/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/130722.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Monday, July 22, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 142
Headlines
ABLE ACQUISITION: Class Decertification in De La Rosa Suit Upheld
AGILYSYS INC: Awaits Prelim. OK of Wage and Hour Suit Settlement
AGROPUR: Recalls Il Villaggio Gorgonzola Dolce Cheese
ALTEC INDUSTRIES: Recalls 4 AH100 Model
AMERICAN HONDA: Accused of Not Providing Meal and Rest Periods
AMERICAN SUPERCONDUCTOR: In Talks to Settle Securities Suit
AU OPTRONICS: Texas Law Applies to Indirect Purchaser Claims
CANADIAN LEBANESE: Sesame Paste Tahina Recalled
CYNOSURE INC: Inks MOU to Settle Merger-Related Suits in Mass.
DEREK THOMAS: Dist. Court Ruling in "Southernlinc" Suit Upheld
EXIDE TECHNOLOGIES: Defends "Hernandez" Physical Injury Suit
EXIDE TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Securities Class Suits in California
GLAVAL: Recalls 155 Multiple Vehicle Models
GRUMA CORP: Dist. Court Refers False Advertising Suit to FDA
HAGEE FOODS: Recalls Hummus Products Due to Possible Health Risk
HARLEY-DAVIDSON: Court Wants Supplemental Brief on Settlement
KNIGHT CAPITAL: Inks MOU to Settle Merger Suits in Del. and N.Y.
LAKE CITY INDUSTRIAL: Plaintiff in TCPA Suit Gets Favorable Ruling
LEGALZOOM INC: TX Appeals Court Affirmed Denial of Class Cert.
LOUISIANA-PACIFIC CORP: "Holbrook" Claim Dismissal Ruling Vacated
MAGNUM HUNTER: Faces Securities Class Suits in New York & Texas
MCGLAUGHLIN SPRAY: Court Refused to Dismiss Suit Over Spray Foam
MICHELIN: Recalls 3,644 Units of 2012 and 2013 Tires
NATURA PET: Recalls Various Dry Pet Food Products and Treats
NEWLY WEDS: Recalls Brand Spice Blends
PALOMAR MEDICAL: Inks MOU to Settle Merger-Related Suits in Mass.
PRO UNLIMITED: Obtains Final OK of Workers' Suit Settlement
SABA SOFTWARE: Faces Shareholder Class Suit in California
STEINWAY MUSICAL: Being Sold for Too Little, Class Suit Claims
TULLOCH SUGAR: Recalls Pure Maple Syrup
UNITED STATES: Black Farmers' Counsel to Collect $90MM in Fees
UNITED STATES: Gov't Agents Not Liable on Abuse of Illegal Minors
UNITED STATES: Wins Court Approval of "Wilhoite" Suit Settlement
VOTORANTIM CIMENTOS: Continues to Defend Cartel Formation Suit
VOTORANTIM CIMENTOS: Still Awaits Expert Report in Imbituba Suit
VOTORANTIM CIMENTOS: Still Awaits Next Move of Fla. AG and DOJ
VOTORANTIM CIMENTOS: Still Awaits Ruling in "Mato Grosso" Suit
VOTORANTIM CIMENTOS: Still Defends "Oliveira" Suit vs. VCNNE
VOTORANTIM CIMENTOS: Still In Talks to Settle Serra do Mar Suit
WALGREEN COMPANY: 8th Cir. Affirms Remand Ruling in "Dalton" Case
WHITEWAVE FOODS: Continues to Defend Mislabeling Class Suits
WI HEALTH SERVICES: Class Cannot Sue Wisconsin Over Subsidy Cuts
*********
ABLE ACQUISITION: Class Decertification in De La Rosa Suit Upheld
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rafael De La Rosa and Ramy Mandujano filed the class action DE LA
ROSA v. ABLE ACQUISITION CORP., alleging violation of wage and
hour claims. Sixteen days before a five-year statute within which
to bring a case to trial (Code Civ. Proc., Section 583.310) was
set to run, the trial court granted the motion of defendant Able
Acquisition Corp., to decertify the class because notice to the
class had not yet been given. The trial court granted the motion
on three grounds: 1) the inadequacy of counsel for the class; 2)
the inability to ascertain class members; and 3) denial of due
process to class members and defendant.
The Plaintiffs argue the trial court erred because 1) it failed to
consider tolling periods that extended the five-year statute and
the impracticability of trying the case, which would allow for
sufficient time to give notice; 2) its decisions counsel was
inadequate and the class was not ascertainable were not supported
by the evidence and were based on improper legal criteria; and 3)
its finding of denial of due process was not supported by the
evidence.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals of California for the Fourth
District, Division Three, held that decertification was proper to
protect the due process rights of class members and affirmed on
that basis.
The case is RAFAEL DE LA ROSA et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants,
v. ABLE ACQUISITION CORP., Defendant and Respondent, No. G046484
(Cal. App.).
A copy of the Appeals Court's July 12, 2013 Opinion is available
at http://is.gd/LdPQzLfrom Leagle.com.
Matthew J. Matern, Esq., Paul J. Weiner, Esq., Thomas S.
Campbell, Esq., Wendy Sha, Esq., and Joshua N. Lange, Esq. --
mjm@rastegar-matern.com -- at Rastegar & Matern, argue for the
Plaintiffs and Appellants.
Kenneth D. Simoncini, Esq., Kerri A. Johnson, Esq., and Paul J.
McDonald, Esq. -- kds@simoncini-law.com -- at Simoncini &
Associates argue for the Defendant and Respondent.
AGILYSYS INC: Awaits Prelim. OK of Wage and Hour Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Agilysys, Inc., is awaiting preliminary approval of its settlement
of a wage and hour class action lawsuit pending in California,
according to the Company's June 14, 2013, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
March 31, 2013.
On February 28, 2013, the Company participated in a mediation that
resulted in a tentative agreement to resolve the wage and hour
putative class action lawsuit filed against the company on July 9,
2012, in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California. A motion for preliminary approval of a
proposed settlement in the amount of $1.5 million was filed with
the court on June 6, 2013.
Cincinnati, Ohio-based Agilysys, Inc. -- http://www.agilysys.com/
-- is a developer and marketer of proprietary enterprise software,
services and solutions to the hospitality and retail industries.
The Company specializes in the development of market-leading
point-of-sale, property management, inventory & procurement and
mobile & wireless solutions that are designed to streamline
operations, improve efficiency and enhance the guest experience.
AGROPUR: Recalls Il Villaggio Gorgonzola Dolce Cheese
-----------------------------------------------------
Starting date: July 15, 2013
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Health Hazard Alert
Subcategory: Microbiological - Listeria
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection
Agency
Recalling firm: Agropur
Distribution: Quebec, Alberta, Ontario,
May be National, Manitoba
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 8170
Affected products: 150 g. Il Villaggio Gorgonzola Dolce Cheese
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and Agropur are warning
the public not to consume the Il Villaggio brand Gorgonzola Dolce
Cheese because it may be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes.
There have been no reported illnesses associated with the
consumption of this product.
The importer, Agropur, St-Hubert, Quebec, is voluntarily recalling
the affected product from the marketplace. The CFIA is monitoring
the effectiveness of the recall.
ALTEC INDUSTRIES: Recalls 4 AH100 Model
---------------------------------------
Starting date: July 12, 2013
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Truck - Med. & H.D.
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Other
Units affected: 4
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2013244
TC ID number: 2013244
Manufacturer recall number: SCN 580
Affected products:
Make Model Model year(s) affected
---- ----- ----------------------
ALTEC AH100 2007, 2009, 2010
On certain aerial devices installed on utility service vehicles
(to elevate personnel in order to facilitate working on overhead
service lines, for tree trimming, etc.), cracks may form between
the pedestal and the unit sub-base. This could allow the aerial
device to move unexpectedly or fall, which could result in
property damage and/or personal injury.
Altec will notify owners, informing them to inspect the pedestal
and to report the inspection results to Altec Technical Support
for repair instructions. Owners may contact Altec at:
+1 (877) 462 5832.
AMERICAN HONDA: Accused of Not Providing Meal and Rest Periods
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jaclyn Tafolla, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. American Honda Motor Company, Inc.; and Does
1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. BC514857 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los
Angeles Cty., July 11, 2013) accuses the Defendants of failing to,
among other things:
* provide required meal periods;
* provide required rest periods;
* pay minimum wage and hour;
* pay all wages due to discharged and quitting employees;
* failure to pay overtime; and
* failure to pay reporting time wages.
The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and these
similarly situated class of individuals: all current and former
non-exempt employees of the Defendants in the state of California
at any time within the period beginning four years prior to the
filing of this action and ending at the time this action settles
or proceeds to final judgment. She argues that during the Class
Period, as part of the Defendants' illegal payroll policies and
practices designed to deprive their non-exempt employees of all
wages earned and due, Honda has required her and Class Members to
take less than the required 30-minute meal periods, or to work
through them, and has failed to otherwise provide the required
meal periods to them pursuant to the Labor Code.
Jaclyn Tafolla is a resident of the state of California, and
worked as a non-exempt, part-time hourly employee for Honda until
her discharge.
Honda is a California corporation that maintains offices and
facilities and conducts business in the County of Los Angeles,
California. The true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants
are unknown to the Plaintiff at this time.
Ms. Tafolla is represented by:
Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF MATTHEW MATERN
3655 Torrance Boulevard, Suite 315
Torrance, CA 90503
Telephone: (424) 247-1172
Facsimile: (424) 247-1173
E-mail: matthewjmatern@gmail.com
AMERICAN SUPERCONDUCTOR: In Talks to Settle Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
American Superconductor Corporation is negotiating an agreement to
settle a consolidated securities class action lawsuit, according
to the Company's June 14, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended March 31,
2013.
Between April 6, 2011, and May 12, 2011, seven putative securities
class action complaints were filed against the Company and two of
its officers in the United States District Court for the District
of Massachusetts; one complaint additionally asserted claims
against the underwriters who participated in the Company's
November 12, 2010 securities offering. On June 7, 2011, the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
consolidated these actions under the caption Lenartz v. American
Superconductor Corporation, et al., Docket No. 1:11-cv-10582-WGY.
On August 31, 2011, the Lead Plaintiff, the Plumbers and
Pipefitters National Pension Fund, filed a consolidated amended
complaint against the Company, its officers and directors, and the
underwriters who participated in the Company's November 12, 2010
securities offering, asserting claims under sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act"), as well as under sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act"). The complaint
alleges that during the relevant class period, the Company and its
officers omitted to state material facts and made materially false
and misleading statements relating to, among other things, the
Company's projected and recognized revenues and earnings, as well
as its relationship with Sinovel Wind Group Co., Ltd. ("Sinovel")
that artificially inflated the value of its stock price.
The complaint further alleges that the Company's November 12, 2010
securities offering contained untrue statements of material facts
and omitted to state material facts required to be stated therein.
The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, rescindment of the
Company's November 12, 2010 securities offering, and an award of
costs and expenses, including attorney's fees. All defendants
moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. On
December 16, 2011, the district court issued a summary order
declining to dismiss the Securities Act claims against the Company
and its officers, and taking under advisement the motion to
dismiss the Exchange Act claims against the Company and its
officers and the motion to dismiss the Securities Act claims made
against the underwriters. On July 26, 2012, the district court
dismissed the Exchange Act claims against the Company and its
officers and denied the motion to dismiss the Securities Act
claims made against the underwriters.
On May 17, 2013, the parties informed the district court that they
had reached a settlement in principle, and requested a 30-day stay
of the proceedings while the specific terms of the settlement
continue to be negotiated.
Based on the Company's assessment of probable losses on this
claim, the Company has recorded a loss contingency of $1.8 million
as of March 31, 2013.
Founded in 1987, American Superconductor Corporation --
http://www.amsc.com/-- is a provider of megawatt-scale solutions
that lower the cost of wind power and enhance the performance of
the power grid. The Company is headquartered in Devens,
Massachusetts.
AU OPTRONICS: Texas Law Applies to Indirect Purchaser Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
In IN RE: TFT-LCD (FLAT PANEL) ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Northern
District of California Judge Susan Illston issued a ruling on a
motion in limine on choice-of-law regarding CompUSA'S and
Radioshack's indirect purchaser claims.
LG's motion in limine No. 14 argued that Texas law, rather than
California law, should apply to the indirect purchaser claims of
CompUSA (OldComp) and RadioShack, saying Texas has a greater
interest than California in applying its law to CompUSA's and
Radioshack's claims because both of these plaintiffs alleged
injuries that occurred in Texas, both are based in Texas, and both
negotiated all purchases in Texas, issued purchase orders from
Texas, and made payments from Texas.
The Court concludes that Texas' law will be most impaired if
California law is applied.
"While this is a close question, the Court concludes that much,
perhaps most, of the actionable conduct in this case took place in
Texas. While some conspiratorial conduct is alleged in California,
thereby creating sufficient contacts to satisfy due process, the
Court finds the contacts with Texas far outweigh those with
California. Conspiratorial conduct is also alleged in Texas,
although the bulk of the conduct is alleged to have taken place
abroad. Plaintiffs alleged injuries that occurred in Texas; both
CompUSA and RadioShack are based in Texas; and both CompUSA and
RadioShack negotiated all purchases in Texas, issued purchase
orders from Texas, and made payments from Texas. Considering all
these factors, the Court concludes that Texas' interest, and the
impairment of it, is paramount here," rules Judge Illston.
"Accordingly, the Court finds that Texas law applies, and
CompUSA's and RadioShack's indirect purchaser claims are therefore
dismissed," she added.
The order relates to Target Corp, et al., v. AU Optronics Corp. et
al., Case No. 10-CV-4945 (N.D. Cal.).
A copy of the District Court's July 11, 2013 Order is available at
http://is.gd/DynUtZfrom Leagle.com.
Martin Quinn, Special Master, Pro Se.
Martin Quinn, Special Master, represented by Martin Quinn, JAMS.
Mr. Daniel Weinstein, Special Master, Pro Se.
Mr. Daniel Weinstein, Special Master, represented by Martin Quinn,
JAMS.
Giles Patricia, 07-3078, Plaintiff, represented by Samuel W.
Lanham, Jr., Lanham & Blackwell & Ian Otto, Straus & Boies LLP.
Gina Cerda, 07-1339, Plaintiff, represented by Mario Nunzio
Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP.
Linda Klare, 07-1339, Plaintiff, represented by Mario Nunzio
Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP.
ATS Claim, LLC, 09-1115, Plaintiff, represented by David Paul
Germaine, Alberto Rodriguez, Vanek Vickers and Masini PC & Jason
C. Murray, Crowell & Moring LLP.
Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel L.
