/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/130627.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, June 27, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 126 Headlines AETERNA ZENTARIS: Class Action Dismissed With Prejudice AMERICAN APPAREL: Faces Discrimination Charge Before EEOC AMERICAN APPAREL: "Ruiz" Wage & Hour Lawsuit in Arbitration AMERICAN APPAREL: "Partida" Labor Lawsuit in Arbitration AMERICAN APPAREL: Suit Over Separation Paycheck in Arbitration AMERICAN APPAREL: "Jessica Heupel" Labor Lawsuit in Arbitration AMERICAN APPAREL: "Anthony Heupel" Labor Suit in Arbitration AMERICAN APPAREL: Files Motion to Dismiss Cal. Securities Suit AMERICAN SUZUKI: Faces Possible Recall Due to Air Bag Problems ARKANSAS BLUE: Consumers File Insurance Antitrust Class Action BARRICK GOLD: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Class Action in N.Y. BELLA SHLOMKIN'S: Ordered to Pay NIS90,000 in Smoking Compensation BICKERSTAFFE FARMS: Recalls The Spice Barn Brand Ground Ginger CENTURYLINK INC: Awaits OK of Settlements in Rights-of-Way Suits CENTURYLINK INC: Defends Remaining Claims in "Fulghum" Suit CROWDFLOWER INC: Otey Plaintiffs May File Second Amended Complaint CVB FINANCIAL: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Granted in May DENDREON CORPORATION: Aug. Hearing Set in Securities Suit Accord DIODES INC: Defends Class Suit in Texas Filed by Local 731 I.B. DREW EDMONSON: Dismissal of RLUIPA Violation Suit Upheld DUKE ENERGY: Appeals Court Reverses Ruling in Nev. Antitrust Suit ELITE INT'L: Recalls Budweiser Sauce Over Gluten/Mustard Presence EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Court Issues Briefing Schedule in "Engquist" Suit FIRST M&F: Defends "Zeng" Merger-Related Suit in Mississippi FIRST MERCHANTS: Discovery in Suit Over Overdraft Fees Ongoing FIRST MIDWEST: Appeal From Overdraft Fee Suit Dismissal Pending FOLEY'S CANDIES: Recalls Dark Choco NN Wafers Over Milk Presence HECLA MINING: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit INTERSECTIONS INSURANCE: Suit Over Death & Disability Plan Junked JAN-PRO: Mass. Court Addresses Questions in "Depianti" Suit JAYCO: Recalls WHITE HAWK TRAVEL TRAILERS Over Electrical Concern JP MORGAN: Ct. Amends Order Approving "Villegas" Suit Settlement MERCEDES-BENZ: Recalls 10 SLK CLASS Cars Due to Airbag Issue MERCEDES-BENZ: Recalls 6 SLK CLASS Cars Due to Airbag Issue MERRILL LYNCH: 2nd Circuit Affirmed Dismissal of Antitrust Suits MERRILL LYNCH: Consolidated Securities Suit Settlement Approved MONSANTO CO: Faces Class Action Over Genetically Modified Wheat MONSANTO CO: Tousley Brain, Hausfeld File Wheat Class Action MUSKOKA MUNICIPALITY: Faces Class Action Over April Flooding NANAIMO SAUSAGE: Recalls Polish Salami Sausage Over Health Hazard NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Plaintiffs' Lawyers Balk at Delaney Statement NESTLE S.A.: Faces Canadian Class Action Over Alleged Price-Fixing NEW NEWSCORP: Still Awaits Decision on Bid to Junk "Wilder" Suit NEW NEWSCORP: Still Defends Suits Over Ebooks vs. HarperCollins NU-PHARM INC: Recalls Nu-Cephalex Tablets Over Rainwater Contact OCLARO INC: Files Motion to Dismiss Amended Securities Suit OFFICE DEPOT: Court Approves Stipulation in "Provine" Suit Deal PATRIOT COAL: Complaints v. Former Executives Consolidated PATRIOT COAL: Suit Over Employee Safety in Mine Dismissed PEOPLE'S UNITED: Court Certifies FLSA Collective Action Class PINNACLE ENTERTAINMENT: Ameristar Stockholders Approved Purchase POOLMAN OF WISCONSIN: Class Cert. Ruling in "UESCO" Suit Reversed REMINGTON ARMS: Court Narrows Claims in "Pollard" Class Action RIVERDALE PARK, MD: Judge Dismisses Speed Camera Class Action STATE FARM: Settles Inspector Wage Class Action for $5 Million STATE FARM: Judge Denies Motion to Stay Discovery in RICO Suit TRICO BANCSHARES: Yet to File Settlement Docs in California Suit UNI-PIXEL INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in Texas VALHI INC: Continues to Defend Suits Over Lead Pigments vs. Unit VERMEER: Recalls R9X12T Heavy Trailers Due to Brake Issues VISTEON CORPORATION: Sued for "Anti-competitive" Acts in Canada VITA HEALTH: Recalls Capsules of Safeway Extra Strength Ibuprofen VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces Potential Deceleration Class Action * Australia Sees Renaissance of Product Liability Class Actions * EU Draft Rules to Allow Class Actions v. Price Fixing Cartels * Mediators Must Expand Tool Kit in Class Action, MDL * Non-U.S. Securities Settlements to Rise to $8.3BB By 2020 ********* AETERNA ZENTARIS: Class Action Dismissed With Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------- Aeterna Zentaris Inc. on June 6 disclosed that the previously disclosed purported class action lawsuit filed against the Company and certain of its officers by Faruqi & Faruqi LLP in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York has been entirely dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend. No payment was made by any of the Defendants to the plaintiff or his counsel in connection with the lawsuit. The plaintiff has 30 days from the docketing of the final judgment to file a notice of appeal, if he determines to do so. "We are extremely pleased that the Court recognized and confirmed the Defendants' long-held view that the plaintiff's claims were entirely without merit and granted in full and with prejudice our motion to dismiss, producing the outcome that we had expected all along", commented David Dodd, President and Chief Executive Officer of Aeterna Zentaris. About AeternaZentaris Inc. Aeterna Zentaris -- http://www.aezsinc.com-- is an oncology and endocrinology drug development company currently investigating treatments for various unmet medical needs. The Company's pipeline encompasses compounds at all stages of development, from drug discovery through to marketed products. AMERICAN APPAREL: Faces Discrimination Charge Before EEOC --------------------------------------------------------- American Apparel, Inc. continues to face a Charge of Discrimination filed with the Los Angeles District Office of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, according to the company's May 9, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013. On February 7, 2006, Sylvia Hsu, a former employee of American Apparel, filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Los Angeles District Office of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") (Hsu v. American Apparel: Charge No. 480- 2006-00418), alleging that she was subjected to sexual harassment by a co- worker and constructively discharged as a result of the sexual harassment and a hostile working environment. On March 9, 2007, the EEOC expanded the scope of its investigation to other employees of American Apparel who may have been sexually harassed. On August 9, 2010, the EEOC issued a written determination finding that reasonable cause exists to believe the Company discriminated against Ms. Hsu and women, as a class, on the basis of their female gender, by subjecting them to sexual harassment. No finding was made on the issue of Ms. Hsu's alleged constructive discharge. In its August 19, 2010 written determination, the EEOC has invited the parties to engage in informal conciliation. If the parties are unable to reach a settlement which is acceptable to the EEOC, the EEOC will advise the parties of the court enforcement alternatives available to Ms. Hsu, aggrieved persons, and the EEOC. The Company has not recorded a provision for this matter and is working cooperatively with the EEOC to resolve the claim in a manner acceptable to all parties. The Company does not believe at this time that any settlement will involve a payment of damages in an amount that would be material to and adversely affect the Company's business, financial position, and results of operations or cash flows. AMERICAN APPAREL: "Ruiz" Wage & Hour Lawsuit in Arbitration ----------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit filed by Guillermo Ruiz, a former employee of American Apparel, Inc., before the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles is in arbitration, according to the company's May 9, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013. On November 5, 2009, Guillermo Ruiz, a former employee of American Apparel, filed suit against the Company on behalf of putative classes of all current and former non-exempt California employees (Guillermo Ruiz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. American Apparel, Inc., Case Number BC425487) in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, alleging the Company failed to pay certain wages due for hours worked, to provide meal and rest periods or compensation in lieu thereof and to pay wages due upon termination to certain of the Company's employees. The complaint further alleges that the Company failed to comply with certain itemized employee wage statement provisions and violations of unfair competition law. The plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages and economic and/or special damages in an unspecified amount, premium pay, wages and penalties, injunctive relief and restitution, and reimbursement for attorneys' fees, interest and the costs of the suit. This matter is now proceeding in arbitration. AMERICAN APPAREL: "Partida" Labor Lawsuit in Arbitration -------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit filed by Antonio Partida, a former employee of American Apparel, Inc., in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Orange is in arbitration, according to the company's May 9, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013. On June 21, 2010, Antonio Partida, a former employee of American Apparel, filed suit against the Company on behalf of putative classes of current and former non-exempt California employees (Antonio Partida, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. American Apparel (USA), LLC, Case No. 30-2010- 00382719-CU-OE-CXC) in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Orange, alleging the Company failed to pay certain wages for hours worked, to provide meal and rest periods or compensation in lieu thereof, and to pay wages due upon separation. The complaint further alleges that the Company failed to timely pay wages, unlawfully deducted wages and failed to comply with certain itemized employee wage statement provisions and violations of unfair competition law. The plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages and economic and/or special damages in an unspecified amount, premium pay, wages and penalties, injunctive relief and restitution, and reimbursement of attorneys' fees, interest and the costs of the suit. This matter is now proceeding in arbitration. AMERICAN APPAREL: Suit Over Separation Paycheck in Arbitration -------------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit filed by Emilie Truong, a former employee of American Apparel, Inc., alleging the Company failed to timely provide final paychecks upon separation, is in arbitration, according to the company's May 9, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013. On or about December 2, 2010, Emilie Truong, a former employee of American Apparel, filed suit against the Company on behalf of putative classes of current and former non-exempt California employees (Emilie Truong, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. American Apparel, Inc. and American Apparel LLC, Case No. BC450505) in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, alleging the Company failed to timely provide final paychecks upon separation. Plaintiff is seeking unspecified premium wages, attorneys' fees and costs, disgorgement of profits, and an injunction against the alleged unlawful practices. This matter is now proceeding in arbitration. AMERICAN APPAREL: "Jessica Heupel" Labor Lawsuit in Arbitration --------------------------------------------------------------- A labor suit filed by Jessica Heupel, a former retail employee of American Apparel, Inc., in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego, is in arbitration, according to the company's May 9, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013. On or about February 9, 2011, Jessica Heupel, a former retail employee filed suit on behalf of putative classes of current and former non-exempt California employees (Jessica Heupel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. American Apparel Retail, Inc., Case No. 37-2011-00085578-CU-OE- CTL) in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego, alleging the Company failed to pay certain wages for hours worked, to provide meal and rest periods or compensation in lieu thereof, and to pay wages due upon separation. The plaintiff is seeking monetary damages as follows: (1) for alleged meal and rest period violations; (2) for alleged failure to timely pay final wages, as well as for punitive damages for the same; and (3) unspecified damages for unpaid minimum wage and overtime. In addition, Plaintiff seeks premium pay, wages and penalties, injunctive relief and restitution, and reimbursement of attorneys' fees, interest and the costs of the suit. This matter is now proceeding in arbitration. AMERICAN APPAREL: "Anthony Heupel" Labor Suit in Arbitration ------------------------------------------------------------ A lawsuit filed by Anthony Heupel, a former retail employee of American Apparel, Inc., is in arbitration, according to the company's May 9, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013. On or about September 9, 2011, Anthony Heupel, a former retail employee initiated arbitration proceedings on behalf of putative classes of current and former non-exempt California employees, alleging the Company failed to pay certain wages for hours worked, to provide meal and rest periods or compensation in lieu thereof, and to pay wages due upon separation. The plaintiff is seeking monetary damages in an amount in excess of $3,600, as follows: (1) for alleged meal and rest period violations; (2) for alleged failure to timely pay final wages, as well as for punitive damages for the same; and (3) unspecified damages for unpaid minimum wage and overtime. In addition, Plaintiff seeks premium pay, wages and penalties, injunctive relief and restitution, and reimbursement of attorneys' fees, interest and the costs of the suit. This matter is now proceeding in arbitration. AMERICAN APPAREL: Files Motion to Dismiss Cal. Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- American Apparel, Inc. is moving to dismiss In re American Apparel, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Lead Case No. CV106352 MMM (JCGx), which is pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, according to the company's May 9, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013. Four putative class action lawsuits, (Case No. CV106352 MMM (RCx), Case No. CV106513 MMM (RCx), Case No. CV106516 MMM (RCx), and Case No. CV106680 GW (JCGx)) were filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California in the Fall of 2010 against American Apparel and certain of the Company's officers and executives on behalf of American Apparel shareholders who purchased the Company's common stock between December 19, 2006 and August 17, 2010. On December 3, 2010, the four lawsuits were consolidated for all purposes into a case entitled In re American Apparel, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Lead Case No. CV106352 MMM (JCGx) (the "Federal Securities Action"). The lead plaintiff alleges two causes of action for violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the 1934 Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under Section 10(b), arising out of alleged misrepresentations contained in the Company's press releases, public filings with the SEC, and other public statements relating to (i) the adequacy of the Company's internal and financial control policies and procedures; (ii) the Company's employment practices; and (iii) the effect that the dismissal of over 1,500 employees following an Immigration and Customs Enforcement inspection would have on the Company. Plaintiff seeks damages in an unspecified amount, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and equitable relief as the Court may deem proper. The Company filed two motions to dismiss the Federal Securities Action which the court granted with leave to amend. Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint on February 15, 2013. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on March 15, 2013. The hearing on the motion will be held June 3, 2013. The Federal Securities Action is covered under the Company's Directors and Officers Liability insurance policy, subject to a deductible and a reservation of rights. AMERICAN SUZUKI: Faces Possible Recall Due to Air Bag Problems -------------------------------------------------------------- Christopher Jensen, writing for The New York Times, reported that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is investigating whether air bag problems warrant recalling about 205,000 Suzuki vehicles, the 2006-11 Grand Vitara and the 2007-11 SX4, according to a report posted on the safety agency's Web site. However, a federal bankruptcy court recently approved Suzuki's Chapter 11 filing, the report pointed out. The automaker plans to withdraw from the American car market after it sells off the rest of its inventory. That poses a problem should N.H.T.S.A. decide a recall is warranted. If an automaker lacks assets, there is no money to pay for repairs. The safety agency says it has received 128 complaints from Suzuki owners about warning lights indicating problems with the passenger-side air bag, the report said. The warning lights suggest a malfunction of the occupant classification system, which detects whether or not a small child is seated up front. In that case, it is supposed to turn off the air bag to prevent injuries to the child. The N.H.T.S.A. report says that Suzuki sent owners letters last September informing them of an extended warranty available to cover the systems and warning them that the front passenger air bag would still deploy even if a small child was seated there, the report added. Many of the Suzuki owners who complained to the agency said dealers told them their air bags wouldn't work and that it would cost at least $1,000 for repairs. A month after the letters were sent, Suzuki announced that it would cease selling cars in the United States and file Chapter 11 bankruptcy, the report related. Suzuki will continue selling motorcycles, all-terrain vehicles and marine engines in the United States. About American Suzuki Established in 1986, American Suzuki Motor Corporation is the sole distributor of Suzuki automobiles and vehicles in the United States. American Suzuki wholesales its inventory through a network of independently owned and unaffiliated dealerships located throughout the continental United States. The dealers then market and sell the Suzuki Products to retail customers. Suzuki Motor Corp., the Company's 100% interest holder, manufactures substantially all of Suzuki products. ARKANSAS BLUE: Consumers File Insurance Antitrust Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Jeff Sistrunk and Daniel Wilson, writing for Law360, report that Arkansas Blue Cross Blue Shield was slapped with an antitrust class action in Arkansas federal court on June 6 by consumers who accuse the company of conspiring to monopolize the state's health insurance market and drive up premiums. The plaintiffs -- four customers of Arkansas Blue Cross -- sued the company on June 6 for violations of the Sherman Act, saying it has conspired with the 37 other insurance companies that make up the nationwide Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association. Through licensing agreements with the association, the companies have agreed not to compete, allowing each to achieve dominance in its market, the complaint says. "The defendants' illegal conspiracy has perpetuated BCBS-Arkansas' monopoly in Arkansas, which has resulted in increased premiums for BCBS-Arkansas enrollees for over a decade," the complaint said. Blue Cross Blue Shield licensees nationwide have been hit with similar cases in recent years alleging an overarching conspiracy to boost health care premiums illegally in markets across the country by barring competition between licensees. In March, a consumer filed a class action against California-based Anthem Blue Cross, accusing it of perpetuating monopoly power in the state's health insurance market through noncompetition agreements with its fellow association members. The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation in December grouped nine pending antitrust class actions against Blue Cross Blue Shield licensees into a multidistrict litigation in Alabama. The Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association's 38 licensees collectively insure more than 100 million people across the country, according to the association's website. Arkansas Blue Cross, the largest health insurer in the state, uses its dominant market share to raise premiums and manipulate health care providers, according to the complaint. The company exploits its monopoly power to force providers to contract with it at below-market prices or else face the loss of its customer base, the complaint alleges. With few other health insurance plans available in Arkansas, Arkansas Blue Cross faces "little pressure to constrain its own costs," the complaint said. "BCBS-Arkansas can raise premiums . . . without any concern that its subscribers may switch to a rival insurance plan," the complaint said. The company's license agreement with the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association requires it to conduct the majority of its business under the Blue Cross and Blue Shield marks, largely preventing it from offering competing plans, and also requires it not to compete with other association members, which is illegal under the Sherman Act, according to the complaint. "The rules and regulations of [the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association] . . . constitute horizontal agreements between competitors, the individual Blue Cross and Blue Shield licensees, to divide the geographic market for health insurance," the complaint said. In the absence of the anti-competitive stipulations in the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association's licensing agreements, the licensees would be free to compete, the complaint says, possibly resulting in lower health care costs and premiums in their respective markets. For example, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Louisiana could offer services in Arkansas, according to the complaint. The plaintiffs are seeking to represent a class of Arkansas Blue Cross Blue Shield consumers who have paid premiums to the company for either individual or small group insurance plans. A representative of Arkansas Blue Cross did not immediately respond to requests for comment on June 6, but Tilden Katz, a spokesman for the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, denounced the allegations made by the plaintiffs in the Arkansas case and similar lawsuits. "Blue Cross Blue Shield companies are committed to keeping health care costs as low as possible for our 100 million members," Katz said in a statement. "The system has worked well for decades in keeping costs down, rewarding medical professionals for providing quality care, better managing the care of patients with chronic conditions and encouraging everyone to make healthier choices to prevent disease." The plaintiffs are represented by John Doyle Nalley of Lovell Nalley & Ford. Counsel information was not immediately available for the defendants. The case is Curtis et al. v. USAble Mutual Insurance Co. et al., case number 4:13-cv-00343, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division. BARRICK GOLD: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Class Action in N.Y. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, representing investors of Barrick Gold Corporation, filed a class action lawsuit on June 5, 2013 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of a class comprising all purchasers of Barrick common stock between May 7, 2009 and May 23, 2013, inclusive. A COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IS AVAILABLE FROM THE COURT OR FROM GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP. PLEASE CONTACT US TOLL-FREE AT (888) 773- 9224, OR AT (212) 682-5340, OR BY EMAIL TO SHAREHOLDERS@GLANCYLAW.COM. IF YOU INQUIRE BY EMAIL PLEASE INCLUDE YOUR MAILING ADDRESS, TELEPHONE NUMBER AND NUMBER OF SHARES PURCHASED. The Complaint charges Barrick and certain of its officers and directors with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78j(b) and 78t(a)) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the Securities and Exchange Commission (17 C.P.R. 240.10b-5). The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the defendants made false and misleading statements and concealed material information relating to the cost and time-to-production projections for the Company's Pascua-Lama Project, a property under development as an open-pit gold and silver mine that straddles the mountainous border between Argentina and Chile. Barrick, based in Toronto, Ontario, is one of the world's largest gold mining companies in terms of production, reserves and market value. The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Barrick concealed from shareholders that: (1) the costs of bringing Pascua-Lama into production far exceeded any of Barrick's various publicly presented estimates; (2) Pascua-Lama presented no reasonable expectation of coming into production within any of Barrick's various publicly presented time horizons; (3) Pascua- Lama's environmental impact presented significantly greater risks to the Project and the Company than those disclosed by defendants; and (4) as a result, defendants had no reasonable basis for their statements regarding the cost, timing, and production estimates for the Project, or the reserves and earnings guidance for the Company. The true state of the Pascua-Lama Project was revealed in part on April 10, 2013, when news outlets reported that the Appeals Court of Copiapo, Chile, had issued an order suspending work on Pascua- Lama. In reaction to this news, Barrick's stock price fell $2.23 per share, or 8.3 percent, to close at $24.46 per share on trading volume of more than 40 million shares. Then, on May 24, 2013, Chile's Superintendencia del Medio Ambiente (Superintendency of the Environment) issued a resolution suspending the Project pending compliance with an environmental permit, and imposing a fine equivalent to $16 million -- the maximum penalty possible under Chilean law. In response to this development, trading in Barrick stock was halted for approximately three hours. After the Company's shares resumed trading, Barrick's share price closed at $19.16 per share, $0.39 per share, or 1.9 percent, below the prior day's close. If you are a member of the Class described above, you may move the Court, no later than 60 days from the date of this Notice, to serve as lead plaintiff; however, you must meet certain legal requirements. A lead plaintiff is a court-appointed representative for absent Class members. You do not need to seek appointment as lead plaintiff to share in any Class recovery in this action. If you are a Class member and there is a recovery for the Class, you can share in that recovery as an absent Class member. You may retain counsel of your choice to represent you in this action or take no action and remain an absent Class member. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this Notice or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Michael Goldberg, Esquire, of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067, Toll Free at (888) 773-9224, or contact Gregory Linkh, Esquire, of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP at 122 E. 42nd Street, Suite 2920, New York, New York 10168, at (212) 682- 5340, by e-mail to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at http://www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased. BELLA SHLOMKIN'S: Ordered to Pay NIS90,000 in Smoking Compensation ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judy Siegel-Itzkovich, writing for The Jerusalem Post, reports that The Bella Shlomkin's club, which two years ago was ordered by the Central District Court to pay the Israel Cancer Association NIS90,000 for failing to ensure no smoking on the premises, received an unpleasant surprise on June 6. The Supreme Court, sitting as the Court of Civil Appeals, decided to increase the Tel Aviv club's compensation payment in a class- action suit to NIS1,160,000, "to be used to fight and prevent lung cancer." The unprecedented ruling, according to lawyer Amos Hausner, chairman of the Israel Society for the Prevention of Smoking, is likely to be used against all owners of premises that fail to enforce no-smoking laws, including those related to illegal open- air smoking. Mr. Hausner presented the original case against the club and appealed the relatively small size of the original compensation. Indoor workplaces and other public places -- including outdoors such as bus stations and CityPass's Light Rail stations in Jerusalem -- will have to become aware of the fact that this ruling is a precedent and that they be the next one to be liable for failing to enforce the law, Mr. Hausner said. Mr. Hausner's case on the behalf of former Soviet immigrants was recognized by Judge Michal Nadav of the Central District Court as a class-action suit representing many nonsmoking customers who suffered from cigarettes during their time at the club. The massive hike in compensation was based on the calculation of the number of people exposed to secondhand smoke -- 1,160 -- multiplied by the compensation of NIS 1,000 for each. The consent of the parties was obtained after a prolonged hearing by the Supreme Court (which did not increase the compensation against an active board member of the club). The ICA, which was originally supposed to receive only NIS 90,000 plus lawyers' fees, warmly welcomed the Supreme Court ruling by Justices Miriam Naor, Neal Hendel and Zvi Zylbertal on the basis of a hearing held on May 20 of this year. It said it would use the money for expanding its broad activities against tobacco, which is the No. 1 preventible cause of death in Israel. In 2008, Mark and Yelena Litvin and Maxim Tutionik -- former Russian immigrants who attended Friday-night, Russian-speaking events at the club located on Noah Mozes Street -- sued the establishment for not preventing illegal smoking on its premises despite protests from three customers. One witness testified that he was ejected from the club by manager Ron Fire after asking that the incessant smoking of customers be stopped. BICKERSTAFFE FARMS: Recalls The Spice Barn Brand Ground Ginger -------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: June 20, 2013 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Allergy Alert Subcategory: Allergen - Sulphites Hazard classification: Class 3 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Bickerstaffe Farms & Nurseries Ltd. Distribution: Newfoundland and Labrador Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 8093 Affected products: Brand name Common name Size Code(s) on product ---------- ----------- ---- ------------------ The Spice Barn Ground Ginger 32 g Best Before dates May-21-17 and May-27-17 UPC: 0 850222 080393 CENTURYLINK INC: Awaits OK of Settlements in Rights-of-Way Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- CenturyLink, Inc. awaits court approval of settlements in rights- of-way lawsuits in 12 states, according to the Company's May 10, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013. Several putative class actions relating to the installation of fiber optic cable in certain rights-of-way were filed against Qwest Communications International Inc. on behalf of landowners on various dates and in courts located in 34 states in which Qwest has such cable (Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin.) For the most part, the complaints challenge the Company's right to install the Company's fiber optic cable in railroad rights-of-way. The complaints allege that the railroads own the right-of-way as an easement that did not include the right to permit the Company to install its cable in the right-of-way without the Plaintiffs' consent. Most of the currently pending actions purport to be brought on behalf of state-wide classes in the named Plaintiffs' respective states, although one action pending before the Illinois Court of Appeals purports to be brought on behalf of landowners in Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, Ohio and Wisconsin. In general, the complaints seek damages on theories of trespass and unjust enrichment, as well as punitive damages. After previous attempts to enter into a single nationwide settlement in a single court proved unsuccessful, the parties proceeded to seek court approval of settlements on a state-by- state basis. To date, the parties have received final approval of such settlements in 22 states (Alabama, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Virginia and Wisconsin), have received preliminary approval of the settlements in eight states (California, Kentucky, Nevada, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Utah), and have not yet received either preliminary or final approval in four states (Arizona, Massachusetts, New Mexico and Texas). The Company has accrued an amount that it believes is probable for these matters; however, the amount is not material to the Company's consolidated financial statements. Headquartered in Monroe, Louisiana, CenturyLink, Inc. -- http://www.centurylink.com/-- is the third largest telecommunications company in the United States. The Company provides broadband, voice, wireless and managed services to consumers and businesses across the country. The Company also offers advanced entertainment services under the CenturyLink(TM) Prism(TM) TV and DIRECTV brands. CENTURYLINK INC: Defends Remaining Claims in "Fulghum" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- CenturyLink, Inc., is defending the remaining claims in the class action lawsuit initiated by William Douglas Fulghum, et al., according to the Company's May 10, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013. In William Douglas Fulghum, et al. v. Embarq Corporation, et al., filed on December 28, 2007 in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, a group of retirees filed a putative class action lawsuit challenging the decision to make certain modifications in retiree benefits programs relating to life insurance, medical insurance and prescription drug benefits, generally effective January 1, 2006, and January 1, 2008 (which, at the time of the modifications, was expected to reduce estimated future expenses for the subject benefits by more than $300 million). The Defendants include CenturyLink, Inc.'s subsidiary Embarq, certain of its benefit plans, its Employee Benefits Committee and the individual plan administrator of certain of its benefits plans. Additional defendants include Sprint Nextel and certain of its benefit plans. The Court certified a class on certain of the plaintiffs' claims, but rejected class certification as to other claims. Embarq and other defendants continue to vigorously contest these claims and charges. On October 14, 2011, the Fulghum lawyers filed a new, related lawsuit, Abbott et al. v. Sprint Nextel et al. CenturyLink/Embarq is not named a defendant in the lawsuit. In Abbott, approximately 1,500 plaintiffs allege breach of fiduciary duty in connection with the changes in retiree benefits that also are at issue in the Fulghum case. The Abbott plaintiffs are all members of the class that was certified in Fulghum on claims for allegedly vested benefits (Counts I and III), and the Abbott claims are similar to the Fulghum breach of fiduciary duty claim (Count II), on which the Fulghum court denied class certification. The Court has stayed proceedings in Abbott indefinitely. On February 14, 2013, the Fulghum court dismissed the majority of the plaintiffs' claims in that case. Embarq and the other defendants will continue to vigorously contest any remaining claims in Fulghum and seek to have the claims in the Abbott case dismissed on similar grounds. The Company has not accrued a liability for these matters because the Company believes it is premature (i) to determine whether an accrual is warranted and, (ii) if so, to determine a reasonable estimate of probable liability. Headquartered in Monroe, Louisiana, CenturyLink, Inc. -- http://www.centurylink.com/-- is the third largest telecommunications company in the United States. The Company provides broadband, voice, wireless and managed services to consumers and businesses across the country. The Company also offers advanced entertainment services under the CenturyLink(TM) Prism(TM) TV and DIRECTV brands. CROWDFLOWER INC: Otey Plaintiffs May File Second Amended Complaint ------------------------------------------------------------------ District Judge Jon S. Tigar approved a stipulation entered into by parties in the lawsuit titled CHRISTOPHER OTEY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CROWDFLOWER, INC., LUKAS BIEWALD AND CHRIS VAN PELT, Defendants, CASE NO. 3:12-CV-05524-JST, (N.D. Cal.). The Court grants the Plaintiff leave to file a Second Amended Complaint to add Mary Greth as an additional named Plaintiff. Upon the filing of the Second Amended Complaint, the Defendants have 30 days thereafter to file a responsive pleading. Ira Spiro, Esq. -- ira@spiromoore.com -- Jennifer Connor, Esq. -- jennifer@spiromoore.com -- Justin Marquez, Esq. -- justin@spiromoore.com -- at SPIRO MOORE LLP, in Los Angeles California, Attorneys for Plaintiff CHRISTOPHER OTEY. Jacqueline E. Kalk, Esq. -- jkalk@littler.com -- at LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C., in Minneapolis, MN, Attorneys for Defendants, CROWDFLOWER, INC., LUKAS BIEWALD, AND CHRIS VAN PELT. William T. Payne, Esq. -- wpayne@fdpklaw.com -- Ellen M. Doyle, Esq. -- edoylegfd@pklaw.com -- at FEINSTEIN DOYLE, PAYNE & KRAVEC, LLC, in Pittsburgh, PA, and Mark A. Potashnick, Esq. -- markpgwp@attorney.com -- at WEINHAUS & POTASHNICK, in St. Louis, Missouri, Attorney for Plaintiff CHRISTOPHER OTEY. Arthur M. Eidelhoch, Esq. -- aeidelhoch@littler.com -- Galen M. Lichtenstein, Esq. -- glichtenstein@littler.com -- at LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C., in San Francisco, California, and Kelly D. Reese, Esq. -- kreese@littler.com -- at LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C., in Mobile, AL, Attorneys for Defendants, CROWDFLOWER, INC., LUKAS BIEWALD, AND CHRIS VAN PELT. A copy of the District Court's June 17, 2013 Order is available at http://is.gd/sesbHJfrom Leagle.com. CVB FINANCIAL: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Granted in May ------------------------------------------------------------ CVB Financial Corp.'s motion to dismiss a consolidated securities class action lawsuit was granted in May 2013, according to the Company's May 10, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013. On July 26, 2010, the Company received a subpoena from the Los Angeles office of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission regarding the Company's allowance for credit loss methodology, loan underwriting guidelines, methodology for grading loans, and the process for making provisions for loan losses. In addition, the subpoena requested information regarding certain presentations Company officers have given or conferences Company officers have attended with analysts, brokers, investors or prospective investors. The Company has fully cooperated with the SEC in its investigation, and it will continue to do so to the extent any further information is requested. The Company says it cannot predict the timing or outcome of the SEC investigation. In the wake of the Company's disclosure of the SEC investigation, on August 23, 2010, a purported shareholder class action complaint was filed against the Company in an action captioned Lloyd v. CVB Financial Corp., et al., Case No. CV 10-06256-MMM, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Along with the Company, Christopher D. Myers (President and Chief Executive Officer) and Edward J. Biebrich, Jr. (the Company's former Chief Financial Officer) were also named as defendants. On September 14, 2010, a second purported shareholder class action complaint was filed against the Company, in an action originally captioned Englund v. CVB Financial Corp., et al., Case No. CV 10- 06815-RGK, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The Englund complaint named the same defendants as the Lloyd complaint and made allegations substantially similar to those included in the Lloyd complaint. On January 21, 2011, the Court consolidated the two actions for all purposes under the Lloyd action now captioned as Case No. CV 10-06256-MMM (PJWx). That same day, the Court also appointed the Jacksonville Police and Fire Pension Fund (the "Jacksonville Fund") as lead plaintiff in the consolidated action and approved the Jacksonville Fund's selection of lead counsel for the plaintiffs in the consolidated action. On March 7, 2011, the Jacksonville Fund filed a consolidated complaint naming the same defendants and alleging violations by all defendants of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and violations by the individual defendants of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants misrepresented and failed to disclose conditions adversely affecting the Company throughout the purported class period, which is alleged to be between October 21, 2009, and August 9, 2010. The consolidated complaint seeks compensatory damages and other relief in favor of the purported class. Following the filing by each side of various motions and memoranda and a hearing on August 29, 2011, the District Court issued a ruling on January 12, 2012, granting the defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint, but the ruling provided the plaintiffs with leave to file an amended complaint within 45 days of the date of the order. On February 27, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint against the same defendants, and once again, following filings by both sides and another hearing on June 4, 2012, the District Court issued a ruling on August 21, 2012, granting the defendants' motion to dismiss the first amended complaint, but providing the plaintiffs with leave to file another amended complaint within 30 days of the ruling. On September 20, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint against the same defendants, and the Company filed its third motion to dismiss on October 25, 2012. The District Court held a hearing on the Company's third motion to dismiss on February 25, 2013, and subsequent to the end of the first quarter of 2013, on May 9, 2013, the District Court issued an order again dismissing the plaintiffs' complaint, but providing the plaintiffs with leave to file a third amended complaint within 30 days. The