE PHARMA: Holzer Holzer & Fistel Files Class Action
PFIZER INC: Breakaway Investors File Securities Fraud Action
PUBLIX SUPER: Recalls 45 Cake Products Due to Listeria Hazard
RCN CORP: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Federal Excise Tax
SUNOCO INC: Hammered MOU to Resolve Merger-Related Class Suit
TANDY LEATHER: Final Hearing on Barnes Suit Settlement on Feb. 11
TONY'S IMPORT: Warns of Tahineh Contaminated with Salmonella
TRI-UNION SEAFOODS: Recalls 7-oz. Solid White Albacore Tuna Cans
VALVE CORP: Judge Dismisses Data Breach Class Action
WALGREEN: Assistant Managers File Overtime Class Action
WHOLESOY & CO: Misbranded and Mislabeled Soy Yogurt, Suit Says
*********
ABIOMED INC: Block & Leviton Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Block & Leviton LLP has filed a securities class action on behalf
of investors who purchased Abiomed, Inc. stock between August 5,
2011 and October 31, 2012, inclusive. The lawsuit, captioned
Simon v. Abiomed, Inc., et al., No. 1:12-cv-12137, is pending in
the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts. The lawsuit alleges violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.
Throughout the Class Period, Defendants touted the Company's
financial strength and future prospects. These statements,
however, were materially false and misleading when made because
the United States Food and Drug Administration repeatedly warned
the Company that its promotional materials contained inappropriate
claims regarding the Impella 2.5 catheter and suggested improper
off-label uses. Defendants repeatedly assured investors that they
had addressed the FDA's concerns and that the matter was resolved.
On November 1, 2012, Abiomed disclosed that the Department of
Justice had initiated an investigation "focused on the Company's
marketing and labeling of the Impella 2.5." On this news, shares
of Abiomed's stock fell from $19.82 per share on October 31, 2012
to close at $13.61 on November 1, 2012.
If you are a member of the Class, you may, no later than January
15, 2012, request that the Court appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for
the Class. You may contact the attorneys at Block & Leviton to
discuss your rights in the case. You may also retain counsel of
your choice and you need not take any action at this time to be a
class member.
Block & Leviton -- http://www.blockesq.com-- is a Boston-based
law firm representing investors for violations of securities laws.
If you have any questions regarding your rights related to this
action or have information relevant to the claims asserted in the
complaint, please contact attorney Leigh O'Neil of Block &
Leviton, LLP at (617) 398-5600 or leigh@blockesq.com.
AMERICAN MEDICAL: Nov. 27 Final Hearing on Class Settlement Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Medical Alert Corp. has won preliminary approval of a
settlement resolving a merger-related suit and final hearing on
the matter has been scheduled for November 27, 2012, according to
the Company's September 25, 2012, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
On August 2, 2012, the Supreme Court of the State of New York,
County of Queens entered an order preliminarily approving a
proposed settlement of the class action securities lawsuits
consolidated under the caption In re American Medical Alert Corp.
Shareholder Litigation, Index No. 700661/2011. The Action
challenged the transactions contemplated by the Agreement and Plan
of Merger, dated as of September 22, 2011, by and among American
Medical Alert Corp. ("AMAC"), Tunstall Healthcare Group Limited,
and Monitor Acquisition Corp. ("Merger Sub") a wholly owned
subsidiary of Tunstall, pursuant to which, on December 22, 2011,
Tunstall acquired AMAC via the merger of Merger Sub with and into
AMAC, with AMAC continuing as the surviving company in the merger
and becoming a wholly owned subsidiary of Tunstall.
In this order, the Court approved the Notice of Pendency and
Proposed Settlement of Class Action and Settlement Hearing. The
Court authorized and directed the distribution of this notice to
all potential settlement class members. The proposed settlement
in the Securities Action remains subject to final approval by the
Court. A final approval hearing is set for November 27, 2012, at
9:30 a.m., before the Honorable Justice Orin R. Kitzes of the
Court. If the proposed settlement is approved, it will end the
Action.
American Medical Alert Corporation, a Tunstall Company, is a
provider of independent living technologies and 24/7 health care
communication services to connect individuals with family and
their care teams to promote better health. AMAC has introduced
medication management and reminder devices, telehealth and vital
sign monitoring platforms and mission critical call centers
services to improve healthcare provider and payer business
performance.
ARKANSAS BLUE: Faces Class Action Over Inflated Premiums
--------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Arkansas Blue Cross and Blue
Shield inflates premiums by conspiring to have 37 member health
plans refuse to compete in Arkansas, a class action claims in
Pulaski County Court.
BERRES BROTHERS: Recalls Coffee Roasters Due to Nut Flavoring
-------------------------------------------------------------
Berres Brothers, Inc. of Watertown, Wisconsin is recalling: Berres
Brothers Coffee Roasters, Chocolate & Peanut Butter and Berres
Brother Coffee Roasters, Monkey Mocha and Berres Brothers Lunch
with Elvis regular and decaffeinated whole bean and ground
coffees.
The reason for this recall/alert is because these products may
contain an undeclared nut allergen. People who have an allergy or
severe sensitivity to walnuts run the risk of serious or life-
threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products.
Berres Brothers Coffee Roaster's, Monkey Mocha, Brothers Coffee
Roasters, Chocolate & Peanut Butter and Berres Brothers Lunch with
Elvis coffees were distributed throughout the United States and
Guam, through grocery stores and mail order.
These flavors, sizes and Julian date codes are being recalled.
Julian date code is either stamped after UPC Code or on front of
package:
(1) Berres Brothers Coffee Roasters, Chocolate & Peanut Butter
Coffee
* with Julian date code 12001-12318 (Jan. 1, 2012, thru
Nov. 13, 2012)
* 12 oz. (340 g) regular whole bean and ground coffee with
UPC 746774-003594
* 12 oz. (340 g) decaffeinated whole bean and ground
coffee with no UPC
* 2.5 oz. ground coffee with no UPC
* 1.5 oz. (42.5 g) ground coffee with UPC 746774-00042
* 5 LB bulk regular whole bean coffee with
UPC 746774-00499
(2) Berres Brothers Coffee Roasters, Monkey Mocha Coffee
* Julian Date Codes 12271 - 12318 (Sept. 27, 2012, thru
Nov. 13, 2012)
* 1.5 oz. (42.5 g) ground coffee with UPC 746774-000425
* 5 LB bulk regular whole bean coffee with
UPC 746774-00509
(3) Berres Brothers Coffee Roaster, Lunch with Elvis Coffee
* Julian Date Codes 12091 - 12319 (April 1, 2012, thru
Nov. 15, 2012)
* 1. 5 oz. (42.5 g) ground coffee with UPC 746774-000425
* 12 oz. (340 g) regular ground and whole bean coffee with
no UPC
* 12 oz. (340 g) decaffeinated ground and whole bean
coffee with no UPC
* 5 LB bulk regular whole bean coffee with
UPC 74677400-5093
Pictures of the recalled products' labels are available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm328405.htm
No illnesses have been reported as of 11/15/2012.
This recall was initiated after it was discovered that product
containing walnuts was distributed in packaging that did not
reveal the presence of walnuts. Subsequent investigation
indicates the problem was caused by a temporary breakdown in the
company's production and packaging processes.
Retailers are asked to remove these products from their shelves
immediately and new product with proper labeling will be
exchanged. Customers who have purchased these products should be
aware that these products could possibly contain nut allergens.
Customer service representatives are available between 8:30 a.m.
and 4:00 p.m. Central Standard Time Monday through Friday at 1-
800-233-5443.
BIG TOBACCO: Can't Drag Gov't. Into Class Action, Court Rules
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that the Quebec Court of Appeal has
sided with the federal government in a case pitting smokers
against Big Tobacco, saying the government isn't on the hook in
class-action suits.
The decision, dated Nov. 14, repeats essentially what the Supreme
Court of Canada ruled in July 2011 -- that Ottawa cannot be sued
or held liable for damages in smoking lawsuits.
Quebec is the battleground for a landmark C$27 billion civil trial
pitting three major tobacco manufacturers against representatives
of 1.8 million Quebecers. The case is described as the biggest
class-action lawsuit in Canadian history.
The federal government has been dragged into the case by the
tobacco companies. The companies have argued that their cigarette
sales simply followed federal guidelines, and said they plan to
sue Ottawa to recoup damages if they lose.
With last week's ruling, that tactic seems unlikely, barring a
successful appeal. And the Supreme Court of Canada, which would
have to hear an appeal, has already made it clear what it thinks.
In July 2011, it ruled unanimously that the federal government
can't be dragged into court cases aimed at getting tobacco
companies to foot the bill for smokers who get sick.
The latest Quebec ruling says the Supreme Court case, involving
two lawsuits from B.C., is no different from the cases being heard
in Quebec.
"The . . . judgment closed the discussion on the issue of
immunity," says the provincial verdict. "The federal government
is right to say that it doesn't have to make the arguments again
before Quebec Superior Court."
A spokesman for Health Canada said it welcomed the decision from
the provincial appeals court.
The massive, two-year Quebec civil trial has often heard from
tobacco companies who've defended themselves by saying they were
simply following federal health authorities' recommendations.
The defendants -- Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd.; Rothmans, Benson &
Hedges; and JTI-Macdonald -- have argued that the dangerous health
effects of tobacco have been common knowledge for decades and
there was no conspiracy to hide it.
Chris Koddermann, director of corporate affairs for Rothmans,
Benson & Hedges, says the ruling will not have any impact on its
defende.
"One of our principal defenses is Rothmans can't be held liable
for conduct that has been, for decades, guided by the directives,
policies and wishes of the federal government," said
Mr. Koddermann. "That defense remains untouched by the Court of
Appeal's ruling."
Mr. Koddermann said the company still intends to call federal
government witnesses to testify in support of their defense.
Eric Gagnon, a spokesman for Imperial Tobacco, expressed
disappointment.
"From our perspective, we believe the federal government has been
a senior partner of the industry and has been for decades, so it
only makes sense for them to stand next to us in these class
actions and respond to any allegations," Mr. Gagnon said.
The three tobacco companies now have 30 days to determine whether
they will appeal.
One anti-tobacco lobby spokesman says he would be surprised if
Canada's highest court would open the debate again. Mario Bujold
said last week's decision could also have a positive impact on the
Quebec trial.
"It'll reduce the time of the trial . . . because the Canadian
government won't be involved," said Mr. Bujold, head of the Quebec
Council on Tobacco and Health. "That'll have an impact on the
total time of the trial."
The case is expected to last up to two years.
About 15 witnesses have already appeared before the Quebec
Superior Court since the trial began last March including numerous
former and current tobacco industry executives.
Health experts are scheduled to be next.
The federal government had tried to have itself recused from the
case shortly before it started but the trial judge elected to go
forward with the case, hoping to avoid further delays.
The case has taken years to reach the trial phase. It stems from
two cases that were filed in 1998, certified and consolidated in
2005 by Quebec Superior Court, and there were motions, delays and
appeals before it got under way in 2012.
The plaintiffs argue that the companies are liable because they
knew they were putting out a harmful product and hid the health
effects from the public.