Warshaw, Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Eric B. Fastiff, Lieff,
Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein,LLP, Hilary Kathleen Scherrer,
Hausfeld, LLP, Brendan Patrick Glackin, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann &
Bernstein LLP, Bruce Lee Simon, Pearson Simon & Warshaw, LLP,
Clifford H. Pearson, Pearson, Simon & Warshaw LLP & Richard Martin
Heimann, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein.
Hewlett-Packard Company, Plaintiff, represented by Beatrice B.
Nguyen, Crowell & Moring LLP, Gregory D. Call, Crowell & Moring
LLP, Andre Mauricio Pauka, Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott,
Bryan Leach, Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott LLP, Daniel R.
Brody, Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott LLP, Fred H. Bartlit,
Jr., Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott, Karma Micaela
Giulianelli, Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott, Lester Houtz,
Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott, Mark E Ferguson, Barlitt
Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott, Mark S. Ouweleen, Attorney at Law &
Suzanne E. Rode, Crowell & Moring LLP.
BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., 09-4997, Plaintiff,
represented by Janet Irene Levine, Crowell & Moring LLP, Astor
Henry Lloyd Heaven, III, Crowell and Moring LLP, Christopher T.
Leonardo,, Adams Holcomb LLP, Jason C. Murray, Crowell & Moring
LLP, Jeffrey H. Howard, Crowell & Moring LLP, Jerome A. Murphy,
Crowell & Moring LLP, Joshua Courtney Stokes, Crowell & Moring,
Kenneth L. Adams, Adams Holcomb LLP, Nathanial John Wood, Crowell
& Moring LLP, R. Bruce Holcomb,, Adams Holcomb LLP, Robert Brian
McNary, Crowell & Moring LLP & Joshua C. Stokes, Crowell & Moring
LLP.
Pacific Bell Telephone Company, 09-4997, Plaintiff, represented by
Janet Irene Levine, Crowell & Moring LLP, Astor Henry Lloyd
Heaven, III, Crowell and Moring LLP, Christopher T. Leonardo,,
Adams Holcomb LLP, Jason C. Murray, Crowell & Moring LLP, Jeffrey
H. Howard, Crowell & Moring LLP, Jerome A. Murphy, Crowell &
Moring LLP, Joshua Courtney Stokes, Crowell & Moring, Kenneth L.
Adams, Adams Holcomb LLP, Nathanial John Wood, Crowell & Moring
LLP, R. Bruce Holcomb,, Adams Holcomb LLP, Robert Brian McNary,
Crowell & Moring LLP & Joshua C. Stokes, Crowell & Moring LLP.
Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, 09-4997, Plaintiff,
represented by Janet Irene Levine, Crowell & Moring LLP,
Christopher T. Leonardo,, Adams Holcomb LLP, Jason C. Murray,
Crowell & Moring LLP, Jeffrey H. Howard, Crowell & Moring LLP,
Jerome A. Murphy, Crowell & Moring LLP, Joshua Courtney Stokes,
Crowell & Moring, Kenneth L. Adams, Adams Holcomb LLP, Nathanial
John Wood, Crowell & Moring LLP, R. Bruce Holcomb,, Adams Holcomb
LLP, Robert Brian McNary, Crowell & Moring LLP & Joshua C. Stokes,
Crowell & Moring LLP.
Nokia Corporation, 09-5609, Plaintiff, represented by Brian Parker
Miller, Alston & Bird LLP, Donald MacKaye Houser, Alston & Bird
LLP, Edward Paul Bonapfel, Alston and Bird LLP, Joann Elizabeth
Johnston, Alston & Bird LLP, Kacy Christine McCaffrey, Alston and
Bird LLP, Kevin Michael Pitre, Alston and Bird, Lisa Kathleen
Bojko, Alston & Bird, Matthew Scott Orrell, Matthew D. Richardson,
ALSTON BIRD LLP, Peter Konito, Alston Bird LLP, Randall Lee Allen,
Alston and Bird, Richard W. Stimson, Alston & Bird LLP, Valarie
Cecile Williams,, Alston & Bird LLP & Donald MacKaye Houser,
Alston & Bird LLP.
Nokia Inc., 09-5609, Plaintiff, represented by Brian Parker
Miller, Alston & Bird LLP, Donald MacKaye Houser, Alston & Bird
LLP, Edward Paul Bonapfel, Alston and Bird LLP, Joann Elizabeth
Johnston, Alston & Bird LLP, Kacy Christine McCaffrey, Alston and
Bird LLP, Kevin Michael Pitre, Alston and Bird, Lisa Kathleen
Bojko, Alston & Bird, Matthew Scott Orrell, Matthew D. Richardson,
ALSTON BIRD LLP, Peter Konito, Alston Bird LLP, Randall Lee Allen,
Alston and Bird, Richard W. Stimson, Alston & Bird LLP, Valarie
Cecile Williams,, Alston & Bird LLP & Donald MacKaye Houser,
Alston & Bird LLP.
AT & T Corp., 09-4997, Plaintiff, represented by Janet Irene
Levine, Crowell & Moring LLP, Astor Henry Lloyd Heaven, III,
Crowell and Moring LLP, Christopher T. Leonardo,, Adams Holcomb
LLP, Jason C. Murray, Crowell & Moring LLP, Jeffrey H. Howard,
Crowell & Moring LLP, Jerome A. Murphy, Crowell & Moring LLP,
Joshua Courtney Stokes, Crowell & Moring, Kenneth L. Adams, Adams
Holcomb LLP, Nathanial John Wood, Crowell & Moring LLP, R. Bruce
Holcomb,, Adams Holcomb LLP, Robert Brian McNary, Crowell & Moring
LLP & Joshua C. Stokes, Crowell & Moring LLP.
AT & T Datacomm, Inc., 09-4997, Plaintiff, represented by Janet
Irene Levine, Crowell & Moring LLP, Astor Henry Lloyd Heaven, III,
Crowell and Moring LLP, Christopher T. Leonardo,, Adams Holcomb
LLP, Jason C. Murray, Crowell & Moring LLP, Jeffrey H. Howard,
Crowell & Moring LLP, Jerome A. Murphy, Crowell & Moring LLP,
Joshua Courtney Stokes, Crowell & Moring, Kenneth L. Adams, Adams
Holcomb LLP, Nathanial John Wood, Crowell & Moring LLP, R. Bruce
Holcomb,, Adams Holcomb LLP, Robert Brian McNary, Crowell & Moring
LLP & Joshua C. Stokes, Crowell & Moring LLP.
AT & T Mobility LLC, 09-4997, Plaintiff, represented by Janet
Irene Levine, Crowell & Moring LLP, Astor Henry Lloyd Heaven, III,
Crowell and Moring LLP, Christopher T. Leonardo,, Adams Holcomb
LLP, Jason C. Murray, Crowell & Moring LLP, Jeffrey H. Howard,
Crowell & Moring LLP, Jerome A. Murphy, Crowell & Moring LLP,
Joshua Courtney Stokes, Crowell & Moring, Kenneth L. Adams, Adams
Holcomb LLP, Nathanial John Wood, Crowell & Moring LLP, R. Bruce
Holcomb,, Adams Holcomb LLP, Robert Brian McNary, Crowell & Moring
LLP & Joshua C. Stokes, Crowell & Moring LLP.
AT & T Operations, Inc., 09-4997, Plaintiff, represented by Janet
Irene Levine, Crowell & Moring LLP, Astor Henry Lloyd Heaven, III,
Crowell and Moring LLP, Christopher T. Leonardo,, Adams Holcomb
LLP, Jason C. Murray, Crowell & Moring LLP, Jeffrey H. Howard,
Crowell & Moring LLP, Jerome A. Murphy, Crowell & Moring LLP,
Joshua Courtney Stokes, Crowell & Moring, Kenneth L. Adams, Adams
Holcomb LLP, Nathanial John Wood, Crowell & Moring LLP, R. Bruce
Holcomb,, Adams Holcomb LLP, Robert Brian McNary, Crowell & Moring
LLP & Joshua C. Stokes, Crowell & Moring LLP.
AT & T Services, Inc., 09-4997, Plaintiff, represented by Janet
Irene Levine, Crowell & Moring LLP, Astor Henry Lloyd Heaven, III,
Crowell and Moring LLP, Christopher T. Leonardo,, Adams Holcomb
LLP, Jason C. Murray, Crowell & Moring LLP, Jeffrey H. Howard,
Crowell & Moring LLP, Jerome A. Murphy, Crowell & Moring LLP,
Joshua Courtney Stokes, Crowell & Moring, Kenneth L. Adams, Adams
Holcomb LLP, Nathanial John Wood, Crowell & Moring LLP, R. Bruce
Holcomb,, Adams Holcomb LLP, Robert Brian McNary, Crowell & Moring
LLP & Joshua C. Stokes, Crowell & Moring LLP.
Motorola, Inc., 09-5840, Plaintiff, represented by Janet Irene
Levine, Crowell & Moring LLP, Astor Henry Lloyd Heaven, III,
Crowell and Moring LLP, Jason C. Murray, Crowell & Moring LLP,
Jeffrey H. Howard, Crowell & Moring LLP, Jerome A. Murphy, Crowell
& Moring LLP, Joshua Courtney Stokes, Crowell & Moring, Nathanial
John Wood, Crowell & Moring LLP, R. Bruce Holcomb,, Adams Holcomb
LLP & Robert Brian McNary, Crowell & Moring LLP.
Electrograph Systems, Inc., 10-117, Plaintiff, represented by
Jason C. Murray, Crowell & Moring LLP, Philip J Iovieno, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner LLP, Philip J. Iovieno, Boies, Schiller &
Flexner LLP & William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner.
Electrograph Technologies, Corp., 10-117, Plaintiff, represented
by Jason C. Murray, Crowell & Moring LLP, Philip J Iovieno, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner LLP, Philip J. Iovieno, Boies, Schiller &
Flexner LLP & William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner.
Dell Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Jacob Tuck, Alston and
Bird LLP, Debra Dawn Bernstein, Alston & Bird LLP, Douglas R.
Young, Farella Braun & Martel LLP, Elizabeth Helmer Jordan, Alston
& Bird LLP, Kimball Richard Anderson, Winston and Strawn LLP,
Matthew David Kent, Alston + Bird LLP, Melissa Mahurin Whitehead,
Alston and Bird, Michael P. Kenny, ALSTON & BIRD LLP, Rodney J
Ganske, Alston & Bird LLP & Steven Daniel Hemminger, Alston & Bird
LLP.
Dell Products, L.P., Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Jacob Tuck,
Alston and Bird LLP, Debra Dawn Bernstein, Alston & Bird LLP,
Douglas R. Young, Farella Braun & Martel LLP, Elizabeth Helmer
Jordan, Alston & Bird LLP, Kimball Richard Anderson, Winston and
Strawn LLP, Matthew David Kent, Alston + Bird LLP, Melissa Mahurin
Whitehead, Alston and Bird, Michael P. Kenny, ALSTON & BIRD LLP,
Rodney J Ganske, Alston & Bird LLP & Steven Daniel Hemminger,
Alston & Bird LLP.
Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph M.
Alioto, Sr., Alioto Law Firm, Christopher T Micheletti, Zelle
Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP, Craig C. Corbitt, Zelle Hofmann
Voelbel & Mason LLP, Daniel R. Shulman, Gray, Plant, Mooty, Mooty
& Bennett, P.A., Derek G. Howard, Minami Tamaki LLP, Jack Wing
Lee, Minami Tamaki LLP, John Dmitry Bogdanov, Cooper & Kirkham,
P.C., Judith A. Zahid, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel Mason & Gette, LLP,
Robert William Finnerty, Girardi Keese, Steven J Foley, Hellmuth
and Johnson PLLC, Tracy R. Kirkham, Cooper & Kirkham, P.C., Glicel
E Sumagaysay, Minami Tamaki LLP, Gregory W. Landry, LaMarca &
Landry, P.C. & Marvin A. Miller, Miller Law LLC.
State of Oregon, Plaintiff, represented by Blake Lee Harrop,
Office of the Attorney General, Brady R. Johnson, Attorney General
of Washington, Michael E. Haglund, Haglund Kelley Horngren Jones &
Wilder, LLP, Michael Kevin Kelley, haglund kelley, Michael G.
Neff, Haglund Kelley Jones & Wilder LLP, Shay S. Scott, Haglund
Kelley Horngren Jones & Wilder LLP & Tim David Nord, Oregon
Department of Justice.
Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph R.
Saveri, Saveri Law Firm, Aaron M. Sheanin, Pearson, Simon &
Warshaw, LLP, Brendan Patrick Glackin, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann &
Bernstein LLP, Bruce Lee Simon, Pearson Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Eric
B. Fastiff, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein,LLP, Marc
Pilotin, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann and Bernstein, LLP, Richard
Martin Heimann, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, Robert George
Retana, Pearson Simon Warshaw & Penny LLP, Thomas Kay Boardman,
Pearson Simon, Warshaw and Penny, LLP & William James Newsom,
Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, LLP.
Tracfone Wireless, Inc., 10-3205, Plaintiff, represented by David
Bedford Esau, James Blaker Baldinger, Carlton Fields PA & Robert
L. Ciotti,, Carlton Fields, P.A..
Best Buy Co., Inc., 10-4572, 12-4114, Plaintiff, represented by
David Martinez, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi L.L.P., Matthew
David Taggart, Robins Kaplan Miller and Ciresi LLP, Edward David
Lodgen, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi LLP, Elliot S. Kaplan,
Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi, K. Craig Wildfang, Attorney at Law,
Laura Elizabeth Nelson, Robins Kaplan Miller and Ciresi, Philip J
Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP & Roman M. Silberfeld,
Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi L.L.P..
Best Buy Enterprise Services, Inc., 10-4572, 12-4114, Plaintiff,
represented by David Martinez, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi
L.L.P., Matthew David Taggart, Robins Kaplan Miller and Ciresi
LLP, Edward David Lodgen, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi LLP,
Elliot S. Kaplan, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi, K. Craig
Wildfang, Attorney at Law, Laura Elizabeth Nelson, Robins Kaplan
Miller and Ciresi & Roman M. Silberfeld, Robins Kaplan Miller &
Ciresi L.L.P..
Best Buy Purchasing LLC, 10-4572, 12-4114, Plaintiff, represented
by David Martinez, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi L.L.P., Matthew
David Taggart, Robins Kaplan Miller and Ciresi LLP, Edward David
Lodgen, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi LLP, Elliot S. Kaplan,
Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi, K. Craig Wildfang, Attorney at Law,
Laura Elizabeth Nelson, Robins Kaplan Miller and Ciresi & Roman M.
Silberfeld, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi L.L.P..
