/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/121227.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, December 27, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 255 Headlines 1905 STORY: Faces Suit for Unpaid Overtime Wages AARON'S INC: Bid to Decertify Class in "Kunstmann" Suit Pending AARON'S INC: Discovery in "Korrow" Class Action Suit Has Closed AARON'S INC: Expects Less Than 10% Class Size in "Jewell" Suit AGILYSYS INC: Continues to Defend Wage and Hour Suit in Calif. AMAG PHARMACEUTICALS: "Silverstrand" Suit Appeal Under Advisement AUSTRALIA: 600 People Join Class Action Over Horse Flu Outbreak BANCORPSOUTH INC: Awaits Decision in Suit Over Overdraft Fees BANCORPSOUTH INC: Securities Suit Settlement Approved in Oct. BRISTOW GROUP: "Superior" Class Action Lawsuit Now Dismissed CARDINAL HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Price-Fixing CBS CORP: Continues to Defend Unit From Suits Over E-book Sales CC STAFFING: Sued for Failing to Pay Employees' Overtime Wages CEVA FREIGHT: Underpaid Drivers Lose Class Certification CHARLIE ROSE: Settles Interns' Class Action For About $250,000 DISH NETWORK: Faces FCRA Violations Suit in New York DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Judge Dismisses Special Ed Class Action GODADDY GROUP: Ex-Workers File Lawsuit for Unpaid Overtime HAIN CELESTIAL: Seeks Dismissal of "Organic" Label Class Action HEELYS: Faces Class Action Over Proposed Sale to Sequential Brands ICAHN ENTERPRISES: To Seek Dismissal of "Silsby" Class Suit IMPERIAL HOLDINGS: Settles Shareholder Class/Derivative Actions KEM REST: Faces Class Suit Over FLSA Violations in New York KIT DIGITAL: Newman Ferrara Files Securities Class Action KIT DIGITAL: Berman DeValerio Files Securities Class Action LG CHEM: Sued Over Conspiracy to Fix and Raise Battery Prices MUDDY OUTDOORS: Recalls 1,500 Tree Climbing Sticks NUCOR CORP: Still Defends Antitrust Class Suits in Illinois OKLAHOMA GAS: "Price I" Suit vs. OGE Energy Units Now Closed SACRAMENTO INTERNATIONAL: Faces ADA Class Action Over Terminal B SASSY INC: Recalls 45,300 Hug N' Tug Baby Toys SCHURMAN RETAIL: Recalls 108 PAPYRUS Signature Collection Frames SCHURMAN RETAIL: Recalls 530 PAPYRUS Red 17-Inch Decorative Trees SCHURMAN RETAIL: Recalls 55,700 PAPYRUS Signature Ornaments SCHWEGEL'S FOOD: Faces Class Action Over Check Cashing Fees SIRIUS XM: Appeals Court Upholds $180MM Class Action Settlement SKYLINE NAILS: Faces Suit Over Unpaid Overtime and Minimum Wages SUNTRUST BANKS: Captive Reinsurance Suit Dismissal Bids Pending SUNTRUST BANKS: Continues to Defend 3 Suits Over Overdraft Fees SUNTRUST BANKS: Motions to Dismiss Lehman-Related Suits Pending SUNTRUST BANKS: No Appeal Was Filed From Dismissal of TRUPs Suit SUNTRUST BANKS: Plea to Dismiss Colonial Securities Suit Pending SUNTRUST BANKS: Awaits Cir. Ct. Direction in Pending ERISA Suit SUNTRUST BANKS: Suit Over Classic Mutual Funds Dismissed in Oct. SUSQUEHANNA BANCSHARES: Continues to Defend Overdraft Fees MDL SUSQUEHANNA BANCSHARES: Settlement of Merger-Related Suits Okayed TENET HEALTHCARE: Appeal in "Doe" Class Suit Still Pending TENET HEALTHCARE: Class Cert. Denial in Wage & Hour Suit Affirmed TENET HEALTHCARE: Awaits Okay of $12-MM "Dunn" Suit Settlement TOYOTA INC: Settles Sudden Acceleration Suit for $1.4 Bil. UDI'S HEALTHY: Recalls Bags of Gluten Free Au Naturel Granola ********* 1905 STORY: Faces Suit for Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------ Hoq M. Shirajul, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. 1905 Story Operating Corp. d/b/a Popeye's Restaurant and Jay Syed, Case No. 1:12-cv-08797 (S.D.N.Y., December 4, 2012) alleges that the Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act. Mr. Shirajul contends that pursuant to the FLSA, he is entitled to recover from the Defendants: (1) unpaid overtime, (2) liquidated damages and (3) attorneys' fees and costs. He alleges that the Defendants knowingly and willfully failed to pay him his lawfully earned overtime wages in direct contravention of the FLSA and the New York Labor Law. Mr. Shirajul is a resident of Queens County, New York. 1905 Story is a New York corporation based in Brooklyn, New York. Jay Syed is the chairman or chief executive officer of the Company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert L. Kraselnik, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT L. KRASELNIK, PLLC 271 Madison Avenue, Suite 1403 New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 576-1857 Facsimile: (212) 576-1888 E-Mail: robert@kraselnik.com AARON'S INC: Bid to Decertify Class in "Kunstmann" Suit Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Aaron's, Inc. is still awaiting for a court decision on its motion for decertification of the class in the lawsuit filed by Kunstmann et al., according to the Company's November 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012. In Kunstmann et al. v. Aaron Rents, Inc., originally filed with the United States District Court, Northern District of Alabama, on October 29, 2008, plaintiffs alleged that the Company improperly classified store general managers as exempt from the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). Plaintiffs seek to recover unpaid overtime compensation and other damages for all similarly situated general managers nationwide for the period January 25, 2007, to present. After initially denying plaintiffs' class certification motion in April 2009, the Court ruled to conditionally certify a plaintiff class in early 2010. The current class includes 247 individuals. The Company has filed its motion to decertify the class action as well as a motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's individual claims. On October 4, 2012 the Court denied the Company's motion for summary judgment as to Mr. Kunstmann individually finding that there were too many factual disputes regarding Mr. Kunstmann's job duties to enter judgment at this time. The Court has not yet ruled on the Company's motion for decertification. The parties were ordered by the Court to attend mediation on March 1, 2012, and March 12, 2012, which did not result in settlement. AARON'S INC: Discovery in "Korrow" Class Action Suit Has Closed --------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery in the class action lawsuit initiated by Margaret Korrow, et al., has closed, according to Aaron's, Inc.'s November 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012. In Margaret Korrow, et al. v. Aaron's, Inc., originally filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County, Law Division on October 26, 2010, plaintiff filed a lawsuit on behalf of herself and others similarly situated alleging that the Company is liable in damages to plaintiff and each class member because the Company's lease agreements issued after March 16, 2006, purportedly violated certain New Jersey state consumer statutes. The Company removed the lawsuit to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on December 6, 2010. Plaintiff on behalf of herself and others similarly situated seeks equitable relief, statutory and treble damages, pre- and post- judgment interest and attorneys' fees. To date, no class has been certified. Discovery on this matter has closed. The Company says it intends to vigorously defend itself in this litigation. AARON'S INC: Expects Less Than 10% Class Size in "Jewell" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Aaron's, Inc. said in its November 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012, that it expects the class size in the lawsuit brought by Kurtis Jewell to represent less than 10% of the potential class members. The matter of Kurtis Jewell v. Aaron's, Inc. was originally filed in the United States District Court, Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division on October 28, 2011, and was transferred on February 23, 2012, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta Division) (Civil No.:1:12- CV-00563-AT). Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all other non- exempt employees who worked in Company stores, alleges that the Company violated the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") when it automatically deducted 30 minutes from employees' time for meal breaks. Plaintiff claims he and other employees actually worked through meal breaks or were interrupted during the course of their meal break and asked to perform work. As a result of the automatic deduction, plaintiff alleges that the Company failed to account for all of his working hours when it calculated overtime, and consequently underpaid him. Approximately 20 employees have opted-in to this lawsuit pursuant to the FLSA's opt-in provisions. On September 28, 2012, the Court issued an order granting conditional certification of a class consisting of all hourly store employees from October 27, 2008, to the present. The Company filed a request for interlocutory appeal, which the Court denied and notice was distributed to the class members. With limited exceptions, the time period for class members to opt in has expired. The Company expects the class size to represent less than ten percent of the potential class members and intends to vigorously defend itself in the litigation. AGILYSYS INC: Continues to Defend Wage and Hour Suit in Calif. -------------------------------------------------------------- Agilysys, Inc. continues to defend itself against a wage and hour class action lawsuit in California, according to the Company's November 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012. On July 9, 2012, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging violations of federal and state wage and hour laws, rules and regulations pertaining primarily to pay for missed meals and rest periods and failure to reimburse business expenses. The lawsuit purports to be a class action and seeks substantial damages. At this time, the Company says it is not able to predict the outcome of this lawsuit, or any possible monetary exposure associated with the lawsuit. The Company's management believes that the plaintiffs' allegations are without merit and that their claims are not appropriate for class action treatment. The Company is vigorously defending these claims. AMAG PHARMACEUTICALS: "Silverstrand" Suit Appeal Under Advisement ----------------------------------------------------------------- A purported class action complaint was originally filed on March 18, 2010, in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, entitled Silverstrand Investments et. al. v. AMAG Pharm., Inc., et. al., Civil Action No. 1:10-CV-10470- NMG, and was amended on September 15, 2010, and on December 17, 2010. The second amended complaint, or SAC, filed on December 17, 2010, alleged that the Company and its former President and Chief Executive Officer, former Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, its Board, and certain underwriters in its January 2010 offering of common stock violated certain federal securities laws, specifically Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and that the Company's former President and Chief Executive Officer and former Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer violated Section 15 of such Act, respectively, by making certain alleged false and misleading statements and omissions in a registration statement filed in January 2010. The plaintiff sought unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the Company's common stock pursuant to its common stock offering on or about January 21, 2010. On August 11, 2011, the Court issued an Opinion and Order dismissing the SAC in its entirety for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. A separate Order of Dismissal was filed on August 15, 2011. On September 14, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, or the Court of Appeals. After briefing was completed by all parties, the Court of Appeals heard oral argument on May 11, 2012, and took the matter under advisement. No further updates were reported in the Company's November 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012. The Company says it is currently unable to predict the outcome or reasonably estimate the range of potential loss associated with this matter, if any, and have, therefore, not recorded any potential estimated liability as the Company does not believe that such a liability is probable nor does it believe that a range of loss is currently estimable. AUSTRALIA: 600 People Join Class Action Over Horse Flu Outbreak --------------------------------------------------------------- ABC News reports that a Hunter Valley Olympic equestrian says the 2007 horse flu outbreak nearly broke him and thousands of others, and compensation is not much to ask. Equine influenza wreaked havoc across the Hunter, bringing the thoroughbred breeding season to a halt. It also disrupted equestrian Heath Ryan's teaching and breeding business, as he prepared for the 2008 Beijing Olympics. A total of 600 people have now joined a class action against the Commonwealth. The case alleges negligence on the part of the Government's quarantine agency, Australian Quarantine Inspection Service (AQIS). Mr. Ryan is taking part after calculating more than a million dollars in losses after EI closed in on his Lochinvar property. "It nearly killed me," he said. "You know, when this EI hit it was like an implosion. "One evening everything was serene, the next morning, they were all just wracked with coughing and there was gunk coming out of their noses." Mr. Ryan says thousands of others were also hit hard. "I can tell you in 2007 there were lots and lots and lots of little Australians that just went down without a sound," he said. "There was no mercy, there was no support, Government support for these people and they went down because of EI." Lawyers in Sydney and Brisbane are handling the class action and the deadline to join was on Dec. 21. BANCORPSOUTH INC: Awaits Decision in Suit Over Overdraft Fees ------------------------------------------------------------- BancorpSouth, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on its petition for leave to appeal the class certification order in the lawsuit filed by an Arkansas customer over overdraft fees, according to the Company's November 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012. On