/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/130429.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, April 29, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 83 Headlines 7TH HEAVEN: Recalls Oatmeal Raisin Cookies Due to Allergens AVON PRODUCTS: Faces Overtime Class Action in Santa Cruz County BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Overtime Class Action BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Bids to Arbitrate in WARN Suits Pending BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: "Guzman" Suit Currently in Discovery BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Class Suit CHARLES SCHWAB: FINRA Appeals Panel's Class Action Ban Ruling CHILDREN'S APPAREL: Recalls 9,200 Girl's Clothing Sets CONSOLIDATED COMMUNICATIONS: Awaits Final OK of Merger Suits Deal CONSOLIDATED COMMUNICATIONS: Defends Class Suits vs. Unit GHIRARDELLI: Judge Rejects Bid to Dismiss White Chocolate Suit HARRIS COUNTY: Faces Suit Over Collecting Illegal Court Fees HERBALIFE INT'L: Faces Suit Over Fraudulent Pyramid Scheme HORIZON LINES: Suit Over Services in Alaska Tradelane Pending HSBC HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Securities Litigation vs. Unit HSBC HOLDINGS: Defends Consolidated LIBOR-Related Suit in N.Y. HSBC HOLDINGS: Defends Madoff-Related Suits and Investigations HRB TAX: Faces Class Action Over Discrimination Against Blind IMPAC MORTGAGE: Individual Defendants in "Timm" Suit Dismissed IMPAC MORTGAGE: Plaintiffs Appealed Dismissal of "Marentes" Suit IMPAC MORTGAGE: Settlement in "Gilmor" Suit Approved in March INTERLINE BRANDS: Suit Alleging TCPA Violations Remains Pending MANAGED HEALTH: MFLC Overtime Pay Action Conditionally Certified NVIDIA CORP: Appeal From Dismissal of Securities Suit Pending NVIDIA CORP: Appeal in NVIDIA GPU Litigation Remains Pending NVIDIA CORP: "Granfield" Suit in Massachusetts Now Over OHIO: Job and Family Services Dept. Sued for Seizing Money OMNIVISION TECH: Judge Won't Disturb Misrepresentation Claims QWEST COMMS: Awaits OK of Settlement in Rights-of-Way Suits REED AND BARTON: Recalls 4,000 Baby Gingham Bunny Forks & Spoons SCHNUCK MARKETS: Faces Suit for Giving Late Notice of Breach SHIRE LLC: Faces Class Action Over Sham Patent Litigation SIX FLAGS: Faces Overtime Class Action STERLING BANCORP: Being Sold for Too Little, Suit Claims SVTC TECHNOLOGIES: To Seek Initial Approval of Hoa Tran Suit Deal TARGET CORP: Recalls 148,700 Giada De Laurentiis Lasagna Pans UNITED HEALTHCARE: Court Dismisses Gates' Second Amended Complaint YAMASHITA RUBBER: Faces Suit Over Rubber Market Manipulation ZST DIGITAL: Faces Class Action for Withholding Information ********* 7TH HEAVEN: Recalls Oatmeal Raisin Cookies Due to Allergens ----------------------------------------------------------- 7th Heaven Bakeries, in Oklahoma City, is recalling OATMEAL RAISIN COOKIES, because they may contain undeclared dry eggs, soy lecithin, and whey solids. People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to eggs, soy and milk run the risk of serious or life- threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products. The Oatmeal Raisin Cookies were distributed for retail sale to 7-Eleven Stores in the OKC Metro Area (Oklahoma City, Moore, Norman, Noble, Midwest City, Del City, Edmond, Bethany, Nichols Hills, The Village, Yukon, Warr Acres, and Mustang, Oklahoma). The cookies are individually wrapped, and labeled with a round, 7th Heaven Bakeries label that is orange and yellow, with Best by Dates prior to 05/07/13. Picture of the recalled products is available at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm349279.htm This recall was initiated after it was discovered during an FDA inspection that Oatmeal Raisin Cookies containing dry egg, soy and milk were distributed in packaging that did not reveal the presence of egg, soy and milk. No reports of illness have been received to date. The Company corrected the label on 4/23/2013 and removed any mislabeled cookies from the stores. "Eggs, Soy and Milk" are now listed on the label. Consumers who have purchased 7th Heaven Oatmeal Raisin Cookies with Best By dates prior to May 7, 2013, may return the cookies for replacement. Consumers with questions may contact the Company, Monday - Friday, 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Central Standard Time at 405-682-5711. AVON PRODUCTS: Faces Overtime Class Action in Santa Cruz County --------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Avon stiffs district sales managers for overtime, a class action claims in Santa Cruz County Court. BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Overtime Class Action -------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Bank of America and its LandSafe subsidiary stiff appraisers for overtime, a class action claims in Federal Court. BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Bids to Arbitrate in WARN Suits Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- Bridgepoint Education, Inc.'s motions to compel binding arbitration with the court are currently pending, according to the Company's March 12, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012. On October 24, 2012, a class action complaint was filed in California Superior Court by former employee Marla Montano naming the Company and Ashford University as defendants. The case is entitled Marla Montano v. Bridgepoint Education and Ashford University. The complaint asserts a putative class consisting of former employees who were terminated in January 2012 and July 2012 as a result of a mass layoff, relocation or termination and alleges that the defendants failed to comply with the notice and payment provisions of the California Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act. A substantially similar complaint, entitled Dilts v. Bridgepoint Education and Ashford University, was also filed in the same court on the same day by Austin Dilts making similar allegations and asserting the same putative class. The complaints seek back pay, the cost of benefits, penalties and interest on behalf of the putative class members, as well as other equitable relief and attorneys' fees. The Company and Ashford University are currently evaluating these actions and intend to vigorously defend against them. On January 25, 2013, the Company filed motions to compel binding arbitration with the court, which are currently pending. Bridgepoint Education, Inc. -- http://www.bridgepointeducation.com/-- is a provider of postsecondary education services. The Company's institutions deliver programs primarily online, as well as at their traditional campuses. The Company was incorporated in Delaware and is headquartered in San Diego, California. BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: "Guzman" Suit Currently in Discovery ----------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Guzman v. Bridgepoint Education, Inc., is currently in discovery, according to the Company's March 12, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012. In January 2011, Betty Guzman filed a class action lawsuit against Bridgepoint Education, Inc., Ashford University and University of the Rockies in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. The complaint is entitled Guzman v. Bridgepoint Education, Inc., et al, and alleges that the defendants engaged in misrepresentation and other unlawful behavior in their efforts to recruit and retain students. The complaint asserts a putative class period of March 1, 2005, through the present. In March 2011, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which was granted by the Court with leave to amend in October 2011. In January 2012, the plaintiff filed a first amended complaint asserting similar claims and the same class period, and the defendants filed another motion to dismiss. In May 2012, the Court granted the University of the Rockies' motion to dismiss and granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss filed by Bridgepoint Education, Inc. and Ashford University. The Court also granted the plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint. In August 2012, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint asserting similar claims and the same class period. The second amended complaint seeks unspecified monetary relief, disgorgement of all profits, various other equitable relief, and attorneys' fees. The defendants filed a motion to strike portions of the second amended complaint, which was granted in part and denied in part. The lawsuit is proceeding to discovery. The Company believes the lawsuit is without merit and intends to vigorously defend against it. Bridgepoint Education, Inc. -- http://www.bridgepointeducation.com/-- is a provider of postsecondary education services. The Company's institutions deliver programs primarily online, as well as at their traditional campuses. The Company was incorporated in Delaware and is headquartered in San Diego, California. BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Bridgepoint Education, Inc., is asking for the dismissal of a consolidated securities lawsuit pending in California, according to the Company's March 12, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012. On July 13, 2012, a securities class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California by Donald K. Franke naming the Company, Andrew Clark, Daniel Devine and Jane McAuliffe as defendants for allegedly making false and materially misleading statements regarding the Company's business and financial results, specifically the concealment of accreditation problems at Ashford University. The complaint asserts a putative class period stemming from May 3, 2011, to July 6, 2012. A substantially similar complaint was also filed in the same court by Luke Sacharczyk on July 17, 2012, making similar allegations against the Company, Andrew Clark and Daniel Devine. The Sacharczyk complaint asserts a putative class period stemming from May 3, 2011, to July 12, 2012. Finally, on July 26, 2012, another purported securities class action complaint was filed in the same court by David Stein against the same defendants based upon the same general set of allegations and class period. The complaints allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and seek unspecified monetary relief, interest, and attorneys' fees. On October 22, 2012, the Sacharczyk and Stein actions were consolidated with the Franke action and the Court appointed the City of Atlanta General Employees Pension Fund and the Teamsters Local 677 Health Services & Insurance Plan as lead plaintiffs. A consolidated complaint was filed on December 21, 2012. The Company says it intends to vigorously defend against the consolidated action and filed a motion to dismiss on February 19, 2013. Bridgepoint Education, Inc. -- http://www.bridgepointeducation.com/-- is a provider of postsecondary education services. The Company's institutions deliver programs primarily online, as well as at their traditional campuses. The Company was incorporated in Delaware and is headquartered in San Diego, California. CHARLES SCHWAB: FINRA Appeals Panel's Class Action Ban Ruling ------------------------------------------------------------- Godfrey & Kahn S.C. reports that FINRA is appealing a FINRA hearing panel decision which ruled that a class-action ban in a customer agreement with a brokerage firm is consistent with federal law and recent Supreme Court interpretations of the Federal Arbitration Act (Act). In October 2011, Charles Schwab amended its customer account agreement to include a provision requiring customers to waive their rights