/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/130606.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, June 6, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 111 Headlines ACA FINANCIAL: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Class Action AMYRIS INC: Wohl & Fruchter Files Securities Class Action BASELL AF: Noteholders' Suit v. BNYMellon Over Buyout Tossed BAYER AG: Enforced Diversify in Mirena MDL Raises Issue BP AMERICA: Texas AG Files Suit over April 2010 Oil Spill CANADA DRY: Recalls Mott's Garden Cocktail Due to Possible Mould CANADIAN SOLAR: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated N.Y. Suit Granted CANADIAN SOLAR: Motions in Ontario Suit to Be Argued in June CHERYL'S: Recalls 10,588 Buttercream Cinnamon Pumpkin Cookies CLEARWIRE CORP: Appeal in "Minnick" Class Suit Remains Pending CLEARWIRE CORP: Appeal in "Newton" Class Suit Remains Pending CLEARWIRE CORP: Awaits Decision on Appeal in "Dennings" Suit CLEARWIRE CORP: Awaits Final Approval of "Kwan" Suit Settlement CLEARWIRE CORP: Continues to Defend "Wuest" Suit in California CLEARWIRE CORP: Defends Sprint Merger Suits in Del. and Wash. CLEARWIRE CORP: Faces "Lindsay" Class Action Suit in Minnesota COMMODITY ADVISORS: Appeals From Dismissal of ARS Suits Pending COMMODITY ADVISORS: Awaits Final OK of AHM Suit Settlements COMMODITY ADVISORS: Awaits Ruling in "Abu Dhabi" Class Suit COMMODITY ADVISORS: Bid to Dismiss AIG Securities Suit Pending COMMODITY ADVISORS: CGM Continues to Defend Suits v. Underwriters COMMODITY ADVISORS: Citigroup Defends Consolidated Litigations COMMODITY ADVISORS: Citigroup Defends Suits Over Lehman Offerings COMMODITY ADVISORS: Countrywide-Related Suits Pending in Calif. COMMODITY ADVISORS: Discrimination Suits vs. Citigroup Pending COMMODITY ADVISORS: Global Crossing Suits vs. Citigroup Pending COMMODITY ADVISORS: N.J. Carpenters Class Suit Remains Pending COMMODITY ADVISORS: Suits Over Interbank Offered Rates Pending COMMODITY ADVISORS: Suits Relating to Adelphia Offerings Pending COMMODITY ADVISORS: Wage and Hour Violation Suits Remain Pending ELECTRONIC ARTS: 3rd Cir. Reverses Dismissal of Video Game Suit EXPEDIA INC: Defends 42 Suits Over Hotel Occupancy Tax Issues EXPEDIA INC: Defends Class Suits Over Hotel Booking Practices FOUNDERS PAVILION: Faces EEOC GINA Class Action Suit FRED MEYER: Recalls 1,000 Dan-Dee "Chicken Dance" Easter Chicks LENDER PROCESSING: Awaits Court OK of "St. Clair" Suit Settlement NEW YORK, NY: Closing Arguments Take Place in Stop-and-Frisk Suit PENGUIN GROUP: Settles Suit Over Alleged E-Book Price Fixing SEASTREAK WALL STREET: Faces 45 Passenger Damages Claims SOULCYCLE: Wage Class Action May Hurt Fitness Industry SPI ELECTRICITY: Data on Power Lines Limited, Ex-Engineer Says TEAVANA CORP: Recalls 469,850 Teavana Glass Tea Tumblers THE COPA: Mum on Progress of Salmonella Outbreak Investigation TNUVA CENTRAL: Faces Class Action Over Animal Cruelty UNITED KINGDOM: May Face Class Action Over Flawed HS2 Scheme VISA INC: Retailers File Suit Over Interchange Fees WAL-MART: Ordered to Release Documents in Bribery Case WOLFGANG PUCK: Faces Class Action for Skimming Employees' Tips ZELTIQ AESTHETICS: Defends "Marcano" Securities Suit in Calif. * US Supreme Court Issues Series of Pro-Business Decisions ********* ACA FINANCIAL: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Bruce M. Sabados, Esq. and Allison Wuertz, Esq. at Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP said the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi denied the motion of defendant ACA Financial Guaranty Corporation (ACA) to dismiss a class action complaint, finding that the issues were previously adjudicated adversely to ACA in the New York Supreme Court where a companion case, Oppenheimer v. ACA Financial Guaranty Corporation, is currently pending. The putative class action arose from ACA's agreement to insure municipal bonds issued by a South Carolina road construction project, "Connector 2000." Connector 2000 sought bankruptcy protection and as part of that bankruptcy, the court cancelled certain bonds. In both the New York Supreme Court and in the Northern District of Mississippi, ACA argued that the cancellation of the bonds eliminated its insurance obligation. In Oppenheimer, Judge Ramos found that the project's bankruptcy filing did not relieve ACA of its insurance obligation. The District Court denied ACA's motion to dismiss-which was largely based on its argument that the case in New York was wrongly decided-and noted that if Judge Ramos's determination is overruled by the Appellate Division, ACA could use that decision at summary judgment. Davis v. ACA Fin. Guaranty Corp., Cause No. 3:11-CV-093-MPM-SAA (N.D. Miss. May 9, 2013, 2013) AMYRIS INC: Wohl & Fruchter Files Securities Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Wohl & Fruchter LLP has filed a securities class action against Amyris, Inc., and its President and CEO, John G. Melo. The action, filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, is on behalf of purchasers of Amyris securities between April 29, 2011 and February 8, 2012, inclusive. The class action seeks relief for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, based on defendants' false and misleading statements, and omissions of material information during the Class Period concerning, among other things, Amyris' ability to produce Biofene in commercially meaningful volumes. If you are a shareholder who purchased AMRS securities during the Class Period, you have until July 15, 2013 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the complaint in the class action can be obtained at: http://www.wohlfruchter.com/cases/amrs To discuss this action, please contact J. Elazar Fruchter at jfruchter@wohlfruchter.com or call toll free 866-582-8140. Amyris uses patented engineered microbes to convert plant-based sugars into renewable chemicals, including a chemical trademarked as Biofene, which can be used in the manufacture of transportation fuels. On April 29, 2011, Amyris issued a press release confirming that it had designed a facility that would allow it to commence sustained commercial production of Biofene. In May 2011, and again in August 2011, Amyris executives made further statements indicating that Amyris could produce Biofene in commercial quantities. However, on November 1, 2011, Amyris announced a slowdown in production of Biofene. On this news, the next trading day, Amyris' share price fell over 20% from $19.36 per share to $15.47 per share. On February 9, 2012, Amyris executives reported a further slowdown in Biofene production, and stated that the company was no longer forecasting positive cash flow from operations and would require additional equity financing. On this news, Amyris shares fell an additional 28%. About Wohl & Fruchter Wohl & Fruchter LLP -- http://www.wohlfruchter.com-- represents plaintiffs in litigation arising from fraud and other fiduciary breaches by corporate managers, as well as other complex litigation matters. BASELL AF: Noteholders' Suit v. BNYMellon Over Buyout Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------ Jan Wolfe, writing for The Litigation Daily, reports that The Bank of New York Mellon Corp. has defeated claims that it negligently signed off on Basell AF SCA's disastrous leveraged buyout of Lyondell Chemical Co., costing Basell noteholders almost $1 billion. In a brief order issued on May 21, New York's Appellate Division, First Department dismissed a lawsuit brought against BNYMellon by a dozen noteholders, including the hedge funds Arrowgrass Master Fund Ltd and Caspian Capital Partners LP. Expanding on a lower court ruling from last year, the appeals court held that the claims are barred by a settlement agreement that noteholders reached in a bankruptcy court proceeding. BNY Mellon is the indenture trustee for ten-year notes Basell issued to investors in 2005. To buy Lyondell in 2007, Basell borrowed almost $20 billion from banks, increasing its debt load ten-fold. Lyondell filed for bankruptcy 13 months later. Stuck in line behind senior creditors, holders of the Basell notes complained that they were able to claw back only a small part of their alleged $1 billion in losses. In 2010, the noteholders sued BNY Mellon for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligence. They alleged that the banks caused them "massive damage" by failing to halt the Lyondell buyout. "BNY, inexplicably, signed an intercreditor agreement that enabled the leveraged buyout to go forward, and that purported to subordinate the [notes] to the massive debt generated by the LBO," the hedge funds's lawyers at Kasowitz Benson Torres & Friedman wrote in their complaint. The New York Supreme Court justice assigned to the case, Shirley Werner Kornreich, ruled in February 2012 that most the the claims could proceed. She dismissed the breach of fiduciary duty claim, but allowed the contract and negligence claims to go forward. The First Department has now tossed the entire case. Siding with BNYMellon's lawyers at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, the appellate court ruled that note holders waived their claims as part of a 2009 settlement they reached in U.S. bankruptcy court. BNY Mellon is represented by a Paul Weiss team led by Leslie Fagen and Allan Arffa. "I think the case confirms the long-standing principle that an indenture trustee's duties are limited to those set forth in the relevant indenture agreement," Mr. Arffa said in an e-mailed statement. The Kasowitz Benson lawyers on the losing end of the May 21 ruling include Sheron Korpus, Marc Kasowitz, and David Mark. Korpus didn't immediately return a call seeking comment. BAYER AG: Enforced Diversify in Mirena MDL Raises Issue ------------------------------------------------------- Victor Li, writing for The Am Law Daily, reports that when it comes to top-down efforts to beef up diversity in the legal profession, the instigators tend to be law firms themselves -- driven by conviction or public relations savvy. But for years U.S. District Judge Harold Baer in Manhattan has been prodding firms to diversify from the bench, using his power to appoint plaintiffs' counsel as a means to cajole lawyers to find more women and minorities to lead class action lawsuits. It's been a fairly lonely crusade for Judge Baer, who told the New York Law Journal in 2010 that law firms were "behind where they should be" on the diversity front. On May 17, however, Reuters reported that at least one other judge has flexed her judicial muscles on diversity in a lead counsel scrum. U.S. District Judge Cathy Seibel of White Plains, N.Y., asked four plaintiffs firms vying for leadership roles in multidistrict litigation against Bayer AG to consider adding women attorneys to their proposed teams. Judge Seibel made the request during a status conference in the case, in which women allege that Bayer's Mirena intrauterine birth control device punctured their uterus or migrated to other parts of their bodies. According to Reuters, the judge told Fred Thompson of Motley Rice, James Ronca of Anapol Schwartz, Matthew McCauley of Parker Waichman, and Diogenes Kekatos of Seeger Weiss that she considered the issue to be "important." The impetus for Judge Seibel's comments in Bayer litigation came at least partly from rival plaintiffs lawyers. One letter, filed with the court by plaintiffs' attorney Alyson Oliver of Michigan, objected to the all-male leadership committee by arguing that the class members would be best served by having female attorneys advocating on their behalf. Ms. Oliver also pointed out that female lawyers might generate more empathy from jurors. "I am confident the defense will strategically make room for these benefits on their team; and I believe our litigants will be disadvantaged if we don't consider the strategic benefits of doing the same," Ms. Oliver wrote. The team representing Bayer includes at least two women: lead counsel Shayna Cook of Goldman Ismail Tomaselli Brennan & Baum and Marie Woodbury of Shook, Hardy & Bacon. Other attorneys include James Shepherd of Shook Hardy and William Harrington of Bleakley Platt & Schmidt. Judge Seibel stopped short of ordering the plaintiffs firms to take steps to include more female lawyers. Judge Baer, on the other hand, has issued several orders encouraging plaintiffs firms to diversify. In the Gildan Activewear class action in 2010, for instance, he ordered the lead plaintiffs firms to "make every effort" to put at least one woman and one minority lawyer on the case. Judge Baer made similar pronouncements in class action suits against JPMorgan Chase & Co., Sirius XM, and Dynex Securities. Those orders haven't always been well-received. The issue of enforced diversity has irked conservative public interest lawyers like Ted Frank of the Center for Class Action Fairness and the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Individual Rights. Mr. Frank took issue with Judge Baer's diversity mandate in the Sirius XM litigation as part of a larger objection to a settlement in the case. The CIR also objected and filed an amicus brief when the issue went before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The appeals court didn't rule on the diversity issue, finding that it lacked standing to do so since there was no actual injury. The Am Law Daily reached out to Mr. Frank for comment on Judge Seibel's pronouncement but didn't hear back. BP AMERICA: Texas AG Files Suit over April 2010 Oil Spill --------------------------------------------------------- Bryan Cohen, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott announced a lawsuit on May 17 against BP America and other defendants for their contributions to the April 2010 Deepwater Horizon offshore oil spill. The enforcement action against BP America, Anadarko, Halliburton, Transocean and other related entities seeks economic damages, natural resources damages and civil penalties. The lawsuit follows years of work with other Gulf states, the federal government and BP to resolve damages connected with harm caused to the region by the oil spill. The parties involved have not been able to completely resolve claims related to the disaster, which resulted in the state of Texas filing an enforcement action to preserve its claims against BP and other defendants. Mr. Abbott's office anticipates that the case will be consolidated with a case already in progress in New Orleans. Mr. Abbott's office filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in Beaumont. The lawsuit seeks both monetary actions and funds that would be used for projects to offset and mitigate natural resource damages in Texas. The enforcement action seeks civil penalties for each day of oil discharge, civil penalties for every barrel of oil that was discharged, lost state hotel occupancy tax and mixed beverage tax revenue, lost sales tax, revenue lost from state park entrance, facility, activity and concession fees and damages to natural resources. The lawsuit also seeks court costs and attorney fees. The lawsuit follows partial settlements of federal claims by Transocean and BP, including multiple criminal plea agreements. CANADA DRY: Recalls Mott's Garden Cocktail Due to Possible Mould ---------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: May 30, 2013 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Notification Subcategory: Microbiological - Non harmful (Quality/Spoilage) Hazard classification: Class 3 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Canada Dry Mott's Inc. Distribution: National CFIA reference number: 7995 Brand name Common name Size Code(s) on product ---- ----------- ---- ------------------ Mott's Garden Cocktail - 240 ml 121112WK, 012213WK, 100% Vegetable Juice 022513WK, 022613WK, 032213WK, 040613WK UPC: 0 65912 00478 2 CANADIAN SOLAR: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated N.Y. Suit Granted ------------------------------------------------------------- Canadian Solar Inc.'s motion to dismiss a consolidated class action lawsuit in New York was granted in March 213, according to the Company's April 26, 2013, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012. On June 1, 2010, the Company announced that it would postpone the release of its financial results for the first quarter ended March 31, 2010, and its quarterly earnings call pending the outcome of an investigation by the Audit Committee of its Board of Directors that had been launched after the Company received a subpoena from the SEC requesting documents relating to, among other things, certain sales transactions in 2009. Thereafter, six class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, or the New York cases, and another class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, or the California case. The New York cases were consolidated into a single action in December 2010. On January 5, 2011, the California case was dismissed by the plaintiff, who became a member of the lead plaintiff group in the New York action. On March 11, 2011, a Consolidated Complaint was filed with respect to the New York action. The Consolidated Complaint alleges generally that its financial disclosures during 2009 and early 2010 were false or misleading; asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder; and names the Company, its chief executive officer and its former chief financial officer as defendants. The Company filed its motion to dismiss in May 2011, which was taken under submission by the Court in July 2011. On March 30, 2012, the Court dismissed the Consolidated Complaint with leave to amend, and the plaintiffs filed an Amended Consolidated Complaint against the same defendants on April 19, 2012. On March 28, 2013, the Court entered an order granting the Company's motion to dismiss and dismissing the Amended Consolidated Complaint with prejudice. On March 29, 2013, the Court entered judgment in the matter. Canadian Solar Inc. -- http://www.canadiansolar.com/-- designs, develops and manufactures solar wafers, cells and solar module products that convert sunlight into electricity for a variety of uses. The Company is incorporated in Canada, headquartered in Ontario and conducts most of its manufacturing operations in China. CANADIAN SOLAR: Motions in Ontario Suit to Be Argued in June ------------------------------------------------------------ A motion for class certification and a motion for leave to assert are scheduled for argument in Ontario in June 2013, according to Canadian Solar Inc.'s April 26, 2013, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012. On June 1, 2010, the Company announced that it would postpone the release of its financial results for the first quarter ended March 31, 2010, and its quarterly earnings call pending the outcome of an investigation by the Audit Committee of its Board of Directors that had been launched after the Company received a subpoena from the SEC requesting documents relating to, among other things, certain sales transactions in 2009. Thereafter, six class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, which were consolidated, and another class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, which was dismissed. In addition, a similar class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and certain of its executive officers in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on August 10, 2010. The lawsuit alleges generally that its financial disclosures during 2009 and 2010 were false or misleading and brings claims under the shareholders' relief provisions of the Canada Business Corporations Act, Part XXIII.1 of the Ontario Securities Act as well as claims based on negligent misrepresentation. In December 2010, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Ontario action on the basis that the Ontario Court has no jurisdiction over the claims and potential claims advanced by the plaintiff. The court dismissed the Company's motion on August 29, 2011. On March 30, 2012, the Ontario Court of Appeal denied the Company's appeal with regard to its jurisdictional motion. On November 29, 2012, the Supreme Court of Canada denied the Company's application for leave to appeal the order of the Ontario Court of Appeal. The Company's jurisdiction motion is therefore at an end. To proceed with the case, the plaintiff must now bring his own motions for class certification and for leave to assert the statutory cause of action under the Ontario Securities Act. These motions are scheduled for argument in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in June 2013. The Company believes the Ontario action is without merit and it is defending it vigorously. Canadian Solar Inc. -- http://www.canadiansolar.com/-- designs, develops and manufactures solar wafers, cells and solar module products that convert sunlight into electricity for a variety of uses. The Company is incorporated in Canada, headquartered in Ontario and conducts most of its manufacturing operations in China. CHERYL'S: Recalls 10,588 Buttercream Cinnamon Pumpkin Cookies ------------------------------------------------------------- Cheryl's of Westerville, Ohio, is recalling 10,588 individually wrapped 1.6 oz. Buttercream Frosted Cinnamon Pumpkin Cookies because the wrapper on these affected cookies may not specifically state that the cookie contains Peanuts, a known allergen. The Company's investigation revealed that some of the packages of its Buttercream Frosted Cinnamon Pumpkin Cookies actually contained its Fudge Buttercream Frosted Peanut Butter Cookie. People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to peanuts run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products. Please note however that the wrappers of all of the 1.6 oz. Buttercream Frosted Cinnamon Pumpkin Cookies do contain the following allergen statement: "Produced in a plant that also handles Peanuts and Treenuts". The 1.6 oz. Buttercream Frosted Cinnamon Pumpkin Cookies were sold at Cheryl's retail stores located in Columbus and Dayton, Ohio and nationwide via Cheryl's Web site located at http://www.cheryls.com/during the months of April and May, 2013. The recalled products contain Lot No.: 88 13 1 on the packaging wrapper. Pictures of Cheryl's 1.6 oz. Buttercream