May 18, 2010, the Company's wholly-owned subsidiaries, BancorpSouth Bank (the "Bank"), was named as a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit filed by an Arkansas customer of the Bank in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida. The lawsuit challenges the manner in which overdraft fees were charged and the policies related to posting order of debit card and ATM transactions. The lawsuit also makes a claim under Arkansas' consumer protection statute. The plaintiff is seeking to recover damages in an unspecified amount and equitable relief. The case was transferred to pending multi-district litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. On May 4, 2012, the judge presiding over the multi- district litigation entered an order certifying a class in this case. The Company has filed a petition for leave to appeal the class certification order, which, if granted, would provide the Company with an immediate right to appeal the class certification order. At this stage of the lawsuit, management of the Company cannot determine the probability of an unfavorable outcome to the Company. There are significant uncertainties involved in any purported class action litigation. Although it is not possible to predict the ultimate resolution or financial liability with respect to this litigation, management is currently of the opinion that the outcome of this lawsuit will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, consolidated financial position or results of operations. About BancorpSouth BancorpSouth Inc. is a financial holding company headquartered in Tupelo, Mississippi. BancorpSouth Bank, a wholly owned subsidiary of BancorpSouth, Inc., operates 290 commercial banking, mortgage, insurance, trust and broker dealer locations in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Tennessee and Texas, and an insurance location in Illinois. BancorpSouth's common stock is traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol BXS. BANCORPSOUTH INC: Securities Suit Settlement Approved in Oct. ------------------------------------------------------------- BancorpSouth, Inc.'s settlement of a securities class action lawsuit was approved in October 2012, according to the Company's November 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012. On May 12, 2010, the Company and its Chief Executive Officer, President and Chief Financial Officer were named in a class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on behalf of certain purchasers of the Company's common stock. On September 17, 2010, an Executive Vice President of the Company was added as a party to the lawsuit. The amended complaint alleges that the defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business and financial results. In particular, the allegations relate to the Company's recording and reporting of its unaudited financial statements, including the allowance and provision for credit losses, and its internal control over financial reporting leading up to the filing of the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009. The plaintiff sought class certification, an unspecified amount of damages and awards of costs and attorneys' fees and other equitable relief. On May 24, 2012, the Company reached a settlement with the plaintiff. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, subject to final court approval, the Company's insurance carriers funded the settlement payment, other than an immaterial amount of incidental expenses that the Company has covered. On July 11, 2012, the court preliminarily approved the settlement on the terms submitted by the parties and granted final approval of the settlement on October 31, 2012. The Company says this settlement will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, consolidated financial position or results of operations. About BancorpSouth BancorpSouth Inc. is a financial holding company headquartered in Tupelo, Mississippi. BancorpSouth Bank, a wholly owned subsidiary of BancorpSouth, Inc., operates 290 commercial banking, mortgage, insurance, trust and broker dealer locations in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Tennessee and Texas, and an insurance location in Illinois. BancorpSouth's common stock is traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol BXS. BRISTOW GROUP: "Superior" Class Action Lawsuit Now Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit filed by Superior Offshore International, Inc. is now dismissed, according to Bristow Group Inc.'s November 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012. On June 12, 2009, Superior Offshore International, Inc. v. Bristow Group Inc., et al, Case No. 1:09-cv-00438, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The purported class action complaint, which also named other providers of offshore helicopter services in the Gulf of Mexico as defendants, alleged violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Among other things, the complaint alleged that the defendants unlawfully conspired to raise and maintain the price of offshore helicopter services between January 1, 2001, and December 31, 2005. The plaintiff was seeking to represent a purported class of direct purchasers of offshore helicopter services and was asking for, among other things, unspecified treble monetary damages and injunctive relief. In September 2010, the court granted the Company's and the other defendants' motion to dismiss the case on several grounds. The plaintiff then filed a motion seeking a rehearing and seeking leave to amend its original complaint, which was partially granted to permit limited discovery. The Company and the other defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, which was granted and the case was dismissed. The plaintiff appealed the judgment in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. On July 27, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled in the Company's favor on all points and upheld the dismissal of the case. Since the time for the plaintiff to move for rehearing or seek Supreme Court review has expired and the time for appeal has passed, the case is now dismissed. CARDINAL HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Price-Fixing ------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Cardinal Health and Owens & Minor, which control 72 percent of the U.S. market for "sutures and endomechanical products," collude to fix prices and restrain competition, a hospital claims in a federal antitrust class action in Philadelphia. CBS CORP: Continues to Defend Unit From Suits Over E-book Sales --------------------------------------------------------------- CBS Corporation continues to defend its subsidiary against lawsuits related to sales of e-books, according to the Company's November 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012. A number of lawsuits are pending against the following parties relating to the sale of e-books: Apple Inc., Hachette Book Group, Inc., HarperCollins Publishers, LLC, Holtzbrinck Publishers LLC d/b/a Macmillan, Penguin Group (USA) Inc. and the Company's subsidiary, Simon & Schuster, Inc. (collectively, the "Publishing parties"). On April 10, 2012, for purposes of settlement and without any admission of wrongdoing or liability, Simon & Schuster and two of the other Publishing parties entered into a settlement stipulation and proposed final judgment (the "Stipulation") with the United States Department of Justice (the "DOJ") in connection with the DOJ's investigations of agency distribution of e-books. In furtherance of this settlement, on April 11, 2012, the DOJ filed an antitrust action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Publishing parties and concurrently filed the Stipulation with the court. On September 7, 2012, the Stipulation was approved by the court and final judgment was entered. The Stipulation does not involve any monetary payments by Simon & Schuster, but will require the adoption of certain business practices for a 24 month period and certain compliance practices for a five year period. On June 11, 2012, for purposes of settlement and without any admission of wrongdoing or liability, Simon & Schuster entered into a proposed settlement agreement to resolve the antitrust action filed by a number of states and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico against several of the Publishing parties in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, which was transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ("States") on April 30, 2012. The proposed settlement provides that, certain Publishing parties, including Simon & Schuster, will pay agreed upon amounts for consumer restitution, among other things, and also requires the adoption of certain business and compliance practices, which are substantially similar to those described in the Stipulation with the DOJ. The proposed settlement is subject to court approval. On September 14, 2012, the court granted preliminary approval of the proposed settlement, which all states (except Minnesota), the District Columbia and the United States territories joined. On October 15, 2012, Simon & Schuster paid the agreed upon amounts into an escrow account pending final court approval. The court is scheduled to conduct a final settlement approval hearing on February 8, 2013. The Company believes that this settlement with the States and the Stipulation with the DOJ will not have a material adverse effect on its results of operations, financial position or cash flows. On December 9, 2011, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the "MDL") issued an order consolidating in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York various purported class action lawsuits that private litigants had filed in federal courts in California and New York. On January 20, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action complaint with the court against the Publishing parties. These private litigant plaintiffs, who are e-book purchasers, allege that, among other things, the defendants are in violation of federal and/or state antitrust laws in connection with the sale of e-books pursuant to agency distribution arrangements between each of the publishers and e-book retailers. The consolidated amended class action complaint generally seeks multiple forms of damages for the purchase of e-books and injunctive and other relief. On March 2, 2012, the Publishing parties filed a motion to dismiss this action. On May 15, 2012, the court denied the motion to dismiss. The Company believes that the States' settlement, if approved by the court, would likely resolve the class claims of those private litigant plaintiffs in the MDL litigation who reside in the areas covered by the States' settlement and who do not opt-out of such settlement. Commencing on February 24, 2012, similar antitrust lawsuits have been filed under Canadian law against the Publishing parties by private litigants in Canada, purportedly as class actions. Simon & Schuster intends to vigorously defend itself in the MDL and Canadian matters. In addition, the European Commission (the "EC") and Canadian Competition Bureau are conducting separate competition investigations of agency distribution arrangements of e-books in this industry and Simon & Schuster is cooperating with these investigations. On September 19, 2012, the EC began accepting public comment on the terms of a proposed settlement. The proposed settlement between the EC and certain Publishing parties, including Simon & Schuster, requires the adoption of certain business and compliance practices similar to those described in the Stipulation with the DOJ, subject to public comment. Founded in 1986 and headquartered in New York, CBS Corporation -- http://cbscorporation.com/-- together with its subsidiaries, operates as a mass media company in the United States and internationally. The Company is composed of an Entertainment segment, a Cable Networks segment, a Publishing segment, a Local Broadcasting segment, and an Outdoor segment. CC STAFFING: Sued for Failing to Pay Employees' Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Alice Ogues, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. CC Staffing, Inc., a Delaware corporation; and Does 1- 50, inclusive, Case No. 3:12-cv-06135 (N.D. Calif., December 4, 2012) is brought against the Defendants for their alleged violations of the Labor Code and Business and Professions Code. Ms. Ogues alleges that the Defendants failed to pay her and similarly situated employees overtime wages by failing to include all applicable remuneration when calculating their regular rates of pay, failed to reimburse them for all necessary business expenditures, made unlawful deductions from wages, failed to provide them with all required meal and rest periods, failed to provide them with accurate written wage statements, and failed to timely pay them all of their final wages following termination or separation of employment. Based on these alleged Labor Code violations, she seeks to recover unpaid wages, restitution, civil and statutory penalties and related relief. Ms. Ogues was employed by the Defendants as a registered nurse at healthcare facilities in California during the relevant time period. CC Staffing is a Delaware corporation. Ms. Ogues is ignorant of the Doe Defendants' true names, capacities, relationships, and extent of participation in the conduct alleged herein. The Plaintiff is represented by: Shaun Setareh, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF SHAUN SETAREH 9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 711 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (310) 888-7771 Facsimile: (310) 888-0109 E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com CEVA FREIGHT: Underpaid Drivers Lose Class Certification -------------------------------------------------------- The HR Specialist reports that a North Carolina judge has decertified a class action against CEVA Freight, a freight hauler. The suit had alleged the company was underpaying some 2,000 drivers across the nation. U.S. District Court Judge Frank D. Whitney had certified the class in January 2011, but depositions taken since then show that many of the drivers negotiated individual contracts with the carrier. Judge Whitney cited the