to bring or participate in class actions against the firm (class-action waiver). The amended agreement also included a provision requiring customers to agree that arbitrators in arbitration proceedings would not have the authority to consolidate more than one party's claims (consolidation language). FINRA charged that both provisions violated FINRA rules concerning language or conditions that firms may place in customer agreements. In February 2013, a FINRA hearing panel concluded that the class- action waiver violated FINRA rules designed to preserve judicial class actions as an alternative to arbitration, even when there is a pre-dispute arbitration agreement. However, the panel concluded that the FINRA rules may not be enforced. The panel held that enforcement is foreclosed by the Act and Supreme Court decisions that held adjudicators must enforce agreements to go to arbitration to resolve disputes and must reject any public policy exception that disfavors arbitration, unless Congress itself has indicated an exception to the Act. If not overturned, the panel's decision may lead other broker- dealers to amend their brokerage contracts to prohibit customers from participating in class-action lawsuits. FINRA could respond to the panel's decision by requiring broker-dealers to abide by "fair play" rules that include access to courts if they wish to remain members of FINRA. In the same hearing, FINRA did prevail in one of its actions against Schwab. The panel concluded that the consolidation language violated FINRA rules by attempting to limit and contradict a FINRA arbitration rule that specifies circumstances in which arbitrators may arbitrate consolidated claims. The panel further concluded that the Act does not bar enforcement of these rules because the Act does not dictate how an arbitration forum should be governed and operated or prohibit the consolidation of individual claims. The panel fined Schwab $500,000 and ordered it to take corrective action to remove the consolidation language from its agreements. CHILDREN'S APPAREL: Recalls 9,200 Girl's Clothing Sets ------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Children's Apparel Network, of New York, announced a voluntary recall of about 9,200 Girl's Three-Piece Clothing Sets. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The vest sold with these sets has a belt at the waist that could become snagged or caught in small spaces or vehicle doors and it poses an entanglement hazard. In February 1996, CPSC issued guidelines about drawstrings in children's upper outerwear. In 1997, those guidelines were incorporated into a voluntary standard. Then, in July 2011, based on the guidelines and voluntary standard, CPSC issued a federal regulation. CPSC's actions demonstrate a commitment to help prevent children from strangling or getting entangled on neck and waist drawstrings in upper outerwear, such as jackets and sweatshirts. No incidents or injuries have been reported. This recall involves girl's "Young Hearts" brand three-piece clothing sets. The sets were sold with a pink vest, black pullover shirt and knit pants in sizes 12 months to 6X. "Young Hearts" is printed on a label inside the shirt collar. The pink vest has a black bow applique on the left front and a pink elastic belt with silver clasps. Picture of the recalled products is available at: http://is.gd/pmZ4tb The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Conway, Citi Trends, Duckwall-Alco and other children's apparel stores nationwide and online at Amazon.com from September 2012 to December 2012 for about $40. Consumers should immediately remove the belt from the vest to eliminate the hazard, or return the set to the store where purchased for a full refund. Children's Apparel Network may be reached at (800) 919-1917 from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday or online at http://www.childrensapparelnetwork.com/and click on "PRESS." CONSOLIDATED COMMUNICATIONS: Awaits Final OK of Merger Suits Deal ----------------------------------------------------------------- Consolidated Communications Holdings, Inc., is awaiting final approval of its settlement of merger-related class action lawsuits, according to the Company's March 12, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012. On July 2, 2012, the Company completed the merger with SureWest Communications, which resulted in the acquisition of 100% of all the outstanding shares of SureWest for $23.00 per share in a cash and stock transaction. Prior to the completion of the SureWest Merger on July 2, 2012, six putative class action lawsuits were filed by alleged SureWest shareholders challenging the Company's proposed merger with SureWest in which the Company, WH Acquisition Corp. and WH Acquisition II Corp, SureWest and members of the SureWest board of directors have been named as defendants. Five shareholder actions were filed in the Superior Court of California, Placer County, and one shareholder action was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. The actions are called Needles v. SureWest Communications, et al., filed February 17, 2012, Errecart v. Oldham, et al., filed February 24, 2012, Springer v. SureWest Communications, et al., filed March 9, 2012, Aievoli v. Oldham, et al., filed March 15, 2012, and Waterbury v. SureWest Communications, et al., filed March 26, 2012, and the federal action is called Broering v. Oldham, et al., filed April 18, 2012. The actions generally allege, among other things, that each member of the SureWest board of directors breached fiduciary duties to SureWest and its shareholders by authorizing the sale of SureWest to the Company for consideration that allegedly was unfair to the SureWest shareholders and agreed to terms that allegedly unduly restrict other bidders from making a competing offer. The complaints also allege that the Company and SureWest aided and abetted the breaches of fiduciary duties allegedly committed by the members of the SureWest board of directors. The Broering complaint also alleges, among other things, that the joint proxy statement/prospectus filed with the SEC on March 28, 2012, did not make sufficient disclosures regarding the merger, that SureWest's board should have appointed an independent committee to negotiate the transaction and that SureWest should have gone back to another bidder to create a competitive bid process. The lawsuits seek equitable relief, including an order to prevent the defendants from consummating the merger on the agreed-upon terms and/or an award of unspecified monetary damages. On March 14, 2012, the Placer County Superior Court entered an order consolidating the Needles, Errecart and Springer actions into a single action under the caption In re SureWest Communications Shareholder Litigation. Under the terms of this order, all cases subsequently filed in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Placer, that relate to the same subject matter and involve similar questions of law or fact were to be consolidated with these cases as well. This included the Aievoli and Waterbury cases. On April 10, 2012, the plaintiff in Waterbury filed a request for voluntary dismissal of her complaint without prejudice. On May 18, 2012, pursuant to the parties' stipulation, the federal Court entered an order staying the Broering action for 90 days. The federal Court subsequently extended the stay of the Broering action until June 1, 2013. On June 1, 2012, the parties entered into a proposed settlement of all of the shareholder actions without any admission of liability by the Company or the other defendants. Pursuant to the proposed settlement, SureWest agreed to make, and subsequently made, certain additional disclosures in a Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC in advance of the special meeting of SureWest shareholders held on June 12, 2012. The proposed settlement also provided that plaintiffs' counsel collectively are to receive attorneys' fees of $0.525 million, of which the Company is to pay $36,250, with the balance to be paid by SureWest and its insurer. The proposed settlement is subject to approval by the Placer County Superior Court. On December 20, 2012, the court issued a ruling preliminarily approving the proposed settlement. The court has set a hearing for March 28, 2013, for the final approval of the proposed settlement. Upon final approval by the court, the consolidated state court actions and the federal action will be dismissed with prejudice. Headquartered in Mattoon, Illinois, Consolidated Communications Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.consolidated.com/-- is a Delaware holding company with operating subsidiaries providing a wide range of communications services to residential and business customers, including local and long-distance service, high-speed broadband Internet access, video services, digital telephone service, custom calling features, private line services, carrier grade access services, network capacity services over the Company's regional fiber optic networks, directory publishing and Competitive Local Exchange Carrier services. CONSOLIDATED COMMUNICATIONS: Defends Class Suits vs. Unit --------------------------------------------------------- Consolidated Communications Holdings, Inc., is defending a subsidiary against pending class action lawsuits, according to the Company's March 12, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012. Pennsylvania RSA No. 6 (II) Limited Partnership (the "Partnership") and Cellco Partnership ("Cellco," doing business as Verizon Wireless) are subject to lawsuits and other claims including class actions, product liability, patent infringement, intellectual property, antitrust, partnership disputes, and claims involving relations with resellers and agents. Cellco is also currently defending lawsuits filed against it and other participants in the wireless industry alleging various adverse effects as a result of wireless phone usage. Various consumer class action lawsuits allege that Cellco violated certain state consumer protection laws and other statutes and defrauded customers through misleading billing practices or statements. These matters may involve indemnification obligations by third parties and/or affiliated parties covering all or part of any potential damage awards against Cellco and the Partnership and/or insurance coverage. The Company says all of the matters are subject to many uncertainties, and the outcomes are not currently predictable. Headquartered in Mattoon, Illinois, Consolidated Communications Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.consolidated.com/-- is a Delaware holding company with operating subsidiaries providing a wide range of communications services to residential and business customers, including local and long-distance service, high-speed broadband Internet access, video services, digital telephone service, custom calling features, private line services, carrier grade access services, network capacity services over the Company's regional fiber optic networks, directory publishing and Competitive Local Exchange Carrier services. GHIRARDELLI: Judge Rejects Bid to Dismiss White Chocolate Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Nick Mccann at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal judge refused to let Ghirardelli off the hook from a federal class action alleging that its white chocolate chips do not actually contain any white chocolate. Lead plaintiff Scott Miller bought a package of Ghirardelli white chocolate chips in June 2012, and discovered the next day that they did not taste like white chocolate. "He reviewed the ingredients list on the packaging and noticed that the white chips contained no white chocolate, cocoa, or cocoa butter," according to U.S. Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler's summary of the complaint. The class action accuses Ghirardelli of misrepresenting the white chocolate content in its chocolate chips, wafers, white chocolate flavor, mocha mix, and frappes. It alleges violations of Food and Drug Administration regulations, as well as various state-law infractions such as false advertising, unfair competition and fraud. Miller, a resident of Auburndale, Fla., sued in San Francisco, where Ghirardelli is based. The confectioner removed the case to U.S. District Court and sought dismissal, arguing that Miller lacks standing to sue over white chocolate products he did not buy. In December 2012, Beeler limited the suit to white chocolate chips. The judge noted that that four other Ghirardelli products Miller targeted are all different from each other, both in labeling and composition. "This is not the type of case where similar products or similar misrepresentations injured Miller in the same way as the unnamed plaintiffs," Beeler wrote. At oral argument, Miller's attorney argued that "the combination of the 'Ghirardelli Chocolate' branding on the front of the label on top of the characterization of the product means that -- under FDA regulations and standards -- the harm is identical across product lines." Miller then filed an amended complaint, but Ghirardelli complained that Miller was complaining about four products he did not buy. Earlier this month, Beeler again tossed all allegations not pertaining to white chocolate chips. "[The] identity of the commodity here under FDA regulations is 'white chocolate,' not 'chocolate,'" Beeler wrote. "That in turn means that a determination of standing is back to an examination of the entire label, and the court previously found that - even with the juxtaposition of 'Ghirardelli' to 'Chocolate' and the resulting implication of a connection to chocolate - the five products and the alleged misrepresentations were not sufficiently similar." Ghirardelli had also argued that Miller's claim that the chocolate violated California's Sherman Food, Drug and Cosmetic Law does not apply because federal regulation for white chocolate was not made public until 2002. Judge Beeler disagreed, however, noting that the California Supreme Court applied FDA regulations from 2007 without questioning the constitutionality of the Sherman Law. Miller can also argue that the labeling was an unlawful trade practice even though Ghirardelli said he should have pleaded "nutritional inferiority." "The allegations are more than merely labels or general assertions," the ruling states. "At the pleadings stage, and based on the case-specific record, the court concludes that Ghirardelli has enough information to answer the complaint." HARRIS COUNTY: Faces Suit Over Collecting Illegal Court Fees ------------------------------------------------------------ Cameron Langford at Courthouse News Service reports that Harris County takes millions of dollars in illegal court fees from criminal defendants in "what amounts to little more than armed extortion," two men claim in a federal class action. Lead plaintiffs Onesimo "Trey" Perez and Jonathan Hawes say they paid Harris County a total of $662 in court costs "despite the fact that no fees were actually owed." They say they paid the money to avoid arrest and jail. The county charged Perez $417 for his DUI conviction in July 2012, and Hawes $215 for his marijuana possession conviction that month, according to the complaint. Given Harris County's status as Texas' most populated county, with more than 4 million people, the illegal fees add up fast, the class claims. In March this year alone Harris County's criminal courts disposed of 5,733 cases, according to county records. "For years, defendant Harris County has, at the threat of incarceration, extorted unlawful 'court costs' from those convicted of misdemeanor and felony crimes, in clear violation of Texas law," the complaint states. "Harris County's practice has taken millions of dollars from the class so represented by the named plaintiffs without any justification, in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. "Under Texas law, a court cost assessed against a criminal defendant 'is not payable by the person charged with the cost until a written bill is produced or is ready to be produced, containing the items of cost, signed by the officer who charged the cost or the officer who is entitled to receive payment for the cost' "While the judgment against a defendant may include an instruction to pay costs, Texas law is clear that an obligation of a convicted person to pay court costs is established by statute, not by court order. This statute requires a bill of costs as a pre-requisite to any assessment of court costs by a county clerk. "Despite this, for years Harris County had a practice of failing and/or refusing to file a bill of costs or any documentation to support the charges levied against criminal defendants in every conviction in the county. "In fact, from April 2011 until late 2012, Harris County did not even have a policy or mechanism for producing a bill of costs in a criminal matter. Rather than abide by Texas law, Harris County chose to assess court costs against criminal defendants without the prerequisite bill of costs. Harris County was thereby assessing costs that were not properly chargeable against criminal defendants." (Citations to exhibits omitted.) Harris County has no right to these fees but issues arrest warrants for anyone who refuses to pay, the class claims. "Thereby County used its threat of arrest by armed police to force those plaintiffs to pay the unlawful costs. Harris County's conduct of assessing costs without statutory authorization, and then forcing payment of the costs by armed police, amounts to little more than armed extortion," the complaint states. The class seeks damages for unconstitutional taking, and an injunction to stop Harris County from collecting illegal court fees. It is represented by David Mullin with Mullin Hoard & Brown of Amarillo. A court spokesman told Courthouse News the district attorney does not comment on pending litigation. HERBALIFE INT'L: Faces Suit Over Fraudulent Pyramid Scheme ---------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Herbalife operated and promoted an inherently fraudulent pyramid scheme, a class of its distributors from the last four years claims. HORIZON LINES: Suit Over Services in Alaska Tradelane Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit relating to ocean shipping services in the Alaska tradelane remains pending, according to Horizon Lines, Inc.'s March 12, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 23, 2012. On April 17, 2008, the Company received a grand jury subpoena and search warrant from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida seeking information regarding an investigation by the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice into possible antitrust violations in the domestic ocean shipping business. On February 23, 2011, the Company entered into a plea agreement with the DOJ relating to the Puerto Rico tradelane, and the Court has entered judgment accepting the Company's plea agreement and has imposed a fine of $15.0 million payable over five years without interest. Subsequent to the commencement of the DOJ investigation, a class action lawsuit relating to ocean shipping services in the Alaska tradelane was filed and remains pending in the District of Alaska. The Company and the class plaintiffs have agreed to stay the Alaska litigation, and the Company intends to vigorously defend against the purported class action lawsuit in Alaska. Charlotte, North Carolina-based Horizon Lines, Inc. -- http://www.horizonlines.com/-- is a domestic ocean shipping and integrated logistics company. The Company owns or leases a fleet of 20 U.S.-flag containerships and operates five port terminals linking the continental United States with Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto Rico. The Company also provides integrated, reliable and cost competitive logistics solutions. HSBC HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Securities Litigation vs. Unit ----------------------------------------------------------------- HSBC Holdings plc continues to defend a subsidiary from a securities litigation captioned Jaffe v Household International Inc., et al., according to the Company's March 12, 2013, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012. As a result of an August 2002 restatement of previously reported consolidated financial statements and other corporate events, including the 2002 settlement with 46 State Attorneys General relating to real estate lending practices, Household International Inc. (now HSBC Finance Corporation) and certain former officers were named as defendants in a class action lawsuit, Jaffe v Household International Inc, et al No 2. C 5893 (N.D. Ill., filed August 19, 2002). The complaint asserted claims under the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Ultimately, a class was certified on behalf of all persons who acquired and disposed of Household International common stock between July 30, 1999 and October 11, 2002. The claims alleged that the defendants knowingly or recklessly made false and misleading statements of material fact relating to Household's Consumer Lending operations, including collections, sales and lending practices, some of which ultimately led to the 2002 State settlement agreement, and facts relating to accounting practices evidenced by the restatement. A jury trial concluded in April 2009, which was decided partly in favour of the plaintiffs. Following post-trial briefing, the District Court ruled that various legal challenges to the verdict, including as to loss causation and other matters, would not be considered until after a second phase of the proceedings addressing issues of reliance and the submission of claims by class members had been completed. The District Court ruled on November 22, 2010, that claim forms should be mailed to class members to ascertain which class members may have claims for damages arising from reliance on the misleading statements found by the jury. The District Court also set out a method for calculating damages for class members who filed claims. As previously reported, lead plaintiffs, in court filings in March 2010, estimated that damages could range 'somewhere between $2.4 billion to $3.2 billion to class members,' before pre-judgment interest. In December 2011, the report of the court-appointed claims administrator to the District Court stated that the total number of claims that generated an allowed loss was 45,921, and that the aggregate amount of these claims was approximately $2.23 billion. The Defendants filed legal challenges asserting that the presumption of reliance was defeated as to the class and raising various objections with respect to compliance with the claims form requirements as to certain claims. In September 2012, the District Court rejected the defendants' arguments that the presumption of reliance generally had been defeated either as to the class or as to particular institutional claimants. In addition, the District Court has made various rulings with respect to the validity of specific categories of claims, and held certain categories of claims valid, certain categories of claims invalid, and directed further proceedings before a court-appointed