Frosted Cinnamon Pumpkin Cookies are available at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm354659.htm No illnesses have been reported to date. This recall was initiated after it was discovered that the affected cookies were distributed in packaging that did not specifically reveal that the ingredients of the cookies contained Peanuts. The Company's investigation revealed that some of the packages of its Buttercream Frosted Cinnamon Pumpkin Cookies actually contained its Fudge Buttercream Frosted Peanut Butter Cookie. Consumers who have purchased Cheryl's 1.6 oz. Buttercream Frosted Cinnamon Pumpkin Cookies are urged to dispose of the affected products and contact Cheryl's for a full refund and a complimentary $20 "Saving Pass" for use with qualified future purchases from Cheryl's. Consumer with questions may contact Joseph Pittito at 516-237- 6131(Monday - Friday 9:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time). CLEARWIRE CORP: Appeal in "Minnick" Class Suit Remains Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- An appeal from the approval of Clearwire Corporation's settlement of the class action lawsuit filed by Chad Minnick, et al., remains pending, according to the Company's April 26, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013. In April 2009, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against Clearwire U.S. LLC in Superior Court in King County, Washington by a group of five plaintiffs (Chad Minnick, et al.). The lawsuit generally alleges that the Company disseminated false advertising about the quality and reliability of its services; imposed an unlawful early termination fee, or ETF; and invoked allegedly unconscionable provisions of the Company's Terms of Service to the detriment of subscribers. Among other things, the lawsuit seeks a determination that the alleged claims may be asserted on a class- wide basis; an order declaring certain provisions of the Company's Terms of Service, including the ETF provision, void and unenforceable; an injunction prohibiting the Company from collecting ETFs and further false advertising; restitution of any ETFs paid by the Company's subscribers; equitable relief; and an award of unspecified damages and attorneys' fees. The Plaintiffs subsequently amended their complaint adding seven additional plaintiffs. The Company removed the case to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. On July 23, 2009, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The Court stayed discovery pending its ruling on the motion, and on February 2, 2010, granted the Company's motion to dismiss in its entirety. The Plaintiffs appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On March 29, 2011, the Court of Appeals entered an Order Certifying Question to the Supreme Court of Washington requesting guidance on a question of Washington state law. On May 23, 2012, the Washington Supreme Court issued a decision holding that an ETF is a permissible alternative performance provision. The Court of Appeals has stayed the matter. The parties have agreed to settle the lawsuit. On December 19, 2012, the District Court granted final approval of the settlement and entered final judgment. On January 18, 2013, objectors appealed the Court's final judgment and settlement order to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Company says it has accrued an estimated amount it anticipates to pay for the settlement in Other current liabilities. The amount accrued is considered immaterial to the financial statements. Kirkland, Washington-based Clearwire Corporation (NASDAQ: CLWR) -- http://www.clearwire.com/-- through its operating subsidiaries, is a provider of 4G mobile broadband network services in 68 markets, including New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Dallas, Philadelphia, Houston, Miami, Washington, D.C., Atlanta and Boston. CLEARWIRE CORP: Appeal in "Newton" Class Suit Remains Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- An appeal from the approval of Clearwire Corporation's settlement of a class action lawsuit in California remains pending, according to the Company's April 26, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013. In March 2011, a purported class action was filed against Clearwire in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. The case, Newton v. Clearwire, Inc. [sic], alleges Clearwire's network management and advertising practices constitute breach of contract, unjust enrichment, unfair competition under California's Business and Professions Code Sections 17200 et seq., and violation of California's Consumers' Legal Remedies Act. The Plaintiff contends Clearwire's advertisements of "no speed cap" and "unlimited data" are false and misleading. The Plaintiff alleges Clearwire has breached its contracts with customers by not delivering the Internet service as advertised. The Plaintiff also claims slow data speeds are due to Clearwire's network management practices. The Plaintiff seeks class certification; declaratory and injunctive relief; unspecified restitution and/or disgorgement of fees paid for Clearwire service; and unspecified damages, interest, fees and costs. On June 9, 2011, Clearwire filed a motion to compel arbitration. The parties agreed to settle the lawsuit. On December 19, 2012, the District Court granted final approval of the settlement and entered final judgment. On January 18, 2013, objectors appealed the Court's final judgment and settlement order to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Company says it has accrued an estimated amount it anticipates to pay for the settlement in Other current liabilities. The amount accrued is considered immaterial to the financial statements. Kirkland, Washington-based Clearwire Corporation (NASDAQ: CLWR) -- http://www.clearwire.com/-- through its operating subsidiaries, is a provider of 4G mobile broadband network services in 68 markets, including New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Dallas, Philadelphia, Houston, Miami, Washington, D.C., Atlanta and Boston. CLEARWIRE CORP: Awaits Decision on Appeal in "Dennings" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Clearwire Corporation is awaiting a court decision on a motion for summary affirmance in an appeal in the class action lawsuit filed by Angelo Dennings, according to the Company's April 26, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013. In November 2010, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against Clearwire by Angelo Dennings in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. The complaint generally alleges the Company slow network speeds when network demand is highest and that such network management violates the Company's agreements with subscribers and is contrary to the Company's advertising and marketing claims. The Plaintiffs also allege that subscribers do not review the Terms of Service prior to subscribing, and when subscribers cancel service due to network management, the Company charges an early termination fee, or ETF, or restocking fee that they claim is unconscionable under the circumstances. The claims asserted include breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and unjust enrichment. The Plaintiffs seek class certification; unspecified damages and restitution; a declaratory judgment that Clearwire's ETF and restocking fee are unconscionable under the alleged circumstances; an injunction prohibiting Clearwire from engaging in alleged deceptive marketing and from charging ETFs; interest; and attorneys' fees and costs. On January 13, 2011, the Company filed concurrent motions to compel arbitration and in the alternative, to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. In response to Clearwire's motions, the plaintiff abandoned its fraud claim and amended its complaint with fourteen additional plaintiffs in eight separate jurisdictions. The Plaintiff further added new claims of violation of Consumer Protection statutes under various state laws. On March 31, 2011, Clearwire filed concurrent motions to (1) compel the newly-added plaintiffs to arbitrate their individual claims, (2) alternatively, to stay this case pending the United States Supreme Court's decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, No. 09-893, referred to as Concepcion, and (3) to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The Plaintiffs did not oppose Clearwire's motion to stay the litigation pending Concepcion, and the parties stipulated to stay the litigation. The parties agreed to settle the lawsuit. On December 19, 2012, the District Court granted final approval of the settlement and entered final judgment. On January 18, 2013, objectors appealed the Court's final judgment and settlement order to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Plaintiffs and Clearwire filed a motion for appeal bond requiring objectors to secure payment of costs in connection with the appeal. The Court of Appeals ordered the objectors to post the appeal bond. The Plaintiffs also filed a motion for summary affirmance. The Company says it has accrued an estimated amount it anticipates to pay for the settlement in Other current liabilities. The amount accrued is considered immaterial to the financial statements. Kirkland, Washington-based Clearwire Corporation (NASDAQ: CLWR) -- http://www.clearwire.com/-- through its operating subsidiaries, is a provider of 4G mobile broadband network services in 68 markets, including New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Dallas, Philadelphia, Houston, Miami, Washington, D.C., Atlanta and Boston. CLEARWIRE CORP: Awaits Final Approval of "Kwan" Suit Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- Clearwire Corporation is awaiting final approval of its settlement of the class action lawsuit initiated by Rosa Kwan, according to the Company's April 26, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013. In September 2009, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against Clearwire in King County Superior Court, brought by representative plaintiff Rosa Kwan. The complaint alleges the Company placed unlawful telephone calls using automatic dialing and announcing devices and engaged in unlawful collection practices. It seeks declaratory, injunctive, and/or equitable relief and actual and statutory damages under federal and state law. On October 1, 2009, the Company removed the case to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. The parties stipulated to allow a Second Amended Complaint, which plaintiffs filed on December 23, 2009. The Company, then, filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On February 22, 2010, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss in part, dismissing certain claims with prejudice and granting the plaintiff leave to further amend the complaint. The Plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint adding additional state law claims and joining Bureau of Recovery, a purported collection agency, as a co-defendant. On January 27, 2011, the court granted the parties' stipulation allowing the plaintiff to file a Fourth Amended Complaint adding two new class representatives. The Company, then, filed motions to compel the newly-added customer plaintiffs to arbitrate their individual claims. On January 3, 2012, the Court denied without prejudice the Company's motions to compel arbitration because of factual issues to be resolved at an evidentiary hearing. The parties stipulated to allow a Fifth Amended Complaint. The parties agreed to settle the lawsuit. On December 27, 2012, the Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement. The Company says it has accrued an estimated amount it anticipates to pay for the settlement in Other current liabilities. The amount accrued is considered immaterial to the financial statements. If the Court does not grant final approval of the settlement, this case will remain in the early stages of litigation and its outcome is unknown. Kirkland, Washington-based Clearwire Corporation (NASDAQ: CLWR) -- http://www.clearwire.com/-- through its operating subsidiaries, is a provider of 4G mobile broadband network services in 68 markets, including New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Dallas, Philadelphia, Houston, Miami, Washington, D.C., Atlanta and Boston. CLEARWIRE CORP: Continues to Defend "Wuest" Suit in California -------------------------------------------------------------- Clearwire Corporation continues to defend itself against a class action lawsuit brought by Richard Wuest in California, according to the Company's April 26, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013. In August 2012, Richard Wuest filed a purported class action against Clearwire in the California Superior Court, San Francisco County. The Plaintiff alleges that Clearwire violated California's Invasion of Privacy Act, Penal Code 630, notably Section 632.7, which prohibits the recording of communications made from a cellular or cordless telephone without the consent of all parties to the communication. The Plaintiff seeks statutory damages and injunctive relief, costs, attorney fees, pre and post judgment interest. Clearwire removed the matter to federal court. On November 2, 2012, Clearwire filed an answer to the complaint. The Company says the litigation is in the early stages, its outcome is unknown and an estimate of any potential loss cannot be made at this time. Kirkland, Washington-based Clearwire Corporation (NASDAQ: CLWR) -- http://www.clearwire.com/-- through its operating subsidiaries, is a provider of 4G mobile broadband network services in 68 markets, including New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Dallas, Philadelphia, Houston, Miami, Washington, D.C., Atlanta and Boston. CLEARWIRE CORP: Defends Sprint Merger Suits in Del. and Wash. ------------------------------------------------------------- Clearwire Corporation is defending itself from class action lawsuits arising from its proposed merger with Sprint Nextel Corporation, according to the Company's April 26, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013. On December 17, 2012, the Company an Agreement and Plan of Merger (Merger Agreement) with Sprint Nextel Corporation and Collie Acquisition Corp., a Delaware corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Sprint (the Merger Sub), pursuant to which Sprint agreed to acquire all of the outstanding shares of the Company's Clearwire Corporation Class A common stock that is not currently owned by Sprint, SOFTBANK CORP., or any of their respective affiliates. The transactions under the Merger Agreement are subject to a number of conditions, including approval by the Company's stockholders and the closing of the pending merger between Sprint and SoftBank and certain affiliates thereof. If all of the conditions under the Merger Agreement are satisfied by the parties, following the consummation of the Proposed Merger, the Company will become a wholly-owned subsidiary of Sprint. Delaware Actions On December 12, 2012, stockholder Crest Financial Limited filed a putative class action lawsuit in Delaware Court of Chancery against the Company, its directors, Sprint, Sprint Holdco LLC and Eagle River Holdings, LLC, purportedly brought on behalf of the public stockholders of the Company. On December 14, 2012, plaintiff filed an amended complaint, and on January 2, 2013, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. Also, on December 12, 2012, the plaintiff filed a motion seeking an expedited trial. Following a hearing on January 10, 2013, the Court denied the motion to expedite without prejudice. The Court also directed the parties to consolidate this lawsuit with the other Delaware actions. The lawsuit alleges that the directors of the Company breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed transaction between Sprint and the Company, that Sprint and Eagle River breached duties owed to the Company's public stockholders by virtue of their alleged status as controlling stockholders, including with respect to the SoftBank Transaction, and that the Company aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by Sprint and Eagle River. The lawsuit also alleges that the Merger Consideration undervalues the Company, and that the controlling stockholders acted to enrich themselves at the expense of the minority stockholders. The lawsuit seeks to permanently enjoin the SoftBank Transaction, permanently enjoin the Proposed Merger, permanently enjoin Sprint from allegedly interfering with the Company's plans to raise capital or sell its spectrum and to recover compensatory damages. This litigation is in the early stages, its outcome is unknown and an estimate of any potential losses cannot be made at this time. On December 20, 2012, stockholder Abraham Katsman filed a putative class action lawsuit in Delaware Court of Chancery against the Company, its directors, Sprint and SoftBank, purportedly bought on behalf of the public stockholders of the Company. The lawsuit alleges that the directors of the Company breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the Proposed Merger, that Sprint breached duties owed to the Company's public stockholders by virtue of its alleged status as controlling stockholder, and that SoftBank aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by Sprint and the directors of the Company. The lawsuit also alleges that the Merger Consideration undervalues the Company and that the Proposed Merger was negotiated pursuant to an unfair process. The lawsuit seeks to enjoin the Proposed Merger and, should the Proposed Merger be consummated, rescission of the Proposed Merger, and to recover unspecified rescissory and compensatory damages. This litigation is in the early stages, its outcome is unknown and an estimate of any potential losses cannot be made at this time. On December 28, 2012, stockholder Kenneth L. Feigeles filed a putative class action lawsuit in Delaware Court of Chancery against the Company, its directors, Sprint, Merger Sub and Eagle River, purportedly brought on behalf of the public stockholders of the Company. The lawsuit alleges that the directors of the Company breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the Proposed Merger, that Sprint breached duties owed to the Company's public stockholders by virtue of its alleged status as controlling stockholder, and that the Company, Sprint, Merger Sub and Eagle River aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by Sprint and the directors of the Company. The lawsuit also alleges that the Merger Consideration undervalues the Company, and that the Proposed Merger was negotiated pursuant to an unfair process. The lawsuit seeks to enjoin the Proposed Merger and, should the Proposed Merger be consummated, to rescind the Proposed Merger, and it seeks unspecified rescissory and compensatory damages. This litigation is in the early stages, its outcome is unknown and an estimate of any potential losses cannot be made at this time. On December 28, 2012, stockholder Joan Litwin filed a putative class action lawsuit in Delaware Court of Chancery against the Company, its directors, Sprint, Sprint Holdco and Eagle River, purportedly brought on behalf of the public stockholders of the Company. The lawsuit alleges that the directors of the Company breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the Proposed Merger, that Sprint and Eagle River breached duties owed to the Company's public stockholders by virtue of their alleged status as controlling stockholders, and that the Company aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by Sprint, Eagle River and the directors of the Company. The lawsuit also alleges that the Merger Consideration undervalues the Company, that Sprint is using its position as controlling stockholder to obtain the Company's spectrum for itself to the detriment of the public stockholders, and that the directors of the Company allowed the Company to stagnate to benefit Sprint and Eagle River. The lawsuit seeks to enjoin the Proposed Merger and, should the Proposed Merger be consummated, to rescind the Proposed Merger. The lawsuit also seeks to enjoin Sprint from interfering with the Company's build- out plans or any future sale of spectrum, and seeks unspecified compensatory damages. This litigation is in the early stages, its outcome is unknown and an estimate of any potential losses cannot be made at this time. On or about January 3, 2013, stockholder David DeLeo filed a putative class action lawsuit in Delaware Court of Chancery against the Company, its directors, Sprint and Merger Sub, purportedly brought on behalf of the Company's public stockholders of the Company. The lawsuit alleges that the directors of the Company breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the Proposed Merger, that Sprint breached duties owed to the Company's public stockholders by virtue of its alleged status as controlling stockholder, and that the Company and Merger Sub aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by Sprint and the directors of the Company. The lawsuit also alleges that the Merger Consideration undervalues the Company, that Sprint and the directors of the Company misappropriated non-public information that was not disclosed to the plaintiffs, and that the Proposed Merger was negotiated pursuant to an unfair process. The lawsuit seeks a declaratory judgment that the proposed transaction between Sprint and the Company was entered into in breach of Sprint's fiduciary duties, an injunction preventing the proposed transaction between Sprint and the Company and, should the Proposed Merger be consummated, to rescind the Proposed Merger, and it seeks unspecified rescissory and compensatory damages. This litigation is in the early stages, its outcome is unknown and an estimate of any potential losses cannot be made at this time. Washington Actions On December 20, 2012, stockholder Joe Kuhnle filed a putative class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of Washington, King County, against the Company and its directors, purportedly brought on behalf of the public stockholders of the Company, the Kuhnle Action. The Kuhnle Action alleges that the directors of the Company breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the Proposed Merger, and that the Company aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by the directors of the Company. The Kuhnle Action also alleges that the Merger Consideration undervalues the Company, that the Proposed Merger was negotiated pursuant to an unfair process, that the deal protection devices favor Sprint to the detriment of the public stockholders, and that the directors of the Company failed to make necessary disclosures in their public filings. The Kuhnle Action seeks a declaratory judgment that the Proposed Merger was entered into in breach of defendants' fiduciary duties, a preliminary injunction preventing the Proposed Merger and, should the Proposed Merger be consummated, rescission of the Proposed Merger, and to recover unspecified rescissory and compensatory damages. On January 18, 2013, the Company and the other defendants collectively filed a motion to dismiss or stay the Kuhnle Action in favor of the prior-filed Delaware actions. On January 18, 2013, the Company and the other defendants opposed the plaintiff's motion to expedite discovery. The Court denied the plaintiff's motion to expedite discovery and granted defendants' motion to stay the Kuhnle matter pending resolution of actions in Delaware. On January 22, 2013, the parties stipulated to consolidate the three King County Washington lawsuits -- the Kuhnle Action, along with both the Millen Action and the Rowe Action -- into one matter: In Re Clearwire Corporation Shareholder Litigation. This litigation is in the early stages, its outcome is unknown and an estimate of any potential losses cannot be made at this time. On December 20, 2012, stockholder Doug Millen filed a putative class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of Washington, King County, against the Company and its directors, purportedly brought on behalf of the public stockholders of the Company, the Millen Action. The lawsuit alleges that the directors of the Company breached their fiduciary duties owed to the Company's public stockholders in connection with the Proposed Merger, and that the Company aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by the directors of the Company. The lawsuit also alleges that the Merger Consideration undervalues the Company, that the Proposed Merger was negotiated pursuant to an unfair process, that the deal protection devices favor Sprint to the detriment of the public stockholders, and that the directors of the Company failed to make necessary disclosures in connection with the announcement of the transaction. The lawsuit seeks a declaratory judgment that the Proposed Merger was entered into in breach of defendants' fiduciary duties, an injunction preventing the Proposed Merger, and rescission of the Proposed Merger to the extent it has already been consummated. This litigation is in the early stages, its outcome is unknown and an estimate of any potential losses cannot be made at this time. On December 31, 2012, stockholder Clinton Rowe filed a putative class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of Washington, King County against the Company, its directors, Sprint and Merger Sub, purportedly brought on behalf of the public stockholders of the Company, the Rowe Action. The lawsuit alleges that Sprint and the directors of the Company breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the Proposed Merger, and that the Company, Sprint and Merger Sub aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by the directors of the Company. The lawsuit also alleges that the Merger Consideration undervalues the Company, that the Proposed Merger was negotiated pursuant to an unfair process, and that the directors of the Company did not protect the Company against numerous conflicts of interest. The lawsuit seeks a declaratory judgment that the Proposed Merger was entered into in breach of defendants' fiduciary duties, an injunction preventing the Proposed Merger, rescission of the transaction to the extent it has already been implemented, and the imposition of a constructive trust in favor of the plaintiff class upon any benefits improperly received by defendants. This litigation is in the early stages, its outcome is unknown and an estimate of any potential losses cannot be made at this time. Kirkland, Washington-based Clearwire Corporation (NASDAQ: CLWR) -- http://www.clearwire.com/-- through its operating subsidiaries, is a provider of 4G mobile broadband network services in 68 markets, including New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Dallas, Philadelphia, Houston, Miami, Washington, D.C., Atlanta and Boston. CLEARWIRE CORP: Faces "Lindsay" Class Action Suit in Minnesota -------------------------------------------------------------- Clearwire Corporation is facing a class action lawsuit filed by Kenneth Lindsay in Minnesota, according to the Company's April 26, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013. In April 2013, Kenneth Lindsay, a former employee and others, filed a purported collective class action lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, against Clear Wireless LLC and Workforce Logic LLC. The Plaintiffs allege claims individually and on behalf of a purported nationwide collective class under the Fair Labor Standards Act, or the FSLA, from April 9, 2010, to the present. The lawsuit alleges that defendants violated the FLSA, notably sections 201 and 207 and relevant regulations, regarding failure to pay minimum wage, failure to pay for hours worked during breaks or work performed "off the clock" before, during and after scheduled work shifts, overtime, improper deductions, and improper withholding of wages, commissions and bonuses. The Plaintiffs seek back wages, unpaid wages, overtime, liquidated damages, attorney fees and costs. Clearwire says it will respond to the complaint in due course. The litigation is in the early stages, its outcome is unknown and an estimate of any potential loss cannot be made at this time. Kirkland, Washington-based Clearwire Corporation (NASDAQ: CLWR) -- http://www.clearwire.com/-- through its operating subsidiaries, is a provider of 4G mobile broadband network services in 68 markets, including New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Dallas, Philadelphia, Houston, Miami, Washington, D.C., Atlanta and Boston. COMMODITY ADVISORS: Appeals From Dismissal of ARS Suits Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Appeals from the dismissal of two class action lawsuits relating to auction rate securities remain pending, according to Commodity Advisors Fund L.P.'s April 26, 2013, Form 10-12G/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The general partner and commodity pool operator of Commodity Advisors Fund L.P., formerly known as "Energy Advisors Portfolio L.P., (the "Partnership") is Ceres Managed Futures LLC, which is formerly known as Citigroup Managed Futures LLC. The commodity broker of the Partnership is Citigroup Global Markets Inc. ("CGM"), which is indirectly owned by Citigroup Inc. The General Partner is a wholly owned subsidiary of Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Holdings LLC. Morgan Stanley, indirectly through various subsidiaries, owns a majority equity interest in MSSB Holdings, and Citigroup indirectly owns a minority equity interest in MSSB Holdings. MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE, MARYLAND v. CITIGROUP INC., ET AL. and RUSSELL MAYFIELD, ET AL. v. CITIGROUP INC., ET AL., are lawsuits filed in the Southern District of New York on behalf of a purported class of auction rate securities (ARS) issuers and investors, respectively, against Citigroup, CGM and various other financial institutions. In these actions, plaintiffs allege violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act arising out of defendants' alleged conspiracy to artificially restrain trade in the ARS market. On January 15, 2009, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaints in these actions. On January 26, 2010, both actions were dismissed. The actions are now pending on appeal. Commodity Advisors Fund L.P., formerly known as Energy Advisors Portfolio L.P., was organized in 2006 in Delaware and is based in New York. The current objective of the Partnership is to achieve capital appreciation through speculative trading, directly and indirectly, in U.S. and international markets for currencies, interest rates, stock indices, agricultural and energy products and precious and base metals. COMMODITY ADVISORS: Awaits Final OK of AHM Suit Settlements ----------------------------------------------------------- Citigroup awaits final approval of its settlements of class action lawsuits relating to American Home Mortgage Investment Corp., according to Commodity Advisors Fund L.P.'s April 26, 2013, Form 10-12G/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The general partner and commodity pool operator of Commodity Advisors Fund L.P., formerly known as "Energy Advisors Portfolio L.P., (the "Partnership") is Ceres Managed Futures LLC, which is formerly known as Citigroup Managed Futures LLC. The commodity broker of the Partnership is Citigroup Global Markets Inc. ("CGM"), which is indirectly owned by Citigroup Inc. The General Partner is a wholly owned subsidiary of Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Holdings LLC. Morgan Stanley, indirectly through various subsidiaries, owns a majority equity interest in MSSB Holdings, and Citigroup indirectly owns a minority equity interest in MSSB Holdings. On March 21, 2008, 19 alleged class actions brought by shareholders of American Home Mortgage Investment Corp., pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, were consolidated under the caption IN RE AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE SECURITIES LITIGATION. On June 3, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, alleging violations of Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended arising out of allegedly false and misleading statements contained in the registration statements and prospectuses issued in connection with two offerings of American Home Mortgage securities underwritten by CGM, among others. The Defendants, including Citigroup and CGM, filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on September 12, 2008. On July 7, 2009, the lead plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of settlements reached with all defendants (including Citigroup and CGM). On July 31, 2009, the District Court entered an order preliminarily approving settlements reached with all defendants (including Citigroup and CGM). On July 27, 2009, UTAH RETIREMENT SYSTEMS v. STRAUSS, ET AL. was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York asserting, among other claims, claims under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended and Utah state law arising out of an offering of American Home Mortgage common stock underwritten by CGM. This matter has been settled. Commodity Advisors Fund L.P., formerly known as Energy Advisors Portfolio L.P., was organized in 2006 in Delaware and is based in New York. The current objective of the Partnership is to achieve capital appreciation through speculative trading, directly and indirectly, in U.S. and international markets for currencies, interest rates, stock indices, agricultural and energy products and precious and base metals. COMMODITY ADVISORS: Awaits Ruling in "Abu Dhabi" Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Commodity Advisors Fund L.P. is awaiting a court decision on a motion for summary judgment in the class action lawsuit commenced by Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank, et al., according to the Company's April 26, 2013, Form 10-12G/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The general partner and commodity pool operator of Commodity Advisors Fund L.P., formerly known as "Energy Advisors Portfolio L.P., (the "Partnership") is Ceres Managed Futures LLC, which is formerly known as Citigroup Managed Futures LLC. The commodity broker of the Partnership is Citigroup Global Markets Inc. ("CGM"), which is indirectly owned by Citigroup Inc. The General Partner is a wholly owned subsidiary of Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Holdings LLC. Morgan Stanley, indirectly through various subsidiaries, owns a majority equity interest in MSSB Holdings, and Citigroup indirectly owns a minority equity interest in MSSB Holdings. On August 25, 2008, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, a wholly owned, indirect subsidiary of Morgan Stanley, and two ratings agencies were named as defendants in a purported class action related to securities issued by a structured investment vehicle called Cheyne Finance PLC and Cheyne Finance LLC (together, the "Cheyne SIV"). The case is styled Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank, et al. v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc., et al. and is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ("SDNY"). The complaint alleges, among other things, that the ratings assigned to the securities issued by the Cheyne SIV were false and misleading, including because the ratings did not accurately reflect the risks associated with the subprime residential mortgage backed securities held by the Cheyne SIV. The plaintiffs currently assert allegations of aiding and abetting fraud and negligent misrepresentation relating to approximately $852 million of securities issued by the Cheyne SIV. The plaintiffs' motion for class certification was denied in June 2010. The court denied MS & Co.'s motion for summary judgment on the aiding and abetting fraud claim in August 2012. MS & Co.'s motion for summary judgment on the negligent misrepresentation claim, filed on November 30, 2012, is pending. The court has set a trial date of May 6, 2013. There are currently 14 named plaintiffs in the action claiming damages of approximately $638 million. The Plaintiffs are also seeking punitive damages. Based on currently available information, MS & Co. believes that the defendants could incur a loss up to approximately $638 million, plus pre- and post-judgment interest, fees and costs. Commodity Advisors Fund L.P., formerly known as Energy Advisors Portfolio L.P., was organized in 2006 in Delaware and is based in New York. The current objective of the Partnership is to achieve capital appreciation through speculative trading, directly and indirectly, in U.S. and international markets for currencies, interest rates, stock indices, agricultural and energy products and precious and base metals. COMMODITY ADVISORS: Bid to Dismiss AIG Securities Suit Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- A motion to dismiss an amended consolidated securities lawsuit relating to American International Group, Inc., remains pending, according to Commodity Advisors Fund L.P.'s April 26, 2013, Form 10-12G/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The general partner and commodity pool operator of Commodity Advisors Fund L.P., formerly known as "Energy Advisors Portfolio L.P., (the "Partnership") is Ceres Managed Futures LLC, which is formerly known as Citigroup Managed Futures LLC. The commodity broker of the Partnership is Citigroup Global Markets Inc. ("CGM"), which is indirectly owned by Citigroup Inc. The General Partner is a wholly owned subsidiary of Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Holdings LLC. Morgan Stanley, indirectly through various subsidiaries, owns a majority equity interest in MSSB Holdings, and Citigroup indirectly owns a minority equity interest in MSSB Holdings. Beginning in October 2008, four alleged class actions were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York by American International Group, Inc. ("AIG") investors and shareholders. These actions allege violations of Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended arising out of allegedly false and misleading statements contained in the registration statements and prospectuses issued in connection with offerings of AIG debt securities and common stock, some of which were underwritten by CGM. On March 20, 2009, the four alleged class actions were consolidated by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York under the caption IN RE AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL GROUP, INC. 2008 SECURITIES LITIGATION. The Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on May 19, 2009, which includes two Citigroup affiliates among the underwriter defendants. On August 5, 2009, the underwriter defendants, including CGM and Citigroup Global Markets Limited (CGML), moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. Commodity Advisors Fund L.P., formerly known as Energy Advisors Portfolio L.P., was organized in 2006 in Delaware and is based in New York. The current objective of the Partnership is to achieve capital appreciation through speculative trading, directly and indirectly, in U.S. and international markets for currencies, interest rates, stock indices, agricultural and energy products and precious and base metals. COMMODITY ADVISORS: CGM Continues to Defend Suits v. Underwriters ----------------------------------------------------------------- Citigroup Global Markets Inc. continues to defend itself against class action lawsuits brought against various underwriting syndicates, according to Commodity Advisors Fund L.P.'s April 26, 2013, Form 10-12G/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The general partner and commodity pool operator of Commodity Advisors Fund L.P., formerly known as "Energy Advisors Portfolio L.P., (the "Partnership") is Ceres Managed Futures LLC, which is formerly known as Citigroup Managed Futures LLC. The commodity broker of the Partnership is Citigroup Global Markets Inc. ("CGM"), which is indirectly owned by Citigroup Inc. The General Partner is a wholly owned subsidiary of Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Holdings LLC. Morgan Stanley, indirectly through various subsidiaries, owns a majority equity interest in MSSB Holdings, and Citigroup indirectly owns a minority equity interest in MSSB Holdings. In its capacity as a member of various underwriting syndicates, CGM has been named as a defendant in several subprime-related actions asserted against various issuers of debt and other securities. Most of these actions involve claims asserted on behalf of alleged classes of purchasers of securities for alleged violations of Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. Commodity Advisors Fund L.P., formerly known as Energy Advisors Portfolio L.P., was organized in 2006 in Delaware and is based in New York. The current objective of the Partnership is to achieve capital appreciation through speculative trading, directly and indirectly, in U.S. and international markets for currencies, interest rates, stock indices, agricultural and energy products and precious and base metals. COMMODITY ADVISORS: Citigroup Defends Consolidated Litigations -------------------------------------------------------------- Citigroup Inc. continues to defend itself against consolidated securities and bond litigations, according to Commodity Advisors Fund L.P.'s April 26, 2013, Form 10-12G/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The general partner and commodity pool operator of Commodity Advisors Fund L.P., formerly known as "Energy Advisors Portfolio L.P., (the "Partnership") is Ceres Managed Futures LLC, which is formerly known as Citigroup Managed Futures LLC. The commodity broker of the Partnership is Citigroup Global Markets Inc. ("CGM"), which is indirectly owned by Citigroup Inc. The General Partner is a wholly owned subsidiary of Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Holdings LLC. Morgan Stanley, indirectly through various subsidiaries, owns a majority equity interest in MSSB Holdings, and Citigroup indirectly owns a minority equity interest in MSSB Holdings. On September 30 and October 28, 2008, Citigroup, certain Citigroup entities, certain current and former directors and officers of Citigroup and Citigroup Funding, Inc., and certain underwriters of Citigroup notes (including CGM) were named as defendants in two alleged class actions filed in New York state court but since removed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. These actions allege violations of Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, arising out of forty-eight corporate debt securities, preferred stock, and interests in preferred stock issued by Citigroup and related issuers over a two-year period from 2006 to 2008. On December 10, 2008, these two actions were consolidated under the caption IN RE CITIGROUP INC. BOND LITIGATION, and lead plaintiff and counsel were appointed. On January 15, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint. On March 13, 2009, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On July 12, 2010, the court issued an opinion and order dismissing the plaintiffs' claims under Section 12 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, as amended, but denying the defendants' motion to dismiss certain claims under Section 11. On September 30, 2010, the district court entered a scheduling order in IN RE CITIGROUP INC. BOND LITIGATION. Fact discovery began in November 2010, and the plaintiffs' motion to certify a class is pending. The Plaintiffs have not yet quantified the alleged class' alleged damages. Because of the preliminary stage of the proceedings, Citigroup cannot at this time estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any, for this action or predict the timing of its eventual resolution. On March 13 and 16, 2009, two cases were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging violations of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended -- BUCKINGHAM v. CITIGROUP INC., ET AL. and CHEN v. CITIGROUP INC., ET AL. and were later designated as related to IN RE CITIGROUP INC. BOND LITIGATION. On May 7, 2009, BUCKINGHAM and CHEN were consolidated with IN RE CITIGROUP INC. BOND LITIGATION. On April 9, 2009, another case asserting violations of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended -- PELLEGRINI v. CITIGROUP INC., ET AL. -- was filed in the United Stated District