/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/130408.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, April 8, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 68 Headlines AIR METHODS: Faces "Helmick" Wage and Hour Suit in California ALLIED VETERANS: Faces Class Action Over "Charity" Scam ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Faces Class Action Over Concealing Information AMERICAN APPAREL: Faces Overtime Class Action ARIZONA: Obtains Favorable Ruling in ELL Instruction Class Action ARIZONA: Some Sections of Immigration Law Unconstitutional BRAVO!: Recalls Three Raw Frozen Food Diet for Dogs and Cats CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Awaits Order on Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Discovery in Suit Over 2008 Offering Ongoing CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Has 60 Days to Respond to ERISA Complaint CITIGROUP INC: Bid to Certify Class in Bond Litigation Pending CITIGROUP INC: CAI Defends CSO Investors Suit Pending in N.Y. CITIGROUP INC: Continues to Defend LIBOR-Related Antitrust Suits CITIGROUP INC: Continues to Defend Securities Suits in N.Y. & Pa. CITIGROUP INC: Defends Against Credit Crisis-Related Suits CITIGROUP INC: Sept. 12 Hearing on Accord in Interchange Fee Suit CITIGROUP INC: April 8 Hearing on Securities Suit Settlement CITIGROUP INC: Class Action Attorneys Allegedly Inflate Fees COLLEGIATE LICENSING: Insurers Can't Intervene in Suit COMCAST CORP: Cato Institute Discusses Supreme Court Ruling DECKERS OUTDOOR: Defends Securities Class Suit in Delaware FIRST INTERSTATE: Still Awaits OK of Visa Interchange Suit Deal GARDNER DENVER: Being Sold to Kohlberg for Too Little, Suit Claims GOLDMAN SACHS: Appeal From Dismissal of ARS Suits Remains Pending GOLDMAN SACHS: Awaits Decisions in MF Global Securities Suit GOLDMAN SACHS: Awaits Okay of Accord in NYSE Specialist Suits GOLDMAN SACHS: Awaits Ruling in Hudson Mezzanine Investors' Suit GOLDMAN SACHS: Awaits Ruling in RALI Pass-Thru Certificates Suit GOLDMAN SACHS: Continues to Defend Suit Alleging Discrimination GOLDMAN SACHS: Defends IndyMac Pass-Through Certificates Suit GOLDMAN SACHS: Defends Mortgage Certificates-Related Suits GOLDMAN SACHS: Faces Suit Over "Force-Placed" Hazard Insurance GOLDMAN SACHS: Fannie Mae-Related Class Suit Remains Pending GOLDMAN SACHS: Suit Challenging CDO Disclosure Remains Pending GOLDMAN SACHS: Suit Over Municipal Securities Remains Pending GOLDMAN SACHS: Time to Appeal Settlement Approval Has Expired GOLIVE! MOBILE: Faces Class Action Over Defrauding Customers HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Defends Suits Over Underpayment of Claims HAIER AMERICA: Recalls Additional 41,000 Chest Freezers INTUIT INC: Inks Agreement to Settle TurboTax-Related Suits ISRAEL: Gov't Agencies Face Class Action Over Unlawful Fees LIBERTY MUTUAL: 7th Cir. Nixes Appeal on Class Action Settlement LIVINGSOCIAL INC: Judge Trims Plaintiffs' Lawyers $3MM Legal Fees LOS ANGELES LAKERS: Plaintiff Balks at Class Action Dismissal Bid LOUISIANA-PACIFIC: Fails to Reverse Class Certification Ruling MCKESSON CORP: Propoxyphene Suit Remanded to Cal. Superior Court METROLINK: July 29 Hearing on Identity Theft Class Action MGIC INVESTMENT: Wins Final OK of Accord in Discrimination Suit MGIC INVESTMENT: Nine RESPA Violations Suits Remain Pending MGIC INVESTMENT: Plea for Relief in C-BASS Suit Not Appealed MIDWEST TRADING: Recalls 9,400 Remote-Controlled Helicopters MONSTER BEVERAGE: Awaits Class Cert. Ruling in Securities Suit MONSTER BEVERAGE: Defends Suits Alleging False Advertising MONSTER BEVERAGE: Settlement in "Chavez" Suit Is Now Final MONSTER BEVERAGE: Still Defends "Wellman" Class Suit in Canada NBT BANCORP: Appeal From Overdraft Fees Suit's Dismissal Pending NAT'L FOOTBALL: Takes Measures After Head Injury Class Actions NEW YORK, NY: NYPD Officers Forced to Fill Quotas, Trial Reveals NEWELL RUBBERMAID: Defends Four Product Liability Class Suits RICH PRODUCTS: FSIS Updates List of Stores With Recalled Products SAN DIEGO HOSPICE: Sued for Mass Firings Without Notice SCHNEIDER LOGISTICS: Judge Balks at Coercive Tactics in Wage Suit SCOTT HARRINGTON: May Face Suit Over Dental Compliance Violations SEARS ROEBUCK: Court Denies Class Cert. Bid in Defective ECB Suit TRADER JOE'S: Faces Class Action Over Mislabeled Cane Juice TYSON FOODS: Recalls 127,000 Lbs of Breaded Chicken Products ULTRATECH INC: Plaintiff Seeks Dismissal of "Rice" Class Suit VERTEX PHARMACEUTICALS: Defends "Bristol" Suit in Massachusetts WALTER ENERGY: Alabama Court Refused to Dismiss Securities Suit WALTER ENERGY: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss "Moore" Suit WALTER ENERGY: Appeal in Ontario Securities Suit Abandoned WILHELMINA INT'L: Receives Summons in Connection With Class Suit * Judge Awards Damages in San Allen Employment Litigation * Judge Dismisses Libor Manipulation Claims Against 16 Banks * Roe v. Wade Decision Remains Controversial After 40 Years ********* AIR METHODS: Faces "Helmick" Wage and Hour Suit in California ------------------------------------------------------------- Air Methods Corporation is facing a wage and hour class action lawsuit in California, according to the Company's March 1, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012. On January 30, 2013, the Company was served with a purported class action lawsuit, Helmick and Williams v. Air Methods Corporation, filed in Superior Court in Alameda County, California. The Company filed its Answer and Affirmative Defenses on March 4, 2013. The lawsuit alleges failure to pay wages and overtime, failure to provide rest and meal breaks or to pay compensation in lieu of such breaks, failure to pay timely wages on termination, failure to provide accurate wage statements, and unlawful business practices and unfair competition within the jurisdiction of the state of California. The Plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages and other applicable statutory damages, penalties and wages under the Labor Code, and attorneys' fees, interest and costs. The Company says it is currently evaluating the merits of the lawsuit and plans to vigorously defend against this lawsuit. However, the Company cannot predict the outcome of this lawsuit or whether the Company may be required to pay damages, settlement costs, or legal costs. Air Methods Corporation -- http://www.airmethods.com/-- a Delaware corporation headquartered in Englewood, Colorado, was established in Colorado in 1982 and now serves as the largest provider of air medical emergency transport services and systems throughout the United States of America. ALLIED VETERANS: Faces Class Action Over "Charity" Scam ------------------------------------------------------- Marimer Matos at Courthouse News Service reports that "Allied Veterans" Internet casinos raised $290 million by claiming "most" of the money would go to veterans' charities, but kept more than 98 percent of it, consumers claim in a RICO class action. Lead defendants Allied Veterans of the World and Affiliates, Allied Veterans Management Group and International Internet Technologies are among dozens sued in Federal Court by lead plaintiff Linda Stepps. Stepps claim the defendants ran their scam from 2007 to 2012. The complaint states: "Defendant Allied Veterans of the World Inc. and its associated defendant companies participated in a multi- state and multi-county business that conducted illegal gambling in Internet casinos under the guise of legal electronic sweepstakes. To promote their business, defendants and others operated the Internet casinos utilizing the trade name of 'Allied Veterans' and represented that they donated anywhere from '70 percent,' 'most' to 'all' of the net proceeds or profits from their gambling operations for the benefit of American war veterans. "On March 13, 2013, the warrant, a federal criminal warrant, 'was served on some of the defendants named herein and certain others ('co-conspirators') in connection with a purported conspiracy and scheme to defraud the public and governmental agencies. The scheme involved, inter alia, deceiving the public into believing that the money spent, and lost, by plaintiffs and the class (i.e. patrons of Allied Veterans' business operations) at defendants' Internet casinos, which operated utilizing the Allied Veterans name, went to a charitable organization that was a member of the Veterans Administration, and was utilized for veterans-related charitable purposes. "As alleged in the warrant, between 2007 and early 2012, defendants and those involved in the conspiracy alleged herein collected from plaintiffs and the class (after paying out winnings) over $290 million. However, instead of '70 percent,' 'most' to 'all' of those funds being donated to veterans charities or utilized for veterans-related charitable purposes, less than 2 percent of the proceeds were donated in accordance with defendants' representations. The balance -- over 98 percent of the net proceeds -- was retained by defendants. "As such, defendants engaged in misleading, deceptive, and unlawful conduct by inducing plaintiffs and the class to patronize defendants' facilities on the basis that the Internet casinos engaged in legal electronic sweepstake activities and donated the proceeds of those activities to veterans-related charities. "This class action is brought for actual damages, treble damages and attorney's fees to redress violations of Federal law, Florida law, and deceptive and unfair trade practices arising out of defendants' illegal business operations." Stepps seeks class certification and punitive damages for RICO conspiracy, deceptive trade, breach of contract and other charges. She is represented by Janine Pollack with Millberg LLP of New York City, and Norwood Wilner of Jacksonville, Fla. Here are the defendants: Allied Veterans of the World And Affiliates Inc.; Allied Veterans Management Group Inc.; International Internet Technologies LLC.; Grant Park LLC.; I-N-H Management Co.; Seaside Internet LLC.; Coastal Games LLC.; Bearcon Management LLC.; M&S Management Services LLC.; MSG Business Centers Inc.; Game Advice Inc.; Live Oak Internet Services LLC.; B&M Leasing & Management LLC.; Ginlin LLC.; Davis Internet Management Co. LLC.; Blue Waters Technologies LLC.; Intelitek LLC.; Business Center Unlimited Inc.; Lake City Internet Services LLC.; Seaside Internet-Marion LLC.; Infovice Inc.; B.B.S. Management Group Inc.; Horry Technologies LLC.; Digitrac Inc.; Jac Sweeps LLC.; Free Entry Clay County LLC.; Gainesville Internet Services LLC.; Megjon LLC.; Media Advice Inc.; Capital City Internet Center Inc.; Seaside Internet-Putnam LLC.; Infohub Inc.; Davis Internet Management Company LLC.; Gulf Internet Services LLC.; Jerry Bass; Kelly Mathis Esq.; John M. Hessong; Michael Davis; Chase Egan Burns; Kristin Burns; Johnny E. Duncan; and Does 1-50. ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Faces Class Action Over Concealing Information ------------------------------------------------------------------ Courthouse News Service reports that Allstate Insurance does not reveal on its online application for auto insurance that it charges 10% of unearned premiums if a customer cancels, a class action claims in San Mateo County Court. AMERICAN APPAREL: Faces Overtime Class Action --------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that a class action claims much- sued American Apparel stiffs workers for overtime, in Superior Court. ARIZONA: Obtains Favorable Ruling in ELL Instruction Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jude Joffe-Block, writing for Fronteras Desk, reports that in the latest twist in a 21-year-old civil rights case, a federal district judge in Tucson ruled on March 29 that Arizona is no longer violating a federal law in the way it educates English Language Learners. The case, Flores vs. Arizona, is a class action lawsuit brought by parents of English Language Learners in Nogales, Ariz. in 1992 to challenge the way the state educates those students. The case has gone up to the U.S. Supreme Court and come back down. The March 29 opinion -- in favor of Arizona -- means the state can continue using a mandatory four-hour block to teach these students English. But attorney for the plaintiffs, Tim Hogan of the Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest, had argued in court that model segregates English Language Learners, and keeps them from learning other subjects. "So they are deprived of all this academic content in the meantime, so they get farther behind their peers." Mr. Hogan said. "It is a prescription for failure for these kids." In his opinion, U.S. District Judge Raner Collins found plaintiffs did not succeed in proving the state intended to discriminate against students by using the four-hour block, though he did suggest criticism of it. "It appears that the state has made a choice in how it wants to spend funds on teaching students the English language. It may turn out to be penny wise and pound foolish, as at the end of the day, speaking English, and not having other educational gains in science, math, etc. will still leave some children behind," Judge Collins wrote. "However, this lawsuit is no longer the vehicle to pursue the myriad of educational issues in this state." Judge Collins' opinion comes two years after a trial was held on this matter. The ruling vacates the court's 2000 decision that found Arizona was not properly funding ELL education in violation of the federal Equal Education Opportunities Act. Mr. Hogan said he has still not decided if he will appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In a statement, Arizona's Superintendent John Huppenthal said the ruling validates the state has made improvements in English language instruction since 1992. Meanwhile, a complaint about the four-hour block is pending with the U.S. Department of Education Office of Civil Rights. ARIZONA: Some Sections of Immigration Law Unconstitutional ---------------------------------------------------------- Susan Guyett, writing for Reuters, reports that a federal judge has ruled sections of a 2011 Indiana immigration law unconstitutional, making permanent an injunction against a law inspired by Arizona's crackdown on illegal immigrants. The state will forego an appeal on the March 28 ruling, Attorney General Greg Zoeller said on March 29. The Indiana bill, signed into law by the previous governor, Mitch Daniels, permitted warrantless arrests of non-citizens and prohibited the use of consular IDs as forms of identification. It was inspired by Arizona's law, known as S.B. 1070 that took over some aspects of immigration enforcement from the U.S. government. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the National Immigration Law Center and law firm of Lewis & Kappes brought the class-action suit, contending Indiana's law allowed police to make warrantless arrests based on assumed immigration status and criminalized the usage of a consular identification card. Judge Sarah Evans Barker of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana said the law violated the Fourth Amendment because it permitted state and local authorities to "effect warrantless arrests for matters that are not crimes." The rest of the law went unchallenged in this lawsuit and is not part of the judge's ruling. The state would not appeal the decision although, Mr. Zoeller said in a statement, his office is defending a challenge to another section the law in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana. Last summer, Mr. Zoeller said the warrantless arrest aspects of the Indiana could not be defended following a U. S. Supreme Court decision on the Arizona immigration law. Last June, the court struck down a warrantless arrest provision of the Arizona law and other aspects while upholding the Arizona law's most controversial aspect, a requirement that police check the immigration status of people they stop, even for the most minor of offenses. Three state senators then filed motions to intervene in the case and Judge Barker dismissed their motion. Judge Barker previously issued a preliminary injunction against the Indiana law so it never went into effect, according to Kelly Jones Sharp of the ACLU of Indiana. BRAVO!: Recalls Three Raw Frozen Food Diet for Dogs and Cats ------------------------------------------------------------ Bravo! is voluntarily recalling three of its raw diet frozen foods for dogs and cats: 5 lb tubes of Bravo! Chicken Balance product item code 21-405 with "best used by" dates of 3_6_15 and 3_12_15; 2 lb Bravo! Chicken Blend product item code 21-102 with the "best used by" date of 3_21_15 and 5 lb. bags of Bravo! Beef Blend Burgers product item code 51-508 with the "best used by" dates of 3_21_15 and 3_22_15, because they have the potential to be contaminated with Salmonella. This recall is being issued out of an abundance of caution, as while these products tested negative for pathogens by an independent third party prior to distribution, they were run on the same day or an adjacent day to a product that tested positive for pathogens. The product that tested positive has been 100 percent contained and is not subject to this recall. The recall involves only: * 5 lb. Bravo! Chicken Balance frozen raw diet chubs (tubes) with "best used by" dates of 3_6_15 and 3_12_15 imprinted on the side of the plastic casing. Only 26 cases with the 3_6_15 date were distributed nationally and 36 cases with 3_12_15 date were distributed nationally. * 2 lb. Bravo! Chicken Blend frozen raw diet chubs (tubes) with the "best used by" date of 3_21_15 imprinted on the side of the plastic casing. Only 67 cases with 3_21_15 date were distributed nationally. * 5 lb. Bravo! Beef Blend Burgers bags with the "best used by" dates of 3_21_15 and 3_22_15 imprinted on the back panel of the plastic bag. Only 47 cases with the 3_21_15 date were distributed nationally and 55 cases with the 3_22_15 date were distributed nationally. No other products or sizes are affected. The recalled product should not be sold or fed to pets. The Company has received no reports of illness in either people or animals associated with this product. While these products tested negative, Bravo! is allowing concerned pet owners to return unopened frozen tubes of food and patties to the store where purchased for a full refund. Pet owners should dispose of unopened product in a safe manner (example, a securely covered trash receptacle). Consumers who believe they have opened these products at home should just dispose of the product in a safe manner and contact the retailer where they purchased their product for a full refund. Salmonella can affect animals eating the products and there is risk to humans from handling contaminated pet products, especially if they have not thoroughly washed their hands after having contact with the products or any surfaces exposed to these products. Healthy people infected with Salmonella should monitor themselves for some or all of the following symptoms: nausea, vomiting, diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, abdominal cramping and fever. Rarely, Salmonella can result in more serious ailments, including arterial infections, endocarditis, arthritis, muscle pain, eye irritation, and urinary tract symptoms. Consumers exhibiting these signs after having contact with this product should contact their healthcare providers. Pets with Salmonella infections may be lethargic and have diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, fever, and vomiting. Some pets will have only decreased appetite, fever and abdominal pain. Infected but otherwise healthy pets can be carriers and infect other animals or humans. If your pet has consumed the recalled product and has these symptoms, please contact your veterinarian. In an effort to prevent the transmission of Salmonella from pets to family members and care givers, the FDA recommends that everyone follow appropriate pet food handling guidelines when feeding their pets. A list of safe pet food handling tips can be found at: http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm048182.htm For more information on the Bravo recall, please visit http://www.bravorawdiet.com/,or call toll free (866) 922-9222 Monday through Friday 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. (Eastern Standard Time). CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Awaits Order on Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Chesapeake Energy Corporation is awaiting a court decision on its motion to dismiss a securities class action lawsuit pending in Oklahoma, according to the Company's March 1, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012. A putative class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma on April 26, 2012, against the Company and Aubrey K. McClendon, the Company's president and chief executive officer, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On July 20, 2012, the court appointed a lead plaintiff, which filed an amended complaint on October 19, 2012, against the Company, Mr. McClendon and certain other officers. The amended complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on alleged misrepresentations regarding the Company's asset monetization strategy, including liabilities associated with its volumetric production payment (VPP) transactions, as well as Mr. McClendon's personal loans and the Company's internal controls. The action seeks class certification, damages of an unspecified amount and attorneys' fees and other costs. The Company and other defendants filed a motion to dismiss the action on December 6, 2012, and the plaintiff filed its response on January 23, 2013. The Company says it is currently unable to assess the probability of loss or estimate a range of potential loss associated with the case. Chesapeake Energy Corporation -- http://www.chk.com/-- is a producer of natural gas, a producer of oil and natural gas liquids and an active driller of new wells in the United States of America. Headquartered in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, the Company's operations are focused on discovering and developing unconventional natural gas and oil fields onshore in the U.S. CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Discovery in Suit Over 2008 Offering Ongoing --------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery in the class action lawsuit relating to Chesapeake Energy Corporation's July 2008 common stock offering is still proceeding, according to the Company's March 1, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012. On February 25, 2009, a putative class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and certain of its officers and directors along with certain underwriters of the Company's July 2008 common stock offering. Following the appointment of a lead plaintiff and counsel, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint on September 11, 2009, alleging that the registration statement for the offering contained material misstatements and omissions and seeking damages under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 of an unspecified amount and rescission. The action was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma on October 13, 2009. On September 2, 2010, the court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss, and the court certified the class on March 30, 2012. The Defendants moved for summary judgment on grounds of loss causation and materiality on December 16, 2011, and the motion was fully briefed as of August 21, 2012. Discovery in the case is proceeding. The Company says it is currently unable to assess the probability of loss or estimate a range of potential loss associated with the case. Chesapeake Energy Corporation -- http://www.chk.com/-- is a producer of natural gas, a producer of oil and natural gas liquids and an active driller of new wells in the United States of America. Headquartered in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, the Company's operations are focused on discovering and developing unconventional natural gas and oil fields onshore in the U.S. CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Has 60 Days to Respond to ERISA Complaint ------------------------------------------------------------ Chesapeake Energy Corporation said in its March 1, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012, that it has 60 days from February 21, 2013, to respond to a consolidated complaint alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. On June 19, July 17 and July 20, 2012, putative class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma against the Company, Chesapeake Energy Savings and Incentive Stock Bonus Plan (the Plan), and certain of the Company's officers and directors alleging breaches of fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). The actions are brought on behalf of participants and beneficiaries of the Plan, and allege that as fiduciaries of the Plan, defendants owed fiduciary duties, which they purportedly breached by, among other things, failing to manage and administer the Plan's assets with appropriate skill and care, failing to disclose material information concerning such matters as the participation of Aubrey K. McClendon, the Company's president and chief executive officer, in the Founder Well Participation Program (FWPP) and his related financing arrangements and the Company's volumetric production payment (VPP) transactions, engaging in activities that were in conflict with the best interest of the Plan, and permitting the Plan to over-concentrate in Chesapeake stock. The plaintiffs seek class certification, damages of an unspecified amount, equitable relief, and attorneys' fees and other costs. The three cases have been consolidated, and a consolidated amended complaint was filed on February 21, 2013. The Defendants have 60 days from that date in which to respond. The Company says it is currently unable to assess the probability of loss or estimate a range of potential loss associated with this matter. Chesapeake Energy Corporation -- http://www.chk.com/-- is a producer of natural gas, a producer of oil and natural gas liquids and an active driller of new wells in the United States of America. Headquartered in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, the Company's operations are focused on discovering and developing unconventional natural gas and oil fields onshore in the U.S. CITIGROUP INC: Bid to Certify Class in Bond Litigation Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- A motion to certify a class in the consolidated bond litigation involving Citigroup Inc. remains pending, according to the Company's March 1, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012. Citigroup, its affiliates and subsidiaries, and current and former officers, directors and employees (collectively referred to as Citigroup and Related Parties) have been named as defendants in the consolidated putative class action IN RE CITIGROUP INC. BOND LITIGATION, pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiffs assert claims under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of $71 billion of debt securities and preferred stock issued by Citigroup between May 2006 and August 2008. On July 12, 2010, the court issued an opinion and order dismissing plaintiffs' claims under Section 12 of the Securities Act of 1933, but denying defendants' motion to dismiss certain claims under Section 11. Fact discovery began in November 2010, and plaintiffs' motion to certify a class is pending. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the consolidated lead docket number 08 Civ. 9522 (S.D.N.Y.) (Stein, J.). The history of Citigroup Inc. -- http://www.citigroup.com/-- dates back to the founding of Citibank in 1812. New York-based Citigroup is a global diversified financial services holding company whose businesses provide consumers, corporations, governments and institutions with a broad range of financial products and services, including consumer banking and credit, corporate and investment banking, securities brokerage, transaction services and wealth management. CITIGROUP INC: CAI Defends CSO Investors Suit Pending in N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------- Citigroup Alternative Investments LLC is defending itself against a putative class action lawsuit filed on behalf of investors in CSO Ltd., et al., according to Citigroup Inc.'s March 1, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012. The SEC is investigating the management and marketing of the ASTA/MAT and Falcon funds, alternative investment funds managed and marketed by certain Citigroup affiliates that suffered substantial losses during the credit crisis. In addition to the SEC inquiry, on June 11, 2012, the New York Attorney General served a subpoena on a Citigroup affiliate seeking documents and information concerning certain of these funds, and on August 1, 2012, the Massachusetts Attorney General served a Civil Investigative Demand on a Citigroup affiliate seeking similar documents and information. Citigroup is cooperating fully with these inquiries. In October 2012, Citigroup Alternative Investments LLC (CAI) was named as a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit filed on behalf of investors in CSO Ltd., CSO US Ltd., and Corporate Special Opportunities Ltd., whose investments were managed indirectly by a CAI affiliate. The plaintiff asserts a variety of state common law claims, alleging that he and other investors were misled into investing in the funds and were further misled into not redeeming their investments. The complaint seeks to recover more than $400 million on behalf of a putative class of investors. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 12-cv-7717 (S.D.N.Y.) (Castel, J.). In addition, numerous investors in the ASTA/MAT funds have filed lawsuits or arbitrations against Citigroup and Related Parties seeking damages and related relief. Although most of these investor disputes have been resolved, some remain pending. The history of Citigroup Inc. -- http://www.citigroup.com/-- dates back to the founding of Citibank in 1812. New York-based Citigroup is a global diversified financial services holding company whose businesses provide consumers, corporations, governments and institutions with a broad range of financial products and services, including consumer banking and credit, corporate and investment banking, securities brokerage, transaction services and wealth management. CITIGROUP INC: Continues to Defend LIBOR-Related Antitrust Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Citigroup Inc. continues to defend itself and its subsidiaries against LIBOR-related antitrust lawsuits, according to the Company's March 1, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012. Regulatory Actions Government agencies in the U.S., including the Department of Justice, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the SEC, and a consortium of state attorneys general, as well as agencies in other jurisdictions, including the European Commission, the U.K. Financial Services Authority, the Japanese Financial Services Agency (JFSA), the Canadian Competition Bureau, the Swiss Competition Commission and the Monetary Authority of Singapore, are conducting investigations or making inquiries regarding submissions made by panel banks to bodies that publish various interbank offered rates and other benchmark rates. As members of a number of such panels, Citigroup subsidiaries have received requests for information and documents. Citigroup says it is cooperating with the investigations and inquiries and is responding to the requests. On December 16, 2011, the JFSA took administrative action against Citigroup Global Markets Japan Inc. (CGMJ) for, among other things, certain communications made by two CGMJ traders about the Euroyen Tokyo interbank offered rate (TIBOR) and the Japanese yen London interbank offered rate (LIBOR). The JFSA issued a business improvement order and suspended CGMJ's trading in derivatives related to yen LIBOR and Euroyen and yen TIBOR from January 10 to January 23, 2012. On the same day, the JFSA also took administrative action against Citibank Japan Ltd. (CJL) for conduct arising out of CJL's retail business and also noted that the communications made by the CGMJ traders to employees of CJL about Euroyen TIBOR had not been properly reported to CJL's management team. Antitrust and Other Litigation Citigroup and Citibank, N.A., along with other U.S. Dollar (USD) LIBOR panel banks, are defendants in a multi-district litigation (MDL) proceeding before Judge Buchwald in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York captioned IN RE LIBOR-BASED FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION, appearing under docket number 1:11-md-2262 (S.D.N.Y.). Judge Buchwald has appointed interim lead class counsel for, and consolidated amended complaints have been filed on behalf of, three separate putative classes of plaintiffs: (i) over-the- counter (OTC) purchasers of derivative instruments tied to USD LIBOR; (ii) purchasers of exchange-traded derivative instruments tied to USD LIBOR; and (iii) indirect OTC purchasers of U.S. debt securities. Each of these putative classes alleges that the panel bank defendants conspired to suppress USD LIBOR in violation of the Sherman Act and/or the Commodity Exchange Act, thereby causing plaintiffs to suffer losses on the instruments they purchased. Also consolidated into the MDL proceeding are individual civil actions commenced by various Charles Schwab entities alleging that the panel bank defendants conspired to suppress the USD LIBOR rates in violation of the Sherman Act, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), and California state law, causing the Schwab entities to suffer losses on USD LIBOR-linked financial instruments they owned. Plaintiffs in these actions seek compensatory damages and restitution for losses caused by the alleged violations, as well as treble damages under the Sherman Act. The Schwab and OTC plaintiffs also seek injunctive relief. Citigroup and Citibank, N.A., along with other defendants, have moved to dismiss all of the actions that were consolidated into the MDL proceeding as of June 29, 2012. Briefing on the motion to dismiss was completed on September 27, 2012. Judge Buchwald has stayed all subsequently filed actions that fall within the scope of the MDL until the motion to dismiss has been resolved. Citigroup and/or Citibank, N.A. are named in the 17 such stayed actions that have been consolidated with or marked as related to the MDL proceeding. Eleven of these actions have been brought on behalf of various putative plaintiff classes, including (i) banks, savings and loans institutions and credit unions that allegedly suffered losses on loans they made at interest rates tied to USD LIBOR, (ii) holders of adjustable-rate mortgages tied to USD LIBOR, and (iii) individual and municipal purchasers of various financial instruments tied to USD LIBOR. The remaining six actions have been brought by individual plaintiffs, including an entity that allegedly purchased municipal bonds and various California counties, municipalities, and related public entities that invested in various derivatives tied to USD LIBOR. The Plaintiffs in each of the 17 stayed actions allege that the panel bank defendants manipulated USD LIBOR in violation of the Sherman Act, RICO, and/or state antitrust and racketeering laws, and several plaintiffs also assert common law claims, including fraud, unjust enrichment, negligent misrepresentation, interference with economic advantage, and/or breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and, where authorized by statute, treble damages and injunctive relief. Additional information concerning the stayed actions is publicly available in court filings under docket numbers 1:12-cv-4205 (S.D.N.Y.) (Buchwald, J.), 1:12-cv-5723 (S.D.N.Y.) (Buchwald, J.), 1:12-cv-5822 (S.D.N.Y.) (Buchwald, J.), 1:12-cv-6056 (S.D.N.Y.) (Buchwald, J.), 1:12-cv-7461 (S.D.N.Y.) (Buchwald, J.), 2:12-cv- 10903 (C.D. Calif.) (Snyder, J.), 3:12-cv-6571 (N.D. Calif.) (Conti, J.), 3:13-cv-106 (N.D. Calif.) (Beeler, J.), 4:13-cv-108 (N.D. Calif.) (Ryu, J.), 3:13-cv-109 (N.D. Calif.) (Laporte, J.), 5:13-cv-62 (C.D. Calif.) (Phillips, J.), 3:13-cv-48 (S.D. Calif.) (Huff, J.), 1:13-cv-346 (S.D.N.Y.) (Buchwald, J.), 1:13-cv-407 (S.D.N.Y.) (Buchwald, J.), 5:13-cv-122 (C.D. Calif.) (Bernal, J.), 1:13-cv-981 (S.D.N.Y.) (Buchwald, J.), and 1:13-cv-1016 (S.D.N.Y.) (Buchwald, J.). In addition, on November 27, 2012, an action captioned MARAGOS V. BANK OF AMERICA CORP., ET AL., was filed on behalf of the County of Nassau against various USD LIBOR panel banks, including Citibank, N.A., and the other defendants with whom the plaintiff had entered into interest rate swap transactions. The action was commenced in state court and subsequently removed to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The plaintiff asserts claims for fraud and deceptive trade practices under New York law against the panel bank defendants based on allegations that the panel banks colluded to artificially suppress USD LIBOR, thereby lowering the payments the plaintiff received in connection with various interest rate swap transactions. The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and treble damages. The defendants have sought consolidation of this action with the MDL proceeding. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under docket number 2:12-cv- 6294 (E.D.N.Y.) (Spatt, J.). Separately, on April 30, 2012, an action was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of a putative class of persons and entities who transacted in exchange-traded Euroyen futures and option contracts between June 2006 and September 2010. This action is captioned LAYDON V. MIZUHO BANK LTD. ET AL. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on November 30, 2012, naming as defendants banks that are or were members of the panels making submissions used in the calculation of Japanese yen LIBOR and TIBOR, and certain affiliates of some of those banks, including Citibank, N.A., Citigroup, CJL and CGMJ. The complaint alleges that the plaintiffs were injured as a result of purported manipulation of those reference interest rates, and asserts claims arising under the Commodity Exchange Act and the Sherman Act and for unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, treble damages under the Sherman Act, and injunctive relief. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 12- cv-3419 (S.D.N.Y.) (Daniels, J.). The history of Citigroup Inc. -- http://www.citigroup.com/-- dates back to the founding of Citibank in 1812. New York-based Citigroup is a global diversified financial services holding company whose businesses provide consumers, corporations, governments and institutions with a broad range of financial products and services, including consumer banking and credit, corporate and investment banking, securities brokerage, transaction services and wealth management. CITIGROUP INC: Continues to Defend Securities Suits in N.Y. & Pa. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Citigroup Inc. continues to defend itself from securities class action lawsuits pending in New York and Pennsylvania, according to the Company's March 1, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012. Citigroup, its affiliates and subsidiaries, and current and former officers, directors and employees (collectively referred to as Citigroup and Related Parties) have been named as defendants in a variety of other putative class actions and individual actions arising out of similar facts to those alleged in the consolidated securities litigation and consolidated bond litigation. These actions assert a wide range of claims, including claims under the federal securities laws, Section 90 of the Financial Services and Markets Act of 2000 (Eng.), Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), and state law. Additional information concerning these actions is publicly available in court filings under the docket numbers 09 Civ. 7359 (S.D.N.Y.) (Stein, J.), 09 Civ. 8755 (S.D.N.Y.) (Stein, J.), 11 Civ. 7672 (S.D.N.Y.) (Koeltl, J.), 12 Civ. 6653 (S.D.N.Y.) (Stein, J.), 12 Civ. 9050 (S.D.N.Y.) (Stein, J.), and Case No. 110105028 (Pa. Commw. Ct.) (Sheppard, J.). The history of Citigroup Inc. -- http://www.citigroup.com/-- dates back to the founding of Citibank in 1812. New York-based Citigroup is a global diversified financial services holding company whose businesses provide consumers, corporations, governments and institutions with a broad range of financial products and services, including consumer banking and credit, corporate and investment banking, securities brokerage, transaction services and wealth management. CITIGROUP INC: Defends Against Credit Crisis-Related Suits ---------------------------------------------------------- Citigroup Inc. continues to defend itself and its subsidiaries against credit crisis-related litigations and investigations, according to the Company's March 1, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012. Citigroup, its affiliates and subsidiaries, and current and former officers, directors and employees (collectively referred to as Citigroup and Related Parties) have been named as defendants in numerous legal actions and other proceedings asserting claims for damages and related relief for losses arising from the global financial credit crisis that began in 2007. Such matters include, among other types of proceedings, claims asserted by: (i) individual investors and purported classes of investors in Citigroup's common and preferred stock and debt, alleging violations of the federal securities laws, foreign laws, state securities and fraud law, and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA); and (ii) individual investors and purported classes of investors in securities and other investments underwritten, issued or marketed by Citigroup, including securities issued by other public companies, collateralized debt obligations (CDOs), mortgage-backed securities (MBS), auction rate securities (ARS), investment funds, and other structured or leveraged instruments, which have suffered losses as a result of the credit crisis. These matters have been filed in state and federal courts across the U.S. and in foreign tribunals, as well as in arbitrations before the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) and other arbitration associations. In addition to these litigations and arbitrations, Citigroup continues to cooperate fully in response to subpoenas and requests for information from the SEC, FINRA, state attorneys general, the Department of Justice and subdivisions thereof, bank regulators, and other government agencies and authorities, in connection with various formal and informal (and, in many instances, industry- wide) inquiries concerning Citigroup's mortgage-related conduct and business activities, as well as other business activities affected by the credit crisis. These business activities include, but are not limited to, Citigroup's sponsorship, packaging, issuance, marketing, servicing and underwriting of CDOs and MBS, and its origination, sale or other transfer, servicing, and foreclosure of residential mortgages. The history of Citigroup Inc. -- http://www.citigroup.com/-- dates back to the founding of Citibank in 1812. New York-based Citigroup is a global diversified financial services holding company whose businesses provide consumers, corporations, governments and institutions with a broad range of financial products and services, including consumer banking and credit, corporate and investment banking, securities brokerage, transaction services and wealth management. CITIGROUP INC: Sept. 12 Hearing on Accord in Interchange Fee Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The final hearing for the approval of a settlement resolving a consolidated lawsuit over card interchange fees is scheduled for September 12, 2013, according to Citigroup Inc.'s March 1, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012. Beginning in 2005, several putative class actions were filed against Citigroup, its affiliates and subsidiaries, and current and former officers, directors and employees (collectively referred to as Citigroup and Related Parties), together with Visa, MasterCard and other banks and their affiliates, in various federal district courts and consolidated with other related cases in a multi-district litigation proceeding before Judge Gleeson in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. This proceeding is captioned IN RE PAYMENT CARD INTERCHANGE FEE AND MERCHANT DISCOUNT ANTITRUST LITIGATION. The plaintiffs, merchants that accept Visa- and MasterCard-branded payment cards as well as membership associations that claim to represent certain groups of merchants, allege, among other things, that defendants have engaged in conspiracies to set the price of interchange and merchant discount fees on credit and debit card transactions and to restrain trade through various Visa and MasterCard rules governing merchant conduct, all in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and certain California statutes. The Plaintiffs seek, on behalf of classes of U.S. merchants, treble damages, including all interchange fees paid to all Visa and MasterCard members with respect to Visa and MasterCard transactions in the U.S. since at least January 1, 2004, as well as injunctive relief. Supplemental complaints have also been filed against defendants in the putative class actions alleging that Visa's and MasterCard's respective initial public offerings were anticompetitive and violated Section 7 of the Clayton Act, and that MasterCard's initial public offering constituted a fraudulent conveyance. On July 13, 2012, all parties to the putative class actions, including Citigroup and Related Parties, entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) setting forth the material terms of a class settlement. The class settlement contemplated by the MOU provides for, among other things, a total payment by all defendants to the class of $6.05 billion; a rebate to merchants participating in the damages class settlement of 10 basis points on interchange collected for a period of eight months by the Visa and MasterCard networks; changes to certain network rules that would permit merchants to surcharge some payment card transactions subject to certain limitations and conditions, including disclosure to consumers at the point of sale; and broad releases in favor of the defendants. Subsequently, all defendants and certain of the plaintiffs who had entered into the MOU executed a settlement agreement consistent with the terms of the MOU. On November 27, 2012, the court entered an order granting preliminary approval of the proposed class settlements and provisionally certified two classes for settlement purposes only. The court scheduled a final approval hearing for September 12, 2013. Several large merchants and associations have stated publicly that they intend to object to or opt out of the settlement, and have appealed from the court's preliminary approval of the proposed class settlements. Visa and MasterCard have also entered into a settlement agreement with merchants that filed individual, non-class actions. While Citigroup and Related Parties are not parties to the individual merchant non-class settlement agreement, they are contributing to that settlement, and the agreement provides for a release of claims against Citigroup and Related Parties. Additional information concerning these consolidated actions is publicly available in court filings under the docket number MDL 05-1720 (E.D.N.Y.) (Gleeson, J.). The history of Citigroup Inc. -- http://www.citigroup.com/-- dates back to the founding of Citibank in 1812. New York-based Citigroup is a global diversified financial services holding company whose businesses provide consumers, corporations, governments and institutions with a broad range of financial products and services, including consumer banking and credit, corporate and investment banking, securities brokerage, transaction services and wealth management. CITIGROUP INC: April 8 Hearing on Securities Suit Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------ A fairness hearing on Citigroup Inc.'s $590 million settlement of the consolidated securities litigation in New York is scheduled for April 8, 2013, according to the Company's March 1, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012. Beginning in November 2007, Citigroup, its affiliates and subsidiaries, and current and former officers, directors and employees (collectively referred to as Citigroup and Related Parties) were named as defendants in a variety of class action and individual securities lawsuits filed by investors in Citigroup's equity and debt securities in state and federal courts relating to the Company's disclosures regarding its exposure to subprime- related assets. Citigroup and Related Parties have been named as defendants in the consolidated putative class action IN RE CITIGROUP INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The consolidated amended complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of Citigroup common stock from January 1, 2004, through January 15, 2009. On November 9, 2010, the court issued an opinion and order dismissing all claims except those arising out of Citigroup's exposure to CDOs for the time period February 1, 2007, through April 18, 2008. On August 30, 2012, the court entered an order preliminarily approving the parties' proposed settlement, pursuant to which Citigroup will pay $590 million in exchange for a release of all claims asserted on behalf of the settlement class. A fairness hearing is scheduled for April 8, 2013. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the consolidated lead docket number 07 Civ. 9901 (S.D.N.Y.) (Stein, J.). The history of Citigroup Inc. -- http://www.citigroup.com/-- dates back to the founding of Citibank in 1812. New York-based Citigroup is a global diversified financial services holding company whose businesses provide consumers, corporations, governments and institutions with a broad range of financial products and services, including consumer banking and credit, corporate and investment banking, securities brokerage, transaction services and wealth management. CITIGROUP INC: Class Action Attorneys Allegedly Inflate Fees ------------------------------------------------------------ Sue Reisinger, writing for Corporate Counsel, reports that the plaintiff's lawyers in the Citigroup Inc. securities litigation case are trying to inflate the price of temporary attorneys nearly five to nine times the actual cost, according to William Ruane, a former associate general counsel for litigation at Wyeth Pharmaceuticals Inc. "The market value for the services provided by temporary attorneys . . . is, at most, in the $50-$75 range," Mr. Ruane said in a declaration earlier this month in U.S. District Court in Manhattan. But plaintiff law firm Kirby McInerney is seeking $275 to $550 per hour for such services, according to court documents, justifying the upcharge in part because the law firm trained and supervised the temps. In total, the law firm is seeking 16.5 percent of the $590 million settlement in legal fees for the class action case. "It's outrageous," Mr. Ruane told CorpCounsel.com on March 29. "There are a lot of inefficiencies in the hourly billing system. And the whole trend for the past 10 years or longer for clients who pay for their own legal work is to reduce the cost of that." But the law firm used a so-called lodestar multiplier method, which computes fees by multiplying the number of hours reasonably spent by counsel times a reasonable hourly rate. The figure can be adjusted for other multipliers, such as the contingency risk taken by counsel and the quality of the work done. "Let's make believe [the temporary lawyer is] the same as a $500 associate -- that's what the lodestar multiplier is really about," Mr. Ruane claimed. The former in-house counsel, who headed Wyeth's litigation efforts for 20 years, didn't discuss the settlement amount in his filing. But on the fee amount, he wrote, "I certainly never permitted, and I am not aware of any other client who has permitted, outside counsel to inflate that cost by a multiple of 4.5 to 9 solely because the temporary attorneys had been trained and supervised." He said the plaintiff's firms were asking rates consistent in retaining New York law firms with "permanent, partner-track associates, not for temporary attorneys." He cited charges for one temporary attorney as especially egregious: A lawyer who spent one month, about 239 hours, reading and digesting one deposition transcript, Mr. Ruane noted. "Even at one of the lower temporary rates ($375 per hour), the project resulted in an asserted lodestar of almost $90,000," Mr. Ruane said. "I submit that it is difficult to justify a $90,000 deposition digest . . . The actual cost of the time that allegedly went into the digest was probably closer to $15,000." Mr. Ruane was a witness for attorney Theodore Frank, of the Center for Class Action Fairness, who is also a member of the class as a Citigroup shareholder. Mr. Frank has objected not only to the allegedly inflated contract attorney fees, but also to the total fee amount and to the settlement amount. "It is indisputable that class counsel's proposed billing rate for the contract attorneys is inflated six- to tenfold," Mr. Frank said in his court filing. "I don't think this is a unique case," Mr. Frank told CorpCounsel.com on March 29. "This is happening in a lot of securities cases. And I think pension funds, mutual funds, and hedge funds should actually hire someone on a contingency basis to scrutinize these fee requests." Mr. Frank has made it his life's work to oppose padded fees, and has filed objections in about two dozen cases over the years. He told the court he has been successful in about 18 of those cases. "Like most lawyers, I became a lawyer to correct injustice," Mr. Frank said in an interview. "No one else is doing this, and I saw a need. They are taking money from innocent shareholders -- tens