One suit filed by a Quebec anti-tobacco group on behalf of Jean-
Yves Blais seeks C$105,000 in compensatory and punitive damages
for smokers who suffered from cancer in their lungs, larynx or
throat, or emphysema.
The other suit, worth C$17 billion, was filed by Cecilia
Letourneau on behalf of the province's roughly 1.8 million smokers
who were addicted to nicotine and remained addicted or died
without quitting.
Ms. Letourneau, according to the claim, started smoking at age 19
in 1964. Despite her repeated attempts to quit, she said she's
unable to do so. That suit seeks C$10,000 in compensatory and
punitive damages per plaintiff.
Quebec's is the only case to get underway in Canada.
The British Columbia cases on which the Supreme Court ruling is
based have yet to reach trial, and several other provinces are at
earlier stages in similar legal fights. Separately, all provinces
have announced plans to sue tobacco companies to recoup health-
care costs.
The Quebec case took more than 13 years to make it before a judge.
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Employee Files Overtime Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that an employee of Chipotle Mexican
Grill Inc. has filed a lawsuit alleging the company has failed to
pay overtime to hundreds of employees.
The class-action complaint filed on Nov. 15 in federal court in
New York says the Denver-based restaurant chain has misclassified
its "apprentices" as managerial, salaried employees who don't
qualify for overtime pay. The suit contends apprentices earn
salaries of $40,000 but frequently work more than 40 hours a week
performing the duties of hourly workers, including cooking and
filling orders.
Plaintiff Maxcimo Scott is a general manager of a Chipotle in New
York but says he sometimes worked up to 55 hours a week as an
apprentice.
The lawsuit seeks back pay and damages.
Chipotle didn't immediately respond to an e-mail seeking comment.
It has about 1,350 restaurants.
COPART INC: "Ortiz" Labor Class Suit Still Pending in Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------
Copart, Inc., continues to defend itself against a labor class
action complaint filed by managers and assistant managers in
California, according to the Company's October 1, 2012, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended July 31, 2012.
On September 21, 2010, Robert Ortiz and Carlos Torres filed suit
against the Company in Superior Court of San Bernardino County,
San Bernardino District, which purported to be a class action on
behalf of persons employed by the Company in the positions of
facilities managers and assistant general managers in California
at any time since the date four years prior to September 21, 2010.
The complaint alleges failure to pay wages and overtime wages,
failure to provide meal breaks and rest breaks, in violation of
various California Labor and Business and Professional Code
sections, due to alleged misclassification of facilities managers
and assistant general managers as exempt employees. Relief sought
includes class certification, injunctive relief, damages according
to proof, restitution for unpaid wages, disgorgement of ill-gotten
gains, civil penalties, attorney's fees and costs, interest, and
punitive damages. The Company believes the claim is without
merit and intends to continue to vigorously defend the lawsuit.
No updates were provided in the Company's latest SEC filing.
Copart, Inc. is a provider of online auctions and vehicle
remarketing services in the United States (U.S.), Canada and the
United Kingdom (U.K.).
COPART INC: Still Awaits Approval of "Brizuela" Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Copart, Inc., is still awaiting court approval of a settlement of
a wage-and-hour lawsuit commenced by Jose Brizuela, according to
the Company's October 1, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended July
31, 2012.
On February 12, 2011, Jose E. Brizuela filed suit against the
Company in Superior Court, San Bernardino County, San Bernardino
District, which purports to be class action on behalf of persons
employed by the Company paid on a hourly basis in California at
any time since the date four years prior to February 14, 2011. The
complaint alleges failure to pay all earned wages due to an
alleged practice of rounding of hours worked to the detriment of
the employees. Relief sought includes class certification,
injunctive relief, unpaid wages, waiting time penalty-wages,
interest, and attorney's fees and costs of suit. On March 26,
2012, the Company participated in mediation of the case with
plaintiffs, which resulted in the parties agreeing to settle this
matter. The settlement, in which the Company admits no liability
and agrees to pay a non-material cash payment, is subject to
approval by the Court.
Copart, Inc. is a provider of online auctions and vehicle
remarketing services in the United States (U.S.), Canada and the
United Kingdom (U.K.).
CRUSADER SERVICING: "Boyer" Suit Consolidated with Other Cases
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lillian Shupe, writing for Hunterdon County Democrat, reports that
a class action lawsuit initiated by a Hunterdon County woman in
danger of losing her home over unpaid back taxes has now been
joined by nine other similar cases.
Earlier this year, Jeanne Lang Boyer, the owner of a Lebanon
Township home filed a class action suit in superior court in
Hunterdon County. The suit was transferred to federal court and
then in June, consolidated with other suits like it.
Several of the defendants in the lawsuit have pleaded guilty to
criminal charges for participating in the conspiracy to rig bids
for the sale of tax liens auctioned by municipalities throughout
New Jersey.
Most recently, in September, Crusader Servicing Corp., a
Pennsylvania corporation which bought Ms. Boyer's tax lien
certificate, pleaded guilty.
Nine of the other defendants listed in that federal lawsuit
previously pleaded guilty to federal charges of violating the
Sherman Act.
On Oct. 22 district judge Michael Shipp granted a motion filed by
Ms. Boyer and another plaintiff to appoint interim class and
liaison counsels. The appointed legal team was then given 30 days
to file a master complaint.
The suing homeowners were either facing foreclosure or had been
foreclosed upon. Foreclosure proceedings were initiated against
Ms. Boyer in 2008. A hearing in that case is scheduled in
Somerset County on Dec. 7.
According to the court documents, the defendants conspired with
others not to bid against one another at municipal tax lien
auctions in New Jersey. Since the conspiracy permitted the
conspirators to purchase tax liens with limited competition, each
conspirator was able to obtain liens which earned a higher
interest rate. Property owners were therefore made to pay higher
interest on their tax debts than they would have paid had their
liens been purchased in open and honest competition.
A violation of the Sherman Act carries a maximum penalty of $100
million criminal fine for corporations. The maximum fine for a
Sherman Act violation may be increased to twice the gain derived
from the crime or twice the loss suffered by the victims if either
amount is greater than the statutory maximum.
Eight individuals -- Isadore H. May, Richard J. Pisciotta, Jr.,
William A. Collins, Robert W. Stein, David M. Farber, Robert E.
Rothman, Stephen E. Hruby, and David Butler -- and one company,
DSBD LLC, had previously pleaded guilty as part of this
investigation.
DAVIS SCHOOL: Faces Discrimination Class Action Over Book
---------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Zara, writing for International Business Times,
reports that a Utah parent has sued the school district of her two
children after it pulled a book about a lesbian couple from the
shelves of an elementary school library.
In a federal class action, Tina Weber is challenging the
constitutionality of the Davis School District library's decision
to restrict access to "In Our Mothers' House," an illustrated
children's book by Patricia Polacco, which centers on a lesbian
couple who face discrimination as they raise their three children.
The book, published in 2009 by Penguin's Philomel imprint, is
still available at the library but only by request.
In April, the school district pulled the book from its shelves and
placed it behind a counter after some parents complained that it
promoted a homosexual lifestyle. According to the lawsuit, one
parent wrote at the time: "I don't agree that wholesome complete
parenting can be done by lesbians without a father role. It's not
a natural process to have a complete family without a male and
female."
The lawsuit, filed on Nov. 13 in U.S. District Court and reported
by Courthouse News Service, argues that the library has
overstepped its bounds. "Over 30 years ago, the Supreme Court
held that school officials may not remove books from school
library shelves because they or their constituents disagree with
the ideas those books contain," the complaint states. "The
District can respect the wishes of parents who disagree with 'In
Our Mothers' House' by allowing parents to place limits on their
own children's ability to check out particular books."
According to Reuters, the school district has confirmed that no
similar restrictions have been placed on other books.
"We still feel very comfortable with the process we followed,
which is laid out in district policy," Chris Williams, a
spokesperson for the school district, told Reuters. "Parents
still have the opportunity, if they want their child to read the
book, to get it. It's not on the shelves, but it's accessible."
The state of Utah has laws on the books that prohibit homosexual
advocacy in public schools. The Davis School District, which is
24 miles north of Salt Lake City, has argued that keeping "In Our
Mothers' House" on its library shelves would violate those laws.
About 40 percent of Salt Lake City residents are Mormon. The
Church of Latter-Day Saints, which is headquartered there, is
widely considered to be one of the most vocal proponents of
California's Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot initiative stipulating
that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or
recognized." The faith places an unusually strong emphasis on
reproduction.
Ms. Weber's lawsuit was filed on behalf of lawyers for the
American Civil Liberties Union, which said in the complaint that
restricting the book violates the free-speech rights of her
children. "Even worse," the lawsuit adds, "segregating it from
the rest of the library collection places an unconstitutional
stigma on the book and the students who wish to read it."
The ACLU is seeking class-action status for the case. No hearings
have been scheduled.
FACEBOOK INC: Seeks Judge's Approval of Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brandon Bailey, writing for MercuryNews.com, reports that
attorneys for Facebook and a group of members who sued the social
network urged a federal judge on Nov. 15 to accept a negotiated
settlement of a class-action dispute over the use of members'
names and photos in online advertising despite objections from a
public interest group that said the agreement doesn't do enough to
protect minors.
A Facebook lawyer said the company has agreed to "unprecedented"
measures that will let users control how their names and photos
are used in so-called "sponsored stories" advertisements, in which
companies pay Facebook to distribute messages to a user's friends
when that user clicks the "Like" button or takes other action on
an advertiser's Facebook page.
The settlement also sets aside $20 million to compensate millions
of members whose names were used in past advertising. It was
negotiated with attorneys representing a group of Facebook members
who filed a lawsuit complaining that the social network was using
their names and photos for commercial benefit without paying them
or allowing them to opt out of the program.
Attorneys for those plaintiffs have agreed to the settlement, but
the nonprofit Center for Public Interest Law at the University of
San Diego filed a separate motion asking U.S. District Judge
Richard Seeborg to reject the agreement. They argued that
Facebook should be required to get active consent from the parents
of minors before using their names or photos, rather than putting
the burden on parents to opt out of the program.
Judge Seeborg said he may consider those objections later, but
after hearing briefly from attorneys in court on Nov. 15, he
indicated he will rule "very shortly" on whether to grant
tentative approval to the settlement.
The case strikes at a central element of Facebook's efforts to
build a business in part around advertising that relies on its
members' recommendations as a persuasive message.
Earlier this year, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg said the
"sponsored stories" program was generating $1 million a day in
advertising revenue, with about half of that coming from ads shown
to Facebook users on their mobile gadgets.
Facebook executives say the program is especially important to
their nascent mobile ad business because it's a way to insert ads
directly into the stream of updates that users see on their
smartphone screen, rather than interrupting the stream with a
traditional display ad.
FEDEX CORP: Owner-Operator MDL Remains Pending in Indiana
---------------------------------------------------------
FedEx Corporation continues to defend class action lawsuits
involving its subsidiary relating to the status of the Company's
owner-operators, according to the Company's September 19, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended August 31, 2012.
FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. ("FedEx Ground") is involved in
numerous class-action lawsuits (including 30 that have been
certified as class actions), individual lawsuits and state tax and
other administrative proceedings that claim that the company's
owner-operators should be treated as employees, rather than
independent contractors.