Court for the Southern District of New York and the parties have jointly requested that the PELLEGRINI action be designated as related to IN RE CITIGROUP INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION and IN RE CITIGROUP INC. BOND LITIGATION. On May 11, 2009, an alleged class action ASHER, ET AL. v. CITIGROUP INC., ET AL. was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging violations of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended in connection with plaintiffs' investments in certain offerings of preferred stock issued by Citigroup. On May 15, 2009, the plaintiffs in IN RE CITIGROUP INC. BOND LITIGATION requested that ASHER and PELLEGRINI be consolidated with IN RE CITIGROU P INC. BOND LITIGATION. On August 31, 2009, ASHER and PELLEGRINI were consolidated with IN RE CITIGROUP INC. BOND LITIGATION. On March 23, 2009, a case was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California alleging violations of both the Securities Act of 1933, as amended and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 -- BRECHER v. CITIGROUP INC., ET AL. On April 16, 2009, Citigroup filed a motion before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation for transfer of the BRECHER action to the Southern District of New York for coordinated pre-trial proceedings with IN RE CITIGROUP INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION and IN RE CITIGROUP INC. BOND LITIGATION. On August 7, 2009, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred BRECHER, ET AL. v. CITIGROUP INC., ET AL. to the Southern District of New York for coordination with IN RE CITIGROUP INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION. On April 17, 2009, an alleged class action BRECHER, ET AL. v. CGM, ET AL. was filed in California state court asserting claims against Citigroup, CGM, and certain of the Citigroup's current and former directors under California's Business and Professions Code and Labor Code, as well as under California common law, relating to, among other things, losses incurred on common stock awarded to Smith Barney financial advisors in connection with the execution of their employment contracts. On May 19, 2009, an amended complaint was filed. On July 9, 2009, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation was notified that BRECHER, ET AL. v. CGM, ET AL. is a potential tag-along action to IN RE CITIGROUP, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION. On July 15, 2009, after having removed the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint and to stay all further proceedings pending resolution of the tag-along petition. On July 22, 2009, the plaintiffs in BRECHER, ET AL. v. CGM, ET AL. voluntarily dismissed the claims against the individual defendants and moved to remand the remaining action against Citigroup, CGM, and the Personnel and Compensation Committee to state court. On September 8, 2009, the United States District Court for the Southern District of California ordered that defendants show cause as to why there was federal jurisdiction over the case. On September 17, 2009, the defendants responded to the district court's order. On August 19, 2009, KOCH, ET AL. v. CITIGROUP INC., ET AL., an alleged class action, was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on behalf of participants in Citigroup's Voluntary FA Capital Accumulation Program ("FA CAP Program") against various defendants, including Citigroup and CGM, asserting claims under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Minnesota state law in connection with plaintiffs' acquisition of certain securities through the FA CAP Program. On September 30, 2009, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation conditionally transferred KOCH to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York as a potential tag-along to IN RE CITIGROUP INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION. On October 8, 2009, a consolidated amended complaint was filed in BRECHER, ET AL. v. CITIGROUP INC., ET AL. in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, asserting claims under the federal securities laws and Minnesota and California state law. The complaint purports to consolidate the similar claims asserted in KOCH. In the consolidated action, the lead plaintiffs assert claims on behalf of an alleged class of participants in Citigroup's Voluntary Financial Advisor Capital Accumulation Plan from November 2006 through January 2009. On June 7, 2011, the district court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint and subsequently entered judgment. On November 14, 2011, the district court granted in part the plaintiffs' motion to alter or amend the judgment and granted the plaintiffs leave to amend the complaint. On November 23, 2011, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint alleging violations of Section 12 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss certain of the plaintiffs' claims on December 21, 2011. Several institutions and sophisticated investors that purchased debt and equity securities issued by Citigroup and related issuers have also filed actions on their own behalf against Citigroup and certain of its subsidiaries in the Southern District of New York and the Court of Common Pleas for Philadelphia County. These actions assert claims similar to those asserted in the IN RE CITIGROUP INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION and IN RE CITIGROUP INC. BOND LITIGATION actions. Collectively, these investors seek damages exceeding $1 billion. On June 8, 2012, the defendants filed an interlocutory appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit from the district court's decision in INTERNATIONAL FUND MANAGEMENT S.A., ET AL. v. CITIGROUP INC., ET AL., holding that the tolling doctrine set forth in American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (1974), applies to the statute of repose in the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. Commodity Advisors Fund L.P., formerly known as Energy Advisors Portfolio L.P., was organized in 2006 in Delaware and is based in New York. The current objective of the Partnership is to achieve capital appreciation through speculative trading, directly and indirectly, in U.S. and international markets for currencies, interest rates, stock indices, agricultural and energy products and precious and base metals. COMMODITY ADVISORS: Citigroup Defends Suits Over Lehman Offerings ----------------------------------------------------------------- Citigroup continues to defend itself against class action lawsuits relating to Lehman Brothers' offerings of securities, according to Commodity Advisors Fund L.P.'s April 26, 2013, Form 10-12G/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The general partner and commodity pool operator of Commodity Advisors Fund L.P., formerly known as "Energy Advisors Portfolio L.P., (the "Partnership") is Ceres Managed Futures LLC, which is formerly known as Citigroup Managed Futures LLC. The commodity broker of the Partnership is Citigroup Global Markets Inc. ("CGM"), which is indirectly owned by Citigroup Inc. The General Partner is a wholly owned subsidiary of Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Holdings LLC. Morgan Stanley, indirectly through various subsidiaries, owns a majority equity interest in MSSB Holdings, and Citigroup indirectly owns a minority equity interest in MSSB Holdings. Citigroup has been named in several alleged class action lawsuits alleging violations of Section 11 and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended relating to its role as one of numerous underwriters of offerings of securities issued by Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. and/or Lehman Brothers Inc. The lawsuits are currently pending in the United States District Courts for the Southern District of New York, the Eastern District of New York and the Eastern and Western Districts of Arkansas. On May 2, 2012, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York entered a judgment approving a stipulation of settlement with the underwriter defendants, including Citigroup, in IN RE LEHMAN BROTHERS EQUITY/DEBT SECURITIES LITIGATION. Commodity Advisors Fund L.P., formerly known as Energy Advisors Portfolio L.P., was organized in 2006 in Delaware and is based in New York. The current objective of the Partnership is to achieve capital appreciation through speculative trading, directly and indirectly, in U.S. and international markets for currencies, interest rates, stock indices, agricultural and energy products and precious and base metals. COMMODITY ADVISORS: Countrywide-Related Suits Pending in Calif. --------------------------------------------------------------- Class action lawsuits relating to Countrywide's offerings of securities remain pending in California, according to Commodity Advisors Fund L.P.'s April 26, 2013, Form 10-12G/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The general partner and commodity pool operator of Commodity Advisors Fund L.P., formerly known as "Energy Advisors Portfolio L.P., (the "Partnership") is Ceres Managed Futures LLC, which is formerly known as Citigroup Managed Futures LLC. The commodity broker of the Partnership is Citigroup Global Markets Inc. ("CGM"), which is indirectly owned by Citigroup Inc. The General Partner is a wholly owned subsidiary of Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Holdings LLC. Morgan Stanley, indirectly through various subsidiaries, owns a majority equity interest in MSSB Holdings, and Citigroup indirectly owns a minority equity interest in MSSB Holdings. Citigroup has been named in several alleged class actions lawsuits alleging violations of Section 11 and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended relating to its role as one of numerous underwriters of offerings of securities and mortgage pass-through certificates issued by Countrywide. The lawsuits include a consolidated action filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California and two other lawsuits pending in the Superior Court of the California, Los Angeles County. Commodity Advisors Fund L.P., formerly known as Energy Advisors Portfolio L.P., was organized in 2006 in Delaware and is based in New York. The current objective of the Partnership is to achieve capital appreciation through speculative trading, directly and indirectly, in U.S. and international markets for currencies, interest rates, stock indices, agricultural and energy products and precious and base metals. COMMODITY ADVISORS: Discrimination Suits vs. Citigroup Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- The general partner and commodity pool operator of Commodity Advisors Fund L.P., formerly known as "Energy Advisors Portfolio L.P., (the "Partnership") is Ceres Managed Futures LLC, which is formerly known as Citigroup Managed Futures LLC. The commodity broker of the Partnership is Citigroup Global Markets Inc. ("CGM"), which is indirectly owned by Citigroup Inc. The General Partner is a wholly owned subsidiary of Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Holdings LLC. Morgan Stanley, indirectly through various subsidiaries, owns a majority equity interest in MSSB Holdings, and Citigroup indirectly owns a minority equity interest in MSSB Holdings. Two alleged class actions have been filed alleging claims of racial discrimination in mortgage lending under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Fair Housing Act, and/or the Civil Rights Act. The first action, PUELLO, ET AL. v. CITIFINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., ET AL., was filed against Citigroup and its affiliates in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The second action, NAACP v. AMERIQUEST MORTGAGE CO., ET AL., was filed against one of Citigroup's affiliates in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. In each action, the defendants' motions to dismiss have been denied. On September 21, 2009, the United States District Court for the Central District of California denied defendant CitiMortgage's motion for summary judgment and granted its motion to strike the jury demand. No further updates were reported in the Company's April 26, 2013, Form 10-12G/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Commodity Advisors Fund L.P., formerly known as Energy Advisors Portfolio L.P., was organized in 2006 in Delaware and is based in New York. The current objective of the Partnership is to achieve capital appreciation through speculative trading, directly and indirectly, in U.S. and international markets for currencies, interest rates, stock indices, agricultural and energy products and precious and base metals. COMMODITY ADVISORS: Global Crossing Suits vs. Citigroup Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- The general partner and commodity pool operator of Commodity Advisors Fund L.P., formerly known as "Energy Advisors Portfolio L.P., (the "Partnership") is Ceres Managed Futures LLC, which is formerly known as Citigroup Managed Futures LLC. The commodity broker of the Partnership is Citigroup Global Markets Inc. ("CGM"), which is indirectly owned by Citigroup Inc. The General Partner is a wholly owned subsidiary of Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Holdings LLC. Morgan Stanley, indirectly through various subsidiaries, owns a majority equity interest in MSSB Holdings, and Citigroup indirectly owns a minority equity interest in MSSB Holdings. On or about January 28, 2003, the lead plaintiff in a consolidated alleged class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (IN RE GLOBAL CROSSING, LTD. SECURITIES LITIGATION) filed a consolidated complaint on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Global Crossing, Ltd. and its subsidiaries, which named as defendants, among others, Citigroup, CGM and certain executive officers and current and former employees, asserting claims under the federal securities laws for allegedly issuing research reports without a reasonable basis in fact and for allegedly failing to disclose conflicts of interest with Global Crossing in connection with published investment research. On March 22, 2004, the lead plaintiff amended its consolidated complaint to add claims on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Asia Global Crossing. The added claims asserted causes of action under the federal securities laws and common law in connection with CGM's research reports about Global Crossing and Asia Global Crossing and for CGM's roles as an investment banker for Global Crossing and as an underwriter in the Global Crossing and Asia Global Crossing offerings. The Citigroup- Related Defendants moved to dismiss all of the claims against them on July 2, 2004. The plaintiffs and the Citigroup-Related Defendants entered into a settlement agreement that was preliminarily approved by the Court on March 8, 2005, and was finally approved on June 30, 2005. The amount to be paid in settlement is covered by existing litigation reserves. In addition, on or about January 27, 2004, the Global Crossing Estate Representative filed in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York an adversary proceeding against Citigroup and several other financial institutions seeking to rescind the payment of a $1 billion loan made to a subsidiary of Global Crossing. The Citigroup-Related Defendants moved to dismiss the latter action on May 28, 2004, which motion remains pending. In addition, actions asserting claims against Citigroup and certain of its affiliates relating to CGM Global Crossing research reports are pending in numerous arbitrations around the country. On August 20, 2008, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint that narrowed the pending claims. Citigroup has yet to respond to the amended complaint. No further updates were reported in the Company's April 26, 2013, Form 10-12G/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Commodity Advisors Fund L.P., formerly known as Energy Advisors Portfolio L.P., was organized in 2006 in Delaware and is based in New York. The current objective of the Partnership is to achieve capital appreciation through speculative trading, directly and indirectly, in U.S. and international markets for currencies, interest rates, stock indices, agricultural and energy products and precious and base metals. COMMODITY ADVISORS: N.J. Carpenters Class Suit Remains Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit initiated by the New Jersey Carpenters Health Fund remains pending in New York, according to Commodity Advisors Fund L.P.'s April 26, 2013, Form 10-12G/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The general partner and commodity pool operator of Commodity Advisors Fund L.P., formerly known as "Energy Advisors Portfolio L.P., (the "Partnership") is Ceres Managed Futures LLC, which is formerly known as Citigroup Managed Futures LLC. The commodity broker of the Partnership is Citigroup Global Markets Inc. ("CGM"), which is indirectly owned by Citigroup Inc. The General Partner is a wholly owned subsidiary of Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Holdings LLC. Morgan Stanley, indirectly through various subsidiaries, owns a majority equity interest in MSSB Holdings, and Citigroup indirectly owns a minority equity interest in MSSB Holdings. On October 15, 2012, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted lead plaintiffs' amended motion for class certification in NEW JERSEY CARPENTERS HEALTH FUND V. RESIDENTIAL CAPITAL LLC, ET AL., having previously denied lead plaintiffs' motion for class certification on January 18, 2011. The Plaintiffs in this action allege violations of Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended and assert disclosure claims on behalf of an alleged class of purchasers of mortgage-backed securities issued by Residential Accredited Loans, Inc. pursuant or traceable to prospectus materials filed on March 3, 2006, and April 3, 2007. CGM is one of the underwriter defendants. Commodity Advisors Fund L.P., formerly known as Energy Advisors Portfolio L.P., was organized in 2006 in Delaware and is based in New York. The current objective of the Partnership is to achieve capital appreciation through speculative trading, directly and indirectly, in U.S. and international markets for currencies, interest rates, stock indices, agricultural and energy products and precious and base metals. COMMODITY ADVISORS: Suits Over Interbank Offered Rates Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- Lawsuits related to interbank offered rates remain pending, according to Commodity Advisors Fund L.P.'s April 26, 2013, Form 10-12G/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The general partner and commodity pool operator of Commodity Advisors Fund L.P., formerly known as "Energy Advisors Portfolio L.P., (the "Partnership") is Ceres Managed Futures LLC, which is formerly known as Citigroup Managed Futures LLC. The commodity broker of the Partnership is Citigroup Global Markets Inc. ("CGM"), which is indirectly owned by Citigroup Inc. The General Partner is a wholly owned subsidiary of Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Holdings LLC. Morgan Stanley, indirectly through various subsidiaries, owns a majority equity interest in MSSB Holdings, and Citigroup indirectly owns a minority equity interest in MSSB Holdings. Regulatory Actions Government agencies in the U.S., including the Department of Justice, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the SEC, and a consortium of state attorneys general, as well as agencies in other jurisdictions, including the European Commission, the U.K. Financial Services Authority, the Japanese Financial Services Agency ("JFSA"), the Canadian Competition Bureau, the Swiss Competition Commission, and the Monetary Authority of Singapore, are conducting investigations or making inquiries regarding submissions made by panel banks to bodies that publish various interbank offered rates and other benchmark rates. As members of a number of such panels, Citigroup subsidiaries have received requests for information and documents. Citigroup is cooperating with the investigations and inquiries and is responding to the requests. On December 16, 2011, the JFSA took administrative action against Citigroup Global Markets Japan Inc. ("CGMJ") for, among other things, certain communications made by two CGMJ traders about the Euroyen Tokyo interbank offered rate ("TIBOR") and the Japanese yen London interbank offered rate ("LIBOR"). The JFSA issued a business improvement order and suspended CGMJ's trading in derivatives related to yen LIBOR and Euroyen and yen TIBOR from January 10 to January 23, 2012. On the same day, the JFSA also took administrative action against Citibank Japan Ltd. ("CJL") for conduct arising out of CJL's retail business and also noted that the communications made by the CGMJ traders to employees of CJL about Euroyen TIBOR had not been properly reported to CJL's management team. Additionally, beginning in April 2011, a number of purported class actions and other private civil lawsuits were filed in various courts against banks that served on the LIBOR panel and their affiliates, including certain Citigroup subsidiaries. The actions, which assert various federal and state law claims relating to the setting of LIBOR, have been consolidated into a multidistrict litigation proceeding before Judge Buchwald in the Southern District of New York. On February 9, 2012, an additional alleged class action was filed against certain of the banks that served on the LIBOR panel, including a Citigroup subsidiary. That action has been consolidated into the multi district litigation proceeding before Judge Buchwald in the Southern District of New York. A number of additional alleged class actions were filed in the Southern District of New York against banks that served on certain interbank offered rates panels and certain of those banks' affiliates, including Citigroup affiliates. Antitrust and Other Litigation Citigroup and Citibank, N.A., along with other U.S. Dollar (USD) LIBOR panel banks, are defendants in the multidistrict-litigation ("MDL") proceeding before Judge Buchwald in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York captioned