of millions of dollars. It's the rich raiding the pensions of the middle class." U.S. District Judge Sidney Stein has set a settlement fairness hearing on April 8 to discuss the amounts at issue in the Citigroup case. The Association of Corporate Counsel has also objected to the legal fees in an amicus letter sent to the judge. The case is one of several in which courts are being asked to more closely scrutinize attorney fee requests. But in its response to the objectors, the Kirby McInerney law firm has defended its fees as reasonable and customary in the industry. Peter Linden, a Kirby McInerney partner involved in the case, defended the firm's use of contract attorneys in a recent interview with Forbes, saying, "Not only has the practice been endorsed by numerous courts, but it has allowed for more efficient prosecution of the case." The law firm also presented a court filing from its own expert, professor Geoffrey Miller, of the New York University Law School and a former in-house lawyer in the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel. Mr. Miller said in the filing that he analyzed the settlement and found it "represents excellent value for the class." He determined the fee request of 16.5 percent of the settlement amount to be "within the ordinary range for percentage fee awards." The rates are necessary, Mr. Miller argued, in order to properly compensate counsel "and to incentivize attorneys to bring similar cases in the future." The professor went on, "The rates charged by counsel are commensurate with those charged by attorneys with similar expertise and qualifications in New York and around the country." Mr. Frank disagreed, saying that Mr. Miller was working on the false premise that the rates charged were for Kirby McInerney attorneys and not for contract lawyers. As for the law firm's argument that other courts have allowed such rate markups, Mr. Frank countered: " 'Everybody's doing it' -- that's their defense?" he asked. "If that's so, then it's a problem that could reach into billions of dollars." COLLEGIATE LICENSING: Insurers Can't Intervene in Suit ------------------------------------------------------ Iulia Filip at Courthouse News Service reports that insurers implicated in multiple class actions over the image rights of college athletes cannot intervene in a California lawsuit against Collegiate Licensing Co., the 11th Circuit ruled. Collegiate Licensing, or CLC, is a trademark licensing and marketing agent for the National Collegiate Athletic Association and more than 200 colleges and universities. Its licensees sell NCAA football- and basketball-related video games that use licensed trademarks, logos and college colors. Beginning in 2009, several class action lawsuits, most of which were filed in California, alleged that CLC, its licensee Electronic Arts Inc., and the NCAA had cheated student-athletes out of their right to profit from their own images and likenesses in video games and other materials. CLC sought coverage from American Casualty Co. of Reading, Pa., and three other insurance companies, whose policies provided defense and indemnity coverage in lawsuits alleging "personal and advertising injury." It also sought coverage, as an additional insured, from National Union Fire Insurance Co., a company that insured Electronic Arts in California. National Union filed an October 2011 federal complaint against Electronic Arts and CLC in California to determine its defense obligations in the underlying lawsuits. After American Casualty and CLC's other direct insurers imposed restrictions that CLC viewed as unreasonable, CLC also filed suit in the Northern District of Georgia, seeking a declaration that the insurers were obligated to defend it in the California lawsuits. The insurance companies sought to intervene in National Union's California action and to file intervention complaints, but CLC asked the Georgia district court to enjoin their intervention, arguing that its Georgia lawsuit had been filed first. Before the Georgia court ruled on the issue, the Northern District of California allowed the insurers to intervene and to file intervention complaints, finding that they sought the same declaratory relief as National Union. The California court found the motions to intervene timely, because the lawsuit was still in its early stages, but it remained silent on the first-filed issue. In December 2011, the Georgia district court enjoined the insurers' intervention and ordered them to dismiss their intervention complaints. The court found that CLC's lawsuit before it was filed first, because National Union's action, the earliest action from a chronological standpoint, did not overlap with CLC's Georgia lawsuit. The insurers appealed, arguing that the Georgia court had erred in its application of the first-filed rule, and that it had abused its discretion in overruling the California court's order. The 11th Circuit upheld the Georgia court's decision last week, finding that it was correct in ruling that CLC's lawsuit could be compared only with the insurers' intervention complaints, which came after the Georgia action. The intervention complaints involved the same parties, the same insurance policies and the same legal issues as CLC's Georgia lawsuit, whereas National Union's lawsuit did not, according to the March 21 ruling. Though the California court correctly concluded that the insurers' claims shared certain legal issues with National Union's action, the two lawsuits involved different insurance companies and policies issued by brokers in different states, the three-judge panel found. The appellate court rejected the insurance companies' argument that the first-filed rule applies only to new complaints filed in subsequent jurisdictions, and not to intervention complaints. "A contrary rule would allow an end-run around the first-filed rule any time permissive intervention might be allowed in a different court," U.S. District Judge Mary Scriven, sitting by designation from Tampa, Fla., wrote for the court. "Certainly, it cannot be said that the Georgia district court committed legal error or abused its discretion when it declined to permit such a maneuver in the case before it." The Georgia court had also properly rejected the anticipatory suit exception to the first-filed rule because CLC was justified in suing its primary insurers in Georgia, where it is headquartered, regardless of the National Union lawsuit. Since none of the parties or known witnesses are California citizens, and many of the relevant documents are in Georgia, the Georgia court is also the most convenient forum, according to the ruling. The insurers had argued that the Georgia district court had abused its discretion in overruling a sister court, because the California court had found their motions for intervention timely. But the judges noted that the California court had never ruled on the first-filed issue. There is no indication that the Georgia court tried to interfere with the jurisdiction of its sister court, which is "prohibited by black letter law," according to the ruling. On the contrary, both district courts did their best to avoid infringing on each other's authority. The California court refrained from ruling on the first-filed issue, while the Georgia court directed its order to the insurers, not to its sister court, the ruling adds. COMCAST CORP: Cato Institute Discusses Supreme Court Ruling ----------------------------------------------------------- Walter Olson at Cato Institute reports that confirming the pattern of 2011's Wal-Mart v. Dukes, the issue of class action procedure continues to generate a sharp 5-4 ideological split at the Supreme Court. On March 27, replicating the general Dukes line-up, the Court's five conservatives ruled against certifying a large antitrust class action against Comcast over its conduct in the Philadelphia cable market, finding that the plaintiffs' model of economic damages did not suffice to justify handling the case as a class action. The trial court had knocked out three of the plaintiffs' four theories of recovery; the majority found the plaintiffs' economic model did not distinguish among the theories in such a way as to enable a court to recognize distinct damages attributable to the surviving theory. Despite protest from a few pro-antitrust commentators and sweeping claims of victory by a few on the defense side, Comcast is most likely to be remembered as a relatively narrow ruling with limited impact on future cases, for reasons Andrew Longstreth explains at Reuters. Some plaintiffs will need to be a bit more careful in constructing their cases, but the differences won't be major. Indeed, the dissenters, led by Justices Ruth Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, describe the majority's ruling as "good for this day and case only." The Cato Institute had entered the fray with an amicus brief arguing the following: 1. Courts must engage in a rigorous analysis at the certification stage rather than wave plaintiffs through the gate, even when such an inquiry overlaps with questions of merits that go to the case's ultimate substantive resolution. 2. In particular, expert reports at the certification stage should be subject to Daubert tests of admissibility, as they are at the merits stage. The majority opinion emphatically agreed with us on the first point and the dissent did not make any real attempt to challenge it. That suggests that a sound view of this question may command a broad or even unanimous consensus on the Court. To many participants' surprise, the Court never reached the second point about admissibility, instead proceeding to rule on questions of predominance. This led to a sharp protest from the four dissenters that the majority was reaching out to decide the case on a different ground than it had been briefed on. "Few doubt that we can expect more wrangling at the Court on class action standards. That could soon happen in its consideration of a Sixth Circuit washing-machine case called Whirlpool v. Glazer, discussed by Ted Frank," Mr. Olson said. DECKERS OUTDOOR: Defends Securities Class Suit in Delaware ---------------------------------------------------------- Deckers Outdoor Corporation is defending a securities class action lawsuit pending in Delaware, according to the Company's March 1, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012. On May 31, 2012, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against the Company and certain of its officers. On August 1, 2012, a similar purported shareholder class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against the Company and certain of its officers. These actions are purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of the Company's publicly traded securities between October 27, 2011, and April 26, 2012. The Plaintiffs in both complaints allege that defendants made false and misleading statements, purport to assert claims for violations of the federal securities laws, and seek unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. The California case has been dismissed with prejudice; the Delaware action remains pending. The Company believes the claim in the Delaware complaint is without merit and intends to defend the action vigorously. While the Company believes there is no legal basis for liability, due to the uncertainty surrounding the litigation process, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate a range of loss, if any, at this time. Goleta, California-based Deckers Outdoor Corporation -- http://www.deckers.com/-- was incorporated in 1975 in California and, in 1993, reincorporated in Delaware. The Company designs and markets innovative, functional and fashion-oriented footwear developed for both high performance outdoor activities and everyday casual lifestyle use. FIRST INTERSTATE: Still Awaits OK of Visa Interchange Suit Deal --------------------------------------------------------------- First Interstate BancSystem, Inc. is still awaiting court approval of a proposed settlement of the Visa Interchange Litigation, according to the Company's March 1, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012. On July 13, 2012, Visa, MasterCard and U.S. financial institution defendants signed a memorandum of understanding to enter into a settlement agreement to resolve a class-action lawsuit alleging collusion between the defendant banks and the credit card companies to maintain higher credit card interchange fees. Under the terms of the proposed settlement, class merchants may receive a distribution equal to 10 basis points of default interchange for a period of eight months, which would effectively reduce interchange fees received by credit card issuers, like the Company, during that time. Based on current transaction volumes, a 10 basis point reduction in credit interchange fees would not have a material impact on the Company's consolidated financial statements, results of operations or liquidity. The proposed settlement agreement was submitted for preliminary federal court approval on October 19, 2012. Assuming the proposed settlement agreement is approved, the eight-month reduction in interchange fees could begin in late 2013. First Interstate BancSystem, Inc. -- http://www.FIBK.com/-- is a financial and bank holding company incorporated as a Montana corporation in 1971, and is headquartered in Billings, Montana. The Company also offers Internet and mobile banking services. GARDNER DENVER: Being Sold to Kohlberg for Too Little, Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ Courthouse News Service reports that Gardner Denver (engineering products) is selling itself through an unfair process to Kohlberg Kravis Roberts for $3.7 billion or $76 a share, though it received an offer of $85 a share, shareholders claim in Chancery Court. GOLDMAN SACHS: Appeal From Dismissal of ARS Suits Remains Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- An appeal from the dismissal of two complaints brought on behalf of issuers of and investors in auction rate securities remains pending, according to The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.'s March 1, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012. On September 4, 2008, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (Group Inc.) was named as a defendant, together with numerous other financial services firms, in two complaints filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging that the defendants engaged in a conspiracy to manipulate the auction securities market in violation of federal antitrust laws. The actions were filed, respectively, on behalf of putative classes of issuers of and investors in auction rate securities and seek, among other things, treble damages in an unspecified amount. The Defendants' motion to dismiss was granted on January 26, 2010. On March 1, 2010, the plaintiffs appealed from the dismissal of their complaints. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. -- http://www.gs.com/-- is a global investment banking, securities and investment management firm that provides a wide range of financial services to a substantial and diversified client base that includes corporations, financial institutions, governments and high-net-worth individuals. Goldman Sachs is a Delaware corporation headquartered in New York. GOLDMAN SACHS: Awaits Decisions in MF Global Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. is awaiting court decisions on the defendants' motions to dismiss a securities class action lawsuit related to two offerings of MF Global Holdings Ltd., according to the Company's March 1, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012. Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.) is among numerous underwriters named as defendants in class action complaints filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York commencing November 18, 2011. These complaints generally allege that the offering materials for two offerings of MF Global Holdings Ltd. convertible notes (aggregating approximately $575 million in principal amount) in February 2011 and July 2011, among other things, failed to describe adequately the nature, scope and risks of MF Global's exposure to European sovereign debt, in violation of the disclosure requirements of the federal securities laws. On August 20, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint and on October 19, 2012, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint. GS&Co. underwrote an aggregate principal amount of approximately $214 million of the notes. On October 31, 2011, MF Global Holdings Ltd. filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Manhattan, New York. GS&Co. has also received inquiries from various governmental and regulatory bodies and self-regulatory organizations concerning certain transactions with MF Global prior to its bankruptcy filing. Goldman Sachs is cooperating with all such inquiries. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. -- http://www.gs.com/-- is a global investment banking, securities and investment management firm that provides a wide range of financial services to a substantial and diversified client base that includes corporations, financial institutions, governments and high-net-worth individuals. Goldman Sachs is a Delaware corporation headquartered in New York. GOLDMAN SACHS: Awaits Okay of Accord in NYSE Specialist Suits ------------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. is awaiting court approval of a settlement resolving purported class action lawsuits related to NYSE floor specialist activities, according to the Company's March 1, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012. Spear, Leeds & Kellogg Specialists LLC, Spear, Leeds & Kellogg, L.P. and The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (Group Inc.) are among numerous defendants named in purported class actions brought beginning in October 2003 on behalf of investors in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging violations of the federal securities laws and state common law in connection with New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) floor specialist activities. On October 24, 2012, the parties entered into a definitive settlement agreement, subject to court approval. The Company has reserved the full amount of its proposed contribution to the settlement. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. -- http://www.gs.com/-- is a global investment banking, securities and investment management firm that provides a wide range of financial services to a substantial and diversified client base that includes corporations, financial institutions, governments and high-net-worth individuals. Goldman Sachs is a Delaware corporation headquartered in New York. GOLDMAN SACHS: Awaits Ruling in Hudson Mezzanine Investors' Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on a motion for class certification in a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of investors of Hudson Mezzanine 2006-1 and 2006-2, according to the Company's March 1, 2013 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012. On September 30, 2010, a putative class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.), The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (Group Inc.) and two former GS&Co. employees on behalf of investors in $821 million of notes issued in 2006 and 2007 by two synthetic collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) (Hudson Mezzanine 2006-1 and 2006-2). The complaint, which was amended on February 4, 2011, asserts federal securities law and common law claims, and seeks unspecified compensatory, punitive and other damages. The defendants moved to dismiss on April 5, 2011, and the motion was granted as to plaintiff's claim of market manipulation and denied as to the remainder of plaintiff's claims by a decision dated March 21, 2012. On May 21, 2012, the defendants counterclaimed for breach of contract and fraud. On December 17, 2012, the plaintiff moved for class certification. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. -- http://www.gs.com/-- is a global investment banking, securities and investment management firm that provides a wide range of financial services to a substantial and diversified client base that includes corporations, financial institutions, governments and high-net-worth individuals. Goldman Sachs is a Delaware corporation headquartered in New York. GOLDMAN SACHS: Awaits Ruling in RALI Pass-Thru Certificates Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on the defendants' petition seeking leave to appeal an order modifying the class definition in the RALI Pass-Through Certificates Litigation, according to the Company's March 1, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012. Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.) is among numerous underwriters named as defendants in a putative securities class action initially filed in September 2008 in New York Supreme Court, and subsequently removed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. As to the underwriters, plaintiffs allege that the offering documents in connection with various offerings of mortgage-backed pass-through certificates violated the disclosure requirements of the federal securities laws. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Residential Capital, LLC (ResCap), Residential Accredit Loans, Inc. (RALI), Residential Funding Corporation (RFC), Residential Funding Securities Corporation (RFSC), and certain of their officers and directors. On March 31, 2010, the defendants' motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part by the district court, resulting in dismissal on the basis of standing of all claims relating to offerings in which no plaintiff purchased securities and, by an order dated January 3, 2013, the district court denied, without prejudice, plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration. In June and July 2010, the lead plaintiff and five additional investors moved to intervene in order to assert claims based on additional offerings (including two underwritten by GS&Co.). On April 28, 2011, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss as to certain of these claims (including those relating to one offering underwritten by GS&Co. based on a release in an unrelated settlement), but otherwise permitted the intervenor case to proceed. By an order dated January 3, 2013, the district court denied the defendants' motions to dismiss certain of the intervenors' remaining claims as time barred. Class certification of the claims based on the pre-intervention offerings was initially denied by the district court, and that denial was upheld on appeal; however, following remand, on October 15, 2012, the district court certified a class in connection with the pre- intervention offerings. On November 5, 2012, the defendants filed a petition seeking leave from the U.S. Court of Appeals to appeal the certification order. By an order dated January 3, 2013, the district court granted the plaintiffs' application to modify the class definition to include initial purchasers who bought the securities directly from the underwriters or their agents no later than ten trading days after the offering date (rather than just on the offering date). On January 18, 2013, the defendants filed a supplemental petition seeking leave from the U.S. Court of Appeals to appeal the order modifying the class definition. GS&Co. underwrote approximately $1.28 billion principal amount of securities to all purchasers in the offerings for which claims have not been dismissed. On May 14, 2012, ResCap, RALI and RFC filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York and the action has been stayed with respect to them, RFSC and certain of their officers and directors. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. -- http://www.gs.com/-- is a global investment banking, securities and investment management firm that provides a wide range of financial services to a substantial and diversified client base that includes corporations, financial institutions, governments and high-net-worth individuals. Goldman Sachs is a Delaware corporation headquartered in New York. GOLDMAN SACHS: Continues to Defend Suit Alleging Discrimination --------------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. continues to defend itself and its subsidiary against a class action lawsuit alleging they discriminated against female employees, according to the Company's March 1, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012. On September 15, 2010, a putative class action was filed in the U.S. District for the Southern District of New York by three former female employees alleging that The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (Group Inc.) and Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.) have systematically discriminated against female employees in respect of compensation, promotion, assignments, mentoring and performance evaluations. The complaint alleges a class consisting of all female employees employed at specified levels by Group Inc. and GS&Co. since July 2002, and asserts claims under federal and New York City discrimination laws. The complaint seeks class action status, injunctive relief and unspecified amounts of compensatory, punitive and other damages. Group Inc. and GS&Co. filed a motion to stay the claims of one of the named plaintiffs and to compel individual arbitration with that individual, based on an arbitration provision contained in an employment agreement between Group Inc. and the individual. On April 28, 2011, the magistrate judge to whom the district judge assigned the motion denied the motion, and the district court affirmed the magistrate judge's decision on November 15, 2011. Group Inc. and GS&Co. have appealed that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On June 13, 2011, Group Inc. and GS&Co. moved to strike the class allegations of one of the three named plaintiffs based on her failure to exhaust administrative remedies. On September 29, 2011, the magistrate judge recommended denial of the motion to strike and, on January 10, 2012, the district court denied the motion to strike. On July 22, 2011, Group Inc. and GS&Co. moved to strike all of the plaintiffs' class allegations, and for partial summary judgment as to plaintiffs' disparate impact claims. By a decision dated January 19, 2012, the magistrate judge recommended that defendants' motion be denied as premature. The defendants filed objections to that recommendation with the district judge and on July 17, 2012, the district court issued a decision granting in part Group Inc.'s and GS&Co.'s motion to strike plaintiffs' class allegations on the ground that plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue certain equitable remedies and denying in part Group Inc.'s and GS&Co.'s motion to strike plaintiffs' class allegations in their entirety as premature. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. -- http://www.gs.com/-- is a global investment banking, securities and investment management firm that provides a wide range of financial services to a substantial and diversified client base that includes corporations, financial institutions, governments and high-net-worth individuals. Goldman Sachs is a Delaware corporation headquartered in New York. GOLDMAN SACHS: Defends IndyMac Pass-Through Certificates Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. continues to defend its subsidiary against the IndyMac Pass-Through Certificates Litigation, according to the Company's March 1, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012. The Company's principal U.S. broker-dealer, Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.) is among numerous underwriters named as defendants in a putative securities class action filed on May 14, 2009, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. As to the underwriters, the plaintiffs allege that the offering documents in connection with various securitizations of mortgage- related assets violated the disclosure requirements of the federal securities laws. The defendants include IndyMac-related entities formed in connection with the securitizations, the underwriters of the offerings, certain ratings agencies which evaluated the credit quality of the securities, and certain former officers and directors of IndyMac affiliates. On November 2, 2009, the underwriters moved to dismiss the complaint. The motion was granted in part on February 17, 2010, to the extent of dismissing claims based on offerings in which no plaintiff purchased, and the court reserved judgment as to the other aspects of the motion. By a decision dated June 21, 2010, the district court formally dismissed all claims relating to offerings in which no named plaintiff purchased certificates (including all offerings underwritten by GS&Co.), and both granted and denied the defendants' motions to dismiss in various other respects. On November 16, 2012, the district court denied the plaintiffs' motion seeking reinstatement of claims relating to 42 offerings previously dismissed for lack of standing (one of which was co- underwritten by GS&Co.) without prejudice to renewal depending on the outcome of the petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court with respect to the Second Circuit's decision. On May 17, 2010, four additional investors filed a motion seeking to intervene in order to assert claims based on additional offerings (including two underwritten by GS&Co.). The defendants opposed the motion on the ground that the putative intervenors' claims were time-barred and, on June 21, 2011, the court denied the motion to intervene with respect to, among others, the claims based on the offerings underwritten by GS&Co. Certain of the putative intervenors (including those seeking to assert claims based on two offerings underwritten by GS&Co.) have appealed. GS&Co. underwrote approximately $751 million principal amount of securities to all purchasers in the offerings at issue in the May 2010 motion to intervene. On July 11, 2008, IndyMac Bank was placed under an FDIC receivership, and on July 31, 2008, IndyMac Bancorp, Inc. filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Los Angeles, California. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. -- http://www.gs.com/-- is a global investment banking, securities and investment management firm that provides a wide range of financial services to a substantial and diversified client base that includes corporations, financial institutions, governments and high-net-worth individuals. Goldman Sachs is a Delaware corporation headquartered in New York. GOLDMAN SACHS: Defends Mortgage Certificates-Related Suits ---------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. is defending its subsidiaries from two class action lawsuits brought on behalf of purchasers of various mortgage pass-through certificates and asset-backed certificates issued by various securitization trusts established by the Company and underwritten by a subsidiary, according to the Company's March 1, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012. Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.), Goldman Sachs Mortgage Company (GSMC) and GS Mortgage Securities Corp. (GSMSC) and three current or former Goldman Sachs employees are defendants in a putative class action commenced on December 11, 2008, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York brought on behalf of purchasers of various mortgage pass-through certificates and asset-backed certificates issued by various securitization trusts established by the Company and underwritten by GS&Co. in 2007. The complaint generally alleges that the registration statement and prospectus supplements for the certificates violated the federal securities laws, and seeks unspecified compensatory damages and rescission or rescissionary damages. Following dismissals of certain of the plaintiff's claims under the initial and three amended complaints, on May 5, 2011, the court granted plaintiff's motion for entry of a final judgment dismissing all its claims, thereby allowing plaintiff to appeal. The plaintiff appealed from the dismissal with respect to all 17 of the offerings included in its original complaint. By a decision dated September 6, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's claims with respect to 10 of the offerings included in plaintiff's original complaint but vacated the dismissal and remanded the case to the district court with instructions to reinstate the plaintiff's claims with respect to the other seven offerings. On October 26, 2012, the defendants filed a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review of the Second Circuit decision. On October 31, 2012, the plaintiff served defendants with a fourth amended complaint relating to those seven offerings, plus seven additional offerings. On June 3, 2010, another investor (who had unsuccessfully sought to intervene in the action) filed a separate putative class action asserting substantively similar allegations relating to one of the offerings included in the initial plaintiff's complaint. The district court twice granted defendants' motions to dismiss this separate action, both times with leave to replead. On July 9, 2012, that separate plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, and the defendants moved to dismiss on September 21, 2012. On December 26, 2012, that separate plaintiff filed a motion to amend the second amended complaint to add claims with respect to two additional offerings included in the initial plaintiff's complaint. The securitization trusts issued, and GS&Co. underwrote, approximately $11 billion principal amount of certificates to all purchasers in the fourteen offerings at issue in the complaints. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. -- http://www.gs.com/-- is a global investment banking, securities and investment management firm that provides a wide range of financial services to a substantial and diversified client base that includes corporations, financial institutions, governments and high-net-worth individuals. Goldman Sachs is a Delaware corporation headquartered in New York. GOLDMAN SACHS: Faces Suit Over "Force-Placed" Hazard Insurance -------------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit in New York related to "force-placed" hazard insurance, according to the Company's March 1, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (Group Inc.), Litton Loan Servicing LP and Ocwen Financial Corporation (Ocwen) are defendants in a putative class action filed on January 23, 2013, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York generally challenging the procurement manner and scope of "force-placed" hazard insurance arranged by Litton when homeowners failed to arrange for insurance as required by their mortgages. The complaint asserts claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, misappropriation, conversion, unjust enrichment and violation of Florida unfair practices law, and seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages as well as declaratory and injunctive relief. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. -- http://www.gs.com/-- is a global investment banking, securities and investment management firm that provides a wide range of financial services to a substantial and diversified client base that includes corporations, financial institutions, governments and high-net-worth individuals. Goldman Sachs is a Delaware corporation headquartered in New York. GOLDMAN SACHS: Fannie Mae-Related Class Suit Remains Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.'s principal U.S. broker-dealer, Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.) was added as a defendant in an amended complaint filed on August 14, 2006 in, a purported class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The complaint asserts violations of the federal securities laws generally arising from allegations concerning Fannie Mae's accounting practices in connection with certain Fannie Mae-sponsored REMIC transactions that were allegedly arranged by GS&Co. The complaint does not specify a dollar amount of damages. The other defendants include Fannie Mae, certain of its past and present officers and directors, and accountants. By a decision dated May 8, 2007, the district court granted GS&Co.'s motion to dismiss the claim against it. The time for an appeal will not begin to run until disposition of the claims against other defendants. A motion to stay the action filed by the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), which took control of the action following Fannie Mae's conservatorship, was denied on November 14, 2011. No further updates were reported in the Company's March 1, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. -- http://www.gs.com/-- is a global investment banking, securities and investment management firm that provides a wide range of financial services to a substantial and diversified client base that includes corporations, financial institutions, governments and high-net-worth individuals. Goldman Sachs is a Delaware corporation headquartered in New York. GOLDMAN SACHS: Suit Challenging CDO Disclosure Remains Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- The consolidated class action lawsuit challenging the adequacy of The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.'s public disclosure of its activities in the collateralized debt obligation market remains pending, according to the Company's March 1, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012. On April 16, 2010, the SEC brought an action (SEC Action) under the U.S. federal securities laws in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company's principal U.S. broker-dealer, Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.) and Fabrice Tourre, a former employee, in connection with a collateralized debt obligation (CDO) offering made in early 2007 (ABACUS 2007-AC1 transaction), alleging that the defendants made materially false and misleading statements to investors and seeking, among other things, unspecified monetary penalties. Investigations of GS&Co. by Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (FINRA) and of Goldman Sachs International (GSI) by the Financial Services Authority (FSA) were subsequently initiated, and Group Inc. and certain of its affiliates have received subpoenas and requests for information from other regulators, regarding CDO offerings, including the ABACUS 2007-AC1 transaction, and related matters. Beginning April 26, 2010, a number of purported securities law class actions have been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York challenging the adequacy of The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.'s (Group Inc.'s) public disclosure of, among other things, the Company's activities in the CDO market and the SEC investigation that led to the SEC Action. The purported class action complaints, which name as defendants Group Inc. and certain officers and employees of Group Inc. and its affiliates, have been consolidated, generally allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and seek unspecified damages. Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on July 25, 2011. On October 6, 2011, the defendants moved to dismiss, and by a decision dated June 21, 2012, the district court dismissed the claims based on Group Inc.'s not disclosing that it had received a "Wells" notice from the staff of the SEC related to the ABACUS 2007-AC1 transaction, but permitted the plaintiffs' other claims to proceed. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. -- http://www.gs.com/-- is a global investment banking, securities and investment management firm that provides a wide range of financial services to a substantial and diversified client base that includes corporations, financial institutions, governments and high-net-worth individuals. Goldman Sachs is a Delaware corporation headquartered in New York. GOLDMAN SACHS: Suit Over Municipal Securities Remains Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- One lawsuit over transactions involving municipal securities remains pending, according to The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.'s March 1, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (Group Inc.) and certain of its affiliates are subject to a number of investigations and reviews by various governmental and regulatory bodies and self-regulatory organizations relating to transactions involving municipal securities, including wall-cross procedures and conflict of interest disclosure with respect to state and municipal clients, the trading and structuring of municipal derivative instruments in connection with municipal offerings, political contribution rules, underwriting of Build America Bonds and the possible impact of credit default swap transactions on municipal issuers. Goldman Sachs is cooperating with the investigations and reviews. Group Inc., Goldman Sachs Mitsui Marine Derivative Products, L.P. (GSMMDP) and Goldman Sachs Bank USA (GS Bank USA) are among numerous financial services firms that have been named as defendants in numerous substantially identical individual antitrust actions filed beginning on November 12, 2009, that have been coordinated with related antitrust class action litigation and individual actions, in which no Goldman Sachs affiliate is named, for pre-trial proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiffs include individual California municipal entities and three New York non- profit entities. All of these complaints against Group Inc., GSMMDP and GS Bank USA generally allege that the Goldman Sachs defendants participated in a conspiracy to arrange bids, fix prices and divide up the market for derivatives used by municipalities in refinancing and hedging transactions from 1992 to 2008. The complaints assert claims under the federal antitrust laws and either California's Cartwright Act or New York's Donnelly Act, and seek, among other things, treble damages under the antitrust laws in an unspecified amount and injunctive relief. On April 26, 2010, the Goldman Sachs defendants' motion to dismiss complaints filed by several individual California municipal plaintiffs was denied. On August 19, 2011, Group Inc., GSMMDP and GS Bank USA were voluntarily dismissed without prejudice from all actions except one brought by a California municipal entity. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. -- http://www.gs.com/-- is a global investment banking, securities and investment management firm that provides a wide range of financial services to a substantial and diversified client base that includes corporations, financial institutions, governments and high-net-worth individuals. Goldman Sachs is a Delaware corporation headquartered in New York. GOLDMAN SACHS: Time to Appeal Settlement Approval Has Expired ------------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its March 1, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012, the time has expired for any appeal from the approval of its settlement of a 2009 class action lawsuit brought on behalf purchasers of various mortgage pass- through certificates and asset-backed certificates issued by various securitization trusts established by the Company and underwritten by a subsidiary. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (Group Inc.), Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.), Goldman Sachs Mortgage Company (GSMC) and GS Mortgage Securities Corp. (GSMSC) are among the defendants in a separate putative class action commenced on February 6, 2009, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York brought on behalf of purchasers of various mortgage pass-through certificates and asset-backed certificates issued by various securitization trusts established by the Company and underwritten by GS&Co. in 2006. The other original defendants include three current or former Goldman Sachs employees and various rating agencies. The second amended complaint generally alleges that the registration statement and prospectus supplements for the certificates violated the federal securities laws, and seeks unspecified compensatory and rescissionary damages. The Defendants moved to dismiss the second amended complaint. On January 12, 2011, the district court granted the motion to dismiss with respect to offerings in which plaintiff had not purchased securities as well as all claims against the rating agencies, but denied the motion to dismiss with respect to a single offering in which the plaintiff allegedly purchased securities. These trusts issued, and GS&Co. underwrote, approximately $698 million principal amount of certificates to all purchasers in the offerings at issue in the complaint (excluding those offerings for which the claims have been dismissed). On February 2, 2012, the district court granted the plaintiff's motion for class certification and on June 13, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted defendants' petition to review that ruling. On November 8, 2012, the court approved a settlement between the parties, and GS&Co. has paid the full amount of the settlement into an escrow account. The time for any appeal from the approval of the settlement has expired. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. -- http://www.gs.com/-- is a global investment banking, securities and investment management firm that provides a wide range of financial services to a substantial and diversified client base that includes corporations, financial institutions, governments and high-net-worth individuals. Goldman Sachs is a Delaware corporation headquartered in New York. GOLIVE! MOBILE: Faces Class Action Over Defrauding Customers ------------------------------------------------------------ Courthouse News Service reports that GoLive! Mobile dba SJA Mobile, and Airpush defraud wireless phone customers by cramming, a class action claims in Cook County Court. HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Defends Suits Over Underpayment of Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc., continues to defend itself against lawsuits alleging underpayment of claims and improper underwriting practices, according to the Company's March 1, 2013, Form 10-Q/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012. The Hartford is also involved in other kinds of legal actions, some of which assert claims for substantial amounts. These actions include, among others, putative state and federal class actions seeking certification of a state or national class. Such putative class actions have alleged, for example, underpayment of claims or improper underwriting practices in connection with various kinds of insurance policies, such as personal and commercial automobile, property, disability, life and inland marine. The Hartford also is involved in individual actions in which punitive damages are sought, such as claims alleging bad faith in the handling of insurance claims or other allegedly unfair or improper business practices. Like many other insurers, The Hartford also has been joined in actions by asbestos plaintiffs asserting, among other things, that insurers had a duty to protect the public from the dangers of asbestos and that insurers committed unfair trade practices by asserting defenses on behalf of their policyholders in the underlying asbestos cases. Management expects that the ultimate liability, if any, with respect to such lawsuits, after consideration of provisions made for estimated losses, will not be material to the consolidated financial condition of The Hartford. Nonetheless, given the large or indeterminate amounts sought in certain of these actions, and the inherent unpredictability of litigation, the outcome in certain matters could, from time to time, have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations or cash flows in particular quarterly or annual periods. The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. is a holding company for insurance and financial services subsidiaries that provide investment products and life and property and casualty insurance to both individual and business customers in the United States of America. The Company is headquartered in Hartford, Connecticut. HAIER AMERICA: Recalls Additional 41,000 Chest Freezers ------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Haier America Trading LLC, of New York, announced a voluntary recall of about 41,000 Chest Freezers (67,500 additional freezers were recalled in November 2010). Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. A capacitor in the freezer's circuitry can overheat, posing a fire hazard. In addition to the 18 incidents reported in the November 2010 recall, which included four reports of fires with minor property damage, Haier America and CPSC have received 27 additional incident reports. This includes three fires that caused substantial property damage. There have been no reports of injuries. This recall involves the Haier(R) models HNCM070E with 7.0 cubic foot capacity and ESNCM053E with 5.3 cubic foot capacity, and Black & Decker(R) model BFE53 with 5.3 cubic foot capacity white chest freezers. "Haier" is printed on the upper-left corner of the freezer, or "Black & Decker" is printed on the front upper- right corner of the freezer. "Haier" or "Black & Decker," the model number, the unit's serial number and other information are printed on a rating label at the top center of the back of the freezer. The recalled Black & Decker model BFE53 freezer also has a label adjacent to the rating label with the UPC number 896603002660 printed on it. Freezers with serial numbers beginning with the following numbers are recalled: Black & Decker Haier Model Haier Model Model BFE53 w/ HNCM070E ESNCM053E UPC896603002660 ----------- ----------- --------------- 0907 1001 0907 1001 0907 1001 0908 1002 0908 1002 0908 1002 0909 1003 0909 1003 0909 1003 0910 1004 0910 1004 0910 1004 0911 0911 1005 0911 1005 0912 0912 1006 0912 1006 1007 1007 Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/eYpEtB The recalled products were manufactured in China. Haier model HNCM070E was sold by regional and local retailers nationwide and online at Amazon.com, Walmart.com and other online retailers from September 2009 through October 2011 for between $180 and $200. Haier model ESNCM053E was sold primarily on Amazon.com and other online retailers from February 2010 through March 2013 for between $200 and $290. The Black & Decker model BFE53 was sold exclusively at Walmart nationwide and at Walmart.com from September 2009 through September 2010, for about $150. Consumers should immediately unplug their freezer and contact the company to schedule an appointment for a free repair to the freezer. Haier America may be reached toll-free at (877) 878-7579 from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Eastern Time any day, or online at http://www.haieramerica.com/and click on Product Recalls for more information. INTUIT INC: Inks Agreement to Settle TurboTax-Related Suits ----------------------------------------------------------- Intuit Inc. has reached an agreement in principle to settle two class action lawsuits related to its TurboTax income tax preparation software, according to the Company's March 1, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended January 31, 2013. On January 13, 2012, two putative class actions were filed against Intuit Inc. in connection with its TurboTax income tax preparation software: Smith v. Intuit Inc. (U.S. District Court, Northern District of California) and Quildon v. Intuit Inc. (California Superior Court, Santa Clara County). The plaintiffs in both cases had asserted that the fees charged for the refund processing service offered within TurboTax are "refund anticipation loans" and the disclosures about those fees do not comply with California and federal laws. The Smith case was brought in federal court on behalf of a proposed nationwide class and subclasses; the Quildon case was brought in state court on behalf of a proposed California class and subclasses. In January 2013, for the purposes of settlement and without any admission of wrongdoing or liability, Intuit reached an agreement in principle to resolve all claims raised in the Smith and Quildon matters for an amount that is not material to the Company's consolidated financial statements. The Company accrued that amount in the second quarter of fiscal 2013. The terms of the proposed settlement are subject to the approval of the court, which could approve, reject, or suggest modifications to those terms. The Company currently believes that the likelihood of a material change to the proposed settlement amount is remote. Intuit Inc. provides business and financial management solutions for small businesses, consumers, accounting professionals and financial institutions. Incorporated in 1984 and headquartered in Mountain View, California, the Company sells its products and services primarily in the United States. ISRAEL: Gov't Agencies Face Class Action Over Unlawful Fees ----------------------------------------------------------- Yasmin Gueta, writing for Haaretz, reports that the state is stealing millions from the public, claims lawyer launching class action suit. Tens of millions of shekels were collected illegally from the public last year by government agencies such as the Israel Broadcasting Authority, the Israel Lands Administration, the Transportation Ministry and the Tel Aviv municipality. LIBERTY MUTUAL: 7th Cir. Nixes Appeal on Class Action Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- HarrisMartin reports that the 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals dismissed Liberty Mutual Insurance Co.'s appeal of a lower court's approval of a $450 million settlement of a class action brought against American International Group by members of the National Workers Compensation Reinsurance Association. On March 25, the majority noted that Liberty Mutual settled with AIG after filing this appeal and that its dismissal will not harm the other class members. The majority was comprised of Chief Judge Frank H. Easterbrook and Judge Daniel A. Manion. LIVINGSOCIAL INC: Judge Trims Plaintiffs' Lawyers $3MM Legal Fees ----------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Flook, writing for Washington Business Journal, reports that a federal judge has trimmed the request by plaintiffs' lawyers for $3 million in legal fees and costs as part of a settlement with LivingSocial Inc., citing doubts "as to whether the litigation was prosecuted in the most efficient manner possible." D.C.