Most of the class-action lawsuits were consolidated for
administration of the pre-trial proceedings by a single federal
court, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Indiana. The multidistrict litigation court granted class
certification in 28 cases and denied it in 14 cases. On December
13, 2010, the court entered an opinion and order addressing all
outstanding motions for summary judgment on the status of the
owner-operators (i.e., independent contractor vs. employee). In
sum, the court has now ruled on the Company's summary judgment
motions and entered judgment in favor of FedEx Ground on all
claims in 20 of the 28 multidistrict litigation cases that had
been certified as class actions, finding that the owner-operators
in those cases were contractors as a matter of the law of the
following states: Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas (the
court previously dismissed without prejudice the nationwide class
claim under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
based on the plaintiffs' failure to exhaust administrative
remedies), Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York,
North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina,
Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wisconsin. The
plaintiffs filed notices of appeal in all of these 20 cases. The
Seventh Circuit heard the appeal in the Kansas case in January
2012 and, in July 2012, issued an opinion that did not make a
determination with respect to the correctness of the district
court's decision and, instead, certified two questions to the
Kansas Supreme Court related to the classification of the
plaintiffs as independent contractors under the Kansas Wage
Payment Act. The other 19 cases that are before the Seventh
Circuit remain stayed pending a decision of the Kansas Supreme
Court.
The multidistrict litigation court remanded the other eight
certified class actions back to the district courts where they
were originally filed because its summary judgment ruling did not
completely dispose of all of the claims in those lawsuits.
Specifically, in the five cases in Arkansas, California, Florida,
and Oregon (two certified cases), the court's ruling granted
summary judgment in FedEx Ground's favor on all of the certified
claims but did not decide the uncertified claims. In the three
cases filed in Kentucky, Nevada and New Hampshire, the court ruled
in favor of FedEx Ground on some of the claims and against FedEx
Ground on at least one claim. In May 2012, the Oregon district
court dismissed the two Oregon cases, but in June 2012, the
plaintiffs in both cases filed notices of appeal with the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals. In June 2012, the Kentucky district
court ruled in favor of FedEx Ground on certain of the plaintiffs'
claims, thereby reducing the potential exposure in the matter.
Other contractor-model cases that are not or are no longer part of
the multidistrict litigation are in varying stages of litigation.
With respect to the state administrative proceedings relating to
the classification of FedEx Ground's owner-operators as
independent contractors, during the second quarter of 2011, the
attorney general in New York filed a lawsuit against FedEx Ground
challenging the validity of the contractor model.
While the granting of summary judgment in favor of FedEx Ground by
the multidistrict litigation court in 20 of the 28 cases that had
been certified as class actions remains subject to appeal, the
Company believes that it significantly improves the likelihood
that its independent contractor model will be upheld.
Adverse determinations in matters related to FedEx Ground's
independent contractors, however, could, among other things,
entitle certain of the Company's contractors and their drivers to
the reimbursement of certain expenses and to the benefit of wage-
and-hour laws and result in employment and withholding tax and
benefit liability for FedEx Ground, and could result in changes to
the independent contractor status of FedEx Ground's owner-
operators in certain jurisdictions.
The Company believes that FedEx Ground's owner-operators are
properly classified as independent contractors and that FedEx
Ground is not an employer of the drivers of the company's
independent contractors. While it is reasonably possible that
potential loss in some of these lawsuits or such changes to the
independent contractor status of FedEx Ground's owner-operators
could be material, the Company cannot yet determine the amount or
reasonable range of potential loss. A number of factors
contribute to this. The number of plaintiffs in these lawsuits
continues to change, with some being dismissed and others being
added and, as to new plaintiffs, discovery is still ongoing. In
addition, the parties have not yet conducted any discovery into
damages, which could vary considerably from plaintiff to
plaintiff. Further, the range of potential loss could be impacted
considerably by future rulings on the merits of certain claims and
FedEx Ground's various defenses, and on evidentiary issues. In
any event, the Company does not believe that a material loss is
probable in these matters.
FEDEX CORP: Sup. Ct. Remands "Anfinson" Suit to Trial Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
The contractor-model lawsuit commenced by Anfinson against FedEx
Corporation's subsidiary has been remanded to the trial court by
the Washington Supreme Court, according to the Company's September
19, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended August 31, 2012.
In January 2008, one of the contractor-model lawsuits that is not
part of a multidistrict litigation, Anfinson v. FedEx Ground
Package System, Inc., was certified as a class action by a
Washington state court. The plaintiffs in Anfinson represent a
class of single-route, pickup-and-delivery owner-operators in
Washington from December 21, 2001 through December 31, 2005 and
allege that the class members should be reimbursed as employees
for their uniform expenses and should receive overtime pay. In
March 2009, a jury trial in the Anfinson case was held, and the
jury returned a verdict in favor of FedEx Ground, finding that all
320 class members were independent contractors, not employees.
The plaintiffs appealed the verdict. In December 2010, the
Washington Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for further
proceedings, including a new trial. The Company filed a motion to
reconsider, and this motion was denied. In March 2011, the
Company filed a discretionary appeal with the Washington Supreme
Court, and in August 2011, that petition was granted. The
Washington Supreme Court heard oral argument in February 2012. In
July 2012, the Washington Supreme Court affirmed the Washington
Court of Appeals' reversal of the jury verdict and remanded the
case to the trial court.
FEDEX CORP: Still Awaits Court OK of "Rascon" Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class settlement resolving the lawsuit captioned Rascon v. FedEx
Ground is still pending court approval, according to the Company's
September 19, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended August 31, 2012.
In August 2010, another one of the contractor-model lawsuits that
is not part of a multidistrict litigation, Rascon v. FedEx Ground
Package Systems, Inc., was certified as a class action by a
Colorado state court. The plaintiff in Rascon represents a class
of single-route, pickup-and-delivery owner-operators in Colorado
who drove vehicles weighing less than 10,001 pounds at any time
from August 27, 2005 through the present. The lawsuit seeks
unpaid overtime compensation, and related penalties and attorneys'
fees and costs, under Colorado law. The Company's applications
for appeal challenging this class certification decision have been
rejected. The Company settled this matter for an immaterial
amount, subject to court approval, in June 2012.
No updates were reported in the Company's latest Form 10-Q filing.
FEDEX CORP: "Scovil" Class Suit Still Pending
---------------------------------------------
FedEx Corporation's subsidiary continues to defend a contractor-
model lawsuit commenced by Scovil, according to FedEx
Corporation's September 19, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended August
31, 2012.
In August 2012, another one of the contractor-model lawsuits that
was not part of a multidistrict litigation, Scovil v. FedEx
Ground, was certified as a class action by the federal district
court in Maine. The court certified two state law claims seeking
overtime and alleged illegal deductions, and class notices will be
sent out to 143 potential class members. The court also
previously certified an opt-in class for the Fair Labor Standards
Act claims, and 21 people opted into this class.
FEIHE INT'L: Faces Class Action Over $146-Million Buyout Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Heller, writing for Law360, reports that an investor in
Chinese infant formula company Feihe International Inc. filed a
putative class action on Nov. 14 alleging a $146 million buyout
deal proposed by the company's chairman and a private equity firm
has been underpriced to benefit insiders.
Feihe, one of the first Chinese companies to go public in the U.S.
via a reverse merger, announced last month that its chairman, You-
Bin Leng, and Morgan Stanley Private Equity Asia, or MSPEA, were
teaming up to take Feihe private at $7.40 a share.
FERRELLGAS LP: Customer Pricing Class Action Pending in Kansas
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ferrellgas Partners, L.P., continues to defend a customer pricing
class action complaint in Kansas, according to the Company's
October 1, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended July 1, 2012.
Ferrellgas, L.P. has also been named as a defendant in a class
action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court in
Kansas. The complaint alleges that Ferrellgas, L.P. violates
consumer protection laws in the manner Ferrellgas, L.P. sets
prices and fees for its customers. Based on Ferrellgas, L.P.'s
business practices, Ferrellgas, L.P. believes that the claims are
without merit and intends to defend the claims vigorously. The
court has stayed discovery on this matter pending Ferrellgas,
L.P.'s motion to compel arbitration, and the case has not been
certified for class treatment. The court has permitted limited
discovery into an individual claim and the case has not been
certified for class treatment. Ferrellgas, L.P. does not believe
loss is probable or reasonably estimable at this time related to
this class action lawsuit.
Ferrellgas, L.P. and its subsidiaries are distributors of propane
and related equipment and supplies to customers primarily in the
United States and conduct its business as a single reportable
operating segment. The Company believes it is the second largest
retail marketer of propane in the United States as measured by the
volume of retail sales in fiscal 2012, and the largest national
provider of propane by portable tank exchange.
FLUSHMATE: Parker Waichman Files Product Liability Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Parker Waichman LLP has filed a class action lawsuit alleging that
the Series 503 Flushmate(R) III Pressure-Assist Flushing System,
also known as the Flushmate Flushometer Tank is defective and
presents a safety hazard due to the risk of explosion. The suit
was filed on November 2 in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Florida, Pensacola Division (Case 3:12-cv-
00531-RS-EMT). Flushmate, a division of Sloan Valve Company, has
been named as the Defendant.
The class action suit was filed on behalf of a man from Escambia
County, Florida who purchased a Flushmate III in June 2007 and all
others similarly situated. When the Plaintiff contacted Flushmate
this September, the company sent him a "free repair kit."
According to the complaint, however, the Plaintiff still feels
that his toilet may explode without warning. Furthermore, he
alleges that the so-called "repair kit" is faulty, as the toilet
is no longer fully functioning.
In June 2012, over 2.3 million Flushmate III Pressure-Assisted
Flushing Systems were recalled in the US. According to the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), the unit can burst due
to the pressure that builds up near the vessel weld seam. "This
pressure can lift the tank lid and shatter the tank, posing impact
or laceration hazards to consumers and property damage." CPSC
stated. At the time, Flushmate had received 304 reports of the
units exploding, causing property damage. In 14 cases, the
customers were injured due to the impact or lacerations. The
recalled systems were manufactured between October 14, 1997 and
February 29, 2008 and sold at stores including The Home Depot and
Lowe's. The Flushmate III was also sold to toilet manufacturers
including American Standard, Crane, Eljer, Gerber, Kohler,
Mansfield and St. Thomas. Flushmate has advised customers to turn
off the water supply leading to the systems.
The lawsuit alleges that the Flushmate III poses a safety hazard
because the unit can burst at any time. Allegedly, failure of the
units can lead to substantial property damage, serious physical
injury including to the Plaintiff and members of the proposed
class. The suit also alleges that Flushmate knew about the defect
as early as 2000, but failed to warn consumers, even after
Flushmate was repeatedly placed on notice of the serious risk that
the toilets installed with Flushmate Systems may explode.
Parker Waichman LLP a national law firm dedicated to protecting
the rights of consumers from faulty and dangerous products. The
firm continues to offer free lawsuit consultations to consumers
who purchased a Series 503 Flushmate(R) III Pressure-Assist
Flushing System, also known as the Flushmate Flushometer Tank
System. For more information, please visit the firm's Flushmate
III Product Liability Lawsuits page at yourlawyer.com. Free case
evaluations are also available by calling 1 800 LAW INFO (1-800-
529-4636).
Contact: Jordan Chaikin, Esq.