Supreme Court decision in Wal-Mart v. Dukes in his decision to decertify the class because it lacked the commonality necessary for a class-action suit. Unless the drivers' attorneys can win certification on appeal, the individual drivers will have to pursue remedies individually. As a practical matter, many will not because their individual circumstances will not entice a lawyer to represent them. CHARLIE ROSE: Settles Interns' Class Action For About $250,000 -------------------------------------------------------------- Eriq Gardner, writing for The Hollywood Reporter, reports that a class action lawsuit brought by a former intern at the Charlie Rose show has been settled for about $250,000. On Dec. 18, attorneys for Lucy Bickerton, who sued on behalf of herself and others situated, told a New York court that a deal had been struck to end litigation that contended violations of New York's labor laws arising from a failure to pay the show's interns. Ms. Bickerton sued in March, alleging that she wasn't paid despite working 25 hours a week for three months in the summer of 2007. In her original complaint, she said there were 10 other interns working for Rose during the time she spent on the show. A 2008 graduate of Wesleyan University, Ms. Bickerton said her duties included assembling background research and press packets, escorting guests, digesting Mr. Rose's interviews and cleaning. The lawsuit didn't get very far before negotiations commenced. Mr. Rose never responded to the claims. According to court documents filed last week, each class member will receive $110 for each week that he or she interned on the show, up to a maximum of 10 weeks. The payment is noted to be based on an average internship day of 6 hours, and an average internship week of 2.5 days. The class covers those interns who worked on the show between March 14, 2006, and Oct. 1, 2012. To settle the claims, Mr. Rose has also agreed to pay the plaintiff's attorneys $50,000 for legal work -- an amount on top of class members' settlement awards. Ms. Bickerton told The New York Times that the settlement was "a really important moment for this movement against unpaid internships." Other lawsuits against media and entertainment companies are ongoing. The biggest might be a challenge against the internship programs at Fox Entertainment Group. Originally a lawsuit that involved two interns who worked on Fox Searchlight's Black Swan, a New York judge allowed in October the class action to include a class of interns who worked at various production divisions as well as corporate interns. Labor attorneys have cautioned that Hollywood could see more litigation over internship programs unless they follow protocol from the Department of Labor that internships be expressly educational, for the benefit of the intern, that the intern doesn't displace regular employees, that the employer derives no immediate advantage from the intern, that the intern is not entitled to a job after the internship, and that the intern understands that he or she is not entitled to wages. The interpretation of these criteria hasn't been particularly well addressed in courts as of yet. In arguing for a judge's approval, the plaintiff's lawyers note, "The determination whether interns are employees covered by the [New York Labor Laws] would be fact-intensive, requiring Plaintiffs to present evidence regarding the nature of the internship program, the activities in which interns participated and the benefits that they provided to Defendants, all of which would likely be disputed by Defendants . . . While Plaintiff believes that she would ultimately prevail, the settlement eliminates these risks and will allow all class members to recover now." DISH NETWORK: Faces FCRA Violations Suit in New York ---------------------------------------------------- Scott Ernst, individually and as a representative of the classes v. Dish Network, LLC, Dish Network Service, LLC, and Sterling Infosystems, Inc., Case No. 1:12-cv-08794 (S.D.N.Y., December 4, 2012) relates to the Defendants' alleged improper creation, procurement, and use of consumer reports. Ms. Ogues alleges that working together, DISH Network, a well- known provider of direct broadcast satellite services, and Sterling Infosystems, a large consumer reporting agency, have systematically and willfully violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act. DISH Network has violated the law by procuring consumer reports on its field technicians without first obtaining their consent, and by taking adverse action against its technicians without first providing them with a copy of the report and an opportunity to contest its contents, Mr. Ernst asserts. He adds that Sterling Infosystems has violated the law by including irrelevant and outdated information in its reports, and by failing to provide free copies of reports to consumers who request them. Mr. Ernst is a resident of Cokato, Minnesota (Wright County). DISH Network, L.L.C. and DISH Network Service, L.L.C. are Colorado limited liability companies, headquartered in Englewood, Colorado. Sterling Infosystems is a company incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in New York City. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michele R. Fisher, Esq. E. Michelle Drake, Esq. Adam Hansen, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 4600 IDS Center 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 256-3200 Facsimile: (612) 215-6870 E-mail: fisher@nka.com drake@nka.com ahansen@nka.com DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Judge Dismisses Special Ed Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- According to an article posted by Zoe Tillman at The Blog of Legal Times, a class action against the District of Columbia, in which officials were accused of failing to provide for students with special needs came to a close. U.S. District Senior Judge Paul Friedman joined the bench in 1994. Less than a year later, he became presiding judge of the class action. On Dec. 19, 17 years later, the case came to a close, an event Judge Friedman called "historic." "These class actions have been among the most important cases I've been involved with in my years on the bench," Judge Friedman said on Dec. 19 during a final fairness hearing on a settlement reached by the parties. Judge Friedman entered an order dismissing the case several hours after the hearing on Dec. 19. During the hearing, he spoke about children affected by the school system's problems who appeared before him in earlier stages of the case and said that on Dec. 19 he felt confident in the city's progress. The case, known as Petties v. D.C., is one of six remaining class actions against the District over its ability to care for some of its most vulnerable residents, including students with special needs. The Petties case had two parts -- first, the effectiveness of the city's system for paying non-D.C. public schools that took in local students with special needs, and second, the quality of transportation services provided to those children. The plaintiffs and the city reached a settlement on the payment side of the case over the summer and Judge Friedman ended court oversight of the transportation system on Nov. 8. The Dec. 19 hearing was about formally vacating past court orders and dismissing the class action. No objections were filed to the settlement agreement. "We've come a long way," co-lead class counsel Steven Ney told Judge Friedman on Dec. 19. Still, Mr. Ney said in his remarks the city could do much more to improve the quality of special education within its public schools, with the goal of no longer needing to send so many children to other non-public schools. "There needs to be more local options," he said. The case hit a minor snag earlier this month when a little boy was left on a bus unattended for more than six hours. Mr. Ney said school and city officials demonstrated that they had systems in place for responding to problems. But he agreed with Judge Friedman that such incidents were "aberrational" and not a sign that deeper problems originally at play in the case were resurfacing. Ending the case and court oversight is also a big win for the city, which has made ending the costly and time-consuming class actions a priority. The D.C. attorney general's office has estimated that the city has spent more than $1.7 million annually on fees related to those cases. D.C. Attorney General Irvin Nathan attended the Dec. 19 hearing and said he hoped the resolution of this case would set precedent for seeking the dismissal of other cases. "We're very grateful for the judge's patience in this matter," Mr. Nathan said. GODADDY GROUP: Ex-Workers File Lawsuit for Unpaid Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------- Erika Morphy, writing for E-Commerce Times, reports that several tech specialists are telling GoDaddy where to go -- in legal terms -- for policies they claim cheated them out of compensation. Among other things, they had to work through lunch breaks, arrive early to set up their stations, and stay late to conclude calls -- all without pay, according to the complaint. They're seeking class-action status, which could add thousands to the suit. Attorneys representing four former GoDaddy employees in a suit over unpaid overtime are seeking to have the suit expanded to a collective action. Michelle Matheson, a partner with Matheson & Matheson and the attorney of record on the suit, and Eric Epstein, an employment attorney in Los Angeles, represent the former employees of GoDaddy, all of whom worked in the company's inbound contact center in Arizona as technical sales and support specialists. Specifically they are alleging that they were not correctly paid overtime under the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act. When reached for comment by the E-Commerce Times, GoDaddy declined to respond to the allegations. "We don't comment on pending litigation but have every intention of vigorously defending ourselves," GoDaddy spokesperson Nick Fuller told the E-Commerce Times. Centers in Arizona, Iowa The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court of Phoenix early last year. Recently the attorneys received a schedule for the action, which includes a deadline in the first quarter of 2013 to file paperwork to ask the court to certify the suit as a collective action. If the court grants that motion, the suit would include at least 3,000 class members that the attorneys, through preliminary discovery, determined are in Arizona. They also hope to have the suit expanded to include individuals currently or previously employed in GoDaddy's center in Iowa. "We believe there are hundreds if not thousands of employees that fall in this category of class," Mr. Epstein told the E-Commerce Times. Eroding Pay Minute by Minute Various practices chipped away at employees' hourly pay at the GoDaddy center, the attorneys allege -- essentially getting work out of them without compensating them for their time. For example, the company would require the employees to start taking calls at the beginning of their shift at a certain time -- but to do that they had to arrive at their desk five minutes earlier to start their computers and get the systems up, Ms. Matheson said. Conversely, they would clock out at the end of their shift but remain at their desks for another five minutes shutting everything down. Another allegation is that the employees were required to log out of their systems for the lunch period. However, the employees would usually work through lunch to get all of their work done before the end of the shift, according to Ms. Matheson. Employees also lost pay when taking calls near the end of their shift. The company's policy did not allow them to end the call when their shift ended -- they had to see it through to resolution -- "but their supervisor would adjust the time card to show they had logged out," said Ms. Matheson. The case is Casey Corbin, Christopher Flournoy, Toby Harris and Allan Reeser v. GoDaddy Group Inc. The case number is 12-CV- 00370-SRB. If the suit doesn't get the collective action status it is seeking, it will move forward on behalf of the four plaintiffs, Ms. Matheson said. "If other people come forward, we might be able to add them to the suit on an individual basis, if that is the case." HAIN CELESTIAL: Seeks Dismissal of "Organic" Label Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Beth Winegarner, writing for Law360, reports that The Hain Celestial Group Inc. urged a California federal judge on Dec. 21 to toss a putative class action claiming it tricked consumers into believing its Avalon Organics and Jason brand cosmetics were predominantly organic, arguing the word "organic" on their labels doesn't refer to products or ingredients. Hain's attorney, William Friedman -- wfriedman@cov.com -- of Covington Burling LLP, pushed U.S. Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler to dismiss Rosminah Brown and Eric Lohela's claims that Jason's "pure, natural and organic" tagline and Avalon Organics' name, which appear on their products' front labels. HEELYS: Faces Class Action Over Proposed Sale to Sequential Brands ------------------------------------------------------------------ Courthouse News Service reports that Heelys is selling itself too cheaply through an unfair process to Sequential Brands, for $63.2 million, or about $2.30 a share, shareholders claim in Delaware Chancery Court. ICAHN ENTERPRISES: To Seek Dismissal of "Silsby" Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Icahn Enterprises L.P. said in its November 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012, that it intends to file a motion to dismiss a securities class action lawsuit in New York. On March 28, 2012, an action was filed in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, entitled Silsby v. Icahn et al. Defendants include Carl C. Icahn and two officers of Dynegy Inc. and certain of its directors. As initially filed, the action purports to be brought as a class action on behalf of Dynegy shareholders who acquired their shares between September 2011 and March 2012. The Complaint alleges violations of the federal securities laws in defendants' allegedly making false and misleading statements in securities filings that artificially inflated the price of Dynegy stock. The individual defendants are alleged to have been controlling persons of Dynegy. Plaintiff is seeking damages in an unspecified amount. Subsequent to the filing of this action, Dynegy filed for bankruptcy, and a U.S. bankruptcy court has approved a Plan of Reorganization. Plaintiff is proceeding with the action and has filed an amended complaint which purports to be a class action on behalf of Dynegy shareholders who acquired their securities between July 10, 2011, through March 9, 2012. However, the Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to the claims and intends to file a motion to dismiss. IMPERIAL HOLDINGS: Settles Shareholder Class/Derivative Actions --------------------------------------------------------------- Imperial Holdings, Inc., a specialty finance company with a focus on providing liquidity solutions to owners of illiquid financial assets, on Dec. 19 disclosed that the company and all other relevant parties have executed a non-binding term sheet to settle the shareholder class action lawsuits and derivative demands instituted against the Company and certain of its current and former directors and officers. The proposed settlement terms, while non-binding and subject to certain contingencies, provide for the resolution of all of the class action lawsuits and derivative actions. As contemplated, the class action settlement would include a cash payment by Imperial to the class of $12 million, $11 million of which is to be contributed by Imperial's Directors & Officers insurance carriers, and 2 million warrants with an exercise price of $10.75 to be issued by the Company. In addition, to settle the derivative actions, Imperial will agree to implement certain corporate governance reforms, if ratified by a shareholder vote, and will pay stock valued at $500,000 and cash to be contributed by its primary D&O carrier of $1.5 million for attorney's fees. Imperial has also agreed to establish a $500,000 trust to cover certain individual insurance claims made on its D&O policies as well to provide advancement of legal fees and indemnification for certain individuals covered under the policies. All parties have agreed to endeavor to enter into definitive settlement agreements by January 15, 2013. Antony Mitchell, CEO of Imperial Holdings commented, "We are pleased to have reached an understanding in respect of all outstanding class action and derivative litigation against the Company and to have secured the cooperation of our D&O carriers in resolving these matters. We will work diligently to memorialize this understanding in formal settlement agreements by January 15th and will then seek court approval." KEM REST: Faces Class Suit Over FLSA Violations in New York ----------------------------------------------------------- Juan Carlos, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Kem Rest., Inc. d/b/a Don Giovanni Ristorante, Thompson Rest. Inc. d/b/a Don Giovanni Ristorante, Marilyn Cohen, and John Does #1-10, Case No. 1:12-cv-08810 (S.D.N.Y.) (December 4, 2012) is brought on behalf of similarly situated current and former employees of the Defendants under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Mr. Carlos alleges that he and the proposed class members are entitled to (i) compensation for wages paid at less than the statutory minimum wage, (ii) unpaid wages from the Defendants for overtime work for which they did not receive overtime premium pay as required by law, and (iii) liquidated damages pursuant to the FLSA because the Defendants' violations were willful. Mr. Carlos is a resident of in Queens, New York. Kem Rest. and Thompson Rest. are New York corporations headquartered in New York. They operate as a common enterprise all doing business under the name Don Giovanni Ristorante, sharing common ownership and management and operating for a common business purpose. Marilyn Cohen is an owner or part owner and principal of the Don Giovanni Defendants, who has the power to hire and fire employees, set wages and schedules, and retain their records. The Doe Defendants represent the other owners, officers, directors and managing agents of the Don Giovanni defendants, whose identities are unknown at this time. The Plaintiff is represented by: David Stein, Esq. Michael Samuel, Esq. SAMUEL & STEIN 38 West 32nd Street, Suite 1110 New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 563-9884 E-mail: dstein@samuelandstein.com michael@samuelandstein.com KIT DIGITAL: Newman Ferrara Files Securities Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Newman Ferrara LLP on Dec. 19 disclosed that it filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Hughes v. KIT digital Inc., et al., 12-cv-9210) on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of KIT digital, Inc. for violations of federal securities laws. Investors who purchased KIT securities between May 19, 2009 and November 21, 2012 may apply with the Court to be appointed Lead Plaintiff no later than January 29, 2013. The Lead Plaintiff will direct the litigation on behalf of the other class members. The Court will select the Lead Plaintiff from among applicants claiming the largest investment losses. The Complaint alleges that KIT and certain of its officers issued false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) there were irregularities with KIT's accounting relating to improper revenue recognition for certain license agreements; (2) KIT's financial statements were not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles; (3) KIT's internal controls were deficient and incapable of producing adequate financial reporting; and (4) as a result of the above, KIT's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On November 21, 2012, KIT announced that, because of revenue being improperly recognized in its financial statements, KIT needed to restate its financial statements for each of the first three quarters and full years in 2009, 2010 and 2011 and for the first two quarters of 2012. On this news, shares of KIT stock plummeted 64% in value to a November 23, 2012 price of $0.74 per share and dropped another 16% on the following trading day to $0.62 per share. Investors who purchased shares of KIT stock during the Class Period and lost more than $100,000 are encouraged to contact Newman Ferrara attorney Roy Shimon at rshimon@nfllp.com or call (212) 619-5400 to discuss this lawsuit or the Lead Plaintiff process. Newman Ferrara -- http://www.nfllp.com-- maintains a multifaceted practice based in New York City with attorneys specializing in complex commercial and multi-party litigation, securities fraud and shareholder litigation, consumer protection, civil rights, and real estate. KIT DIGITAL: Berman DeValerio Files Securities Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Berman DeValerio has filed a securities class action lawsuit against KIT digital, Inc. and certain of its officers. KIT digital is a global provider of on-demand Internet Protocol-based video asset management systems. The lawsuit alleges violations of United States securities laws on behalf of purchasers of KIT digital common stock between May 19, 2009 and November 21, 2012. The complaint was filed Dec. 18, 2012 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, as Hughes v. KIT digital et al., 12-civ-9210 (S.D.N.Y.). That same day, the Company announced that it had dismissed its independent auditor, Grant Thornton LLP, and that its stock would be delisted from the NASDAQ Stock Market effective Dec. 21, 2012. To receive a copy of the complaint, please call Berman DeValerio at (800) 516-9926. Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, investors wishing to serve as the lead plaintiff in the case must file a motion for appointment with the court no later than January 29, 2013. The lawsuit alleges claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Secs. 78j(b) and 78t(a), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the United States Securities Exchange Commission on behalf of Class Period investors. According to the lawsuit, the Defendants made material false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material facts about KIT digital's business. Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose (1) that there were irregularities with the Company's accounting relating, in part, to revenue recognition for certain license agreements; (2) that the Company's financial statements were not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles; (3) that the Company's internal controls were deficient and incapable of producing adequate financial reporting, as was revealed later in the Class Period; and (4) as a result of the above, the Company's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On November 21, 2012, after the stock markets closed, the Company announced that it would restate its financial statements for the fiscal years 2009, 2010, and 2011 and for the first two quarters of 2012 because of accounting errors and irregularities relating to the recognition of revenue for software license agreements. Upon this announcement, the Company's share price fell $1.33 per share on November 23, to close at $0.74. The decline in KIT digital's stock price represented a loss of over 64%. If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than January 29, 2013, request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff for the class. You may contact Berman DeValerio to discuss your rights and interest in the case. Please note that you may also retain counsel of your choice or, alternatively, take no action at this time, in which case you will still remain a class member. Berman DeValerio -- http://www.bermandevalerio.com-- is a national law firm representing investors for violations of securities and antitrust laws. The firm has 41 lawyers in Boston, San Francisco and Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Contact: Emily St. John Cohen, Esq. Berman DeValerio Telephone: (415) 433-3200 E-mail: ecohen@bermandevalerio.com LG CHEM: Sued Over Conspiracy to Fix and Raise Battery Prices ------------------------------------------------------------- Brandon Martinez, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. LG Chem, Ltd., LG Chem America, Inc., Panasonic Corporation, Panasonic Corporation of North America, Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd., Sanyo North America Corporation, Sony Corporation, Sony Energy Devices Corporation, Sony Electronics, Inc., Samsung SDI Co. Ltd., Samsung SDI America, Inc., Hitachi, Ltd., Hitachi Maxell, Ltd., Maxell Corporation of America, and John Does 1-100, Case No. 4:12-cv-06151 (N.D. Calif., December 4, 2012) alleges that the Defendants, which are the world's largest manufacturers of Lithium Ion Rechargeable Batteries, are engaged in a conspiracy to unlawfully fix and artificially raise the prices of these batteries. The Defendants and other conspirators agreed, combined and conspired to inflate, fix, raise, maintain, or artificially stabilize prices of Lithium Ion Rechargeable Batteries, Mr. Martinez alleges. He contends that as a direct result of the anti-competitive and unlawful conduct alleged in the action, he and the members of the proposed classes paid artificially inflated prices for Lithium Ion Rechargeable Batteries during the Class Period and have, thereby, suffered antitrust injury to their business or property. Mr. Martinez is a resident of Los Angeles, California. During the Class Period, he purchased a laptop computer containing a Lithium Ion Rechargeable Battery manufactured by a Defendant. LG Chem is a Korean corporation based in Seoul, South Korea. LG Chem is an affiliate of Seoul-based conglomerate LG Electronics. LG Chem America is a New Jersey corporation based in Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, and a wholly owned subsidiary of LG Chem. Panasonic Corp. is a Japanese corporation based in Osaka, Japan. Panasonic Corp. was formerly known as Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. Panasonic manufactures and sells Lithium Ion Rechargeable Batteries under the Panasonic name and also under the name of Defendant and wholly owned subsidiary Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd. Panasonic Corporation of North America, formerly known as Matsushita Electric Corporation of America, is a Delaware Corporation based in Secaucus, New Jersey, and a wholly owned and controlled subsidiary of Panasonic Corporation. Sanyo is a Japanese corporation based in Osaka, Japan. Sanyo North America Corporation is a Delaware corporation based in San Diego, California, and a wholly owned subsidiary of Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd. Sony Corporation is a Japanese corporation based in Tokyo, Japan. Sony Energy is a Japanese corporation based in Fukushima, Japan. Sony Energy Devices Corporation is a wholly owned subsidiary of Sony Corporation. Sony Electronics is a Delaware corporation based in San Diego, California and a wholly owned subsidiary of Sony Corporation. Samsung SDI is a Korean corporation based in Gyeonggi, South Korea, and 20% owned by the Korean conglomerate Samsung Electronics, Inc. Samsung SDI America is a California corporation based in San Jose, California, and a wholly owned subsidiary of Samsung SDI. Hitachi Ltd. is a Japanese company based in Tokyo, Japan. Hitachi Maxell is a Japanese corporation based in Tokyo, Japan, and a wholly owned subsidiary of Hitachi, Ltd. Maxell is a New Jersey corporation based in Woodland Park, New Jersey. The Defendants manufacture, market, and sell Lithium Ion Rechargeable Batteries throughout the United States and the world. The Defendants collectively controlled approximately two-thirds or more of the worldwide market for Lithium Ion Rechargeable Batteries throughout this period, and over 80 percent of the market in the early part of this period. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert S. Green, Esq. James Robert Noblin, Esq. Lesley E. Weaver, Esq. GREEN & NOBLIN, P.C. 700 Larkspur Landing Circle, Suite 275 Larkspur, CA 94939 Telephone: (415) 477-6700 Facsimile: (415) 477-6710 E-mail: cand.uscourts@classcounsel.com gn@classcounsel.com - and - Jeffrey C. Block, Esq. Mark A. Delaney, Esq. Whitney E. Street, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 155 Federal Street, Suite 1303 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 398-5600 Fascimile: (617) 507-6020 E-mail: Jeff@blockesq.com Mark@blockesq.com Whitney@blockesq.com MUDDY OUTDOORS: Recalls 1,500 Tree Climbing Sticks -------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with importer, Muddy Outdoors, of Albia, Iowa, and manufacturer, Classic Asia Group, of China, announced a voluntary recall of about 1,500 Muddy Outdoors tree climbing sticks. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The climbing sticks can break, posing risk of serious injury or death to users. The firm has received four reports of the climbing sticks breaking. There have been no reported injuries. The recalled Muddy Outdoors climbing sticks are used to climb trees. They consist of a 20-inch black center stick with tree cleats and fold-out steps on each end. A black and burnt orange- colored rope fastened by a cam cleat secures the stick to the tree. The tree cleats have single metal tabs or posts. Model number 70401 or 70404 is printed on the packaging. The climbing sticks were sold individually or in packs of four. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml13/13078.html The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Bass Pro, Cabela's, Dick's Sporting Goods, Scheels and other hunting and outdoor stores nationwide from July 2012 through October 2012 for about $50 when sold individually and $160 when sold in a pack of four. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled climbing sticks and return them to Muddy Outdoors for a refund or a free replacement product. Muddy Outdoors may be reached toll-free at (877) 366-8339, from 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Central Time Monday through Friday, or online at http://www.gomuddy.com/and click on "Muddy Info-Latest News" or "Products-Muddy Outdoors-Sticks" section for more information. NUCOR CORP: Still Defends Antitrust Class Suits in Illinois ----------------------------------------------------------- Nucor Corporation has been named, along with other major steel producers, as a co-defendant in several related antitrust class- action complaints filed by Standard Iron Works and other steel purchasers in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The majority of these complaints were filed in September and October of 2008, with two additional complaints being filed in July and December of 2010. Two of these complaints have been voluntarily dismissed and are no longer pending. The plaintiffs allege that from April 1, 2005, through December 31, 2007, eight steel manufacturers, including Nucor, engaged in anticompetitive activities with respect to the production and sale of steel. The plaintiffs seek monetary and other relief. Although the Company believes the plaintiffs' claims are without merit and will vigorously defend against them, the Company cannot at this time predict the outcome of this litigation or estimate the range of Nucor's potential exposure. No further updates were reported in the Company's November 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 29, 2012. OKLAHOMA GAS: "Price I" Suit vs. OGE Energy Units Now Closed ------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit styled Will Price, et al. v. El Paso Natural Gas Co., et al. (Price I) is now closed, according to Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company's November 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012. On September 24, 1999, various subsidiaries of OGE Energy Corp., parent company of Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company (OG&E) were served with a class action petition filed in the District Court of Stevens County, Kansas, by Quinque Operating Company and other named plaintiffs alleging the mismeasurement of natural gas on non-Federal lands. On April 10, 2003, the court entered an order denying class certification. On May 12, 2003, the plaintiffs (now Will Price, Stixon Petroleum, Inc., Thomas F. Boles and the Cooper Clark Foundation, on behalf of themselves and other royalty interest owners) filed a motion seeking to file an amended class action petition, and the court granted the motion on July 28, 2003. In its amended petition, OG&E and Enogex Inc. were omitted from the case but two of OGE Energy's other subsidiary entities remained as defendants. The plaintiffs' amended petition seeks class certification and alleges that 60 defendants, including two of OGE Energy's subsidiary entities, have improperly measured the volume of natural gas. The amended petition asserts theories of civil conspiracy, aiding and abetting, accounting and unjust enrichment. In their briefing on class certification, the plaintiffs seek to also allege a claim for conversion. The plaintiffs seek unspecified actual damages, attorneys' fees, costs and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest. The plaintiffs also reserved the right to seek punitive damages. On September 18, 2009, the court entered its order denying class certification. On October 2, 2009, the plaintiffs filed for a rehearing of the court's denial of class certification. On March 31, 2010, the court denied the plaintiffs' request for rehearing. On July 20, 2011, the two OGE Energy subsidiaries filed motions for summary judgment. On January 25, 2012, the court denied portions of the motions for summary judgment related to the legal issue of the plaintiffs' claims regarding civil conspiracy. In an order dated January 23, 2012, the court granted the plaintiffs additional time to perform discovery prior to the consideration of the motions for summary judgment as they relate to the plaintiffs' other claims. On February 7, 2012, the two OGE Energy subsidiaries filed an application in the Kansas Court of Appeals seeking appeal of the trial court's denial of their motions for summary judgment. On February 23, 2012, the Kansas Court of Appeals denied this application. On March 23, 2012, the two OGE Energy subsidiaries filed an application with the Kansas Supreme Court seeking appeal of the Kansas Court of Appeals' decision. On July 19, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss the two OGE Energy subsidiaries from the action. On September 19, 2012, the court issued a final order dismissing the two OGE Energy subsidiaries from this case. OGE Energy considers this case closed. SACRAMENTO INTERNATIONAL: Faces ADA Class Action Over Terminal B ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bob Moffitt, writing for Capital Public Radio, reports that a group representing disabled airline passengers has filed a class action lawsuit claiming the new Terminal B at Sacramento International Airport does not meet requirements of the Americans With Disabilities Act. Shawna Parks is an attorney for the organization "Disability Rights Advocates." She says Terminal B fails to provide counters that are accessible to wheelchair-bound travelers, "It's an issue under federal and state law that there need to be lowered sections of the counters . . . both at the retail shops, and also at the ticketing area, baggage claim offices and other types of counters. The suit asks the County to satisfy federal Americans with Disability Act requirements, "There are some counters where they do get it right. So, for example, if you go to the information counters in Terminal B, there are lowered sections of the counter. So it's clear that at some point somebody understood what the requirements were. Ms. Parks says the restroom doors are too hard to push open and there are no curb ramps at accessible loading zones, "We know that this is an industry-wide issue which is why . . . one of the reasons we decided to tackle it with this new terminal." One plaintiff is suing for damages. Ms. Parks says the number of disabled plaintiffs could reach the thousands. The County Airport System says the design of Terminal B complies with all state and federal laws. SASSY INC: Recalls 45,300 Hug N' Tug Baby Toys ---------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, in cooperation with Sassy, Inc., of Kentwood, Michigan, announced a voluntary recall of about 45,300 Sassy(R)-branded Hug N' Tug Puppy and Monkey and Carter's(R)-branded Hug N' Tug Monkey Toys. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The beads inside the clear plastic sphere at the center of the toys can be released and pose a choking hazard to young children. The firm has received 12 reports of beads being released from the plastic clear plastic sphere body on Sassy-branded toys. There have been no such reports on the Carter's-branded toys. No injuries have been reported. The recalled toys for infants can be attached to a stroller or car seat using a ring connector on the toy's head. They have arms and legs that can be easily pulled back and forth for play. The toys are approximately 12 inches tall, made of multi-colored fabrics, contain rattle beads inside a clear plastic sphere body and have the face of either a puppy or monkey. Recalled styles include: Sassy Hug N' Tug Puppy, model #80213; Sassy Hug N' Tug Monkey model #80214 and Carter's-branded Hug N' Tug Monkey, models #61083 that were sold on a blue packaging card and #61540 sold on a grey packaging card. Sassy(R)-branded toys have "Sassy(R)" written on the sewn-in label located on the back of the character's head. The Carter's(R)-branded toys have "Carter's(R)" written in red on the blue plastic ring connected to the toy's head and also the sewn-in label located on the back of the character's head. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml13/13079.html The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at mass merchandisers such as Toys R Us and Target, independent specialty stores nationwide and online retailers such as Amazon.com and Carters.com between July 2012 and October 2012 for Sassy-branded models; and from August 2011 to October 2012 for the Carter's- branded models. Carter's-branded models were also sold in Carter's retail stores. The Sassy-branded models sold for approximately $8 and the Carter's-branded models for approximately $14. Consumers should immediately take the toys from children and contact Sassy for instructions on how to return the product for a free replacement toy. Sassy may be reached at (800) 323-6336 from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.sassybaby.com/and go to the Product Recall Information link. SCHURMAN RETAIL: Recalls 108 PAPYRUS Signature Collection Frames ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, in cooperation with importer, Schurman Retail Group, of Fairfield, California, and manufacturer, Idianale Inc./Dekokraft, Inc., of Pasig City, Philippines, announced a voluntary recall of about 105 2012 PAPYRUS Signature Collection Picture Frames in the United States of America and about 3 in Canada. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The presence of Aspergillus mold spores were discovered on the products, posing a risk of respiratory or other infections in individuals with chronic health problems or who have impaired immune systems. No incidents or injuries have been reported. The recalled table stand picture frames are made of a metallic- looking resin material and come in two colors and sizes: Model Size UPC Code ----- ---- -------- Green Frame 4 by 6 inches 90000165335 Red Frame 5 by 7 inches 90000165557 The recalled products are packaged in a decorative box made of a heavy paperstock with a distressed painting and jeweled lid finish. The UPC code can be found on the back of the product's hangtag with the PAPYRUS logo or on a label on the bottom of the box. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml13/13082.html The recalled products were manufactured in the Philippines and sold at PAPYRUS stores in the U.S. and Canada from September 2012 to November 2012 for approximately $44 and $48. Consumers should immediately place the frames in a container and return the product and the decorative box to their nearest PAPYRUS or contact Schurman Retail Group for instructions on how to return the product. Schurman Retail Group may be reached toll free at (855) 730-7998 from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday or online at http://www.papyrusonline.com/and click on Recalls for more information. SCHURMAN RETAIL: Recalls 530 PAPYRUS Red 17-Inch Decorative Trees ----------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, in cooperation with importer, Schurman Retail Group, of Fairfield, California, and manufacturer, Idianale Inc./Dekokraft, Inc., of Pasig City, Philippines, announced a voluntary recall of about 455 2012 PAPYRUS Signature Collection Trees in the United States of America and about 75 in Canada. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The presence of Aspergillus mold spores were discovered on the products, posing a risk of respiratory or other infections in individuals with chronic health problems or who have impaired immune systems. No incidents or injuries have been reported. The recalled decorative tree is made of a metallic-looking resin and painted red with a gold base and raised gold and red embellishments. It stands 17-inches high and is packaged in a decorative box made of heavy paperstock, distressed painting finish and jeweled lid details. The UPC code, 9000165441, can be found on the back of the product's hangtag with the PAPYRUS logo or on a label on the bottom of the box. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml13/13081.html The recalled products were manufactured in the Philippines and sold at PAPYRUS stores in the U.S. and Canada September 2012 to November 2012 for about $54. Consumers should immediately put the tree in a container return it and the decorative box to their nearest PAPYRUS or contact Schurman Retail Group for instructions on how to return the product. Schurman Retail Group may be reached toll free at (855) 730-7998 from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday or online at http://www.papyrusonline.com/and click on Recalls for more information. SCHURMAN RETAIL: Recalls 55,700 PAPYRUS Signature Ornaments ----------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, in cooperation with importer, Schurman Retail Group, of Fairfield, California, and manufacturer, Idianale Inc./Dekokraft, Inc., of Pasig City, Philippines, announced a voluntary recall of about 45,500 2012 PAPYRUS Holiday Signature Ornaments in the United States of America and about 10,200 in Canada. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The presence of Aspergillus mold spores were discovered on the products, posing a risk of respiratory or other infections in individuals with chronic health problems or who have impaired immune systems. No incidents or injuries have been reported. The recalled holiday ornaments come in 24 styles and are made of colorfully painted metallic-looking resin. They range from approximately three to six inches in height and are packaged individually in decorative boxes made of heavy paperstock, distressed painting finish and jeweled lid details. The UPC code can be found on the back of the product's hangtag with the PAPYRUS logo or on a label on the bottom of the box. Name/Description UPC Code ---------------- -------- Ornament Flamingo pink 90000165304 Ornament Star red 90000165328 Ornament Green Royal Frogs Set of 2 90000165342 Ornament Skiers Male Female Set of 2 90000165359 Ornament Cupcake Set of 3 90000165366 Ornament Round ball with diamonds Set of 3 90000165373 Ornament Tree 90000165397 Ornament Angel with harp red and pink 90000165403 Ornament Angel blowing horn blue 90000165410 Ornament Santa Red 90000165427 Ornament Ballerina green with fan 90000165434 Ornament Angel folding hands green 90000165465 Ornament Unicorn silver w/ gold mane & tail 90000165472 Ornament Hummingbird blue 90000165496 Ornament Angel holding green tree 90000165502 Ornament Ballerina white 90000165526 Ornament Santa holding tree 90000165540 Ornament Bird blue 90000165571 Ornament Horse Pink and gold 90000165588 Ornament Ballerina frog white 90000165595 Ornament Heart Magenta 90000165601 Ornament Frog Prince Sitting green 90000165564 Ornament Angel holding harp 90000165489 Ornament Reindeer green with pink and gold 90000165458 Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml13/13080.html The recalled products were manufactured in the Philippines and sold at PAPYRUS and Carlton Cards Stores in the U.S. and Canada for between $24 and $44. Consumers should immediately place the ornament in a container and return the product and decorative box to their nearest PAPYRUS or Carlton Cards Store, or contact Schurman Retail Group for instructions on how to return the product. Schurman Retail Group may be reached toll free at (855) 730-7998 between 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday or online at http://www.papyrusonline.com/and click on Recalls for more information. SCHWEGEL'S FOOD: Faces Class Action Over Check Cashing Fees ----------------------------------------------------------- Christina Stueve Hodges, writing for The Madison-St. Clair Record, reports that the plaintiff in a proposed class action lawsuit against an Alton grocery store over check cashing fees has filed a motion for class certification. Plaintiff Julie Wheeler claims she cashed a check for $68.80 at defendant Schwegel's Food Markets and was charged a 75-cent fee in violation of the Illinois Check Cashing Act. Ms. Wheeler claims Illinois state law does not allow for check cashing fees of more than 50 cents or 1 percent of the face value of the check. "The defendant has wronged consumers in the thousands of dollars," the motion states. "The class action device is an effective tool to efficiently seek a recovery for others, such as Julie Wheeler. Ms. Wheeler, represented by Peter J. Maag of Maag Law Firm in Wood River, is requesting an order certifying the lawsuit as a class action lawsuit, with herself as class representative. "Julie Wheeler and her counsel have the necessary financial resources to adequately and vigorously litigate this class action, and Julie Wheeler and Class counsel are aware of their fiduciary responsibilities to Class members and are determined to diligently discharge those duties by vigorously seeking the maximum possible recovery for the class." Schwegel's filed a motion to dismiss Nov. 9, stating another corporate entity, Pearl Market, Inc., operates the market. Joseph Brown of Lucco, Brown, Threlkeld and Dawson represent the defense. The case is assigned to Associate Judge Thomas Chapman. Madison County Circuit Court case number: 12-L-1316. SIRIUS XM: Appeals Court Upholds $180MM Class Action Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- Don Jeffrey and Bob Van Voris, writing for Bloomberg News, report that Sirius XM Radio Inc. and its customers won appeals court approval of a class-action lawsuit settlement challenged by some satellite radio subscribers who claimed they got too little and lawyers too much. The U.S. Court of Appeals in Manhattan on Dec. 20 affirmed a ruling by a lower court that approved the suit settlement, valued at $180 million. Plaintiffs' lawyers were awarded $13 million in fees. "Competent counsel appeared on both sides, and settlement was reached only after contentious negotiations," the appeals judges said in their opinion. "Thus the district court did not abuse its discretion when it presumed the proposed settlement was procedurally fair." Subscribers sued Sirius XM Radio in 2009, claiming that it violated antitrust law when it raised prices after Sirius Satellite Radio acquired its only competitor, XM Satellite Radio, in 2008. They said Sirius broke promises it made to win merger approval from the Federal Communications Commission. Sirius XM argued that the price increases were justified to cover higher costs. In August 2011, Sirius XM won District Court approval of a settlement before a trial was to take place. The accord provided for an unchanged subscription price for five months ending last Dec. 31. The appeal is Blessing v. Sirius XM Radio, 11-3696, Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (Manhattan). The lower-court case is Blessing v. Sirius XM Radio, 09-10035, U.S. District Court, District of New York (Manhattan). SKYLINE NAILS: Faces Suit Over Unpaid Overtime and Minimum Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Nancy "Patricia" Yanza, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Skyline Nails & Spa Corp. d/b/a Skyline Nails & Spa and Tsomo Tsering, Case No. 1:12-cv-08798 (S.D.N.Y., December 4, 2012) alleges that the Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff contends that she is entitled to recover from Defendants unpaid overtime, unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs. Ms. Yanza is a resident of Queens, New York. She worked as a manicurist for the Defendants' Skyline Nails & Spa, a nail salon located in New York. Skyline Nails is a New York corporation based in New York. Tsomo Tsering is the chairman or chief executive officer of Skyline Nails. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert L. Kraselnik, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT L. KRASELNIK, PLLC 271 Madison Avenue, Suite 1403 New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 576-1857 Facsimile: (212) 576-1888 E-mail: robert@kraselnik.com SUNTRUST BANKS: Captive Reinsurance Suit Dismissal Bids Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Motions to dismiss two class action lawsuits related to "captive reinsurance" arrangements remain pending, according to SunTrust Banks, Inc.'s November 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012. SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. ("STM") and Twin Rivers Insurance Company ("Twin Rivers") have been named as defendants in two putative class actions alleging that the companies entered into illegal "captive reinsurance" arrangements with private mortgage insurers. More specifically, plaintiffs allege that SunTrust's selection of private mortgage insurers who agree to reinsure loans referred to them by SunTrust with Twin Rivers results in illegal "kickbacks" in the form of the insurance premiums paid to Twin Rivers. Plaintiffs contend that this arrangement violates the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA") and results in unjust enrichment to the detriment of borrowers. The first of these cases, Thurmond, Christopher, et al. v. SunTrust Banks, Inc. et al., was filed in February 2011 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. This case was stayed by the Court pending the outcome of Edwards v. First American Financial Corporation, a captive reinsurance case that was pending before the U.S. Supreme Court at the time. The second of these cases, Acosta, Lemuel & Maria Ventrella et al. v. SunTrust Bank, SunTrust Mortgage, Inc., et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in December 2011. This case was stayed pending a decision in the Edwards case also. In June 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court withdrew its grant of cert. in Edwards and, as a result, the stays in these cases were lifted. Motions to dismiss are pending in both cases. SUNTRUST BANKS: Continues to Defend 3 Suits Over Overdraft Fees --------------------------------------------------------------- SunTrust Banks, Inc. continues to defend itself against three class action lawsuits relating to the imposition of overdraft fees on customer accounts, according to the Company's November 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012. The Company has been named as a defendant in three putative class actions relating to the imposition of overdraft fees on customer accounts. The first such case, Buffington et al. v. SunTrust Banks, Inc. et al., was filed in Fulton County Superior Court on May 6, 2009. This action was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division on June 10, 2009, and was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida for inclusion in Multi-District Litigation Case No. 2036 on December 1, 2009. Plaintiffs assert claims for breach of contract, conversion, unconscionability, and unjust enrichment for alleged injuries they suffered as a result of the method of posting order used by the Company, which allegedly resulted in overdraft fees being assessed to their joint checking account, and purport to bring their action on behalf of a putative class of "all SunTrust Bank account holders who incurred an overdraft charge despite their account having a sufficient balance of actual funds to cover all debits that have been submitted to the bank for payment," as well as "all SunTrust account holders who incurred one or more overdraft charges based on SunTrust Bank's reordering of charges." Plaintiffs seek restitution, damages, expenses of litigation, attorneys' fees, and other relief deemed equitable by the Court. The Company filed a Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Compel Arbitration and both motions were denied. The denial of the motion to compel arbitration was appealed to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The Eleventh Circuit remanded this matter back to the District Court with instructions to the District Court to review its prior ruling in light of the Supreme Court's decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion. The District Court then denied SunTrust's motion to compel arbitration for different reasons. SunTrust appealed this decision to the Eleventh Circuit and, on March 1, 2012, the Eleventh Circuit reversed the District Court's decision and ordered that SunTrust's Motion to Compel Arbitration be granted. Plaintiffs filed a petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc, which was denied. Plaintiffs have filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court. The second of these cases, Bickerstaff v. SunTrust Bank, was filed in the Fulton County State Court on July 12, 2010, and an amended complaint was filed on August 9, 2010. Plaintiff asserts that all overdraft fees charged to his account which related to debit card and ATM transactions are actually interest charges and therefore subject to the usury laws of Georgia. Plaintiff has brought claims for violations of civil and criminal usury laws, conversion, and money had and received, and purports to bring the action on behalf of all Georgia citizens who have incurred such overdraft fees within the last four years where the overdraft fee resulted in an interest rate being charged in excess of the usury rate. SunTrust has filed a motion to compel arbitration. On March 16, 2012, the Court entered an order holding that SunTrust's arbitration provision is enforceable but that the named plaintiff in the case had opted out of that provision pursuant to its terms. The court explicitly stated that it was not ruling at that time on the question of whether the named plaintiff could proceed with the case as a class rather than as an individual action. SunTrust has filed an appeal of this decision. The third of these cases, Byrd v. SunTrust Bank, was filed on April 23, 2012, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee. This case is substantially similar to the Bickerstaff matter. SunTrust has filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration. SUNTRUST BANKS: Motions to Dismiss Lehman-Related Suits Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Motions to dismiss small class action lawsuits involving a subsidiary of SunTrust Banks, Inc., and related to Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc.'s stock offerings remain pending, according to the Company's November 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012. Beginning in October 2008, SunTrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc. (STRH), along with other underwriters and individuals, were named as defendants in several individual and putative class action complaints filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and state and federal courts in Arkansas, California, Texas and Washington. Plaintiffs allege violations of Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933 for allegedly false and misleading disclosures in connection with various debt and preferred stock offerings of Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. ("Lehman Brothers") and seek unspecified damages. All cases have now been transferred for coordination to the multi-district litigation captioned In re Lehman Brothers Equity/Debt Securities Litigation pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss all claims asserted in the class action. On July 27, 2011, the District Court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss the class claims against STRH and the other underwriter defendants. A settlement with the class plaintiffs was approved by the Court on December 15, 2011. The class notice and opt-out process is complete and the class settlement approval process has been completed. A number of individual lawsuits and smaller putative class actions remain pending and will move forward, each on its own schedule. Motions to dismiss are pending in each of these cases. SUNTRUST BANKS: No Appeal Was Filed From Dismissal of TRUPs Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- SunTrust Banks, Inc. disclosed in its November 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012, that the deadline for appealing decisions, including dismissal of the consolidated lawsuit over the sale of SunTrust Capital IX 7.875% Trust Preferred Securities, has passed and no appeal was filed. Beginning in May 2009, the Company, SunTrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc. (STRH), SunTrust Capital IX, officers and directors of the Company, and others were named in three putative class actions arising out of the offer and sale of approximately $690 million of SunTrust Capital IX 7.875% Trust Preferred Securities ("TRUPs") of SunTrust Banks, Inc. The complaints alleged, among other things, that the relevant registration statement and accompanying prospectus misrepresented or omitted material facts regarding the Company's allowance for loan and lease loss reserves, the Company's capital position, and its internal risk controls. Plaintiffs seek to recover alleged losses in connection with their investment in the TRUPs or to rescind their purchases of the TRUPs. These cases were consolidated under the caption Belmont Holdings Corp., et al., v. SunTrust Banks, Inc., et al., in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, and on November 30, 2009, a consolidated amended complaint was filed. On January 29, 2010, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. This motion was granted, with leave to amend, on September 10, 2010. On October 8, 2010, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint in an attempt to address the pleading deficiencies identified in the Court's dismissal decision. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on March 21, 2011. The District Court denied the motion to dismiss as to Plaintiff's claims that the Company misrepresented the adequacy of its loan loss reserves for 2007 but dismissed all other claims against the Company and limited discovery in the initial stages of the case to the question of SunTrust's subjective belief as to the adequacy of those reserves at the time of the offering. SunTrust subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration of this decision and a motion to stay discovery pending resolution of that motion. The Court granted the motion to stay, granted the motion for reconsideration, and dismissed the case in its entirety. The deadline for appealing these decisions has passed and no appeal was filed. SUNTRUST BANKS: Plea to Dismiss Colonial Securities Suit Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Beginning in July 2009, SunTrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc. ("STRH"), the full-service corporate and investment banking arm of SunTrust Banks, Inc., certain other underwriters, The Colonial BancGroup, Inc. ("Colonial BancGroup") and certain officers and directors of Colonial BancGroup were named as defendants in a putative class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Northern District entitled In re Colonial BancGroup, Inc. Securities Litigation. The complaint was brought by purchasers of certain debt and equity securities of Colonial BancGroup and seeks unspecified damages. Plaintiffs allege violations of Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933 due to allegedly false and misleading disclosures in the relevant registration statement and prospectus relating to Colonial BancGroup's goodwill impairment, mortgage underwriting standards, and credit quality. On August 28, 2009, The Colonial BancGroup filed for bankruptcy. The defendants' motion to dismiss was denied in May 2010, but the Court subsequently has ordered Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint. This amended complaint has been filed and the defendants have filed a motion to dismiss. No further updates were reported in the Company's November 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012. SUNTRUST BANKS: Awaits Cir. Ct. Direction in Pending ERISA Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Beginning in July 2008, SunTrust Banks, Inc., officers and directors of the Company, and certain other Company employees were named in a putative class action alleging that they breached their fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") by offering the Company's common stock as an investment option in the SunTrust Banks, Inc. 401(k) Plan (the "Plan"). The plaintiffs purport to represent all current and former Plan participants who held the Company stock in their Plan accounts from May 2007 to the present and seek to recover alleged losses these participants supposedly incurred as a result of their investment in Company stock. The Company Stock Class Action was originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, but was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, (the "District Court") in November 2008. On October 26, 2009, an amended complaint was filed. On December 9, 2009, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On October 25, 2010, the District Court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Defendants and plaintiffs filed separate motions for the District Court to certify its October 25, 2010 order for immediate interlocutory appeal. On January 3, 2011, the District Court granted both motions. On January 13, 2011, defendants and plaintiffs filed separate petitions seeking permission to pursue interlocutory appeals with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ("the Circuit Court"). On April 14, 2011, the Circuit Court granted defendants and plaintiffs permission to pursue interlocutory review in separate appeals. The Circuit Court subsequently stayed these appeals pending decision of a separate appeal involving The Home Depot in which substantially similar issues are presented. On May 8, 2012, the Circuit Court decided this appeal in favor of The Home Depot. The Company awaits further direction from the Circuit Court. No further updates were reported in the Company's November 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012. SUNTRUST BANKS: Suit Over Classic Mutual Funds Dismissed in Oct. ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit over SunTrust Banks, Inc.'s Classic Mutual Funds was dismissed in October 2012, according to the Company's November 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012. On March 11, 2011, the Company, officers and directors of the Company, and certain other Company employees were named in a putative class action alleging that they breached their fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") by offering certain STI Classic Mutual Funds as investment options in the Plan. The plaintiff purports to represent all current and former Plan participants who held the STI Classic Mutual Funds in their Plan accounts from April 2002 through December 2010 and seeks to recover alleged losses these Plan participants supposedly incurred as a result of their investment in the STI Classic Mutual Funds. On October 30, 2012, the Court dismissed all claims in this action. The Affiliated Funds Class Action is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division (the "District Court"). On June 6, 2011, plaintiff filed an amended complaint, and, on June 20, 2011, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On March 12, 2012, the Court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss. The Company believes that based on the Court's Order, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff's remaining claims and has filed a motion to dismiss the remainder of the case on this ground. SUSQUEHANNA BANCSHARES: Continues to Defend Overdraft Fees MDL -------------------------------------------------------------- Susquehanna Bancshares, Inc. continues to defend itself in a multidistrict litigation over overdraft fees, according to the Company's November 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012. On July 29, 2011, Susquehanna Bank was named as a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit filed by two New Jersey customers of the bank in the United States District Court of Maryland. The lawsuit challenges the manner in which checking account overdraft fees were charged and the policies related to the posting order of debit card and other checking account transactions. The lawsuit makes claims under New Jersey's consumer fraud act and under the common law for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unconscionability, conversion and unjust enrichment. The case was transferred for pretrial proceedings to pending multi-district litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. No class has been certified and, at this stage of the lawsuit, it is not yet possible for the Company to estimate potential loss, if any. Although it is not possible to predict the ultimate resolution or financial liability with respect to this litigation, management, after consultation with legal counsel, currently does not anticipate that the aggregate liability, if any, arising out of this proceeding will have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position, or cash flows; although, at the present time, management is not in a position to determine whether such proceeding will have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations in any future quarterly reporting period. SUSQUEHANNA BANCSHARES: Settlement of Merger-Related Suits Okayed ----------------------------------------------------------------- Susquehanna Bancshares, Inc. received final approval and judgment in August 2012 with respect to its settlement of merger-related lawsuits, according to the Company's November 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012. On February 17, 2012, Susquehanna acquired all of the outstanding common stock of Tower Bancorp, Inc. ("Tower"), headquartered in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, through the merger of Tower with and into Susquehanna. The results of operations acquired in the Tower transaction have been included in Susquehanna's financial results since the acquisition date, February 17, 2012. On July 1, 2011, a verified shareholder derivative complaint was filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, against Tower, the members of its board of directors, and Susquehanna. The complaint in the lawsuit, Stephen Bushansky vs. Andrew S. Samuel, et. Al., C.A. No. 2011-cv-6519 (EQ) (the "Tower State Court"), asserts that the members of Tower's board of directors ("Individual Defendants") breached their fiduciary duties by causing Tower to enter into the Tower merger and further asserts that Susquehanna aided and abetted those alleged breaches of duties. The complaint seeks, among other relief, an order declaring that the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties, awarding damages on behalf of Tower for the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the Individual Defendants (including punitive and actual damages, plaintiffs' counsel fees and experts' fees) and enjoining the Tower merger and the use of any defensive measures under the Tower merger agreement or rescinding the Tower merger (if consummated). On July 21, 2011, Mr. Bushansky served a written demand (the "Bushansky Demand") on Tower's board of directors alleging that the transaction was unfair, that the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties and requesting that the Individual Defendants terminate the transaction as structured. On July 8, 2011, a purported shareholder of Tower, James T. Duffey, served a written demand (the "Duffey Demand") on Tower's board of directors requesting that the board remedy its alleged failure to engage in an independent and fair process surrounding the Tower merger and requesting formation of a special committee to renegotiate the terms of the Tower merger. On July 25, 2011, a purported shareholder of Tower, Edgar L. Johnston, Jr., served a written demand ("Johnston Demand") on Tower's board of directors requesting that the board remedy its alleged failure to engage in an independent and fair process surrounding the Tower merger. On September 26, 2011, a class action and derivative complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania against Tower and the members of its board of directors. The complaint in the lawsuit, Edgar L. Johnston, Jr. vs. Andrew S. Samuel, et al., Case No. 11-1777, asserts that the members of Tower's board of directors ("Individual Defendants") breached their fiduciary duties by causing Tower to enter into the Tower merger and further asserts that Tower aided and abetted those alleged breaches of fiduciary duties (the "Tower Federal Action"). The lawsuit also alleged that the disclosure provided in the joint proxy statement/prospectus of Susquehanna and Tower (the "Tower Joint Proxy/Prospectus") included in the registration statement on Form S-4 filed by Susquehanna with the SEC (File No. 333-176367), failed to provide required material information necessary for Tower's shareholders to make a fully informed decision concerning the Tower merger in violation of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint seeks, among other relief, an order declaring that the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties and that the Tower Joint Proxy/Prospectus is materially misleading in violation of the Exchange Act, accounting for and awarding damages on behalf of Tower for the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the Individual Defendants (including punitive and actual damages, plaintiff's counsel fees and experts' fees) and enjoining or rescinding the Tower merger (if consummated). On September 28, 2011, solely to avoid the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in litigation and without admitting any of the allegations in the complaint, Susquehanna, Tower