Best Buy Stores, L.P., 10-4572, 12-4114, Plaintiff, represented by
David Martinez, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi L.L.P., Matthew
David Taggart, Robins Kaplan Miller and Ciresi LLP, Edward David
Lodgen, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi LLP, Elliot S. Kaplan,
Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi, K. Craig Wildfang, Attorney at Law,
Laura Elizabeth Nelson, Robins Kaplan Miller and Ciresi & Roman M.
Silberfeld, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi L.L.P..
Magnolia Hi-Fi, Inc., 10-4572, 12-4114, Plaintiff, represented by
David Martinez, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi L.L.P., Matthew
David Taggart, Robins Kaplan Miller and Ciresi LLP, Edward David
Lodgen, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi LLP, Elliot S. Kaplan,
Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi, K. Craig Wildfang, Attorney at Law,
Laura Elizabeth Nelson, Robins Kaplan Miller and Ciresi & Roman M.
Silberfeld, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi L.L.P..
Target Corp., 10-4945, Plaintiff, represented by Janet Irene
Levine, Crowell & Moring LLP, Astor Henry Lloyd Heaven, III,
Crowell and Moring LLP, Christopher T. Leonardo, Adams Holcomb
LLP, Jason C. Murray, Crowell & Moring LLP, Jeffrey H. Howard,
Crowell & Moring LLP, Jerome A. Murphy, Crowell & Moring LLP,
Joshua Courtney Stokes, Crowell & Moring, Kenneth L. Adams, Adams
Holcomb LLP, Matthew J. McBurney, Crowell & Moring LLP, Nathanial
John Wood, Crowell & Moring LLP, R. Bruce Holcomb, Adams Holcomb
LLP & Robert Brian McNary, Crowell & Moring LLP.
Kmart Corp, 10-4945, Plaintiff, represented by Janet Irene Levine,
Crowell & Moring LLP, Astor Henry Lloyd Heaven, III, Crowell and
Moring LLP, Christopher T. Leonardo, Adams Holcomb LLP, Jason C.
Murray, Crowell & Moring LLP, Jeffrey H. Howard, Crowell & Moring
LLP, Jerome A. Murphy, Crowell & Moring LLP, Joshua Courtney
Stokes, Crowell & Moring, Kenneth L. Adams, Adams Holcomb LLP,
Matthew J. McBurney, Crowell & Moring LLP, Nathanial John Wood,
Crowell & Moring LLP, R. Bruce Holcomb, Adams Holcomb LLP & Robert
Brian McNary, Crowell & Moring LLP.
Sears, Roebuck and Co., 10-4945, Plaintiff, represented by Janet
Irene Levine, Crowell & Moring LLP, Astor Henry Lloyd Heaven, III,
Crowell and Moring LLP, Christopher T. Leonardo, Adams Holcomb
LLP, Jason C. Murray, Crowell & Moring LLP, Jeffrey H. Howard,
Crowell & Moring LLP, Jerome A. Murphy, Crowell & Moring LLP,
Joshua Courtney Stokes, Crowell & Moring, Kenneth L. Adams, Adams
Holcomb LLP, Matthew J. McBurney, Crowell & Moring LLP, Nathanial
John Wood, Crowell & Moring LLP, R. Bruce Holcomb, Adams Holcomb
LLP & Robert Brian McNary, Crowell & Moring LLP.
Good Guys, Inc., 10-4945, Plaintiff, represented by Janet Irene
Levine, Crowell & Moring LLP, Astor Henry Lloyd Heaven, III,
Crowell and Moring LLP, Christopher T. Leonardo, Adams Holcomb
LLP, Jason C. Murray, Crowell & Moring LLP, Jeffrey H. Howard,
Crowell & Moring LLP, Jerome A. Murphy, Crowell & Moring LLP,
Joshua Courtney Stokes, Crowell & Moring, Kenneth L. Adams, Adams
Holcomb LLP, Matthew J. McBurney, Crowell & Moring LLP, Nathanial
John Wood, Crowell & Moring LLP, R. Bruce Holcomb, Adams Holcomb
LLP & Robert Brian McNary, Crowell & Moring LLP.
Newegg Inc., 10-4945, Plaintiff, represented by Janet Irene
Levine, Crowell & Moring LLP, Astor Henry Lloyd Heaven, III,
Crowell and Moring LLP, Christopher T. Leonardo, Adams Holcomb
LLP, Jason C. Murray, Crowell & Moring LLP, Jeffrey H. Howard,
Crowell & Moring LLP, Jerome A. Murphy, Crowell & Moring LLP,
Joshua Courtney Stokes, Crowell & Moring, Kenneth L. Adams, Adams
Holcomb LLP, Matthew J. McBurney, Crowell & Moring LLP, Nathanial
John Wood, Crowell & Moring LLP, R. Bruce Holcomb, Adams Holcomb
LLP & Robert Brian McNary, Crowell & Moring LLP.
Old Comp Inc., 10-4945, Plaintiff, represented by Janet Irene
Levine, Crowell & Moring LLP, Astor Henry Lloyd Heaven, III,
Crowell and Moring LLP, Christopher T. Leonardo, Adams Holcomb
LLP, Jason C. Murray, Crowell & Moring LLP, Jeffrey H. Howard,
Crowell & Moring LLP, Jerome A. Murphy, Crowell & Moring LLP,
Joshua Courtney Stokes, Crowell & Moring, Kenneth L. Adams, Adams
Holcomb LLP, Matthew J. McBurney, Crowell & Moring LLP, Nathanial
John Wood, Crowell & Moring LLP, R. Bruce Holcomb, Adams Holcomb
LLP & Robert Brian McNary, Crowell & Moring LLP.
Radioshack Corp., 10-4945, Plaintiff, represented by Janet Irene
Levine, Crowell & Moring LLP, Astor Henry Lloyd Heaven, III,
Crowell and Moring LLP, Christopher T. Leonardo, Adams Holcomb
LLP, Jason C. Murray, Crowell & Moring LLP, Jeffrey H. Howard,
Crowell & Moring LLP, Jerome A. Murphy, Crowell & Moring LLP,
Joshua Courtney Stokes, Crowell & Moring, Kenneth L. Adams, Adams
Holcomb LLP, Matthew J. McBurney, Crowell & Moring LLP, Nathanial
John Wood, Crowell & Moring LLP, R. Bruce Holcomb, Adams Holcomb
LLP & Robert Brian McNary, Crowell & Moring LLP.
Eastman Kodak Company, 10-5452, Plaintiff, represented by Blaire
Zina Russell, Nixon Peabody, John R. Foote, Nixon Peabody LLP &
Karl David Belgum, Nixon Peabody LLP.
SB Liquidation Trust, 10-5458, Plaintiff, represented by Allan
Diamond, Diamond McCarthy LLP, Erica W. Harris, Susan Godfrey LLP,
Jason Paul Fulton, Diamond McCarthy LLP, Jim McCarthy, Diamond
McCarthy LLP, Marc M. Seltzer, Susman Godfrey LLP, McCarthy D.
James, Diamond McCarthy LLP & Steven Gerald Sklaver, Susman
Godfrey LLP.
Costco Wholesale Corp., 11-0058, Plaintiff, represented by Cori
Gordon Moore, Perkins Coie LLP, Cori G. Moore, Perkins Coil LLP,
David Burman, Perkins Coie LLP, Eric J. Weiss,, PERKINS COIE LLP,
Euphemia Nikki Thomopulos, Perkins Coie, Joren Surya Bass, Perkins
Coie LLP, Nicholas H. Hesterberg, Perkins Coie LLP, Steven Douglas
Merriman, Perkins Coie LLP & Troy Philip Sauro, Perkins Coie LLP.
Sony Computer Entertainment America, LLC, Plaintiff, represented
by David Mark Goldstein, Esq., Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP,
Margaret Branick-Abilla, Bryan Cave LLP, Philip J Iovieno, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner LLP, Richard James Mooney, Rimon PC, Robert L.
Stolebarger, Bryan Cave LLP, Ross Christopher Paolino,, Orrick
Herrington Sutcliffe LLP, Shannon Christine Leong, Orrick
Herrington and Sutcliffe & Stephen V. Bomse, Orrick Herrington &
Sutcliffe.
Sony Electronics, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by David Mark
Goldstein, Esq., Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Margaret
Branick-Abilla, Bryan Cave LLP, Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller
& Flexner LLP, Richard James Mooney, Rimon PC, Robert L.
Stolebarger, Bryan Cave LLP, Ross Christopher Paolino,, Orrick
Herrington Sutcliffe LLP, Shannon Christine Leong, Orrick
Herrington and Sutcliffe & Stephen V. Bomse, Orrick Herrington &
Sutcliffe.
Alfred H. Siegel, Plaintiff, represented by David Humberto Orozco,
Susman Godfrey LLP, H. Lee Godfrey,, Susman Godfrey LLP, Johnny
William Carter, Susman Godfrey LLP, Jonathan Jeffrey Ross, N/A,
Susman Godfrey L.L.P., Jordan Connors, Susman Godfrey LLP, Kenneth
S. Marks, Susman Godfrey LLP, Marc M. Seltzer, Susman Godfrey LLP,
Parker C. Folse, III, Susman Godfrey LLP & Rachel S. Black, Susman
Godfrey L.L.P..
MetroPCS Wireless Inc., 11-0829, Plaintiff, represented by Philip
J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Anne M. Nardacci, Lewis
Titus LeClair, McKool Smith, Mike McKool, Jr., McKool Smith, P.C.,
Philip J. Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Scott R Jacobs,
McKool Smith, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner &
Melissa B Felder,.
Office Depot, Inc., 11-2225, Plaintiff, represented by Stuart H.
Singer, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Philip J Iovieno, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner LLP, Stuart Harold Singer, Boies Schiller &
Flexner, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner & Melissa B
Felder.
Jaco Electronics, Inc., 11-2495, Plaintiff, represented by Janet
Irene Levine, Crowell & Moring LLP, Jason C. Murray, Crowell &
Moring LLP, Jeffrey H. Howard, Crowell & Moring LLP, Jerome A.
Murphy, Crowell & Moring LLP, Joshua Courtney Stokes, Crowell &
Moring, Nathanial John Wood, Crowell & Moring LLP & Philip J
Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP.
T-Mobile USA Inc, 11-2591, Plaintiff, represented by Adam Carlis,
Susman Godfrey LLP, Brooke Ashley-May Taylor, Susman Godfrey
L.L.P., Daniel B Rapport, FRIEDMAN KAPLAN SEILER ADELMAN LLP,
Edward A. Friedman, Friedman Kaplan Seiler & Adelman LLP, Hallie
B. Levin, FRIEDMAN KAPLAN SEILER & ADELMAN LLP, Jason C
Rubinstein, Friedman Kaplan Seiler and Adelman LLP, Kathryn
Parsons Hoek, Susman Godfrey LLP, Parker C Folse, III, SUSMAN
GODFREY LLP & Alexander David Levi, Friedman Kaplan Seiler and
Adelman LLP.
BestBuy.com, L.L.C., 10-4572, 12-4114, Plaintiff, represented by
David Martinez, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi L.L.P., Roman M.
Silberfeld, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi L.L.P., Edward David
Lodgen, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi LLP & Laura Elizabeth
Nelson, Robins Kaplan Miller and Ciresi.
Benjamin Larry Luber, Plaintiff, represented by Craig C. Corbitt,
Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP, Francis Onofrei Scarpulla,
Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP, Heather T Rankie,, Zelle
Hofmann Voelbel Mason LLP, Joseph M. Alioto, Sr., Alioto Law Firm,
Judith A. Zahid, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel Mason & Gette, LLP, Patrick
Bradford Clayton, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel Mason LLP, Qianwei Fu,
Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP & Theresa Driscoll Moore, Alioto
Law Firm.
Interbond Corporation of America, 11-3763, Plaintiff, represented
by Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Philip J.
Iovieno, Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP, Stuart Harold Singer, Boies
Schiller & Flexner, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner
& Melissa B Felder.
Schultze Agency Services, LLC, (11-3856) on behalf of Tweeter
OPCO, LLC and Tweeter Newco, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Anne
M. Nardacci & Christopher V. Fenlon.
Schultze Agency Services, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Philip J
Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Philip J. Iovieno, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner LLP, Stuart H. Singer, Boies, Schiller &
Flexner, LLP, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner &
Melissa B Felder.
Marta Cooperative of America, Inc., 11-4119, Plaintiff,
represented by Anne M. Nardacci, Christopher V. Fenlon, Boies
Schiller & Flexner LLP, Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller &
Flexner LLP, Philip J. Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP,
William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner & Melissa B Felder.
P.C. Richard & Son Long Island Corporation, 11-4119, Plaintiff,
represented by Anne M. Nardacci, Christopher V. Fenlon, Boies
Schiller & Flexner LLP, Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller &
Flexner LLP, Philip J. Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP,
William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner & Melissa B Felder.
ABC Appliance, Inc., 11-4119, Plaintiff, represented by Anne M.
Nardacci, Christopher V. Fenlon, Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP,
Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP & William A.
Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner.
Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs, Plaintiff, represented by Allan
Steyer, Steyer Lowenthal Boodrookas Alvarez & Smith LLP, Craig C.
Corbitt, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP, Francis Onofrei
Scarpulla, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP, Jack Wing Lee,
Minami Tamaki LLP, Patrick Bradford Clayton, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel
Mason LLP & Robert S. Green, Green & Noblin, P.C..
Tech Data Corporation, 11-5765, Plaintiff, represented by Melissa
Willett, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, Mitchell E. Widom, Bilzin
Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod, LLP, Philip J Iovieno, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner LLP, Robert William Turken, Bilzin Sumberg
Baena Price & Axelrod, LLP, Scott N. Wagner, Bilzin Sumberg Baena
Price & Axelrod LLP, Stuart Harold Singer, Boies Schiller &
Flexner & William A. Issacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner.
Tech Data Product Management, Inc., 11-5765, Plaintiff,
represented by Melissa Willett, Boies, Schiller & Flexner,
Mitchell E. Widom, Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod, LLP,
Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Robert William
Turken, Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod, LLP, Scott N.
Wagner, Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod LLP, Stuart Harold
Singer, Boies Schiller & Flexner & William A. Issacson, Boies
Schiller & Flexner.
The AASI Creditor Liquidating Trust, Plaintiff, represented by
Melissa Willett, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, Philip J Iovieno,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Philip J. Iovieno, Boies, Schiller
& Flexner LLP, Robert William Turken, Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price &
Axelrod, LLP, Scott N. Wagner, Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price &
Axelrod LLP, Stuart Harold Singer, Boies Schiller & Flexner &
William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner.
Compucom Systems Inc, 11-6241, Plaintiff, represented by
Christopher V. Fenlon, Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP, Lewis Titus
LeClair, McKool Smith, Mike McKool, Jr., McKool Smith, P.C.,
Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Philip J.
Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Scott R Jacobs, McKool
Smith, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner & Melissa B
Felder.
Viewsonic Corporation, 12-0335, Plaintiff, represented by Janet
Irene Levine, Crowell & Moring LLP, Jason C. Murray, Crowell &
Moring LLP, Jeffrey H. Howard, Crowell & Moring LLP, Jerome A.
Murphy, Crowell & Moring LLP, Joshua Courtney Stokes, Crowell &
Moring, Nathanial John Wood, Crowell & Moring LLP & Philip J
Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP.
State of Oklahoma, 11-6686, Plaintiff, represented by James
Michael Terrell, McCallum, Methvin & Terrell, P.C., Julie A. Bays,
Office of the Oklahoma Attorney General, Nicholas W. Armstrong,
McCallum Methvin & Terrell, P.C., P. Clayton Eubanks, Office of
the Oklahoma Attorney General, Phillip W. McCallum, McCallum
Methvin & Terrell, P.C., Robert Gordon Methvin, Jr, McCallum,
Methvin & Terrell, P.C. & Tom Bates, Office of the Oklahoma
Attorney General.
Neco Alliance LLC, 12-1426, Plaintiff, represented by Philip J.
Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP & Philip J Iovieno, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner LLP.
Electronic Express, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Phillip F.
Cramer, SHERRARD & ROE, PLC & Ryan Thomas Holt, Sherrard and Roe,
PLC.
Barbara Cochran, class member/objector, Plaintiff, represented by
John Jacob Pentz, Class Action Fairness Group.
Kevin Luke, class member/objector, Plaintiff, represented by John
Jacob Pentz, Class Action Fairness Group.
Rockwell Automation Inc., 12-2495, Plaintiff, represented by David
P Ross, Crowell & Moring LLP, Janet Irene Levine, Crowell & Moring
LLP, Jason C. Murray, Crowell & Moring LLP, Jerome A. Murphy,
Crowell & Moring LLP, Joshua Courtney Stokes, Crowell & Moring,
Nathanial John Wood, Crowell & Moring LLP & Philip J Iovieno,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP.
Proview Group Limited, 12-3802, Plaintiff, represented by Mark D.
Baute, BAUTE CROCHETIERE & WANG LLP, Sean Adrian Andrade, Baute &
Tidus LLP, Brendan Patrick Glackin, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann &
Bernstein LLP, Chase C. Alvord, Tousley Brian Stephens PLLC,
Christopher Ian Brain, Tousley Brain Stephens PLLC & Kim D.
Stephens, Tousley, Brain Stephens PLLC.
Proview Optronics Co., Ltd., 12-3802, Plaintiff, represented by
Mark D. Baute, BAUTE CROCHETIERE & WANG LLP & Brendan Patrick
Glackin, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein LLP.
Proview Technology Co., Ltd., 12-3802, Plaintiff, represented by
Mark D. Baute, BAUTE CROCHETIERE & WANG LLP, Sean Adrian Andrade,
Baute & Tidus LLP, Brendan Patrick Glackin, Lieff, Cabraser,
Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Chase C. Alvord, Tousley Brian Stephens
PLLC, Christopher Ian Brain, Tousley Brain Stephens PLLC & Kim D.
Stephens, Tousley, Brain Stephens PLLC.
Proview Technology, Inc., 12-3802,, Plaintiff, represented by Mark
D. Baute, BAUTE CROCHETIERE & WANG LLP, Sean Adrian Andrade, Baute
& Tidus LLP, Brendan Patrick Glackin, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann &
Bernstein LLP, Chase C. Alvord, Tousley Brian Stephens PLLC,
Christopher Ian Brain, Tousley Brain Stephens PLLC & Kim D.
Stephens, Tousley, Brain Stephens PLLC.
Johnny Kessel, 12-5460, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph Darrell
Palmer.
Alison Paul, 12-5460, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph Darrell
Palmer.
Gerri Marshall, class member/objector, Plaintiff, represented by
George Cochran.
Maria Marshall, class member/objector, Plaintiff, represented by
George Cochran.
Wayne Marshall, class member/objector, Plaintiff, represented by
George Cochran.
Geri Maxwell, class member/objector, Plaintiff, represented by
George Cochran.
LFG National Capital, LLC, Creditor, represented by Joseph Bernard
Woodring, Cooley LLP, Jonathan C. Cross, Cooley, LLP & Scott S.
Balber, Cooley, LLP.
LG Display Co., Ltd., (D, I, 09-1115) formerly known as LG Philips
LCD Co., LTD., Defendant, represented by Hojoon Hwang, Munger
Tolles & Olson LLP & Jerome Cary Roth, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP.
LG Display Co., Ltd., Defendant, represented by Nathan P. Eimer,
Eimer Stahl Klevorn & Solberg LLP, Brad D. Brian, Munger Tolles &
Olson LLP, Christopher Marisak Lynch, Munger, Tolles and Olson
LLP, Christopher Alan Nedeau, Nossaman LLP, David M. Simon, Eimer
Stahl LLP, Gregory J. Weingart, Munger, Tolles and Olson LLP,
Holly A. House, Paul Hastings LLP, James B. Speta, Eimer Stahl
LLP, Jonathan E. Altman, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Jonathan Ellis
Altman, Munger Tolles and Olson, Justin Samuel Weinstein-Tull,
Kevin C. McCann, Paul Hastings Janofsky & Walker LLP, Lee F
Berger, Paul Hastings LLP, Michael Williams Stevens, Peter E.
Gratzinger, Munger Tolles & Olson, Roxana Niktab, Scott C.
Solberg, Eimer Stahl LLP, Sean David Unger, Paul, Hastings, LLP,
Stephen H. Weil, Eimer Stahl LLP & Truc Thanh Do, Munger Tolles
Olson LLP.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., (D, I, 09-1115), Defendant,
represented by John E. Hall, COVINGTON & BURLING LLP, Christopher
Alan Nedeau, Nossaman LLP, Daniel M Suleiman, Covington & Burling
LLP, David Paul Germaine, Derek Ludwin, Elizabeth Catherine Arens,
Covington and Burling, L.L.P., Jeffrey Michael Davidson, Covington
& Burling LLP, John Stewart Playforth, Covington and Burling LLP,
Neil K. Roman, Covington & Burling, Robert D. Wick,, Covington &
Burling LLP, Steven D Sassaman, Covington and Burling & Timothy C.
Hester, Covington & Burling.
Sharp Corporation, (D, I, 09-1115), Defendant, represented by
Jacob R. Sorensen, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, Andrew
Dale Lanphere, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, Bruce H.
Searby, Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP, Christopher
Alan Nedeau, Nossaman LLP, Craig A Benson, Paul Weiss LLP, Craig
A. Benson, Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP, David Paul
Germaine, John M. Grenfell, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw PittmanLLP,
Joseph J Simons,, Paul Weiss LLP, Joshua Courtney Stokes, Crowell
& Moring, Kenneth A. Gallo, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton &
Garrison LLP, Lindsay A. Lutz, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman &
Ryan Takemoto, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP.
Sharp Electronics Corporation, (D, I, 09-1115), Defendant,
represented by Jacob R. Sorensen, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman
LLP, Andrew Dale Lanphere, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP,
Bruce H. Searby, Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP,
Christopher Alan Nedeau, Nossaman LLP, Craig A Benson, Paul Weiss
LLP, Craig A. Benson, Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP,
David Paul Germaine, Fusae Nara, Pillsbury Winthrop LLP, John M.
Grenfell, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw PittmanLLP, Joseph J Simons,,
Paul Weiss LLP, Joshua Courtney Stokes, Crowell & Moring, Kenneth
A. Gallo, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP & Lindsay
A. Lutz, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman.
Toshiba Corporation, Defendant, represented by Christopher M.
Curran, White & Case, John H. Chung, White & Case LLP, John Mark
Gidley, White & Case LLP, Kristen Jentsch McAhren, White and Case
LLP, Andrew Dylan, White and Case LLP, Christopher Alan Nedeau,
Nossaman LLP, Heather Marie Burke, White and Case LLP, Jerome Cary
Roth, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP & Martin M Toto, White and Case
LLP.
Toshiba Matsushita Display Technology Co., Ltd., (D, I, 09-1115),
Defendant, represented by John H. Chung, White & Case LLP & Wayne
A. Cross, White & Case LLP.
Hitachi Ltd., (D, I, 09-1115), Defendant, represented by
Christopher Alan Nedeau, Nossaman LLP, Kent Michael Roger, Morgan
Lewis & Bockius LLP, Kristie Anne Bluett, Morgan Lewis et al,
Michelle Kim-Szrom, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP & John Clayton
Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP.
Hitachi Displays, Ltd., (D, I, 09-1115), Defendant, represented by
Christopher Alan Nedeau, Nossaman LLP, Kent Michael Roger, Morgan
Lewis & Bockius LLP, Kristie Anne Bluett, Morgan Lewis et al,
Michelle Kim-Szrom, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP & John Clayton
Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP.
Hitachi Electronic Devices (USA), Inc., (D, I, 09-1115),
Defendant, represented by Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis &
Bockius LLP, Christopher Alan Nedeau, Nossaman LLP, Courtney Lynn
Landis, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Kristie Anne Bluett, Morgan Lewis
et al, Michelle Kim-Szrom, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP & John
Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP.
NEC Corporation, Defendant, represented by Joseph Patrick Audal,
Duane Morris LLP & Stephen Holbrook Sutro, Duane Morris LLP.
NEC LCD Technologies, Ltd., (D, I), Defendant, represented by
Joseph Patrick Audal, Duane Morris LLP & Stephen Holbrook Sutro,
Duane Morris LLP.
NEC Electronics America, Inc., (D, I), Defendant, represented by
Stephen Holbrook Sutro, Duane Morris LLP, Edward G. Biester, III,
Duane Morris LLP & Joseph Patrick Audal, Duane Morris LLP.
AU Optronics Corporation, Defendant, represented by Christopher
Alan Nedeau, Nossaman LLP, Allison Marie Dibley, Esq., Nossaman
LLP, Bryan B. Barnhart, Nossman LLP, Carl Lawrence Blumenstein,
Nossaman LLP, Jerome Cary Roth, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Joseph
P. Russoniello, Brown George Ross LLP, Kirk Christopher Jenkins,
Sedgwick Detert Moran Arnold, Martha A. Boersch, Boersch Shapiro
LLP, Michael F. Healy, Esq., Sedwick Detert Moran & Arnold LLP,
Patrick J. Richard, Nossaman LLP, Dennis Patrick Riordan, Riordan
& Horgan, John D. Cline, Law Office of John D. Cline, K.C.
Maxwell, Esq., Law Office of K.C. Maxwell, Salezka Loirett
Aguirre, Nossaman LLP & Veronica L Harris, Nossaman LLP.
AU Optronics Corporation America, Defendant, represented by John
C. McGuire, Sedgwick, Detert, Moran & Arnold, Matthew Clark
Lovell, Sedgwick LLP, Allison Marie Dibley, Esq., Nossaman LLP,
Bryan B. Barnhart, Nossman LLP, Carl Lawrence Blumenstein,
Nossaman LLP, Christopher Alan Nedeau, Nossaman LLP, Jason Haruo
Wilson, Willenken Wilson Loh & Lieb LLP, Jerome Cary Roth, Munger
Tolles & Olson LLP, Kirk Christopher Jenkins, Sedgwick Detert
Moran Arnold, Martha A. Boersch, Boersch Shapiro LLP, Michael F.
Healy, Esq., Sedwick Detert Moran & Arnold LLP, Patrick J.
Richard, Nossaman LLP, Dennis Patrick Riordan, Riordan & Horgan,
John D. Cline, Law Office of John D. Cline, Joseph P. Russoniello,
K.C. Maxwell, Esq., Law Office of K.C. Maxwell, Salezka Loirett
Aguirre, Nossaman LLP & Veronica L Harris, Nossaman LLP.
Chi Mei Optoelectronics USA, Inc., (D, I, 09-1115), Defendant,
represented by John Lyle Williams, Jr., Manchester, Williams &
Seibert, Bradley R. Hansen, Davis Polk and Wardwell LLP,
Christopher B. Hockett, Davis Polk & Wardwell, Christopher Alan
Nedeau, Nossaman LLP, Matthew B. Lehr, Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP,
Michael Jacob Ewart, HILLIS CLARK MARTIN PETERSON, Michael Ramsey
Scott, HILLIS CLARK MARTIN PETERSON, Neal Alan Potischman, Davis
Polk & Wardwell, Samantha Harper Knox, Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP,
Sandra West Neukom, Davis Polk Wardwell, Wilmer Cutler, Hale and
Dorr LLP & Emmet P Ong,, Davis Polk and Wardwell.
Chunghwa Picture Tubes Ltd., (D, I, 09-1115), Defendant,
represented by Christopher Alan Nedeau, Nossaman LLP, David Paul
Germaine, Joel Steven Sanders, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Rachel
S. Brass, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Robert E. Freitas, Freitas
Tseng & Kaufman LLP, William S Farmer, FarmerBrownstein LLP &
Austin Van Schwing, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP.
Hannstar Display Corporation, (D, I, 09-1115), Defendant,
represented by Robert E. Freitas, Freitas Tseng & Kaufman LLP,
Christopher Alan Nedeau, Nossaman LLP, Jerome Cary Roth, Munger
Tolles & Olson LLP, Jessica Nicole Leal, Freitas Tseng & Kaufman
LLP, Jason Sheffield Angell, Freitas Tseng & Kaufman LLP & Jerry
Chen, Freitas Tseng & Kaufman LLP.
Samsung Semiconductor, Inc., (D, I, 09-1115), Defendant,
represented by John E. Hall, COVINGTON & BURLING LLP, Christopher
Alan Nedeau, Nossaman LLP, Daniel M Suleiman, Covington & Burling
LLP, David Paul Germaine, Derek Ludwin, Elizabeth Catherine Arens,
Covington and Burling, L.L.P., Jeffrey Michael Davidson, Covington
& Burling LLP, John Stewart Playforth, Covington and Burling LLP,
Neil K. Roman, Covington & Burling, Robert D. Wick,, Covington &
Burling LLP, Steven D Sassaman, Covington and Burling, Timothy C.
Hester, Covington & Burling & Tyler Mark Cunningham, Sheppard
Mullin Richter & Hampton.
Epson Imaging Devices Corporation, (D), terminated on 1/15/08,
Defendant, represented by Stephen P. Freccero, Morrison & Foerster
LLP, Christopher Alan Nedeau, Nossaman LLP, Derek Francis Foran,
Morrison & Foerster LLP, James P. Bennett, Morrison & Foerster
LLP, Kimberly Linnell Taylor, Carr, McClellan, Ingersoll, Thompson
& Horn & Stephen E. Taylor, Taylor & Company Law Offices, LLP.