Company intends to continue to vigorously contest the plaintiff's allegations in this case. On February 28, 2011, a purported and related shareholder derivative complaint was filed in an action captioned Sanderson v. Borba, et al., Case No. CIVRS1102119, in California State Superior Court in San Bernardino County. The complaint names as defendants the members of the Company's board of directors and also refers to unnamed defendants allegedly responsible for the conduct alleged. The Company is included as a nominal defendant. The complaint alleges breaches of fiduciary duties, abuse of control, gross mismanagement and corporate waste. Specifically, the complaint alleges, among other things, that defendants engaged in accounting manipulations in order to falsely portray the Company's financial results in connection with its commercial real estate portfolio. The Plaintiff seeks compensatory and exemplary damages to be paid by the defendants and awarded to the Company, as well as other relief. On June 20, 2011, the defendants filed a demurrer requesting dismissal of the derivative complaint. Following the filing by each side of additional motions, the parties have subsequently filed repeated notices to postpone the Court's hearing on the defendants' demurrer, pending resolution of the federal securities shareholder class action complaint, and these postponements are currently extended to at least September 11, 2013. Because the outcome of these proceedings is uncertain, the Company says it cannot predict any range of loss or even if any loss is probable related to the actions. CVB Financial Corp. -- http://www.cbbank.com/-- is a bank holding company incorporated in California in 1981 with headquarters located in Ontario, California. Citizens Business Bank is the Company's principal asset. DENDREON CORPORATION: Aug. Hearing Set in Securities Suit Accord ---------------------------------------------------------------- An August 2, 2013 hearing is set to consider final approval of a settlement reached in In re Dendreon Corporation Class Action Litigation, Master Docket No. C 11-1291 JLR, according to the company's May 9, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013. The Company and three current and former officers are named defendants in a consolidated putative securities class action proceeding filed in August 2011 with the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington (the "District Court") under the caption In re Dendreon Corporation Class Action Litigation, Master Docket No. C 11-1291 JLR. Lead Plaintiff, San Mateo County Employees Retirement Association purports to state claims for violations of federal securities laws on behalf of a class of persons who purchased the Company's common stock between April 29, 2010 and August 3, 2011. A consolidated amended complaint was filed on February 24, 2012. In general, the complaints allege that the defendants issued materially false or misleading statements concerning the Company, its finances, business operations and prospects with a focus on the market launch of PROVENGE and related forecasts concerning physician adoption, and revenue from sales of PROVENGE as reflected in the Company's August 3, 2011 release of its financial results for the quarter ended June 30, 2011. The Company and other defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on April 27, 2012, and that motion is fully briefed. With the motion pending, the parties elected to try mediating the dispute. In March 2013, the Company announced an agreement in principle to settle the securities litigation for a payment to the plaintiff class of $40 million, $38 million of which will be funded by the Company's directors' and officers' liability insurance carriers. On April 24, 2013, the parties entered into, and filed with the District Court, a formal Stipulation of Settlement (the "Stipulation") setting forth the terms of the settlement. As part of the Stipulation, Defendants, including the Company, reiterated their denial of Lead Plaintiff's claims and of any wrongdoing. On April 26, 2013, the District Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement and scheduled a hearing on August 2, 2013 to consider final approval. The settlement is subject to the District Court granting final approval to the settlement, as well as certain other conditions. The company cannot predict whether the settlement will receive the necessary approval and otherwise become effective in accordance with terms of the Stipulation. If the settlement becomes effective, it will terminate the securities litigation with prejudice. If the settlement does not become effective, the parties will be returned to the positions they were in before reaching the agreement in principle; should that occur, the Company would expect the District Court to schedule argument on the motion to dismiss. In the event the litigation proceeds, the Company cannot predict the outcome of the motion to dismiss or of the litigation generally; however, the Company believes the claims lack merit and would intend to defend the claims vigorously. DIODES INC: Defends Class Suit in Texas Filed by Local 731 I.B. --------------------------------------------------------------- Diodes Incorporated is defending a class action lawsuit brought by Local 731 I.B. of T. Excavators and Pavers Pension Trust Fund, according to the Company's May 10, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013. The Company is currently a party to a putative securities class action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, entitled Local 731 I.B. of T. Excavators and Pavers Pension Trust Fund v. Diodes, Inc., Civil Action No. 6:13- cv-247 (E.D. Tex. filed March 15, 2013), against the Company, Dr. Lu and Richard White, in which plaintiff, purportedly on behalf of a class of investors who purchased the Company's Common Stock between February 9, 2011, and June 9, 2011, alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder in connection with allegedly public statements made during the class period regarding the labor market in China and its impact on the Company's business and prospects. Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("Reform Act"), motions for appointment of lead plaintiff were due on May 14, 2013. Pursuant to the Court's order dated April 26, 2013, (1) in the event the putative class member ultimately appointed as lead plaintiff wishes to file an amended complaint, lead plaintiff shall do so no later than forty-five (45) days after entry of an order appointing the lead plaintiff; (2) no later than fifteen (15) days after entry of an order appointing the lead plaintiff, lead plaintiff must file a notice with the Court indicating whether it will file an amended complaint; (3) defendants shall file an answer or motion directed to the operative complaint in this action no later than forty-five (45) days after service of an amended complaint or notice of lead plaintiff's decision not to file an amended complaint, as applicable; and (4) in the event defendants file a motion or motions directed to the operative complaint in this action, (i) lead plaintiff shall file his, her or its opposition, if any, within forty-five (45) days after service of such motion(s) and (ii) defendants shall file their reply, if any, within thirty (30) days after service of lead plaintiff's opposition. Pursuant to the Reform Act, all discovery and other proceedings are stayed pending a ruling on any motion to dismiss. Diodes Incorporated -- http://www.diodes.com/-- is a global manufacturer and supplier of high-quality, application specific standard products within the broad discrete, logic and analog semiconductor markets, serving the consumer electronics, computing, communications, industrial and automotive markets throughout Asia, North America and Europe. Diodes was incorporated in Delaware is headquartered in Plano, Texas. DREW EDMONSON: Dismissal of RLUIPA Violation Suit Upheld -------------------------------------------------------- Circuit Judge Paul J. Kelly, Jr., of the United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit, affirmed the dismissal of the complaint filed by Michael D. Lowery, along with two other inmates, alleging that Drew Edmondson, former Attorney General for the State of Oklahoma, and Justin Jones, Debbie Morton, and Leo Brown, three Oklahoma Department of Corrections officials, violated their rights to free exercise of religion and equal protection under the First and Fourteenth Amendments and Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. The case is MICHAEL D. LOWERY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DREW EDMONDSON; JUSTIN JONES; DEBBIE L. MORTON; LEO BROWN, Defendants- Appellees, NO. 12-7076. A copy of the Circuit Court's June 17, 2013 Order and Judgment is available at http://is.gd/n0wcwu from Leagle.com. DUKE ENERGY: Appeals Court Reverses Ruling in Nev. Antitrust Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the decision of the federal court in Nevada to grant defendant's motion for summary judgment in a suit alleging Duke Energy Corporation manipulated natural gas markets, according to the company's May 9, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013. A total of five lawsuits were filed against Duke Energy affiliates and other energy companies and remain pending in a consolidated, single federal court proceeding in Nevada. Each of these cases contains similar claims, that the respective plaintiffs, and the classes they claim to represent, were harmed by the defendants' alleged manipulation of the natural gas markets by various means, including providing false information to natural gas trade publications and entering into unlawful arrangements and agreements in violation of the antitrust laws of the respective states. Plaintiffs seek damages in unspecified amounts. In November 2009, the judge granted defendants' motion for reconsideration of the denial of defendants' summary judgment motion in two of the remaining five cases to which Duke Energy affiliates are a party. A hearing on that motion occurred on July 15, 2011, and on July 19, 2011, the judge granted the motion for summary judgment. The Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals), which held argument on October 19, 2012. On April 10, 2013, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the lower Court's decision, and returned the case to the same Court for further proceedings. ELITE INT'L: Recalls Budweiser Sauce Over Gluten/Mustard Presence ----------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: June 19, 2013 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Allergy Alert Subcategory: Allergen - Gluten, Allergen - Mustard Hazard classification: Class 3 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Elite International Foods Inc. Distribution: National Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 8076 Affected products: Brand name Common name Size Code(s) on product ---------- ----------- ---- ------------------ Budweiser Sweet Barbecue 380 ml All codes where neither Sauce mustard nor the source of gluten is declared UPC: 0 72736 04118 3 in the "contains" statement. Budweiser Steak Sauce 380 ml All codes where mustard is not declared in the UPC: 0 72736 04119 0 ingredient list. Budweiser Honey Barbecue 380 ml All codes where neither Sauce mustard nor the source of gluten is declared in UPC: 0 72736 04104 6 the "contains" statement. Budweiser Mild Wing Sauce 380 ml All codes where the source of gluten is not UPC: 0 72736 04105 3 declared in the "contains" statement. Budweiser Hot Wing Sauce 380 ml All codes where the source of gluten is not UPC: 0 72736 04106 0 declared in the "contains" statement. EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Court Issues Briefing Schedule in "Engquist" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Senior District Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr., ruled that the motion for class certification in ENGQUIST v. EXPRESS SCRIPTS, INC., must be filed no later than December 20, 2013, which will be noticed for hearing on the earliest available regularly scheduled law and motion hearing date. The Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference that was set for June 24, 2013, has been continued to March 3, 2014, at 9:00 a.m. A joint status report must be filed no later than 14 days prior to the status conference. The case is EDWARD ENGQUIST, individually, and on behalf of all other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. EXPRESS SCRIPTS, INC., a Delaware corporation; EXPRESS SCRIPTS SERVICES COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, Defendants, NO. 2:13-CV-00601-GEB-AC, (E.D. Cal.). Edward V. Engquist is represented by Joshua David Carlon, Esq. -- joshua.carlon@capstonelawyers.com -- at Capstone Law APC & Katherine Carol Denbleyker, Esq. -- Katherine.DenBleyker@CapstoneLawyers.com -- at Capstone Law APC. Express Scripts, Inc., and Express Scripts Services Company are represented by Christopher Smith, Esq. -- chris.smith@huschblackwell.com -- Erica Doerhoff, Esq. -- erica.doerhoff@huschblackwell.com -- Matthew D. Knepper, Esq. -- matt.knepper@huschblackwell.com -- at Husch Blackwell, LLP & Richard Pachter, Esq. -- richard@pachterlaw.com -- at the Law Offices Of Richard Pachter. A copy of the District Court's June 17, 2013 ruling is available at http://is.gd/3Bpr6Efrom Leagle.com. FIRST M&F: Defends "Zeng" Merger-Related Suit in Mississippi ------------------------------------------------------------ First M&F Corporation is defending a merger-related class action lawsuit styled Zeng vs. Hugh S. Potts, Jr. et al., according to the Company's May 10, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013. On February 6, 2013, First M&F Corporation (First M&F) and Renasant Corporation (Renasant) entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger providing for the merger of First M&F with and into Renasant, with Renasant the surviving corporation in the merger, and the merger of Merchants and Farmers Bank with and into Renasant Bank, with Renasant Bank as the surviving banking corporation. If the merger is completed, holders of First M&F's common stock will receive 0.6425 of a share of Renasant common stock in exchange for each share of First M&F common stock held immediately prior to the merger, subject to the payment of cash in lieu of fractional shares. First M&F will hold a special shareholder meeting in which holders of First M&F common stock will be asked to vote to adopt and approve the merger agreement. Consummation of the merger is contingent upon regulatory and both First M&F and Renasant shareholder approval and other closing conditions. On March 5, 2013, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit, Zeng vs. Hugh S. Potts, Jr. et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi against the Company, the members of its board of directors, M&F Bank, Renasant Corporation and Renasant Bank. This lawsuit is purportedly brought on behalf of a putative class of holders of the Company's common stock and seeks a declaration that it is properly maintainable as a class action. The lawsuit alleges that the Company's directors breached their fiduciary duties and/or violated Mississippi law in connection with the merger with Renasant Corporation and Renasant Bank and that the Company, M&F Bank, Renasant Corporation and Renasant Bank aided and abetted those alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by, among other things, agreeing to consideration that undervalues the Company, agreeing to deal protection devices that preclude a fair sales process, and making inadequate disclosures to shareholders regarding the merger. Among other relief, the plaintiff seeks to enjoin the merger of the Company and M&F Bank with and into Renasant Corporation and Renasant Bank. Headquartered in Kosciusko, Mississippi, First M&F Corporation operates as the holding company for Merchants and Farmers Bank that provides community banking services to individuals, small businesses, and various community groups. The Company's deposit products include checking accounts, savings accounts, certificates of deposit, individual retirement accounts, time deposits, NOW and money market deposits, and noninterest-bearing deposits. FIRST MERCHANTS: Discovery in Suit Over Overdraft Fees Ongoing -------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery is ongoing in the class action lawsuit against First Merchants Corporation related to assessment of overdraft fees, according to the Company's May 10, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013. On April 16, 2013, First Merchants was named in a class action lawsuit in Delaware County Circuit Court challenging First Merchant's checking account practices associated with the assessment of overdraft fees. The plaintiff seeks damages and other relief, including restitution and injunctive relief. First Merchants believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims brought by the plaintiff. At this phase of the litigation, it is not possible for management of First Merchants to determine the probability of a material adverse outcome or reasonably estimate the amount of any loss. No class has yet been certified and discovery is still ongoing. First Merchants Corporation is a financial holding company headquartered in Muncie, Indiana, and was organized in September 1982. The Corporation has one full-service bank charter, First Merchants Bank, National Association. The Bank also operates Lafayette Bank and Trust, Commerce National Bank and First Merchants Trust Company. FIRST MIDWEST: Appeal From Overdraft Fee Suit Dismissal Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs' appeal from the dismissal of their class action lawsuit against a subsidiary of First Midwest Bancorp, Inc., remains pending, according to the Company's May 10, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013. In August of 2011, the Company's principal subsidiary, First Midwest Bank, was named in a purported class action lawsuit filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, on behalf of certain of the Bank's customers who incurred overdraft fees. The lawsuit is based on the Bank's practices relating to debit card transactions, and alleges that these practices resulted in customers being assessed excessive overdraft fees. The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages and other relief, including restitution, and no class has been certified. The Bank filed a motion to dismiss the complaint and, on January 23, 2013, the Circuit Court granted the Bank's motion and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. On February 20, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the Illinois Appellate Court. The Company continues to believe that the Bank has meritorious defenses to the claims made by the plaintiffs. First Midwest Bancorp, Inc. -- http://www.firstmidwest.com/-- is a bank holding company headquartered in Itasca, Illinois, with operations throughout the greater Chicago metropolitan area as well as northwest Indiana, central and western Illinois, and eastern Iowa. The Company's principal subsidiary is First Midwest Bank, which provides a broad range of commercial and retail banking and wealth management services to consumer, corporate, and public or governmental customers. FOLEY'S CANDIES: Recalls Dark Choco NN Wafers Over Milk Presence ---------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: June 19, 2013 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Allergy Alert Subcategory: Allergen - Milk Hazard classification: Class 2 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Foley's Candies Ltd. Distribution: British Columbia Extent of the product distribution: Warehouse CFIA reference number: 8061 Affected products: Brand name Common name Size Code(s) on product ---- ----------- ---- ------------------ Foley's Dark Chocolate 10 kg Item# 3044-10K NN Wafers Lot: 13041002 UPC: (01)00061823030445(10)13041002 HECLA MINING: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Hecla Mining Company is awaiting a court decision on its motion to dismiss a consolidated securities class action lawsuit, according to the Company's May 10, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013. On February 1, 2012, a purported Hecla stockholder filed a putative class action lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho against Hecla and certain of its officers, one of whom is also a director. The complaint, purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers of Hecla common stock from October 26, 2010, through and including January 11, 2012, asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and seeks, among other things, damages and costs and expenses. Specifically, the complaint alleges that Hecla, under the authority and control of the individual defendants, made certain false and misleading statements and allegedly omitted certain material information related to operational issues at the Lucky Friday mine. The complaint alleges that these actions artificially inflated the market price of Hecla common stock during the class period, thus purportedly harming investors who purchased shares during that time. A second lawsuit was filed on February 14, 2012, alleging virtually identical claims. These complaints have been consolidated into a single case, a lead plaintiff and lead counsel has been appointed by the Court (Bricklayers of Western Pennsylvania Pension Plan, et al. v. Hecla Mining Company et al., Case No. 12-0042 (D. Idaho)), and a consolidated amended complaint was filed on October 16, 2012. In January 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. The