Special Master to address objections regarding certain other claim submission issues. In light of those rulings and through various agreements of the parties, currently there is approximately $1.37 billion in claims as to which there remain no unresolved objections relating to the claims form submissions. In addition, approximately $800 million in claims remain to be addressed before the Special Master with respect to various claims form objections, with a small portion of those potentially subject to further trial proceedings. Therefore, based upon proceedings to date, the current range of a possible final judgment, prior to imposition of pre-judgment interest (if any), is between approximately $1.37 billion and $2.17 billion. With the imposition of pre-judgment interest calculated through December 31, 2012, the top-end of a possible final judgment is approximately $2.7 billion. The District Court may wait for a resolution of all disputes as to all claims before entering final judgment, or the District Court may enter a partial judgment on fewer than all claims pending resolution of disputes as to the remaining claims. Post-verdict legal challenges remain to be addressed by the District Court. Despite the jury verdict and the various rulings of the District Court, HSBC continues to believe that it has meritorious grounds for appeal of one or more of the rulings in the case, and intends to appeal the District Court's final judgment, partial or otherwise. Upon final judgment, partial or otherwise, HSBC Finance will be required to provide security for the judgment in order to suspend its execution while the appeal is on-going by either depositing cash in an interest-bearing escrow account or posting an appeal bond in the amount of the judgment (including any pre-judgment interest awarded). Given the complexity and uncertainties associated with the actual determination of damages, including the outcome of any appeals, there is a wide range of possible damages. HSBC believes it has meritorious grounds for appeal on matters of both liability and damages and will argue on appeal that damages should be nil or a relatively insignificant amount. If the Appeals Court rejects or only partially accepts HSBC's arguments, the amount of damages, based upon the claims submitted and the potential application of pre-judgment interest may lie in a range from a relatively insignificant amount to somewhere in the region of $2.7 billion (or higher should plaintiffs successfully cross-appeal certain issues related to the validity of specific claims). HSBC Holdings plc -- http://www.hsbc.com/-- is the holding company for the HSBC Group. The Company provides a variety of international banking and financial services, including retail and corporate banking, trade, trusteeship, securities, custody, capital markets, treasury, private and investment banking, and insurance. The Group operates worldwide and is headquartered in London, United Kingdom. HSBC HOLDINGS: Defends Consolidated LIBOR-Related Suit in N.Y. -------------------------------------------------------------- HSBC Holdings plc is defending a consolidated class action lawsuit in New York related to the setting of London interbank offered rates, according to the Company's March 12, 2013, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012. Various regulators and competition and enforcement authorities around the world including in the U.K., the U.S., Canada, the EU, Switzerland and Asia, are conducting investigations and reviews related to certain past submissions made by panel banks and the processes for making submissions in connection with the setting of London interbank offered rates ('Libor'), European interbank offered rates ('Euribor') and other benchmark interest and foreign exchange rates. Several of these panel banks have reached settlements with various regulatory authorities. As certain HSBC entities are members of such panels, HSBC and/or its subsidiaries have been the subject of regulatory demands for information and are cooperating with those investigations and reviews. Based on the facts currently known, there is a high degree of uncertainty as to the resolution of these regulatory investigations and reviews, including the timing. The potential impact and size of any fines or penalties that could be imposed on HSBC cannot be measured reliably. In addition, HSBC and other panel banks have been named as defendants in private lawsuits filed in the U.S. with respect to the setting of Libor, including putative class action lawsuits which have been consolidated before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaints in those actions assert claims against HSBC and other panel banks under various U.S. laws including U.S. antitrust laws, the U.S. Commodities Exchange Act, and state law. Based on the facts currently known, it is not practicable at this time for HSBC to predict the resolution of these private lawsuits, including the timing and potential impact on HSBC. HSBC Holdings plc -- http://www.hsbc.com/-- is the holding company for the HSBC Group. The Company provides a variety of international banking and financial services, including retail and corporate banking, trade, trusteeship, securities, custody, capital markets, treasury, private and investment banking, and insurance. The Group operates worldwide and is headquartered in London, United Kingdom. HSBC HOLDINGS: Defends Madoff-Related Suits and Investigations -------------------------------------------------------------- HSBC Holdings plc continues to defend itself and its subsidiaries from lawsuits and investigations related to the Ponzi scheme perpetrated by Bernard L. Madoff, according to the Company's March 12, 2013, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012. In December 2008, Bernard L. Madoff ('Madoff') was arrested for running a Ponzi scheme and a trustee was appointed for the liquidation of his firm, Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC ('Madoff Securities'), an SEC-registered broker-dealer and investment adviser. Since his appointment, the trustee has been recovering assets and processing claims of Madoff Securities customers. Madoff subsequently pleaded guilty to various charges and is serving a 150 year prison sentence. He has acknowledged, in essence, that while purporting to invest his customers' money in securities and, upon request, return their profits and principal, he in fact never invested in securities and used other customers' money to fulfill requests for the return of profits and principal. The relevant U.S. authorities are continuing their investigations into his fraud, and have brought charges against others, including certain former employees and the former auditor of Madoff Securities. Various non-U.S. HSBC companies provided custodial, administration and similar services to a number of funds incorporated outside the U.S. whose assets were invested with Madoff Securities. Based on information provided by Madoff Securities, as at November 30, 2008, the purported aggregate value of these funds was $8.4 billion, an amount that includes fictitious profits reported by Madoff. Based on information available to HSBC to date, HSBC estimates that the funds' actual transfers to Madoff Securities minus their actual withdrawals from Madoff Securities during the time that HSBC serviced the funds totalled approximately $4 billion. The Plaintiffs (including funds, fund investors, and the Madoff Securities trustee) have commenced Madoff-related proceedings against numerous defendants in a multitude of jurisdictions. Various HSBC companies have been named as defendants in lawsuits in the U.S., Ireland, Luxembourg and other jurisdictions. Certain lawsuits (which included four U.S. putative class actions) allege that the HSBC defendants knew or should have known of Madoff's fraud and breached various duties to the funds and fund investors. In November 2011, the U.S. District Court Judge overseeing three related putative class actions in the Southern District of New York dismissed all claims against the HSBC defendants on forum non conveniens grounds, but temporarily stayed this ruling as to one of the actions against the HSBC defendants -- the claims of investors in Thema International Fund plc -- in light of a proposed amended settlement agreement, pursuant to which, subject to various conditions, the HSBC defendants had agreed to pay from $52.5 million up to a maximum of $62.5 million. In December 2011, the court lifted this temporary stay and dismissed all remaining claims against the HSBC defendants, and declined to consider preliminary approval of the settlement. In light of the court's decisions, HSBC terminated the settlement agreement. The Thema plaintiff contests HSBC's right to terminate. The Plaintiffs in all three actions have filed notices of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Briefing in that appeal was completed in September 2012; oral argument is expected in early 2013. In November and December 2012, HSBC settled two of the individual claims commenced by investors in Thema International Fund plc against HSBC in the Irish High Court. In December 2010, the Madoff Securities trustee commenced lawsuits against various HSBC companies in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court and in the English High Court. The U.S. action (which also names certain funds, investment managers, and other entities and individuals) sought $9 billion in damages and additional recoveries from HSBC and the various co-defendants. It sought damages against HSBC for allegedly aiding and abetting Madoff's fraud and breach of fiduciary duty. In July 2011, after withdrawing the case from the Bankruptcy Court in order to decide certain threshold issues, the U.S. District Court Judge dismissed the trustee's various common law claims on the grounds that the trustee lacks standing to assert them. In December 2011, the trustee filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Briefing in that appeal was completed in April 2012, and oral argument was held in November 2012. A decision is expected in 2013. The District Court returned the remaining claims to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for further proceedings. Those claims seek, pursuant to U.S. bankruptcy law, recovery of unspecified amounts received by HSBC from funds invested with Madoff, including amounts that HSBC received when it redeemed units HSBC held in the various funds. HSBC acquired those fund units in connection with financing transactions HSBC had entered into with various clients. The trustee's U.S. bankruptcy law claims also seek recovery of fees earned by HSBC for providing custodial, administration and similar services to the funds. Between September 2011 and April 2012, the HSBC defendants and certain other defendants moved again to withdraw the case from the Bankruptcy Court. The District Court granted those withdrawal motions as to certain issues, and briefing and oral arguments on the merits of the withdrawn issues are now complete. The District Court has issued rulings on two of the withdrawn issues, but decisions with respect to all other issues are still pending and are expected in early 2013. The trustee's English action seeks recovery of unspecified transfers of money from Madoff Securities to or through HSBC, on the grounds that the HSBC defendants actually or constructively knew of Madoff's fraud. HSBC has not been served with the trustee's English action. Between October 2009 and April 2012, Fairfield Sentry Limited, Fairfield Sigma Limited and Fairfield Lambda Limited ('Fairfield'), funds whose assets