NEC Electronics Corporation, Defendant, represented by Stephen
Holbrook Sutro, Duane Morris LLP.
CMO Japan Co., Ltd., (D, I, 09-1115), Defendant, represented by
John Lyle Williams, Jr., Manchester, Williams & Seibert, Bradley
R. Hansen, Davis Polk and Wardwell LLP, Christopher B. Hockett,
Davis Polk & Wardwell, Christopher Alan Nedeau, Nossaman LLP,
Matthew B. Lehr, Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP, Michael Jacob Ewart,
HILLIS CLARK MARTIN PETERSON, Michael Ramsey Scott, HILLIS CLARK
MARTIN PETERSON, Neal Alan Potischman, Davis Polk & Wardwell,
Samantha Harper Knox, Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP, Sandra West
Neukom, Davis Polk Wardwell & Emmet P Ong,, Davis Polk and
Wardwell.
NEC Electronic America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Stephen
Holbrook Sutro, Duane Morris LLP.
Chi Mei Corporation, (D, I, 09-1115), Defendant, represented by
John Lyle Williams, Jr., Manchester, Williams & Seibert, Bradley
R. Hansen, Davis Polk and Wardwell LLP, Christopher B. Hockett,
Davis Polk & Wardwell, Matthew B. Lehr, Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP,
Neal Alan Potischman, Davis Polk & Wardwell, Samantha Harper Knox,
Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP, Sandra West Neukom, Davis Polk Wardwell
& Emmet P Ong,, Davis Polk and Wardwell.
Nexgen Mediatech USA Inc, (D, 09-1115), Defendant, represented by
John Lyle Williams, Jr., Manchester, Williams & Seibert, Bradley
R. Hansen, Davis Polk and Wardwell LLP, Christopher B. Hockett,
Davis Polk & Wardwell, Christopher Alan Nedeau, Nossaman LLP,
Matthew B. Lehr, Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP, Michael Jacob Ewart,
HILLIS CLARK MARTIN PETERSON, Michael Ramsey Scott, HILLIS CLARK
MARTIN PETERSON, Neal Alan Potischman, Davis Polk & Wardwell,
Samantha Harper Knox, Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP, Sandra West
Neukom, Davis Polk Wardwell, Wilmer Cutler, Hale and Dorr LLP &
Emmet P Ong,, Davis Polk and Wardwell.
NEC Display Solutions of America, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Stephen Holbrook Sutro, Duane Morris LLP, George Dominic Niespolo,
Duane Morris LLP & Joseph Patrick Audal, Duane Morris LLP.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc., (D, I, 09-1115), Defendant,
represented by John E. Hall, COVINGTON & BURLING LLP, Christopher
Alan Nedeau, Nossaman LLP, Daniel M Suleiman, Covington & Burling
LLP, David Paul Germaine, Derek Ludwin, Elizabeth Catherine Arens,
Covington and Burling, L.L.P., Jeffrey Michael Davidson, Covington
& Burling LLP, John Stewart Playforth, Covington and Burling LLP,
Neil K. Roman, Covington & Burling, Robert D. Wick,, Covington &
Burling LLP, Steven D Sassaman, Covington and Burling & Timothy C.
Hester, Covington & Burling.
Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corporation, (D, I, 09-1115), Defendant,
represented by John Lyle Williams, Jr., Manchester, Williams &
Seibert, Bradley R. Hansen, Davis Polk and Wardwell LLP,
Christopher B. Hockett, Davis Polk & Wardwell, Christopher Alan
Nedeau, Nossaman LLP, Matthew B. Lehr, Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP,
Michael Jacob Ewart, HILLIS CLARK MARTIN PETERSON, Michael Ramsey
Scott, HILLIS CLARK MARTIN PETERSON, Neal Alan Potischman, Davis
Polk & Wardwell, Samantha Harper Knox, Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP &
Sandra West Neukom, Davis Polk Wardwell.
IPS Alpha Technology, LTD., (D), dismissed from IP amended
complaint on 2/21/08, Defendant, represented by Kent Michael
Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP.
Epson Electronics America, Inc., (D), Dismissed as a indirect
purchaser defendant on 4/1/08, Defendant, represented by
Christopher Alan Nedeau, Nossaman LLP, Derek Francis Foran,
Morrison & Foerster LLP, James P. Bennett, Morrison & Foerster
LLP, Kimberly Linnell Taylor, Carr, McClellan, Ingersoll, Thompson
& Horn, Melvin R. Goldman, Morrison & Foerster, Sean David Unger,
Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP, Stephen P. Freccero,
Morrison & Foerster LLP, Stephen E. Taylor, Taylor & Company Law
Offices, LLP & David Lawrence Meyer,, Morrison & Foerster.
Nexgen Mediatech, Inc. ("Nexgen"), (D, 09-1115), Defendant,
represented by John Lyle Williams, Jr., Manchester, Williams &
Seibert, Bradley R. Hansen, Davis Polk and Wardwell LLP,
Christopher B. Hockett, Davis Polk & Wardwell, Christopher Alan
Nedeau, Nossaman LLP, Matthew B. Lehr, Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP,
Michael Jacob Ewart, HILLIS CLARK MARTIN PETERSON, Michael Ramsey
Scott, HILLIS CLARK MARTIN PETERSON, Neal Alan Potischman, Davis
Polk & Wardwell, Samantha Harper Knox, Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP,
Sandra West Neukom, Davis Polk Wardwell & Emmet P Ong,, Davis Polk
and Wardwell.
Tatung Company of America, Inc. ("Tatung America"), (09-1115)
(dismissed on 7/21/11 by Direct Purchaser Plaintiff Class),
Defendant, represented by Joel Steven Sanders, Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP, Christopher Alan Nedeau, Nossaman LLP, David Paul
Germaine, Joel Calcar Willard, Gibson, Dunn Crutcher LLP, Rachel
S. Brass, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, William S Farmer,
FarmerBrownstein LLP & Austin Van Schwing, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher
LLP.
Toshiba America Electronics Components, Inc., Defendant,
represented by Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, John H. Chung,
White & Case LLP, John Mark Gidley, White & Case LLP, Kristen
Jentsch McAhren, White and Case LLP, Andrew Dylan, White and Case
LLP, Aya Kobori, White and Case LLP, Christopher Alan Nedeau,
Nossaman LLP, Heather Marie Burke, White and Case LLP, Jerome Cary
Roth, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP & Martin M Toto, White and Case
LLP.
Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc., Defendant, represented
by Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, John H. Chung, White &
Case LLP, John Mark Gidley, White & Case LLP, Kristen Jentsch
McAhren, White and Case LLP, Andrew Dylan, White and Case LLP, Aya
Kobori, White and Case LLP, Christopher Alan Nedeau, Nossaman LLP,
Heather Marie Burke, White and Case LLP, Jerome Cary Roth, Munger
Tolles & Olson LLP & Martin M Toto, White and Case LLP.
LG Display America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Hojoon Hwang,
Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Jerome Cary Roth, Munger Tolles & Olson
LLP, Nathan P. Eimer, Eimer Stahl Klevorn & Solberg LLP, Brad D.
Brian, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Christopher Marisak Lynch,
Munger, Tolles and Olson LLP, Christopher Alan Nedeau, Nossaman
LLP, David M. Simon, Emier Stahl LLP, Gregory J. Weingart, Munger,
Tolles and Olson LLP, Holly A. House, Paul Hastings LLP, James B.
Speta, Eimer Stahl LLP, Jonathan E. Altman, Munger Tolles & Olson
LLP, Jonathan Ellis Altman, Munger Tolles and Olson, Justin Samuel
Weinstein-Tull, Katerina S Colitti, Cleary Gottlieb Steen &
Hamilton LLP, Kevin C. McCann, Paul Hastings Janofsky & Walker
LLP, Lee F Berger, Cleary Gottlieb Steen and Hamilton LLP &
Michael Williams Stevens.
LG Display America, Inc., (D, I, 09-1115) formerly known as LG
Philips LCD America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Peter E.
Gratzinger, Munger Tolles & Olson.
LG Display America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Roxana Niktab,
Scott C. Solberg, Eimer Stahl LLP, Sean David Unger, Paul,
Hastings, LLP, Stephen H. Weil, Eimer Stahl LLP & Truc Thanh Do,
Munger Tolles Olson LLP.
Toshiba Mobile Display Co., Ltd., Defendant, represented by
Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, John H. Chung, White & Case
LLP, John Mark Gidley, White & Case LLP, Kristen Jentsch McAhren,
White and Case LLP, Andrew Dylan, White and Case LLP, Aya Kobori,
White and Case LLP, Christopher Alan Nedeau, Nossaman LLP, Heather
Marie Burke, White and Case LLP, Jerome Cary Roth, Munger Tolles &
Olson LLP & Martin M Toto, White and Case LLP.
Toshiba Mobile Display Technology Co., Ltd., 09-4997, Defendant,
represented by Christopher Alan Nedeau, Nossaman LLP.
Mitsui & Co. (Taiwan), Limited, (D), Defendant, represented by
Erin Murdock-Park, Baker & Hostetler LLP, Lisa Cox Ghannoum, Baker
Hostetler, Michael Edward Mumford, Baker Hostetler LLP, Paul P
Eyre, Baker & Hostetler LLP, Peter Wethrell James, Baker
Hostetler, Tracy Lynn Cole, Baker & Hostetler LLP & Ernest E.
Vargo, Jr., Baker Hostetler LLP.
Sanyo Consumer Electronics Co., Ltd., (D), Defendant, represented
by Allison Ann Davis, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Christopher Alan
Nedeau, Nossaman LLP, Sam N. Dawood, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP,
Sanjay Mohan Nangia, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP & Nick Steven
Verwolf,, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP.
Samsung SDI America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Dylan Ian
Ballard, Eric Scott O'Connor, Sheppard Mullin LLP, James Landon
McGinnis, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michael W.
Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP & Tyler Mark
Cunningham, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton.
Samsung SDI Co., Ltd., Defendant, represented by Christopher Alan
Nedeau, Nossaman LLP, Dylan Ian Ballard, Eric Scott O'Connor,
Sheppard Mullin LLP, James Landon McGinnis, Sheppard Mullin
Richter & Hampton LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin
Richter & Hampton LLP & Tyler Mark Cunningham, Sheppard Mullin
Richter & Hampton.
Chimei Innolux Corp., Defendant, represented by Bradley R. Hansen,
Davis Polk and Wardwell LLP, Christopher B. Hockett, Davis Polk &
Wardwell, Christopher Alan Nedeau, Nossaman LLP, Matthew B. Lehr,
Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP, Michael Jacob Ewart, HILLIS CLARK
MARTIN PETERSON, Michael Ramsey Scott, HILLIS CLARK MARTIN
PETERSON, Neal Alan Potischman, Davis Polk & Wardwell, Samantha
Harper Knox, Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP, Sandra West Neukom, Davis
Polk Wardwell & Emmet P Ong,, Davis Polk and Wardwell.
Philips Electronics North America Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Brendan P. Cullen, Sullivan & Cromwell & Matthew S.
Fitzwater, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP.
Tatung Company, Defendant, represented by Joel Steven Sanders,
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Christopher Alan Nedeau, Nossaman LLP
& William S Farmer, FarmerBrownstein LLP.
Chi Mei Optoelectronics Japan Co Ltd, Defendant, represented by
Christopher B. Hockett, Davis Polk & Wardwell, Christopher Alan
Nedeau, Nossaman LLP, Matthew B. Lehr, Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP,
Samantha Harper Knox, Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP & Sandra West
Neukom, Davis Polk Wardwell.
Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V., (11-2495), Defendant,
represented by Brendan P. Cullen, Sullivan & Cromwell & Matthew S.
Fitzwater, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP.
Renesas Electronics America, (11-2495), Defendant, represented by
Stephen Holbrook Sutro, Duane Morris LLP.
NEC Corporation of America, Defendant, represented by Joseph
Patrick Audal, Duane Morris LLP & Stephen Holbrook Sutro, Duane
Morris LLP.
Mitsui & Co. (U.S.A.), Inc., Defendant, represented by Erin
Murdock-Park, Baker & Hostetler LLP, Ernest E. Vargo, Jr., Baker
Hostetler LLP, Michael Edward Mumford, Baker Hostetler LLP, Paul P
Eyre, Baker & Hostetler LLP & Tracy Lynn Cole, Baker & Hostetler
LLP.
Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs, Defendant, represented by Daniel J
Mogin, The Mogin Law Firm.
Barbara Cochran, Movant, represented by Joshua Reuben Furman,
Joshua R. Furman Law Corporation.
Ricoh Electronics, Inc., 3rd party defendant, represented by Paul
S. Chan, Bird Marella Boxer Wolpert Nessim Drooks & Lincenberg,
P.C..
Apple Inc., Interested Party, represented by Caroline Nason
Mitchell, Jones Day & Robert Allan Mittelstaedt, Jones Day.
Douglas C. Giordan, Interested Party, Pro Se.
Alexandra Brudy, Lanak & Hanna, P.C. 625 The City Drive South
Suite 190 Orange, CA 92868 714-550-0418 Judgment
Creditor/Assignee, Interested Party, represented by Robert John
Stroj, Lanak & Hanna, P.C..
Joseph M. Alioto, Interested Party, represented by Joseph M.
Alioto, Sr., Alioto Law Firm & David J. Cook, Cook Collection
Attorneys.
State of California, Amicus, represented by Adam Miller, CA Dept
of Justice & Emilio Eugene Varanini, IV, State Attorney General's
Office.
State of South Carolina, Amicus, represented by Susan Foxworth
Campbell, McGowan Hood and Felder.
ePlus Group, Inc., OBJECTOR, Miscellaneous, represented by Keith
Leslie Meeker, Attorney at Law.
Julius N. Dunmore, Jr., Objector, Miscellaneous, represented by
Alan J Sherwood, Law Office of of Alan J. Sherwood & Paul
Rothstein.
Shannon Cashion, Objector, Miscellaneous, represented by Steve A
Miller, Steve A. Miller, P.C..
Kelly Kress, Objector, Miscellaneous, represented by John C.
Kress, The Kress Law Firm, LLC & Steve A Miller, Steve A. Miller,
P.C..
W. Christopher McDonough, Objector, Miscellaneous, represented by
Jonathan E. Fortman, Law Office of Jonathan E. Fortman, LLC &
Steve A Miller, Steve A. Miller, P.C..
Mark Schulte, Objector, Miscellaneous, represented by J. Scott
Kessinger & Steve A Miller, Steve A. Miller, P.C..
Keena Dale, Objector, Miscellaneous, represented by N. Albert
Bacharach, Jr., N. Albert Bacharach, Jr. P.A..