Parker Waichman LLP
Telephone: (800) LAW-INFO
(800) 529-4636
Web site: http://www.yourlawyer.com
FOCUS PRODUCTS: Recalls Cocoa Latte(TM) Hot Drink Makers
--------------------------------------------------------
Focus Products Group International, LLC announces the following
voluntary recall. Consumers should immediately stop using the
Cocoa Latte(TM) Hot Drink Maker and contact the Focus Products
Call Center for instructions on how to return the product and
receive a replacement. The machines were sold under the following
makes and model numbers:
-- West Bend
* 65032
-- Back to Basics
* CM300BK, CM300BKL, CM300BLSS, CM300BR, CM300BRBRL
CM300BRL, CM300W
A picture of the recalled products is available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm328557.htm
Focus Products of Lincolnshire, IL, is voluntarily recalling Cocoa
Latte Hot Drink Makers because a small bushing inside the
container has the potential to leach lead. To date, Focus
Products has received no notice of any consumer complaints.
However, the Company's independent testing revealed the potential
problem, and out of an abundance of caution, the Company
voluntarily decided to recall the product.
The only affected products are the Cocoa Latte Hot Drink Makers,
makes and model numbers listed above. The Cocoa Grande(TM) Hot
Drink Maker is NOT affected by this recall. The Cocoa Latte Hot
Drink Makers shipped nationwide starting in 2004 through
October 12, 2012. The affected products come in a variety of
colors with transparent pitchers, and were sold primarily in the
United States through various retailers such as Bed Bath & Beyond,
through various e-retailers such as Amazon.com and through Focus
Products' online store.
Consumers in possession of a Cocoa Latte Hot Drink Maker should
contact Focus Products' Call Center at 1-888-943-5202. Further
information will be available on Focus Products' Web sites,
http://www.focuspg.com/and http://www.westbend.com/
GENERAL MILLS: YoPlus Yogurt Class Suit to Go to Trial Next Year
----------------------------------------------------------------
General Mills, Inc. is a party to various pending or threatened
legal actions in the ordinary course of its business. These
matters include a class action lawsuit filed on January 14, 2010,
in the United States District Court, Central District of
California, alleging that the Company made false and misleading
claims about the digestive health benefits of its YoPlus yogurt
product. The YoPlus matter is scheduled to go to trial in fiscal
2013, according to the Company's September 19, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended August 26, 2012.
The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses against
these allegations and will vigorously defend our position. As of
August 26, 2012, the Company has not recorded a loss contingency
for this matter.
GOOGLE: Sued for Allegedly Intercepting Minors' E-mails
-------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Google illegally scans and
intercepts minors' e-mails to and from Gmail accounts to sell
targeted ads, a class action claims in Federal Court.
GREENBERG TRAURIG: Faces Class Action Over Stanford Ponzi Scam
--------------------------------------------------------------
David Lee at Courthouse News Service reports that attorneys
formerly with Greenberg Traurig and Hunton & Williams helped R.
Allen Stanford get away with his $7 billion Ponzi scheme, the
court-appointed receiver claims in a federal class action.
Receiver Ralph Janvey, the Official Stanford Investors Committee,
et al. sued both law firms and attorney Yolanda Suarez, of Miami.
The plaintiffs claim Stanford could not have perpetrated the
scheme on his own, that he needed "corrupt regulators in his
chosen offshore jurisdiction of Antigua, shady accountants, and
skilled and complicit lawyers to help him."
"He found the perfect match in Carlos Loumiet, a Miami
international banking lawyer who was Stanford's kindred spirit and
legal facilitator for over twenty years, and Yolanda Suarez,
Loumiet's protege who rose to become Stanford's chief of staff and
right hand," the 172-page complaint states.
Mr. Louimet was Stanford Financial Group's outside general counsel
from 1988 to 2009, with the first 13 of those years spent as a
partner at Greenberg, the complaint states. When he left for
Hunton in 2001, he took Stanford's business with him.
"While at Greenberg and later Hunton, Loumiet materially assisted
Stanford's global Ponzi enterprise in three essential ways," the
complaint states. "(i) he helped Stanford take over the tiny,
impoverished Caribbean island of Antigua and thereafter control
the notoriously corrupt Antiguan government in order to establish
a 'safe haven' where Stanford could operate above the law; (ii) he
assisted Stanford to establish all of his U.S. marketing and sales
'feeder' offices, including the illegal offshore 'trust'
representative offices in Miami, Houston and San Antonio whose
sole purpose was the sale of SIBL [Stanford International Bank
Ltd.] CDs to Latin American investors and ultimately funnel
billions of dollars into Stanford's Ponzi scheme; and (iii) he and
his law firms helped Stanford structure the transactions through
which Stanford 'invested' the money he pilfered from SIBL,
including massive investments in Caribbean real estate and
speculative venture capital investments that eventually even
included a very unsuccessful and expensive movie project."
Mr. Janvey claims Mr. Louimet not only knew Stanford was under
federal investigation, but showed Stanford how to evade federal
laws while operating primarily from U.S. soil, essentially
providing the framework for the Ponzi scheme.
"In short, Loumiet's and Suarez's fingerprints are all over the
Stanford Ponzi scheme from beginning to end, and to tell the story
of Loumiet's and Suarez's involvement with Stanford is to tell the
story of the Stanford Financial Group itself," the complaint
states.
Mr. Janvey claims Greenberg Traurig helped Stanford buy his way
into Antigua after he was forced to surrender his bank licenses
for Montserrat in 1990. The receiver claims Stanford fled because
he could not exert absolute control over Montserrat's government.
"When Stanford fled to Antigua in December 1990, Antigua had the
reputation of being the most corrupt island in the Caribbean,
which reputation was well known to Loumiet and his partners at
Greenberg, who thereafter constantly forwarded news articles about
Antigua's reputation as a cesspool of corruption, fraud and money
laundering to Stanford," the complaint states.
"Stanford's goal from the beginning was to take control of Antigua
and use it as the new base for his offshore schemes. He found a
willing partner in Loumiet who viewed the corrupt island nation as
the ideal location for a massive experiment in private sector
self-governance. Loumiet's views are reflected in a February 24,
1998 e-mail he sent to his partners at Greenberg regarding an
opportunity to write laws for Antigua's offshore gambling sector,
wherein Loumiet referred to Antigua as being 'a small enough
jurisdiction to make it ideal as a 'laboratory' for this type of
effort.'"
Mr. Janvey claims Mr. Louimet, Greenberg Traurig and Hunton &
Williams helped Stanford "hijack" Antigua to use as his safe
haven, gaining leverage through several multimillion-dollar loans
that encumbered the country.
"In doing so, defendants helped Stanford to use his customers'
money to install himself as the 'shadow' government in Antigua,
and even helped Stanford write Antiguan laws to regulate his own
business activities," the complaint states. "Defendants provided
this assistance despite Loumiet's knowledge of Stanford's illicit
activities and despite Greenberg's own rampant conflicts of
interest whereby it aided a private sector client (Stanford) to
loan money to an impoverished, third world government (Antigua)
which was the sole regulator of the client's global business
enterprises, while at the same time representing the same
government in writing the laws designed to regulate their client
(Stanford), for which government work Greenberg was actually paid
by the client: Stanford."
Mr. Janvey claims that in 1991, Greenberg helped Stanford silence
Financial Times journalist Tony Hetherington, who published
articles questioning how SIBL could be selling bank products from
the United States, as it had no banking license there.
Mr. Janvey says Hetherington hypothesized "that Latin American
depositors might be tricked by such advertisements into believing
that, in dealing with [SIBL], they were dealing with 'Texans who
have been checked out by the authorities and granted a banking
license.'"
He claims that the Financial Times published an apology after
receiving a threatening letter from Mr. Stanford's father, James
Stanford, which allegedly was drafted by Mr. Louimet, and demanded
a full public retraction.
Mr. Janvey claims that Greenberg Traurig's records show that
Stanford corrupted Antiguan officials by giving them loans and
kickbacks disguised as political contributions.
"As just one example, Loumiet and Greenberg were aware that
Stanford Financial Group had loaned $30,000 to the Antiguan
Minister of Finance responsible for regulating GIBL [Guardian
International Bank Ltd., SIBL's predecessor], Molwyn Joseph, in
February 1992, evidenced by a Promissory Note found in Greenberg's
files. Joseph, who as the Antiguan Minister of Finance was
charged with overseeing GIBL, never paid a dime on that loan," the
complaint states.
Mr. Janvey and the Investors Committee seek actual and punitive
damages for negligence, aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary
duty, breach of fiduciary duty, fraudulent transfer, unjust
enrichment, negligent retention and negligent supervision.
The proposed investor class seeks actual and punitive damages
violations of the Texas Securities Act, aiding and abetting breach
of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting participation in a
fraudulent scheme, and conspiracy.
Mr. Janvey is a partner with Krage Janvey, of Dallas.
HOWREY LLP: Trustee Wants Judge to Halt Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Stewart Bishop, writing for Law360, reports that Allan B. Diamond
of Diamond McCarthy LLP, the Chapter 11 trustee in the Howrey LLP
bankruptcy case, on Nov. 15 pressed a California judge to stop a
proposed class action targeting hundreds of equity security
holders of the defunct firm, saying the suit interferes with the
estate's own recoveries and violates the automatic stay.
The suit claims the equity holders funneled the firm's funds to
themselves in the years leading up to the bankruptcy.
KIDCO INC: Recalls 220,000 PeaPod and PeaPod Plus Travel Beds
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), in cooperation
with KidCo Inc., of Libertyville, Illinois, is announcing the
voluntary recall of about 220,000 PeaPod and PeaPod Plus Travel
Beds.
Infants and young children can roll off the edge of the inflatable
air mattress, become entrapped between the mattress and the fabric
sides of the tent, and suffocate.
CPSC is aware of a death of a 5-month-old boy in December 2011 in
New York, New York, who was found with his face pressed against
the side wall of the tent. The cause of death was not determined.
In addition, CPSC is aware of six reports and Health Canada is
aware of three reports of children who became entrapped or
experienced physical distress in the product. Two of the six
reports included infants who were found crying underneath the
mattress that had not been inserted into the zippered pocket on
the bottom of the tent.
The KidCo PeaPod Travel Beds and PeaPod Plus Travel Beds are
small, portable sleep tents marketed for use by infants from birth
to 3+ years, depending on the model. The tents have a zippered
side for putting in and taking out the child and have an
inflatable air mattress that fits into a zippered pocket
underneath the floor of the tent. The tents fold into a compact
round shape and come with a fabric bag for storage and transport.
These models and corresponding tent fabric colors are included in
this recall:
P100 Teal
P101 Red
P102 Lime
P103 Periwinkle
P104 Ocean
P201 Princess/Red
P202 Camouflage
P203 Quick Silver
P204 Sagebrush
P205 Cardinal
P900CS Green
The model number can be found on a small tag on the underside of
the product. Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml13/13043.html
The travel tents were made in China and sold at independent
juvenile specialty stores nationwide and online at Amazon.com from
January 2005 through the present for between $70 and $100.