were directly or indirectly invested with Madoff Securities, commenced multiple lawsuits in the British Virgin Islands ('BVI') and the U.S. against numerous fund shareholders, including various HSBC companies that acted as nominees for clients of HSBC's private banking business and other clients who invested in the Fairfield funds. The Fairfield actions seek restitution of amounts paid to the defendants in connection with share redemptions, on the ground that such payments were made by mistake, based on inflated values resulting from Madoff's fraud, and some actions also seek recovery of the share redemptions under BVI insolvency law. The actions in the U.S. are currently stayed in the Bankruptcy Court pending developments in related appellate litigation in the BVI. There are many factors which may affect the range of possible outcomes, and the resulting financial impact, of the various Madoff-related proceedings, including but not limited to the circumstances of the fraud, the multiple jurisdictions in which the proceedings have been brought and the number of different plaintiffs and defendants in such proceedings. For these reasons, among others, it is not practicable at this time for HSBC to estimate reliably the aggregate liabilities, or ranges of liabilities, that might arise as a result of all such claims but they could be significant. In any event, HSBC considers that it has good defences to these claims and will continue to defend them vigorously. HSBC Holdings plc -- http://www.hsbc.com/-- is the holding company for the HSBC Group. The Company provides a variety of international banking and financial services, including retail and corporate banking, trade, trusteeship, securities, custody, capital markets, treasury, private and investment banking, and insurance. The Group operates worldwide and is headquartered in London, United Kingdom. HRB TAX: Faces Class Action Over Discrimination Against Blind ------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that HRB Tax Group (H&R Block) discriminates against the blind in its online tax preparation, the National Federation of the Blind claims in a federal class action. IMPAC MORTGAGE: Individual Defendants in "Timm" Suit Dismissed -------------------------------------------------------------- The individual defendants in the class action lawsuit styled Timm, v. Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc., et al., were dismissed in January 2013, according to the Company's March 12, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012. On December 7, 2011, a purported class action was filed entitled Timm, v. Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc., et al., in the Circuit Court of Baltimore City alleging on behalf of holders of the Company's 9.375% Series B Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock (Preferred B) and 9.125% Series C Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock (Preferred C) who did not tender their stock in connection with the Company's 2009 completion of its Offer to Purchase and Consent Solicitation that the Company failed to achieve the required consent of the Preferred B and C holders, the consents to amend the Preferred stock were not effective because they were given on unissued stock (after redemption), the Company tied the tender offer with a consent requirement that constituted an improper "vote buying" scheme, and that the tender offer was a breach of a fiduciary duty. The action seeks the payment of two quarterly dividends for the Preferred B and C holders, the unwinding of the consents and reinstatement of the cumulative dividend on the Preferred B and C stock, and the election of two directors by the Preferred B and C holders. The action also originally sought punitive damages and legal expenses. On January 28, 2013, the court dismissed all individual director and officer defendants from the case and further dismissed the Second, Third and Fifth causes of action relating to an improper "vote buying" scheme, breach of fiduciary duty and punitive damages. The remaining causes of action against the Company allege the Preferred B holders did not approve amendments to its Articles Supplementary and the holders thereof seek to recover two quarters of dividends and to elect two members to the Board of Directors of the Company. Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.impaccompanies.com/-- is a Maryland corporation headquartered in Irvine, California. The Company is an established independent residential mortgage lender. The Company originates, sells and services residential mortgage loans through its subsidiaries. IMPAC MORTGAGE: Plaintiffs Appealed Dismissal of "Marentes" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff appealed the dismissal of their class action lawsuit titled Marentes v. Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc., according to the Company's March 12, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012. On April 30, 2012, a purported class action was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California entitled Marentes v. Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc., alleging that certain loan modification activities of the Company constitute an unfair business practice, false advertising and marketing, and that the fees charged are improper. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, restitution, injunctive relief, attorney's fees and pre- judgment interest. On August 22, 2012, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint adding Impac Funding Corporation as a defendant and on October 2, 2012, the plaintiff dismissed Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc., without prejudice. On December 27, 2012, the court granted Impac Funding Corporation's motion to dismiss and on January 30, 2013, the plaintiffs appealed the court's dismissal. Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.impaccompanies.com/-- is a Maryland corporation headquartered in Irvine, California. The Company is an established independent residential mortgage lender. The Company originates, sells and services residential mortgage loans through its subsidiaries. IMPAC MORTGAGE: Settlement in "Gilmor" Suit Approved in March ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri in March 2013 approved Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc.'s settlement of a class action lawsuit filed by Gilmor, et al., according to the Company's March 12, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012. On June 27, 2000, a purported class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri entitled Gilmor, et al. v. Preferred Credit Corp., et. al., alleging the originator of various second mortgage loans in Missouri and other assignees of the loans charged fees and costs in violation of Missouri's Second Mortgage Loan Act. The plaintiffs were seeking on behalf of themselves and the members of the class, among other things, disgorgement or restitution of all improperly collected charges, the right to rescind all affected loan transactions, the right to offset any finance charges, closing costs, points or other loan fees paid against the principal amounts due on the loans if rescinded, actual and punitive damages, and attorneys' fees. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. In December 2012, the parties entered into a settlement agreement whereby the Company agreed to pay the plaintiffs the sum of $3.0 million and on March 6, 2013, the settlement was approved by the court. Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.impaccompanies.com/ -- is a Maryland corporation headquartered in Irvine, California. The Company is an established independent residential mortgage lender. The Company originates, sells and services residential mortgage loans through its subsidiaries. INTERLINE BRANDS: Suit Alleging TCPA Violations Remains Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit alleging that Interline Brands, Inc., violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 remains pending, according to the Company's March 12, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 28, 2012. On May 10, 2011, the Company was named as a defendant in an action filed before the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit Court of Lake County, Illinois, which was subsequently removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The complaint alleges that the Company sent thousands of unsolicited fax advertisements to businesses nationwide in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005 ("TCPA"). At the time of filing the complaint, the plaintiff also filed a motion asking the Court to certify a class of plaintiffs comprised of businesses who allegedly received unsolicited fax advertisements from the Company. Other reported TCPA claims have resulted in a broad range of outcomes, with each case being dependent on its own unique set of facts and circumstances. Accordingly, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the amount of loss, if any, arising from this matter. The Company says it is vigorously contesting class action certification and liability, and will continue to evaluate its defenses based upon its internal review, advice from external legal counsel and investigation of prior events, new information, and future circumstances. Interline Brands, Inc. -- http://www.interlinebrands.com/-- is a national distributor and direct marketer of broad-line maintenance, repair and operations products. The Company sells plumbing, electrical, hardware, security, heating, ventilation and air conditioning, janitorial and sanitation supplies and other MRO products. The Company is based in Jacksonville, Florida. MANAGED HEALTH: MFLC Overtime Pay Action Conditionally Certified ---------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. District Court Judge Susan Illston on April 25 granted plaintiffs' motion for certification of a conditional Fair Labor Standards Act collective action in the overtime pay suit against their employers MHN, Government Services, Inc. and Managed Health Network, Inc. Plaintiffs, known as Military Family Life Consultants, provide counseling to military service members and their families at U.S. military installations across the nation and abroad. The class action complaint charges that MHN misclassified MFLCs as independent contractors, and that they should be classified as employees and are entitled to overtime compensation under the federal FLSA and similar state laws. In granting collective action certification, Judge Illston stated: Plaintiffs and the other [MFLCs] all share the same job title and similar duties. MHN has standard policies, set forth in the MFLC Provider Manual and MFLC Program Summary, that apply to all MFL Consultants. They are also all subject to the same employment agreement with MHN, the Provider Services Task Order Agreement. MHM classifies all [MFLCs] as exempt employees, and therefore does not pay them overtime hours. Additionally, plaintiffs have made a showing that the [MFLCs] have similar duties, regardless of the type or location of assignment they are given." (Internal citations omitted.) "Thousands of MFLCs work tirelessly to help American service members, earning significant revenues for government-contractor MHN each year," stated Lieff Cabraser lawyer Jahan C. Sagafi. "We are pleased that the Court has allowed them to pursue their rights to proper compensation together in one action, rather than in thousands of individual lawsuits that would waste judicial resources and deter MFLCs from recovering money we believe is owed to them. We look forward to providing