Charles W Daff, Class Claimant, Trustee, represented by Leo J.
Presiado, Rus, Miliband & Smith, APC.
United States Antitrust Division,Department of Justice,
Intervenor, represented by Peter K. Huston, Department of Justice,
Alexandra Jill Shepard, U.S. Department of Justice, David J. Ward,
U.S. Department of Justice, Antritrust Divsion, E. Kate Patchen,
U.S. Department of Justice, Heather S. Tewksbury, United States
Department of Justice, Micah Lanielle Wyatt, U.S. Department of
Justice & Michael L. Scott, Antitrust Division.
State of Illinois, Intervenor, represented by Blake Lee Harrop,
Office of the Attorney General, Brady R. Johnson, Attorney General
of Washington, Chadwick Oliver Brooker, Office of the Illinois
Attorney General, Michael E. Haglund, Haglund Kelley Horngren
Jones & Wilder, LLP & Michael Kevin Kelley, haglund kelley.
State of Washington, 10-5711 (plaintiff), Intervenor, represented
by Brady R. Johnson, Attorney General of Washington, Blake Lee
Harrop, Office of the Attorney General, Jonathan A Mark, Attorney
General of Washington, Michael E. Haglund, Haglund Kelley Horngren
Jones & Wilder, LLP, Michael Kevin Kelley, haglund kelley & Tina
E. Kondo, Senior Assistant Attorney General.
NEC LCD Technologies, Ltd., Intervenor, represented by Stephen
Holbrook Sutro, Duane Morris LLP.
Samsung SDI America, Inc., Intervenor, represented by Michael W.
Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP & Tyler Mark
Cunningham, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton.
Samsung SDI Co., Ltd., Intervenor, represented by Michael W.
Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP & Tyler Mark
Cunningham, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton.
Philips Electronics North America Corp., Intervenor, represented
by Brendan P. Cullen, Sullivan & Cromwell.
Sanyo Consumer Electronics Co., Ltd., Intervenor, represented by
Allison Ann Davis, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP.
Leah Nylen, Intervenor, Pro Se.
State of Mississippi, Intervenor, represented by Carolyn Glass
Anderson, Zimmerman Reed, PLLP, Geoffrey Morgan, Office of the
Mississippi Attorney General, Jim Hood,, Office of the Mississippi
Attorney General & Meredith M. Aldridge, Office of the Mississippi
Attorney General.
LG Display Co., Ltd., (D, I, 09-1115), Counter-claimant,
represented by Hojoon Hwang, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Jerome
Cary Roth, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Christopher Alan Nedeau,
Nossaman LLP, Gregory J. Weingart, Munger, Tolles and Olson LLP,
Holly A. House, Paul Hastings LLP, Jonathan E. Altman, Munger
Tolles & Olson LLP, Jonathan Ellis Altman, Munger Tolles and
Olson, Kevin C. McCann, Paul Hastings Janofsky & Walker LLP, Lee F
Berger, Cleary Gottlieb Steen and Hamilton LLP & Sean David Unger,
Paul, Hastings, LLP.
Office Depot, Inc., 11-2225, Counter-defendant, represented by
Stuart H. Singer, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Stuart Harold
Singer, Boies Schiller & Flexner, William A. Isaacson, Boies
Schiller & Flexner & Melissa B Felder.
LG Display America, Inc., (D, I, 09-1115), Counter-claimant,
represented by Hojoon Hwang, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Jerome
Cary Roth, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Christopher Alan Nedeau,
Nossaman LLP, Gregory J. Weingart, Munger, Tolles and Olson LLP,
Holly A. House, Paul Hastings LLP, Jonathan E. Altman, Munger
Tolles & Olson LLP, Jonathan Ellis Altman, Munger Tolles and
Olson, Katerina S Colitti, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP,
Kevin C. McCann, Paul Hastings Janofsky & Walker LLP, Lee F
Berger, Cleary Gottlieb Steen and Hamilton LLP & Sean David Unger,
Paul, Hastings, LLP.
Office Depot, Inc., 11-2225, Counter-defendant, represented by
Stuart H. Singer, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Stuart Harold
Singer, Boies Schiller & Flexner, William A. Isaacson, Boies
Schiller & Flexner & Melissa B Felder.
LG Display America, Inc., (D, I, 09-1115), Counter-claimant,
represented by Gregory J. Weingart, Munger, Tolles and Olson LLP.
Interbond Corporation of America, 11-3763, Counter-defendant,
represented by Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP,
Philip J. Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Stuart Harold
Singer, Boies Schiller & Flexner, William A. Isaacson, Boies
Schiller & Flexner & Melissa B Felder.
LG Display Co., Ltd., (D, I, 09-1115), Counter-claimant,
represented by Gregory J. Weingart, Munger, Tolles and Olson LLP.
Interbond Corporation of America, 11-3763, Counter-defendant,
represented by Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP,
Philip J. Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Stuart Harold
Singer, Boies Schiller & Flexner, William A. Isaacson, Boies
Schiller & Flexner & Melissa B Felder.
LG Display Co., Ltd., (D, I, 09-1115), Counter-claimant,
represented by Hojoon Hwang, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Jerome
Cary Roth, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Christopher Alan Nedeau,
Nossaman LLP, Holly A. House, Paul Hastings LLP, Jonathan E.
Altman, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Jonathan Ellis Altman, Munger
Tolles and Olson, Kevin C. McCann, Paul Hastings Janofsky & Walker
LLP, Lee F Berger, Cleary Gottlieb Steen and Hamilton LLP & Sean
David Unger, Paul, Hastings, LLP.
T-Mobile USA Inc, 11-2591, Counter-defendant, represented by
Brooke Ashley-May Taylor, Susman Godfrey L.L.P., Daniel B Rapport,
FRIEDMAN KAPLAN SEILER ADELMAN LLP, Edward A. Friedman, Friedman
Kaplan Seiler & Adelman LLP, Hallie B. Levin, FRIEDMAN KAPLAN
SEILER & ADELMAN LLP, Parker C Folse, III, SUSMAN GODFREY LLP &
Alexander David Levi, Friedman Kaplan Seiler and Adelman LLP.
LG Display America, Inc., (D, I, 09-1115), Counter-claimant,
represented by Hojoon Hwang, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Jerome
Cary Roth, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Christopher Alan Nedeau,
Nossaman LLP, Holly A. House, Paul Hastings LLP, Jonathan E.
Altman, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Jonathan Ellis Altman, Munger
Tolles and Olson, Katerina S Colitti, Cleary Gottlieb Steen &
Hamilton LLP, Kevin C. McCann, Paul Hastings Janofsky & Walker
LLP, Lee F Berger, Cleary Gottlieb Steen and Hamilton LLP & Sean
David Unger, Paul, Hastings, LLP.
T-Mobile USA Inc, 11-2591, Counter-defendant, represented by
Brooke Ashley-May Taylor, Susman Godfrey L.L.P., Daniel B Rapport,
FRIEDMAN KAPLAN SEILER ADELMAN LLP, Edward A. Friedman, Friedman
Kaplan Seiler & Adelman LLP, Hallie B. Levin, FRIEDMAN KAPLAN
SEILER & ADELMAN LLP, Parker C Folse, III, SUSMAN GODFREY LLP &
Alexander David Levi, Friedman Kaplan Seiler and Adelman LLP.
LG Display Co., Ltd., (D, I, 09-1115), Counter-claimant,
represented by Gregory J. Weingart, Munger, Tolles and Olson LLP.
ABC Appliance, Inc., 11-4119, Counter-defendant, represented by
Anne M. Nardacci, Christopher V. Fenlon, Boies Schiller & Flexner
LLP, Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP & William A.
Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner.
Marta Cooperative of America, Inc., 11-4119, Counter-defendant,
represented by Anne M. Nardacci, Christopher V. Fenlon, Boies
Schiller & Flexner LLP, Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller &
Flexner LLP, Philip J. Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP,
William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner & Melissa B Felder.
P.C. Richard & Son Long Island Corporation, 11-4119, Counter-
defendant, represented by Melissa B Felder.
LG Display America, Inc., (D, I, 09-1115), Counter-claimant,
represented by Gregory J. Weingart, Munger, Tolles and Olson LLP.
ABC Appliance, Inc., 11-4119, Counter-defendant, represented by
Anne M. Nardacci, Christopher V. Fenlon, Boies Schiller & Flexner
LLP, Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP & William A.
Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner.
Marta Cooperative of America, Inc., 11-4119, Counter-defendant,
represented by Anne M. Nardacci, Christopher V. Fenlon, Boies
Schiller & Flexner LLP, Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller &
Flexner LLP, Philip J. Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP,
William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner & Melissa B Felder.
P.C. Richard & Son Long Island Corporation, 11-4119, Counter-
defendant, represented by Melissa B Felder.
LG Display Co., Ltd., (D, I, 09-1115), Counter-claimant,
represented by Hojoon Hwang, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Jerome
Cary Roth, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Christopher Alan Nedeau,
Nossaman LLP, Holly A. House, Paul Hastings LLP, Jonathan E.
Altman, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Jonathan Ellis Altman, Munger
Tolles and Olson, Kevin C. McCann, Paul Hastings Janofsky & Walker
LLP, Lee F Berger, Cleary Gottlieb Steen and Hamilton LLP & Sean
David Unger, Paul, Hastings, LLP.
LG Display America, Inc., (D, I, 09-1115), Counter-claimant,
represented by Hojoon Hwang, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Jerome
Cary Roth, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Christopher Alan Nedeau,
Nossaman LLP, Holly A. House, Paul Hastings LLP, Jonathan E.
Altman, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Jonathan Ellis Altman, Munger
Tolles and Olson, Katerina S Colitti, Cleary Gottlieb Steen &
Hamilton LLP, Kevin C. McCann, Paul Hastings Janofsky & Walker
LLP, Lee F Berger, Cleary Gottlieb Steen and Hamilton LLP & Sean
David Unger, Paul, Hastings, LLP.
LG Display Co., Ltd., (D, I, 09-1115), Counter-claimant,
represented by Hojoon Hwang, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Jerome
Cary Roth, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Christopher Alan Nedeau,
Nossaman LLP, Holly A. House, Paul Hastings LLP, Jonathan E.
Altman, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Jonathan Ellis Altman, Munger
Tolles and Olson, Kevin C. McCann, Paul Hastings Janofsky & Walker
LLP, Lee F Berger, Cleary Gottlieb Steen and Hamilton LLP & Sean
David Unger, Paul, Hastings, LLP.
Jaco Electronics, Inc., 11-2495, Counter-defendant, represented by
Jason C. Murray, Crowell & Moring LLP, Jeffrey H. Howard, Crowell
& Moring LLP, Jerome A. Murphy, Crowell & Moring LLP, Joshua
Courtney Stokes, Crowell & Moring & Nathanial John Wood, Crowell &
Moring LLP.
LG Display America, Inc., (D, I, 09-1115), Counter-claimant,
represented by Hojoon Hwang, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Jerome
Cary Roth, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Christopher Alan Nedeau,
Nossaman LLP, Holly A. House, Paul Hastings LLP, Jonathan E.
Altman, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Jonathan Ellis Altman, Munger
Tolles and Olson, Katerina S Colitti, Cleary Gottlieb Steen &
Hamilton LLP, Kevin C. McCann, Paul Hastings Janofsky & Walker
LLP, Lee F Berger, Cleary Gottlieb Steen and Hamilton LLP & Sean
David Unger, Paul, Hastings, LLP.
Jaco Electronics, Inc., 11-2495, Counter-defendant, represented by
Jason C. Murray, Crowell & Moring LLP, Jeffrey H. Howard, Crowell
& Moring LLP, Jerome A. Murphy, Crowell & Moring LLP, Joshua
Courtney Stokes, Crowell & Moring & Nathanial John Wood, Crowell &
Moring LLP.
LG Display America, Inc., (D, I, 09-1115), Counter-claimant,
represented by Lee F Berger, Cleary Gottlieb Steen and Hamilton
LLP.
LG Display Co., Ltd., (D, I, 09-1115), Counter-claimant,
represented by LG Display Co., Ltd..
Sony Computer Entertainment America, LLC, Counter-defendant,
represented by David Mark Goldstein, Esq., Orrick, Herrington &
Sutcliffe LLP, Margaret Branick-Abilla, Bryan Cave LLP, Richard
James Mooney, Rimon PC, Robert L. Stolebarger, Bryan Cave LLP,
Ross Christopher Paolino,, Orrick Herrington Sutcliffe LLP,
Shannon Christine Leong, Orrick Herrington and Sutcliffe & Stephen
V. Bomse, Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe.
LG Display America, Inc., (D, I, 09-1115), Counter-claimant,
represented by Lee F Berger, Cleary Gottlieb Steen and Hamilton
LLP.
Rockwell Automation Inc., 12-2495, Counter-defendant, represented
by David P Ross, Crowell & Moring LLP, Janet Irene Levine, Crowell
& Moring LLP, Jason C. Murray, Crowell & Moring LLP, Jerome A.
Murphy, Crowell & Moring LLP, Joshua Courtney Stokes, Crowell &
Moring & Nathanial John Wood, Crowell & Moring LLP.
LG Display Co., Ltd., (D, I, 09-1115), Counter-claimant, Pro Se,
David P Ross, Crowell & Moring LLP, Janet Irene Levine, Crowell &
Moring LLP, Jason C. Murray, Crowell & Moring LLP, Jerome A.
Murphy, Crowell & Moring LLP, Joshua Courtney Stokes, Crowell &
Moring & Nathanial John Wood, Crowell & Moring LLP.
LG Display America, Inc., (D, I, 09-1115), Counter-claimant,
represented by LG Display America, Inc..
Compucom Systems Inc, 11-6241, Counter-defendant, represented by
Christopher V. Fenlon, Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP, Lewis Titus
LeClair, McKool Smith, Mike McKool, Jr., McKool Smith, P.C.,
Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Philip J.
Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Scott R Jacobs, McKool
Smith, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner & Melissa B
Felder.
LG Display Co., Ltd., (D, I, 09-1115), Counter-claimant, Pro Se,
Christopher V. Fenlon, Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP, Lewis Titus
LeClair, McKool Smith, Mike McKool, Jr., McKool Smith, P.C.,
Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Philip J.
Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Scott R Jacobs, McKool
Smith, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner & Melissa B
Felder.
LG Display America, Inc., (D, I, 09-1115), Counter-claimant, Pro
Se.
Viewsonic Corporation, 12-0335, Counter-defendant, represented by
Janet Irene Levine, Crowell & Moring LLP, Jason C. Murray, Crowell
& Moring LLP, Jeffrey H. Howard, Crowell & Moring LLP, Jerome A.