Consumers should immediately stop using the tents and contact
KidCo to get a free repair kit. The kits will vary depending on
the model and will be shipped to consumers starting in December
2012. Contact KidCo toll-free at (855) 847-8600 between 8:30 a.m.
and 5:00 p.m. Central Time Monday through Friday or visit the
firm's Web site at http://www.kidco.com/to receive the kit.
KNAUF PLASTERBOARD: Seeks Final Approval of Drywall Settlements
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Kunzelman, writing for Insurance Journal, reports that
attorneys for thousands of Gulf Coast property owners urged a
federal judge in New Orleans to give his final approval to a
proposed class-action settlement that calls for a Chinese drywall
manufacturer to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to repair
homes damaged by its product.
U.S. District Judge Eldon Fallon held a hearing to help him gauge
the fairness of five separate but related settlement agreements
between plaintiffs' lawyers and companies that made, supplied or
installed Chinese drywall. Judge Fallon didn't immediately rule
at the conclusion of the "fairness hearing."
Plaintiffs' attorney Arnold Levin said the settlements are worth
an estimated $1.1 billion. Most of that would be paid by Chinese
drywall manufacturer Knauf Plasterboard Tianjin Co.
Knauf "came to the table and did the right thing," Mr. Levin said.
"They provided us with the ability to get people back to their
homes and enjoy the lives all of us want."
Knauf agreed to create an uncapped fund to pay for repairing
roughly 5,200 properties, mostly in Florida, Louisiana,
Mississippi and Alabama. A separate fund capped at $30 million
will pay for other types of losses, including those by people who
blame drywall for health problems.
"This is a settlement that offers real, tangible relief. It is
bricks and mortar," Knauf attorney Kerry Miller said.
A total of about 300 plaintiffs have opted out of the five
settlements, according to Levin.
Chinese drywall was used in the construction of thousands of
homes, mainly in the South, after a series of destructive
hurricanes in 2005 and before the housing bubble burst. The
problems it has caused range from a foul odor to corrosion of
pipes and wiring.
Knauf attorney Jay Mayesh said the company had no way of knowing
that its drywall was defective before it was shipped to the U.S.
"Nobody did anything wrong or could have foreseen what happened,"
he said.
But the company decided to settle the claims because it wanted to
"stand behind its product," Mr. Mayesh added.
"Rather than stand on all of its defenses that this peculiar
situation offered it, it decided to do the right thing," he said.
Attorneys' fees and costs paid by Knauf are capped at $160 million
and will not be deducted from homeowners' shares of the settlement
money.
Judge Fallon, who presides over more than 10,000 claims involving
Chinese drywall, refused in September to dismiss property owners'
claims against a different Chinese drywall maker, Taishan Gypsum
Co. Ltd.
Taishan, which argues that U.S. courts don't have jurisdiction
over claims against it, appealed Judge Fallon's ruling.
L'OREAL USA: Sued Over Unfair Advertising of Anti-Aging Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alyssa Schwartz, as an individual, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. L'Oreal U.S.A., Inc., and Lancome, Inc.,
Delaware corporations, Case No. 3:12-cv-05557 (N.D. Calif.,
October 29, 2012) accuses the Defendants of exhibiting a
consistent pattern of unfair, untrue and misleading advertising,
marketing and sales practices in regards to Lancome anti-aging
creams and serum marketed under the trade names: "Genefique,"
"Renergie," "Absolue," "Visionnarie," and "High Resolution."
The Defendants' schemes to dupe and mislead Ms. Schwartz and other
members of the proposed class have consisted of a uniformly
systemic and continuing practice of disseminating untrue and
misleading information intended to induce reasonable consumers
into purchasing Lancome Anti-Aging Products, says the complaint.
Ms. Schwartz adds that the Defendants have earned substantial
profits by misleading her and the class with various claims.
Ms. Schwartz is a resident of San Francisco, California. She
purchased a bottle of Lancome Genifique Youth Activating
Concentrate, which failed to perform as advertised because her
skin failed to visibly look younger after using the product as
instructed for greater than seven days.
L'Oreal is a Delaware corporation headquartered in New York.
Lancome is a Delaware corporation.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Benjamin M. Lopatin, 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: lopatin@hwrlawoffice.com
blopatin@gmail.com
LEGENDS HOSPITALITY: Banquet Servers File Overtime Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
Legends Hospitality and the New York Yankees Partnership stiff
banquet servers at Yankee Stadium for overtime and tips.
LG ELECTRONICS: Judge Refuses to Reconsider Class Action Dismissal
------------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Carlos Rodriguez, writing for Law360, reports that a federal
judge on Nov. 13 declined to reconsider his dismissal of a
proposed class action alleging LG Electronics Inc. made
televisions with substandard components that shortened their
lives, saying there is no evidence that his judgment was in error
or caused injustice.
U.S. District Judge Jose L. Linares in August ruled that the
plaintiffs' complaint failed to allege facts to sufficiently
support any of its claims, which included breach of express and
implied warranties, state consumer fraud violations, fraud and
intentional misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment.
MAGNOLIA BIRD: Recalls Peanuts and Seed Mixes With Peanuts
----------------------------------------------------------
Magnolia Bird Farm, Incorporated, of Anaheim, California, is
recalling Raw and Roasted In-shell Peanuts and Magnolia Bird Farm
Bird seed mixes that contain peanuts, because they have the
potential to be contaminated with Salmonella. The peanuts
contained in the mixes are being recalled by Sunland,
Incorporated, of Portola, New Mexico.
Healthy people infected with Salmonella should monitor themselves
for some or all of the following symptoms: nausea, vomiting,
diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, abdominal cramping and fever.
Rarely, Salmonella can result in more serious ailments, including
arterial infections, endocarditis, arthritis, muscle pain, eye
irritation, and urinary tract symptoms. Consumers exhibiting
these signs after having contact with this product should contact
their healthcare providers.
Animals with Salmonella infections may be lethargic and have
diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, fever, and vomiting. Some animals
will have only decreased appetite, fever and abdominal pain.
Infected but otherwise healthy animals can be carriers and infect
other animals or humans. If your animals have consumed the
recalled product and have these symptoms, please contact your
veterinarian.
No illnesses have been reported in association to the recall.
Products were distributed (October 12, 2011, to October 12, 2012).
Peanuts in the original Sunland yellow mesh bag will have either
best by dates from October 12, 2012, through October 12, 2013, on
the packaging, or a "Crop Year" marking on the package of 2011 or
2012, up to and including October 12, 2012.
Consumers who have purchased Raw and Roasted In-shell Peanuts,
and/or Magnolia Bird Farm Seeds containing peanuts, are urged to
return it to the place of purchase for a full refund, or dispose
of them immediately. Consumers with questions may contact
Magnolia Bird Farm, 714-527-3387 for further information on the
recall. Hours and days of business are Tuesday through Saturday,
9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Pacific Standard Time.
PRODUCTS INCLUDED IN RECALL:
Sunland Peanuts 2 lbs., 5 lbs., 10 lbs., 25 lbs., 50 lbs.
in Shell 2 lbs. clear plastic; 5 lbs. & 10 lbs. in
brown Kraft bag; 25 & 50 lbs. in white
paper bag
Hulled Peanuts 2 lbs., 5 lbs., 10 lbs., 25 lbs., 50 lbs.
2 lbs. clear plastic; 5 lbs. & 10 lbs. in
brown Kraft bag; 25 & 50 lbs. in white
paper bag
Magnolia Bird 2 lbs., 5 lbs., 10 lbs., 25 lbs., 50 lbs.
Farm Conure Mix 2 lbs. clear plastic; 5 lbs. & 10 lbs. in
brown Kraft bag; 25 & 50 lbs. in white
paper bag
Magnolia Bird 2 lbs., 5 lbs., 10 lbs., 25 lbs., 50 lbs.
Farm Large 2 lbs. clear plastic; 5 lbs. & 10 lbs. in
Hookbill brown Kraft bag; 25 & 50 lbs. in white
paper bag
Magnolia Bird 2 lbs., 5 lbs., 10 lbs., 25 lbs., 50 lbs.
Farm Hookbill 2 lbs. clear plastic; 5 lbs. & 10 lbs. in
Supreme brown Kraft bag; 25 & 50 lbs. in white
paper bag
Magnolia Bird 3 lbs., 5 lbs., 10 lbs., 25 lbs., 50 lbs.
Farm Parrot Mix 3 lbs. clear plastic; 5 & 10 lbs. in brown
Kraft bag; 25 & 50 lbs. in white paper bag
Pictures of the recalled products and labels are available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm328475.htm
NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Fights Athletes' Class Certification Bid
----------------------------------------------------------
Nick McCann at Courthouse News Service reports that the National
Collegiate Athletic Association fought back against class action
claims that it cheated student-athletes out of their right to
profit from their own images in video games and other materials.
Former UCLA basketball star Edward O'Bannon led the charge against
the NCAA with a 2009 class action that claimed the he and other
students were forced into signing the misleading Form 08-3a if
they wanted to play.
The form "commercially exploits former student athletes" by giving
the NCAA the right to profit from their images without
compensation, long after the athletes have left school, according
to the complaint.
Athletes say the defendants violated federal antitrust laws and
conspired to restrain trade by fixing their compensation at $0.
U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken in Oakland, Calif., faces a
motion to certify two classes. The declaratory- and injunctive-
relief class consists of NCAA basketball or football players who
say their images were used after they stopped playing college
sports. The antitrust damages class consists of athletes whose
images have been licensed or sold.
That latter group wants the NCAA to disclose revenue data from its
members to calculate what they are owed. But the NCAA claims that
the information is privileged and not relevant.
Meanwhile the NCAA and its co-defendants, Electronic Arts and the
Collegiate Licensing Company, say Judge Wilken should strike the
motion for class certification because the athletes are advancing
new theories that were never contemplated in the complaint.
The defendants say the case has always been about the NCAA's
alleged "perpetual release" forms that "eliminate" former
athletes' ability to license materials.
"Now, at the 11th hour, plaintiffs have made a 180-degree turn:
they have dropped their 'perpetual release' case and suddenly
switched to a case in which NCAA bylaws prohibiting pay for play
supposedly create a 'horizontal labor restraint' on current
student-athletes related to the live broadcasts of games,"
according to the brief filed by NCAA attorney Robert Wierenga of
Schiff Hardin (emphasis in original).
"Having realized that their old case was wrong on the facts,
plaintiffs now assert different, unpled claims that are wrong on
the law."
The motion is also signed by Electronic Arts attorney R. James
Slaughter -- rslaughter@kvn.com -- of Keker and Van Nest, as well
as Collegiate Licensing Co. attorney Peter Boyle --
Pboyle@kilpatricktownsend.com -- of Kilpatrick, Townsend &
Stockton.
The defendants said they have not had an opportunity to contest
the athletes' new theory, which is supposedly backed by "new
evidence."
"Plaintiffs have failed -- indeed, they have not even really tried
-- to demonstrate how their so-called 'new evidence' justifies
their attempt to assert a new 'labor restraint' theory in the
CCM," the brief states, abbreviating class certification motion.
"Nor could they plausibly do so. The CCM's new theory is simple:
plaintiffs now claim that NCAA amateurism and eligibility rules
allegedly violate the Sherman Act by preventing current student-
athletes from selling their 'athletic labor' to NCAA schools in
exchange for 50% of live broadcast revenues. But there is nothing
secret -- or new -- about the NCAA's rules relating to amateurism
and eligibility."