information about the lawsuit to all MFLCs nationwide, to allow them to opt in to protect their rights." The case is, THOMAS ZABOROWSKI, et. al., on behalf of themselves and a putative class, Plaintiffs, v. MHN GOVERNMENT SERVICES, INC. and MANAGED HEALTH NETWORK, INC., Defendants, No. C 12-05109 (N.D. Cal.). Pursuant to the Court order, Judge Illston directed the parties to meet and confer regarding the notice and notice procedures, and jointly file a proposed notice by no later than May 3, 2013. Additionally, the Court ordered the defendants to produce to plaintiffs in Microsoft Excel or comparable format the names, all known addresses, all known e-mail addresses, and all known telephone numbers of all known MFLCs, by no later than May 17, 2013. Lieff Cabraser may be reached at: Jahan C. Sagafi, Esq. Stephen H. Cassidy, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 Tel: 415-956-1000 Fax: 415-956-1008 E-mail: jsagafi@lchb.com scassidy@lchb.com NVIDIA CORP: Appeal From Dismissal of Securities Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- An appeal from the dismissal of a consolidated securities litigation against NVIDIA Corporation remains pending, according to the Company's March 12, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended January 27, 2013. In September 2008, three putative securities class actions, or the Actions, were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California arising out of the Company's announcements on July 2, 2008, that the Company would take a charge against cost of revenue to cover anticipated costs and expenses arising from a weak die/packaging material set in certain versions of the Company's previous generation media and communications processor, or MCP, and graphics processing unit, or GPU, products and that the Company was revising financial guidance for its second quarter of fiscal year 2009. The Actions purport to be brought on behalf of purchasers of NVIDIA stock and assert claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act. On October 30, 2008, the Actions were consolidated under the caption In re NVIDIA Corporation Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 08-CV-04260-JW (HRL). The Lead Plaintiffs and Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel were appointed on December 23, 2008. On February 6, 2009, co-Lead Plaintiff filed a Writ of Mandamus with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals challenging the designation of the co-Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel. On February 19, 2009, the co- Lead Plaintiff filed with the District Court, a motion to stay the District Court proceedings pending resolution of the Writ of Mandamus by the Ninth Circuit. On February 24, 2009, Judge Ware granted the stay. On November 5, 2009, the Court of Appeals issued an opinion reversing the District Court's appointment of one of the lead plaintiffs' counsel, and remanding the matter for further proceedings. On December 8, 2009, the District Court appointed Milberg LLP and Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC as co-lead counsel. On January 22, 2010, the Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws, asserting claims for violations of Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act. The consolidated complaint sought unspecified compensatory damages. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint in March 2010 and a hearing was held on June 24, 2010, before Judge Seeborg. On October 19, 2010, Judge Seeborg granted the Company's motion to dismiss with leave to amend. On December 2, 2010, the co-Lead Plaintiffs filed a Second Consolidated Amended Complaint. The Company moved to dismiss the Second Consolidated Amended Complaint on February 14, 2011. Following oral argument, on October 12, 2011, Judge Seeborg granted the Company's motion to dismiss without leave to amend, and on November 8, 2011, the Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the Ninth Circuit. The appeal has been fully briefed, but the Ninth Circuit has not yet set a hearing date. NVIDIA Corporation -- http://www.nvidia.com/-- is a visual computing company, connecting people through the powerful medium of computer graphics. The Company was incorporated in Delaware and is headquartered in Santa Clara, California. NVIDIA CORP: Appeal in NVIDIA GPU Litigation Remains Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ In September, October and November 2008, several putative consumer class action lawsuits were filed against the Company, asserting various claims arising from a weak die/packaging material set in certain versions of NVIDIA Corporation's previous generation products used in notebook configurations. On February 26, 2009, the various lawsuits were consolidated in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, under the caption "The NVIDIA GPU Litigation." On March 2, 2009, several of the parties filed motions for appointment of lead counsel and briefs addressing certain related issues. On April 10, 2009, the District Court appointed Milberg LLP lead counsel. On May 6, 2009, the plaintiffs filed an Amended Consolidated Complaint, alleging claims for violations of California Business and Professions Code Section 17200, Breach of Implied Warranty under California Civil Code Section 1792, Breach of the Implied Warranty of Merchantability under the laws of 27 other states, Breach of Warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, Unjust Enrichment, violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, Strict Liability and Negligence, and violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act. After extensive motion practice and litigation, plaintiffs on December 14, 2009, filed a Second Amended Consolidated Complaint seeking unspecified damages and asserting claims for violations of California Business and Professions Code Section 17200, Breach of Implied Warranty under California Civil Code Section 1792, Breach of Warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, Strict Liability and Negligence, and violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act. On July 16, 2010, the parties filed a stipulation with the District Court advising that, following mediation they had reached a settlement in principle in The NVIDIA GPU Litigation. The settlement in principle was subject to certain approvals, including final approval by the court. As a result of the settlement in principle, and the other estimated settlement, and offsetting insurance reimbursements, NVIDIA recorded a net charge of $12.7 million to sales, general and administrative expense during the second quarter of fiscal year 2011. In addition, a portion of the $181.2 million of additional charges the Company recorded against cost of revenue related to the weak die/packaging set during the second quarter of fiscal year 2011, relates to estimated additional repair and replacement costs related to the implementation of these settlements. On August 12, 2010, the parties executed a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement and Release. On September 15, 2010, the Court issued an order granting preliminary approval of the settlement and providing for notice to the potential class members. The Final Approval Hearing was held on December 20, 2010, and on that same day the Court approved the settlement and entered Final Judgment over several objections. In January 2011, several objectors filed Notices of Appeal of the Final Judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The appeal is currently pending. No further updates were reported in the Company's March 12, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended January 27, 2013. NVIDIA Corporation -- http://www.nvidia.com/-- is a visual computing company, connecting people through the powerful medium of computer graphics. The Company was incorporated in Delaware and is headquartered in Santa Clara, California. NVIDIA CORP: "Granfield" Suit in Massachusetts Now Over ------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Granfield v. NVIDIA Corp. is now over according to the Company's March 12, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended January 27, 2013. On July 22, 2011, a putative class action titled Granfield v. NVIDIA Corp. was filed in federal court in Massachusetts asserting claims for breach of implied warranties arising out of the weak die/packaging material set, on behalf of a class of consumers alleged to not be covered by the settlement approved by the California court in The NVIDIA GPU Litigation. On November 3, 2011, the action was transferred to the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, based upon stipulation of the parties. On December 30, 2011, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint asserting claims for violation of California Consumers Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition Law. On March 19, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint asserting claims for California Consumers Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition Law violations, Breach of Implied Warranty, and violations of the Massachusetts consumer protection statutes. NVIDIA filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on April 12, 2012. On July 12, 2012, the District Court dismissed six of the seven asserted causes of action with prejudice, allowing only one cause of action for violation of the Massachusetts consumer protection statute to continue, and instructed the Plaintiff to file an amended complaint consistent with its Order. On August 15, 2012, the Plaintiff indicated that he would not be filing an amended complaint. The Granfield case is now over. NVIDIA Corporation -- http://www.nvidia.com/-- is a visual computing company, connecting people through the powerful medium of computer graphics. The Company was incorporated in Delaware and is headquartered in Santa Clara, California. OHIO: Job and Family Services Dept. Sued for Seizing Money ---------------------------------------------------------- Kevin Koeninger at Courthouse News Service reports that Ohio illegally seizes money from tort awards to people who received Medicaid benefits, two people claim in a state class action. Lead plaintiffs Michael A. Pivonka and Lisa Rijos sued Michael B. Colbert, the director of Ohio's Department of Job and Family Services, and Attorney General Mike DeWine, in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas. They claim Ohio's "Subrogation Statute" is unconstitutional. The class includes an estimated 20,000 people "who were forced to forfeit a portion of their tort recovery to defendant pursuant to a demand by defendant of a right of subrogation pursuant to Section 5101.58 of the Ohio Revised Code (the 'Subrogation Statute')." The law "purports to give defendant a right of recovery against monies recovered from a third party for the cost of medical assistance paid on behalf of a public assistance recipient or participant," the complaint states. It continues: "Under O.R.C. 5101.58, even if a judgment or award specifically excludes the cost of medical assistance paid by defendant, the statute still grants defendant this right to recovery. "O.R.C. 5101.58 automatically entitles defendant to one-half of the total judgment, award, settlement or compromise, after deduction of fees, costs, and other case related expenses are deducted, without regard to the amount the victim received for medical reimbursement. "O.R.C. 5101.58 provides no mechanism for the recipient or participant to challenge the tort recovery amount attributable to defendant's medical assistance. "O.R.C. 5101.58 violates the