Company says it cannot predict the outcome of this lawsuit or estimate damages if plaintiffs were to prevail. The Company believes that these claims are without merit and intends to defend them vigorously. Hecla Mining Company -- http://www.hecla-mining.com/-- and its subsidiaries have provided precious and base metals to the U.S. economy and worldwide since 1891. The Company discovers, acquires, develops, produces and markets silver, gold, lead and zinc. Hecla Mining is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho. INTERSECTIONS INSURANCE: Suit Over Death & Disability Plan Junked ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in a suit filed against Intersections Insurance Services Inc. over a sale of an accidental death and disability program filed a notice of appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit against the dismissal of the case, according to Intersections Inc.'s May 9, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013. On May 21, 2012, Intersections Insurance Services Inc. was served with a putative class action complaint (filed on May 14, 2012) against Intersections Insurance Services Inc. and Bank of America in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint alleges various claims based on the sale of an accidental death and disability program. Intersections Insurance Services Inc. and Bank of America moved to dismiss the claims and to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The motion to transfer to the Central District was granted, and Intersections Insurance Services Inc. and Bank of America then moved to dismiss the claims. The motion to dismiss was granted with prejudice on October 1, 2012. The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal, which appeal is pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. JAN-PRO: Mass. Court Addresses Questions in "Depianti" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Giovani Depianti, a janitorial cleaning services franchisee, along with franchisees from other States, filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts against Jan-Pro Franchising International, Inc., alleging that Jan-Pro misclassified him as an independent contractor and committed various wage law violations. A judge of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts certified these questions to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk: "[1.] Whether a plaintiff's failure to exhaust administrative remedies pursuant to [G.L. c. 149, Section 150,] by filing a complaint with the Attorney General deprives a court of jurisdiction to consider the plaintiff's claims under [G.L. c. 149, Sections 148, 148B, and 150,] and under [G.L. c. 151, Sections 1 and 1A]. "[2.] Whether and how to apply the 'right to control test' for vicarious liability to the franchisor-franchisee relationship. . . "[3.] Whether a defendant may be liable for employee misclassification under [G.L. c. 149, Section 148B,] where there was no contract for service between the plaintiff and defendant." The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts answer the first question, "No"; the second question, "Yes," with further discussion concerning the application of the "right to control test" to the franchisor-franchisee relationship; and the third question, "Yes." Justice Robert J. Cordy dissented in part saying he concurs with the court's answers and analysis with respect to the first two certified questions but disagrees on the third certified question. The case is Giovani DEPIANTI & others vs. JAN-PRO FRANCHISING INTERNATIONAL, INC., NO. SJC-11282. Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. and Stephen S. Churchill, Esq. represented the plaintiffs. Jeffrey M. Rosin, Esq. and Christopher M. Pardo, Esq. represented the defendant. Benjamin B. Reed, Esq. & James C. Rubinger, Esq. of Virginia, represented the International Franchise Association. Catherine Ruckelshaus, Esq., of New York, Eunice Hyunhye Cho, Esq., of California, & Audrey Richardson, Esq. represented the Brazilian Immigrant Center & others. A copy of the Supreme Judicial Court's June 17, 2013 Decision is available at http://is.gd/H9zxKY from Leagle.com. JAYCO: Recalls WHITE HAWK TRAVEL TRAILERS Over Electrical Concern ----------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: June 4, 2013 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Travel Trailer Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Accessories Units affected: 6 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2013192 TC ID number: 2013192 On certain travel trailers, the voltage converter may not have been properly grounded to the trailer frame. This could cause a buildup of heat and melting of wiring insulation, possibly resulting in a fire causing injury and/or property damage. Correction: Dealers will add a ground wire. Affected products: Makes and models affected ------------------------------------------------- Model year Make Model affected ---- ----- -------- JAYCO WHITE HAWK TRAVEL TRAILER 2014 JP MORGAN: Ct. Amends Order Approving "Villegas" Suit Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Saundra B. Armstrong entered an amended order and judgment granting a motion for final approval of class action settlement and a motion for approval of attorneys' fees and costs, and class representative enhancement in NICOLE VILLEGAS, as an individual and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. J.P. MORGAN CHASE & CO., a Delaware corporation; J.P. MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., a national association; CHASE BANK USA, N.A., a national association; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, CASE NO. CV 09-00261 SBA, (N.D. Cal.). Among other things, the Amended Order provides that the Settlement Agreement is APPROVED as fair, reasonable, adequate, and payment of these amounts is approved: * Class Representative Enhancement Award to Nicole Villegas in the amount of $5,000.00. * Attorneys' Fees in the amount of $2,306,250.00 and Costs in the amount of $60,000.00 to Class Counsel. * Fees to the Claims Administrator, CPT Group, Inc. for administration of the Settlement in the amount of $110,000. * $50,000.00 to the California Labor Workforce & Development Agency for settlement of the Private Attorney General Act Penalties. PETER M. HART, Esq. -- hartpeter@msn.com -- AMBER S. HEALY, Esq., KATHERINE M. COPELAND, Esq., at the LAW OFFICES OF PETER M. HART, in Los Angeles, California and ERIC HONIG, Esq., at the LAW OFFICE OF ERIC HONIG, in Marina del Rey, California are the Attorneys for Plaintiff Nicole Villegas. LARRY W. LEE, Esq. -- lwlee@diversitylaw.com -- at the DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, A Professional Corporation, in Los Angeles, CA, Kenneth H. Yoon, Esq. at the LAW OFFICES OF KENNETH H. YOON, in Los Angeles, California are additional counsel for the Plaintiff. A copy of the District Court's June 17, 2013 Amended Order and Judgment is available at http://is.gd/DMijAbfrom Leagle.com. MERCEDES-BENZ: Recalls 10 SLK CLASS Cars Due to Airbag Issue ------------------------------------------------------------ Starting date: June 3, 2013 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Car Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Airbag Units affected: 10 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2013190 TC ID number: 2013190 On certain vehicles, the passenger seat Occupant Classification System may malfunction and could misinterpret a child seat as a small stature person, thereby not deactivating the passenger frontal airbag and not illuminating the "PASSENGER AIRBAG OFF" warning light. This could result in an unwarranted airbag deployment in a crash, increasing the risk of personal injury to a child located in the passenger seating position. Note: Within 50 meters of driving distance, the occupant classification system would automatically reevaluate the occupant classification and correct the issue. Correction: Dealers will verify the proper operation of the Occupant Classification System, and affect repairs if necessary. Affected products: Makes and models affected ---------------------------------------- Model year Make Model affected ---- ----- -------- MERCEDES-BENZ SLK CLASS 2012 MERCEDES-BENZ: Recalls 6 SLK CLASS Cars Due to Airbag Issue ----------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: June 4, 2013 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Car Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Airbag Units affected: 6 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2013191 TC ID number: 2013191 On certain vehicles, the passenger seat Occupant Classification System may malfunction and could misinterpret a small stature person as a child seat, thereby deactivating the passenger frontal airbag and illuminating the "PASSENGER AIRBAG OFF" warning light. This could result in the airbag not deploying when warranted in a crash, increasing the risk of personal injury. Note: Within 50 meters of driving distance, the occupant classification system would automatically re-evaluate the occupant classification and correct the issue. Correction: Dealers will verify the proper operation of the Occupant Classification System, and affect repairs if necessary. Affected products: Makes and models affected ---------------------------------------- Model year Make Model affected ---- ----- -------- MERCEDES-BENZ SLK CLASS 2012 MERRILL LYNCH: 2nd Circuit Affirmed Dismissal of Antitrust Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed in March 2013 the dismissal of antitrust class action lawsuits involving Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., according to the Company's May 10, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013. On September 4, 2008, two putative antitrust class actions were filed against ML & Co., Bank of America and other financial institutions in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Plaintiffs in both actions assert federal antitrust claims under Section 1 of the Sherman Act based on allegations that defendants conspired to restrain trade in auction rate securities ("ARS") by placing support bids in ARS auctions, only to collectively withdraw those bids in February 2008, which allegedly caused ARS auctions to fail. In the first action, Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, Maryland v. Citigroup, Inc., et al., plaintiff seeks to represent a class of issuers of ARS that defendants underwrote between May 12, 2003, and February 13, 2008. This issuer action seeks to recover, among other relief, the alleged above-market interest payments that ARS issuers allegedly have had to make after defendants allegedly stopped placing "support bids" in ARS auctions. In the second action, Mayfield, et al. v. Citigroup, Inc., et al., plaintiff seeks to represent a class of investors that purchased ARS from defendants and held those securities when ARS auctions failed on February 13, 2008. The Plaintiff seeks to recover, among other relief, unspecified damages for losses in the ARS' market value, and rescission of the investors' ARS purchases. Both actions also seek treble damages and attorneys' fees under the Sherman Act's private civil remedy. On January 25, 2010, the court dismissed both actions with prejudice and the plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On March 5, 2013, the Second Circuit affirmed the January 25, 2010 dismissal of the antitrust actions. Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. -- http://www.ml.com/-- is a holding company that, through its subsidiaries, is one of the world's leading capital markets, advisory and wealth management companies. Merrill Lynch is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina, and is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bank of America Corporation. MERRILL LYNCH: Consolidated Securities Suit Settlement Approved --------------------------------------------------------------- Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., received in April 2013 final approval of its settlement of a consolidated securities class action lawsuit, according to the Company's May 10, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013. Beginning in January 2009, Bank of America, ML & Co. and/or certain of their current and former officers and directors, among others, were named as defendants in a variety of securities actions filed in federal courts in connection with securities filings by Bank of America and Merrill Lynch. The securities filings contained information with respect to events that took place from September 2008 through January 2009 contemporaneous with Bank of America's acquisition of Merrill Lynch (the "Acquisition"). Certain federal court actions were consolidated and/or coordinated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under the caption In re Bank of America Securities, Derivative and Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) Litigation (the "Consolidated Action"). The claims in these actions generally concern alleged material misrepresentations and/or omissions with respect to: (i) the Acquisition; (ii) the financial condition of and 2008 fourth- quarter losses experienced by Bank of America and Merrill Lynch; (iii) due diligence conducted in connection with the Acquisition; (iv) the terms of the Acquisition agreements regarding Merrill Lynch's ability to pay bonuses to Merrill Lynch employees of up to $5.8 billion for the year 2008; (v) Bank of America's discussions with government officials in December 2008, regarding Bank of America's consideration of invoking the material adverse change clause in the Acquisition agreement; (vi) Bank of America's discussions with government officials in December 2008 regarding the possibility of obtaining government assistance in completing the Acquisition; and/or (vii) the proxy statement and related materials for the Acquisition. The Plaintiffs ("Securities Plaintiffs") in the securities class action in the Consolidated Action (the "Consolidated Securities Class Action"), a consolidated class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, asserted claims under Sections 14(a), 10(b), and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), and Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") and asserted damages based on the drop in the stock price upon subsequent disclosures. In February 2012, the court granted a motion for class certification. On November 30, 2012, the parties entered into a settlement agreement. The agreement, which is subject to court approval, provides for a payment by Bank of America of $2.425 billion, and the institution and/or continuation of certain Bank of America corporate governance enhancements until the later of January 1, 2015, or eighteen months following the court's final approval of the settlement. In exchange, Securities Plaintiffs released their claims against all defendants and certain other persons or entities affiliated with defendants. On December 4, 2012, the court issued an order granting preliminary approval of the settlement and scheduling a final hearing for April 5, 2013. On April 5, 2013, the court granted final approval to the settlement of the Consolidated Securities Class Action. Certain shareholders have opted to pursue Acquisition-related claims under the Exchange Act and/or Securities Act apart from the consolidated class action, and these individual actions have been coordinated for pre-trial purposes in the Consolidated Securities Class Action. These individual plaintiffs assert substantially the same facts and claims as the class action plaintiffs. Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. -- http://www.ml.com/-- is a holding company that, through its subsidiaries, is one of the world's leading capital markets, advisory and wealth management companies. Merrill Lynch is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina, and is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bank of America Corporation. MONSANTO CO: Faces Class Action Over Genetically Modified Wheat --------------------------------------------------------------- Scott Learn, writing for The Oregonian, reports that several Washington wheat growers and the Center for Food Safety filed a class-action lawsuit on June 6 against Monsanto after unapproved genetically modified wheat was found in an eastern Oregon field. The lawsuit claimed the discovery damaged the sale of exports. Japan suspended some imports and South Korea said it would increase its inspections of U.S. wheat following the announcement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. "We farmers cannot stand idly by while companies like Monsanto destroy our export markets and our economy," said Tom Stahl, a fourth-generation Washington wheat farmer Tom Stahl said in the news release. Mr. Stahl, part of the suit, is from Waterville and an opponent of genetically modified food. The genetically modified wheat matched one designed by seed giant Monsanto to be resistant to the herbicide Roundup, which was tested through 2005 in Oregon and other states. No genetically modified wheat has been approved for U.S. farming. On June 5, Monsanto called the wheat an isolated occurrence and blamed it on an accident or deliberate mixing of seeds. The St. Louis-based company added on June 6 that the lawsuits were premature given that the strain was limited to one field in Oregon and that none of the wheat had entered commerce. Kyle McClain, Monsanto chief litigation counsel, said the company's process for closing out its wheat development program was government directed, rigorous and well documented. "Given the care undertaken, no legal liability exists and the company will present a vigorous defense," he said in a statement. The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in Spokane and also named Joe Ludeman of Waterville, Dreger Enterprises of Creston, Wahl Ranch of Lind, and The Center for Food Safety, a nonprofit that also opposes genetic modified food. MONSANTO CO: Tousley Brain, Hausfeld File Wheat Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Tousley Brain Stephens PLLC and Hausfeld LLP on June 6 disclosed that they filed a class action against Monsanto Company on behalf of soft white wheat farmers. Two Eastern Washington State farms that grow soft white wheat have filed a class action lawsuit on June 6 in Spokane federal court against Monsanto. The lawsuit, the first class action against Monsanto over its release of unauthorized genetically engineered wheat, was filed on behalf of all domestic soft white wheat farmers. More than 46% of U.S. soft white wheat comes from Washington state. Monsanto field tested genetically-engineered wheat resistant to the herbicide Roundup in 16 states from 1998 and 2005. This wheat has never been approved for planting in the United States. Although Monsanto indicated that it halted its trials nine years ago, its genetically-engineered wheat was discovered on an Eastern Oregon farm last month. The lawsuit contends that the discovery of Monsanto's unapproved wheat has detrimentally affected the ability of soft white wheat farmers to sell their wheat into export channels as many countries, such as Japan and South Korea, are cancelling orders and refusing to accept imports of domestic soft white wheat. These import restrictions could prove financially devastating to soft white wheat farmers in the Pacific Northwest. Nearly 90 percent of the Pacific Northwest's soft white wheat crop is exported to Asian nations, where it is used to make noodles and crackers. The Complaint alleges that Monsanto and its field trial operators knew that conventional wheat could become contaminated with Monsanto's genetically-engineered wheat through commingling and other means during the harvest, storage, transport, and disposal process, yet failed to take the necessary steps to prevent this from occurring. The lawsuit further contends that Monsanto knew that the existence of genetically-engineered wheat commingled within the general wheat supply would cause significant disruptions in the wheat export market and financially damage wheat farmers. Mark Deife, a partner with Tousley Brain Stephens, noted, "Monsanto's genetically engineered seed discovered in Oregon may have been sold through normal commercial channels. My family has been growing soft white wheat in Eastern Washington for over a century and if Monsanto's unauthorized wheat has entered the stream of commerce, it could be devastating for all soft white wheat exports." James Pizzirusso, a partner with Hausfeld LLP, stated, "Monsanto is playing with the economic livelihood of all wheat farmers. Their assurances of the contamination in Oregon as being an 'isolated occurrence' ring hollow." The Seattle-based Tousley Brain Stephens offers an active national class action litigation practice as well as a regional business and real estate practice. Hausfeld LLP has an active environmental tort litigation practice and its attorneys previously served as co-lead counsel representing corn farmers in a national class action against the manufacturer of genetically- modified StarLink corn, which resulted in $110 million settlement. A copy of the Complaint is available at http://www.hausfeldllp.com Tousley Brain Stephens and Hausfeld urge soft white wheat farmers to contact the firms to learn more about their legal rights. For additional inquiries -- Monsantowheat@Tousley.com MUSKOKA MUNICIPALITY: Faces Class Action Over April Flooding ------------------------------------------------------------ Chad Ingram, writing for Minden Times, reports that a Muskoka attorney is launching a class action lawsuit