Murphy, Crowell & Moring LLP, Joshua Courtney Stokes, Crowell &
Moring & Nathanial John Wood, Crowell & Moring LLP.
LG Display Co., Ltd., (D, I, 09-1115), Counter-claimant, Pro Se,
Janet Irene Levine, Crowell & Moring LLP, Jason C. Murray, Crowell
& Moring LLP, Jeffrey H. Howard, Crowell & Moring LLP, Jerome A.
Murphy, Crowell & Moring LLP, Joshua Courtney Stokes, Crowell &
Moring & Nathanial John Wood, Crowell & Moring LLP.
CANADIAN LEBANESE: Sesame Paste Tahina Recalled
-----------------------------------------------
Starting date: July 16, 2013
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Health Hazard Alert
Subcategory: Microbiological - Salmonella
Hazard classification: Class 2
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection
Agency
Recalling firm: --
Distribution: National
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
Affected products: 454 g. Clic Sesame Paste Tahina
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) is warning the public
not to consume the Clic brand Tahina described below because it
may be contaminated with Salmonella.
There have been no reported illnesses associated with the
consumption of this product.
The CFIA is working with the importer to remove the affected
product from the marketplace. The CFIA is monitoring the
effectiveness of the recall.
* * *
CBC News reports that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency is
warning the public about a brand of tahini that may contain
salmonella bacteria. The CFIA issued the recall on Tuesday.
The recall includes 454-gram sized jars of Canadian Lebanese
Investment Corporation (CLIC) brand sesame tahini past with the
lot code #1432/12 and UPC #0585804740977. The product is sold
across Canada.
This is the third time this year that the CFIA has recalled CLIC
brand sesame tahini paste. One lot was recalled in February. In
March, the CFIA announced that additional lots were being
recalled.
There have been no reported illnesses associated with any of the
recalled products.
Salmonella is a potentially deadly bacteria with symptoms that
typically start within six to 72 hours of exposure to contaminated
food.
Symptoms include diarrhea, fever, abdominal cramps, nausea,
vomiting, chills and headache and usually last four to seven days.
In healthy people, salmonellosis often clears up without
treatment. People who experience severe symptoms, or who have
underlying medical conditions, should contact their health-care
provider if they suspect they have a salmonella infection.
CYNOSURE INC: Inks MOU to Settle Merger-Related Suits in Mass.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cynosure, Inc., entered into a memorandum of understanding to
settle merger-related lawsuits in Massachusetts, according to the
Company's June 14, 2013, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.
The Company said that the Current Report on Form 8-K is being
filed in connection with a Memorandum of Understanding (the
"Massachusetts Memorandum of Understanding") regarding the
settlement of certain litigation relating to the transactions
contemplated by the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of
March 17, 2013, as amended and restated by an Amended and Restated
Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of May 15, 2013 (as so
amended and restated, the "Merger Agreement"), by and among
Palomar Medical Technologies, Inc., a Delaware corporation
("Palomar"), Cynosure, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Cynosure"),
and Commander Acquisition, LLC (formerly Commander Acquisition
Corp.), a Delaware limited liability company and a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Cynosure (the "Merger Subsidiary"). The Merger
Agreement provides for, among other things, the acquisition of
Palomar by Cynosure through the merger (the "Merger") of Palomar
with and into the Merger Subsidiary, with the Merger Subsidiary
surviving as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Cynosure at the
effective time of the Merger.
As disclosed in the definitive joint proxy statement/prospectus
filed by Palomar with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
"SEC") on May 23, 2013 (the "Proxy Statement"), on March 21, 2013,
a putative stockholder class action complaint, captioned Edgar
Calin v. Palomar Medical Technologies, Inc., et al., No. 13-1051
BLS1 (Superior Court, Suffolk County), was filed against Palomar,
its board of directors, Cynosure and the Merger Subsidiary in
Massachusetts Superior Court in Suffolk County. On April 9, 2013,
a second putative stockholder class action complaint, captioned
Vladimir Gusinsky Living Trust v. Palomar Medical Technologies,
Inc., et al., No. 13-1328 BLS1 (Superior Court, Suffolk County),
was filed against Palomar, its board of directors and Cynosure in
Massachusetts Superior Court in Suffolk County. On April 12,
2013, a third putative stockholder class action complaint,
captioned Albert Saffer v. Palomar Medical Technologies, Inc., et
al., No. 13-1385 BLS1 (Superior Court, Suffolk County), was filed
against Palomar, its board of directors, Cynosure and the Merger
Subsidiary in Massachusetts Superior Court in Suffolk County. On
April 23, 2013, each of the plaintiffs in the lawsuits filed an
amended complaint. Each amended complaint alleges that members of
the Palomar board of directors breached their fiduciary duties in
connection with the approval of the Merger and that Cynosure and,
with respect to the Calin and Saffer lawsuits, the Merger
Subsidiary aided and abetted the alleged breach of fiduciary
duties. Each amended complaint alleges that the Palomar directors
breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed
transaction by, among other things, conducting a flawed sale
process and failing to maximize stockholder value and obtain the
best financial and other terms, and that the Proxy Statement is
materially deficient. Each of these plaintiffs seeks injunctive
and other equitable relief, including enjoining the defendants
from consummating the Merger, in addition to other unspecified
damages, fees and costs.
Also as disclosed in the Proxy Statement, on April 19, 2013, a
fourth putative stockholder class action complaint, captioned Gary
Drabek v. Palomar Medical Technologies, Inc., et al., No. 8491
(Del. Ch.), was filed against Palomar, its board of directors,
Cynosure and the Merger Subsidiary in Delaware Chancery Court. On
May 1, 2013, a fifth putative stockholder class action complaint,
captioned Daniel Moore v. Palomar Medical Technologies, Inc., et
al., No. 8516 (Del. Ch.), was filed against Palomar, its board of
directors, Cynosure and the Merger Subsidiary in Delaware Chancery
Court. Each of the lawsuits alleges that members of the Palomar
board of directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection
with the approval of the Merger and that Cynosure and the Merger
Subsidiary aided and abetted the alleged breach of fiduciary
duties. Each complaint alleges that the Palomar directors
breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed
transaction by, among other things, conducting a flawed sale
process and failing to maximize stockholder value and obtain the
best financial and other terms, and that the Proxy Statement is
materially deficient. Each of these plaintiffs seeks injunctive
and other equitable relief, including enjoining the defendants
from consummating the Merger, in addition to other unspecified
damages, fees and costs. On May 7, 2013, the plaintiffs in the
Drabek and Moore actions jointly submitted a proposed order of
consolidation to consolidate the class actions as In re Palomar
Medical Technologies Shareholder Litigation, C.A. No. 8491-VCP,
which order was granted by the court on the same day.
On May 28, 2013, a sixth putative stockholder class action
complaint, captioned Melvin Lax v. Palomar Medical Technologies,
Inc., et al., No. 13-11276 (D. Mass.), was filed against Palomar,
its board of directors, Cynosure, and the Merger Subsidiary in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
The lawsuit alleges that members of the Palomar board of directors
breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the approval of
the Merger, that Cynosure and the Merger Subsidiary aided and
abetted the alleged breach of fiduciary duties, and that the
defendants violated Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder by issuing a
materially misleading Proxy Statement. The Plaintiff seeks
injunctive and other equitable relief, including enjoining the
defendants from consummating the Merger, in addition to other
unspecified damages, fees and costs.
On June 7, 2013, Palomar entered into a memorandum of
understanding with the Delaware plaintiffs regarding the
settlement of the Delaware putative stockholder class actions (the
"Delaware Memorandum of Understanding") and, on June 10, 2013,
Palomar filed with the SEC a Current Report on Form 8-K to
supplement the Proxy Statement pursuant to the terms of the
Delaware Memorandum of Understanding.
On June 14, 2013, Palomar entered into the Massachusetts
Memorandum of Understanding, pursuant to which the plaintiffs in
the Massachusetts state and federal actions agreed to be bound by
the terms of the Delaware Memorandum of Understanding and Palomar
agreed to file additional supplemental disclosures to the Proxy
Statement.
Palomar believes that no further disclosure is required to
supplement the Proxy Statement under applicable laws; however, to
avoid the risk that the putative stockholder class actions may
delay or otherwise adversely affect the consummation of the Merger
and to minimize the expense of defending such action, Palomar has
agreed, pursuant to the terms of the proposed settlement, to make
certain supplemental disclosures related to the proposed Merger.
The Massachusetts Memorandum of Understanding contemplates that
the parties will enter into a stipulation of settlement. The
stipulation of settlement will be subject to customary conditions,
including court approval following notice to Palomar's
stockholders. In the event that the parties enter into a
stipulation of settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at which
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware will consider the
fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement. If the
settlement is finally approved by the court, it will resolve and
release all claims in all actions that were or could have been
brought challenging any aspect of the proposed Merger, the Merger
Agreement, and any disclosure made in connection therewith (but
excluding claims for appraisal under Section 262 of the Delaware
General Corporation Law), among other claims, pursuant to terms
that will be disclosed to stockholders prior to final approval of
the settlement. In addition, in connection with the settlement,
the parties contemplate that plaintiffs' counsel will file a
petition in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware for an
award of attorneys' fees and expenses to be paid by Palomar or its
successor, which the defendants may oppose. Palomar or its
successor will pay or cause to be paid any attorneys' fees and
expenses awarded by the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware. There can be no assurance that the parties will
ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware will approve the
settlement even if the parties were to enter into such
stipulation. In such event, the proposed settlement as
contemplated by the Massachusetts Memorandum of Understanding may
be terminated.
Cynosure, Inc. -- http://www.cynosure.com/ -- develops and
markets aesthetic treatment systems that are used by physicians
and other practitioners to perform non-invasive and minimally
invasive procedures to remove hair, treat vascular and benign
pigmented lesions, treat multi-colored tattoos, rejuvenate the
skin, liquefy and remove unwanted fat through laser lipolysis,
reduce cellulite and treat onychomycosis. The Company is
headquartered in Westford, Massachusetts.
DEREK THOMAS: Dist. Court Ruling in "Southernlinc" Suit Upheld
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
affirmed a District Court opinion in SOUTHERN COMMUNICATIONS
SERVICES, INC., d.b.a. Southernlinc Wireless, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. DEREK THOMAS, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Defendant-Appellee, NO. 11-15587.
Southern Communications Services, Inc., (d/b/a SouthernLINC
Wireless) appealed the District Court's November 3, 2011, order
denying its motion to vacate two arbitration awards, one
construing the arbitration clause so as to allow for class
litigation, the other certifying a class.
The Eleventh Circuit concludes that, under the standard set forth
by the Supreme Court in Oxford Health Plans LLC v. Sutter, 569
U.S. ___, 133 S.Ct. 2064, ___ L.Ed.2d ___ (2013), the arbitrator
did not "exceed[ ] [his] powers" under Section 10(a)(4) of the
Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. Section 1 et seq. (2006), either
in construing the arbitration clause as he did or in certifying a
class.
A copy of the Appeals Court's July 12, 2013 decision is available
at http://is.gd/jOaErlfrom Leagle.com.
EXIDE TECHNOLOGIES: Defends "Hernandez" Physical Injury Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Exide Technologies is defending a class action lawsuit brought by
Zach Hernandez alleging physical or neurological injury, according
to the Company's June 14, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended March 31,
2013.
On April 25, 2013, Zach Hernandez filed a purported class action
lawsuit in the California Superior Court for the County of Los
Angeles against the Company and Does 1-100 seeking damages and
medical monitoring for an alleged class consisting of all Los
Angeles County residents who allegedly have sustained physical or
neurological injury or toxic exposure allegedly as the result of
the release of allegedly hazardous waste or chemicals from the
Company's facility located in Vernon, California.
Headquartered in Milton, Georgia, Exide Technologies --
http://www.exide.com/-- is a Delaware corporation organized in
1966 to succeed to the business of a New Jersey corporation
founded in 1888. The Company is a global leader in stored
electrical energy solutions, and one of the largest manufacturers
and suppliers of lead-acid batteries for transportation and
industrial applications in the world.
EXIDE TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Securities Class Suits in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
Exide Technologies is facing securities class action lawsuits in
California, according to the Company's June 14, 2013, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended March 31, 2013.
On April 15, 2013, David M. Loritz filed a purported class action
lawsuit against the Company, James R. Bolch, Phillip A. Damaska,
R. Paul Hirt, Jr., and Michael Ostermann alleging violations of
certain federal securities laws. On May 3, 2013, Trevor Knopf
filed a nearly identical complaint against the same named
defendants in the same court. These cases were filed in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California purportedly on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
stock between February 9, 2012, and April 3, 2013. On June 4,
2013, James Cassella and Sandra Weitsman filed a substantially
similar action in the same court, purportedly on behalf of those
who purchased the Company's stock between June 1, 2011, and
April 24, 2013, against the Company, Messrs. Bolch, Damaska, Hirt
and Lou Martinez. The complaints allege that certain public
statements made by the Company and its officers during the
respective time periods constituted material misstatements in
violation of Rule 10b-5 under the Securities Exchange Act. The
complaints do not specify an amount of damages sought. The
Company denies the allegations in the complaints and intends to
vigorously pursue its defense.
Headquartered in Milton, Georgia, Exide Technologies --
http://www.exide.com/-- is a Delaware corporation organized in
1966 to succeed to the business of a New Jersey corporation
founded in 1888. The Company is a global leader in stored
electrical energy solutions, and one of the largest manufacturers
and suppliers of lead-acid batteries for transportation and
industrial applications in the world.
GLAVAL: Recalls 155 Multiple Vehicle Models
-------------------------------------------
Starting date: July 10, 2013
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Bus
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Heater And Defroster
Units affected: 155
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2013243
TC ID number: 2013243
Affected products:
Make Model Model year(s) affected
---- ----- ----------------------
GLAVAL UNIVERSAL 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013
GLAVAL TITAN II 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013
GLAVAL CONCORDE II 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013
GLAVAL SPORT 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013
GLAVAL ENTOURAGE 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013
GLAVAL LEGACY 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013
On some buses, bolts securing ceiling-mounted air conditioning
evaporator may loosen. This could result in the evaporator
falling from the ceiling, potentially causing injury and/or damage
to property.
Dealers will re-torque or replace the bolts.
GRUMA CORP: Dist. Court Refers False Advertising Suit to FDA
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers issued an order granting a
motion to dismiss, in part, and for referral to the United States
Food and Drug Administration, the case captioned ELIZABETH COX,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. GRUMA CORPORATION, et al., Defendant, CASE NO.
12-CV-6502 YGR, (N.D. Cal.).