federal Medicaid statutes anti-lien provision, 42 U.S.C. 1396 (p)(a)(1), and is invalid under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, Art. VI, Cl. 2." Pivonka says the state grabbed more than $7,000 from his settlement for a car accident. Rijos claims Ohio took more than $700 from her jury award. They seek class certification, declaratory judgment and they want their money back. They are represented by Christian Patno, with McCarthy, Lebit, Crystal and Liffman, in Cleveland. OMNIVISION TECH: Judge Won't Disturb Misrepresentation Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Elizabeth Warmerdam at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal judge refused to disturb misrepresentation claims against a company that lost an exclusive contract related to the Apple iPhone. At this stage of the consolidated class action, the complaint against OmniVision Technologies sufficiently accuses CFO Officer Anson Chan of having made two actionable misstatements that were false and for which Chan knew were false, the court found. Shareholders claim that the truth about OmniVision's contract with Apple caused its stock to drop from $34.67 to $14.26 per share. OmniVision designs image sensors that are used in mobile phones with camera features, including in Apple's 2009 iPhone 3GS and 2010 iPhone 4. Although Apple prohibited suppliers from revealing that Apple was their customer, OmniVision used buzz phrases and code words indicating that it was the exclusive image sensor provider for the iPhone, according to U.S. District Judge Ronald Whyte's summary of the complaint. "During the class Period, defendants continued to make positive statements about such topics as OmniVision's competitive lead, its new BSI-2 technology, market share, design wins, and its relationship with 'Tier 1' customers," Whyte wrote. "Lead plaintiffs contend these statements led the market to believe that OmniVision remained Apple's exclusive image sensor supplier when in fact Sony, not OmniVision, had been chosen by Apple to be the dominant supplier of 8 MPx camera image sensors for the next generation 2011 iPhone (ultimately called the iPhone 4S)." The shareholders claim that OmniVision lacked a reasonable basis to make positive statements about the company and its prospects because the company had lost its exclusive contract with Apple. Delays in the development of its 8-megapixel product line meanwhile allegedly threatened its financial prospects. OmniVision argued that none of the company's direct statements "ever made reference to Apple or the iPhone 4S," according to the ruling. In addition to distancing itself from statements made by analysts, the company said its forward-looking statements are protected by the safe harbor. Whyte found that the majority of the alleged false or misleading statements cited in the complaint were too vague or forward- looking to actually be false or misleading. Two specific statements do, however, appear "actually misleading" at this stage, and warrant further analysis, according to the ruling. Whyte attributed the two possibly actionable statements to CFO Anson Chan. "On September 1, 2011, an analyst spoke with Chan and reported that Chan 'acknowledges that Sony is a credible competitor at 8MPx," Whyte wrote. "That said, he believes OVTI [Omnivision Technologies Inc.] has only gone head-to-head with Sony once (so far) and claims that OVTI won the resulting design opportunity for a 2012 product. "Similarly, Chan held a 'Management Access Call' on September 20, 2011 after which analysts reported 'Management believes OEM [original equipment manufacturer] relationships remain unchanged; not dependent upon one customer. OVTI noted that in terms of its market share, the company believes its OEM relationships remain unchanged." With the official release of the iPhone 4S on Oct. 14, 2011, industry experts dismantled the products and concluded that the new phone contained an image sensor made by Sony rather than OmniVision. "For determining whether the alleged statements were false or misleading when made, the critical issue is when Apple decided to use Sony components or, stated somewhat differently, when OmniVision lost all reasonable chance of having its image sensors included in the iPhone 4s," Whyte wrote (emphasis in original). Whyte said that "insider trading allegations support an inference that OmniVision was experiencing problems in June 2011." Those indications are said to account for why Apple ultimately "did not select OmniVision's image sensor," according to the ruling. "The court finds that there are sufficient factual allegations to make it plausible that Chan's statements in September 2011 were false when made," Whyte wrote. The complaint also sufficiently alleged that Chan made the two actionable misstatements with scienter, which involves intent to deceive or an extreme departure from the standard of ordinary care. The lead plaintiffs in the case are Oakland County Employees Retirement System, Laborers' District Council Contractors' Pension Fund of Ohio, and Woburn Retirement System. The class action was brought on behalf of all purchasers of publicly traded common stock and securities of OmniVision between Aug. 27. 2010, and Nov. 6, 2011. Named as individual defendants are: former CEO, president and board chairman Shawn Hong; former CFO and vice president of finance Anson Chan; and former vice president of worldwide sales Aurelio "Ray" Cisneros. QWEST COMMS: Awaits OK of Settlement in Rights-of-Way Suits ----------------------------------------------------------- Qwest Communications International Inc. is awaiting preliminary approval of its settlements of class action lawsuits related to the installation of fiber-optic cable in certain rights-of-way in four states -- Arizona, Massachusetts, New Mexico and Texas, according to the Company's March 12, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012. Several putative class actions relating to the installation of fiber optic cable in certain rights-of-way were filed against Qwest on behalf of landowners on various dates and in courts located in 34 states in which Qwest has such cable (Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin.) For the most part, the complaints challenge the Company's right to install its fiber optic cable in railroad rights-of-way. The complaints allege that the railroads own the right-of-way as an easement that did not include the right to permit the Company to install its cable in the right-of-way without the Plaintiffs' consent. Most of the currently pending actions purport to be brought on behalf of state-wide classes in the named Plaintiffs' respective states, although one action pending before the Illinois Court of Appeals purports to be brought on behalf of landowners in Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, Ohio and Wisconsin. In general, the complaints seek damages on theories of trespass and unjust enrichment, as well as punitive damages. After previous attempts to enter into a single nationwide settlement in a single court proved unsuccessful, the parties proceeded to seek court approval of settlements on a state-by-state basis. To date, the parties have received final approval of such settlements in 22 states (Alabama, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Virginia and Wisconsin), have received preliminary approval of the settlements in eight states (California, Kentucky, Nevada, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Utah), and have not yet received either preliminary or final approval in four states (Arizona, Massachusetts, New Mexico and Texas). The Company says it has accrued an amount that it believes is probable for these matters; however, the amount is not material to the Company's consolidated financial statements. Headquartered in Monroe, Louisiana, Qwest Communications International Inc. -- http://www.centurylink.com/-- is an integrated communications company engaged primarily in providing an array of communications services to the Company's residential, business, governmental and wholesale customers. The Company's communications services include local and long-distance, network access, private line, broadband, data, managed hosting, wireless and video services. The Company was incorporated in Delaware and a subsidiary of CenturyLink, Inc. REED AND BARTON: Recalls 4,000 Baby Gingham Bunny Forks & Spoons ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with importer, Reed and Barton Corp., of Taunton, Massachusetts; and manufacturer, Winkuan Metals Technology Co. Ltd., of China, announced a voluntary recall of about 4,000 Gingham Bunny forks and spoons for babies. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The pink coloring on the bunny's ears can come off, posing choking and ingestion hazards to babies. Reed and Barton has received one report of the pink coloring on the bunny's ears coming off the flatware. No injuries were reported. This recall involves infant flatware from the Gingham Bunny Flatware Collection, sold three ways; as just the infant feeding spoon, in a fork and spoon set, and in a three-piece set including the infant feeding spoon with a bowl and bib. The flatware is silver-colored, nickel-plated and has a bunny with pink coloring on its ears at the end of the handle. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/ZSwHOT The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Reed and Barton factory stores and various gift shops nationwide and online at www.reedandbarton.com from September 2012 through January 2013 for between $15 and $40. Consumers should immediately take the recalled flatware away from infants and contact Reed and Barton for a full refund or free replacement flatware. Reed and Barton Corp. may be reached at (800) 343-1383 from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday or online at http://www.reedandbarton.com/and click on Recall Information in the gray box at the bottom of the page. SCHNUCK MARKETS: Faces Suit for Giving Late Notice of Breach ------------------------------------------------------------ Joe Harris at Courthouse News Service reports that a class action claims the St. Louis-based grocery chain Schnuck Markets waited for 15 days to warn customers that their financial information had been jeopardized by hackers. Lead plaintiff Michael Bannister sued Schnuck Markets in City Court. "On or about March 15, 2013, Schnucks detected that its computer systems had been compromised by one or more individuals, which allowed these individuals to steal plaintiff's and class members PII [personal identifying information] -- including their credit card information, debit card information, and debit card PIN numbers - when plaintiff and class members used their credit and debit cards to make purchases from Schnucks (the 'data breach')," the complaint states. "Schnucks' security failures enabled hackers to steal plaintiff's and class members' PII from within Schnucks' computer systems and subsequently make unauthorized purchases on customers' credit cards and otherwise put plaintiff's and class members; financial information at serious and ongoing risk. The hackers continue to use the information they obtained as a result of Schnucks' inadequate security to exploit and injure plaintiff and class members." Bannister claims Schnucks failed to comply with computer security industry standards. And, he says, "Despite first learning of the data breach on or about March 15, 2013, Schnucks did not inform the public of the data breach until March 30, 2013 -- two weeks later -- via the issuance of a press release." Bannister claims customers