A student-athlete who was paid for appearing in a live broadcast
risked his eligibility to participate, and the plaintiffs have
known that since early 2011, the brief states.
Because the court relied on "inconsistent statements" by the
plaintiffs, Judge Wilkens should strike the motion for class
certification, the defendants argued.
The athletes meanwhile reiterated their arguments for class
certification on Nov. 13, virtually duplicating the motion they
filed in September.
Trying to show that college sports "have become big businesses,"
the new motion cites a dissenting opinion in a 7th Circuit case
from 1993 involving NCAA contracts.
Judge Joel Flaum wrote at the time: "Despite the nonprofit status
of NCAA member schools, the transactions those schools make with
premier athletes -- full scholarships in exchange for athletic
services -- are not noncommercial, since schools can make millions
of dollars as a result of these transactions. Indeed, this is
likely one reason that some schools are willing to pay their
football coaches up to $5 million a year rather than invest that
money into educational resources."
Hausfeld attorney Michael Lehmann -- mlehmann@hausfeldllp.com --
says in the brief that the NCAA could have compensated athletes in
other ways "such as withholding payment until after graduation or
paying student-athletes compensation in the form of increased
living costs."
Judge Wilken is scheduled to decide the class certification motion
on March 7, 2013.
NEIMAN MARCUS: To Appeal Arbitration Order in "Monjazeb" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Neiman Marcus, Inc. intends to appeal a trial court decision on
the unenforceability of an arbitration agreement in a labor law
violations class action complaint in California, according to the
Company's September 19, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended July
28, 2012
On April 30, 2010, a Class Action Complaint for Injunction and
Equitable Relief was filed in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California by Sheila Monjazeb,
individually and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated, against the Company, Newton Holding, LLC, TPG
Capital, L.P. and Warburg Pincus, LLC. On July 12, 2010, all
defendants except for the Company were dismissed without
prejudice, and on August 20, 2010, this case was refiled in the
Superior Court of California for San Francisco County. This
complaint, along with a similar class action lawsuit originally
filed by Bernadette Tanguilig in 2007, alleges that the Company
has engaged in various violations of the California Labor Code and
Business and Professions Code, including without limitation (1)
asking employees to work "off the clock," (2) failing to provide
meal and rest breaks to its employees, (3) improperly calculating
deductions on paychecks delivered to its employees and (4) failing
to provide a chair or allow employees to sit during shifts. On
October 24, 2011, the court granted the Company's motion to compel
Ms. Monjazeb and a co-plaintiff to participate in the Company's
Mandatory Arbitration Agreement, foreclosing a class action in
that case. The court then determined that Ms. Tanguilig could
not represent employees who are subject to the Company's Mandatory
Arbitration Agreement, thereby limiting the putative class action
to those associates who were employed between December 2004 and
July 15, 2007 (the effective date of the Company's Mandatory
Arbitration Agreement). Ms. Monjazeb filed a demand for
arbitration as a class action, which is prohibited under the
Mandatory Arbitration Agreement. In response to Ms. Monjazeb's
demand for arbitration as a class action, the American Arbitration
Association (AAA) referred the resolution of such request back to
the arbitrator.
The Company filed a motion to stay the decision of the AAA pending
a ruling by the trial court; the trial court determined that the
arbitration agreement was unenforceable due to a recent California
case. The Company asserted that the trial court does not have
jurisdiction to change its earlier determination of the
enforceability of the arbitration agreement and plan to appeal the
court's decision.
The Company will continue to vigorously defend its interests in
these matters. Currently, it cannot reasonably estimate the
amount of loss, if any, arising from these matters. The Company
will continue to evaluate these matters based on subsequent
events, new information and future circumstances.
NETWORK TELEPHONE: Sued Over Unsolicited Text Messages
------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
Network Telephone Services and its affiliates make unsolicited,
sexually explicit text messages to cell phones, and charge the
unwitting recipients for it.
NEW JERSEY: ACLU Files Class Action Over Immigrant Detentions
-------------------------------------------------------------
Monsy Alvarado, writing for NorthJersey.com, reports that the
American Civil Liberties Union filed a federal class-action
lawsuit in New Jersey on Nov. 15 challenging a federal mandate
that allows immigration detainees to be held indefinitely without
due process of law.
The suit was filed in U.S. District Court in Trenton, on behalf of
immigrants being detained in New Jersey, including three named
plaintiffs who reside in New York. Many of the plaintiffs hold
permanent resident status. Some were detained by immigration
officials years after the criminal charges were lodged against
them, fines were paid, and sentences served, ACLU officials said.
Michael Tan, staff attorney with the ACLU Immigrant Rights
Project, said the government is misapplying mandatory detention on
people with strong family ties, minor criminal infractions, and
who have lived in the country legally for years. The ACLU
believes that legal immigrants should be entitled to due process,
just like American citizens.
"It doesn't make sense to put these people in mandatory lockup and
never give them a chance to go before the judge and say 'hey I
don't need to be detained,'" Mr. Tan said. "It's just a waste of
taxpayer dollars and its contrary to our fundamental commitments
to due process and the Constitution."
"The stories of our class members make clear how draconian our
immigration laws are right now with respect to long time green
card holders," he added.
The lawsuit names a dozen defendants, including Janet Napolitano,
secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; Eric Holder,
attorney general of the United States; John Morton, director of
Immigration and Customs Enforcement; and Robert Bigott, warden of
the Bergen County Jail, where some detainees are held.
Charles Miller, spokesman for the civil division of the Department
of Justice, said the agency needs to review the lawsuit and see
how it will respond in court. Barbara Gonzalez, press secretary
for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said ICE doesn't
comment on pending litigation. Richard Moriarty, spokesman for
the Bergen County Sheriff's Department, also said the office does
not comment when lawsuits are pending.
Mr. Tan said the lawsuit is the first of its kind challenging the
mandatory detainment policy. New Jersey was chosen, he said,
partly because of the numbers of detainees held at facilities
statewide. According to the lawsuit, on any given day, the
government detains more than 1,000 individuals in facilities
throughout New Jersey. Hundreds are subject to mandatory
detention, it states.
New York City courts rely on the facilities in Hudson, Bergen, and
Monmouth counties to house their detainees, which also contributes
to the large numbers in this state, Tan said.
"There is just a lot of people locked up in immigration custody in
the state," he said.
The plaintiffs named in the suit are Garfield Gayle, Sheldon
Francois and Neville Sukhu. Mr. Gayle, 53, has been at the
Monmouth County Correctional Institution in Freehold for about
eight months, according to the lawsuit. Mr. Gayle, who was born
in Jamaica, has been a permanent U.S. resident since 1989, and was
arrested by ICE earlier this year based on a 2007 misdemeanor drug
conviction, for which he received a 10-day sentence, according to
the lawsuit.
Mr. Francois, 31, has been a lawful resident of the United States
for nearly 20 years, and has been at the Hudson County
Correctional Facility in Kearny since the summer, according to the
complaint. He was detained by ICE based on three minor misdemeanor
convictions, which led him to serve a month in jail, according to
the complaint.
Mr. Sukhu, 61, received his permanent residence nearly 20 years
ago, and served 90 days in jail for a second-degree assault that
occurred in 1997, according to the suit. He also was in custody
for 24 hours related to a 2011 misdemeanor for turnstile jumping,
the suit states. Mr. Sukhu, a citizen of Guyana, was detained by
ICE last year, and is being held in Monmouth County.
The suit states that plaintiffs do not seek their release from
custody, but rather an order prohibiting the government from
detaining them without the opportunity for a fair hearing.
PALL CORP: Fairness Hrg. on Securities Suit Deal Set for Dec. 14
----------------------------------------------------------------
A New York federal court has set a fairness hearing for Dec. 14 on
the class settlement resolving a consolidated securities class
action complaint against Pall Corporation, according to the
Company's October 1, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended July
31, 2012.
Four putative class action lawsuits were filed against the Company
and certain members of its management team alleging violations of
the federal securities laws relating to the Company's
understatement of certain of its U.S. income tax payments and of
its provision for income taxes in certain prior periods. These
lawsuits were filed between August 14, 2007 and October 11, 2007
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
By Order dated May 28, 2008, the Court consolidated the cases
under the caption "In re Pall Corp," No. 07-CV-3359 (E.D.N.Y.)
(JS) (ARL), appointed a lead plaintiff and ordered that the lead
plaintiff file a consolidated amended complaint. The lead
plaintiff filed its consolidated amended complaint on August 4,
2008. The lead plaintiff sought to act as representative for a
class consisting of purchasers of the Company's stock between
April 20, 2007, and August 2, 2007, inclusive. The consolidated
amended complaint named the Company, its former chief executive
officer and current chief financial officer as defendants and
alleged violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act,
as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated by the Securities and
Exchange Commission. It alleged that the defendants violated
these provisions of the federal securities laws by issuing
materially false and misleading public statements about the
Company's financial results and financial statements, including
the Company's income tax liability, effective tax rate, internal
controls and accounting practices. The plaintiffs seek
unspecified compensatory damages, costs and expenses. The Company
moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on September
19, 2008, and filed its reply brief to the lead plaintiff's
opposition to the Company's motion to dismiss on December 2, 2008.
By Memorandum and Order dated September 21, 2009, the Court denied
the Company's motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint
and granted the lead plaintiff leave to amend the consolidated
amended complaint by filing a second amended complaint. On
October 9, 2009, the Company moved for certification for
interlocutory appeal, and the Court denied the motion by
Memorandum and Order entered November 25, 2009. Discovery resumed
during the fiscal year ended July 31, 2011.
During fiscal year 2012, the Company reached an agreement with the
lead plaintiff to settle the consolidated putative securities
class-action lawsuit. Under the terms of the settlement, the
lawsuit will be dismissed with prejudice, and the Company and all
individual defendants do not admit any liability and will receive
a full and complete release of all claims asserted against them in
the litigation, in exchange for the payment of an aggregate of
$22,500,000. Of the monetary payment to be made on behalf of the
Company and the individual defendants, substantially all will be
funded from insurance proceeds. On August 20, 2012, the Court
preliminarily approved the class action settlement and scheduled a
fairness hearing for December 14, 2012, at which time it will
decide whether to approve the final settlement.
Pall Corporation, a New York corporation incorporated in July
1946, including its subsidiaries, is a supplier of filtration,
separation and purification technologies, principally made by the
Company using its engineering capability and fluid management
expertise, proprietary filter media, and other fluid clarification
and separations equipment for the removal of solid, liquid and
gaseous contaminants from a wide variety of liquids and gases.
PEREGRINE PHARMA: Holzer Holzer & Fistel Files Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC has filed a class action lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California on behalf of purchasers of Peregrine Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. common stock who purchased shares between August 30, 2012 and
September 26, 2012, inclusive. The lawsuit alleges, among other
things, that Peregrine knew but failed to adequately disclose: a)
previously reported results from its Phase II trial in second-line
non-small cell lung cancer interim results could not be relied
upon as major discrepancies existed between patient sample test
results and patient treatment codes; b) the Company lacked the
proper internal controls related to conducting clinical trials and
reporting the results of the clinical trials; and c) the Company
lacked a reasonable basis to make positive statements about the
Company or its outlook, including statements about the
effectiveness of bavituximab for patients with non-small cell lung
cancer.
