/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/130121.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, January 21, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 14 Headlines ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI: About 15,000 Former Miners to Join Class Action ARRIMAGE DU QUEBEC: Faces Class Action Over Red Dust Cloud BOMBAY PALACE: Refuses to Pay Employees' Minimum Wage, Suit Says CANADA: Human Resources Dept. Sued Over Student Loan Data Breach CHEMTALL: May 1 "Floc" Suit Settlement Fairness Hearing Set DELL COMPUTER: California Consumers Get Class Settlement Notices ELECTROLUX: Faces Class Action Over Defective Ice Makers EPOCH HOLDING: Faces TD Merger-Related Class Suit in New York FIRSTMERIT BANK: Overdraft Fee Class Action Can Proceed FOREST CITY RATNER: Customers File Suit Over Unauthorized Meters HITACHI LTD: Faces Antitrust Suit Over Lithium Ion Batteries INSTAGRAM INC: Accused of Accessing Users' Data Without Consent INTERMEC INC: Faces Acquisition-Related Class Suit in Delaware ISB MEHTA: Sued For Failing to Pay Minimum and Overtime Wages LG CHEM: Conspired to Fix Lithium Ion Battery Prices, Suit Says LISA STEED: Sued Over Hundreds of Bogus DUI Arrests MASSAGE ENVY: Failed to Reimburse Business Expenses, Suit Says NOVA SCOTIA: March 31 Seniors' Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set OPTIMUM FINANCIAL: Faces Suit in Georgia for Malicious Retaliation SAN ANTONIO SPURS: Heat Fan Files Class Action Over Nov. 29 Game SEARS ROEBUCK: Faces Suit For Making Employees Work Off The Clock SKINNYGIRL MARGARITA: Class Certification Denied in False Ad Suit WELCH FOODS: Accused of False and Misleading Labeling Practices ZYNGA: Employees File Class Action Over Labor Law Violations * D.C. Legal Aid Society Gets $40,000 From Class Action Settlement ********* ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI: About 15,000 Former Miners to Join Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------------ Cecilia Jamasmie, writing for MINING.com, reports that Motley Rice human rights attorney, Michael Elsner on Jan. 15 said that close to 15,000 former miners suffering from lung disease are expected to join South Africa's biggest ever class action lawsuit against some of the world's leading gold producers. The affidavits, filed in the High Court of South Africa in December, claims the miners contracted severe occupational lung ailments, such as tuberculosis and silicosis, while working in underground mines, and are demanding millions of US dollars in compensation from the mining companies. The litigation alleges that the 30 named South African gold mining companies, including big names such as AngloGold Ashanti, Goldfields and Harmony Gold, knew of the dangers posed to miners by silica dust for more than a century and alleges 12 specific forms of neglect and endangerment, including willfully ignoring and/or failing to execute almost all of the recommended steps mandated in regulations and legislation designed to protect the miners from silica dust. "If approved as a class action, the suit would be an unprecedented means of recovery for the country. Very few class actions have been brought in South Africa, and none have been filed for sick workers. Approval would ensure meaningful access to justice for thousands of indigent and rural workers who are dying from this incurable disease," said Mr. Elsner. According to the law firm, such type of legal action was -- until recently -- not possible. The Constitutional Court of South Africa issued a landmark ruling in March 2011 in another of Spoor's cases, Mankayi v. AngloGold Ashanti Limited, filed by now-deceased gold miner Thebekile Mankayi. He claimed he contracted silicosis and tuberculosis at Vaal Reefs mine, operated by AngloGold and was given a limited payout for his injuries under the terms of South Africa's Occupational Diseases in Mines and Works Act (ODIMWA). However, he had filed the suit under common law for his full loss of wages, damages and medical expenses. The Constitutional Court's decision, which overruled the previous decisions of both the High Court and the Supreme Court of Appeals, affirmed injured workers' rights to sue employers for fair compensation. This ruling, says the law firm, broke new legal ground not only for workers' rights but also for the South African legal system and public health. Little research has been conducted into the incidence of lung disease amongst South African miners, and the few studies undertaken by mining companies so far have focused largely upon white workers. ARRIMAGE DU QUEBEC: Faces Class Action Over Red Dust Cloud ---------------------------------------------------------- CBC News reports that a Quebec woman has filed a class-action lawsuit in connection with an incident at a cargo-handling company that resulted in a red cloud of dust settling over parts of Quebec City. In October, an error at Arrimage du Quebec, a company located in the Port of Quebec, led to the release of red dust over several neighborhoods in the city. Veronique Lalande, who lives in the city's Vieux-Limoilou neighborhood, has filed a class action lawsuit against Quebec City's Port Authority and Arrimage du Quebec, on behalf of the residents living in the five neighborhoods she says were affected. The cargo-handling company has already admitted responsibility for the release of the dust. In a December interview with CBC's Quebec AM, spokesman for Arrimage Quebec Richard Thibault said the company was going to put in place a C$7 million plan to ensure that kind of incident would not happen again. Ms. Lalande says about 50,000 people live in the area where the red dust settled, but she doesn't yet know how many will be part of the suit. She said residents shouldn't have to foot the bill for the company's mistake. She said she will be asking for C$5,000 in compensation for stress, damages and cleaning costs. For her part, Ms. Lalande said it cost $2,000 to clean her home. Ms. Lalande's law firm, Lauzon Belanger Lesperance, said Arrimage Quebec tried to settle with some residents, but people felt the settlement didn't cover their cleaning costs. They will be seeking authorization for the lawsuit next month. In November, Ms. Lalande ordered tests from samples of the dust she collected from her balcony. According to the results, Ms. Lalande said the dust contained traces of iron, zinc, copper, arsenic and nickel. Renee Levaque is the