IN RE LIBOR-BASED FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION, appearing under docket number 1:11-md-2262 (S.D.N.Y.). Judge Buchwald has appointed interim lead class counsel for, and consolidated amended complaints have been filed on behalf of, three separate alleged classes of plaintiffs: (i) over-the-counter ("OTC") purchasers of derivative instruments tied to USD LIBOR; (ii) purchasers of exchange-traded derivative instruments tied to USD LIBOR; and (iii) indirect OTC purchasers of U.S. debt securities. Each of these alleged classes alleges that the panel bank defendants conspired to suppress USD LIBOR in violation of the Sherman Act and/or the Commodity Exchange Act, thereby causing the plaintiffs to suffer losses on the instruments they purchased. Also consolidated into the MDL proceeding are individual civil actions commenced by various Charles Schwab entities alleging that the panel bank defendants conspired to suppress the USD LIBOR rates in violation of the Sherman Act, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), and California state law, causing the Schwab entities to suffer losses on USD LIBOR-linked financial instruments they owned. The Plaintiffs in these actions seek compensatory damages and restitution for losses caused by the alleged violations, as well as treble damages under the Sherman Act. The Schwab and OTC plaintiffs also seek injunctive relief. Citigroup and Citibank, N.A., along with other defendants, have moved to dismiss all of the actions that were consolidated into the MDL proceeding as of June 29, 2012. Briefing on the motion to dismiss was completed on September 27, 2012. Judge Buchwald has stayed all subsequently filed actions that fall within the scope of the MDL until the motion to dismiss has been resolved. Citigroup and/or Citibank, N.A. are named in the 17 such stayed actions that have been consolidated with or marked as related to the MDL proceeding. Eleven of these actions have been brought on behalf of various alleged plaintiff classes, including (i) banks, savings and loans institutions and credit unions that allegedly suffered losses on loans they made at interest rates tied to USD LIBOR, (ii) holders of adjustable-rate mortgages tied to USD LIBOR, and (iii) individual and municipal purchasers of various financial instruments tied to USD LIBOR. The remaining six actions have been brought by individual plaintiffs, including an entity that allegedly purchased municipal bonds and various California counties, municipalities, and related public entities that invested in various derivatives tied to USD LIBOR. The Plaintiffs in each of the 17 stayed actions allege that the panel bank defendants manipulated USD LIBOR in violation of the Sherman Act, RICO, and/or state antitrust and racketeering laws, and several plaintiffs also assert common law claims, including fraud, unjust enrichment, negligent misrepresentation, interference with economic advantage, and/or breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and, where authorized by statute, treble damages and injunctive relief. In addition, on August 8, 2012, a new alleged class action captioned LIEBERMAN ET AL. V. CREDIT SUISSE GROUP AG was filed in the Southern District of New York against various USD LIBOR panel banks, including Citibank, on behalf of purchasers who owned a preferred equity security on which dividends were payable at a rate linked to USD LIBOR. The Plaintiffs in this action assert unjust enrichment and antitrust claims under the laws of various states, alleging that the panel banks colluded to artificially suppress USD LIBOR, thereby lowering the dividends plaintiffs received on their securities. On October 4, 2012, another new alleged class action captioned ADAMS ET AL. V. BANK OF AMERICA CORP. was filed in the Southern District of New York against various USD LIBOR panel banks and their affiliates, including Citigroup and Citibank, N.A., on behalf of an alleged class of individual adjustable rate mortgage borrowers. The Plaintiffs allege that the panel banks manipulated USD LIBOR to raise rates on certain dates in order to increase plaintiffs' payment obligations, in violation of federal and New York state antitrust law. The plaintiffs in these actions seek compensatory damages, treble damages, and injunctive relief. Judge Buchwald has consolidated these cases into the MDL proceeding. In addition, on November 27, 2012, an action captioned MARAGOS V. BANK OF AMERICA CORP. ET AL. was filed on behalf of the County of Nassau against various USD LIBOR panel banks, including Citibank, N.A., and the other defendants with whom the plaintiff had entered into interest rate swap transactions. The action was commenced in state court and subsequently removed to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The plaintiff asserts claims for fraud and deceptive trade practices under New York law against the panel bank defendants based on allegations that the panel banks colluded to artificially suppress USD LIBOR, thereby lowering the payments the plaintiff received in connection with various interest rate swap transactions. The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and treble damages. The defendants have sought consolidation of this action with the MDL proceeding. Separately, on April 30, 2012, an action was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of an alleged class of persons and entities who transacted in exchange-traded Euroyen futures and option contracts between June 2006 and September 2010. This action is captioned LAYDON V. MIZUHO BANK LTD. ET AL. The complaint names as defendants banks that are or were members of the panels making submissions used in the calculation of Japanese Yen LIBOR and the Tokyo Inter-Bank Offered Rate (TIBOR), and certain affiliates of some of those banks, including Citibank, N.A. and Citibank, Japan Ltd. The complaint alleges that the plaintiffs were injured as a result of purported manipulation of those reference interest rates, and asserts claims arising under the Commodity Exchange Act, the Sherman Act, and state consumer protection statutes. The Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, treble damages under the Sherman Act, and injunctive relief. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on November 30, 2012, naming as defendants banks that are or were members of the panels making submissions used in the calculation of Japanese yen LIBOR and TIBOR, and certain affiliates of some of those banks, including Citibank, N.A., Citigroup, CJL and CGMJ. The complaint alleges that the plaintiffs were injured as a result of purported manipulation of those reference interest rates, and asserts claims arising under the Commodity Exchange Act and the Sherman Act and for unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, treble damages under the Sherman Act, and injunctive relief. Commodity Advisors Fund L.P., formerly known as Energy Advisors Portfolio L.P., was organized in 2006 in Delaware and is based in New York. The current objective of the Partnership is to achieve capital appreciation through speculative trading, directly and indirectly, in U.S. and international markets for currencies, interest rates, stock indices, agricultural and energy products and precious and base metals. COMMODITY ADVISORS: Suits Relating to Adelphia Offerings Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lawsuits arising from Adelphia Communications Corporation's offerings of securities remain pending, according to Commodity Advisors Fund L.P.'s April 26, 2013, Form 10-12G/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The general partner and commodity pool operator of Commodity Advisors Fund L.P., formerly known as "Energy Advisors Portfolio L.P., (the "Partnership") is Ceres Managed Futures LLC, which is formerly known as Citigroup Managed Futures LLC. The commodity broker of the Partnership is Citigroup Global Markets Inc. ("CGM"), which is indirectly owned by Citigroup Inc. The General Partner is a wholly owned subsidiary of Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Holdings LLC. Morgan Stanley, indirectly through various subsidiaries, owns a majority equity interest in MSSB Holdings, and Citigroup indirectly owns a minority equity interest in MSSB Holdings. On July 6, 2003, an adversary proceeding was filed by the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors on behalf of Adelphia Communications Corporation against certain lenders and investment banks, including CGM, Citibank, N.A., Citicorp USA, Inc., and Citigroup Financial Products, Inc. (together, the "Citigroup Parties"). The complaint alleged that the Citigroup Parties and numerous other defendants committed acts in violation of the Bank Holding Company Act, the Bankruptcy Code, and common law. It sought an unspecified amount of damages. In November 2003, a similar adversary proceeding was filed by the Equity Holders Committee of Adelphia, asserting additional statutory and common law claims. In June 2004, motions to dismiss were filed with respect to the complaints of the two committees. Those motions were decided by the bankruptcy court, and were granted in part and denied in part. The district court affirmed in part and reversed in part the bankruptcy court's decision. The Adelphia Recovery Trust ("ART"), which replaced the committees as the plaintiff in the action, filed an amended complaint on behalf of the Adelphia Estate, consolidating the two prior complaints; motions to dismiss the amended complaint and answers were filed. The district court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motions to dismiss the consolidated complaint. The ART's appeal to the Second Circuit from that partial dismissal is pending. Before the district court, the parties are briefing summary judgment. On September 22, 2010, the ART agreed in principle to settle its claims against numerous prepetition lenders and investment banks, including Citigroup, in the action entitled ADELPHIA RECOVERY TRUST v. BANK OF AMERICA N.A., ET AL., 05 Civ. 9050 (S.D.N.Y.). The agreement in principle is subject to execution of a final settlement agreement and court approval. In addition, CGM is among the underwriters named in numerous civil actions brought to date by investors in Adelphia debt securities in connection with Adelphia securities offerings between September 1997 and October 2001. Three of the complaints also assert claims against Citigroup Inc. and Citibank, N.A. All of the complaints allege violations of federal securities laws, and certain of the complaints also allege violations of state securities laws and the common law. The complaint seeks unspecified damages. In December 2003, a second amended complaint was filed and consolidated before the same judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. In February 2004, motions to dismiss the class and individual actions pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York were filed. In May and July of 2005, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted motions to dismiss several claims, based on the running of applicable statute of limitations, asserted in the alleged class and individual actions being coordinated under IN RE ADELPHIA COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION SECURITIES AND DERIVATIVE LITIGATION. With the exception of one individual action that was dismissed with prejudice, the court granted the alleged class and individual plaintiffs leave to re- plead certain of those claims the court found to be time-barred. Without admitting any liability, CGM and numerous other financial institution defendants settled IN RE ADELPHIA COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION SECURITIES AND DERIVATIVE LITIGATION for a total of $250 million, and the settlement was approved in November 2006. Two of the additional remaining individual complaints have been settled. Following settlements of the class action, which is pending appeal, and other individual actions, two cases remain outstanding. The Second Circuit is considering whether the plaintiff in one has proper standing to sue. In September 2007, motions to dismiss in the other case were granted in part and denied in part. Commodity Advisors Fund L.P., formerly known as Energy Advisors Portfolio L.P., was organized in 2006 in Delaware and is based in New York. The current objective of the Partnership is to achieve capital appreciation through speculative trading, directly and indirectly, in U.S. and international markets for currencies, interest rates, stock indices, agricultural and energy products and precious and base metals. COMMODITY ADVISORS: Wage and Hour Violation Suits Remain Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Class action lawsuits alleging violations of state and federal wage and hour laws against various Citigroup businesses remain pending, according to Commodity Advisors Fund L.P.'s April 26, 2013, Form 10-12G/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The general partner and commodity pool operator of Commodity Advisors Fund L.P., formerly known as "Energy Advisors Portfolio L.P., (the "Partnership") is Ceres Managed Futures LLC, which is formerly known as Citigroup Managed Futures LLC. The commodity broker of the Partnership is Citigroup Global Markets Inc. ("CGM"), which is indirectly owned by Citigroup Inc. The General Partner is a wholly owned subsidiary of Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Holdings LLC. Morgan Stanley, indirectly through various subsidiaries, owns a majority equity interest in MSSB Holdings, and Citigroup indirectly owns a minority equity interest in MSSB Holdings. Numerous financial services firms, including Citigroup and its affiliates, were named in alleged class actions alleging that certain present and former employees in California were entitled to overtime pay under state and federal laws; were subject to certain allegedly unlawful deductions under state law; or were entitled to reimbursement for employment related expenses incurred by them. The first of these class actions filed in the Fall of 2004 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, BAHRAMIPOUR v. CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., sought damages and injunctive relief on behalf of an alleged class of California employees. Similar complaints have been subsequently filed against CGM on behalf of certain statewide or nationwide alleged classes in (i) the United States District Courts for the Southern District of New York, the District of New Jersey, the Eastern District of New York, the District of Massachusetts, and the Middle District of Pennsylvania; and (ii) the New Jersey Superior Court. Without admitting any liability, CGM reached an agreement in principle, which is subject to court approval, to a nationwide settlement for up to approximately $98 million of various class actions asserting violations of state and federal laws relating to overtime and violations of various state laws relating to alleged unlawful payroll deductions. Additional alleged class action lawsuits alleging a variety of violations of state and federal wage and hour laws have been filed against various other Citigroup businesses. Commodity Advisors Fund L.P., formerly known as Energy Advisors Portfolio L.P., was organized in 2006 in Delaware and is based in New York. The current objective of the Partnership is to achieve capital appreciation through speculative trading, directly and indirectly, in U.S. and international markets for currencies, interest rates, stock indices, agricultural and energy products and precious and base metals. ELECTRONIC ARTS: 3rd Cir. Reverses Dismissal of Video Game Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Saranac Hale Spencer, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that in a case of first impression, a split panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has restored a cause of action by a former college football player who says his likeness has been appropriated without his consent for use in a video game. In so holding, the appeals court panel reversed a New Jersey federal district court that had dismissed the ex-player's suit on grounds that video games are afforded First Amendment protections as expressive speech. The Third Circuit agreed that video games enjoy First Amendment protections, but said intellectual property rights could impose limits on those free speech rights. In Hart v. Electronic Arts, the Third Circuit on a 2-1 vote said that Ryan Hart, who played quarterback for the Rutgers University football team in 2004 and 2005, could bring a right of publicity claim against Electronic Arts over its NCAA Football video game. Hart filed the suit as a purported class action. He alleges that the video-game maker had violated his right of publicity by featuring a player with his jersey number, 13; his height and weight; and his token left-hand wristband. Since neither the Third Circuit nor the New Jersey courts had a "definitive methodology for balancing the tension between the First Amendment and the right of publicity, we are presented with a case of first impression," said Third Circuit Judge Joseph A. Greenaway Jr. for the majority. Judge Greenaway, citing U.S. Supreme Court precedent, agreed that video games are afforded First Amendment protections as expressive speech. But he said intellectual property rights -- in this case, Hart's right of publicity in his own likeness -- may limit those protections. "As with other types of expressive conduct, the protection afforded to games can be limited in situations where the right of free expression necessarily conflicts with other protected rights," Judge Greenaway said in Hart. "The instant case presents one such situation." Joining Judge Greenaway in the majority was Senior Judge A. Wallace Tashima of the Ninth Circuit, who sat by designation. Third Circuit Judge Thomas Ambro dissented. After extensive exploration of various methods used in other courts, the majority chose to follow the "transformative use test," adapted from IP law. "Looking to intellectual property law for guidance on how to balance property interests against the First Amendment has merit," Greenaway said, citing a 2001 case from the Supreme Court of California, captioned Comedy III Productions v. Saderup. That case, over the production of T-shirts with an artist's charcoal drawing of the Three Stooges, developed the transformative use test. "Applying this test, the court concluded that charcoal portraits of the Three Stooges did violate the Stooges' rights of publicity, holding that the court could 'discern no significant transformative or creative contribution' and that 'the marketability and economic value of [the work] derives primarily from the fame of the celebrities depicted,'" Judge Greenaway said, quoting from the California court's opinion. Ultimately, the Third Circuit ruled similarly in Hart's favor, holding that the video-game maker didn't change his appearance enough to escape the football player's right of publicity claim. Comparing the transformative use test, which Judge Greenaway notes is relatively new, to the other options, he said: "In our view, the transformative use test appears to strike the best balance because it provides courts with a flexible -- yet uniformly applicable -- analytical framework." Judge Ambro didn't disagree with the majority's choice of test; rather, he disagreed with their application of it. "My colleagues limit effectively their transformative inquiry to Hart's identity alone, disregarding other features of the work," Judge Ambro said. "Further, my colleagues penalize EA for the realism and financial success of NCAA Football, a position I find difficult to reconcile with First Amendment protections traditionally afforded to true-to-life depictions of real figures and works produced for profit." Just about every work -- a book, a painting, a video game -- has some expressive content, so if the test were to be based on the product as a whole, there would be no theory of the right to publicity, said Michael Rubin -- mrubin@altshulerberzon.com -- in response to the dissent. Mr. Rubin, of Altshuler Berzon in San Francisco, represented Hart. He called the majority's opinion "a wonderful precedent-setting victory that confirms the right of college athletes . . . to control the commercial use of their identities." The office of Elizabeth A. McNamara -- lizmcnamara@dwt.com -- of Davis Wright Tremaine in New York, referred all questions to John Reseburg, a spokesman for Electronic Arts. Mr. Reseburg couldn't immediately be reached for comment. EXPEDIA INC: Defends 42 Suits Over Hotel Occupancy Tax Issues ------------------------------------------------------------- Expedia, Inc. is defending itself against lawsuits over issues involving the payment of hotel occupancy taxes, according to the Company's April 26, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013. The Company is currently involved in forty-two lawsuits brought by or against states, cities and counties over issues involving the payment of hotel occupancy taxes. The Company continues to defend these lawsuits vigorously. With respect to the principal claims in these matters, the Company believes that the ordinances at issue do not apply to the services the Company provides, namely the facilitation of hotel reservations, and, therefore, that the Company does not owe the taxes that are claimed to be owed. The Company believes that the ordinances at issue generally impose occupancy and other taxes on entities that own, operate or control hotels (or similar businesses) or furnish or provide hotel rooms or similar accommodations. Recent developments include: * City of Los Angeles, Litigation. On April 18, 2013, the trial court held that the online travel companies are not liable to remit hotel occupancy taxes to the city of Los Angeles. * San Antonio, Texas Litigation. On April 4, 2013, the court entered a final judgment holding the online travel companies liable for hotel occupancy taxes to counties and cities in the statewide class. * City of Gallup, New Mexico Litigation. On March 29, 2013, the court denied the city of Gallup's claim that the online travel companies collected taxes that have not