If you purchased Peregrine common stock during the Class Period,
you have the legal right to petition the Court to be appointed a
"lead plaintiff." A lead plaintiff is a representative party that
acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.
Any such request must satisfy certain criteria and be made no
later than November 27, 2012. Any member of the purported class
may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of
their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent
class member. If you are a Peregrine investor and would like to
discuss a potential lead plaintiff appointment, or your rights and
interests with respect to the lawsuit, you may contact Michael I.
Fistel, Jr., Esq., or Marshall P. Dees, Esq. via e-mail at
mfistel@holzerlaw.com or mdees@holzerlaw.com or via toll-free
telephone at (888) 508-6832.
Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC -- http://www.holzerlaw.com-- is an
Atlanta, Georgia law firm that dedicates its practice to vigorous
representation of shareholders and investors in litigation
nationwide, including shareholder class action and derivative
litigation.
PFIZER INC: Breakaway Investors File Securities Fraud Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Triedman, writing for The Litigation Daily, reports that
two months after opting out of a class action against Pfizer, a
group of major public and private institutional investors are
taking matters into their own hands.
On Nov. 15, the breakaway investors and their lawyers at Bernstein
Litowitz filed their own securities fraud suit, accusing Pfizer of
duping shareholders about risks associated with two once-
blockbuster drugs.
PUBLIX SUPER: Recalls 45 Cake Products Due to Listeria Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
Out of an abundance of caution, Publix Super Markets is issuing a
voluntary recall for forty-five (45) various cake products due to
the fact that they may be adulterated with Listeria monocytogenes.
Publix received notification of the contamination from the
Company's supplier, Maplehurst. This recall is for these bakery
products sold from the retail service bakery:
Scale Label Description Scale ID Number*
----------------------- ----------------
7" CHOC CKIES N CRM CAKE 002-13584-00000
7" CHOC CKIES N CM LAY CK 002-16466-00000
7" W/T ICED CHOC LYR CAKE 002-16467-00000
7" DEC. BUTTERCREAM W/FIL 002-19722-00000
7" DEC WHIP TOPPING W/FIL 002-19734-00000
7" DEC FUDGE ICED W/FILL 002-19748-00000
7" DEC CRM CHSE ICED W/F 002-19759-00000
CRM CHSE 7" VAN DEC 002-92096-00000
CRM CHSE 7" CHOC DEC 002-92097-00000
CRM CHSE 1/2 & 1/2 7" DEC 002-92099-00000
CHOCOLATE GANACHE CAKE 002-94078-00000
DULCE DE LECHE BON BON CA 002-94003-00000
CHOC GANACHE SUPREME 002-94085-00000
CHOCOLATE GANACHE BON BON 002-94098-00000
CHOC GANACHE GRANDEUR 002-94130-00000
BUTTERCREAM 7" CHOC DEC 002-94333-00000
RASPBERRY SACHER TORTE 002-94132-00000
LATTE BLAST 002-94162-00000
WHIP TOPPING 7" CHOC DEC 002-94396-00000
WHIP TOPPING 7" 1/2-1/2 002-94420-00000
FUDGE ICED 7" CHOC DEC 002-94432-00000
ICE CREAM 7" CHOC DEC 002-94468-00000
ICE CREAM 7" 1/2-1/2 DEC2 002-94490-00000
BUTTERCREAM 7" 1/2-1/2 002-94502-00000
LYR W/T BLACKOUT CAKE 002-95322-00000
LYR 7" CHOCOLATE SHADOW 002-95323-00000
LYR 7" CHECKERBOARD WHOLE 002-95325-00000
LYR 7" W/T BLACK FOREST 002-95334-00000
GERMAN CHOC 7" LAYER CAKE 002-95353-00000
PEANUT BUTTER FUDGE FIX 002-95628-00000
LYR 7" CHOC W/ PISTACHIO 002-95657-00000
LYR 7" RIPPLE CAKE 002-95658-00000
LYR 7" CHOC W/MOCHA 002-95697-00000
LYR 7" CHOC W/ FUDGE 002-95663-00000
LYR 7" CHOC W/ BC 002-95664-00000
LYR 7" CHOC W/ CHERRY BC 002-95767-00000
CHEESECK TORTE 6" WHOLE 002-95770-00000
LYR 7" CHOC W/ CHOC BC 002-95954-00000
LYR 7" CHOC W/ MINT BC 002-95955-00000
GERMAN CHOC 7" CAKE 002-95958-00000
BLACK FOREST 7" CAKE 002-95970-00000
BLACK FOREST 7" CAKE 002-95970-00000
CARAMEL PECAN CRUNCH 002-94301-00000
MIDNIGHT FUDGE FANTASY 002-94254-00000
PEANUT BUTTER FDG FIX 002-94599-00000
*The last five digits of the scale ID number contain the unit
price. For example $4.99 would have the last five digits
ending 00499.
Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm328362.htm
Product was distributed to Publix stores between November 11,
2012, through November 15, 2012, to select Florida counties,
including: Brevard, Charlotte, Citrus, Collier, Flagler, Hernando,
Highlands, Hillsborough, Lake, Lee, Manatee, Marion, Orange,
Osceola, Pasco, Pinellas, Polk, Sarasota, Seminole, Sumter, and
Volusia.
Consumption of products containing Listeria monocytogenes can
cause serious and sometimes fatal infection in young children,
frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems.
Although healthy individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms
such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal
pain and diarrhea, Listeria infection can cause miscarriages and
stillbirths among pregnant women.
"While the product is no longer available on store shelves, we
have issued a voluntary recall because of our commitment to food
safety and to advise our customers who may still have this product
at home," said Maria Brous, Publix media and community relations
director. "No illnesses have been reported to date in connection
with the 7" chocolate layer cake used to make these desserts.
Consumers who have purchased the products in question may return
the product to their local store for a full refund. Publix
customers with additional questions may call our Customer Care
Center at 1-800-242-1227 or by visiting our website at
www.publix.com. Customers can also contact the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration at 1-888-SAFEFOOD (1-888-723-3366)."
Publix is privately owned and operated by its 153,000 employees,
with 2011 sales of $27.0 billion. Currently Publix has 1,066
stores in Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Alabama and Tennessee.
The company has been named one of FORTUNE's "100 Best Companies to
Work For in America" for 15 consecutive years. In addition,
Publix's dedication to superior quality and customer service is
recognized as tops in the grocery business, most recently by an
American Customer Satisfaction Index survey. For more
information, visit the Company's Web site, http://www.publix.com/
RCN CORP: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Federal Excise Tax
-----------------------------------------------------------
Linda Chiem, writing for Law360, reports that a New York federal
judge on Nov. 14 tossed a proposed class action claiming
telecommunications company RCN Corp. improperly collected a
federal excise tax on certain services from unwitting subscribers
for years, saying RCN cannot be sued for doing what the government
required it to do.
U.S. District Judge Jesse M. Furman sided with RCN, saying the
company was statutorily required to collect the disputed 3 percent
tax for telephone calls, based on their distance and transmission
time.
SUNOCO INC: Hammered MOU to Resolve Merger-Related Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sunoco Inc. reached a tentative settlement in September aimed at
resolving a consolidated class action complaint relating to its
merger deal with Energy Transfer Partners, according to the
Company's September 24, 2012, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission
On April 30, 2012, Sunoco announced that it had entered into a
definitive merger agreement to be acquired by Energy Transfer
Partners, L.P. ("ETP"). Under the terms of the Merger Agreement,
which has been unanimously approved by the boards of directors of
both companies, Sunoco shareholders can elect to receive, for each
Sunoco common share they own, either $50.00 in cash, 1.0490 ETP
common units or a combination of $25.00 in cash and 0.5245 ETP
common units. The aggregate cash paid and common units issued
will be capped so that the cash and common units will each
represent 50 percent of the aggregate consideration. The cash
elections and common unit elections will be subject to proration
to satisfy this cap. The Merger Agreement further provides that,
in the event of termination of the Merger Agreement under certain
circumstances, including in connection with the acceptance of an
alternative transaction, Sunoco may be required to pay ETP a
termination fee equal to $225 million. The transaction is
expected to close in the fourth quarter of 2012, subject to
approval of Sunoco shareholders and customary regulatory
approvals.
Following the announcement of the merger on April 30, 2012, eight
putative class action and derivative complaints challenging the
merger were filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia
County, Pennsylvania. On August 1, 2012, the actions were
consolidated pursuant to court order under the caption In re
Sunoco, Inc., No. 1204-03894. On August 8, 2012, the plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint in the consolidated action. The
amended consolidated complaint names as defendants the members of
Sunoco's board of directors as of April 29, 2012 and alleges that
they breached their fiduciary duties by negotiating and executing,
through an unfair and conflicted process, a merger agreement that
provides inadequate consideration and contains impermissible terms
designed to deter alternative bids. The amended consolidated
complaint also names as defendants ETP, ETP GP, Merger Sub, and
ETE, alleging that they aided and abetted the breach of fiduciary
duties by Sunoco's directors. The amended consolidated complaint
also names Sunoco as a nominal defendant.
On August 30, 2012, the Court of Common Pleas dismissed four of
the plaintiffs' claims in their entirety, the two claims against
ETP for aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty, the claim
against Sunoco's directors for corporate waste, and the claim
against Sunoco's directors for gross mismanagement. The court
also dismissed the plaintiffs' remaining direct or class claims
except insofar as they related to the disclosures in the proxy
statement/prospectus.
On September 24, 2012, Sunoco entered into a memorandum of
understanding with the plaintiffs regarding the settlement of the
Action.
While Sunoco believes that the claims in the amended consolidated
complaint are without merit, Sunoco has agreed, in order to avoid
the expense and burden of continued litigation and pursuant to the
terms of the proposed settlement, to make certain supplemental
disclosures related to the proposed Merger, all of which are set
forth below. In addition, Sunoco or its successors have agreed to
provide limited outplacement assistance services to Philadelphia-
area employees of Sunoco who are adversely affected by the
completion of the merger within one year of its closing (if any).
Subject to completion of certain confirmatory discovery by
plaintiffs' counsel, the memorandum of understanding contemplates
that the parties will enter into a stipulation of settlement. The
stipulation of settlement will be subject to customary conditions,
including court approval following notice to Sunoco's
stockholders.
In the event that the parties enter into a stipulation of
settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at which the Court of
Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania will consider
the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the settlement. If
the settlement is finally approved by the court, it will resolve
and release all claims in all actions that were or could have been
brought challenging any aspect of the proposed Merger, the Merger
Agreement, and any disclosure made in connection therewith,
pursuant to terms that will be disclosed to stockholders prior to
final approval of the settlement.
In addition, in connection with the settlement, the parties
contemplate that plaintiffs' counsel will file a petition in the
Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania for an
award of attorneys' fees and expenses to be paid by Sunoco or its
successor, which the defendants may oppose. Sunoco or its
successor will pay or cause to be paid any attorneys' fees and
expenses awarded by the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia
County, Pennsylvania.