against the provincial government in the wake of flooding in that municipality in April. Bracebridge-based attorney Michael Anne MacDonald has given notice to the government and is taking aim at the Ministry of Natural Resources for flooding that occurred in the areas of Huntsville, Muskoka Lake and its watershed and other areas April 18, 19 and 20. "My position is the Ministry of Natural Resources has, in its mandate, taken control of the waterways and watersheds and having taken control of the waters and damming them up, they're responsible if they open those dams negligently and cause damage to people's property," Ms. MacDonald told the Times, calling the damage massive. "I don't think anybody has an estimate yet, but its clearly in the millions and perhaps up to a billion dollars." It's yet unclear how many people the suit will represent. "A number of people approached me to see if I would make an action," Ms. MacDonald said. "I was very concerned about the responsibility of the government for damage." Ms. MacDonald, who described herself as a local girl who's lived on the water most of her life, said that area lakes such as Lake Rosseau that are not on the system didn't flood, while Lake Muskoka rose by seven to eight feet. She was asked whether she thought the suit would be successful. "I never predict success or lack of success, but I wouldn't commence something this onerous without a very strong belief in the rightness of the cause," she said. NANAIMO SAUSAGE: Recalls Polish Salami Sausage Over Health Hazard ----------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: June 14, 2013 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Notification Subcategory: Microbiological - Staphylococcus aureus Hazard classification: Class 2 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Nanaimo Sausage House Distribution: British Columbia Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 8056 Affected products: Brand name Common name Size Code UPC ---- ----------- ---- ---- --- None Polish Salami Variable kg None None Sausage NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Plaintiffs' Lawyers Balk at Delaney Statement --------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Berkowitz, writing for USA TODAY Sports, reports that lawyers for the plaintiffs in an antitrust lawsuit pertaining to the use of college athletes' names, likeness and images said in a filing on June 6 that Big Ten Conference Commissioner Jim Delany "did not draft a single word" of a statement in which he suggested that the schools in his conference would depart the NCAA's Division I and downsize their athletics programs if the association's current amateurism rules were lifted, as proposed in the lawsuit. In the filing with a federal court in California, the plaintiffs' lawyers said counsel for the Big Ten played a "major role" in drafting Mr. Delany's statement and counsel for the NCAA played such a role in the drafting of similar statements by other conference and university executives. Consequently, the plaintiffs lawyers argued, it "obviously bears on the weight that this Court should accord" the statements. On June 7, the Big Ten's attorney, Andrew Rosenman, took issue with the plaintiffs' portrayal of the manner in which Mr. Delany's statement was crafted and whether that should have any bearing on the statement's validity with the court. "It is completely irrelevant and meaningless that Mr. Delany did not draft the declaration himself," Mr. Rosenman said via e-mail" . . . Mr. Delany carefully read and reviewed the declaration before he signed it." The declaration "was explicitly signed, in accordance with federal court procedural rules, 'under penalty of perjury'," Mr. Rosenman said. "Mr. Delany would not have signed the declaration if he determined that any portions of the document were inaccurate." Mr. Rosenman added that the plaintiffs' filing conveys "the absolutely false impression that Mr. Delany simply rubber-stamped a statement that the Big Ten's counsel drafted." In March, lawyers for the NCAA -- a defendant in the case, along with video-game maker Electronic Arts and the nation's leading collegiate trademark licensing and marketing firm, Collegiate Licensing Co. -- filed a set of written statements from Delany and a group of conference and university executives, including the University of Texas' top athletics officials, the chancellor of the California State University system and the presidents of Utah State and Wake Forest. In slightly varied ways, those statements said the financial and legal burdens that schools would face from needing to share revenue with football and men's basketball players would prompt schools to exit Division I or Bowl Subdivision football. Delany's statement said: ". . . it has been my longstanding belief that the Big Ten's schools would forgo the revenues in those circumstances and instead take steps to downsize the scope, breadth and activity of their athletic programs. Several alternatives to a 'pay for play' model exist, such as the Division III model, which does not offer any athletics-based grants-in-aid and, among others, a need-based financial aid model." Such assertions -- and the plaintiffs' counter-argument on June 6 -- are part of the legal maneuvering connected to whether the case should be certified as a class action. If the case is certified as a class action, it likely would bring thousands of current and former college football and men's basketball players into the case and potentially place billions of dollars in damages at stake. For that to occur, however, the plaintiffs' lawyers must convince U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken that their prospective, larger group of athlete plaintiffs would have common claims. Judge Wilken was scheduled to conduct a hearing on the matter June 20. At issue in the case overall is whether the defendants have illegally used the names and likenesses of college football and men's basketball players. Initially filed in May 2009, its named plaintiffs include former UCLA basketball star Ed O'Bannon. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated antitrust law by conspiring to fix at zero the amount of compensation athletes can receive for the use of their names, images and likenesses in products or media while they are in school and by requiring athletes to sign forms under which they allegedly relinquish in perpetuity all rights pertaining to the use of the names, images and likenesses in ways including TV contracts, rebroadcasts of games, and video game, jersey and other apparel sales. In seeking certification of their suit as a class action, the plaintiffs' lawyers said that while they are seeking monetary damages on behalf of former athletes, they "do not seek compensation to be paid to current student-athletes while they maintain their eligibility" but rather "a less restrictive system, namely that monies generated by the licensing and sale of class members' names, images and likenesses can be temporarily held in trust" until their end of their college playing careers. If, as Mr. Delany and other college officials asserted in March, some schools would leave Division I or FBS rather than sharing revenues with the athletes, then some athletes potentially would be better off if the current system was left unchanged. And thus, the defendants' lawyers argued in March, class certification should not be granted. But lawyers for the plaintiffs then asked for, and received, permission from the court to conduct depositions of Mr. Delany and three other college officials for whom statements were submitted: Fresno State University President John Welty, Horizon League Commissioner Jon LeCrone and NCAA vice president of championships and alliances Mark Lewis. In their filing on June 6, the plaintiffs' lawyers' wrote that in a deposition on May 29 Mr. Delany "noted that others within the Big Ten would disagree with his view." In an excerpt of the deposition also filed on June 6, Mr. Delany said that among Big Ten school presidents and chancellors "some probably would -- may be disagreeable" with Mr. Delany's statement about how the schools would respond if they had to share considerable revenue with athletes. Details of the depositions of Messrs. Welty, LeCrone and Lewis were heavily redacted from the June 6 filing. However, it appears that Mr. Welty's deposition touched on California State University system chancellor Timothy White's statement in March that Title IX compliance would be an issue if schools had to compensate football and men's basketball players. While discussing Mr. Welty's deposition, the plaintiffs' lawyers argued that it is not clear that "group licensing fees would be considered financial assistance with the meaning of Title IX regulations." NESTLE S.A.: Faces Canadian Class Action Over Alleged Price-Fixing ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Independent reports that two of the world's biggest chocolate companies, Nestle and Mars, have been charged in Canada with price-fixing. The charges come after a five-year investigation by the Competition Bureau in Canada and follows a class action in which the confectionary companies agreed to pay compensation. In a statement it announced: "The Bureau's investigation uncovered evidence suggesting that the accused conspired, agreed or arranged to fix prices of chocolate products, resulting in a referral of evidence to the Public Prosecution Service of Canada (PPSC) and charges against the accused." John Pecman, the Bureau's Interim Commissioner, said he was determined to stamp out "egregious anti-competitive behavior". He added: "Price-fixing is a serious criminal offence and [Thurs] day's charges demonstrate the Competition Bureau's resolve to stop cartel activity in Canada." The Canadian arms of Mars and Nestle, along with the Canadian branch of Hershey and the distributor ITWAL, are alleged to have colluded to keep the price of chocolate confectionary artificially high. ITWAL was charged along with Mars and Nestle but the Competition Bureau has recommended leniency against Hershey because it co- operated with the inquiry. Three senior executives were charged individually. They are Robert Leonidas, former President of Nestle Canada, Sandra Martinez, former President of Confectionery for Nestle Canada, and David Glenn Stevens, President and CEO of ITWAL. Each of them faces a maximum jail sentence of five years and could be fined up to $10 million. Had the alleged offences been committed after new laws were introduced they would have faced fines of up to $25m and 14-year prison terms. Nestle said in a statement: "Nestle Canada will vigorously defend these charges. At Nestle Canada, we pride ourselves on operating with the highest ethical business standards." Mars issued a similar promise to fight the allegations. Hershey released a statement expressing regret for its actions and laying the responsibility at the feet of now-departed employees. NEW NEWSCORP: Still Awaits Decision on Bid to Junk "Wilder" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- On July 19, 2011, a purported class action lawsuit captioned Wilder v. News Corp., et al. was filed on behalf of all purchasers of common stock of New Newscorp LLC's parent, News Corporation ("Parent") between March 3, 2011, and July 11, 2011, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiff brought claims under Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, alleging that false and misleading statements were issued regarding alleged acts of voicemail interception at The News of the World. The lawsuit named as defendants Parent, Rupert Murdoch, James Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks, and sought compensatory damages, rescission for damages sustained, and costs. This litigation and certain other Parent stockholder lawsuits are all now before the same judge. On June 5, 2012, the court issued an order appointing the Avon Pension Fund ("Avon") as lead plaintiff in the litigation and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd as lead counsel. Thereafter, on July 3, 2012, the court issued an order providing that an amended consolidated complaint was to be filed by July 31, 2012. Avon filed an amended consolidated complaint on July 31, 2012, which among other things, added as defendants the Company's subsidiary, NI Group Limited, and Les Hinton, and expanded the class period to include February 15, 2011, to July 18, 2011. The Defendants filed their motion to dismiss on September 25, 2012, and the parties have completed briefing on the motion. The motion is pending. No further updates were reported in the Company's May 10, 2013, Form 10-12B/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Parent and New News Corporation management believe these Parent stockholder claims are entirely without merit and intend to vigorously defend this action. New York-based New Newscorp LLC is a Delaware limited liability company and a wholly-owned subsidiary of News Corporation. The Company will hold these Parent's businesses: newspapers, information services and integrated marketing services, digital real estate services, book publishing, digital education and sports programming and pay-TV distribution in Australia. NEW NEWSCORP: Still Defends Suits Over Ebooks vs. HarperCollins --------------------------------------------------------------- New Newscorp LLC continues to defend a subsidiary against antitrust lawsuits and investigations related to ebooks, according to the Company's May 10, 2013, Form 10-12B/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Commencing on August 9, 2011, twenty-nine purported consumer class actions have been filed in the U.S. District Courts for the Southern District of New York and for the Northern District of California, which relate to the decisions by certain publishers, including HarperCollins Publishers L.L.C. ("HarperCollins"), to begin selling their eBooks pursuant to an agency relationship. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has transferred the various class actions to the Honorable Denise L. Cote in the Southern District of New York. On January 20, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, again alleging that certain named defendants, including HarperCollins, violated the antitrust and unfair competition laws by virtue of the switch to the agency model for eBooks. The actions seek as relief treble damages, injunctive relief and attorney's fees. On June 25, 2012, Judge Cote issued a scheduling order for the multi-district litigation going forward. Additional information about In re MDL Electronic Books Antitrust Litigation, Civil Action No. 11-md- 02293 (DLC), can be found on Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER). While it is not possible to predict with any degree of certainty the ultimate outcome of these class actions, HarperCollins believes it was compliant with applicable antitrust and competition laws. Following an investigation, on April 11, 2012, the Department of Justice (the "DOJ") filed an action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against certain publishers, including HarperCollins, and Apple, Inc. The DOJ's complaint alleges antitrust violations relating to defendants' decisions to begin selling eBooks pursuant to an agency relationship. This case was assigned to Judge Cote. Simultaneously, the DOJ announced that it had reached a proposed settlement with three publishers, including HarperCollins, and filed a Proposed Final Judgment and related materials detailing that agreement. Among other things, the Proposed Final Judgment requires that HarperCollins terminate its agreements with certain eBook retailers and places certain restrictions on any agreements subsequently entered into with such retailers. On September 5, 2012, Judge Cote entered the Final Judgment. A third party has filed a motion to intervene in the case for the purpose of appealing Judge Cote's decision entering the Final Judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On March 26, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit dismissed his appeal. Additional information about the Final Judgment can be found on the DOJ's Web site. Following an investigation, on April 11, 2012, 16 State Attorneys General led by Texas and Connecticut (the "AGs") filed a similar action against certain publishers and Apple, Inc. in the Western District of Texas. On April 26, 2012, the AGs' action was transferred to Judge Cote. On May 17, 2012, 33 AGs filed a second amended complaint. As a result of a memorandum of understanding agreed upon with the AGs for Texas and Connecticut, HarperCollins was not named as a defendant in this action. Pursuant to the terms of the memorandum of understanding, HarperCollins entered into a settlement agreement with the AGs for Texas, Connecticut and Ohio on June 11, 2012. By August 28, 2012, forty-nine states (all but Minnesota) and five U.S. territories had signed on to that settlement agreement. On August 29, 2012, the AGs simultaneously filed a complaint against HarperCollins and two other publishers, a motion for preliminary approval of that settlement agreement and a proposed distribution plan. On September 14, 2012, Judge Cote granted the AGs' motion for preliminary approval of the settlement agreement and approved the AGs' proposed distribution plan. Notice was subsequently sent to potential class members, and a fairness hearing took place on February 8, 2013, at which Judge Cote gave final approval to the settlement. The settlement is now effective, and the final judgment bars consumers from states and territories covered by the settlement from participating in the class actions. On October 12, 2012, HarperCollins received a Civil Investigative Demand from the Attorney General from the State of Minnesota. HarperCollins complied with the Demand on November 16, 2012, and is cooperating with that investigation. While it is not possible to predict with any degree of certainty the ultimate outcome of the inquiry, HarperCollins believes it was compliant with applicable antitrust laws. The European Commission conducted an investigation into whether certain companies in the book publishing and distribution industry, including HarperCollins, violated the antitrust laws by virtue of the switch to the agency model for eBooks. HarperCollins settled the matter with the European Commission on terms substantially similar to the settlement with the DOJ. On December 13, 2012, the European Commission formally adopted the settlement. Commencing on February 24, 2012, five purported consumer class actions were filed in the Canadian provinces of British Columbia, Quebec and Ontario, which relate to the decisions by certain publishers, including HarperCollins, to begin selling their eBooks in Canada pursuant to an agency relationship. The actions seek as relief special, general and punitive damages, injunctive relief and the costs of the litigations. While it is not possible to predict with any degree of certainty the ultimate outcome of these class actions, especially given their early stages, HarperCollins believes it was compliant with applicable antitrust and competition laws and intends to defend itself vigorously. In July 2012, HarperCollins Canada, a wholly-owned subsidiary of HarperCollins, learned that the Canadian Competition Bureau ("CCB") had commenced an inquiry regarding the sale of eBooks in Canada. HarperCollins currently is cooperating with the CCB with respect to its inquiry. While it is not possible to predict with any degree of certainty the ultimate outcome of the inquiry, HarperCollins believes it was compliant with applicable antitrust and competition laws. On February 15, 2013, a purported class of independent bricks-and- mortar bookstores filed an action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York entitled The Book House of Stuyvesant Plaza, Inc, et. al. v. Amazon.com, Inc., et. al, which relates to the digital rights management protection ("DRM") of certain publishers', including HarperCollins', e-books being sold by Amazon.com Inc. The Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint on March 21, 2013. The case involves allegations that certain named defendants in the book publishing and distribution industry, including HarperCollins, violated the antitrust laws by virtue of requiring DRM protection. The action seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, reasonable costs and attorneys' fees. On April 1, 2013, the Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint. The court heard oral argument on the Defendants' motion to dismiss on April 25, 2013. While it is not possible to predict with any degree of certainty the ultimate outcome of this class action, HarperCollins believes it was compliant with applicable antitrust laws and intends to defend itself vigorously. The Company says it is not able to predict the ultimate outcome or cost of the HarperCollins matters. During the nine months ended March 31, 2013, and 2012, the legal and professional fees and settlements incurred in connection with these matters were not material, and as of March 31, 2013, the Company did not have a material accrual related to these matters. New York-based New Newscorp LLC is a Delaware limited liability company and a wholly-owned subsidiary of News Corporation. The Company will hold these Parent's businesses: newspapers, information services and integrated marketing services, digital real estate services, book publishing, digital education and sports programming and pay-TV distribution in Australia. NU-PHARM INC: Recalls Nu-Cephalex Tablets Over Rainwater Contact ---------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: June 3, 2013 Posting date: June 20, 2013 Type of communication: Drug Recall Subcategory: Drugs Hazard classification: Type II Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Product Safety Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals Identification number: RA-34267 Recalled products: A. Nu-Cephalex Tablets may have come into contact with rain water. Depth of distribution: Wholesalers, Pharmacies -- ON, MB, SK. Affected products: A. Nu-Cephalex DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM DIN 00865885 Dosage form: Tablet Strength: 500 mg Lot or serial number: JP1015 Companies: Recalling Firm Nu-Pharm Inc. 2 - 1165 Creditstone Road Vaughan L4K 4N7 Ontario, CANADA Marketing Nu-Pharm Inc. Authorization 2 - 1165 Creditstone Road Holder Vaughan L4K 4N7 Ontario, CANADA OCLARO INC: Files Motion to Dismiss Amended Securities Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Oclaro, Inc. moved to dismiss a third amended complaint in a securities lawsuit filed against it in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, according to the company's May 9, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 30, 2013. On May 19, 2011, Curtis and Charlotte Westley filed a purported class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, against the company and certain of the company's officers and directors. The Court subsequently appointed the Connecticut Laborers' Pension Fund (Pension Fund) as lead plaintiff for the putative class. On April 26, 2012, the Pension Fund filed a second amended complaint, captioned as Westley v. Oclaro, Inc., No. 11 Civ. 2448 EMC, allegedly on behalf of persons who purchased the company's common stock between May 6 and October 28, 2010, alleging that the company and certain of the company's officers and directors issued materially false and misleading statements during this time period regarding the company's current business and financial condition, including projections for demand for the company's products, as well as the company's revenues, earnings, and gross margins, for the first quarter of fiscal year 2011 as well as the full fiscal year. The complaint alleges violations of section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5, as well as section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act. The complaint seeks damages and costs of an unspecified amount. On September 21, 2012, the Court dismissed the second amended complaint with leave to amend. After the Pension Fund moved for reconsideration, on January 10, 2013, the Court allowed plaintiffs to take discovery regarding statements made in May and June 2010. The Court also ordered defendants to move for summary judgment by June 13, 2013 on the issue of defendants' scienter with respect to statements made in May and June 2010, and further ordered that the motion be heard on July 18, 2013. On March 1, 2013 the Pension Fund filed a third amended complaint, attempting to cure pleading deficiencies with regard to statements allegedly made from July to October 2010. On April 1, 2013, defendants moved to dismiss the third amended complaint with respect to the statements made from July to October 2010. Oral argument on the motion to dismiss is scheduled for May 16, 2013. Discovery has commenced, and no trial has been scheduled in this action. The company intends to defend this litigation vigorously. The company is unable at this time to estimate the effects of this lawsuit on the company's financial position, results of operations or cash flows. OFFICE DEPOT: Court Approves Stipulation in "Provine" Suit Deal --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned HOWARD DAVID PROVINE, individually and on behalf of other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. OFFICE DEPOT, INC. and DOES 1 through 10, Defendants, CASE NO. CV 11- 00903 SI, (N.D. Cal.), District Judge Susan Illston approved plaintiff Howard David Provine and defendant Office Depot, Inc.'s Stipulation re Amended Class Notice and Amended Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement as directed by the Court. A copy of the District Court's June 17, 2013 Order is available at http://is.gd/O6giW1from Leagle.com. Gregory N. Karasik, Esq. -- greg@karasiklawfirm.com -- at Karasik Law Firm, Los Angeles, CA, Ira Spiro, Esq. -- ira@spiromoore.com -- at Spiro Moore LLP, in Los Angeles, California, Alexander I. Dychter, Esq. -- Alex@DychterLaw.com -- at Dychter Law Offices, APC, in San Diego, California, are the attorneys for Plaintiff, HOWARD DAVID PROVINE. Jennifer L. Bradford, Esq. -- jbradford@morganlewis.com -- at MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS, is the attorney for the Defendant. PATRIOT COAL: Complaints v. Former Executives Consolidated ---------------------------------------------------------- Complaints in a purported class action filed against a former Chief Executive Officer of Patriot Coal Corporation, Richard M. Whiting, and former Chief Financial Officer, Mark N. Schroeder were consolidated and a lead plaintiff was appointed, according to the company's May 9, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013. During the second half of 2012 and subsequent to the filing of the Chapter 11 Petitions of Patriot Coal Corporation and wholly-owned subsidiaries, three class action complaints were filed against a former Chief Executive Officer, Richard M. Whiting, and former Chief Financial Officer, Mark N. Schroeder (the Class Action Complaints). The Class Action Complaints contain nearly identical allegations including that the defendants made or allowed false and misleading statements related to Patriot's selenium water treatment liability and Patriot's financial condition. The Class Action Complaints were consolidated and a lead plaintiff was appointed during January 2013. The Class Action Complaints can proceed during the pendency of the Bankruptcy Case as Patriot was not named as a defendant. PATRIOT COAL: Suit Over Employee Safety in Mine Dismissed --------------------------------------------------------- A purported class action alleging intentional violation of employee safety at Patriot Coal Corporation's Federal No. 2 mine was dismissed, according to the company's May 9, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013. In late January 2010, the U.S. Attorney's office and the State of West Virginia began investigations relating to one or more of the company's employees making inaccurate entries in official mine records at the company's Federal No. 2 mine. The company terminated one employee and two other employees resigned after being placed on administrative leave. The terminated employee subsequently admitted to falsifying inspection records and has been cooperating with the U.S. Attorney's office. In April 2010, the company received a federal subpoena requesting methane detection systems equipment used at the company's Federal No. 2 mine since July 2008 and the results of tests performed on the equipment since that date. The company provided the equipment and information as required by the subpoena. The company has not received any additional requests for information. In January 2012, the terminated employee filed a civil lawsuit against the company alleging retaliatory discharge and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Additionally, in January 2012, five employees filed a purported class action lawsuit against the company and the terminated employee seeking compensation for lost wages, emotional distress, and punitive damages for the alleged intentional violation of employee safety at the mine. However, in late March 2013, the court dismissed the purported class action lawsuit. The company continues to vigorously defend the remaining civil lawsuit, the potential impact of which cannot be estimated at this time. The remaining civil lawsuit is currently stayed due to the bankruptcy of one or more defendants. PEOPLE'S UNITED: Court Certifies FLSA Collective Action Class ------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Janet D. Hall granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs' motion for conditional class certification in the lawsuit captioned TRACY FRACASSE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. PEOPLE'S UNITED BANK, Defendant, CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:12-CV-670 (JCH), (D. Conn.). Tracy Fracasse and K. Lee Brown brought the action alleging unlawful denial of overtime pay under both the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Sections 201 et seq., and the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act, General Statutes Sections 31-58 et seq. Plaintiffs moved the court for conditional certification under the collective action provision of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), and for certification as a class under Rule 23, Fed. R. Civ. P. Judge Hall granted the Motion for Conditional Certification of the FLSA collective action class and denied without prejudice the plaintiff's Motion for Certification of the Rule 23 class. Plaintiffs' proposed FLSA class contemplates all underwriters who worked out of PUB's Bridgeport office since May 3, 2009. To facilitate the issuance of notice, the court ordered PUB to disclose potential opt-in plaintiffs' names, addresses, employment locations, and dates of employment. The parties were referred to the court's instructions at the hearing on the Motion regarding notice, and were ordered to submit a joint form of notice within seven days of the date of the ruling or, if they are unable to agree on a single form, to submit competing notices within the same time period. The parties were further ordered to confer and submit a proposed amended scheduling order within five court days of the Ruling. Tracy Fracasse and K. Lee Brown are represented by Elizabeth R. McKenna, Esq., Kevin C. Shea, Esq., William H. Clendenen, Jr., at Clendenen & Shea; and Kaitlin A Halloran, Esq., & R. Bartley Halloran, at Halloran & Halloran. People's United Bank is represented by David R. Golder, Esq. -- GolderD@jacksonlewis.com -- Kristi M. Rich, Esq. -- RichK@jacksonlewis.com -- & William Joseph Anthony, Esq. -- AnthonyW@jacksonlewis.com -- at Jackson Lewis. A copy of the District Court's June 17, 2013 Ruling is available at http://is.gd/9AM1iZfrom Leagle.com. PINNACLE ENTERTAINMENT: Ameristar Stockholders Approved Purchase ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc., disclosed in its May 10, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013, that its proposed acquisition of Ameristar Casinos Inc. was approved in April 2013 by Ameristar's stockholders. In December 2012, the Company entered into a definitive agreement to acquire all of the outstanding common shares of Ameristar Casinos Inc. ("Ameristar") in an all cash transaction valued at $26.50 per share representing total consideration of $2.8 billion, including assumed debt. Ameristar operates the following casinos: Ameristar Casino Resort Spa St. Charles; Ameristar Casino Hotel Kansas City; Ameristar Casino Hotel Council Bluffs; Ameristar Casino Resort Spa Black Hawk; Ameristar Casino Hotel Vicksburg; Ameristar Casino Hotel East Chicago; and Cactus Petes Resort Casino and The Horseshu Hotel and Casino in Jackpot, Nevada. On December 24, 2012, a putative stockholder class action lawsuit related to the Company's proposed acquisition of Ameristar was filed in Nevada District Court for Clark County, captioned Joseph Grob v. Ameristar Casinos, Inc., et al. (the "Grob action"). The complaint names Ameristar and members of Ameristar's Board of Directors (the "Ameristar Defendants"); and Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc., PNK Holdings, Inc., and PNK Development 32, Inc. as defendants (the "Pinnacle Defendants"). The complaint generally alleges that the Board of Directors of Ameristar, aided and abetted by Ameristar and the Pinnacle Defendants, breached their fiduciary duties owed to Ameristar's stockholders in connection with Pinnacle's proposed acquisition of Ameristar. The action includes claims for, among other things, an injunction halting the proposed acquisition of Ameristar by Pinnacle, and an award of costs and expenses to the putative plaintiff stockholder, including attorneys' fees. Thereafter, other plaintiffs filed additional complaints in the same court making essentially the same allegations and seeking similar relief to the Grob action. On January 15, 2013, the court issued an order consolidating the actions, and any subsequently filed actions, into a single, consolidated action. On April 16, 2013, the Nevada District Court heard the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction and denied the plaintiffs' request. On April 25, 2013, the stockholders of Ameristar approved the Merger Agreement at a special meeting of stockholders. The Company believes that the allegations directed against it lack merit and intends to defend itself vigorously. Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc. -- http://www.pnkinc.com/-- is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Las Vegas, Nevada. Pinnacle is an owner, operator and developer of casinos and related hospitality and entertainment facilities. POOLMAN OF WISCONSIN: Class Cert. Ruling in "UESCO" Suit Reversed ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, First Division reversed the decision of the Circuit Court of Cook County granting plaintiff's motion for class certification in UESCO INDUSTRIES, INC. v. POOLMAN OF WISCONSIN, INC. The Appellate Court held that as a result of applying the improper legal standard, the circuit court erred in its finding that defendant was liable for all fax advertisements sent on its behalf by B2B, which exceeded the scope of its authority to send faxes to small electric motor repair and service companies. The plaintiff has not stated a valid claim against the defendant and, therefore, is not an adequate class representative of the March 2006 fax recipients. The Appellate Court also found that the plaintiff is not an appropriate class representative for those who received unsolicited faxes from the defendant in December 2006. As a result, says the Appellate Court, the circuit court abused its discretion by granting class certification. The issue of whether plaintiff's counsel is adequate to represent the class is moot, and the Appellate Court remands the case. Justice Delort delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Presiding Justice Hoffman and Justice Cunningham concurred in the judgment and opinion. The case is UESCO INDUSTRIES, INC., an Illinois Corporation, Individually and as the Representative of a Class of Similarly Situated Persons, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. POOLMAN OF WISCONSIN, INC., Defendant-Appellant, NO. 1-11-2566. A copy of the Appellate Court's June 17, 2013 Opinion is available at http://is.gd/MktEKT from Leagle.com. REMINGTON ARMS: Court Narrows Claims in "Pollard" Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Senior District Judge Ortrie D. Smith granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss claims in the lawsuit captioned IAN POLLARD, Plaintiff, v. REMINGTON ARMS COMPANY, LLC, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 13-0086-CV-W-ODS, (W.D. Mo.). The Plaintiff filed the putative class action suit on January 28, 2013, against Remington Arms Company, Inc., Sporting Goods Properties, Inc., and E.I. DuPont Nemours and Company, after his Remington Model 700 rifle fired without a trigger pull. The Plaintiff's nine-count Complaint asserts the following claims: Count I? "Violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act Count II? "Strict Products Liability Count III? "Negligence Count IV? "Violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act Count V "Breach of Express Warranty Count VI? "Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability Count VII "Fraudulent Concealment Count VIII "Unjust Enrichment Count IX ? "Declaratory Relief. The Plaintiff sought a declaration that all Remington Model 700 rifles using the Walker fire control are defective, that Defendants knew of the defect, and that Defendants should issue a recall of the Model 700 rifles. Judge Smith ruled that the Motion to Dismiss Count I is granted to the extent Count I relies on fraudulent misrepresentation. To the extent Count I relies on fraudulent concealment, the Defendants' Motion is denied. The Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Counts II, III, IV, V, VI is granted. The Motion to Dismiss Count VII, VIII, and IX is denied. Ian Pollard is represented by Timothy W. Monsees, Esq., at Monsees & Mayer PC, W. Mark Lanier, Esq., at The Lanier Law Firm, P.C., Andrew S. LeRoy, Esq., at Monsees & Mayer PC, Charles E. Schaffer, Esq., at Levin Fishbein Sedran & Berman, Christopher Ellis, Esq., at Bolen Robinson & Ellis LLP, Eric D. Holland, Esq., at Holland Groves Schneller & Stolze LLC, John R. Climaco, Esq., at Climaco Law Firm, John A. Peca, Esq., at Climaco Wilcox Peca Tarantino & Garofoli Co., LPA, Jon D. Robinson, Esq., at Bolen Robinson & Ellis LLP, Jordan L. Chaikin, Esq., at Parker Waichman LLP, Richard J. Arsenault, Esq., at Neblett Beard & Arsenault, Richard Ramler, Esq., at Ramler Law Office PC & R. Seth Crompton, Esq., at Holland, Groves, Schneller & Stolze. Remington Arms Company, LLC is represented by John K Sherk, Esq., at Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP-KCMO, Amy Crouch, Esq., at Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP-KCMO, Andrew A Lothson, Esq., at Swanson, Martin & Bell, LLP & Dale G Wills, Esq., at Swanson, Martin & Bell, LLP. Sporting Goods Properties, Inc., is represented by John K Sherk, Esq., at Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP-KCMO, Amy Crouch, Esq., at Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP-KCMO, Andrew A Lothson, Esq., at Swanson, Martin & Bell, LLP & Dale G Wills, Esq., at Swanson, Martin & Bell, LLP. E.I. Du Pont Nemours and Company is represented by John K Sherk, Esq., at Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP, Amy Crouch, Esq., at Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP, Andrew A Lothson, Esq., at Swanson, Martin & Bell, LLP & Dale G Wills, Esq., at Swanson, Martin & Bell, LLP. A copy of the District Court's June 17, 2013 Order is available at http://is.gd/dDOTwifrom Leagle.com. RIVERDALE PARK, MD: Judge Dismisses Speed Camera Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Jenni Pompi, writing for Patch, reports that a $5 million class action lawsuit filed against the Town of Riverdale Park regarding speed camera tickets was dismissed by a circuit court judge after the claims of the plaintiffs were found to be without merit. The lawsuit, filed in August of 2012, alleged that plaintiffs were given $40 speeding tickets by cameras with technology that did not comply with state law. Maryland's speed camera law dictates that there be a fixed object in speed camera photographs to better allow for observers to determine how fast a driver is going. The suit alleges that there was no such point of reference in Riverdale Park where the tickets were issued. The lawsuit also contended that one of the three drivers that filed suit was issued a ticket with a forged signature. According to the suit, former Riverdale Park Police Cpl. Clay Alford -- the only officer permitted to sign the speed camera tickets -- was out of town when the citation was signed. According to the judge, the defendants had 180 days to challenge the speed camera tickets in court to take up the matter of the equipment used by the town, but they did not take that course of action. Because they chose not to assert their right to a hearing when the tickets were issued, the judge determined that they did not have grounds to file suit against Riverdale Park more than a year after the tickets were issued. For this reason, the judge found this claim of the suit had no merit. The judge also found that the plaintiff that claimed a speed camera ticket was fraudulently signed should also have challenged the ticket within 180 days. Had the plaintiff done so, Alford could have been called to the stand to testify about the ticket. Since the plaintiff did not follow this course of action, this claim was also found to be without merit. Councilman Jonathan Ebbeler (Ward 1) said he was pleased with the outcome of the case. "Although town leadership could not comment on the case when it was filed, we were cautiously optimistic throughout the process that the rule of law would prevail and the case would be dismissed," Mr. Ebbeler said. "The town continues to support public safety programs that target motorists egregiously exceeding the speed limit within a block from an elementary school," he added. STATE FARM: Settles Inspector Wage Class Action for $5 Million -------------------------------------------------------------- Ben James, writing for Law360, reports that State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. has agreed to shell out $5 million to put the brakes on a putative class action accusing the company of failing to pay vehicle damage inspectors in California for all the time they spent working, the plaintiff said on June 5. Named plaintiff Bryan Shiosaka filed a motion urging Los Angeles federal court to grant preliminary approval to the $5 million deal and conditionally certify a class of State Farm employees who worked as hourly, nonexempt automotive estimatics inspectors in the Golden State between Dec. 23, 2007 and May 31, 2013. "The class representative and class counsel have concluded, after taking into account sharply disputed factual and legal issues involved in this litigation, the