public health ministry's regional coordinator of environmental health. "It [was] a red cloud of iron-oxide dust, that does contain certain amounts of other heavy metals," she told CBC's Quebec AM in November. Ms. Levaque said while some people with respiratory conditions may have been affected by the dust, there is no concern for irreversible health affects from exposure to the dust on a short- term or mid-term. Ms. Levaque said there is more concern for potential long-term exposure. "We don't like to see heavy metals . . . in the air of residential neighborhoods," she said. Ms. Levaque said there could be some concern for children and the elderly. But, according to spokesman Mr. Thibault, the red dust is not toxic or dangerous. BOMBAY PALACE: Refuses to Pay Employees' Minimum Wage, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lincoln Everest, Amrit Singh, Kazi Mohammad J. Uddin, Kishore Naik, Augustine Gomes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bombay Palace, Chatwal Hotel & Resorts, LLC, 30 W 52 Restaurant, LLC and Shabri, LLC, Case No. 1:12-cv-09027 (S.D.N.Y., December 12, 2012) was filed by all "tipped" non- management employees of the Defendants, including waiters, busboys, runners, expeditors, floor managers, captains, maitres d' and bartenders. Mr. Everest alleges that they were denied payment of (i) minimum wage, (ii) overtime premium compensation, (iii) "spread of hours" pay, (iv) earned wages, which were subject to improper deductions in the form of unlawful "tip pooling," and (v) unlawful retention of earned service gratuities for catering/banquet events. Mr. Everest is a resident of Queens, New York. Mr. Singh is a resident of Yonkers, New York. Mr. Uddin is a resident of Queens, New York. Mr. Naik is a resident of Fairview, New Jersey. Mr. Gomes is a resident of Jamaica, New York. The Plaintiffs are or were employees of the company. Bombay Palace is a New York corporation. Bombay Palace is a fine dining Indian restaurant. Chatwal Hotels is a domestic limited liability corporation organized and existing in the state of New York. 30 W 52 is a domestic limited liability corporation. Shabri is a New York domestic limited liability corporation. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gregory N. Filosa, Esq. THE OTTINGER FIRM, P.C. 20 West 55th Street, 6th Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 571-2000 E-mail: greg@ottingerlaw.com CANADA: Human Resources Dept. Sued Over Student Loan Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------------------- Toronto Star reports that a Newfoundland lawyer was set to file a class-action lawsuit on Jan. 16 against the federal department that lost the personal information of 583,000 student loan borrowers late last year. Bob Buckingham, who is based in St. John's and specializes in privacy breach claims, said the decision to move forward with the lawsuit against Human Resources and Skills Development Canada was made on Jan. 14. "This is huge," the lawyer said of the amount of information lost. "It's valuable to (those) who want to wreak havoc with individuals' lives or be involved in identity theft. A representative fielding inquiries by student loan borrowers told the Star those compromised need to monitor their bank accounts and credit cards for suspicious activity. The representative also recommended contacting Equifax and Transunion, both credit agencies, and ask to be monitored for suspicious transactions. In the last 24 hours, Mr. Buckingham said his staff has been swamped with people contacting the office wanting to be involved in the lawsuit. By his estimation, nearly 1,600 student loan borrowers from across Canada have contacted him by phone, e-mail and their Facebook page. Human Resources and Skills Development announced on Dec. 11 that the external hard drive contained the private details of borrowers from 2000 to 2006. Sean Hooper, a student loan borrower between 2004 and 2006, found out on Jan. 15 his personal information was on the hard drive. The 29-year-old University of Windsor graduate said he doubts the government is taking it seriously. "If this were a private industry handling personal information, there would be serious repercussions from all sides, including loss of business/clientele and government intervention," he said. "But being a government slip up, it kind of feels like they're saying "oops, I did it again" . . . we'll try better next time." Mr. Hooper added he's not sure he'd go as far as to participate in a class-action suit, "but it does concern me that personal information is being kept unencrypted, and on external, removable hard drives." Minister Diane Finley has said new regulations and policy are in place to make sure this type of data loss doesn't happen again. The minister expressed disappointment in the situation, calling it unacceptable and avoidable. Staff at a Gatineau, Que. office noticed the hard drive missing on Nov. 5. Information on the hard drive, used as a backup storage option, contained student names, dates of birth, social insurance numbers, addresses and student loan balances from borrowers across the country. No banking or medical information was on the device, which included the personal contact information of 250 department employees. The lawsuit, Mr. Buckingham said, will have to go before the courts to be approved as a class-action lawsuit, before people interested in joining can sign on. This is the second time in as many months human resources department staff has lost personal information of Canadians. In late 2012, the department informed the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of a lost, unencrypted USB key that contained information on more than 5,000 residents. Think you might be affected? The government has set up a toll-free number for inquiries about the lost data: 1-866-885-1866 (or 416- 572-1113 for those outside of North America). CHEMTALL: May 1 "Floc" Suit Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ----------------------------------------------------------- John O'Brien, writing for West Virginia Record, reports that the founder of the Center for Class Action Fairness says a recent settlement in Marshall County that provides medical monitoring and millions of dollars in fees for attorneys appears unfair. Ted Frank, who founded the CCAF in 2009 and is an adjunct fellow at the Manhattan Institute, says his project doesn't solicit clients but would consider helping