There can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter
into a stipulation of settlement or that the Court of Common Pleas
of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania will approve the settlement
even if the parties were to enter into such stipulation. In such
event, the proposed settlement as contemplated by the memorandum
of understanding may be terminated.
Sunoco Inc. (NYSE: SUN) is an American petroleum and petrochemical
manufacturer headquartered in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United
States, formerly known as Sun Company Inc. (1886-1920 and 1976-
1998) and Sun Oil Co. (1920-1976). Sunoco is one of the largest
gasoline distribution companies in the United States, with Sunoco
brand gasoline being sold in over 4,700 outlets spanning 26
states, just over a third hosting convenience stores.
TANDY LEATHER: Final Hearing on Barnes Suit Settlement on Feb. 11
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A Texas federal court will convene a hearing on February 11 next
year to consider final approval of a class settlement resolving a
lawsuit commenced by Mark Barnes et al. against Tandy Leather
Factory, Inc., the Company disclosed in a September 28, 2012, Form
8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
On September 24, 2012, Tandy Leather reached an agreement, as
preliminarily approved by the United States District Court,
Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division, to settle all
federal and state claims asserted by the plaintiffs in the action
captioned Mark Barnes, Donna Cavota and Jerry Mercante on behalf
of themselves and others similarly situated v. Tandy Leather
Company, LP and The Leather Factory, LP, Case No. 4: 11-cv-00335-A
in the United States District Court, Northern District of Texas,
Fort Worth Division.
At all times during the pendency of the litigation, the defendants
have vigorously denied all of the plaintiffs' allegations. As
part of the settlement, the defendants continue to deny any
violation of any statute, law, rule or regulation, any liability
or wrongdoing, and the truth of all of the plaintiffs?
allegations. The defendants have agreed to enter into the
Settlement Agreement to avoid further expense and inconvenience,
end the disruption and burden of the litigation, avoid any other
present or future litigation arising out of the facts that gave
rise to the litigation, avoid the risk inherent in uncertain
complex litigation, and put to rest the controversy underlying the
litigation.
The Settlement Agreement requires the defendants to establish a
$993,385.90 escrow account to fund (1) settlement payments to the
plaintiffs, (2) settlement payments to the other members of the
settlement class who join the class action, (3) attorneys' fees
and expenses, and (4) escrow agent fees and expenses. The
plaintiffs and each other member of the settlement class who joins
the class action release any and all claims against the defendants
related to the conduct alleged by the plaintiffs in the class
action suit. The Settlement Agreement includes a formula to
determine the amount of settlement payments payable to each
claimant. If the aggregate amount of settlement payments
determined by such formula exceeds the remaining balance in the
escrow fund, the defendants will have no further liability.
Instead, the amount of settlement payments payable to the
claimants will be reduced proportionately. To the extent that any
funds remain in the escrow fund after payment of all required
claims, fees and expenses, the remaining funds will be returned to
the defendants.
The Settlement Agreement remains subject to a fairness hearing and
final approval by the Court. A Fairness Hearing will be held in
the Fourth Floor Courtroom of the United States Courthouse, Fort
Worth, Texas, at 10:00 a.m. on February 11, 2013, to make final
determinations as to whether the settlement described in the
Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable and adequate, whether it
should be finally approved by the Court, and whether an Order and
Final Judgment should be issued dismissing the lawsuit with
prejudice.
A copy of the Court's Sept. 24, 2012 Order is available at:
http://is.gd/m0cRfw
Attorney for Tandy Leather is:
Jonathan C. Wilson, Esq.
HAYNES AND BOOONE, LLP
2323 Victory Avenue, Suite 700
Dallas, Texas 75219
Tel No. (214) 651-5646
Fax No. (214) 200-0381
E-mail: jonathan.wilson@haynesboone.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs are:
Grant D. Blaies, Esq.
Laura W. Copeland, Esq.
BLAIES & HIGHTOWER, L.L.P.
777 Main Street, Suite 1900
Fort Worth, Texas 76102
Tel No.: 817.334.8294
Fax No.: 817.334.5027
Email: grantblaies@bhilaw.com
lauracopeland@bhilaw.com
-- and --
Mark R. Thierman, Esq.
THIERMAN LAW FIRM, P.C.
7287 Lakeside Drive
Reno Nevada 89511
Tel No.: 775-284-1500
Fax No.: 775-703-5027
In connection with the settlement, the Company will record a
charge to operations of $993,385.90 during its third quarter,
which ends September 30, 2012.
TONY'S IMPORT: Warns of Tahineh Contaminated with Salmonella
------------------------------------------------------------
Tony's Imports and Exports of Clovis, California, is warning
consumers, food distributors and food processors not to consume or
purchase certain containers of AL-RABIH Tahineh (Sesame Paste)
because they have the potential to be contaminated with
Salmonella. A total of 141 pails, of AL-RABIH Tahineh, were
stolen from Tony's Imports and Exports warehouse where it was
awaiting destruction due to Salmonella contamination.
Salmonella is an organism which can cause serious and sometimes
fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and
others with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons infected
with the Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which may be
bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. In rare
circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in the
organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more severe
illnesses such as arterial infections.
The Tahineh is sold in white plastic pails with a label that
reads:
"AL-RABIH Tahineh, 100% Sesame, net weight 40 lb. (18 kg)."
The Tahineh is a product of Lebanon. Above the label, the
following information is provided: "Imported by Tony
Khorozian, Tony's Imports & Exports, Tel S.S.F.
650-872- 6534, Fresno: 415 412- 1985 Best Before February
2014." The Tahineh is a product of Lebanon.
The theft of the Tahineh occurred in June 2012 but was not
discovered until an FDA Investigator visited the warehouse to
witness the destruction of the tainted product. The theft had
been reported to the Clovis Police Department and a report was
filed.
Tony's Import and Export asks food distributors or manufacturers
who believe that they may have purchased the Tahineh to
immediately discontinue use of the product and destroy it. If the
product was used for further manufacturing, please consider
recalling the product. Food suppliers and manufacturers are asked
to contact Tony's Import and Exports, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Pacific Time, if they have purchased the product or have been
offered the Tahineh for purchase.
TRI-UNION SEAFOODS: Recalls 7-oz. Solid White Albacore Tuna Cans
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tri-Union Seafoods LLC is voluntarily recalling a limited amount
of Chicken of the Sea Brand 7-ounce cans of solid white albacore
tuna in water.
Due to a labeling error, the product label does not state the
product "contains soy," a recognized allergen, in the ingredients
listing. While soy is known to be an allergen, there have been no
reported illnesses, and Tri-Union Seafoods is issuing this
voluntary recall to protect public health. People who have an
allergy or severe sensitivity to soy run the risk of serious or
life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products.
This problem was identified during an internal audit of finished
product at the Company's canning facility.
Tri-Union Seafoods' trace-back measures determined distribution of
the product at retail was limited to Costco stores in California,
Arizona, Washington, Utah, Hawaii, Alaska, Oregon, New Mexico,
Colorado, Montana, Idaho and Nevada.
The specific product being recalled is Chicken of the Sea Brand 7-
ounce solid white albacore tuna in water sold as a multi-pack, and
it was distributed in October and November 2012. Consumers who
purchased the product with UPC 0 48000 00097 2 and Best By dates
between 10/01/16 through 11/09/16 are asked to return it to the
Costco location where they purchased it for a full refund. The
UPC code (also known as bar code) is found on the label of the
product, and the Best By Date is printed on the bottom of the can.
A picture of the recalled products' label is available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm328548.htm
"The health and safety of our consumers is paramount. As soon as
we discovered the labeling error, we took immediate steps to issue
this voluntary recall by alerting our customer who received the
mislabeled product and by asking them to remove it from store
shelves," said Shue Wing Chan, President of Tri-Union Seafoods.
"In this instance only those that are allergic to soy are at risk.
We are taking corrective steps in our labeling process to ensure
this error does not repeat itself."
No other codes of this product or other Chicken of the Sea
products are affected by this voluntary recall.
Consumers looking for additional information can call the
Company's 24-hour Recall Information line at 1-877-843-6376.
VALVE CORP: Judge Dismisses Data Breach Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Gavin Broady, writing for Law360, reports that a California judge
on Nov. 14 tossed a proposed class action accusing video game
developer Valve Corp. of failing to adequately protect user
information, saying the plaintiffs had failed to allege that they
suffered harm from a November 2011 data breach.
Judge James L. Robart dismissed the nationwide class action after
determining that each of the six counts raised in plaintiff Oliver
Grigsby's complaint require proof of harm or damages, and that
Mr. Grigsby failed to plead any such harm.
WALGREEN: Assistant Managers File Overtime Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Walgreen stiffs assistant
managers for overtime and makes them work off the clock, a class
action claims in Federal Court.
WHOLESOY & CO: Misbranded and Mislabeled Soy Yogurt, Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Janet Hood, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. WholeSoy & Co., Modesto WholeSoy Company LLC, The
WholeSoy Company, Tan Industries, Inc., Ken Nordquist, and Ted
Nordquist, Case No. 3:12-cv-05550 (N.D. Calif., October 29, 2012)
is brought on behalf of a national class, and a California sub-
class of consumers, who within the last four years, purchased
WholeSoy's "Soy Yogurt" products (collectively the "Misbranded
Food Products").
WholeSoy's product labeling fails to accurately identify the
ingredients of the product, Ms. Hood alleges. For example, she
asserts, the "Nutrition Facts" for WholeSoy Soy Yogurt, Cherry
flavor, state that it contains 19 grams of sugar, but the
ingredient section fails to list "sugar" or "dried cane syrup" as
an ingredient. Instead, she contends, the label lists "Organic
Evaporated Cane Juice" as an ingredient, despite the fact that the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration has specifically warned
companies not to use the term "Evaporated Cane Juice" because it
is "false and misleading"; its use violates a number of labeling
regulations designed to ensure that manufacturers label their
products with the common and usual names of the ingredients they
use and accurately describe the ingredients they utilize; and the
ingredient in question is not juice.
Ms. Janet Hood is a resident of Paradise, California, who
purchased various flavors of WholeSoy Misbranded Food Products in
San Francisco and Berkeley, California, during the four years
prior to the filing of this Complaint.
WholeSoy & Co. is a DBA for Modesto Wholesoy Company LLC. Modesto
Wholesoy is a California domestic LLC. The Wholesoy Company is
also a DBA for Modesto Wholesoy. Modesto WholeSoy distributes
yogurt products for sale to consumers under the brand name
WholeSoy & Co., and does business in the state of California and
throughout the United States of America. Tan Industries is a
California corporation that does business in the state of
California and throughout the United States. Ken Nordquist is the
chief executive officer of Modesto WholeSoy, and a resident of
California. Ted Nordquist is the chief executive officer of
WholeSoy & Co., and a resident of California.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ben F. Pierce Gore, Esq.
PRATT & ASSOCIATES
1871 The Alameda, Suite 425
San Jose, CA 95126
Telephone: (408) 429-6506
Facsimile: (408) 369-0752
E-mail: pgore@prattattorneys.com
*********
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., Frederick, Maryland USA. Noemi Irene
A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Ivy B. Magdadaro, Psyche A. Castillon,
Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline Abangan
and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2012. 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 $575 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 Chapman
at 240/629-3300.
* * * End of Transmission * * *