been remitted to the city and dismissed the city's remaining claims in the case. On April 2, 2013, the court entered final judgment dismissing all claims against the online travel companies with prejudice. * Nassau County, New York Litigation. On April 11, 2013, the court granted plaintiff's motion for class certification. * City of San Francisco Litigation. On February 6, 2013, the court held that the online travel companies are not liable to remit hotel occupancy taxes to the city of San Francisco. * Leon County, Florida et al. Litigation. On February 23, 2013, the court of appeals affirmed the trial court decision in the Leon County, Florida litigation that online travel companies are not liable for hotel occupancy taxes. The counties filed a Motion for Rehearing En Banc Or In The Alternative Requiring A Certification To The Florida Supreme Court Of A Question Of Great Public Interest. On April 16, 2013, the court of appeals denied the request for rehearing en banc, but granted the petition for certification to the Florida Supreme Court. The Florida Supreme Court will now decide if it will hear the case. * Denver, Colorado Litigation. On March 12, 2013, the trial court held that the online travel companies are liable for hotel occupancy taxes to the city and county of Denver, but held that taxes may not be collected for periods prior to April 2007 due to the bar of the statute of limitations. * State of Wyoming Litigation. On February 28, 2013, the Wyoming Board of Equalization ruled that the online travel companies are liable for sales tax on their online services to the State of Wyoming. The online travel companies have appealed. The Wyoming District Court has certified the appeal to the Wyoming Supreme Court, which has not yet determined whether it will hear the appeal directly or require the District Court to hear it first. * City of Fargo, North Dakota Litigation. On February 25, 2013, the city of Fargo, North Dakota brought an action in North Dakota state court against a number of online travel companies, including Expedia, Hotels.com and Hotwire. City of Fargo v. Expedia, Inc., et al. (District Court, County of Cass, North Dakota). The complaint alleges claims for failure to pay taxes in violation of municipal ordinance, conversion, unjust enrichment, and injunctive relief. * City of Warrenville, Illinois Litigation. On April 5, 2013, a group of Illinois municipalities (City of Warrenville, Village of Bedford Park, City of Oakbrook Terrace, Village of Oak Lawn, Village of Orland Hills, City of Rockford and Village of Willowbrook) filed a putative class action in Illinois federal court against a number of online travel companies, including Expedia, Hotels.com and Hotwire. City of Warrenville, et al. v. Priceline.com, Incorporated, et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-02586 (USDC, N. D. Ill., Eastern Division). The complaint seeks certification of a class of all Illinois municipalities (broken into four alleged subclasses) that have enacted and collect a tax on the percentage of the retail rate that each consumer occupant pays for lodging, including service costs, denominated in any manner, including but not limited to occupancy tax, a hotel or motel room tax, a use tax, a privilege tax, a hotel or motel tax, a licensing tax, an accommodations tax, a rental receipts tax, a hotel operator's tax, a hotel operator's occupation tax, or a room rental, lease or letting tax. The complaint alleges claims for relief for declaratory judgment, violations of municipal ordinances, conversion, civil conspiracy, unjust enrichment, imposition of a constructive trust, damages and punitive damages. * Branson, Missouri Litigation. On March 1, 2013, Branson filed an application to transfer to the Missouri Supreme Court. * Pine Bluff, Arkansas Litigation. On February 19, 2013, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification. * Florida Attorney General Litigation. On April 8, 2013, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the action. * McAllister Arkansas Citizen-Taxpayer Litigation. On February 26, 2013, the online travel companies filed a motion for reconsideration of the court's February 2012 denial of their motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for judgment on the pleadings. A hearing on that motion is scheduled for April 22, 2013. * Broward County, Florida Litigation. On February 5, 2013, Broward County filed a notice of appeal of the trial court's decision in favor of the online travel companies. * City of Portland Litigation. A hearing on the city and county defendants' motion for leave to amend their complaint is scheduled for May 6, 2013. The Company says it has established a reserve for the potential settlement of issues related to hotel occupancy tax litigation, consistent with applicable accounting principles and in light of all current facts and circumstances, in the amount of $34 million as of March 31, 2013, which includes amounts expected to be paid in connection with the developments, and $35 million as of December 31, 2012. Certain jurisdictions may require the Company to pay tax assessments, including occupancy tax assessments, prior to contesting any such assessments. This requirement is commonly referred to as "pay-to-play." Payment of these amounts is not an admission by the taxpayer that it believes it is subject to such taxes. During 2009, the Company expensed $48 million related to monies paid in advance of litigation in occupancy tax proceedings with the city of San Francisco. The city of San Francisco has issued additional assessments of tax, penalties and interest for the time period from the fourth quarter of 2007 through the fourth quarter of 2011 against the online travel companies, including $22 million against Expedia, Hotels.com and Hotwire. The additional assessments, including the prepayment of such assessments, have been contested by the online travel companies. The city has agreed, subject to documentation, that this second assessment need not be paid and may be placed under a bond. During 2010, the Company expensed $3 million related to monies paid in advance of litigation in occupancy tax proceedings in the city of Santa Monica; these funds were returned to the Company by the city in December 2011 in exchange for a letter of credit. The online travel companies subsequently prevailed in the litigation and the letter of credit in favor of the city has been voided. Hotels.com is currently under audit by the State of Texas and there is a pay- to-play requirement to challenge an adverse audit result in court. The Company does not believe that the amounts it retains as compensation are subject to the cities' hotel occupancy tax ordinances. If the Company prevails in the litigation, for which a pay-to-play payment was made, the jurisdiction collecting the payment will be required to repay such amounts, plus interest. However, any significant pay-to-play payment or litigation loss could negatively impact the Company's liquidity. Certain jurisdictions, including the states of New York, North Carolina and Minnesota, the city of New York, and the District of Columbia, have enacted legislation seeking to tax online travel company services as part of sales taxes for hotel occupancy. The Company is currently remitting taxes to the city of New York, the state of New York, the state and local jurisdictions of South Carolina, the State of Minnesota, the District of Columbia, and the state and local jurisdictions of Georgia. Expedia, Inc. -- http://www.Expedia.com/-- is an online travel company, empowering business and leisure travelers with the tools and information they need to efficiently research, plan, book and experience travel. The Company was incorporated in Delaware and is headquartered in Bellevue, Washington. EXPEDIA INC: Defends Class Suits Over Hotel Booking Practices ------------------------------------------------------------- Expedia, Inc., is defending a consolidated class action lawsuit over hotel booking practices, according to the Company's April 26, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013. On July 31, 2012, the United Kingdom Office of Fair Trading ("OFT") issued a Statement of Objections alleging that Expedia, Booking.com B.V. and InterContinental Hotels Group PLC ("IHG") have infringed European Union and United Kingdom competition law in relation to the online supply of hotel room accommodations. The Statement of Objections alleges that Expedia and Booking.com entered into separate agreements with IHG that restricted each online travel company's ability to discount the price of IHG hotel rooms. The OFT limited its investigation to a small number of companies, but has stated that the investigation is likely to have wider implications for the industry within the United Kingdom. The Statement of Objections does not constitute a finding of infringement and all parties have the opportunity to respond. If the OFT maintains its objections after the companies' responses, the OFT can issue a final decision. In such a case a final decision would be issued at the earliest in 2014. An appeal of an adverse OFT decision is to the English courts but may involve a reference on matters of European Union law to the European Court of Justice. The Company says it is unable at this time to predict the outcome of the OFT proceeding and any appeal. In addition, a number of competition authorities in other European countries have initiated investigations in relation to certain contractual arrangements between hotels and online travel companies, including Expedia. These investigations differ in relation to the parties involved and the precise nature of the concerns. Since August 20, 2012, thirty-four putative class action lawsuits, which refer to the OFT's Statement of Objections, have been initiated in the United States by consumer plaintiffs alleging claims against the online travel companies, including Expedia, and several major hotel chains for alleged resale price maintenance for online hotel room reservations, including but not limited to violation of the Sherman Act, state antitrust laws, state consumer protection statutes and common law tort claims, such as unjust enrichment. The parties moved before the Judicial Panel on Multi- District Litigation for consolidation of the cases. On December 11, 2012, the Panel issued an order consolidating and transferring the cases to Judge Boyle in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. Expedia, Inc. -- http://www.Expedia.com/-- is an online travel company, empowering business and leisure travelers with the tools and information they need to efficiently research, plan, book and experience travel. The Company was incorporated in Delaware and is headquartered in Bellevue, Washington. FOUNDERS PAVILION: Faces EEOC GINA Class Action Suit ---------------------------------------------------- Amanda Becker, writing for Reuters, reports that the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has signaled it will actively sue employers it suspects of misusing genetic information to discriminate in the workplace, filing its first class action using a 5-year-old law known as GINA just days after winning its first case. The EEOC said that it had filed a class action against Founders Pavilion Inc., a rehabilitation and nursing facility in Corning, New York, using the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA). Earlier this month, the commission announced it had obtained a $50,000 settlement for a worker from fabric distributor Fabricut in Tulsa, Oklahoma, in the first GINA case the commission brought after the law was passed in 2008. GINA prohibits employers from using genetic information in hiring, firing and other decisions. Insurance companies are likewise prohibited from using such information to deny coverage or charge higher premiums. The Founders Pavilion lawsuit is about medical examinations, specifically a family medical history form that applicants and workers were asked to complete as a condition of employment. The EEOC lawsuit further alleges that Founders Pavilion used the information in the medical questionnaires to discriminate against applicants, refusing to hire women because they were pregnant or had perceived disabilities. "GINA applies whenever an employer conducts a medical exam, and employers must make sure that they or their agents do not violate the law," EEOC attorney Elizabeth Grossman said in a release about the lawsuit. Ilyse Wolens Schuman, co-chair of the Workplace Policy Institute at Littler Mendelson, said the lawsuits were an important reminder that GINA places restrictions on gathering the information in the first place. "It's not just about prohibitions on discrimination based on genetic information, but very strict restrictions on the collection of information -- that's really where employers need to be sure they're in compliance," Mr. Schuman said, noting the law applies to both medical examinations and wellness programs. In the Fabricut case, the EEOC charged that the company had violated both GINA and the Americans with Disabilities Act by refusing to hire a woman because they believed she had carpel tunnel syndrome and by asking prohibited questions about her medical background. Medical Exam Rhonda Jones, a temporary employee with Fabricut, had applied for a permanent position and the company had asked her to undergo a routine medical examination, where she answered questions about conditions in her family that ranged from diabetes to mental disorders. The company's contracted doctor concluded that further examination was needed to determine whether Jones had carpal tunnel syndrome. Though Ms. Jones's personal doctor found she did not have carpal tunnel and the results were submitted to Fabricut, her employment offer was rescinded. "Although GINA has been law since 2009, many employers still do not understand that requesting family medical history, even through a contract medical examiner, violates this law," EEOC attorney Barbara Seely noted after the settlement. Though the EEOC, as part of a six-prong enforcement initiative, had made clear that it would focus on genetic discrimination, Schuman said many employers don't realize how broadly GINA can be applied in the workplace. "GINA has perhaps been overlooked, but it certainly comes into play where employers do not expect," she said. Neither the companies nor their attorneys could be reached for comment. The case is Equal Employment Opportunity Commission vs. Fabricut, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, No. 13- CV-00248. For EEOC: Barbara Atkinson Seely, Carl Felix Miller, Gwendolyn Young Reams, James Lee, P. David Lopez and Patrick JoHugh Holman of the EEOC. For Fabricut: Not immediately available. The case is Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Founders Pavilion, Inc, U.S. District Court, Western District of New York, No. 13-cv-06250. For EEOC: Elizabeth Grossman of the EEOC. For Founders Pavilion: Not immediately available. FRED MEYER: Recalls 1,000 Dan-Dee "Chicken Dance" Easter Chicks --------------------------------------------------------------- * Hearing Damage Hazard Cited The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Fred Meyer, Inc., of Portland, Oregon, announced a voluntary recall of about 1,000 Dan-Dee "Chicken Dance" Tap Dance Easter Chicks. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The toy's music can reach decibel levels that exceed ASTM F963 standard, posing a hearing damage hazard. No injuries have been reported. The recalled toy is a yellow chick in a furry multi-colored Easter egg shell that has a shell top with bunny ears and bright orange feet and nose. It has a music player and is approximately 9.5 inches tall. The chick plays music and dances when the left wing is squeezed. The sewn-on label reads "DanDee Collector's Choice" and also has the manufacture date and batch number printed, as follows: 11/2012 120613670. Picture of the recalled products is available at: http://is.gd/gcoMrJ The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at select Fred Meyer stores in Oregon, Washington, Idaho and Alaska from February to March 2013 for about $20. Consumers should immediately stop using the toy and return it to the store where purchased for a full refund. Fred Meyer may be reached toll free at (888) 247-4439 from 5:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Pacific Time Monday through Friday and from 7:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. Pacific Time on Saturdays and Sundays, press 3 and then 1 to speak to a representative; or online at http://www.fredmeyer.com/and then click on Recall Alerts under Services at the bottom of the page for more information. LENDER PROCESSING: Awaits Court OK of "St. Clair" Suit Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------- Lender Processing Services, Inc., is awaiting court approval of its settlement of a securities class action lawsuit initiated by St. Clair Shores General Employees' Retirement System, according to the Company's April 26, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013. On December 1, 2010, Lender Processing Services, Inc. was served with a complaint entitled St. Clair Shores General Employees' Retirement System v. Lender Processing Services, Inc., et al., which was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. The putative class action seeks damages for alleged violations of federal securities laws in connection with the Company's disclosures relating to its default operations. An amended complaint was filed on May 18, 2011. LPS filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on July 18, 2011, and the plaintiff filed a response to the Company's motion on September 12, 2011. The complaint was dismissed on March 30, 2012. The plaintiffs subsequently filed a second and third amended complaint on May 8, 2012, and October 5, 2012, respectively. On January 28, 2013, the Company entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement resolving the securities class action litigation. The securities class action settlement is subject to the entry of a final order by the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. Lender Processing Services, Inc. -- http://www.lpsvcs.com/-- is a provider of integrated technology, data and services to the mortgage lending industry, with a market leading position in mortgage processing in the United States of America. LPS was incorporated in Delaware and is based in Jacksonville, Florida. NEW YORK, NY: Closing Arguments Take Place in Stop-and-Frisk Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Margot Adler, writing for NPR, reports that closing arguments in the lawsuit challenging New York City's stop-and-frisk policy was set to begin on May 20 in federal court. The plaintiffs in the class action trial claim police officers were pressured to stop, question and frisk hundreds of thousands of people each year -- even establishing quotas. Protesters participate in a rally near the federal courthouse March 18 in New York. Lawyers for four men who say they were illegally stopped said many of the 5 million people stopped, questioned and sometimes frisked by police in the past decade were wrongly targeted because of their race. Closing arguments were set to take place May 20 in the federal class action trial involving New York City's stop-and-frisk policy. The trial has been going on for two months in Manhattan. Plaintiffs in Floyd v. City of New York claim the New York Police Department, its supervisors and its union pressured police officers to stop, question and frisk hundreds of thousands of people each year, even establishing quotas. They argue that 88 percent of the stops involved blacks and Hispanics, mostly men, and were in fact a form of racial profiling. The police and the city argued that these policies were goals, not quotas, and have made New York the safest big city in America. "I can't imagine any rational person saying that the techniques are not working and that we should stop them," says Mayor Michael Bloomberg. The city also argued that these stops took place in high crime areas where the crime was often black on black or Hispanic on Hispanic. As NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly told public radio station WNYC: "Ninety-six percent of the shooting victims in New York City are black or Hispanic. Crime is down in this city in the last two decades 80 percent." Joseph Esposito, who was NYPD's chief until this year, testified at the trial that he had heard no complaints about racial profiling. That brought Judge Shira Scheindlin up short: You never heard that from any community groups? she asked. But plaintiffs like Nicholas Pert and David Ourlicht told NPR a different story. "I remember squad cars pulling up; they just pulled up aggressively, and the cops came out with their guns drawn," Mr. Pert says. "Threw me against the wall," Mr. Ourlicht says. "Took everything out of my pockets, threw it on the floor, dumped my bag on the floor, my books and everything." "It left me embarrassed, humiliated and upset," Mr. Pert adds. Other testimony by whistle-blowing cops provided recordings at the trial where supervisors told officers to push up the number of stops. "The police are told to get numbers," says Jonathan Moore, a lawyer for the plaintiffs. "This is not what stop-and-frisk should be. Stop-and-frisk is a legitimate tool for law enforcement to use. It should not be the way you measure an officer's future in the New York City Police Department." Lawyers for the plaintiffs argued that very few of the stops led to arrests or even the discovery of illegal guns. And even though the number of stops went down significantly in 2012, there were almost 5 million stops in 10 years. Plaintiffs are asking Judge Scheindlin to put the NYPD's stop-and- frisk policies under judicial oversight, something the city and the NYPD definitely oppose. The trial is really about two different questions. Police have the authority to stop someone, but at what point does that stop and that search violate the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution? Secondly, is the pattern of stop-and-frisk a form of racial profiling? Ian Weinstein, a law professor at Fordham University, says