any class member who wishes to object to the settlement before an April 1 deadline. The settlement, reached in Marshall County Circuit Court, provides up to $6.6 million in medical tests for individuals who worked at coal and water treatment plants who were possibly exposed to a chemical called polyacrylamide, often referred to as "flocculent" or "floc." The lawsuit said workers at plants that used the chemical have a higher risk for sensory or autonomic nervous system deficits but doesn't allege any injuries have yet occurred. Plaintiffs attorneys plan to request one-third of the $13.95 million and almost $2 million in costs. Money left in the $6.6 million medical monitoring fund after a court-approved deadline will be given to the Blanchette Rockefeller Neurosciences Institute in Morgantown and the Center for Rural Health at the Joan C. Edwards School of Medicine at Marshall University. "A settlement fee request where the attorneys propose to get $6.62 million and the class members get $6.58 million is unfair on its face -- especially when it appears structured so that much of that $6.58 million will actually end up in the hands of third parties long after the attorneys have collected their checks," Mr. Frank said. "One hopes that a class member objects to this disproportionate distribution, and that, whether or not such a class member comes forward, West Virginia courts provide protection for innocent class members being taken advantage of by their attorneys." The defendants were manufacturers and distributors of the chemical and included Chemtall, CIBA Specialty Chemicals, Cytec Industries, G.E. Betz, Hychem, Ondeo Nalco, Stockhausen and Zinkan Enterprises. Class members must file a claim form to get a medical examination. A deadline to do so has not been determined yet, but attorneys involved say it could be as early as March 1, 2014. Class members cannot exclude themselves from the settlement, which means they can't sue as individuals for free examinations. However, should a class member develop an injury, he or she will still be able to file a lawsuit. Class members may object to the settlement by April 1. A fairness hearing is scheduled for May 1. The defendants have not admitted liability. The settlement notice will be published in newspapers and a 30-second radio spot is being aired. Representing the plaintiffs is R. Dean Hartley of Hartley & O'Brien. He did not return a phone message seeking comment. DELL COMPUTER: California Consumers Get Class Settlement Notices ---------------------------------------------------------------- CPA Practice Advisor reports that more than four million notices are being mailed to California consumers informing them of two class action settlements reached in a decade-long lawsuit over the collection of sales tax on purchases of computer hardware service contracts from Dell Computer. Under the terms of the respective settlements, which cover purchases made between April 8, 1999 and June 30, 2008, funding for the settlements will be provided by Dell and the California State Board of Equalization. The settlements followed a 2006 trial court's decision, later affirmed on appeal by the California Court of Appeals in 2008, ruling that optional service contracts sold by Dell were not subject to California sales or use tax, as they did not constitute tangible personal property and were readily separable from the computer hardware with which they were sold. A similar class action lawsuit brought on behalf of taxpayers in the State of Washington was settled in 2006. "These settlements represent an important victory for California consumers and businesses," said Fredric Ellis, a Boston attorney appointed as class counsel for the California settlement classes. "After a long fought battle, including a trial and multiple appeals, we are thrilled that the taxes which were wrongfully collected by Dell will finally be returned to California taxpayers." Under the two settlements, which are awaiting final approval by the court, customers of Dell who purchased and paid tax on service contracts covering computer hardware during the class action period will be entitled to a full refund of all such taxes that they paid. Over $275 million in refunds will be available to be claimed. The notices mailed to customers inform them of the amounts of refunds available to them and instructions for the timely filing of claims. California consumers wishing additional information about the settlements may visit the settlement Web site -- http://www.sctaxsett.com ELECTROLUX: Faces Class Action Over Defective Ice Makers -------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Electrolux makes Frigidaire refrigerators with defective ice makers in the upper French door that do not make ice and don't keep ice frozen, a class action claims in Federal Court. EPOCH HOLDING: Faces TD Merger-Related Class Suit in New York ------------------------------------------------------------- Cindy Goldman TTEE GSS 508 Trust dated May 16, 2008, individually, and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Epoch Holding Corporation, Allan R. Tessler, William W. Priest, Enrique R. Arzac, Jeffrey L. Berenson, John I. Cecil, Peter A. Flaherty, Timothy T. Taussig, and The Toronto-Dominion Bank Group, Case No. 654341/2012 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., December 11, 2012) arises from the contemplated sale of Epoch to TD, which was publicly announced on December 6, 2012. The Plaintiff asserts that the Epoch directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with entering into the Proposed Acquisition, including the duties of loyalty, good faith, candor, and due care to fully inform themselves of the true value of Epoch and act in the best interests of all of the Company's shareholders. The Trust adds that the Proposed Acquisition is opportunistic and provides for no meaningful premium to Epoch's public shareholders, will result in a change of control, and shareholders will be deprived of the Company's solid prospects going forward. The Trust is a shareholder of Epoch. New York-based Epoch conducts its operations through Epoch Investment Partners, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company and a registered investment adviser. Investment management and investment advisory services are the Company's sole lines of business. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company. TD Bank Group consists of The Toronto-Dominion Bank and its subsidiaries, and is the sixth largest bank in North America by branches and serves approximately 22 million around the globe. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory M. Nespole, Esq. Martin E. Restituyo, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 270 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 545-4657 Facsimile: (212) 545-4758 E-mail: nespole@whafh.com restituyo@whafh.com FIRSTMERIT BANK: Overdraft Fee Class Action Can Proceed ------------------------------------------------------- Tycko & Zavareei LLP on Jan. 15 disclosed that Judge Eugene A. Lucci has ruled that customers who allege that they were improperly assessed overdraft fees by FirstMerit Bank may prosecute their case together as a class action against the Bank. Judge Lucci rejected FirstMerit Bank's claims that customers should each have to sue individually because there were too many factual and legal issues unique to each customer for the case to proceed as a class action. The lawsuit alleges that the Plaintiffs, and other FirstMerit customers in Ohio, were charged additional overdraft fees because of FirstMerit's unfair and deceptive standardized practice of posting debit card transactions to customer accounts from the highest dollar amount to the lowest dollar amount, regardless of the chronological order in which the transactions were actually made by the customer. The Plaintiffs also allege that, in order to maximize the fees that it could charge its customers, FirstMerit also grouped together customer's debit card transactions with checks and other non-check debits for purposes of posting. According to the lawsuit, these practices breached FirstMerit's agreement with its customers as well as constituted fraud by the bank. FirstMerit, who claims its mission is to "improve and preserve the financial well-being of [its] customers, shareholders, and the communities [it] serve[s,]" has nearly 200 branches in the Ohio, Western Pennsylvania, and Chicago, Illinois areas. "We are pleased with Judge Lucci's decision to permit FirstMerit's customers to band together in order to fight these abusive banking practices. FirstMerit should not be allowed to prey on its own customers by unfairly manipulating the manner in which transactions are posted and overdraft fees are charged," said Hassan Zavareei, a partner at the Washington D.C. law firm of Tycko & Zavareei, which represents the named Plaintiffs, Emily Jacobs and James Glavic. The Plaintiffs are also represented by Patrick Perotti of Dworken & Bernstein and Stuart Scott of Spangenberg, Shibley & Liber LLP. Tycko & Zavareei has successfully sued several other banks nationwide over improperly charged overdraft fees. "We are continuing to fight these harmful banking practices. Customers must be compensated for policies that cause millions of dollars in improperly charged overdraft fees," said Mr. Zavareei. A copy of the complaint and the decision granting class certification is available upon request from Tycko & Zavareei. FOREST CITY RATNER: Customers File Suit Over Unauthorized Meters ---------------------------------------------------------------- Colin Gustafson, writing for The Journal News, reports that two Ridge Hill customers are demanding their money back in a class- action lawsuit filed on Jan. 15 in the wake of revelations that the northeast Yonkers shopping center cashed in on fees from more than 100 unauthorized parking meters. Kathy Andersen of Congers and Maria Lena Felidi of Yonkers filed suit in state Supreme Court in Rockland County against developer Forest City Ratner Cos. and First New York Partners Management, which helped operate the meters. The women allege that Ridge Hill and its management arm engaged in "wrongful business practices in deceiving the public consumers into believing they were legally required to pay for parking meters" that appeared to be municipally enforced. The lawsuit comes after The Journal News revealed on LoHud.com on Jan. 14 that the shopping center, according to current and former City Council members, never got city authorization for meters that it is now removing from its private streets. Forest City collected an undisclosed amount of fees from the meters and possible payments of its private parking tickets -- some for as much as $75 -- over more than a year before ceasing its operation in the fall at the city's request. Ms. Andersen and Ms. Felidi claim in their lawsuit that they were duped into feeding the shopping center's "unlawful and fraudulent" meters on many occasions. "Our clients were very appalled from learning they were deceived," said their White Plains attorney, Daniel Szalkiewicz. "They were shopping all this time (at) Ridge Hill and thought these were mandatory meters from the city." Ms. Andersen also claims to have received a bogus mall-issued parking ticket for an expired meter. Their lawsuit is the first known class action taken against the developer over the meters. Mr. Szalkiewicz was unable to specify how much his clients are seeking in damages, but said it was a nominal fee. "They are looking for the developer to return what they paid," he said. Still, that sum could total hundreds of thousands of dollars, depending on how many people sign on for the class action. The lawsuit says the number of plaintiffs could be thousands. A Forest City spokeswoman said the developer would review the lawsuit before commenting. She declined to reveal how much the developer collected from the meters or tickets, but she did say the developer was keeping the meter revenue. HITACHI LTD: Faces Antitrust Suit Over Lithium Ion Batteries ------------------------------------------------------------ Lloyd Ranola, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Hitachi Ltd., Hitachi Maxell, Ltd., Maxell Corporation of America, LG Chem, Ltd., LG Chem America, Inc., Panasonic Corporation, Panasonic Corporation of North America (f/k/a Matushita Electric Corporation of America), Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd., Sanyo North America Corporation, Samsung SDI Co., Ltd., Samsung SDI America, Inc., Sony Corporation, Sony Energy Devices Corporation, Sony Electronics, Inc., Case No. 3:12-cv-06422 (N.D. Calif., December 19, 2012) arises out of an alleged contract, combination or conspiracy among the Defendants to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize the prices of Lithium Ion Rechargeable Batteries purchased directly from one of the Defendants or their affiliates by the Plaintiff and other persons during the period from January 1, 2002, to the present. Mr. Ranola alleges that the Defendants entered into an agreement with the purpose and effect of manipulating or stabilizing the prices for, and allocating markets and customers with respect to, Lithium Ion Rechargeable Batteries during the Class Period. The Plaintiff further alleges that, during the Class Period, as result of the Defendants' unlawful conduct, he and other members of the Class paid artificially inflated prices for Lithium Ion Rechargeable Batteries. Mr. Ranola is a resident of Oakland, California. During the Class Period, he purchased Lithium Ion Rechargeable Batteries directly from one or more of the Defendants. 