-based LivingSocial agreed in October to pay more than $4 million to settle a bundle of six class-action lawsuits challenging the expiration dates of its daily deals. U.S. District Court Judge Ellen Huvelle has approved a $4.1 million settlement, but limited the fees to $1.35 million -- and criticized the way the case was handled by the team of lawyers representing the plaintiffs. "Forty-six lawyers at twelve firms billed time to this case, and at one of the two firms that served as lead class counsel, every attorney in the firm -- seventeen in all -- billed time to this litigation," Judge Huvelle wrote. "At a minimum, this is a highly inefficient way of doing business." Coming on the heels of a similar challenge against rival Groupon Inc., the LivingSocial case hinged on whether the often short time frame the company gave consumers to redeem purchased deals violated the federal CARD Act, which bars gift cards from expiring within five years of their purchase, as well as some state statutes. So far, 26,830 valid claims have been submitted out of a possible pool of 10.9 million LivingSocial customers, according to the March 22 court filing. Each is entitled to roughly $70 under the settlement. One plaintiff in the suit was represented by D.C.-based Cuneo, Gilbert & LaDuca LLP. LOS ANGELES LAKERS: Plaintiff Balks at Class Action Dismissal Bid ----------------------------------------------------------------- Allison Grande, writing for Law360, reports that a ticket holder who launched a putative class action accusing the Los Angeles Lakers of sending him unsolicited text messages on March 28 shot back at the team's contention that he conspired with his attorneys to frame the franchise, saying that he consulted with counsel only after receiving the messages. In his opposition to the Lakers' dismissal bid, plaintiff David M. Emanuel objected to the team's classification of the complaint alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act as a "classic example of a lawyer-driven strike suit". LOUISIANA-PACIFIC: Fails to Reverse Class Certification Ruling -------------------------------------------------------------- Gavin Broady, writing for Law360, reports that a North Carolina judge on March 28 refused to decertify a long-running class action over alleged defects in Louisiana-Pacific Corp.'s TrimBoard exterior siding products, saying the plaintiffs' warranty claims do not require consideration of individual causation and damages issues. Judge Terrence W. Boyle rejected Louisiana-Pacific's arguments that individualized and unique issues over causation and damages predominate over common questions in the suit and make class treatment inappropriate. MCKESSON CORP: Propoxyphene Suit Remanded to Cal. Superior Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- BRANDLE v. McKESSON CORPORATION is one of many pharmaceutical product-liability actions currently pending in state courts alleging injuries from the ingestion of propoxyphene. The Plaintiffs allege 18 discrete state-law claims for relief against some or all of the defendants. The parties dispute when the present action was filed and how many times it has been removed. The Plaintiffs assert that it was filed in state court in October 2011 and that it was removed twice, while defendant Eli Lilly and Company claims it was filed in state court in November 2012 and that it was removed once. The parties, however, do not dispute that in October 2012, the Plaintiffs, along with others in the similar actions, filed a motion for coordination before the California Judicial Counsel. In November 2012, the Defendants removed the action on two grounds: (1) Class Action Fairness Act of 2005; and (2) federal-question and supplemental jurisdiction. The Plaintiffs now move to remand, arguing that neither basis was sufficient for removal. According to District Judge William Alsup, removal of an action under CAFA is proper if it qualifies as a "mass action" with monetary relief claims of 100 or more plaintiffs proposed to be tried jointly on the grounds that their claims involve common questions of law or fact. The number of Plaintiffs in the action -- three -- falls far short of 100. Instead, the Defendant points to the language of the coordination petition and to non-binding authority to argue that plaintiffs, by petitioning for coordination, collectively qualify as a mass action under CAFA since they number over 100 in the aggregate. Judge Alsup says he disagrees with the Defendant. The Defendant also cites decisions from both the Supreme Court and our court of appeals which stand for the proposition that when certain state claims turn on federal law, removal of an action to federal court can be proper. "This is, of course, an accurate portrayal of when removal can generally be appropriate. But defendant stretches these authorities too broadly to include the instant action, which only involves whiffs of federal law," Judge Alsup pointed out. Our court of appeals has made clear that "[t]he 'mere presence of a federal issue in a state cause of action does not automatically confer federal-question jurisdiction,'" he added. For these reasons, Judge Alsup granted the Plaintiffs' motion to remand and directed the Clerk of court to remand the action to the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco. The case is JAMES BRANDLE, REBECCA GREGG, and DIANA GUTHRIE, Plaintiffs, v. McKESSON CORPORATION, ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, AAIPHARMA, INC., AAIPHARMA LLC, AAI DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, INC., NEOSAN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ANODYNE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., QUALITEST PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., VINTAGE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., PROPST DISTRIBUTION, INC., BRENN DISTRIBUTION, INC., BRENN MANUFACTURING, INC., VINTAGE PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC, GENERICS INTERNATIONAL (US), INC., GENERICS BIDCO I, LLC, GENERICS BIDCO II, LLC, GENERICS INTERNATIONAL (US PARENT), INC., ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS HOLDINGS INC., CORNERSTONE BIOPHARMA, INC., CORNERSTONE BIOPHARMA HOLDINGS, INC., TEVA BIOPHARMACEUTICALS, INC., TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC, MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., MYLAN, INC, COVIDIEN PLC, COVIDIEN INC., MALLINCKRODT INC., WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ABLE LABORATORIES, INC., ARISTOS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, No. C 12-05970 WHA, (N.D. Cal.). A copy of the District Court's March 28, 2013 Order is available at http://is.gd/WSMMGFfrom Leagle.com. METROLINK: July 29 Hearing on Identity Theft Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Joe Harris at Courthouse News Service reports that Metro, St. Louis' main transit agency, has offered free rides to settle a class action that claims it violated a federal law to prevent identity theft. A preliminary settlement agreement was filed in Federal Court. The class claimed Metro violated the Fair and Accurate Transactions Act when its vending machines printed receipts that showed the last four digits of customers' credit card numbers, between Jan. 21, 2010 and Aug. 16, 2011. FACTA, passed in 2003, requires merchants to limit credit card information on printed receipts. Up to the last five digits of a credit card or its expiration date may be printed, but not both. In the settlement offer, Metro offered passengers who still have a credit card receipt either $30 in cash, a monthly pass worth $72, or two MetroLink 10-ride passes with a face value of $60. For passengers who furnish a statement that they used a credit or debit card during the class period, Metro offers three round-trip tickets worth $13.50 total. Passengers who do not have proof of payment but bought a ticket during the class period with a credit or debit card would be asked to sign a form, under penalty of perjury, stating they bought a ticket, and would get a free ticket for one ride, worth $2.25. Metro denies any wrongdoing in the settlement. No passengers are known to have suffered identity theft as a result of the receipts, according to the settlement. U.S. District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig will decide whether to approve the settlement after a hearing on July 29. MGIC INVESTMENT: Wins Final OK of Accord in Discrimination Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- MGIC Investment Corporation disclosed in its March 1, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012, that it received in November 2012 final approval of its settlement of a discrimination class action lawsuit. In October 2010, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against MGIC in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania by a loan applicant on whose behalf a now-settled action the Company previously disclosed had been filed by the U.S. Department of Justice. In this lawsuit, the loan applicant alleged that MGIC discriminated against her and certain proposed class members on the basis of sex and familial status when MGIC underwrote their loans for mortgage insurance. In May 2011, the District Court granted MGIC's motion to dismiss with respect to all claims except certain Fair Housing Act claims. On November 29, 2012, the District Court granted final approval for a class action settlement of the lawsuit. The settlement created a settlement class of 265 borrowers. Under the terms of the settlement, MGIC deposited $500,000 into an escrow account to fund possible payments to affected borrowers. In addition, MGIC paid the named plaintiff an "incentive fee" of $7,500 and paid class counsels' fees of $337,500. Any funds remaining in the escrow account after payment of all claims approved under the procedures established by the settlement will be returned to MGIC. Headquartered in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, MGIC Investment Corporation -- http://www.mgic.com/-- is a holding company and through its wholly-owned subsidiaries, the Company is a large private mortgage insurer. In addition to mortgage insurance on first mortgage loans, the Company, through its subsidiaries, provides lenders with various underwriting and other services and products related to home mortgage lending. MGIC INVESTMENT: Nine RESPA Violations Suits Remain Pending ----------------------------------------------------------- Nine lawsuits alleging that the captive mortgage reinsurance arrangements of a subsidiary of MGIC Investment Corporation violate provisions of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act remain pending, according to the Company's March 1, 2013, Form 10- K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012. Beginning in December 2011, Mortgage Guaranty Insurance Corporation ("MGIC"), various mortgage lenders and various other mortgage insurers have been named as defendants in twelve lawsuits, alleged to be class actions, filed in various U.S. District Courts. Three of those cases have previously been dismissed; the last dismissal occurred on November 13, 2012, and was of a case filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. The complaints in all nine of the remaining cases allege various causes of action related to the captive mortgage reinsurance arrangements of the mortgage lenders, including that the defendants violated Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA") by paying excessive premiums to the lenders' captive reinsurer in relation to the risk assumed by that captive. MGIC denies any wrongdoing and intends to vigorously defend itself against the allegations in the lawsuits. The remaining cases are: Date Filed Court ---------- ----- 12/09/2011 U.S. Dist. Ct. for the Central District of CA 12/31/2011 U.S. Dist. Ct. for the Eastern District of PA 04/05/2012 U.S. Dist. Ct. for the Western District of PA 04/05/2012 U.S. Dist. Ct. for the Eastern District of PA 05/18/2012 U.S. Dist. Ct. for the Eastern District of PA 06/28/2012 U.S. Dist. Ct. for the Middle District of PA 10/03/2012 U.S. Dist. Ct. for the Central District of CA 12/06/2012 U.S. Dist. Ct. for the Western District of PA 01/04/2013 U.S. Dist. Ct. for the Eastern District of PA In June 2012, the Company received a Civil Investigative Demand ("CID") from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ("CFPB") requiring additional information and documentation regarding captive mortgage reinsurance. The Company said it has met with, and expects to continue to meet with, the CFPB to discuss the CID and how to resolve its investigation. MGIC has also filed a petition to modify the CID which petition is currently pending. While the Company believes it would have strong defenses to any claims the CFPB might bring against it as a result of the investigation, the Company continues to work with the CFPB to try to resolve the investigation and any concerns that the CFPB may have about MGIC's past and current captive reinsurance practices. If the Company cannot resolve the concerns of the CFPB, it is possible that the CFPB would assert various RESPA and possibly other claims against the Company. Headquartered in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, MGIC Investment Corporation -- http://www.mgic.com/-- is a holding company and through its wholly-owned subsidiaries, the Company is a large private mortgage insurer. In addition to mortgage insurance on first mortgage loans, the Company, through its subsidiaries, provides lenders with various underwriting and other services and products related to home mortgage lending. MGIC INVESTMENT: Plea for Relief in C-BASS Suit Not Appealed ------------------------------------------------------------ MGIC Investment Corporation said in its March 1, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012, that the plaintiffs did not appeal the denial of their motion for relief from the judgment dismissing their consolidated class action lawsuit relating to its investment in C-BASS. Five previously filed purported class action complaints filed against the Company and several of its executive officers were consolidated in March 2009 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin and Fulton County Employees' Retirement System was appointed as the lead plaintiff. The lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint (the "Complaint") in June 2009. Due in part to its length and structure, it is difficult to summarize briefly the allegations in the Complaint but it appears the allegations were that the Company and its officers named in the Complaint violated the federal securities laws by misrepresenting or failing to disclose material information about (i) loss development in the Company's insurance in force, and (ii) C-BASS (a former minority-owned, unconsolidated, joint venture investment), including its liquidity. The Complaint also named two officers of C-BASS with respect to the Complaints' allegations regarding C-BASS. The Company's motion to dismiss the Complaint was granted in February 2010. In March 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint. Attached to this motion was a proposed Amended Complaint (the "Amended Complaint"). The Amended Complaint alleged that the Company and two of its officers named in the Amended Complaint violated the federal securities laws by misrepresenting or failing to disclose material information about C-BASS, including its liquidity, and by failing to properly account for the Company's investment in C-BASS. The Amended Complaint also named two officers of C-BASS with respect to the Amended Complaint's allegations regarding C-BASS. The Complaint was dismissed and the motion to file the Amended Complaint was denied. These decisions were affirmed by the Appeals Court in April 2012. In early July 2012, the plaintiffs re-filed a motion with the District Court for relief from that court's judgment of dismissal on the ground of newly discovered evidence consisting of transcripts the plaintiffs obtained of testimony taken by the Securities and Exchange Commission in its now-terminated investigation regarding C-BASS. On October 3, 2012, the District Court denied the July 2012 motion and the plaintiffs did not appeal. Headquartered in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, MGIC Investment Corporation -- http://www.mgic.com/-- is a holding company and through its wholly-owned subsidiaries, the Company is a large private mortgage insurer. In addition to mortgage insurance on first mortgage loans, the Company, through its subsidiaries, provides lenders with various underwriting and other services and products related to home mortgage lending. MIDWEST TRADING: Recalls 9,400 Remote-Controlled Helicopters ------------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with importer, Midwest Trading Group, Inc., Addison, Illinois, and manufacturer, Ultimate Products (HK) Ltd., of Hong Kong, announced a voluntary recall of about 9,400 Remote-Controlled Banshee 3 Channel helicopters. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The rechargeable battery inside the helicopters can overheat and ignite the helicopter, posing fire and burn hazards to consumers or nearby items. The firm has received one report of a helicopter overheating with flames coming from the helicopter and one report of minor property damage. No injuries have been reported. This recall involves the Radio Controlled Banshee Helicopter with lights, series 3CH-777. The series number is printed on the product packaging. The plastic helicopters were sold in black and red or black and yellow color combinations and measure about 19 inches long and 6 inches high. The helicopters have a rounded front yellow cockpit with bee decals and a narrow black plastic tail assembly. They were sold with a remote-control unit and a separate charger. "Fly Dragonfly" and SKU #51727 are printed on the product packaging. "Date of Production: June 2011," "Manufacturer Ultimate Products (HK) Ltd.," and "Distributor MTG Inc." is printed on a white label on the back of the helicopter remote control. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/sGVFOe The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Ace Hardware, Alco, Discount Direct, Seen on Screen nationwide and VA Canteen Service and online including PulseTV.com from October 2011 through November 2011 for between $40 and $50. Consumers should stop using the remote-controlled helicopters immediately and contact Midwest Trading Group for instructions on receiving a full refund. Midwest Trading Group may be reached toll-free at (866) 815-4714 from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Central Time Monday through Friday, or online at http://www.mtradinggroup.com/and click on the Recall page for more information. MONSTER BEVERAGE: Awaits Class Cert. Ruling in Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Monster Beverage Corporation is awaiting a court decision on a motion for class certification in the consolidated securities lawsuit pending in California, according to the Company's March 1, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012. On September 11, 2008, a federal securities class action complaint styled Cunha v. Hansen Natural Corp., et al. was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (the "District Court"). On September 17, 2008, a second federal securities class action complaint styled Brown v. Hansen Natural Corp., et al., was also filed in the District Court. On July 14, 2009, the District Court entered an order consolidating the actions and appointing lead counsel and the Structural Ironworkers Local Union #1 Pension Fund as lead plaintiff. On August 28, 2009, lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated Complaint for Violations of Federal Securities Laws (the "Consolidated Class Action Complaint"). The Consolidated Class Action Complaint purported to be brought on behalf of a class of purchasers of the Company's stock during the period November 9, 2006, through November 8, 2007 (the "Class Period"). It named as defendants the Company, Rodney C. Sacks, Hilton H. Schlosberg, and Thomas J. Kelly. The Plaintiff principally alleged that, during the Class Period, the defendants made false and misleading statements relating to the Company's distribution coordination agreements with Anheuser-Busch, Inc. ("AB") and its sales of "Allied" energy drink lines, and engaged in sales of shares in the Company on the basis of material non-public information. Plaintiff also alleged that the Company's financial statements for the second quarter of 2007 did not include certain promotional expenses. The Consolidated Class Action Complaint alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and sought an unspecified amount of damages. On November 16, 2009, the defendants filed their motion to dismiss the Consolidated Class Action Complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 9(b), as well as the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. On July 12, 2010, following a hearing, the District Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the Consolidated Class Action Complaint, with leave to amend, on the grounds, among others, that it failed to specify which statements plaintiff claimed were false or misleading, failed adequately to allege that certain statements were actionable or false or misleading, and failed adequately to demonstrate that defendants acted with scienter. On August 27, 2010, plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint for Violations of Federal Securities Laws (the "Amended Class Action Complaint"). While similar in many respects to the Consolidated Class Action Complaint, the Amended Class Action Complaint drops certain of the allegations set forth in the Consolidated Class Action Complaint and makes certain new allegations, including that the Company engaged in "channel stuffing" during the Class Period that rendered false or misleading the Company's reported sales results and certain other statements made by the defendants. In addition, it no longer names Thomas J. Kelly as a defendant. The Amended Class Action Complaint continues to allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and seeks an unspecified amount of damages. The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint on November 8, 2010. At a hearing on defendants' motion to dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint held on May 12, 2011, the District Court issued a tentative ruling granting the motion to dismiss as to certain of plaintiff's claims, including plaintiff's allegations relating to promotional expenses, but denying the motion to dismiss with regard to the majority of plaintiff's claims, including plaintiff's channel stuffing allegations. On September 4, 2012, the District Court issued a Notice of Ruling (the "Order") adopting the May 12, 2011 tentative ruling as its final ruling on defendants' motion to dismiss. On October 22, 2012, the District Court denied defendants' motion for reconsideration of the Order or certification of an interlocutory appeal from the Order. The District Court has set a schedule for briefing and discovery in connection with plaintiff's motion for class certification, and has scheduled a hearing on that motion on April 1, 2013. Fact discovery in the action has been stayed pending resolution of the class certification motion. The Amended Class Action Complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages. As a result, the amount or range of reasonably possible litigation losses to which the Company is exposed cannot be estimated. Although the ultimate outcome of this action cannot be determined with certainty, the Company believes that the allegations in the Amended Class Action Complaint are without merit. The Company says it intends to vigorously defend against this lawsuit. Monster Beverage Corporation -- http://www.monsterbevcorp.com/-- was incorporated in Delaware in 1990 and its principal place of business is located in Corona, California. The Company is a holding company and conducts no operating business except through its consolidated subsidiaries. The Company develops, markets, sells and distributes "alternative" beverage category beverages primarily under certain brand names, including Monster Energy(R), Hansen's(R), Monster Rehab(R), Hansen's Natural Cane Soda(R), and Monster Energy Extra Strength Nitrous Technology(R). MONSTER BEVERAGE: Defends Suits Alleging False Advertising ---------------------------------------------------------- Monster Beverage Corporation is defending class action lawsuits alleging false advertising, according to the Company's March 1, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012. The Company has been named as defendant in various false advertising putative class actions and in a private attorney general action, each of which contains allegations similar to those presented in the Wellman action. In these actions, plaintiffs allege that defendants misleadingly labeled and advertised Monster Energy(R) brand products that allegedly were ineffective for the advertised benefits (including, but not limited to, an allegation that the products do not hydrate as advertised because they contain caffeine). The plaintiffs further allege that the Monster Energy(R) brand products at issue are unsafe because they contain one or more ingredients that allegedly could result in illness, injury, or death. In connection with these product safety allegations, the plaintiffs claim that the product labels did not provide adequate warnings, and/or that the Company did not include sufficiently specific statements with respect to contra-indications and/or adverse reactions associated with the consumption of its energy drink products (including, but not limited to, claims that certain ingredients, when consumed individually or in combination with other ingredients, could result in high blood pressure, palpitations, liver damage, or other negative health effects and/or that the products themselves are unsafe). Based on these allegations, the plaintiffs assert claims for violation of state consumer protection statutes, including unfair competition and false advertising statutes, and for breach of warranty and unjust enrichment. In their prayers for relief, the plaintiffs seek, inter alia, compensatory and punitive damages, restitution, attorneys' fees, and, in some cases, injunctive relief. Furthermore, the Company says it is subject to litigation from time to time in the normal course of business, including intellectual property litigation and claims from terminated distributors. Although it is not possible to predict the outcome of such litigation, based on the facts known to the Company, management believes that such litigation