were not given individual notice of the breach; many found out about it by finding discrepancies on their bank statements. He claims that Schnucks failed to admit that its own actions contributed to the breach. "Rather than take responsibility for its security failures that resulted in the data breach, Schnucks has placed the burden on aggrieved customers like plaintiff and the other members of the class, either to self-monitor their accounts and credit reports for years to come, or to spend time and money on fraud alerts or credit-report security freezes," the complaint states. "At no time has Schnucks offered credit monitoring or identity theft protection assistance to plaintiff or to other members of the class, nor has Schnucks taken any affirmative steps to make plaintiff and class members whole for the damages arising out of Schnucks' conduct." The class consists of all Missourians who used their credit or debit card at Schnucks while its computer system was compromised. Bannister seeks actual and punitive damages for breach of implied contract, violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, invasion of privacy by public disclosure of private facts. He also wants Schnucks ordered to send customers notice of the data breach and ordered to post a notice of the breach in all of its stores. He is represented by Geoffrey Meyerkord with Meyerkord & Meyerkord. SHIRE LLC: Faces Class Action Over Sham Patent Litigation --------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that a federal antitrust class action claims Shire LLC used sham patent litigation and other underhanded means to delay introduction of generic Adderall to the market. SIX FLAGS: Faces Overtime Class Action -------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Six Flags Entertainment stiffed ride operators and mechanics for overtime, a class action claims in Superior Court. STERLING BANCORP: Being Sold for Too Little, Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Sterling Bancorp is selling itself too cheaply through an unfair process to Provident New York Bancorp, in a 1:1.2625 stock swap valued at $344 million, shareholders claim in New York County Supreme Court. SVTC TECHNOLOGIES: To Seek Initial Approval of Hoa Tran Suit Deal ----------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Edward J. Davila took off the calendar the initial Case Management Conference that was scheduled for April 26, 2013, in the lawsuit captioned HOA TRAN, Plaintiff, v. SVTC TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; SVTC SOLAR, INC.; SVTC TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 5:12-CV-04970-EJD, (N.D. Cal.). Prior to the Court's ruling, the parties to the case notified the Court that they have reached a proposed class action settlement; asked that the April 26 initial Case Management Conference be taken off the calendar; and that the Plaintiff will file a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement no later than May 3, 2013. As the parties previously informed the Court on March 7, 2013, SVTC Technologies has assigned all of its assets to a liquidation company for the benefit of its creditors; SVTC Solar, Inc. has sold its assets to the State University of New York; and their parent company, SVTC Technologies, Inc. similarly intends to liquidate. Despite the dissolution of the Defendants, the parties have negotiated a proposed settlement that would resolve the litigation in its entirety and provide monetary relief for class members. At the time of the last update to the Court, the parties were working through some logistical issues to ascertain the class and obtain payroll data to facilitate distributing the settlement. The parties have now completed that process and are documenting the settlement. The Court directed the Plaintiff to file his motion for preliminary approval of the parties' proposed class action settlement pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 by May 3, 2013. The Plaintiff is directed to contact the Courtroom Deputy to reserve the hearing date prior to filing the motion for preliminary approval. Matthew B. George, Esq. -- mbg@girardgibbs.com -- Eric H. Gibbs, Esq. -- ehg@girardgibbs.com -- Scott Grzenczyk, Esq. -- smg@girardgibbs.com -- at GIRARD GIBBS LLP, in San Francisco, CA, serve as counsel for Individual and Representative Attorneys for Plaintiff Hoa Tran. Steven M. Schneider, Esq. -- sms@msk.com -- Gerald T. Hathaway, Esq. -- gth@msk.com -- at MITCHELL SILBERBERG & KNUPP LLP serve as attorneys for Defendants SVTC Technologies, Inc., SVTC Solar, Inc., SVTC Technologies, LLC. A copy of the District Court's April 19, 2013 Order is available at http://is.gd/iapyZCfrom Leagle.com. TARGET CORP: Recalls 148,700 Giada De Laurentiis Lasagna Pans ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Wilton Industries, Inc., of Woodridge, Illinois, and Target Corporation, of Minneapolis, Minnesota, announced a voluntary recall of about 148,700 Giada De Laurentiis Ceramic 9 x 13 Inch Lasagna Pans. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The pan can break causing sharp edges and posing a laceration hazard. Target has received 39 reports of the pan or its handles breaking or cracking during normal use. Cuts and lacerations were reported in six of those incidents. The recall involves Giada De Laurentiis-branded ceramic lasagna pans. The cream-colored pans are 9 by 13 inches in size and they were sold individually and as part of a six-piece set. The bottom of the pan is stamped "Giada de Laurentiis for Target." Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/RkViZx The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold exclusively at Target stores nationwide and on Target.com from January 2009 through October 2012 for about $22 for individual pans and between $35 and $50 for the six-piece sets. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled lasagna pans and return them to any Target store for a full refund. Consumers who purchased the pan as part of the six-piece set should return the lasagna pan only. Target guest relations may be reached at (800) 440-0680 from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Central Time Monday through Friday, or online at http://www.target.com/click on Product Recalls at the bottom of the page and then select Home & Kitchen. UNITED HEALTHCARE: Court Dismisses Gates' Second Amended Complaint ------------------------------------------------------------------ District Judge Katherine B. Forrest granted a motion for summary judgment, and dismissed in its entirety, with prejudice, a second amended complaint in the lawsuit styled as MARIANNE GATES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. UNITED HEALTHCARE INSURANCE COMPANY; LIFE, AD&D, DISABILITY & MEDICAL PLAN FOR EMPLOYEES OF ALLIANCEBERNSTEIN L.P.; UNITED HEALTHCARE CHOICE PLUS COPAY PLAN FOR ALLIANCEBERNSTEIN L.P. ALLIANCEBERNSTEIN L.P. RETIREE MEDICAL PLAN FOR EMPLOYEES OF ALLIANCEBERNSTEIN L.P.; and ALLIANCEBERNSTEIN L.P. UNITED HEALTHCARE INDEMNITY PLAN, Defendants, No. 11 Civ. 3487 (KBF), (S.D.N.Y.). This putative class action brought by Marianne Gates in May 2011 alleges violations of the Employee Retirement Income Savings Act related to retiree health benefits provided by her former employer, Alliance Bernstein L.P. By order dated July 16, 2012, the Court dismissed a number of plaintiffs claims but allowed others to proceed. Ms. Gates submitted a proposed Second Amended Complaint and requested leave to amend. The Defendants opposed that application on the basis that the amendments were futile and the claims remained subject to dismissal. However, in the second round of briefing on the complaint, the Defendants submitted a declaration from Melody L. Smith, a Manager in the Operations Management section of the ERISA plan's administrator, United Healthcare Insurance Company. The Smith declaration was initially submitted solely in connection with the Defendants' argument for dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). The Smith declaration sets forth UHIC's methodology and rationale for reimbursements for individuals whose primary and secondary healthcare plans share similar characteristics with those of the Plaintiff. In her response papers, Ms. Gates noted the overlap between the Defendants' 12(b)(1) argument that the Plaintiff lacked injury and therefore standing, and their 12(b)(6) argument that the Plaintiff failed to state a claim because UHIC's interpretation of the plan was neither arbitrary nor capricious. According to Ms. Gates, the overlap in arguments made it inappropriate for the Court to rely on the Smith declaration to the extent it would be used to resolve the 12(b)(6) argument. On January 11, 2013, the Court held oral argument on the Defendants' motion opposing Plaintiffs' application to amend her complaint. During the course of the argument, the Court agreed that there was overlap between the Defendants' 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) arguments. In fact, a judicial determination that the Plaintiff had not been injured would in fact necessarily accept UHIC's plan interpretation, and vice versa. In the context of any ordinary 12(b)(1) argument, the Court noted that it could consider materials outside of the record. However, the Court also noted that it could not review the declaration to evaluate the Plaintiffs' allegation that UHIC acted outside its discretion in awarding the Plaintiff benefits on a Rule 12(b)(6) plausibility pleading standard. To resolve the issue, the Court suggested -- and the parties consented to -- conversion of the motion to one for summary judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. Procedurally, the Court will therefore deem the Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint to be filed and will consider the Defendants' arguments as made in support of summary judgment. The Court suggested -- and the parties agreed -- that in connection with the conversion, the Plaintiff should be provided an additional opportunity to seek the limited additional discovery she deemed necessary to oppose the motion. Such discovery was conducted. The parties made additional letter submissions in connection with the motion on February 18, 2013. Accordingly, before the Court was the Defendants' (converted) motion for summary judgment. On April 19, Judge Forrest granted the motion saying the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction due to the Plaintiffs' lack of standing and, in the alternative, that Plaintiffs' Count I fails to allege plausible facts suggesting that she has been harmed. As the Plaintiffs' remaining claims are dependent upon a finding of harm in Count I, the Court dismisses the Second Amended Complaint in its entirety. A copy of the District Court's April 19, 2013 Opinion & Order is available at http://is.gd/Hnhp9Efrom Leagle.com. YAMASHITA RUBBER: Faces Suit Over Rubber Market Manipulation ------------------------------------------------------------ Courthouse News Service reports that Auto dealers claim Yamashita Rubber Co., Yusa Corp., Tokai Rubber Industries, DTR Industries, et al. conspired to control the market in rubber, anti-vibration parts, in a federal antitrust class action. ZST DIGITAL: Faces Class Action for Withholding Information ----------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that ZST Digital stock fell from $4.36 to $2.68 in one day when it was revealed that the company was keeping "two sets of materially divergent financial records," a derivative class action claims in Federal Court. ********* 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 * * *