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. 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 Delaware 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. Samsung SDI is a Korean corporation based in Suwon, 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. Sony Corporation is a Japanese corporation based in Tokyo, Japan. Sony Energy is a Japanese corporation based in Fukushima, Japan. Sony Energy 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. 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: Elizabeth C. Pritzker, Esq. Eric H. Gibbs, Esq. Janice S. Yi, Esq. Scott M. Grzenczyk, Esq. GIRARD GIBBS LLP 601 California Street, 14th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 981-4800 Facsimile: (415) 981-4846 E-mail: ecp@girardgibbs.com ehg@girardgibbs.com jsy@girardgibbs.com smg@girardgibbs.com INSTAGRAM INC: Accused of Accessing Users' Data Without Consent --------------------------------------------------------------- Steven Gutierrez, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals v. Instagram, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 3:12-cv-06550 (N.D. Calif., December 27, 2012) accuses Instagram of violating the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the Stored Communications Act, the California Computer Crime Law, and the California's Invasion of Privacy Act, among other laws. The nature of this action includes a sequence of events wherein the Defendant gained access to, and use of, the Plaintiff and Class Members' mobile devices to obtain and store contact address data, including personal identifying information of minor children that was within the contact address book, Mr. Gutierrez explains. He contends that the Defendant perpetuated this fraudulent activity knowingly, or in the alternative, negligently with utter disregard for its user's privacy, with the intent to obtain data, including the mobile browsing activities of its users, which include the Plaintiff and Class Members. Mr. Gutierrez is a resident of Dallas County, Texas. Instagram is a privately held Delaware corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian R. Strange, Esq. STRANGE & CARPENTER 12100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1900 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 207-5055 Facsimile: (310) 826-3210 E-mail: lacounsel@earthlink.net - and - David C. Parisi, Esq. Suzanne Havens Beckman, Esq. PARISI & HAVENS LLP 15233 Valleyheart Drive Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone: (818) 990-1299 Facsimile: (818) 501-7852 E-mail: dparisi@parisihavens.com shavens@parisihavens.com - and - Joseph H. Malley, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH H. MALLEY 1045 North Zang Blvd. Dallas, TX 75208 Telephone: (214) 943-6100 Facsimile: (214) 943-6170 E-mail: malleylaw@gmail.com INTERMEC INC: Faces Acquisition-Related Class Suit in Delaware -------------------------------------------------------------- C. Bickley Foster, Individually, and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Intermec, Inc.; Honeywell International Inc.; Allen J. Lauer; Keith Barnes; Eric J. Draut; Gregory K. Hinckley; Lydia H. Kennard; Stephen P. Reynolds; Steven B. Sample; Oren G. Shaffer; Larry D. Yost; and Hawkeye Merger Sub Corp., Case No. 8105- (Del. Ch. Ct., December 13, 2012) is a shareholder class action brought to enjoin the acquisition of the publicly owned shares of Intermec common stock by Honeywell. The complaint says in facilitating the acquisition of Intermec by Honeywell for an inadequate consideration and through a flawed process, each of the Defendants breached and aided the other Defendants' breaches of their fiduciary duties. The Plaintiff contends that instead of working to maximize shareholder value as required, the Defendants are agreeing to hand over the Company and its future prospects to Honeywell for an unfair price. The Plaintiff is a stockholder of Intermec. Intermec is a Delaware corporation based in Everett, Washington. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company. Honeywell is a Delaware corporation based in Morristown, New Jersey. Hawkeye is a Delaware corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Honeywell. The Plaintiff is represented by: Blake A. Bennett, Esq. Gregory F. Fischer, Esq. COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A. The Brandywine Building 1000 West St., 10th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 984-3800 E-mail: bbennett@coochtaylor.com gfischer@coochtaylor.com - and - Kenneth G. Gilman, Esq. Thomas E. N. Shea, Esq. GILMAN LAW LLP Beachway Professional Center Tower 3301 Bonita Beach Road, Suite 307 Bonita Springs, FL 34134 Telephone: (239) 221-8301 Facsimile: (239) 676-8224 ISB MEHTA: Sued For Failing to Pay Minimum and Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Gerardo Ramirez, on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals v. ISB Mehta Corp, Vipul J. Mehta; and Does 1 through 30, inclusive, Case No. 1-12-CV-237735 (Calif. Super. Ct., Santa Clara Cty., December 13, 2012) involves restaurant workers, who were paid a salary, performed non-exempt duties over 50% their work day, and worked significant overtime hours. The Defendants' violations of the Unfair Competition Law revolve around their failure to pay all wages when due, failure to pay employees minimum and overtime wages; failure to comply with rest and meal period requirements; and failure to comply with the record-keeping, wage statement and payment deadline provisions of California law. Mr. Ramirez is a California resident. During the class period, he was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt employee at their various food service counter style restaurants. Defendants Vipul J. Mehta and Does 1 through 15 own and control various restaurants owned or operated by the corporate Defendants. Mr. Mehta is the owner and alter ego of ISB Mehta Corp. The Plaintiff is represented by: Tomas E. Margain, Esq. CASA LEGAL 84 W. Santa Clara St., Suite 790 San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone: (408) 317-1100 Facsimile: (408) 315-0150 E-mail: margainlaw@hotmail.com LG CHEM: Conspired to Fix Lithium Ion Battery Prices, Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Corie Levy, 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., and Maxell Corporation of America, Case No. 3:12-cv-06446 (N.D. Calif., December 20, 2012) is brought as a proposed class action against the world's largest manufacturers of Lithium Ion Rechargeable Batteries for engaging in a conspiracy to unlawfully fix and artificially raise the prices of those batteries. The Plaintiff and the proposed class consists of consumers, who (1) indirectly purchased a stand-alone Lithium Ion Rechargeable Battery containing a cell manufactured by a Defendant, or (2) a Lithium Ion Rechargeable Battery Product containing a Lithium Ion Rechargeable Battery containing a cell manufactured by a Defendant, during the period from January 1, 2002, through 2011. Ms. Levy contends that the Defendants engaged in conduct both inside and outside the U.S. that caused, direct, substantial and reasonably foreseeable and intended anti-competitive effects upon interstate commerce within the United States. Ms. Levy is a resident of New York. During the Class Period, she purchased a Sony notebook computer containing a Lithium Ion Rechargeable Battery containing a cell 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 Delaware 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 Irvine, 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: Richard B. Brualdi, Esq. THE BRUALDI LAW FIRM, P.C. 29 Broadway, Suite 2400 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 952-0602 Facsimile: (212) 952-0608 E-mail: rbrualdi@brualdilawfirm.com - and - Michael D. Braun, Esq. BRAUN LAW GROUP, P.C. 10680 West Pico Blvd., Suite 280 Los Angeles, CA 90064 Telephone: (310) 836-6000 Facsimile: (310) 836-6010 E-mail: mdb@braunlawgroup.com service@braunlawgroup.com LISA STEED: Sued Over Hundreds of Bogus DUI Arrests --------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that a class action in Davis County Court claims Utah Highway Patrolwoman Lisa Steed, who was featured in a recent New York Times story, falsely arrested "dozens and maybe hundreds" of people on bogus DUI charges. MASSAGE ENVY: Failed to Reimburse Business Expenses, Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------------- Yvette R. Balderas, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Massage Envy Franchising, LLC; Envee Estep Enterprise, Inc. dba Massage Envy of Alameda Towne Centre; and Does 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. RG12651952 (Calif. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., October 15, 2012) is brought by massage therapists for the Defendants' unlawful employment scheme that denies the therapists the wages and benefits to which they are lawfully entitled to under California law. According to Ms. Balderas, Massage Envy hired her and class members, deducted thousands of dollars for business expenses from their wages but failed to reimburse them, hence, denying them wages and benefits. She asserts that the Defendants violate multiple provisions of the California Labor Code and California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order 2-2001. Ms. Balderas is a resident of Emeryville, California, who worked as a massage therapist for the Defendants at Massage Envy of Alameda Towne Centre. Envee Estep is a California corporation. Massage Envy is a company headquartered in Scottsdale, Arizona, with over 700 Massage Envy and Massage Envy Spa locations nationwide. The Doe Defendants are persons or entities whose true names and identities are currently unknown. The Company removed the lawsuit on December 13, 2012, from the Superior Court of the state of California, County of Alameda, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The Company argues that the removal is proper because members of the proposed class are citizens of a state different from the Defendants. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:12-cv-06327 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff is represented by: Monique Olivier, Esq. DUCKWORTH PETERS LEBOWITZ OLIVIER LLP 100 Bush Street, Suite 1800 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 433-0333 Facsimile: (415) 449-6556 E-mail: monique@dplolaw.com - and - Kathryn S. Landman, Esq. Laura M. Mazza, Esq. LANDMAN & MAZZA LLP 1840 Gateway Drive, Ste. 200 San Mateo, CA 94404 Telephone: (650) 378-1472 Facsimile: (650) 763-3933 E-mail: katie@landmanmazza.com laura@landmanmazza.com information@landmanmazza.com The Defendants are represented by: Luanne Sacks, Esq. Hope Anne Case, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP (US) 555 Mission Street, Suite 2400 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 836-2500 Facsimile: (415) 836-2501 E-mail: luanne.sacks@dlapiper.com hope.case@dlapiper.com NOVA SCOTIA: March 31 Seniors' Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set ---------------------------------------------------------------- Nancy King, writing for Cape Breton Post, reports that seniors who had to pay for medical care while they lived in a Nova Scotia nursing home have until the end of March to opt out of a class- action lawsuit. The lawsuit was certified as a class action at the end of last year. Michael Dull, a lawyer with Wagners Law Firm, said it is open to Nova Scotia nursing home residents, their spouses and their estates. In February 2001, the province changed its policy regarding admission of seniors to nursing homes. If it was deemed that the person could afford to pay for nursing home, the lawsuit alleged part of the per diem they paid covered medical-care costs, which is a universal right of other members of society, Mr. Dull noted. "Other nursing home residents -- ones who the province didn't require private payment -- they had that universal coverage as well," he said. The lawsuit also alleges the province didn't have statutory authority to make the initial policy change. The