risks attending further prosecution and the substantial benefits received and to be received pursuant to the compromise and settlement of the litigation, that settlement on the terms hereinafter set forth is in the best interest of the class members," Mr. Shiosaka said in a memorandum supporting his preliminary approval bid. Mr. Shiosaka lodged the lawsuit in state court in 2011, claiming that he and other inspectors, who work in the field inspecting damage and estimating repair costs, weren't paid all the wages -- including overtime wages -- that they were due. State Farm removed it to federal court in 2012. In a May 2 first amended complaint, Mr. Shiosaka said that State Farm inspectors should have gotten paid for time spent at home getting their daily work schedules and answering email, as well as driving from home to their first assignment and traveling from their last assignment back home. State Farm regularly paid those workers for 7.75 hours per day when they averaged 9.5 hours per day, the complaint alleged. In addition to giving a preliminary okay to the settlement and the class, Mr. Shiosaka asked the court to approve him as class representative and confirm his lawyers at The Law Office of Joseph Antonelli and Conforti & Carras APC as class counsel. He also sought to have a final hearing on the settlement set for October. The $5 million settlement is fair and reasonable, and comes after extensive research and written discovery, the June 3 memorandum said. The memorandum included a breakdown of the proposed deal, showing $1.5 million allocated for attorneys' fees and up to $15,000 for costs, a $20,000 litigation enhancement to Mr. Shiosaka, an $11,250 payment under the Private Attorney General Act to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency, $165,000 going toward the employer's share of taxes and $25,000 in settlement administration costs. That leaves $3,263,750 for the class, the plaintiff said. State Farm said in the settlement agreement that it denied the claims in the lawsuit, and noted that further litigation would be "protracted and expensive." Attorneys for both sides could not be reached for comment. Joseph Antonelli, Janelle Carney and Jason Hatcher of the Law Office of Joseph Antonelli and Michael Carras and Daniel Conforti of Conforti & Carras APC are proposed class counsel. State Farm is represented by Douglas Hart -- dhart@sidley.com -- Geoffrey DeBoskey -- gdeboskey@sidley.com -- Sheryl Horwitz -- shorwitz@sidley.com -- and Erica Parks -- eparks@sidley.com -- of Sidley Austin LLP. The case is Bryan Shiosaka v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company et al., case number 2:12-cv-01268 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. STATE FARM: Judge Denies Motion to Stay Discovery in RICO Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Bethany Krajelis, writing for The Madison-St. Clair Record, reports that a lawsuit alleging fraudulent activity in Avery v. State Farm is moving forward as a federal judge last month denied the defendants' motion to stay to discovery. And it appears that the plaintiffs -- Mark Hale, Todd Shale and Carly Vickers Morse -- are preparing for a battle as court records show more than 20 attorneys are now representing them. The trio of plaintiffs, all of whom were plaintiffs in the 1997 nationwide class action Avery v. State Farm, filed a federal lawsuit in May 2012 against State Farm, William Shepherd, an attorney at the insurance company, and Ed Murnane, president of the Illinois Civil Justice League (ICJL). They accuse the defendants of violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corruption Organizations (RICO) Act by creating an enterprise "to enable State Farm to evade payment of a $1.05 billion judgment affirmed in favor of approximately 4.7 million State Farm policyholders." The plaintiffs assert that the defendants implemented their scheme in two phases, the first of which involved recruiting, financing and electing a candidate to the Illinois Supreme Court who would vote to overturn the judgment against State Farm once elected. That phase, the suit contends, was completed when Lloyd Karmeier won the 2004 race for the Fifth District seat on the state high court and nine months later, voted in favor of overturning the billion-dollar judgment against State Farm. The suit goes on to claim that the second phase took place in 2005 and 2011, when State Farm filed alleged misrepresentations to the Supreme Court in response to the plaintiffs' requests for the justices to vacate their decision overturning judgment. The defendants asked U.S. Chief Judge David Hernon to dismiss the suit, arguing that federal courts don't have jurisdiction to review civil judgments of state courts under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and that the plaintiffs failed to prove their RICO claims in a timely matter. Herndon in a March 28 order denied the motion, determining that he did have subject-matter jurisdiction, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine didn't apply and that the RICO claims were brought before the statute of limitations expired. In April, the defendants asked Judge Herndon to alter or amend his order and sought a stay of discovery until that motion was resolved, arguing that they presented strong arguments for Herndon to think about in their motion to reconsider. Magistrate Judge Stephen Williams in a May 21 order denied the defendants' motion to stay discovery. "Although Defendants contend that they have strong arguments which will likely convince the District Court to reconsider its findings on the motion to dismiss, Defendants have failed to offer any new arguments or insight to suggest that Chief Judge Herndon will grant their motion to reconsider," Judge Williams wrote. Although the defendants argued that Herndon failed to consider their exhibits, take notice of certain documents and overlooked Seventh Circuit precedent, Judge Williams wrote in his order that they offered nothing in support of their arguments. "Instead," Judge Williams wrote, "it appears to the undersigned that Chief Judge Herndon gave substantial consideration, in his forty-three page opinion, to the arguments presented in the briefs, and rejected Defendants' position." He added, "Nothing the Defendants present now gives the undersigned any confidence that the District Court will reconsider its prior ruling, especially given the high bar that Defendants must meet in seeking to overturn the Court's prior ruling." On June 3, State Farm filed an appeal over Williams' order, saying that it is "clearly erroneous and should be overturned." Messrs. Murnane and Shepherd joined that appeal. State Farm asserts in its June 3 appeal that it "ordinarily would be reluctant to seek review of a discovery-related ruling by the Magistrate." "However," it contends, "this is not a typical case, and State Farm will be significantly prejudiced by the denial of the stay motion." State Farm also argues that its pending motion to alter or amend Judge Herndon's March order "presents an extraordinarily compelling case for interlocutory review now of the Court's denial of the dismissal motions." It further asserts that Judge Williams did not address privilege issues it previously raised, issues State Farm contends "may be better framed or avoided altogether if interlocutory review of this Court's dismissal order is allowed to run its course before discovery is permitted to begin." These privilege issues, State Farm claims, are "of a scale and variety unlike those found in nearly any other litigation." In addition to the privilege issues that State Farm claims would arise in discovery, the insurance company argues that staying discovery "is particularly appropriate in light of the inflammatory nature of Plaintiffs' allegations." The lawsuit, State Farm states in its appeal, "impugns the integrity of a Justice of the Illinois Supreme Court, asserts that the Avery rulings of the entire Illinois Supreme Court were tainted and makes baseless allegations that State Farm and the other Defendants have engaged in mail and wire fraud as part of an alleged RICO enterprise." "There is no question that this case ultimately will be resolved on appeal, regardless of which side prevails in motion practice and/or trial," State Farm asserts. The plaintiffs on June 4, the day after State Farm appealed, asked the federal court to certify a class in the suit that would include all persons who were members of the certified class in Avery v. State Farm. In their motion for class certification, the plaintiffs state their proposed class consists of about 4.7 million State Farm policyholders across the nation. They assert that class certification is appropriate in this case because the suit satisfies the numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy, predominance and superiority requirements under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The plaintiffs' motion was submitted by Mississippi attorney Don Barrett, Tennessee attorneys W. Gordon Ball and Charles Barrett, Louisiana attorneys Patrick Pendley and Nicholas Rockforte and Alabama attorneys Tom Thrash, Steven Martino, Richard Taylor and Lloyd Copeland. Court records show Judge Herndon last month appointed Ball as interim lead counsel for the plaintiffs and proposed class. State Farm's appeal was submitted by Edwardsville attorney Patrick Cloud and Chicago attorneys Joseph Cancila Jr., J. Timothy Eaton and James Gaughan. Chicago attorneys Richard O'Brien and David Greenfield represent Murnane and Belleville attorneys Russell Scott and Laura Oberkfell represent Shepherd. Both joined State Farm's appeal. Records also show that several attorneys last month filed notices of appearance in the case and filed motions to appear pro hac vice, both of which have brought the total number of attorneys representing the plaintiffs to more than 20. Chicago attorneys Robert Clifford and Michael Krzak, both of Clifford Law Offices, filed notices of appearances and Judge Herndon granted at least 10 attorneys' motions to appear pro hac vice. TRICO BANCSHARES: Yet to File Settlement Docs in California Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- TriCo Bancshares has not yet filed with the court its settlement of a class action lawsuit filed in California, according to the Company's May 10, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013. On September 27, 2012, the Company announced that its subsidiary, Tri Counties Bank, entered into a tentative settlement with a former employee who filed a class action lawsuit against the Bank in the Superior Court of California, Kern County, on behalf of herself and a putative class of current and former Bank employees serving as assistant branch managers seeking undisclosed damages, alleging that the Bank improperly classified its assistant branch managers as exempt employees under California laws. The lawsuit alleges claims for: failure to pay overtime compensation; failure to provide meal periods; failure to provide rest periods; failure to provide accurate wage statements; failure to provide suitable seating; declaratory relief; accounting; and unfair business practices in violation of California Business and Professions Code section 17200. On September 26, 2012, after efforts to mediate the claim, the Bank and the former employee agreed to settle the case in an amount ranging from $2,039,500 to $2,500,000, depending primarily on the number of class participants who file claims, and pending approval by the court, including determination of the method to allocate settlement payments among current and former employees who are members of the defined settlement class, and the portion of the total settlement allocable to attorney's fees and costs to the plaintiff's counsel. On September 26, 2012, the Bank recorded a $2,090,000 expense and accrued liability in anticipation of approval of this settlement by the court and estimated related payroll taxes. TriCo Bancshares -- http://www.tcbk.com/-- is a bank holding company incorporated in California in 1981 and headquartered in Chico, California. The Company's principal subsidiary is Tri Counties Bank, a California-chartered commercial bank that offers banking services to retail customers and small to medium-sized businesses through 66 branch offices in Northern and Central California. UNI-PIXEL INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in Texas ------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP has filed a class action lawsuit against Uni-Pixel, Inc. and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Southern District of Texas, and docketed under 13-cv-01649, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of Uni-Pixel between December 7, 2012 and May 31, 2013 both dates inclusive. This class action seeks to recover damages against the Company and certain of its officers and directors as a result of alleged violations of the federal securities laws pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. If you are a shareholder who purchased Uni-Pixel securities during the Class Period, you have until August 5, 2013 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, x237. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, number of shares purchased, and losses. Uni-Pixel manufactures fingerprint-resistant and hard coat protective cover films for touch screen-enabled devices. The Company's key product is UniBoss, a copper-mesh film that sits under the glass in touch-sensitive devices, which the Company claims is cheaper to manufacture and more responsive than other competing technologies. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse facts concerning: (1) the nature and commercial potential of the agreements recently entered into by Uni-Pixel with other companies to develop, manufacture and distribute UniBoss; and (2) Uni-Pixel's ability to successfully produce UniBoss in commercially meaningful volumes without serious mechanical failures, and at the price points and margins, projected by management. On May 20, 2013, after the market closed, the Company disclosed that a PC manufacturer with whom it is collaborating recently reported delays with associated operating system software that would delay the appearance of products utilizing UniBoss technology from the third quarter into the fourth quarter of 2013. On this news, Uni-Pixel securities declined $2.48 per share over 9.5%, to close at $23.47 per share on May 21, 2013. On May 31, 2013, Seeking Alpha published an article in which the author stated, among other things, that he had spoken with two former Uni-Pixel sales employees who told him that Uni-Pixel had yet to prove the viability of UniBoss by the time they had left the company, and expressed significant skepticism about Uni- Pixel's ability to successfully produce UniBoss. One of these employees predicted that "Uni-Pixel would ultimately fail when it came time to produce UniBoss in material volumes and in a real- life setting outside of the lab." On this news, Uni-Pixel securities declined $4.57 per share over 23%, to close at $15.21 per share on May 31, 2013. The Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its practice the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. The firm has offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and San Diego. VALHI INC: Continues to Defend Suits Over Lead Pigments vs. Unit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Valhi, Inc., continues to defend a subsidiary against lawsuits relating to the manufacture of lead pigments for use in paints, according to the Company's May 10, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013. NL Industries, Inc.'s former operations included the manufacture of lead pigments for use in paint and lead-based paint. NL, other former manufacturers of lead pigments for use in paint and lead- based paint, and the Lead Industries Association (which discontinued business operations in 2002), have been named as defendants in various legal proceedings seeking damages for personal injury, property damage and governmental expenditures allegedly caused by the use of lead-based paints. Certain of these actions have been filed by or on behalf of states, counties, cities or their public housing authorities and school districts, and certain others have been asserted as class actions. These lawsuits seek recovery under a variety of theories, including public and private nuisance, negligent product design, negligent failure to warn, strict liability, breach of warranty, conspiracy/concert of action, aiding and abetting, enterprise liability, market share or risk contribution liability, intentional tort, fraud and misrepresentation, violations of state consumer protection statutes, supplier negligence and similar claims. The plaintiffs in these actions generally seek to impose on the defendants responsibility for lead paint abatement and health concerns associated with the use of lead-based paints, including damages for personal injury, contribution and/or indemnification for medical expenses, medical monitoring expenses and costs for educational programs. To the extent the plaintiffs seek compensatory or punitive damages in these actions, such damages are generally unspecified. In some cases, the damages are unspecified pursuant to the requirements of applicable state law. A number of cases are inactive or have been dismissed or withdrawn. Most of the remaining cases are in various pre-trial stages. Some are on appeal following dismissal or summary judgment rulings in favor of either the defendants or the plaintiffs. In addition, various other cases (in which the Company is not a defendant) are pending that seek recovery for injury allegedly caused by lead pigment and lead-based paint. Although NL is not a defendant in these cases, the outcome of these cases may have an impact on cases that might be filed against NL in the future. The Company believes that these actions are without merit, and it intends to continue to deny all allegations of wrongdoing and liability and to defend against all actions vigorously. The Company does not believe it is probable that it has incurred any liability with respect to all of the lead pigment litigation cases to which the Company is a party, and liability to the Company that may result, if any, in this regard cannot be reasonably estimated, because: * NL has never settled any of the market share, risk contribution, intentional tort, fraud, nuisance, supplier negligence, breach of warranty, conspiracy, misrepresentation, aiding and abetting, enterprise liability, or statutory cases; * no final, non-appealable adverse verdicts have ever been entered against NL; and * NL has never ultimately been found liable with respect to any such litigation matters, including over 100 cases over a twenty-year period for which NL was previously a party and for which NL has been dismissed without any finding of liability. Accordingly, the Company has not accrued any amounts for any of the pending lead pigment and lead-based paint litigation cases. In addition, the Company has determined that liability to it which may result, if any, cannot be reasonably estimated because there is no prior history of a loss of this nature on which an estimate could be made, and there is no substantive information available upon which an estimate could be based. Valhi, Inc. is a holding company and operates through its wholly- owned and majority-owned subsidiaries, including NL Industries, Inc., Kronos Worldwide, Inc., CompX International Inc., Tremont LLC and Waste Control Specialists LLC. The Company is headquartered in Dallas, Texas. VERMEER: Recalls R9X12T Heavy Trailers Due to Brake Issues ---------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: June 20, 2013 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Heavy Trailer Notification type: Compliance Mfr System: Brakes Units affected: 1 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2013214 TC ID number: 2013214 Manufacturer recall number: IK00-1843 Certain drilling fluid reclaimer trailers fail to conform to the requirements of Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 121 Air Brake Systems. The brake booster valve may have been installed incorrectly during vehicle assembly. As such, the brake actuation timing slightly exceeds the allowable limit, which could result in less efficient braking performance. In the event of an emergency stop, the vehicle's stopping distance would be increased, which could result in a crash causing property damage and/or personal injury. Correction: Dealers will correct the air brake booster valve installation. Affected products: Makes and models affected --------------------------------- Model year Make Model affected ---- ----- -------- VERMEER R9X12T 2013 VISTEON CORPORATION: Sued for "Anti-competitive" Acts in Canada --------------------------------------------------------------- In February 2013, three putative class action complaints were filed in the Superior Courts of Justice in Ontario against the Company and several other global suppliers of automotive instrument panel clusters, heater control panels and electronic control units, alleging violations of Canadian laws related to competition, according to the company's May 9, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013. Plaintiffs purport to be direct and indirect purchasers of automotive instrument panel clusters, heater control panels and electronic control units supplied by the Company and/or the other defendants during the relevant period. The complaints allege, among other things, that the defendants conspired to fix prices and allocate the market and customers