in the aggregate will likely not have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position or results of operations. Monster Beverage Corporation -- http://www.monsterbevcorp.com/-- was incorporated in Delaware in 1990 and its principal place of business is located in Corona, California. The Company is a holding company and conducts no operating business except through its consolidated subsidiaries. The Company develops, markets, sells and distributes "alternative" beverage category beverages primarily under certain brand names, including Monster Energy(R), Hansen's(R), Monster Rehab(R), Hansen's Natural Cane Soda(R), and Monster Energy Extra Strength Nitrous Technology(R). MONSTER BEVERAGE: Settlement in "Chavez" Suit Is Now Final ---------------------------------------------------------- Monster Beverage Corporation said in its March 1, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012, that it has satisfied all obligations required under its settlement of the class action lawsuit commenced by Christopher Chavez, and, hence, the agreement is now final. In September 2006, Christopher Chavez purporting to act on behalf of himself and a certain class of consumers filed an action in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco, against the Company and its subsidiaries for unfair business practices, false advertising, violation of California Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), fraud, deceit and/or misrepresentation alleging that the Company misleadingly labels its Blue Sky(R) beverages as manufactured and canned/bottled wholly in Santa Fe, New Mexico. The Defendants removed this Superior Court action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (the "District Court") under the Class Action Fairness Act and filed motions for dismissal or transfer. On June 11, 2007, the District Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss Chavez's complaint with prejudice. On June 23, 2009, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ("Ninth Circuit") filed a memorandum opinion reversing the decision of the District Court and remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the CLRA claims; the plaintiff filed a motion for a decision on a preemption issue; and the plaintiff filed a motion for class certification. On June 18, 2010, the District Court entered an order certifying the class, ruled that there was no preemption by federal law, and denied the Company's motion to dismiss. The class that the District Court certified initially consists of all persons who purchased any beverage bearing the Blue Sky mark or brand in the United States at any time between May 16, 2002, and June 30, 2006. On September 9, 2010, the District Court approved the form of the class notice and its distribution plan; and set an opt-out date of December 10, 2010. On January 27, 2012, the parties entered into a settlement agreement on terms acceptable to the Company. On June 1, 2012, the District Court granted final approval of the settlement and entered judgment. On June 26, 2012, an objector to the settlement filed a notice appealing the District Court's judgment with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On December 11, 2012, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals entered an order dismissing the appeal due to the appellant's failure to prosecute. The settlement is, therefore, final and the Company has satisfied all obligations required under the settlement agreement. Monster Beverage Corporation -- http://www.monsterbevcorp.com/-- was incorporated in Delaware in 1990 and its principal place of business is located in Corona, California. The Company is a holding company and conducts no operating business except through its consolidated subsidiaries. The Company develops, markets, sells and distributes "alternative" beverage category beverages primarily under certain brand names, including Monster Energy(R), Hansen's(R), Monster Rehab(R), Hansen's Natural Cane Soda(R), and Monster Energy Extra Strength Nitrous Technology(R). MONSTER BEVERAGE: Still Defends "Wellman" Class Suit in Canada -------------------------------------------------------------- In May 2009, Avraham Wellman, purporting to act on behalf of himself and a class of consumers in Canada, filed a putative class action in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, in the City of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, against Monster Beverage Corporation and its former Canadian distributor, Pepsi-Cola Canada Ltd., as defendants (the "Wellman Action"). The plaintiff alleges that the defendants misleadingly packaged and labeled Monster Energy(R) products in Canada by not including sufficiently specific statements with respect to contra-indications and/or adverse reactions associated with the consumption of the energy drink products. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are for negligence, unjust enrichment, and making misleading/false representations in violation of the Competition Act (Canada), the Food and Drugs Act (Canada) and the Consumer Protection Act, 2002 (Ontario). The plaintiff claims general damages on behalf of the putative class in the amount of CAD$20 million, together with punitive damages of CAD$5 million, plus legal costs and interest. The plaintiff's certification motion materials have not yet been filed. No further updates were reported in the Company's March 1, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012. The Company believes that any such damages, if awarded, would not have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position or results of operations. In accordance with class action practices in Ontario, the Company will not file an answer to the complaint until after the determination of the certification motion. The Company believes that the plaintiff's complaint is without merit and plans a vigorous defense. Monster Beverage Corporation -- http://www.monsterbevcorp.com/-- was incorporated in Delaware in 1990 and its principal place of business is located in Corona, California. The Company is a holding company and conducts no operating business except through its consolidated subsidiaries. The Company develops, markets, sells and distributes "alternative" beverage category beverages primarily under certain brand names, including Monster Energy(R), Hansen's(R), Monster Rehab(R), Hansen's Natural Cane Soda(R), and Monster Energy Extra Strength Nitrous Technology(R). NBT BANCORP: Appeal From Overdraft Fees Suit's Dismissal Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- An appeal from the dismissal of a class action lawsuit against a subsidiary of NBT Bancorp Inc. remains pending, according to the Company's March 1, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012. NBT Bank, National Association, has been named as a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit arising from its assessment and collection of overdraft fees on its checking account customers. The complaint was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Delaware, on September 12, 2011, and alleges that the Bank engaged in certain unfair practices and failed to make adequate disclosure to customers concerning its overdraft fee assessment practices. The complaint seeks certification of a class of national checking account holders who have incurred overdraft fees and a subclass of such customers who reside in New York. In addition, the complaint seeks actual and punitive damages, disgorgement, interest and costs including attorneys' fees. On May 15, 2012, Acting Supreme Court Judge for Delaware County, New York, John F. Lambert, dismissed in its entirety the plaintiff's case. On June 20, 2012, the plaintiffs filed an appeal to the Appellate Division, Third Department. The Company believes the claims to be without merit and intends to defend the action vigorously. NBT Bancorp Inc. -- http://www.nbtbancorp.com/-- is a registered financial holding company incorporated in Delaware in 1986, with its principal headquarters located in Norwich, New York. The Company's principal assets consist of all of the outstanding shares of common stock of its subsidiaries, including NBT Bank, National Association, NBT Financial Services, Inc., NBT Holdings, Inc., Hathaway Agency, Inc., and CNBF Capital Trust I, NBT Statutory Trust I and NBT Statutory Trust II. NAT'L FOOTBALL: Takes Measures After Head Injury Class Actions -------------------------------------------------------------- According to Chicago Tribune, a collision sport known for its gladiator culture faces a legal reckoning that may force it to change its very nature. Big hits have made football the nation's No. 1 spectator sport. They have made the National Football League a multibillion-dollar profit machine. Yet those big hits may prove to be football's undoing. The most important person to the future of football may be a Columbia Law School graduate who works out of a federal courtroom in Philadelphia. Class-action lawsuits brought by hundreds of current and former NFL players who say they've suffered football- related brain injuries have been consolidated into a single case under Senior U.S. District Judge Anita Brody. The players say they suffered injuries not just from spectacular hits. They also point to degenerative brain disease caused by "mild subconcussive impacts" -- more routine hits that occur in practice as well as games. Those hits can lead to disability and death, the players say. The most stunning claim: that the NFL conducted "a campaign of disinformation" that covered up the dangers. The NFL denies it engaged in any cover-up and says that the league and players share responsibility for the terms of employment through collective bargaining agreements. Did the NFL know for decades that players were at risk of developing chronic brain disease? Does it face liability for not changing rules of play to protect players? The courts will determine whether the NFL has liability. Even if the plaintiffs don't win here, though, it seems likely that football, from the professional ranks to college and high school and youth leagues, is in for major changes. There's growing evidence of the risks of cognitive impairment. The NFL is evaluating a range of proposals: Ten days ago, the league decided to penalize ball carriers or tacklers who lower their heads to make contact with the crown of the helmet. Depending on how it's enforced, that change could make a noticeable difference in the way the game is played. Previously, the league moved up kickoffs so there are fewer open-field, head- jarring hits on returns. The protocol for concussions is getting more strict. Safer equipment could revolutionize football. Imagine a helmet that measures and transmits in real time the exact amount of force that a hit has delivered to a player's brain. If a certain threshold is breached, then the player could be removed from the game immediately for medical evaluation -- taking the guesswork out of when intervention is needed. That helmet already is on the market, and in use in some programs below the NFL level. It is but one example of change coming on fast. The attention being paid to brain injuries is woefully overdue. Recognizing the risks does not necessarily mean that football has to be two-hand touch. As the offseason gives way to the NFL draft and summer training camp, all parties with a stake in football should be mindful of the case before Judge Brody. At a minimum, the risks call for a review of basic rules and procedures for treating injuries, as well as rapid adoption of new technology. No one knows where this will take the game. Football could go the way of boxing, a once-popular sport that has become a sideshow amid head-injury concerns. Film and sports writer Budd Schulberg once remarked, "As much as I love boxing, I hate it. And as much as I hate it, I love it." NEW YORK, NY: NYPD Officers Forced to Fill Quotas, Trial Reveals ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kristen Gwynne, writing for AlterNet, reports that NYPD whistleblowers Adhyl Polanco and Pedro Serrano, who secretly recorded supervisors demanding that officers fill quotas, testified in federal court that they were forced to violate the law to meet numbers. "We were handcuffing kids for no reason," Polanco testified. The two officers are testifying in a class- action suit targeting the NYPD's stop-and-frisk policy. Quotas for NYPD activity are illegal under New York labor law, but secretly recorded roll calls reveal supervisors pushing officers to get "20-and 1," meaning 20 summonses and 1 arrest per month. Monthly quotas also required five "250s," or street stops. "There's a difference between" the department's policies on paper and "what goes on out there," in real life, Mr. Polanco told the court. The 40th Precinct, where Pedro Serrano serves, recorded the highest number of police stops in the Bronx in 2011. That year, Serrano recorded the 40th Precinct's commanding officer, Deputy Inspector Christopher McCormack, telling him to stop "the right people at the right time, the right location," whom he also identified as people creating "the most problems." "The problem was, what, male blacks," Inspector McCormack said. "And I told you at roll call, and I have no problem telling you this, male blacks 14 to 20, 21." "We go out there and we summons," he told Serrano. Mr. Polanco, who is Dominican and said he is from Washington Heights, testified that he joined the case because, "I know what it's like when it's 95 degrees in an apartment on the fifth floor and you go downstairs because you had a fight with your sister, because it's simply too hot, " he said, "and get arrested in your own building for trespassing, as we have seen, get summons, get pat down, get harassed by police -- I don't believe that's why I joined the police department." "As a Hispanic, walking in the Bronx, I have been stopped many times. It's not a good feeling," said Serrano, who grew up in the Bronx and works in the 40th Precinct. The class-action suit, Floyd v. City of New York, will ultimately decide whether the city has systematically violated the 4th and 14th Amendments of New Yorkers via the NYPD's racial profiling tactic stop-and-frisk. Almost 90% of more than half-a-million people stopped annually by the NYPD are black or Latino, and the majority of them are young and living in low-income areas with higher violent crime rates. Nonetheless, the arrests and summonses NYPD officers say they are forced to make are typically for low-level, nonviolent offenses. In one recording played for the court, an NYPD captain urging more activity told officers, "the summons is a money-generating machine for the city." Police are legally allowed to stop individuals they have "reasonable suspicion" to believe are committing a crime, and they may then pat down a person if they observe a bulge that could be a weapon. But stops -- less than one percent of which uncover a firearm -- also provide the initial interaction by which officers might uncover an arrest warrant or issue a summons. Messrs. Polanco and Serrano testified that supervisors cared more about whether cops met the numbers than whether they met them legally, and that failing to do so would lead to punishment or "retaliation," which only intensified after they spoke out. They said they were advised to meet their quotas by going after young men of color for crimes they may not even have committed. "They will never question the quality. They will question the quantity. They are not checking the 250. They are not checking the summonses. They just want to make sure we have them. How we got them, they don't really care," testified Mr. Polanco, who has been suspended from the NYPD for three years. Mr. Serrano, unlike previous NYPD whistleblowers Polanco and Adrian Schoolcraft, whose recordings were also played to the court, is remarkably still on the job with the 40th Precinct in the Bronx. Mr. Serrano stressed that the most important police work was of the smallest concern to his bosses. "Sometime we have to sit on a dead body the whole day. Sometime we have to bring a bad car accident to the hospital, where people actually die on the way or die at the hospital. Sometime we get rapes with minors . . . Sometime we get domestic dispute [that] sometimes turn deadly," said Mr. Serrano. In a June 30, 2011 roll call recording for overtime Mr. Serrano says he was "forced" into due to his failure to meet quotas, Lieutenant Barrett says she is "looking for five," which Mr. Serrano explained meant five criminal summonses. She told officers, who were serving "impact" overtime that targets high- crime areas, to focus on a park in the 40th precinct. "St. Mary's Park, go crazy in there. Go crazy in there. I don't care if everybody writes everything in there. That's not a problem," she said. In a recording one month later, Mr. Serrano captured Lieutenant Doute of the 40th Precinct demanding "five, five, and five" for each officer on the shift. Mr. Serrano explained that the numbers are quotas for five C summonses, five vertical patrols through buildings, and five 250s (stops). "There's a lot of pressure on the sergeant to make sure that you get your activity," said Mr. Serrano, who stressed that orders are coming from the top of the city. Lieutenants and sergeants, "They have performance goals also. So they are under high pressure to make us [meet quotas]." Mr. Serrano said that high C-summons activity appeases higher-ups who want to see that high-crime areas are being policed. "If there is a crime spike concern area, they want the C summonses to reflect the crime spike so they can say . . . that we addressed the condition." C summonses, or criminal misdemeanor summonses, require the person ticketed to appear in criminal court, a task that can often take a whole day, while the process itself can take months. Kids given C-summonses must miss a day of school to appear in court, and their parents are often left to foot the bill. Should they miss a court date and be stopped, a warrant for their arrest will appear, and they will be taken away handcuffed for failure to pay a now more expensive ticket they may not have deserved in the first place. In areas where summonses are a frequent occurrence, finding a sitter to watch children while you spend a day in court, or falling behind on bills to pay a summons, is a regular part of life. "Addressing conditions" was a term regularly used in the trial, both by whistleblowers and witnesses who defended quotas they described as easily achievable "goals." Should there be a high volume of robberies in an area, for example, supervisors want to see officers ticketing people in the area. The strategy is part of the "Broken Windows" theory of policing, which maintains that low-level busts and tickets for street crimes will deter more serious offenses. Its efficacy has been hotly debated, and refuted by academics who point to a variety of other factors that decreased crime when the NYPD began implementing the policy in the 1990s. Pedro Serrano also testified that supervisors prefer certain summonses over others, noting that his bosses demand "hazardous" summonses that come with a fine rather than "correctable" summonses that allow the person to fix, for example, a busted headlight before they must pay a fine. In one recording, a lieutenant tells Serrano he is not making the correct summonses. The correct B summonses "are the ones that the city can make money on," Serrano explained, not the ones "You'll be able to correct it without financially coming out your pocket." Since Mayor Michael Bloomberg took office in 2002, the number of police stops has increased 600%, to well over half a million stops annually in recent years. Residents of low-income, black and Latino neighborhoods complain that they are stopped almost daily, and that the consequences of being targeted by police are severe interruptions to their lives. Both Messrs. Polanco and Serrano claimed supervisors retaliated against them for not meeting quotas, and again after blowing the whistle about their unlawful behavior. Mr. Serrano says that after he filed complaints about the NYPD's quotas and punishments for failing to meet them, his locker was shaken and stickered with rats. Other punishments for failing to meet quotas include low evaluations, denial of vacation days, separation from partners, and undesirable assignments like forced overtime shifts with additional quotas. One particularly disturbing punishment was to "drive the sergeant" or supervisor, which required the officer whose numbers were low to drive around with a higher-up until he or she found people for the patrol officer to stop, summons, or arrest, often for crimes the officers said they never observed. The Human Impact Plaintiffs in the suit testified that unwarranted police stops are embarrassing, degrading experiences that harm police relations with the community. Community activist and Harlem resident Nicholas Peart, 24, testified that in April 2011, while he went to the deli to get milk, he was stopped, searched and temporarily detained by police officers. Mr. Peart has been the primary caretaker for his three siblings, one of whom is disabled, since his mother's death a year ago. He described to the court his sense of unease while one officer walked toward his home with his keys, "mixed in with being handcuffed for the first time, and in the back of a police car for the first time." "I have kids in the house. I have kids in the house and there wasn't anybody there," he said, explaining that he feared the police might enter his home. During a separate August 2007 stop on 96th and Broadway, when he and friends were ordered to get on the ground by officers who drew their guns, Mr. Peart testified that he felt embarrassed and marginalized. "They patted over my basketball shorts and I was touched," Mr. Peart said, breaking down in tears. In neighborhoods across the city, young people have complained that stop-and-frisks often become so invasive they involve an officer's hand on the suspect's genitals. Mr. Peart testified, "I felt criminalized. My cousins, they had been visiting me from the suburbs in the Poconos, and they had never been through anything like that." David Floyd, a plaintiff in the case, testified that in February 2008 he was stopped at his own building after retrieving a set of keys he was fumbling with to help a neighbor enter the building. "Before we could go in, we were stopped . . . It was again the humiliation," Mr. Floyd said, adding that, this time, "it wasn't down the block, it wasn't in another neighborhood. It was on the property that I lived on." "I felt that I was being told I shouldn't leave my home," he said, "I'm not a criminal." Mr. Polanco testified that the issue with forcing illegal stops for quotas is targeting the wrong people. "I have no problem harassing criminals. I have no problem harassing those that are committing the crime or about to commit the crime," he said. "My understanding is that when somebody commits a crime, you don't bring the whole family to court. So why should we hold the whole culture accountable for what some of them are doing?" Mr. Polanco said. Mr. Serrano echoed his sentiments, breaking down when he told the judge he was testifying, in part, on behalf of his children. It was an emotional moment that spoke to the severe psychological effect quotas can have on police officers, and also on the community being policed. Mr. Serrano told the court, "I don't need my kid to get shot by a cop who was chasing him to fill out a 250." NEWELL RUBBERMAID: Defends Four Product Liability Class Suits ------------------------------------------------------------- Newell Rubbermaid Inc. is defending itself against four class action lawsuits alleging product liability claims, according to the Company's March 1, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012. The Company is currently a party to three purported state class actions and one purported national Canadian class action. The cases include allegations that a certain model car seat sold by an affiliate of the Company did not satisfy all requisite government safety standards. The Company is vigorously defending all three actions. Founded in 1903 and headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia, Newell Rubbermaid Inc. -- http://www.newellrubbermaid.com/-- designs, manufactures, and markets consumer and commercial products. The Company operates in three segments: Home & Family, Office Products, and Tools, Hardware & Commercial Products. RICH PRODUCTS: FSIS Updates List of Stores With Recalled Products ----------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service disclosed that certain stores in various states received frozen chicken quesadilla and various other heat treated, not fully cooked frozen mini meals and snack items products that have been recalled by Rich Products Corporation. The FSIS says the list of store locations may not include all retail locations that have received the recalled product or may include retail locations that did not actually receive the recalled product. Therefore, the FSIS says, it is important that consumers use the product-specific identification information available at http://is.gd/6ZjvH5,in addition to the list of retail stores, to check meat or poultry products in the consumers' possession to see if they have been recalled. Nationwide, State-Wide, or Area-Wide Distribution ------------------------------------------------- Retailer Name Location ------------- -------- Alco Nationwide Apple Market Stores in KS, MO, and NE Coborn's Stores in MN Country Mart Stores in KS and MO Dahl's Stores in IA Food City Stores in KY, TN and VA Harvey's Stores in FL, GA and SC Ingles Markets Stores in GA, NC, SC and TN Meijer Stores in IL, IN, KY, MI and OH Price Chopper Stores in KS and MO Stewart's Shops Stores in NY and VT Thriftway Stores in KS, MO and NE Walmart Nationwide Winn-Dixie Stores in South Florida Kroger Stores in AL, GA, IL, IN, KY, MI, MO, NC, OH, SC, TN, VA and WV Specific Store-Wide Distribution (Stores and Location) ------------------------------------------------------ Retailer Name City and State ------------- -------------- Sweetbay Cape Coral, Florida Sweetbay Largo, Florida Sweetbay New Port Richey, Florida Sweetbay Odessa, Florida Sweetbay Plant City, Florida Sweetbay Seffner, Florida Sweetbay Tampa, Florida Sweetbay Temple Terrace, Florida Woodman's Food Market Aurora, Illinois Woodman's Food Market Carpentersville, Illinois Woodman's Food Market Rockford, Illinois Food Pride Audubon, Iowa Bender's Foods Bellevue, Iowa Keith's Foods Bloomfield, Iowa Tom's Market & Meats Burlington, Iowa Supervalu Colfax, Iowa Super Saver Council Bluffs, Iowa Bender's Foods Denver, Iowa Save A Lot Des Moines, Iowa Hometown Market Earlham, Iowa North Scott Foods Eldridge, Iowa Bill's Family Foods Forest City, Iowa Bill's Family Foods Garner, Iowa Thriftway Glenwood, Iowa Bender's Foods Guttenberg, Iowa Super Foods Logan, Iowa Foodland Missouri Valley, Iowa Gary's Foods Mount Vernon, Iowa Pickle Barrel Market Treynor, Iowa Williamsburg Foods Williamsburg, Iowa Foodland Woodbine, Iowa Zey's