policy remained in place for about four years, ending Jan. 1, 2005. All seniors who had to pay for their nursing care during that period are considered part of the class action and are represented by Wagners unless they choose to opt out by March 31. The class is about 1,300 people. Newspaper advertisements have appeared advising of the lawsuit and efforts are also being made to contact seniors individually. The court required the firm to make its best efforts to inform potential class members of the action. "The default is that, unless they opt out, we represent them and their interest in this class action, for good or for bad, so if the action is successful on the merits then that applies to them; if it's not successful, that applies to them as well," Mr. Dull said. The representative plaintiffs have entered into a contingency fee arrangement with Wagners and if the lawsuit is successful the firm will receive 15-25 per cent of the net settlement, subject to court approval. For more information, or to opt out of the lawsuit, Wagners Law Firm can be contacted at Suite PH301, Historic Properties, 1869 Upper Water St., Halifax, N.S., B3J 1S9, or by phone at 1-800-465- 8794. OPTIMUM FINANCIAL: Faces Suit in Georgia for Malicious Retaliation ------------------------------------------------------------------ Caesare Demone Haynes, Individually and as representative of all others similarly situated v. Optimum Financial, Inc.; GTL of Norcross # 3, LLC; and Brenda Johnson, Case No. 2012CV225115 (Ga. Super. Ct., Fulton Cty., December 19, 2012) concerns the alleged malicious retaliation by the Defendants over a loan given to the Plaintiff in which he pledged his car as security for the loan. The Plaintiff relates that he was unable to repay the loan. However, instead of exercising their repossession remedy, the Defendants, in an attempt to harass and intimidate him to pay on the loan that he could no longer afford, wrongfully threatened and initiated criminal prosecution for his failure to pay, Mr. Haynes says. Mr. Haynes is a resident of Gwinnett County, Georgia. GTL is a domestic corporation and maintains its registered office in Fulton County, Georgia. Optimum Financial is a domestic corporation. Ms. Johnson is a resident of Georgia. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian W. Burkhalter, Esq. Blair A. Andrews, Esq. MJ PATEL LAW GROUP 3715 Northside Parkway Building 400, Suite 230 Atlanta, GA 30327 Telephone: (678) 974-1503 E-mail: bburkhalter@mjpatellaw.com bandrews@mjpatellaw.com SAN ANTONIO SPURS: Heat Fan Files Class Action Over Nov. 29 Game ---------------------------------------------------------------- Michael A. De Leon, writing for Project Spurs, reports that a Miami Heat fan is suing the San Antonio Spurs because coach Gregg Popovich elected to send several of the team's players home prior to their November 29 game against the Heat. Mr. Popovich sent Tim Duncan, Tony Parker, Manu Ginobili and Danny Green home prior to the game to rest his players early in the season during a grueling road trip that had them playing their fourth game and five days. For most fans, an apology and public tongue-lashing of the Spurs from David Stern and then a $250,000 fine would have been enough, especially considering it took a late Ray Allen three-pointer for the Heat to get past a mostly reserve Spurs unit. Darren Rovell of ESPN is reporting that attorney Larry McGuinness has filed a class action lawsuit against the Spurs in Miami-Dade County. On Jan. 14, Larry McGuinness filed a class action suit in Miami- Dade County, stating that the team's head coach, Gregg Popovich, "intentionally and surrepticiously" sent their best players home without the knowledge of the league, the team and the fans attending the Nov. 29 game against the Heat. Mr. McGuinness contends that he, as well as other fans, "suffered economic damages" as a result of paying a premium price for a ticket that shouldn't cost more. In Mr. Rovell's report, he notes that ticket prices are often higher against better teams, which hardly seems like the Spurs fault. Mr. McGuinness also compared paying a premium for the Spurs-Heat game to paying for a premium steak and getting a substandard cut instead. "It was like going to Morton's Steakhouse and paying $63 for porterhouse and they bring out cube steak," said Mr. McGuinness, who said he bought his ticket on the resale market. "That's exactly what happened here." SEARS ROEBUCK: Faces Suit For Making Employees Work Off The Clock ----------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Sears Roebuck makes employees work off the clock, a class action claims in Superior Court. SKINNYGIRL MARGARITA: Class Certification Denied in False Ad Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Leonard L. Gordon, Esq. and Kaveri B. Arora, Esq. of Venable LLP announced that a New York federal judge denied class certification in a case alleging false advertising of the Skinnygirl Margarita, finding that Plaintiff's claims fail to meet Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)'s typicality prerequisite, and therefore, Plaintiff does not adequately represent the proposed class. This decision may help keep the plaintiff's bar on the rocks for a bit. In 2009, the Skinnygirl Margarita -- a low-calorie alternative to traditional margarita mixes -- was developed by health-conscious, reality TV star, Bethenny Frankel, and her partner David Kanbar. On September 20, 2011, Christopher Rapczynksi brought a suit in Southern District of New York against Skinnygirl Cocktails, L.L.C., SGC Global, L.L.C. and Beam Global Spirits & Wine, Inc. alleging that the Defendants caused "millions of purchasers of 'Skinnygirl Margarita' to purchase that product under the false pretenses that it was 'All-natural,'" when, in fact, it contained sodium benzoate, and mixto, a tequila byproduct. Ms. Frankel waged a "come on" defense in press statements saying "I'm not making wheatgrass here. If I could put an agave plant and some limes on a shelf I would. The Skinnygirl Margarita is as close to nature as possible, while still being a shelf-stable product." Mr. Rapczynksi accused Defendants of false advertising under New York General Business Law Sec. 349 and New York Agriculture and Markets Law. Additionally, Mr. Rapczynksi asserted claims for a breach of express warranty and promissory estoppel and moved for class certification seeking to represent a class of Massachusetts