for instrument panel clusters, heater control panels and/or electronic control units in North America resulting in plaintiffs paying supra-competitive prices for instrument panel clusters, heater control panels and electronic control units or vehicles containing instrument panel clusters, heater control panels and electronic control units. The plaintiffs in these proceedings seek injunctive relief and recovery of an unspecified amount of damages, as well as investigative costs and costs relating to the proceedings. The ultimate outcome of this litigation, and consequently, an estimate of the possible loss, if any, related to this litigation, cannot reasonably be determined at this time. However, the Company believes the plaintiffs' allegations against it are without merit and otherwise would be barred following the Company's emergence from bankruptcy and it intends to vigorously defend itself in these proceedings. In addition, the Company has not been contacted by any U.S. or Canadian governmental organization indicating that it is the subject of any investigation relating to anti-competitive conduct in respect of automotive instrument panel clusters, heater control panels and electronic control units. VITA HEALTH: Recalls Capsules of Safeway Extra Strength Ibuprofen ----------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: June 5, 2013 Posting date: June 19, 2013 Type of communication: Drug Recall Subcategory: Drugs Hazard classification: Type I Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Product Safety Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals Identification number: RA-34255 Recalled products: A. Safeway Extra Strength Ibuprofen The inner label states the bottle has a child resistant cap. The cap used is not child resistant. Depth of distribution: 26,979 units of this product were distributed nationally to the retail level. Affected products: A. Safeway Extra Strength Ibuprofen DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM DIN 02357283 Dosage form: Liquid Capsule Strength: 400 mg Lot or serial number: * 1I0802CCY * 1I0812CCY * 1I0812KK2 * 2A1432NWR * 2A1442NWR * 2C0702S11 * 2F0982V0U * 3B2062XRR * 3D2692Z58 Companies: Recalling Firm Vita Health Products Inc. 150 Beghin Ave. Winnipeg R2J 3W2 Manitoba, CANADA Marketing Vita Health Products Inc. Authorization 150 Beghin Ave. Holder Winnipeg R2J 3W2 Manitoba, CANADA VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces Potential Deceleration Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Deutsche Presse-Agentur reports that the Australian affiliate of German automaker Volkswagen Group was warned of a possible class action on June 7 by motorists unhappy with its response to complaints that some cars decelerate without warning. Saunders & Saunders Legal spokesman Brett Sanders said the firm was "currently investigating a potential class action" but would not say how many had come forward to join in any court case. Volkswagen Australia has sought to placate anxious motorists with a promise of free inspections at its dealerships. "We continue to stand by the quality of our cars and the integrity of our engineering excellence in meeting this responsibility," Volkswagen Group Australia Managing Director John White said in a posting on the company's Facebook page. The company insisted it would not recall any vehicles in light of allegations made last week at a coroner's investigation into the death of Melissa Ryan, killed when her Volkswagen Golf was hit from behind by a truck in Melbourne. The truck driver claimed the car suddenly slowed before the collision. "There is no correlation between the inquest and the customer reports presented in the media regarding issues with diesel engines and DSG (Direct-Shift Gearbox) transmissions," the Company said in a statement. * Australia Sees Renaissance of Product Liability Class Actions --------------------------------------------------------------- Stuart Clark, Esq. -- sclark@claytonutz.com -- and Ross McInnes, Esq. -- rmcinnes@claytonutz.com -- at Clayton Utz, report that the Australian class action regime has become a key feature of the Australian legal landscape. Barely a day goes by without the press reporting the threat of a new class action. Australia has also made its mark on the class-action stage worldwide, with its plaintiff-friendly regime and a thriving class action industry driven by an active litigation funding sector. As a result, outside of North America, Australia is the place where a corporation is most likely to find itself defending a class action. First introduced in 1992, class actions were slow to take hold. However, lawyers acting for plaintiffs eventually began to recognize the benefits offered by the new class action procedure and the rate of filings increased. While there was an initial emphasis on product liability claims, a number of well-publicized and expensive defeats saw the leading plaintiffs' firms transfer their attention away from product claims to focus on shareholder and financial services-based claims. More recently, the pendulum has started to swing back again with increasing interest in product liability-based class actions. Class actions in Australia ? a plaintiff-friendly model The Australian class action regime comprises essentially identical rules in the federal court system and the courts of Australia's two biggest states, New South Wales and Victoria. On any view, it is a more plaintiff-friendly procedure than the class action rules found in the United States. First, the Australian class action procedure has no certification requirement -- that is, there is no threshold requirement that the proceedings be judicially certified as appropriate to be brought as a class action. Once a class action has been commenced it continues until finally resolved by judgment or settlement, unless the defendant can convince the court to terminate the proceedings on certain limited grounds. Second, there is no requirement that common issues predominate over the individual issues. In reality it is sufficient for the representative plaintiff to show that there is at least one substantial common issue of fact or law. It does not matter that the common issue or issues are insignificant when compared with the individual issues. Third, the Australian rules, unlike those in the United States, expressly allow for the determination of "sub-group" or even individual issues as part of a class action. This means Australian courts have generally declined to discontinue a class action simply because it is more properly described as a mass of individual claims with some common connections. The classic example of this type of action is one involving a drug or medical device. In the United States, courts have been reluctant to allow such actions to proceed as class actions given the unique issues of causation usually raised by individual class members. As a consequence, an Australian representative plaintiff can commence a class action claiming damages for injuries allegedly suffered as a result of their use or exposure to an allegedly defective product -- for example, a drug or medical device -- notwithstanding the fact that there will be myriad individual facts and circumstances that must be taken into account before any individual group member can be found to be entitled to recover damages, let alone determine the quantum of those damages. Fourth, a representative plaintiff can define the class members by description. This means that a person who meets the criteria set out in the class definition will be a class member unless they "opt out" of the proceedings. This is done by providing the Court with a written notice that the particular person wants to opt out by a specific deadline (which is set by the Court). If a class member fails to opt out by the specified date, they are a class member in the proceedings. Thus, a person may be a class member and thus bound by the outcome of the proceedings without their knowledge or consent, simply on the basis that they fall within a class definition that may be as broad as "all Australian consumers who suffered personal injury as a consequence of their consumption of [a particular product]". The Australian courts have tried a number of class actions involving product liability claims to final judgment over the past few years. These include class actions involving medical devices and pharmaceuticals. In each case the trial proceed by way of a trial of the representative plaintiff's claims by a judge sitting alone. However, each of these trials only finally resolved the claims of the representative plaintiff. In Courtney v Medtel Pty Limited & Others, for example, the Court found in favor of the representative plaintiff and made an award of damages in his favor. However, that trial and verdict, ultimately confirmed in the High Court of Australia (the country's ultimate appellate court) only resolved the representative plaintiff's claim. The parties were then faced with the prospect of either negotiating a "global settlement" or resolving each subsequent claim by way of a hearing or other method of adjudication. Not surprisingly, a negotiated "global settlement" was achieved. Where the defendant is successful at the trial of the representative plaintiff's claim, final resolution is usually a little easier but still requires further proceedings or negotiation to finally resolve the matter. Litigation funding Two uniquely Australian initiatives have driven the growth of what is best described as the Australian "class action industry". These are the plaintiff law firms styled on their US counterparts, a number of which now operate as publicly listed corporations and the recent emergence of the litigation funding enterprises. Australian lawyers are prohibited from entering into contingency fee arrangements with their clients under which their professional fees are calculated by reference to the amount of any judgment or settlement received by the client. However, the prohibition only applies to lawyers. Litigation funders are not so constrained, and have found a very profitable role in the class action market. Litigation funding agreements are commercial arrangements under which the funder agrees to pay the fees and out of pocket expenses of the lawyer representing the plaintiffs. The funder will also agree to satisfy any adverse costs orders that may be made against an unsuccessful class plaintiff as a consequence of Australia's "loser pays" rule. In return for accepting this risk, the funder will take a portion of any judgment or settlement, usually one- third to two-thirds, calculated after the cost of the proceedings have been reimbursed. It has proved to be a popular enterprise -- particularly in light of the financial success of a series of shareholder-based class actions which delivered very significant profits to the litigation funders. Australia is now home to a number of publicly listed litigation funders, as well as numerous private enterprises. A number of overseas funders have also entered the domestic market. Australian plaintiff law firms have combined with funders from the United States and other jurisdictions to pursue claims, and principals associated with some of Australia's leading plaintiff lawyers have ventured into the litigation funding business themselves as shareholders. Renaissance of product liability litigation in Australia The impact of litigation funding on the class action industry has been profound, and the class action landscape has moved well beyond anything that was imagined when the regime was introduced in 1992. Over the past 20 years the subject matter of Australian class actions has varied. Although traditionally a forum for settling mass tort or product liability disputes, the start of the new millennium saw a trend towards class actions being commenced to settle shareholder and financial services disputes. Some predicted that interest in product liability class actions would wane. However, in the last few years Australia has seen a renaissance of product liability claims with recent filings focusing on medical devices and prescription medications. There are two possible reasons for this. First, the major plaintiff firms and litigation funders have focused their attention on the shareholder and financial services claims to become the dominate players in that field. This has left a gap in the market for emerging firms to pursue product liability claims. The up-skilling of a greater number of firms in class action litigation has resulted in more claims being commenced by different plaintiff law firms. Second, ongoing tort reform in Australia has continued to reduce the availability of personal injury, motor vehicle and industrial claims. As a consequence, an increasing number of plaintiff lawyers, particularly the larger firms, have turned their attention to exploring product-based class actions. Australia as the class action jurisdiction of choice The Australian class action industry is ever-expanding, with some of its key players extending their interests to overseas jurisdictions. For example, the leading litigation funder, IMF (Australia) Ltd, is funding litigation commenced in a number of other jurisdictions. It has also established a wholly owned subsidiary -- Bentham Capital LLC -- in New York. Slater & Gordon, one of Australia's leading plaintiff law firms in the class action industry and a publicly listed corporation, has also extended its reach in the international arena, purchasing a large plaintiff law firm in the United Kingdom. As members of the Australian class action industry expand their international reach, there has been a corresponding increase in the presence of international participants in the local industry. This may be due to the plaintiff-friendly regime. It could also be attributed to developments in other jurisdictions, for example, the recent ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States of America which limited the ability of non-US investors to pursue claims for compensation from foreign companies through the American legal system. This has resulted in Goal Group Ltd, a London-based class action consultancy firm which recently opened an Australian office, estimating that the income from class action settlements in Australia will reach US$3.4 billion annually by 2020. There can be little doubt that the Australian class action industry will look to extend this newfound foreign interest to products claims. Quo vadis? Class actions are still a (relatively) new feature of the Australian legal landscape, and are yet to see their full potential. That said, the class action industry has matured rapidly over the last 20 years, and is now a significant feature on the Australian legal landscape. As class actions come of age in Australia, the country's courts have the potential to become the jurisdiction of choice outside the United States for plaintiffs, lawyers and funders promoting class actions. The potential implications for the global business community led to the US Chamber of Commerce's Institute for Legal Reform entering the debate in Australia earlier this year, arguing in favor of greater regulation of Australia's litigation funders as one way to curb the growth of the class action industry. This is not something that will be resolved in the short term and manufacturers and distributers would be wise to follow developments in Australia closely. * EU Draft Rules to Allow Class Actions v. Price Fixing Cartels --------------------------------------------------------------- Lianna Brinded, writing for International Business Times, reports that the European Union will pave the way for private individuals to file class action lawsuits against companies that are found to be fixing prices but will put safeguards in place to avoid a mirror image of the US' litigation culture. In draft rules set to be unveiled by EU Competition Commissioner Joaquin Almunia on June 11, potential victims in sixteen Eurozone countries will be able to sue for damages, from any company that is seen to have fixed prices, in any market. The countries that are being given the greenlight include Britain, Germany, France, Spain, Italy and Poland. Regulators around the world have either settled with a number of banks that fixed or colluded to rig benchmark interbank lending rates, such as Libor. EU watchdogs are also investigating a handful of energy companies for allegedly fixing oil prices. While these are large scale probes, there are a number of other alleged price-fixing scandals, occurring in the energy markets. The draft proposal will set out common standards and minimum requirements in a bid to harmonize differing class action lawsuit legislation in different countries, say media agencies who have seen the report. In Europe, large scale private lawsuits are rare because of fractured cross border legislation, while in the US is a much more common occurrence. However, in a bid to avoid opening the floodgates to potential claims and erroneous lawsuits, the draft proposal will contain a set of safeguards. Among the draft rules will be stoppers against law firms and third party funders hunting for potential claims and claimants. It will also include rules against abusive litigation and massive payouts. In lieu of claim hunters, Brussels will only allow state-appointed non-profit bodies or public agencies to act on behalf of the individuals. The draft rules propose an opt-in principle, which enables the claimants to decide whether they would like to join forces with other victims to file a class action lawsuit. Brussels will also force a "loser pays principle", which will mean strict regulation on contingency fees - the amount put aside to prove that the party in a lawsuit can pay the other side's costs should it lose. It will also place a ban on punitive damages in order to deter frivolous and abusive lawsuits. The relevant EC spokesperson wasn't immediately available for comment. * Mediators Must Expand Tool Kit in Class Action, MDL ----------------------------------------------------- Law360 reports that mediators must expand their tool kit when attempting to mediate a class action or multidistrict litigation case. There are, of course, no "typical" complex litigation cases. Each is unique. But a mediator needs to recognize the special issues involved in these cases. * Non-U.S. Securities Settlements to Rise to $8.3BB By 2020 ----------------------------------------------------------- A new forecast study from GOAL Group, the leading global class action services specialist, predicts that settlements in securities class actions outside the U.S. will rise to $8.3 billion per year by 2020. GOAL Group's study also identifies that if non-participation rates seen in U.S. class actions are experienced in non-U.S. activity, by the end of the decade $2.02 billion of investors' rightful returns will be left unreclaimed each year. Furthermore, the report also warns that because non-U.S. legislatures require participants to register at the beginning of a case, investors need to participate now to receive their rightful returns. Any level of non-participation presents fiduciaries, such as fund managers and custodians, with a potential legal risk. Experience in the U.S., along with emerging contractual obligations, suggests that fiduciaries may be sued if they do not ensure investors participate in class actions to recoup a proportion of their investment losses. This is a wake-up call to fiduciaries, as growth in non-U.S. collective actions and evidence that some custodians are restricting the geography of their class action service level, indicate that non-participation rates are likely to be at least at current U.S. case levels, and probably considerably higher. Moreover, evidence is emerging that funds are now including the responsibility for class action identification and participation in contractual agreements with their custodians. Stephen Everard, CEO, GOAL Group, comments, "Until recently, the main focus of securities class actions was on the U.S. as the most developed legislature in this respect. However, class action growth outside the U.S. is now increasing rapidly, and is predicted to mirror the growth of the U.S. class action scene in the early part of the 21st century. The root of this international diversification seems to have been a combination of restrictions on jurisdiction definitions in the U.S. Federal courts, along with a growing desire to develop domestic class action procedures in many countries around the globe. Moreover, certain legislatures -- currently The Netherlands and Canada -- have defined and admitted the idea of a global 'class' where non- U.S. investors in shares listed on a non-U.S. exchange can pursue their securities class actions in those countries' courts. There is no viable excuse for non-participation as a number of specialist service providers can now perform this function at relatively low cost." Methodology Predicted annual settlement volumes for non-U.S. legislatures have been modeled through to a forward date of 2020, the end of the decade. Using GOAL's proprietary data and insights, combined with corroborative third party sources, the model utilizes the U.S. class actions experience to estimate the size of annual settlements in other world markets after a further eight years of class actions development in these countries and in legislatures that accept international plaintiff representation and reparation. GOAL's predictive model adopts a conservative positioning, factoring out the major peaks of settlement values seen in the U.S. experience to date. ********* 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 * * *