Market Abilene, Kansas Shurfine Foods Atchison, Kansas Food Mart Belleville, Kansas Hoovers Stores Burlington, Kansas Mize's Food Store Clearwater, Kansas Hen House Fairway, Kansas IGA Fort Scott, Kansas Hometown Market Hillsboro, Kansas Charles Ball Market 241 S 18th St., Kansas City, KS Charles Ball Market 4601 Parallel, Kansas City, KS Happy Foods Leavenworth Rd., Kansas City, KS Happy Foods 6700 Kaw Drive, Kansas City, KS Hen House Kansas City, Kansas Sun Fresh Kansas City, Kansas Hillcrest Foods Lawrence, Kansas Hen House Leawood, Kansas Hen House Lenexa, Kansas Foodline Lyons, Kansas Hen House Merriam, Kansas Food Fair Mound City, Kansas Hen House Olathe, Kansas Hen House College Blvd., Overland Park, KS Hen House West 135th, Overland Park, KS Hen House W 83rd St., Prairie Village, KS Hen House Mission Rd., Prairie Village, KS Klema Market Russell, Kansas IGA Topeka, Kansas Tilton's Market Topeka, Kansas Leeker's Family Foods Valley Center, Kansas Country Market Westmoreland, Kansas Checkers Wichita, Kansas Farmer's Market Wichita, Kansas Leeker's Family Foods Wichita, Kansas Cash Saver Winfield, Kansas Super Dollar Discount Foods Barbourville, Kentucky Super Dollar Discount Foods Pikeville, Kentucky Super Dollar Discount Foods Prestonsburg, Kentucky Family Fare Albion, Michigan Village Market Food Ctr. Allegan, Michigan Family Fare Allendale, Michigan Neiman's Family Market Alpena, Michigan Mcdonald's Food & Fam. Ctr. Bad Axe, Michigan Family Fare Battle Creek, Michigan Leppink's Food Center Belding, Michigan Harding's Market Bridgman, Michigan VG's Grocery Brighton, Michigan Value Center Marketplace Clinton Township, Michigan Greenfield Super Market Detroit, Michigan King Cole Foods Detroit, Michigan Riverside Market Durand, Michigan Heartland Marketplace Farmington, Michigan Carrow's Super Market Farwell, Michigan VG's Grocery 18005 Silver Pkwy., Fenton, MI VG's Grocery 1390 N Leroy, Fenton, Michigan VG's Grocery Flint, Michigan Shop - N - Save Food Center Fremont, Michigan D&W Fresh Market Grand Rapids, Michigan Neiman's Family Market Hamilton, Michigan Family Fare Harrison, Michigan Family Fare Hastings, Michigan Glory Supermarket Highland Park, Michigan Family Fare Holland, Michigan Leppink's Food Center Howard City, Michigan VG's Grocery Howell, Michigan Harding's Market 2626 E Main St., Kalamazoo, MI Harding's Market 1000 E Cork St., Kalamazoo, MI Harding's Market 412 Howard St., Kalamazoo, MI Town and Country Market Kalamazoo, Michigan Hollywood Super Market Madison Heights, Michigan Super One Marquette, Michigan Family Fare Marshall, Michigan Wingert's Fd & Variety Ctr. Mayville, Michigan Glen's Mio, Michigan Riverside Market Montrose, Michigan Super One Negaunee, Michigan Martin's Super Markets Niles, Michigan Bryan's Market North Branch, Michigan Harding's Market Oshtemo, Michigan Oleson's Foods Petoskey, Michigan Harding's Market Plainwell, Michigan VG's Grocery Pontiac, Michigan Hollywood Super Market Rochester Hills, Michigan Shop-Rite Vassar, Michigan Value Fresh Marketplace Warren, Michigan Heartland Marketplace Westland, Michigan Vinckier Foods Yale, Michigan County Market Alexandria, Minnesota Food Fair Alexandria, Minnesota County Market Andover, Minnesota Festival Foods Andover, Minnesota Cub Foods Apple Valley, Minnesota Von Hanson's Apple Valley, Minnesota Hyvee Austin, Minnesota Super One Baxter, Minnesota Lueken's Village Foods Paul Bunyan Dr. NW, Bemidji, MN Lueken's Village Foods Washington Ave. S., Bemidji, MN Marketplace Foods Bemidji, Minnesota Cub Foods Blaine, Minnesota Festival Foods Bloomington, Minnesota Festival Foods Brooklyn Park, Minnesota Byron Marketplace Byron, Minnesota Byerly's Chanhassen, Minnesota Von Hanson's Chanhassen, Minnesota Brink's Market Chisago City, Minnesota Festival Foods Circle Pines, Minnesota Super One Cloquet, Minnesota Marketplace Foods Cokato, Minnesota Jensen's Foods Coon Rapids, Minnesota Hugo's Crookston, Minnesota Northern Star Co-op Deer River, Minnesota Super One 1316 W Arrowhead Rd., Duluth, MN Super One 5928 E Superior St., Duluth, MN Super One Burning Tree Road, Duluth, MN Super One 5300 Bristol St., Duluth, MN Von Hanson's 2141 Cliff Rd., Eagan, MN Von Hanson's 1320 Duckwood Dr., Eagan, MN Hugo's East Grand Forks, Minnesota Cub Foods Edina, Minnesota Hyvee Faribault, Minnesota Family Fresh Market Farmington, Minnesota Food Pride Glenwood, Minnesota Festival Foods Hugo, Minnesota Cash Wise Foods Hutchinson, Minnesota Fiesta Foods Lake City, Minnesota Hyvee Mankato, Minnesota Cash Wise Foods Moorhead, Minnesota Hornbacher's Moorhead, Minnesota Sunmart Moorhead, Minnesota Cash Wise Foods New Ulm, Minnesota County Market North Branch, Minnesota Von Hanson's North Oaks, Minnesota Osseo Meats Osseo, Minnesota Supervalu Pequot Lakes, Minnesota Family Market Pine River, Minnesota Village Market Prior Lake, Minnesota Tersteeg's Redwood Falls, Minnesota Hyvee Rochester, Minnesota Cub Foods Rogers, Minnesota Von Hanson's Savage, Minnesota Cash Wise Foods St. Cloud, Minnesota Marketplace Foods St. Michael, Minnesota Cub Foods St. Paul, Minnesota Cub Foods Stillwater, Minnesota Hugo's Thief River Falls, Minnesota Super One Thief River Falls, Minnesota Festival Foods Vadnais Heights, Minnesota Fresh Season's Market Victoria, Minnesota Super One 501 4th St. N, Virginia, MN Super One 1111 17th St. S, Virginia, MN Mackenthun's Foods Waconia, Minnesota Cash Wise Foods Waitepark, Minnesota Cash Wise Foods Willmar, Minnesota Midtown Foods Winona, Minnesota Von Hanson's Woodbury, Minnesota Bruce's Foods Wyoming, Minnesota Food Fair Appleton City, Missouri Moser's Discount Foods Ashland, Missouri Quick 'N' Tasty Foods Belton, Missouri Snoddy's Market Boonville, Missouri Cash Saver Brunswick, Missouri Dollar Junction Camdenton, Missouri Prenger Foods Centralia, Missouri Prenger's Extreme Mart Centralia, Missouri Piggly Wiggly Chillicothe, Missouri Eastgate Foods Columbia, Missouri Moser's Discount Foods Business Loop 70, Columbia, MO Moser's Discount Foods 4808 Rangeline St., Columbia, MO Patricia's Columbia, Missouri Patricia's Concordia, Missouri Fairway Groceries Eugene, Missouri John's Super Excelsior Springs, Missouri Moser's Discount Foods Fulton, Missouri Quik Chek Glasgow, Missouri Patricia's Grain Valley, Missouri C & S Grocers Harrisburg, Missouri Village Market Hermann, Missouri 5-Star Supermarket Hermitage, Missouri Piggly Wiggly Higginsville, Missouri Lloyd's Foods Holden, Missouri Moser's Discount Foods Holts Summit, Missouri Cash Saver Huntsville, Missouri Cash Saver Independence, Missouri Sun Fresh E 24 Highway, Independence, MO Sun Fresh So. Sterling, Independence, MO Moser's Discount Foods Jefferson City, Missouri Schulte's Fresh Foods Jefferson City, Missouri Brookside Marketplace Kansas City, Missouri C & C Produce Kansas City, Missouri Cash & Carry Kansas City, Missouri Cosentino's Market Kansas City, Missouri Festival Foods Kansas City, Missouri Happy Foods Kansas City, Missouri Hen House Kansas City, Missouri Leon's United Super Kansas City, Missouri Snyder's Super Market Kansas City, Missouri Sun Fresh E 50th Terrace, Kansas City, MO Sun Fresh Nw Prairie Vw Rd, Kansas City, MO Sun Fresh 11212 Holmes, Kansas City, MO Sun Fresh 4001 Mill St., Kansas City, MO Sun Fresh N Oak Trafficway, Kansas City, MO Sun Fresh N.E. Vivion Rd., Kansas City, MO Tonys Food Mart Kansas City, Missouri John's Super Kearney, Missouri Dave's Country Market Lexington, Missouri Prenger's Foods Macon, Missouri Patricia's Marshall, Missouri Bratcher's Market Moberly, Missouri Bratcher's Market Montgomery City, Missouri Cash Saver Oak Grove, Missouri Patricia's Odessa, Missouri 5-Star Supermarket Osceola, Missouri Hy-Klas Foods Plattsburg, Missouri Hy Klas Foods Polo, Missouri Food Fair Rich Hill, Missouri Red X Riverside, Missouri Hometown Foods Saint Joseph, Missouri Ray's Saint Joseph, Missouri Ray's Savannah, Missouri Cash Saver Sedalia, Missouri Hometown Foods St. Joseph, Missouri Roger's St. Joseph, Missouri The Market Sweet Springs, Missouri Dave's Country Market Tipton, Missouri Moser's Discount Foods Warrenton, Missouri Newman's Foods Warsaw, Missouri IGA Weston, Missouri Dave's Country Market Windsor, Missouri Super Foods Aurora, Nebraska Super Saver Columbus, Nebraska Super Foods Geneva, Nebraska Skagway W State St., Grand Island, NE Skagway 1607 S Locust, Grand Island, NE Skagway 358 N. Pine, Grand Island, NE Super Saver Grand Island, Nebraska Russ's Market Hastings, Nebraska Russ's Market 1709 Washington, Lincoln, NE Russ's Market 6300 Havelock, Lincoln, Nebraska Russ's Market 2840 South 70M, Lincoln, Nebraska Russ's Market 4400 S 33rd St., Lincoln, NE Russ's Market 130 North 66th, Lincoln, Nebraska Russ's Market 1550 S Coddington, Lincoln, NE Save Best Lincoln, Nebraska Super Saver 5440 South 56, Lincoln, Nebraska Super Saver 2525 Pine Lake Road, Lincoln, NE Super Saver 233 North 48th, Lincoln, Nebraska Super Saver Cornhusker Highway, Lincoln, NE Super Saver 840 Fallbrook Blvd., Lincoln, NE Super Saver Omaha, Nebraska Wahoo Super Wahoo, Nebraska Super Foods Weeping Water, Nebraska Super Foods Wymore, Nebraska Cash Wise Foods Bismarck, North Dakota Dan's Supermarket 3101 N. 11th Street, Bismarck, ND Dan's Supermarket S. Washington St., Bismarck, ND Leever's Foods Devils Lake, North Dakota Cash Wise Foods Fargo, North Dakota Hornbacher's South University Drive, Fargo, ND Hornbacher's 1532 32nd Ave. South, Fargo, ND Hornbacher's 4101 13th Ave. South, Fargo, ND Hornbacher's 2510 Broadway, Fargo, ND Hornbacher's 4151 45th St. South, Fargo, ND Hugo's Grafton, North Dakota Hugo's S Columbia Rd., Grand Forks, ND Hugo's 1750 32nd Ave. S, Grand Forks, ND Hugo's 1925 13th Ave. N, Grand Forks, ND Super One Grand Forks, North Dakota Hugo's Jamestown, North Dakota Dan's Supermarket Mandan, North Dakota Econo Foods Wahpeton, North Dakota Sunmart West Fargo, North Dakota Super Dollar Discount Foods Rogersville, Tennessee Super Dollar Discount Foods Abingdon, VA Super Dollar Discount Foods Grundy, VA Super Dollar Discount Foods Hillsville, Virginia Super Dollar Discount Foods Lynchburg, Virginia Super Dollar Discount Foods Vinton, Virginia Super Dollar Discount Foods Wytheville, Virginia Dick's Fresh Market Amery, Wisconsin Woodman's Food Market Appleton, Wisconsin Super One Ashland, Wisconsin Nilssen's Foods Baldwin, Wisconsin Woodman's Food Market Beloit, Wisconsin Gordy's Food & Liquor Chippewa Falls, Wisconsin IGA Chippewa Falls, Wisconsin County Market Eau Claire, Wisconsin Nilssen's Foods Ellsworth, Wisconsin Woodman's Food Market Green Bay, Wisconsin Family Fresh Foods Hudson, Wisconsin Super One Hurley, Wisconsin Woodman's Food Market Janesville, Wisconsin Woodman's Food Market Kenosha, Wisconsin County Market Ladysmith, Wisconsin Woodman's Food Market Madison, Wisconsin Woodman's Food Market Menomonee Falls, Wisconsin Family Fresh Foods New Richmond, Wisconsin Woodman's Food Market Oak Creek, Wisconsin Woodman's Food Market Onalaska, Wisconsin Dick's Fresh Market Osceola, Wisconsin Super One Park Falls, Wisconsin IGA Prescott, Wisconsin Marketplace Foods Rice Lake, Wisconsin Pik N Save Ripon, Wisconsin Family Fresh Foods River Falls, Wisconsin Econo Foods Somerset, Wisconsin Woodman's Food Market Sun Prairie, Wisconsin Super One Superior, Wisconsin SAN DIEGO HOSPICE: Sued for Mass Firings Without Notice ------------------------------------------------------- Bill Rochelle, the bankruptcy columnist for Bloomberg News, reports that San Diego Hospice & Palliative Care Corp. was the target of a class lawsuit filed at the end of last week on behalf of 360 workers who were fired without 60 days' notice required by federal and state labor law. San Diego Hospice & Palliative Care Corporation filed a Chapter 11 petition (Bankr. S.D. Calif. Case No. 13-01179) in San Diego on February 4, 2013. The Debtor is the operator of the San Diego Hospice and The Institute for Palliative Medicine, one of the largest community-owned, not-for-profit hospices in the country. The Debtor scheduled $20,369,007 in total assets and $14,888,058 in total liabilities. Even before the bankruptcy filing, the Debtor has been under a federal investigation, focusing whether it allowed patients to stay in the program even when their diagnosis changed. The Debtor said that it will meet with government agencies to address their concerns, explore partnerships with other health care organizations, and work to restructure and resize San Diego Hospice. The Debtor said it has encouraged Scripps Health, the region's largest provider of health care services, to enter the hospice business. Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch LLP serves as counsel to the Debtor. SCHNEIDER LOGISTICS: Judge Balks at Coercive Tactics in Wage Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Amanda Becker, writing for Reuters, reports that a Southern California warehouse operator used coercive and misleading tactics when it interviewed employees about working conditions at issue in a class action, a federal judge has ruled. When attorneys representing Schneider Logistics, a Wal-Mart contractor that operates three warehouses in Mira Loma, California, interviewed the employees, they did not disclose that the information could be used to bolster Schneider's defense in a class action over alleged wage-and-hour violations, U.S. District Judge Christina Snyder has ruled. "While the deceptive nature of the interviews is sufficient to support a finding that improper communications have taken place, the Court also finds that the interviews were impermissibly coercive," Judge Snyder wrote in minutes filed with the court. A group of Schneider employees sued the company in March 2012 over an alternative work-week arrangement, which they allege resulted in unpaid overtime and other wage violations. Shortly afterward, employees were summoned for interviews in a manager's office and told it was related to an "internal investigation" about working conditions at Schneider. At least 106 sworn declarations were collected from Schneider employees after such meetings, court records show. Judge Snyder noted that only five of the nearly 120 employees who were summoned chose to leave the voluntary interviews. And only six employees declined to sign a written declaration at the end of the interview process. That suggested that the "interviewing attorney's grant of permission to leave did little to dispel the aura of coercion," Judge Snyder wrote. California Rules of Professional Conduct require attorneys representing organizations not to mislead employees into thinking that the information they share will not be used for the employer's benefit should their interests diverge, Judge Snyder noted. Written Permission Going forward, the court said, Schneider Logistics and its attorneys are prohibited from communicating with potential class members about the lawsuit without obtaining written permission from the court. The company will not be able to use the 106 sworn declarations and potential class members will be notified that any declarations they signed in the past will not be considered in the case. "We hope this will send a message to Schneider's employees that they will not be retaliated against if they would like to provide evidence," said Lauren Teukolsky of Traber and Voorhees, the firm representing the employees. Ms. Teukolsky said that after completing the discovery process in the underlying lawsuit, the class will seek certification this fall. Douglas Farmer, one of the attorneys at Ogletree Deakins representing Schneider Logistics, said that language on the declarations signed by the employees stated that they could be a "potential member of a class of individuals on whose behalf a lawsuit has been brought," among other disclaimers. "We respect the court's order and we fully intend to follow it," Mr. Farmer added. The case is Franklin Quezada v. Schneider Logistics Transloading and Distribution, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, No. 12cv02188. For Franklin Quezada: Lauren Teukolsky, Marisa Hernandez-Stern, Rebecca Fisher and Theresa Traber of The Law Offices of Traber and Voorhees. For Schneider Logistics: Christopher Ahearn -- christopher.ahearn@ogletreedeakins.com -- Douglas Farmer -- doug.farmer@ogletreedeakins.com -- Jill Garcia -- jill.garcia@ogletreedeakins.com -- and Michael Nader of Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart. SCOTT HARRINGTON: May Face Suit Over Dental Compliance Violations ----------------------------------------------------------------- Abbie Alford, writing for Fox23 News, reports that health concerns and anger have some of the patients of Dr. Scott Harrington talking to lawyers. Dr. Harrington is the Tulsa dental surgeon under investigation for alleged health and safety violations that could have exposed patients to Hepatitis B, C and HIV. In an e-mail statement, a Tulsa-based law firm tells FOX23 News, "It's too early to know if the situation will be ripe for a class action lawsuit," said Gary L. Richardson. That will depend on the impact of the allegations and other factors. Dr. Harrington was nowhere to be found at his office or at his home. The Oklahoma Board of Dentistry says Dr. Harrington never had a violation until this month. "I was a wreck when I heard this," said Ms. Owens. She heard her oral surgeon Dr. Scott Harrington was being investigated for possibly exposing at least 7,000 patients to infectious material. The Tulsa Health Department and the Oklahoma Board of Dental (BOD) reports they found unsanitary equipment, exposed needles and dental assistants giving IVs and anesthesia without a license. "I'm very, very scared especially in light of the equipment and unsanitary conditions, you know it doesn't take but just one time," said former patient Deborah Lewis. FOX23 News knocked on Dr. Harrington's door at his listed home address but no one answered. His office in midtown was closed on March 29. FOX23 News also went to one of the assistant's home listed in the violations, but she did not answer. The BOD told FOX23 News over the phone offices performing anesthesia are inspected every three years. Executive Director for the BOD, Sharon Rogers, says inspections never uncovered any problems but it was a narrow inspection and they weren't looking other possible violations. The board reports in the 36 years Dr. Harrington has been practicing he has had a clean record. Ms. Rogers says because of case overload, dental offices are only investigated when there is a complaint. She assures the community this is a rare case and 99.9% of dental offices are sanitary "It's still scary, real scary," said Owens. Although Ms. Owens knows it's a very slim chance of this type of transmission is rare, she wants protection. "I think it was sad that he didn't oversee, how should I say that? Cleaning, the cleaning process" said Ms. Owens. An oral surgeon who didn't want to be identified told FOX23 News it comes down to ethics and protecting patients. "Something needs to be done. I don't want to see someone else go through this. It's scary," said Ms. Owens. Ms. Rogers says they are looking at making recommendations to lawmakers to change regulations. One option the Board is considering is requiring dental assistance to pass an infectious control class before working in a dental office. SEARS ROEBUCK: Court Denies Class Cert. Bid in Defective ECB Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Jeremy Fogel denied a renewed motion for class certification in the lawsuit captioned RENEE TIETSWORTH, SUZANNE REBRO, SONDRA SIMPSON, and JOHN CAREY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO., and WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 5:09-cv- 00288-JF (HRL), (N.D. Cal.). In their complaint, the Plaintiffs allege that certain top-loading Kenmore Elite Oasis automatic washing machines were manufactured with a defective electronic control board. According to the Plaintiffs, the defective ECB results in three different types of malfunction: (1) a "F1" error; (2) a "F51" error; and (3) a "sudden instability event" that can result in an explosion when certain types of fabric are in the wash load. The operative third amended complaint asserts claims against Whirlpool and Sears under California unfair competition and consumer protection laws, California common law, and the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 2301 et seq. On May 4, 2012, the Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification with respect to all of these claims. After revisiting numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 23(a) against the backdrop of Plaintiffs' new and more limited class definition, the Court concludes that the Plaintiffs' complaint still lacks sufficient data to make a common sense assumption that the numerosity requirement is met; individualized inquiries will vary from class member to class member and thus are not "common" for purposes of Rule 23(a)(2); the typicality requirement is satisfied notwithstanding the fact that the commonality requirement is not; individualized questions predominate with respect to whether each putative class member experienced a "false" error code caused by a defective ECB, whether that class member notified Sears of the error code, and whether Sears breached the limited one-year warranty by failing to address the problem -- which individualized questions are not subject to common proof. Although Plaintiffs have attempted to limit their proposed class definition to address the concerns raised by the Court in its Prior Order, it still appears that "ascertaining class membership would require unmanageable individualized inquiry," Judge Fogel concluded. A copy of the District Court's March 28, 2013 Order is available at http://is.gd/7BJPI3from Leagle.com. TRADER JOE'S: Faces Class Action Over Mislabeled Cane Juice ----------------------------------------------------------- Joe Satran, writing for The Huffington Post, reports that on March 25, grocery giant Trader Joe's was hit with a class-action lawsuit accusing the company of intentionally mislabeling several of its branded packaged foods to make them seem healthier than they are. Plaintiffs Amy Gitson, Christine Vodicka and Deborah Ross, all Bay Area residents, sued because, according to the lawsuit, the "evaporated cane juice" and "organic evaporated cane juice" listed as ingredients in Trader Joe's brand yogurt and soy milk were actually just normal sugar. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has banned the term "evaporated cane juice" as a synonym for sugar on packaged foods, but the use of the term has become increasingly common over the past few years. The suit also accuses Trader Joe's of falsely claiming that several of its products contain no artificial flavors, ingredients or preservatives. The complaint cites the brand's French Village Strawberry Nonfat Yogurt, which is tinted with beet juice, and Dark Chocolate Peanut Butter Salted Caramel Truffles, which contain one of a class of chemical preservatives called tocopherols, as examples of mislabeled products. Trader Joe's spokeswoman Alison Mochizuici has told The Huffington Post the company cannot comment on pending litigation. Gitson, Vodicka and Ross are asking the court to grant them, and similarly aggrieved parties across the country, monetary compensation for what they characterize as fraud on the part of Trader Joe's. They also want Trader Joe's to change its labels. They're represented by Pierce Gore, a consumer affairs attorney who has been on a legal crusade against food mislabeling since April 2012, when he filed nine lawsuits (on behalf of different clients) based on erroneous labels. Over the past 11 months, he's filed similar suits against 32 companies selling mislabeled foods, including six of the 20 biggest food companies in the world: Kraft, Nestle, Frito-Lay, Hershey's, Dole and ConAgra. Last August, The New York Times retail reporter Stephanie Strom compared the campaign to the war on tobacco companies in the mid-90s -- a war Gore not-so-coincidentally helped wage. Speaking by phone from his San Jose, Calif., law firm Pratt & Associates, Mr. Gore told The Huffington Post that he started the fight after looking into the FDA's regulations on packaged food labeling. He said he figured out that a huge number of companies were in violation. "The labeling on packaged food is just a sea of lies," he said. "It's difficult to describe the breadth of the problem. American consumers are being systematically lied to about the foods they eat." Mr. Gore said he also quickly figured out that the FDA didn't have the resources to go after mislabelers. "We're trying to enforce laws for which there is no other enforcement mechanism," he said. He also realized that the laws in California, unlike those in many other states, allowed private individuals to sue companies over false food-labeling claims. So he started casting about for potential plaintiffs -- who weren't hard to find in health- conscious San Francisco. (Many, including the plaintiffs in the Trader Joe's case, are friends or acquaintances of lawyers at Pratt & Associates.) California law doesn't require plaintiffs to have been physically injured by a company to sue it; they need only to prove "economic injury." "We just have to prove that people didn't get what they paid for. It is illegal to distribute, sell or even possess misbranded food in California," Mr. Gore explained. "Our plaintiffs bought products that weren't legal to sell." Many of the suits, like the one against Trader Joe's, target companies' use of the term "evaporated cane juice." But others take aim at nebulous health claims like "no sugar added" and "all natural" which lend foods and beverages the air of healthfulness without signifying anything. In November, for example, one of Mr. Gore's clients sued Whole Foods for labeling its in-house brand 365 Everyday Value Cola as "all natural" even though it contains caramel flavoring, citric acid and carbon dioxide. In each of the 32 cases, Mr. Gore's plaintiffs are asking to be compensated in the form of a partial or total refund for the mislabeled products they bought. They are also asking the companies being sued to change their labels. Mr. Gore said that he'd noticed, over the past year, that several packaged food manufacturers had removed the term "evaporated cane juice" from their packages, which he chalked up to fear of a lawsuit. None of the cases have been decided, but five of the defendants unsuccessfully filed motions to dismiss their suits. "We haven't lost yet," he said. "And we're not going to, because the law is pretty clear. We allege not only consumer deception, but actual regulatory violations. That's the difference between us and previous labeling suits. It's a lot harder to research the regulation -- but we feel like we've built a better mousetrap." TYSON FOODS: Recalls 127,000 Lbs of Breaded Chicken Products ------------------------------------------------------------ Tyson Foods Inc., a Russellville, Arkansas establishment, is recalling approximately 127,000 lbs. of uncooked breaded chicken tenderloins and uncooked chicken tenderloin fritter products because of an undeclared allergen and misbranding. The product contains soy, a known allergen not declared on the label. The following products are subject to recall: * 20-lb. packages of "SPARE TIME Uncooked Chicken Tenderloin Fritters" bearing the establishment number "P-5839" inside the USDA mark of inspection and a case code of "7083861." * 10-lb. packages of "Tyson UNCOOKED, BREADED CHICKEN TENDERLOINS" bearing the establishment number "P-5839" inside the USDA mark of inspection and a case code of "7083928." The products were produced between March 1, 2013, and March 27, 2013, and shipped to food service companies nationwide for further distribution to restaurants and institutions. The cartons bear a package code of "0603TYLxxxx", "0663TYLxxxx", "0733TYLxxxx", "0773TYLxxxx", "0813TYLxxxx", or "0863TYLxxxx" under the product code. The xxxx represents a time stamp. The problem was discovered by the company and occurred as a result of a label change after reformulation of the product. A marinade ingredient that included an incorrect sub-ingredient (concentrated soy protein) was not declared on the label. FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about a reaction should contact a health care provider. FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and to ensure that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers. Consumers with questions about the recall should contact Tyson Foods Consumer Relations at (866) 886-8456. Members of the media with questions about the recall should contact Gary Mickelson, Director Public Relations, at (479) 290-6111. Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. "Ask Karen" live chat services are available Monday through Friday from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time. The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888- MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be reached from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a day. ULTRATECH INC: Plaintiff Seeks Dismissal of "Rice" Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Dennis Rice asked in February 2013 the Superior Court of California for the County of Santa Clara to dismiss his class action lawsuit against Ultratech, Inc., according to the Company's March 1, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012. Ultratech, Inc. is a defendant in Dennis Rice v. Ultratech, Inc., et al., a class action lawsuit commenced on June 14, 2012, in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara. The plaintiff alleges that the proposal in the Company's proxy seeking approval to increase the authorized shares of common stock from 40 million to 80 million was misleading and incomplete and that the directors violated their fiduciary duties by making these misleading disclosures. The plaintiff sought to enjoin the stockholders' vote on this proposal. On July 16, 2012, the Court held a hearing on plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction and issued an order denying the plaintiff's motion. After plaintiff's motion for an injunction was denied, plaintiff amended the complaint. On December 18, 2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On February 26, 2013, the plaintiff filed papers with the Court requesting dismissal of the action with prejudice as to himself. The request for dismissal, which is subject to Court approval, would dispose of the action without prejudice to the uncertified class that the plaintiff purports to represent. Neither the plaintiff nor his counsel will receive any consideration in exchange for voluntarily dismissing the action. Ultratech, Inc. -- http://www.ultratech.com/-- develops, manufactures and markets photolithography, laser thermal processing, and inspection equipment designed to reduce the cost of ownership for manufacturers of semiconductor devices, including advanced packaging processes and various nanotechnology components, such as thin film head magnetic recording devices, laser diodes, high-brightness light emitting diodes and atomic layer deposition for customers located throughout North America, Europe, Singapore, Japan, Taiwan, Korea and the rest of Asia. Ultratech was incorporated in Delaware in 1992 and is headquartered in San Jose, California. VERTEX PHARMACEUTICALS: Defends "Bristol" Suit in Massachusetts --------------------------------------------------------------- Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated is defending a class action lawsuit commenced by City of Bristol Pension Fund in Massachusetts, according to the Company's March 1, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012. On September 6, 2012, a purported shareholder class action, City of Bristol Pension Fund v. Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated, et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, naming the Company and certain of the Company's current and former officers and directors of the Company as defendants. The lawsuit alleges that the Company made material misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact in the Company's disclosures during the period from May 7, 2012, through June 28, 2012, all in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. By order dated December 12, 2012, the court appointed the City of Bristol lead plaintiff and appointed the City of Bristol's attorneys lead counsel. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on February 11, 2013. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the putative class and an award of costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, as well as disgorgement of the proceeds from certain individual defendants' sales of the Company's common stock. The Company believes that this action is without merit and intends to defend it vigorously. As of December 31, 2012, the Company has not recorded any reserves for this purported class action. Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated -- http://www.vrtx.com/-- is a Massachusetts corporation headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts. The Company discovers, develops, manufactures and commercializes small molecule drugs for patients with serious diseases. WALTER ENERGY: Alabama Court Refused to Dismiss Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Walter Energy, Inc. and other defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated securities lawsuit pending in Alabama was denied in January 2013, according to the Company's March 1, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012. On January 26, 2012, and March 15, 2012, putative class actions were filed against Walter Energy, Inc. and some of its current and former senior executive officers in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama (Rush v. Walter Energy, Inc., et al.). The three executive officers named in the complaints are: Keith Calder, Walter's former CEO; Walter Scheller, the Company's current CEO and a director; and Neil Winkelmann, former President of Walter's Canadian and U.K. Operations (collectively the "Individual Defendants"). The complaints were filed by Peter Rush and Michael Carney, purported shareholders of Walter Energy who each seek to represent a class of Walter Energy shareholders who purchased common stock between April 20, 2011, and September 21, 2011. These complaints allege that Walter Energy and the Individual Defendants made false and misleading statements regarding the Company's operations outlook for the second quarter of 2011. The complaints further allege that the Company and the Individual Defendants knew that these statements were misleading and failed to disclose material facts that were necessary in order to make the statements not misleading. The Plaintiffs claim violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the 1934 Act. On May 30, 2012, the two actions were consolidated into In re Walter Energy, Inc. Securities Litigation. The court also appointed the Government of Bermuda Contributory and Public Service Superannuation Pension Plans as well as the Stephen C. Beaulieu Revocable Trust to be lead plaintiffs and approved lead plaintiffs' selection of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP and Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP as lead plaintiffs' counsel for the consolidated action. On August 20, 2012, the Lead Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action complaint in this action. The consolidated amended complaint names as an additional defendant Joseph Leonard, a current director and former interim CEO of Walter, in addition to the previously named defendants. The Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the amended complaint on October 4, 2012. On January 29, 2013, the court denied that motion without prejudice. Walter Energy and the other named defendants believe that there is no merit to the claims alleged and intend to vigorously defend these actions. Walter Energy, Inc. -- http://www.walterenergy.com/-- produces and exports metallurgical coal for the steel industry primarily in the United States. The Company also produces thermal and industrial coal, anthracite, metallurgical coke, coal bed methane gas, and other related products. It principally serves electric utility and industrial customers. It was founded in 1946 and is headquartered in Birmingham, Alabama. WALTER ENERGY: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss "Moore" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Walter Energy, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on its subsidiary's motion for partial dismissal of the class action lawsuit initiated by Louise Moore, according to the Company's March 1, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012. The Company and Walter Coke, Inc., were named in a lawsuit filed by Louise Moore on April 26, 2011 (Louise Moore v. Walter Energy, Inc. and Walter Coke, Inc., Case No. 2:11-CV-01391) in the federal District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. This is a putative civil class action alleging state law tort claims arising from the alleged presence on properties of substances, including arsenic, Bopp, and other hazardous substances, allegedly as a result of current and/or historic operations in the area conducted by the companies and/or their predecessors. On June 6, 2011, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint eliminating Walter Energy as a defendant and amending the claims alleged against Walter Coke to relate to Walter Coke's alleged conduct for the period commencing after March 2, 1995. On June 20, 2011, Walter Coke filed a Motion to Dismiss the amended complaint. On September 28, 2012, the Court issued a memorandum opinion and order granting in part and denying in part the motion. In partially granting Walter Coke's motion, the Court held that the plaintiff's claim for injunctive relief was not valid and that class action-related claims must be dismissed (with leave to re-plead) due to an improperly defined class. In partially ruling for the plaintiff, the Court held that at the pleading stage the plaintiff's claims could not be dismissed on rule of repose grounds or due to insufficient pleading. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on October 29, 2012. On November 19, 2012, Walter Coke filed an answer and motion for partial dismissal of plaintiff's second amended complaint. The Court held a hearing on Walter Coke's motion for partial dismissal of the second amended complaint on January 10, 2013, and a ruling is pending. The Company and Walter Coke believe that there is no merit to the claims alleged in this action and intend to vigorously defend this matter. Walter Energy, Inc. -- http://www.walterenergy.com/-- produces and exports metallurgical coal for the steel industry primarily in the United States. The Company also produces thermal and industrial coal, anthracite, metallurgical coke, coal bed methane gas, and other related products. It principally serves electric utility and industrial customers. It was founded in 1946 and is headquartered in Birmingham, Alabama. WALTER ENERGY: Appeal in Ontario Securities Suit Abandoned ---------------------------------------------------------- Walter Energy, Inc. disclosed in its March 1, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012, that the appeal in the dismissed class action lawsuit in Ontario, Canada, has been abandoned. In November 2009, the Company's subsidiary, Western Coal Corp., was named as a defendant in a statement of claim issued by a plaintiff who sought leave of the Ontario Courts to proceed with a securities class action. This claim also named Western Coal's former President and director, John Hogg, and two of its non- executive directors, John Brodie and Robert Chase, as defendants. The plaintiff subsequently delivered an amended claim that added new allegations that sought to have the amended claim certified as a class action separately from the proposed securities class action allegations. The new allegations focused on certain transactions the plaintiff claims were oppressive and unfair to the interests of shareholders. The amended claim included additional defendants of Western Coal's former Chairman, John Byrne, its remaining non-executive directors John Conlon and Charles Pitcher, Audley European Opportunities Master Fund Limited, Audley Capital Management Limited, and Audley Advisors LLP. The proposed securities claims alleged that those persons who acquired or disposed of Western Coal shares between November 14, 2007, and December 10, 2007, should be entitled to recover $200 million for general damages and $20 million in punitive damages. The plaintiff alleges that Western Coal's consolidated financial statements for the second quarter of fiscal 2008 and the accompanying news release issued on November 14, 2007, misrepresented Western Coal's financial condition and that Western Coal failed to make full, plain and true disclosure of all material facts and changes. The plaintiff's oppression claims were advanced in respect of Western Coal's security holders in the period between April 26, 2007, and July 13, 2009. The claims were that the defendants caused Western Coal to enter into transactions that had a dilutive effect on the interests of its shareholders. The damages associated with these alleged dilutive effects were not developed or quantified. The plaintiff's motions to proceed with securities claims and also to certify the securities and oppression claims as class actions were argued in June 2012. The court dismissed each of these motions on September 14, 2012. The action has now been settled pursuant to a court order dismissing the action without cost. The appeal has been abandoned. Walter Energy, Inc. -- http://www.walterenergy.com/-- produces and exports metallurgical coal for the steel industry primarily in the United States. The Company also produces thermal and industrial coal, anthracite, metallurgical coke, coal bed methane gas, and other related products. It principally serves electric utility and industrial customers. It was founded in 1946 and is headquartered in Birmingham, Alabama. WILHELMINA INT'L: Receives Summons in Connection With Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In October 2012, two subsidiaries of Wilhelmina International, Inc., received a Summons with Notice in connection with a purported class action lawsuit. According to the Notice accompanying the Summons, the purported claims arise out of, among other things, the handling and reporting of funds on behalf of models and the use of model images. Two of the Company's subsidiaries, along with a number of other model management companies, advertising firms and others, are named as defendants. The Company believes these claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself. Wilhelmina International, Inc.'s primary business is fashion model management, which is headquartered in New York City. The Company's predecessor was founded in 1967 by Wilhelmina Cooper, a renowned fashion model, and is one of the oldest and largest fashion model management companies in the world. Since its founding, it has grown to include operations located in Los Angeles and Miami, as well as a growing network of licensees comprising leading modeling agencies in various local markets across the U.S. as well as in Panama, Thailand and Dubai. The Company provides traditional, full-service fashion model and talent management services, specializing in the representation and management of models, entertainers, artists, athletes and other talent to various customers and clients, including retailers, designers, advertising agencies and catalog companies. * Judge Awards Damages in San Allen Employment Litigation --------------------------------------------------------- George B. Wilkinson, Esq. -- george.wilkinson@dinsmore.com -- at Dinsmore & Shohl LLP reports that Judge McMonagle has awarded damages in the San Allen case. The Judge accepted the plaintiffs' expert on damages. He awarded $859,440,258.79 after a hearing on the issue of the amount of class action damages for employers who were not in a group rating plan from 2001 to 2009. The Court specifically rejected the evidence from the Bureau of Workers' Compensation which suggested that the "Schwartz formula" should be modified by adding various factors. The Court rather abruptly stated that under his prior order, the Schwartz formula would be accepted and there would not be any alterations to it. The evidence presented by the BWC was deemed by the Court to be just that. This is the final decision on liability and damages. Non-group rated employers for the eight years in question will be awarded this amount allocated and assessed by year and by payroll reported. Do not expect checks in the mail; the BWC has stated that it is going to appeal. The final resolution probably will not occur for a year or so. The BWC responded to the Judge's adverse ruling with a lengthy press release. The BWC expressed disappointment, and made several observations about the employers who were awarded the refund. The BWC explained that these employers had claims costs in excess of premiums of more than $861 million (a coincidence?). That translates to $1.26 in claims cost for every premium dollar paid by the employers in the class. In addition to appealing this decision, the BWC promises to continue its Destination: Excellence Program to increase safety and reduce employer costs. * Judge Dismisses Libor Manipulation Claims Against 16 Banks ------------------------------------------------------------ Jean Eaglesham, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that banks being probed over alleged interest-rate manipulation scored a big victory in their battle against scores of private lawsuits seeking billions of dollars in potential damages. A federal-court judge on March 29 agreed to dismiss claims that the 16 banks targeted by the suits broke federal antitrust laws through alleged suppression of the London interbank offered rate, or Libor. In a 161-page ruling on the banks' motions to dismiss the leading suits seeking class-action status, U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald allowed some of the claims to proceed, including allegations the banks breached commodities laws. But if her ruling stands, it would take out a central plank of the litigation. The federal antitrust claims that the judge threw out can pay up to triple damages. Unless the plaintiffs can prevail on appeal, the March 29 ruling on the antitrust claims would significantly reduce the potential cost to the banks. The ruling also is likely to reduce the financial inventive for new plaintiffs to join investors, cities, lenders and other parties that have already filed lawsuits. Michael Hausfeld, chairman of law firm Hausfeld LLP, represents Baltimore as a plaintiff in one of the largest proposed Libor class-action suits. His clients will now consider whether to file an amended suit or to appeal the judge's ruling, Mr. Hausfeld said on March 29. Judge Buchwald said her ruling was based on the conflicting legal arguments affecting the suits, rather than whether the underlying allegations of rate-rigging were true. Regulators have alleged that executives and traders at certain banks tried to manipulate Libor to increase trading profits or improve the banks' image. Libor is calculated daily for different currencies based on estimated borrowing rates submitted by banks on panels. The lawsuits target banks on the panel used to work out U.S.-dollar rates under Libor. Judge Buchwald ruled that the banks' alleged conduct didn't breach federal antitrust laws, partly because the Libor-setting process was a "cooperative endeavor" and "never intended to be competitive." That means even if the banks did subvert the Libor process by putting in fake estimates, any losses suffered by investors and other plaintiffs would have resulted from the banks' "misrepresentation, not from harm to competition," the judge wrote. The ruling is a rare example of good news for the banking industry amid the escalating Libor scandal. So far, Barclays PLC, Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC and UBS AG have paid a total of $2.5 billion to settle rate-rigging allegations with U.S. and U.K. regulators. About a dozen firms remain under scrutiny. The private litigation has ballooned as the probe escalated. Analysts have estimated the potential total bill to banks at anywhere from $7.8 billion to $176 billion. * Roe v. Wade Decision Remains Controversial After 40 Years ----------------------------------------------------------- Ralph E. Stone, writing for The Berkeley Daily Planet, report that on January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade legalized abortion. In this case, Jane Roe, a pseudonym for Norma Leah McCorvey (nee Nelson), brought a class action suit challenging the constitutionality of a Texas criminal abortion laws, which forbids procuring or attempting an abortion except on medical advice for the purpose of saving the mother's life. The Supreme Court stated that state criminal abortion laws "that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother's behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy." Roe established a "trimester" threshold of state interest in the life of the fetus corresponding to its increasing "viability" (likelihood of survival outside the uterus) over the course of a pregnancy. States were prohibited from banning abortion early in pregnancy but allowed to impose increasing restrictions or outright bans later in pregnancy. In the 1992 case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which upheld the "central holding" in Roe, but replaced the trimester system with the point of fetal viability (whenever it may occur) as when a state's right to override the woman's autonomy begins. Casey also lowered the legal standard to which states would be held in justifying restrictions imposed on a woman's rights. In an ironic twist, McCorvey/Roe in 1994 converted to Christianity and expressed remorse for her part in the Roe v. Wade decision. She later worked for the pro-life movement, such as Operation Rescue now Operation Save America, which conducts mass protests at abortion clinics to promote the pro-life cause. The Roe decision is significant when you consider that by age 45, about half of American women will have an unintended pregnancy and about four in ten will terminate her pregnancy. Twenty-two percent of all pregnancies (excluding miscarriages) end in abortion. But since the Roe decision, there as been a decades-long "Roe Rage" or "Roe Backlash" against the decision. In the last two years alone, 30 states have passed 135 laws restricting access to abortion. For example, twenty-one states have adopted laws restricting insurance companies from paying for abortions. The federal Affordable Care Act maintains the status quo of no federal funding for abortions, except in cases of rape, incest or when the life of the woman is endangered. A federal judge recently wrote "the express language does not provide for taxpayer funded abortion. That is a fact and it is clear on its face." Insurers selling their plans on the state exchanges taking effect next year must segregate the premiums they collect for abortion coverage, a definite built-in disincentive. In addition, under the Act, states can enact stricter rules of their own. So far, nineteen states bar or restrict insurance companies on their exchanges from covering abortion. North Dakota is taking Roe rage to the extreme by taking a step toward outlawing abortions altogether by passing what has been termed a "personhood resolution," that states a fertilized egg has the same right to life as a person. If passed by the voters, the wording would be added to the state's constitution. In light of Roe and subsequent decisions, the resolution probably violates the U.S. Constitution. But if the matter comes before the present U.S. Supreme Court, who knows how it will rule. On the other side of the coin, Washington state is considering legislation, which would mandate insurance companies to pay for abortions. The proposed Reproductive Parity Act would require insurers in Washington state who cover maternity care -- which all insurers must do -- to also pay for abortions. The bill passed the state House, but must now pass the state Senate and, if it does, then goes to a popular vote. And in California, AB 154 was introduced, which would expand the number of trained health professionals who can provide early abortion cases. AB 154 would authorize trained nurse practitioners, certified nurse midwives, and physician assistants to provide early abortions. Presently, women in 52 percent of California counties do not have an accessible abortion provider. If passed, women in rural areas will not have to travel great distances to find a provider. Some critics of the Roe v. Wade decision argue that the states should have worked out delicate matters like abortion for themselves. The broad ruling in Roe stopped activity in state legislatures, created polarization and some would say, damaged the authority of the court. But in "Backlash to the Future? From Roe to Perry," the authors dispute this so-called Roe Rage or Roe Backlash. "Before Roe," they wrote, "despite broad popular support, liberalization of abortion law had all but come to a halt in the face of concerted opposition by a Catholic-led minority. It was, in other words, decidedly not the case that abortion reform was on an inevitable march forward if only the Supreme Court had stayed its hand." Thus, it may have been time for the Supreme Courts to step in to vindicate the rights of the minority even at the risk of a rage or backlash. Forty years later, the Roe v. Wade decision still ignites rage and a backlash. The opponents of legalized abortion appear to be gaining ground and as a result, the cause of women's reproductive rights are set back. Do we really want to go back to those dark days of back alley abortions with a coat hanger or knitting needle, causing injury and sometimes even death? ********* 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, Valerie Udtuhan, 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 * * *