and New York individuals. Judge J. Paul Oetken denied class certification, finding that Plaintiff's claims failed to meet Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)'s typicality requirement, which provides that "the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class. The judge noted, "[w]here the particularities of the lead plaintiff's own allegations separate his claim from those of other putative class members, a court cannot certify the class." First, the judge found that the New York laws that Mr. Rapczynksi invokes only apply to transactions that occur within New York. However, Mr. Rapczynksi only purchased the Skinnygirl Margarita in Massachusetts, "which means the laws he invokes do not protect his purchases." Thus, Mr. Rapczynksi "is unable to assert the typical class member's claim" and therefore cannot adequately represent the proposed class. The judge also found typicality issues with respect to Mr. Rapczynksi's assertions of a breach of warranty and promissory estoppel -- both which require a showing of reliance on the purchaser's promise. Here, Mr. Rapczynksi would need to show that he relied on the Skinnygirl Margarita's "All-natural" advertising in his decision to purchase the product. However, as the judge pointed out, Mr. Rapczynksi admitted in his deposition, in a moment of incredible candor familiar to husband's everywhere, that he bought the product to "appease his wife," and that he would have bought the product regardless of its price to appease said wife. Whether Mr. Rapczynksi believed the product was natural was irrelevant to his decision to purchase the Skinnygirl Margarita. As a result, the judge found that these claims also fail to meet Rule 23(a)'s typicality requirement. Perhaps Mr. Rapczynski will amend his complaint to represent a class of husbands who bought the product to appease their wives. As consumer class actions proliferate, companies will need to continue to challenge the appropriateness of class certification with a cocktail of defenses. This decision contrasts with a decision last year from the Northern District of California that certified a class against the makers of Arizona Iced Tea premised on allegedly deceptive "all natural claims." In that case, the judge found that the named plaintiffs had adequately shown that they had relied on the "all natural" advertising in making their respective purchases so as to make their claims typical of those alleged on behalf of the class in the complaint. WELCH FOODS: Accused of False and Misleading Labeling Practices --------------------------------------------------------------- Elizabeth Park and Carolyn Otto, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Welch Foods Inc., a Cooperative, Case No. 5:12-cv-06449 (N.D. Calif., December 20, 2012) is brought on behalf of those who purchased the Defendant's products unlawfully labeled with "No Sugar Added" or bearing improper nutrient content or health claims, or false representations that the products are "all natural" and, thus, free from artificial colors, flavors or preservatives. This case is about a company that flouts federal and California laws, which require truthful, accurate information on the labels of packaged foods, and sells misbranded food to unsuspecting consumers, the Plaintiffs contend. They assert that the Defendant's false and misleading labeling practices are designed to increase sales and justify the premium prices of their products at issue. Ms. Park is a resident of Los Gatos, California, while Ms. Otto is a resident of San Jose, California. The Plaintiffs have purchased the Defendant's misbranded food products in California. Welch is a foreign corporation headquartered in Concord, Massachusetts. Welch is the food processing and marketing arm of the National Grape Cooperative Association, and is a leading producer of foods and beverages. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ben F. Pierce Gore, Esq. PRATT & ASSOCIATES 1871 The Alameda, Suite 425 San Jose, CA 95126 Telephone: (408) 429-6506 Facsimile: (408) 369-0752 E-mail: pgore@prattattorneys.com ZYNGA: Employees File Class Action Over Labor Law Violations ------------------------------------------------------------ Courthouse News Service reports that Zynga stiffed workers for overtime, a class action claims in Federal Court. * D.C. Legal Aid Society Gets $40,000 From Class Action Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------------ According to an article posted by Zoe Tillman at The Blog of Legal Times, The Legal Aid Society of D.C. announced on Jan. 15 that it had received a $40,000 award in the form of leftover funds from a class action settlement. The underlying case involved claims against a company that acquired consumer debt and then pursued legal action against the debtors. The company was accused of purchasing the debt with insufficient proof that the debt was valid and in some cases where there was evidence that the time-limit on the debt had expired, according to Legal Aid. The company settled with plaintiffs, agreeing to pay each eligible resident $1,500 and not to pursue any debts purportedly owed by class members. The award given to Legal Aid, known as a cy pres award, came from settlement funds that went unclaimed or couldn't be distributed to class members. The class action was handled by the Friedman Law Offices and the nonprofit Legal Counsel for the Elderly. According to Legal Aid, the organization was presented with the award on January 10. "The receipt of the award is critical to our ability to continue the important work of our consumer unit -- which focuses on combating abusive debt collection practices as well as helping families avoid unnecessary foreclosures," Legal Aid Society Executive Director Eric Angel said in a statement. Cy pres awards have come under fire in the past, with critics contending that they can benefit lawyers and charities to the detriment of class members. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce was part of an advocacy effort last year to convince Congress to get rid of such awards. ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Noemi Irene A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Ivy B. Magdadaro, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline Abangan and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2013. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-241-8200. * * * End of Transmission * * *