stop- and-frisk can only be used if there is a suspicion of a crime. If the judge finds there is a pattern of exceeding lawful authority, "particularly to frisk someone for weapons, and to search -- in other words, go in pockets, ask them to empty a bag -- that is a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment. That would justify an oversight commission, different sorts of remedies that the plaintiffs have proposed, without addressing the question of racial discrimination and racial profiling." Proving racial profiling is much harder, Mr. Weinstein says. "You have to show intent, and that can be difficult to prove." Standards of proof have become more demanding, he says, and the culture of race claims has shifted over 20 years. "Courts are less receptive, the society is less receptive, and we see this in the Supreme Court's movement," Mr. Weinstein says. Closing arguments were expected to take all of May 20, and the judge's ruling is not expected for several months. PENGUIN GROUP: Settles Suit Over Alleged E-Book Price Fixing ------------------------------------------------------------ Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that last of the five publishers sued for conspiring with Apple Inc. to fix the prices of electronic books has agreed to pay $75 million to settle cases brought by consumers and attorneys general in 33 states. Penguin Group (USA) Inc., based in New York, reached the settlement on May 22 to resolve allegations it artificially raised the prices of e-books in violation of U.S. antitrust laws. The agreement, which must be approved by U.S. District Judge Denise Cote in New York, would resolve a consolidated class action brought by consumers in 2011. Last year, the plaintiffs, along with the 33 attorneys general and the U.S. Justice Department, reached a $69 million settlement with three other publishers: Hachette Book Group (USA), HarperCollins Publishers LLC and Simon & Schuster Inc. All but one of the 17 remaining state attorneys general signed onto the deal. On February 8, consumers obtained a $20 million deal with Holtzbrinck Publishers LLC, which does business as Macmillan. That deal also resolved claims by the 33 attorneys general and the Justice Department. Under those agreements, the publishers are not permitted to continue similar deals with Apple and other retailers for two years. "This has been a very unique case against the publishers and Apple," said Jeff Friedman -- jefff@hbsslaw.com -- a partner at Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro in San Francisco. "It's been extraordinarily hotly contested and we are very, very happy about the monetary relief thus far. It's a product of unprecedented coordination between federal, state and private antitrust lawyers." A request for comment was not returned by Penguin Group (USA), the U.S. subsidiary of The Penguin Group, itself a division of Pearson PLC, which is based in London. Penguin's attorney, Daniel McInnis -- dmcinnis@akingump.com -- a partner in the Washington office of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, did not return a call for comment. On December 18, the Justice Department settled with Penguin. Judge Cote has granted final approval to the first settlement with the three publishers and on May 17 issued final judgment as to Penguin's deal with the Justice Department. A bench trial in the litigation brought by the 33 attorneys general and the Department of Justice against Apple, the only remaining defendant in the litigation was scheduled for June 3. SEASTREAK WALL STREET: Faces 45 Passenger Damages Claims -------------------------------------------------------- David Voreacos, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that the owner of SeaStreak Wall Street, a commuter ferry that crashed in Manhattan's financial district on Jan. 9, faces at least 45 passenger claims for damages, according to a court filing. The claims are pending in federal court in Newark, New Jersey, where SeaStreak sued under admiralty law on Jan. 16 and asked a judge to limit the company's liability to $7.6 million. U.S. District Judge William Martini gave the passengers until May 16 to make claims. "There are presently more than 45 claims filed in the case, with a total claimed amount in excess of $75 million," SeaStreak LLC's lawyers wrote in a letter filed on May 16. "SeaStreak has settled more than 35 personal injury and property loss/damage claims that were submitted directly to SeaStreak." The ferry had 326 people aboard when it left Atlantic Highlands, New Jersey, at 8 a.m. on Jan. 9 and slammed into a docking barge at 8:43 a.m., authorities said at the time. The National Transportation Safety Board is investigating the crash. SeaStreak has reached settlements ranging from free monthly tickets to $265,000, according to the filing on May 16. The company also has begun repairing the docking barge, which is estimated to cost $350,000. SeaStreak attorney Jeremy J.O. Harwood of Blank Rome LLP didn't immediately return a call seeking comment. One attorney for claimants, Edward Petkevis, said they will argue that Martini should defeat SeaStreak's attempt to limit liability in the case. 'Devastating Effect' "If SeaStreak is successful in their limitation complaint, it would have a devastating effect upon the claims of the injured passengers," Mr. Petkevis said. "I am as confident as I can be that limitation will be defeated and the claimants will be able to pursue the full value of their claims." SeaStreak operates five vessels between central New Jersey and Manhattan, and two between New Bedford and Martha's Vineyard in Massachusetts, according to the company's website. SeaStreak is a sister company of Moran Towing Co., the Interlake Steamship Co. and Mormac Marine Group Inc., according to the website. SeaStreak and its sister companies are owned by the Barker and Tregurtha families. James R. Barker acts as chairman of SeaStreak and Paul R. Tregurtha is chairman and chief executive officer of Moran Towing, according to the website. The case is In re SeaStreak LLC, 13-cv-00315, U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey (Newark). SOULCYCLE: Wage Class Action May Hurt Fitness Industry ------------------------------------------------------ Rob Bishop and Barry Klein, writing for Athletic Business, reports that the recently filed class-action lawsuit against the indoor cycling chain SoulCycle for allegedly violating California and New York wage laws could have a huge impact on the health and fitness industry. "We're fascinated by it and are watching to see how it progresses," Messrs. Bishop and Klein said. The complaint, filed by a former SoulCycle instructor, claims that SoulCycle instructors -- who are paid only for the classes they teach -- are "required to work above and beyond the time instructing a class." Their duties include training, preparation, communication with customers, meetings, special-event classes and assisting with marketing. "We are particularly intrigued because the plaintiff worked at the company for four years. He, after all, has nothing to lose and everything to win. If SoulCycle is forced to provide back pay for all of those additional hours, he could be in for quite a windfall," Messrs. Bishop and Klein said. On the other hand, current employees of SoulCycle -- and every fitness business in America -- could take a hit if he wins. Not that we think SoulCycle is 100 percent correct in how they pay their instructors (if what the suit alleges is true). For example, a strong argument could be made that special-event classes and marketing activities should be compensated hours. But training, preparation and communicating with customers are part of being an instructor. In fact, doing those things well is, in a sense, more vital to being a top-flight instructor than the act of teaching the class! If someone thinks they should be compensated for those activities, then they are likely in the wrong business. So what happens if SoulCycle loses? The impact would be felt at every club where group fitness instructors and personal trainers are employees rather than contractors. The whole employee vs. contractor thing is already a hot issue between the IRS and health clubs, and it would only get worse as more clubs protected themselves by converting employees into contractors. Instructors and trainers would have to show up, teach and leave. There would be no worries about additional duties, because contractors are in business for themselves. The other option for club owners would be to accommodate this notion of paying for everything. Everyone would have a low hourly wage and get paid, say, an extra half-hour to prep and an extra half-hour to schmooze with members. But they'd take home exactly the same amount of money, if not less. Superstar instructors wouldn't like it, nor would personal trainers who get paid on a percentage of the revenue they generate. Messrs. Bishop and Klein said "We don't know what SoulCycle pays, but our guess is that they pay in line or better than their competitors. Their facilities are high-end and exclusive. Their classes and their instructors are highly regarded. We imagine that most of their instructors feel like fitness rock stars. This lawsuit could force them to be treated like everybody else. That wouldn't be good for SoulCycle's instructors. And it wouldn't be good for our industry." SPI ELECTRICITY: Data on Power Lines Limited, Ex-Engineer Says -------------------------------------------------------------- Sky News reports that a former senior engineer at the electricity company blamed for sparking the deadly Kilmore East Black Saturday bushfire says the company had a "somewhat limited" understanding of the condition of its power lines and poles. Anthony Walley told a class action over the fatal blaze the database detailing the management of SPI Electricity's assets was not what he would've expected when he was employed as a senior lines engineer in 2008. "The quality of the data at SPI Electricity was not what I had the expectation it would be," he told the Victorian Supreme Court. He described the breadth of the company's asset management database as "somewhat limited". He also said maintenance records for SPI Electricity assets for the years prior to 1999 had been lost. Victorian woman Carol Matthews is leading a class action of more than 10,000 people suing SPI Electricity, claiming it was negligent in failing to maintain power lines that sparked the Kilmore East blaze. The February 2009 Kilmore East blaze killed 119 people and destroyed 1200 homes. The group is also taking action against the CFA, Victoria Police and the Department of Sustainability and Environment over their failure to warn communities. All defendants deny the allegations and are fighting the claims. Senior associate lawyer for the plaintiffs in the class action, Rory Walsh, told reporters outside court SPI Electricity simply did not know what condition its assets were in. Mr. Walley no longer works for SPI Electricity. The hearing continues. TEAVANA CORP: Recalls 469,850 Teavana Glass Tea Tumblers -------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in conjunction with Health Canada and in cooperation with importer, Teavana Corporation, of Atlanta, Georgia; and manufacturers, Shaanxi Cathay Import and Export Corporation, Anhui Fuguang Industrial Co., Ltd., and Hong Tai Yang Glass Product Co., of China, announced a voluntary recall of about 445,000 Teavana Glass Tea Tumblers in the United States of America and 24,850 in Canada. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The glass tea tumblers can break or shatter unexpectedly, posing laceration and burn hazards. Teavana has received approximately 302 reports of the glass breaking or shattering, including six reports of lacerations and burns when the tumblers broke during use. Injuries include cut fingers and legs and burned toes. The glass tea tumblers are double-walled beverage glasses. Most models have removable stainless steel tea infuser baskets, removable lids, and ornamental etchings on the inner wall. The tumblers were packaged in color-coordinated cylindrical packages with the SKU number and UPC code found on a sticker on the bottom of the package. Some of the models with a lid were sold as part of a tea gift set. Only one model was sold without a lid or tea infuser basket and was sold in a set of four glasses. The products come in the following model names, SKU/product codes and UPC codes: MODEL NAME SKU/PRODUCT CODE UPC CODE ---------- ---------------- -------- Akira Travel RED 14 oz. 30921 600 014 10005650 Clouds Travel CPR 14 oz. 31253 219 014 10006051 Flourish Iced Tea Glasses 12 oz. (sold as set, 4 no-lid glasses) 30123 000 012 10005006 Harmony Glass Double Wall 11 oz. TI-DBL TBUL-350 10004174 Izmir Travel GRN 14 oz. 30922 300 014 10005651 Lotus Travel PUR 14 oz. 31254 500 014 10006052 Rhapsody Glass Double Wall 16 oz. TI-DBL TBUL-500 10004248 Six Dragons Double Wall 11 oz. 10004568 000 011 10004568 Six Dragons Double Wall 16 oz. 10004568 000 016 10004569 Symphony Double Wall 8 oz. ET-TEATUMB 10003652 Tamira Travel BLU 14 oz. 30920 400 014 10005649 TEA SETS: Imperial Blooming Collection 30331 000 000 10004033 Tea Sets with 2 Harmony 11 oz. Tumblers Imperial Blooming Collection ET BLOOMGIFT 10003651 Tea Sets with 2 Symphony 8 oz. Tumblers Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/wRhDXO The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold exclusively at Teavana stores and online at Teavana.com from August 2007 through May 2013 for about $15 to $33 for the individual tumblers, for about $40 for the Flourish Iced Tea Glasses Sets, and for about $80 to $100 for the Imperial Blooming Collection Tea Sets. Consumers should immediately stop using the glass tea tumblers and return them to a Teavana store location (except for three stores; Columbia Mall, Columbia, Maryland; Dallas Fort Worth Airport, Arlington, Texas; or Galleria Mall, Fort Lauderdale, Florida) for a free replacement metallic tea tumbler and a complimentary 2 oz. package of Opus Rouge Rooibos Tea. Consumers returning tumblers or glasses sold as part of sets will receive a replacement tumbler and package of tea for each tumbler or glass in that set. Consumers may also mail the tumblers or glasses to Teavana by calling the company and requesting a pre-paid mailer that will be sent at no cost to the consumer for returning the recalled tumblers or glasses. A free replacement metallic tumbler plus the complimentary tea will be sent at no charge upon receipt of the returned tumblers or glasses. Teavana may be reached toll-free at (877) 261-1509 from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday (or other times to leave a message), or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.Teavana.com/,and click on "Glass Tumbler Recall" for more information. THE COPA: Mum on Progress of Salmonella Outbreak Investigation -------------------------------------------------------------- The Canberra Times reports that the restaurant at the center of the territory's largest ever salmonella outbreak has remained tight lipped on the progress of an investigation, much to the chagrin of affected patrons. Diners affected as part of Canberra's largest salmonella outbreak have all been discharged from hospital, more than one week after being exposed to bad mayonnaise. Some affected diners are considering joining a class action law suit after 140 people fell ill and 15 were hospitalized after eating bad mayonnaise at The Copa restaurant in Dickson. ACT Health intends to monitor the restaurant for coming months, Chief Health Officer Paul Kelly said, adding that the restaurant had reopened recently after its voluntary closure last week. "We identified some issues that they needed to address and they addressed them," he said. "We're continuing to monitor the situation over the next few weeks or even months to make sure that's happening." Speaking on ABC Radio, Dr. Kelly said there was a possibility that some patients would suffer long term effects from the outbreak. "The more [people] that you have [affected], the more likely that the relatively rare longer term effects can occur in a small minority of people," he said. "As far as I'm aware, the people affected this time didn't show those signs." Dozens of people have responded to statements by The Copa on social media, criticizing the response from restaurant owners after Saturday's reopening and demanding a public apology. The establishment is yet to release a further statement after posting on their Facebook page on May 18. TNUVA CENTRAL: Faces Class Action Over Animal Cruelty ----------------------------------------------------- Yori Yanover, writing for The Jewish Press, reports that Jerusalem District Court was set to hear arguments on May 20 over the validity of a consumer class action suit against Tnuva Central Cooperative for the Marketing of Agricultural Produce in Israel Ltd., based on the claim that Tnuva misled consumers regarding the humane treatment of animals in its Beit She'an beef slaughterhouse and meat-packing plant, where its Adom Adom ("very red") top quality brand is produced. After a December 6, 2012 expose on Israeli TV consumer advocacy program "Colbotech" revealed some shocking details of the way animals are being treated in the Beit She'an slaughterhouse, a group of consumers, headed by a Haredi woman named Ruth Kolian, is looking to sue Tnuva for consumer anguish. The issue at hand is whether the fact that the animals had undergone inhumane treatment in itself justifies a claim for monetary compensation for the plaintiffs, and whether it is sufficiently broad to justify a class action suit. Tnuva, for its part, will be arguing that the very fact that the plaintiffs are essentially organized and represented by an organization called Anonymous for Animal Rights, which exposed the terrible violations at the Beit She'an plant in an effort to get it to close down, disqualifies them from adopting the stance of a cheated consumer. Here are just some of the appalling conditions the Colbotech show exposed, the list is very long: Calves were beaten and shocked repeatedly to urge them to march to slaughter. Calves who had difficulty walking were shocked dozens of times in a row, in different parts of the body including the head and testicles. Those who still did not manage to walk were dragged on the floor by forklifts (the law in such cases says they should be killed on the spot). Lambs were dragged on the ground by workers holding them by one leg (one employee was documented hauling two lambs at the same time). Lambs were beaten repeatedly on their heads and bodies with a pipe, in order to encourage them to stand or walk, sometimes without any apparent reason. Workers were documented stepping on lambs, lying down on them or riding them, throwing them in the air and catching them by the lambs' mouths. Calves were kept hanging upside down before slaughter for extended periods of time. An employee told an undercover investigator: "Today a live calf released itself, because of a worker's blunder. It freed itself [from a conveyer belt to which it was attached hanging upside down by one leg] after it had already been butchered, it came to us still alive, it started to riot, nearly killed us. We fled. Finally they overcame it, with electric shockers. They beat it up until it calmed down." In many cases this Tnuva slaughterhouse's meat was disqualified as traif because of bone fractures and other issues. The meat was marketed non-Jewish consumers. It is interesting to note that while the plaintiffs never make the claim that it's the halachic shechitah which is to blame for the terrible images the TV audience had viewed last winter -- they blame Tnuva's mismanagement -- it is the corporation which, in effect, is making the anti shechitah case, suggesting it is impossible to slaughter an animal humanely. The defense also provided a friend of the court note from Rabbi Shlomo Yosef Machpud, head of the Badatz kashrut system, who argues in very strong language against unnecessary cruelty to animals, stating that such action would entail the removal of the kosher certification. Anonymous for Animal Rights has recruited potential plaintiffs for the district court case by defining them as "any person who has purchased . . . over the seven year period prior to the filing of this appeal, meat products produced by the brand 'Adom Adom,' and who, because of watching the investigation on Colbotech . . . has suffered emotional anguish and damage to their private autonomy." The suit is for 200 million Shekel (roughly $55 million). The defense will argue that the law in Israel does not award damages to a person who suffered anguish from watching another person's suffering (parents and their children, for example). How much less entitled are the plaintiffs, who were only affected by watching animals suffer. But, of course, as Yossi Wolfson, an attorney for the plaintiffs, noted, the human-suffering is in relation to a third person, while here the consumer experienced the anguish directly. The May 20 ruling by Judge Tamar Rapaport, is expected to be only over the validity of the class action suit, and not a deliberation of the suit itself. Anonymous for Animal Rights also has a case pending before the Supreme Court, requesting that the Tnuva slaughterhouse be shut down, first temporarily and then permanently. The Jewish Press contacted the Friedman legal firm representing the defendant, Tnuva, but they were not available for comment. UNITED KINGDOM: May Face Class Action Over Flawed HS2 Scheme ------------------------------------------------------------ BBC News reports that campaigners opposed to the high-speed rail line through the Midlands are seeking legal advice on taking the government to court en masse. The action comes as a consultation into the compensation scheme ends for the line that would link the Midlands with London and the North of England. HS2 Ltd.'s Exceptional Hardship Scheme offers homeowners the chance to sell their property to HS2. Opponents say a class action lawsuit could prove the scheme is flawed. Rolf Pearce, from the campaign group Staffs Against HS2, said: "We are looking at the moment at getting