and the other named defendants entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (the "MOU") with all Plaintiffs in both the Tower State Action and the Tower Federal Action (collectively the "Tower Actions"). Under the terms of the MOU, Tower, the other named defendants and Susquehanna and all plaintiffs agreed to settle the Tower Actions, the Bushansky Demand and the Duffey Demand (collectively, the "Demands"), subject to court approval. All Parties to the Tower Actions filed in the Tower Federal Action a Stipulation of Settlement dated March 9, 2011. Pursuant to the Stipulation, the Court Preliminary approved a Class Action and Derivative settlement on June 12, 2012. On August 22, 2012, the Court entered its Order and Final Judgment in the Tower Federal Action approving the settlement, certifying a settlement class and releasing all claims in all Actions and Demands. On September 6, 2012, the Plaintiff in the Tower State Action filed a Praecipe to Settle, Discontinue and End that action with prejudice. Plaintiffs in both Actions applied jointly to the Federal Court for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses in the amount of $332,500. Pursuant to the MOU and the Stipulation of Settlement the Company did not oppose Plaintiffs' request for the award of fees and expenses and a part of the Order and Final Judgment, the Court approved the sum of $332,500 for Plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and expenses. TENET HEALTHCARE: Appeal in "Doe" Class Suit Still Pending ---------------------------------------------------------- Tenet Healthcare Corporation is a defendant in a class action lawsuit in which the plaintiffs claim that in April 1996 patient identifying records from a psychiatric hospital that the Company closed in 1995 were temporarily placed in an unsecure location while the hospital was undergoing renovations. The lawsuit, Doe, et al. v. Jo Ellen Smith Medical Foundation, was filed in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans in Louisiana in March 1997 and is currently pending. The plaintiffs' claims include allegations of tortious invasion of privacy and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The plaintiffs contend that the class consists of approximately 5,000 persons; however, only eight individuals have been identified to date in the class certification process. The plaintiffs have asserted each member of the class is entitled to common damages under a theory of presumed "common damage" regardless of whether or not any members of the class were actually harmed or even aware of the incident. The Company believes there is no authority for an award of common damages under Louisiana law. In addition, the Company believes that there is no basis for the certification of this proceeding as a class action under applicable federal and Louisiana law precedents. However, the trial court has denied the Company's motions for summary judgment and its motion to decertify the class. In March 2012, the Louisiana Supreme Court denied the Company's interlocutory appeal of the trial court's decision on summary judgment based on procedural grounds, noting that the Company retains an adequate remedy to appeal any adverse judgment that might be rendered by the trial court. In April 2012, the Company filed a notice of appeal of the trial court's denial of its motion to decertify the proceeding as a class action. The notice of appeal was granted, and the trial has been stayed pending the outcome of the appeal. No further updates were reported in the Company's November 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012. At this time, the Company says it is not able to estimate the reasonably possible loss or reasonably possible range of loss given: the small number of class members that have been identified or otherwise responded to the class certification process; the novel theories asserted by plaintiffs, including their assertion that a theory of presumed common damage exists under Louisiana law; uncertainties as to the timing and outcome of the appeals process; and the failure of the plaintiffs to provide any evidence of damages. The Company says it intends to vigorously contest the plaintiffs' claims. About Tenet Healthcare Dallas, Texas-based Tenet Healthcare Corporation (NYSE: THC) -- http://www.tenethealth.com/-- is a health care services company whose subsidiaries and affiliates own and operate acute care hospitals, ambulatory surgery centers and diagnostic imaging centers. TENET HEALTHCARE: Class Cert. Denial in Wage & Hour Suit Affirmed ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeal of the State of California affirmed in October 2012 a judgment denying class certification in two coordinated wage and hour lawsuits, Tenet Healthcare Corporation disclosed in its November 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012. On October 4, 2012, the Court of Appeal of the State of California affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County denying class certification in two coordinated proposed class action lawsuits, McDonough, et al. v. Tenet Healthcare Corporation (which was filed in June 2003) and Tien, et al. v. Tenet Healthcare Corporation (which was filed in May 2004). As previously reported, the plaintiffs in both cases alleged that the Company's hospitals violated certain provisions of California's labor laws and applicable wage and hour regulations. The plaintiffs in both cases were seeking back pay, statutory penalties and attorneys' fees in unspecified amounts. The plaintiffs may seek further appeals; however, based on available information, the Company does not believe that the ultimate resolution of these matters will have a material adverse effect on its business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. About Tenet Healthcare Dallas, Texas-based Tenet Healthcare Corporation (NYSE: THC) -- http://www.tenethealth.com/-- is a health care services company whose subsidiaries and affiliates own and operate acute care hospitals, ambulatory surgery centers and diagnostic imaging centers. TENET HEALTHCARE: Awaits Okay of $12-MM "Dunn" Suit Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- Tenet Healthcare Corporation is awaiting court approval of its $12 million settlement of a class action lawsuit commenced by Dunn, et al., according to the Company's November 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012. In January 2012, the Company reached an agreement in principle to settle for approximately $12 million a purported class action lawsuit filed in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans on behalf of persons allegedly injured following Hurricane Katrina at Lindy Boggs Medical Center (one of the Company's former New Orleans area hospitals). The parties executed the final settlement agreement in August 2012, subject to court approval. The settlement, which will be covered in full by the Company's excess insurance carrier, will be apportioned among the claimants in the case -- which is captioned Dunn, et al. v. Tenet Mid-City Medical, L.L.C. (formerly d/b/a Lindy Boggs Medical Center), et al. About Tenet Healthcare Dallas, Texas-based Tenet Healthcare Corporation (NYSE: THC) -- http://www.tenethealth.com/-- is a health care services company whose subsidiaries and affiliates own and operate acute care hospitals, ambulatory surgery centers and diagnostic imaging centers. TOYOTA INC: Settles Sudden Acceleration Suit for $1.4 Bil. ---------------------------------------------------------- The attorneys representing Toyota owners who claim that their vehicles are prone to sudden, unexplained acceleration announced on December 26, 2012, that Toyota has agreed to a settlement valued between $1.2 and $1.4 billion, which includes direct payments to consumers as well as the installation of a brake-override system in an estimated 3.25 million vehicles. The case was filed in 2010 after drivers across the country began reporting that Toyota vehicles suddenly and unintentionally accelerated. Toyota has long maintained that the vehicles were free from electronic flaws causing the acceleration. Neither the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), nor the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) was able to find any defects in Toyota's source code that could cause these events. After a flurry of lawsuits were filed against Toyota, Judge James Selna consolidated the cases in U.S. District Court in California and appointed attorney Steve Berman, managing partner of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro as co-lead counsel on May 14, 2010, placing Berman in charge of directing the class litigation and leading settlement discussions with the Japanese auto manufacturer. "After two years of intense work, including deposing hundreds of engineers, pouring over thousands of documents and examining millions of lines of software code, we are pleased that Toyota has agreed to a settlement that was both extraordinarily hard-fought and is exceptionally far-reaching," said Berman. Under the terms of the proposed settlement, Toyota will install a brake-override system in vehicles subject to floor mat entrapment recalls. Brake-override systems cut power to the throttle under certain circumstances when the car receives simultaneous signals to accelerate and to stop. In addition, the settlement establishes a fund of $250 million to be paid to former Toyota owners who sold their cars during the period from Sept. 1, 2009, through Dec. 31, 2010, to compensate those owners for an alleged reduced value as a result of publicity concerning unintended acceleration. A separate fund of $250 million will be established to compensate current owners whose vehicles are not eligible for a brake- override system. The amount consumers receive depends on the model and year of their Toyota, and the state in which the car was purchased. The settlement also provides that all 16 million current owners will be eligible for a customer care plan that will warranty certain parts that plaintiffs allege are tied to unintended acceleration for between three and 10 years. The agreement also provides $30 million in education grants to independent academic institutions to further the study of auto safety and to enhance driver education. "We hope that this research can aid in finding out the causes of unintended acceleration, and the solutions to fixing those issues," said Berman. The total value of the settlement is estimated to be between $1.2 and $1.4 billion. This estimate amounts to the largest settlement of this type in US history in terms of dollars paid out and number of vehicles involved. Judge Selna is expected to review the proposed settlement on Dec. 28, 2012, and if he agrees with its fairness, will grant preliminary approval. Current and former Toyota owners will receive information about the settlement and instructions on filing a claim in the coming months. "From the very start, this was a challenging case," Berman added. "We brought in automotive experts, physicists and some of the world's leading theoreticians in electrical engineering to help us understand what happened to drivers experiencing sudden acceleration. We are extraordinarily proud of how we were able to represent the interests of Toyota owners, and believe this settlement is both comprehensive in its scope and fair in compensation." Limited details of the settlement are available at www.hbsslaw.com/toyota, www.ToyotaELsettlement.com or by calling 1-877 283-0507. More information will be available once the court gives preliminary approval to the settlement. Broadcast quality video featuring Steve Berman commenting on the settlement is available at ftp.clatterdin.com The username to access the clips is "HBSS" and the password is "generic." About Hagens Berman Seattle-based Hagens represents whistleblowers, investors and consumers in complex and class-action litigation. The firm has offices in 10 U.S. cities including New York, Boston, Chicago, Phoenix, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Washington, D.C. UDI'S HEALTHY: Recalls Bags of Gluten Free Au Naturel Granola ------------------------------------------------------------- Udi's Healthy Foods, LLC of Denver, Colorado, is voluntarily recalling its 12-ounce bags of "Udi's Gluten Free Au Naturel Granola" with UPC 6-98997-80615-8 and "Best By 041913 12265 1" because they may contain undeclared almonds. People who are allergic to almonds run the risk of a serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products. Recalled "Udi's Gluten Free Au Naturel Granola" products were distributed through retail stores in California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah and Washington beginning on or about September 24, 2012. The product comes in a 12-ounce, clear plastic bag marked with BEST BY 041913 12265 1 on the back of the bag, underneath the Nutrition Facts panel. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm332920.htm No illnesses or allergic reactions involving this product have been reported to date. The recall was initiated voluntarily by the company after it was discovered that almonds were mixed in with the oats in the Au Naturel 12-ounce product by mistake at the end of the Au Naturel production run. The recall is limited to products with "UPC 6-98997-80615-8" and "Best By 041913 12265 1." It does not extend to any other Udi's products or lot codes. Consumers who have purchased 12-ounce packages of "Udi's Gluten Free Au Naturel Granola" with the above UPC code and Best By date are urged to return them to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact the Company at 201- 421-3970, Monday - Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time. About Udi's Healthy Foods, LLC Udi's Healthy Foods LLC (Udi's) is a leader in the fast growing market for gluten-free foods in North America. Udi's markets a diversified and growing range of gluten-free products under the well-recognized Udi's Gluten Free Foods brand in the retail market, and since mid-2011, food service channels. Udi's Gluten Free Foods is a leading brand in gluten-free bread and bakery products. In addition, Udi's markets other gluten-free products in the frozen pizza and granola categories. ********* 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 * * *