some serious barristers together to look at the possibility of doing an American-style class action with a large number of people suing the government as a group. "It's never been done before in the UK but we've got some very determined people up and down the line who want a full and fair deal for those affected inside and outside HS2's compensation zone." The deadline later is for comments about the compensation scheme being extended in phase two, for properties affected by the line from Birmingham to Manchester and Leeds. Richard Burrage, who sold his house in Middleton, near Tamworth, in the first phase, said: "You're not allowed to refuse an offer for your house that is within 15% of the asking price. "If you had a house that's GBP200,000 in a market that's steady would you accept a cheque for GBP170,000?" Jim Prenold, who owns a farm on the proposed route in Marston, north of Stafford, said: "They can compensate for bricks and mortar but not for your life's work. How can I start again at 70? "Everything's in limbo now for 20 years and the places are already devalued by about 40% . . . so how can they possibly say we're going to get full compensation?" Liz Hurst, from HS2 Ltd, said so far 113 households had been successful out of 455 applications. "We think with 113 successful applicants it shows the scheme is working," she added. Jerry Blackett, chief executive of the Birmingham Chamber of Commerce Group, said he believed HS2 was essential for growth. He said: "When you put in new infrastructure, business happens, more business open up, more jobs are created, a whole regeneration experience happens. "We've done our own assessment of what it's worth [for the Midlands] and we think it's worth 22,000 jobs and GBP1.5 billion when you add in the real benefits not just the time-saved benefits." VISA INC: Retailers File Suit Over Interchange Fees --------------------------------------------------- Ross Todd, writing for The Litigation Daily, reports that from the moment it was announced last July, critics have panned the $7.25 billion deal that MasterCard, Visa, and a group of major card- issuing banks struck to resolve claims that they fixed fees on credit and debit card transactions. Merchant trade groups complained that the class action settlement would do nothing to prevent Visa and MasterCard from continuing to raise so-called interchange fees (a.k.a swipe fees). Retail giants like Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and Target Corporation announced their opposition as well, citing terms that would bar class members from pursuing future litigation against the credit card companies. On May 23 Target, Macy's Inc., and more than a dozen other retailers took their opposition a step further with a lawsuit of their own against Visa and MasterCard. The complaint, filed by lawyers at Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease and Clarick Gueron Reisbaum in Manhattan federal court, claims the plaintiffs have collectively paid more than $1 billion in interchange fees for Visa and MasterCard transactions in the past fiscal year. Conspicuously absent from the May 23 complaint is Constantine Cannon, which took the lead in representing objectors to the settlement. Constantine Cannon previously represented a nationwide class of merchants in a separate antitrust case against Visa and MasterCard over the companies' "signature" cards. That case settled for a then-record breaking $3.4 billion in 2003. Wal-Mart, which was one of the lead plaintiffs in the earlier case, was also a no-show in the May 23 complaint. The Litigation Daily reached out to Constantine Cannon's Jeffrey Shinder to ask if he'd be reprising his role as Wal-Mart's counsel in a new opt- out suit, but we didn't immediately hear back. A Vorys Sater spokesman declined to comment on the retailers' suit. In the complaint, partner Michael Canter wrote that Visa and MasterCard "exploited their market power" and violated antitrust law by milking retailers for unfair swipe fees on behalf of card-issuing banks. "Over the past decade, judicial efforts to curb the exercise of market power by the Visa and MasterCard combinations have been ineffective," the complaint asserts. U.S. District Judge John Gleeson in Brooklyn preliminarily approved the $7.25 billion swipe fee settlement in November, but retailers large and small have been piling on with formal objections ahead of a final hearing on the deal. Visa and MasterCard can terminate the settlement if merchants responsible for 25 percent of the volume of transactions back out. Co-lead class counsel K. Craig Wildfang -- kcwildfang@rkmc.com -- of Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi told The Litigation Daily on May 23 that the settlement is still on track for approval. "It doesn't appear to us that the companies listed on the complaint would come anywhere close to 25 percent of the class," Mr. Wildfang said. The credit card companies are represented by Arnold & Porter (for Visa) and Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison and Willkie Farr & Gallagher (for MasterCard). Listing the legal teams for all the bank defendants might crash The American Lawyer's servers, but we promise it's a suitably intimidating group. WAL-MART: Ordered to Release Documents in Bribery Case ------------------------------------------------------ Jeff Mordock, writing for Delaware Business Court Insider, reports that the Delaware Court of Chancery has ordered Wal-Mart to release internal documents detailing its directors' knowledge of allegations that the company's Mexican affiliate, Walmex, bribed government officials in order to obtain permits to build stores in specific locations. Chancellor Leo E. Strine Jr. issued the bench ruling on May 22 in Indiana Electrical Workers Pension Trust Fund IBEW v. Wal-Mart Stores. Chancellor Strine's decision was first reported by Bloomberg News. Chancellor Strine ordered the retail giant to provide the documents to plaintiffs' counsel in a derivative suit filed against the company. A group of lawsuits, which were consolidated last year in Indiana, allege Wal-Mart's board breached its fiduciary duties by failing to adequately investigate the bribery charges. Chancellor Strine said that Wal-Mart "can't sanitize its response" to the shareholders' document requests, according to the Bloomberg News report. Chancellor Strine's decision was in response to a books-and- records request made by the plaintiffs under Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law, which enables plaintiffs in a derivative suit to request specific documents. The shareholders were seeking access to e-mails and other information, according to court documents. Stuart Grant of Grant & Eisenhofer is representing the plaintiffs. He did not immediately return calls seeking comment. Potter Anderson & Corroon is serving as Delaware counsel for the Bentonville, Ark., retail giant and its board members. Attorneys at the firm also did not return calls seeking comment. Multiple Wal-Mart shareholders, including the Indiana Electrical Workers Pension Trust Fund IBEW, the California State Teachers' Retirement System and the New York City Employees' Retirement System, as well as several individual investors, filed lawsuits last year in response to allegations that the company's Mexican executives had bribed officials to obtain construction permits throughout the country. Chancellor Strine consolidated the complaints, which alleged the same facts, in September 2012. The lawsuits were initiated after an April 21, 2012, news report in The New York Times claiming that a senior Wal-Mart official received a September 2005 e-mail from a Walmex executive describing bribes paid to obtain construction permits in the country. According to The Times, Wal-Mart investigated the claims and found payments totaling more than $24 million to Mexican officials. However, the company's top executives promptly ended the investigation without notifying officials in either Mexico or the United States. The Times also reported that Wal-Mart did notify officials after the newspaper informed the company of its news report's content. "Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by failing to require Wal-Mart to implement internal controls in compliance with the [U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act] for the FCPA's underlying directives regarding books, records and internal accounting, which are designed to ferret out and ultimately prevent just the type of illegal payments that were made at Wal-Mart," wrote James P. McEvilly III of Faruqi & Faruqi, a Wilmington firm, on behalf of shareholder Henrietta Klein, in Klein v. Walton. "These payments were facilitated by defendants' knowing and/or reckless failure to establish a system of internal controls at Wal-Mart, in direct violation of the books, records and internal accounting requirements of the FCPA," Mr. McEvilly continued. Wal-Mart declined to comment on Chancellor Strine's decision, saying it does not comment on lawsuits. At the time the complaints were filed, the retailer had promised the bribery allegations were "being investigated thoroughly." WOLFGANG PUCK: Faces Class Action for Skimming Employees' Tips -------------------------------------------------------------- Julia Marsh, writing for New York Post, reports that one of the country's highest earning chefs is nickel and diming his staff, according to a class action lawsuit filed in Manhattan Supreme Court on May 19. A Wolfgang Puck catering company was allegedly sticking venues like Irving Plaza and the Gramercy Theater with a 22 percent service charge and then denying its bartenders and servers tips, the suit states. The company has a contract with events giant Live Nation to provide drinks and snacks like hot pretzels for shows by artists like Green Day and Lana Del Ray and private functions for Google and Rolling Stone magazine. The Austrian-born celebrity chef is worth $20 million, according to Forbes. His food empire is second only to Rachel Ray and Gordon Ramsey. Orin Kurtz is representing named plaintiffs Kristin Noriega and Oliver Gummert in the lawsuit. He said all Wolfgang Puck Catering and Events employees who worked private functions going back to 2008 are owed hundreds of thousands in unpaid gratuity. "After years of enduring these violations, the plaintiffs look forward to their day in court," said Mr. Kurtz, of the Fifth Avenue firm Gardy & Notis. Ms. Noriega, a struggling actress and waitress, and Mr. Gummert, a bartender, were paid between $10 and $18 an hour and were not compensated for up to 30 hours of overtime a week, the court papers allege. Both staffers left the job in 2012 after working for Puck for two to three years. "Any charge for 'service' or 'food service,' is a charge purported to be a gratuity and therefore must be paid over to service employees," the legal papers state. Sticking clients with a "service charge" and failing to pass along the fee to servers violates state and federal law. When Ms. Noriega asked a Live Nation promoter in December 2011 about the unpaid tips, the promoter suggested that Puck charge more money as competitors did so that bartenders were fairly compensated. Ms. Noriega says she was prompted yelled at by a supervisor for the inquiry. She was "told that if she inquired any further about Defendants' violations of the labor laws she would be fired." The practice was even more egregious, the suit says, because a Puck sister company, Restaurant Associates, was embroiled in a federal class action suit in 2011 for keeping tips from employees who worked the US Open tennis championships in Queens. Reps for Puck did not immediately return messages seeking comment. ZELTIQ AESTHETICS: Defends "Marcano" Securities Suit in Calif. -------------------------------------------------------------- ZELTIQ Aesthetics, Inc., is defending a securities class action lawsuit commenced by Ivan Marcano in California, according to the Company's April 26, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013. On March 13, 2012, an alleged purchaser of the Company's publicly traded common stock, Ivan Marcano, filed a securities class action in the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, entitled Marcano v. Nye, et al., Case No. RG12621290. The complaint alleges that the Company made false and misleading statements or omitted to state facts necessary to make the disclosures not misleading in its Form S-1, and the amendments thereto, issued in connection with the Company's initial public offering. The claims are asserted under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. On March 15, 2012, April 3, 2012, and May 24, 2012, three additional and substantially similar lawsuits were filed in the same court, some adding the Company's underwriters as defendants. All four cases were consolidated and a consolidated complaint was deemed operative. On August 24, 2012, the Company filed a demurrer to the consolidated complaint. Subsequently, the Plaintiffs agreed to dismiss the Company's outside directors and its underwriters from the litigation without prejudice. On November 9, 2012, the court sustained the Company's demurrer with leave to amend. The Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on January 14, 2013, again asserting claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. The second amended complaint seeks compensatory damages and equitable relief on behalf of the class for an amount to be proven at trial. The Company has filed its response and demurrer to the second amended complaint. The hearing on the Company's demurrer was scheduled for May 2, 2013. The Company believes the lawsuit to be without merit and intends to vigorously defend it. The Company believes there is insufficient evidence to indicate whether there is a reasonable possibility that a loss has been incurred as of March 31, 2013, nor can it estimate the range of potential loss. ZELTIQ Aesthetics, Inc. -- http://www.coolsculpting.com/-- is a medical technology company focused on developing and commercializing products utilizing its proprietary controlled cooling technology platform. The Company was incorporated in Delaware and is headquartered in Pleasanton, California. * US Supreme Court Issues Series of Pro-Business Decisions ---------------------------------------------------------- Eric London, writing for World Socialist Web Site, reports that a series of pro-business decisions announced by the US Supreme Court in recent weeks marks a continuation of the judicial branch's steady movement to the right. The rulings further enshrine the power of corporate behemoths to exploit workers, defraud consumers, and damage the environment with legal impunity. The decisions also serve as an indictment of the right-wing character of the court's liberal wing. The court in Bowman v. Monsanto forced Vernon Bowman, a 75 year- old small farmer, to pay over $84,000 in damages to the Monsanto Company, the agribusiness giant with assets totaling $19.8 billion. In a unanimous decision delivered by Obama appointee Elena Kagan, the court expanded the scope of Monsanto's patent on genetically modified Roundup Ready soybeans, which account for 90 percent of soybeans planted in the US. The court ruled that farmers who purchase Roundup Ready seeds, plant them, and harvest them for use in future crop seasons are liable for having violated Monsanto's product patent and can be sued even if their patent agreement had been exhausted. The ruling shows more than the pro-corporate unanimity of the members of the court. It also reveals the irrationality of the for-profit system of production. Despite a global crisis of food scarcity which has left hundreds of millions malnourished and starving, to protect a multi-billion-dollar corporation's profit margin the Supreme Court has ruled illegal a millennia-old farming practice of using seed yield to produce the next season's crop. In April, the Supreme Court in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Shell also ruled unanimously that Nigerian citizens could not bring suit in the US against Royal Dutch Shell for the company's role in killing, torturing, and terrorizing peaceful activists protesting against Shell's oil development plans in the Ogonia Niger River Delta. In its ruling, the court erased decades of jurisprudence and employed the pseudo-legal argument that Shell was immune to suits brought against it in the US under the Alien Tort Statute because the mega-corporation's ties with the US were not sufficient enough for the ATS to apply. The court also decided in Comcast v. Behrend last month that 2 million NBC/Comcast subscribers in Pennsylvania were not eligible to sue the telecommunications monopoly for $875 million in damages for violation of federal anti-trust law. On a hollow technicality, the court ruled that the 2 million co-plaintiffs to the action would be forced to sue individually because they could not show that they had enough in common with one another to win class certification. Because of the cost of bringing suit individually, almost none of those seeking damages will be able to afford to bring suit and the company will see little or no loss. A similar decision was reached in the 2011 case Pliva Inc. v. Mensing, in which the court ruled that individuals harmed by unsafe generic drugs cannot sue manufacturers for failure to issue health-related warnings. The Behrend decision is the latest in a string of cases where the court has restricted class action suits in order to protect corporate parties from paying damages to those they have injured. Class action lawsuits give large groups of injured individuals the right to sue as a single party without each person being required to pay for expensive legal representation. However, the Supreme Court has made it extremely difficult for groups of injured persons to win class action status. In Wal-Mart v. Dukes, for example, the court in 2011 invented a similar technicality in order to prevent over 1.6 million female Wal-Mart employees from suing the company for well-documented discriminatory hiring, payment, and promotion policies. That same year, in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, the Supreme Court gave corporations the right to force customers to sign arbitration agreements that prevent them from bringing class action suits at any time in the future. The rightward trend is in no way limited to class actions, the Alien Tort Statute, or corporate patents. In fact, these issues are relevant insofar as they relate to a general shift to the right-one that is gaining recognition amongst the bourgeois legal community. A study published last month in the University of Minnesota Law Review found the present Supreme Court is the most pro-corporate court in nearly 70 years, and this by a significant margin. The study, which analyzed 2,000 Supreme Court decisions since 1946, ranked all Supreme Court justices from that period and found that five current justices rank in the top ten most business-friendly justices of the post-war period. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito are the first and second most pro-corporate justices during the period covered by the study, respectively. Also telling is a list published recently on SCOTUSBlog noting that the most active filer of amicus curiae, or "friend of the court," briefs, is the US Chamber of Commerce. The Supreme Court agreed to hear a remarkable 32 percent of the cases for which the Chamber of Commerce filed an amicus brief from 2009 to 2012. Not a single liberal organization appeared on the list of the 16 most active amicus curiae filers. The New York Times noted the recent studies in an article titled "Corporations Find a Friend in the Supreme Court." Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California, Irvine law school, was quoted in the Times article as saying, "The Roberts court is the most pro-business court since the mid 1930s." It is significant that these comparisons are being drawn, but there are important distinctions between the Roberts court and the Taft and Hughes courts of the 1920s and 1930s. In that earlier period of ascendant American industrialism, and when the lessons of 1917 were fresh in the memories of the ruling class, a segment of the liberal elite responded to the growing militancy of the working class by adopting a reform agenda. The arch-reaction, represented by then-chief justice and former president William Taft, hoped to stamp out "the leviathan, the People" in order to "prevent the Bolsheviki from getting control." Those like him, including Justice Edward Sanford, feared that "a single revolutionary spark may kindle a fire that, smouldering for a time, may burst into a sweeping and destructive conflagration." But at that time and at that stage of the development of American capitalism, the prominent liberal members of the court like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Louis Brandeis believed that private property could best be protected by placing limits on the reaction. When Brandeis and Holmes dissented in the 1927 case Whitney v. California, where the Taft court upheld California's criminal syndicalism statute that made the Communist Party illegal, Brandeis wrote: "Only an emergency can justify repression. Those who won our independence by revolution were not cowards . . . they did not fear political change. They did not exalt order at the cost of liberty . . ." Today, no such words will be found in the rare dissents from the liberals appointed by Bill Clinton and Barack Obama to the Supreme Court. Absent from the liberals of the Supreme Court is any principled opposition to the unprecedented abrogation of democratic rights being carried out under the auspices of the "global war on terror." The liberals are silent on the illegal assassination programs, the torture of prisoners, the National Defense Authorization Act, and the expansion of the national security apparatus. Today, the liberals are leading the attack on the social rights and living conditions of the working class. Hand in hand with the conservatives, they are drawing the court rightward at a pace unmet since before the Second World War. ********* 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 * * *