The putative class action alleges that the labels on certain of
Gruma Corporation's food products, as well as its advertising and
marketing, are false and misleading. The Plaintiff alleges that,
because Defendant's Products contain genetically modified
organisms in the form of corn grown from bioengineered,
genetically modified seeds, Defendant's labels indicating the
Products are "All Natural" are false and misleading.
Gruma Corporation filed its motion to dismiss based upon primary
jurisdiction, among other grounds.
Judge Gonzalez refers to the FDA, for an administrative
determination, the question of whether and under what
circumstances food products containing ingredients produced using
bioengineered seed may or may not be labeled "Natural" or "All
Natural" or "100% Natural".
The action is stayed for a period of six months from July 11 2013,
which period may be extended by further order of the Court upon a
showing of good cause, including an indication from the FDA that
it intends to resolve the issue.
The Court directs the parties and counsel to cooperate in
expediting the presentation and explanation of the question to the
FDA and to notify the Court promptly of any determination by the
FDA.
The request to except the parties pending discovery dispute from
the stay is denied without prejudice to a showing of good cause
why such dispute should be resolved by the Court during the
pendency of the stay.
The Defendant's motion is granted with respect to primary
jurisdiction only, and is otherwise denied without prejudice to
re-filing upon an order dissolving the stay.
A copy of the District Court's July 11, 2013 Order is available at
http://is.gd/QzNqbvfrom Leagle.com.
Elizabeth Cox, Plaintiff, is represented by Benjamin Michael
Lopatin, Esq. -- lopatin@hwrlawoffice.com -- at The Law Offices of
Howard W. Rubinstein, P.A.; Gillian Leigh Wade, Esq. --
gwade@milsteinadelman.com -- at Milstein Adelman, LLP; and Sara
Dawn Avila, Esq. -- savila@milsteinadelman.com -- at Milstein
Adelman, LLP.
Gruma Corporation, Defendant, is represented by Amelia D
Winchester, Esq. -- Amelia.Winchester@tklaw.com -- at Thompson &
Knight LLP; David Raymond Ongaro, Esq. -- David.Ongaro@tklaw.com
-- at Thompson & Knight LLP; Duane Herman Zobrist, Esq. --
dzobrist@zoblaw.com -- at Zobrist Law Group; Gregory S. C.
Huffman, Esq. -- Gregory.Huffman@tklaw.com -- at Thompson & Knight
LLP.
HAGEE FOODS: Recalls Hummus Products Due to Possible Health Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hagee Foods Inc. dba Penny's Salsa Inc., is recalling hummus
products because they have the potential to be contaminated with
Listeria monocytogenes, an organism which can cause serious and
sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly
people, and others with weakened immune systems. Although healthy
individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high
fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and
diarrhea, listeria infection can cause miscarriages and
stillbirths among pregnant women.
The retail hummus products come in 8 oz. and 12 oz. clear plastic
packages and were distributed to retail stores and food service
accounts in Oregon and Washington with the Penny's Salsa, Tacoma
Boys and Harbor Greens labels. The USE BY dates 7/13/2013-
8/25/2013 are printed on the side of the top lid.
Vegetable trays 8 oz and Snack packs 8 oz, which include 1.5 oz
plastic containers of creamy hummus labeled Made in the Pacific
North West, are packaged in black plastic trays with clear plastic
lids. These products were distributed in Oregon and Washington.
The USE BY dates 7/13/2013-7/24/2013 are on the underside of these
trays.
Hummus for foodservice is packaged in 25 lb. bulk boxes. USE BY
dates 7/13/2013-8/25/2013 are printed on the master shipper
labels. This product was distributed in Washington. Pictures of
the Products are available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm361128.htm
The above hummus products were shipped from 5/27/13 to 7/14/13.
No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with these
products.
The potential for contamination was noted after routine testing by
the Washington State Department of Agriculture (WSDA) revealed the
presence of Listeria monocytogenes in 12 ounce containers of
Hummus.
The production of the product has been suspended while FDA, WSDA
and the company continue to investigate the source of the problem.
Consumers who have purchased any size of Penny's Salsa Hummus are
urged to return them to the place of purchase for a full refund.
Consumers with questions may contact the company at 1-866-797-
2572.
HARLEY-DAVIDSON: Court Wants Supplemental Brief on Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe issued an order directing
the filing of supplemental briefing on the parties' joint motion
for preliminary approval of a class action settlement in the
lawsuit captioned LUIS MANUEL MORA, individually, and on behalf of
the class, Plaintiff, v. HARLEY-DAVIDSON CREDIT CORP., a
corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, CASE
NO. 1:08-CV-01453-AWI-BAM, (E.D. Cal.).
The Court is concerned with the parties' request to narrow the
scope of the already-certified Class. Despite substantial briefing
on Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification, neither party
argued that Class members subject to "pre-action judgments,"
defined as Class members whose rights have been determined by a
judgment taken prior to the filing of this action, could not be
included in the certified class. The Court said it has serious
concerns excluding these Class members at this late stage in the
proceedings.
The Court directed the parties to submit a joint supplemental
brief, not to exceed 10 pages in length, addressing its concerns.
The supplemental brief shall provide basic information concerning
the class members sought be excluded, e.g., the number of class
members and the amount of their potential damages. The
supplemental brief will also include a discussion as to why "pre-
action judgment" class members should now be excluded from the
certified Class. If so, the supplemental brief will also explain
why any class member subject to a judgment, regardless of the
time-frame, should be included in the Class.
A copy of the District Court's July 11, 2013 Order is available at
http://is.gd/kiB8MDfrom Leagle.com.
Luis Manual Mora, is Plaintiff, represented by William M Krieg,
Esq. -- Bill@kbklegal.com -- at Kemnizter, Barron & Krieg, LLP;
and Bryan Kemnitzer, Esq. -- bryan@kbklegal.com -- at Kemnitzer
Barron & Krieg, PC.
Harley-Davidson Credit Corp., Defendant, represented by Feather
Devi Baron, Esq. -- fbaron@reedsmith.com -- at Reed Smith LLP.
KNIGHT CAPITAL: Inks MOU to Settle Merger Suits in Del. and N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Knight Capital Group, Inc., entered into a memorandum of
understanding to settle merger-related class action lawsuits
commenced in Delaware and New York, according to the Company's
June 14, 2013, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.
On December 19, 2012, Knight, GETCO Holding Company, LLC ("GETCO")
and an affiliate of GETCO entered into an agreement and plan of
merger (the "Merger Agreement") for a strategic business
combination. As a result of the proposed strategic business
combination (the "Merger"), Knight and GETCO will each become a
wholly owned subsidiary of Knight Holdco, Inc., a newly-formed
Delaware corporation ("KCG"). The business of KCG will be the
combined business of Knight and GETCO. The Merger is expected to
be completed in the second quarter of 2013, subject to approval by
the Company's stockholders and GETCO's voting unitholders,
customary regulatory approvals and satisfaction of customary
closing conditions.
Following the announcement of the proposed transaction,
shareholder lawsuits were filed in New Jersey, Delaware and New
York.
Knight, GETCO, General Atlantic, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company ("General Atlantic"), and GA-GTCO, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company ("GA-GTCO") (together, the "Defendants"), have
reached an agreement in principle to settle these putative class
action lawsuits filed on behalf of Knight stockholders: (1)
Dominique v. Thomas M. Joyce et al., C.A. No. 8159-VCP, filed on
December 28, 2012, in the Delaware Court of Chancery, challenging
the proposed merger between Knight and GETCO; (2) McMillan v.
Thomas M. Joyce et al., C.A. No. 8163-VCP, filed on December 28,
2012, in the Delaware Court of Chancery, challenging the proposed
merger between Knight and GETCO (together with Dominique v. Thomas
M. Joyce et al., "the Delaware Actions"); (3) Rosenfeld v. Thomas
M. Joyce et al., Index No. 650147/2013, filed on January 15, 2013,
in New York Supreme Court (New York County), challenging the
proposed merger between Knight and GETCO, and also asserting
derivative claims against Knight and certain of its directors
concerning losses associated with an August 1, 2012 technology
issue at Knight (the "New York Action") (together with the
Delaware Actions, the "Shareholder Actions"). The Shareholder
Actions name as defendants Knight, Knight's board of directors,
GETCO, GA-GTCO, and General Atlantic, LLC. The Shareholder
Actions allege, among other things, that the Knight board of
directors breached certain alleged fiduciary duties to Knight
stockholders by approving the Amended and Restated Agreement and
Plan of Merger, dated as of December 19, 2012, and amended and
restated as of April 15, 2013, by and among Knight, GETCO, GA-GTCO
and certain other parties (the "Merger Agreement") pursuant to an
allegedly unfair sales process and at an allegedly unfair price
and that Knight failed to disclose certain information about the
proposed merger with GETCO in the joint proxy statement/prospectus
filed with the SEC by Knight and KCG Holdings, Inc. on May 28,
2013 (the "Proxy Statement"). The Shareholder Actions also allege
that Knight, GETCO, GA-GTCO, and General Atlantic aided and
abetted those breaches.
On June 10, 2013, the Defendants entered into a memorandum of
understanding with the plaintiffs in the Shareholder Actions
regarding the settlement of the Shareholder Actions. In
connection with the settlement of the Shareholder Actions, Knight
and GETCO have agreed to make the following supplemental
disclosures (the "Supplemental Disclosures") to the Proxy
Statement. In addition, Knight and GETCO have agreed to make
certain revisions to Knight's risk committee charter, as well as
to the combined company's risk committee charter. The
Supplemental Disclosures should be read in conjunction with the
Proxy Statement, which should be read in its entirety.
The memorandum of understanding also contemplates that the parties
will enter into a stipulation of settlement. The stipulation of
settlement will be subject to customary conditions, including
court approval following notice to Knight's stockholders. In the
event that the parties enter into a stipulation of settlement, a
hearing will be scheduled at which the Delaware Court of Chancery
will consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the
settlement. If the settlement is finally approved by the court,
it will resolve and release all claims that were brought or could
have been brought in all of the Shareholder Actions, including
claims challenging any aspect of the proposed merger, the Merger
Agreement and any disclosure made in connection therewith,
pursuant to terms that will be disclosed to Knight's stockholders
prior to final approval of the settlement. In addition, in
connection with the settlement, the parties contemplate that
plaintiff's counsel will file a petition in the Delaware Court of
Chancery for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses to be paid
by Knight or its successor. The settlement will not affect the
consideration that Knight's stockholders are entitled to receive
in the merger. There can be no assurance that the parties will
enter into a stipulation of settlement, or that the court will
approve any proposed settlement. In such event, the proposed
settlement as contemplated by the memorandum of understanding may
be terminated.
The Defendants continue to believe that the Shareholder Actions
are without merit and vigorously deny the allegations that
Knight's directors breached their fiduciary duties. Likewise, the
Defendants do not believe that any disclosures regarding the
Merger are required under applicable laws other than that which
has already been provided in the Proxy Statement. Furthermore,
nothing in this Current Report on Form 8-K (this "Report") or any
settlement shall be deemed an admission of the legal necessity or
materiality of any of the disclosures set forth in this Report.
However, to avoid the risk of the putative stockholder class
action delaying or adversely affecting the Merger, to minimize the
substantial expense, burden, distraction and inconvenience of
continued litigation and to fully and finally resolve the claims
in the Shareholder Actions, the Defendants have agreed to make
these supplemental disclosures to the Proxy Statement.
Headquartered in Jersey City, New Jersey, Knight Capital Group,
Inc. -- http://www.knight.com/-- is a Delaware corporation
organized in January 2000 as the successor to the business of
Knight/Trimark Group, Inc. The Company is a global financial
services firm that provides access to the capital markets across
multiple asset classes to a broad network of clients, including
buy- and sell-side firms and corporations.
LAKE CITY INDUSTRIAL: Plaintiff in TCPA Suit Gets Favorable Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Gordon J. Quist granted summary judgment in favor
of the plaintiff in the case captioned AMERICAN COPPER & BRASS,
INC., a Michigan corporation, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons,
Plaintiff, v. LAKE CITY INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS, INC., and JEFFREY
MEEDER, Defendants, CASE NO. 1:09-CV-1162, (W.D. Mich.).
American Copper & Brass, Inc., on behalf of itself and a class of
similarly situated persons, sued Lake City Industrial Products and
Jeffrey Meeder, alleging that they violated the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act. American Copper alleges that Defendants violated
the TCPA when Business To Business Solutions ("B2B") -- a company
that advertised for clients by sending out mass fax broadcasts --
sent out a mass fax broadcast advertising a Lake City product.
American Copper received one of more than 10,000 faxes sent.
The Court previously denied Mr. Meeder's Motion for Summary
Judgment.
A copy of the District Court's July 12, 2013 Memorandum Opinion
is available at http://is.gd/iByKQbfrom Leagle.com.
American Copper & Brass, Inc., a Michigan corporation,
individually and as the representative of a class of similarly
situated persons, plaintiff, is represented by Jason J. Thompson,
Esq. -- jthompson@sommerspc.com -- at Sommers Schwartz PC; Brian
J. Wanca, Esq. -- bwanca@andersonwanca.com -- at Anderson & Wanca;
and Phillip A. Bock, Esq., at Bock & Hatch LLC.
Defendants Lake City Industrial Products, Inc., and Jeffrey Meeder
are represented by Eryk Folmer, Esq., at Stephen J. Schlegel LTD;
Jules B. Olsman, Esq. -- jbolsman@olsmanlaw.com -- at Olsman
Mueller Wallace & MacKenzie PC; Stephanie L. Arndt, Esq. --
sarndt@olsmanlaw.com -- at Olsman Mueller Wallace & MacKenzie PC;
and Stephen J. Schlegel, Esq. -- sjschlegel@schlegelltd.com -- at
Stephen J. Schlegel LTD.
Third-party defendants Caroline Abraham; Jason Abraham; Joel
Abraham; Business to Business Solutions, also known as MaxiLeads;
Macaw SRL, a foreign Romanian corporation; and Kevin Wilson,
individually doing business as Business to Business Solutions, are
represented by Mr. Folmer.
LEGALZOOM INC: TX Appeals Court Affirmed Denial of Class Cert.
--------------------------------------------------------------
David Lee at Courthouse News Service reports that a man who claims
that LegalZoom Inc. overcharged him for his federal trademark
application cannot represent a nationwide class, a Texas appeals
court ruled.
The online legal document service submits applications to the U.S.
Patent and Trademark Office in one of two ways: under the
Trademark Electronic Application Service, known as TEAS, or TEAS
Plus.
Simon Solotko said the filing fee for TEAS is $325 and TEAS Plus
is $275, yet LegalZoom charges $325 regardless.
He sued the company in Travis County, Texas, alleging conversion,
breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and fraud.
In his motion for class certification, however, Solotko said his
claims against the Los Angeles company should be decided under
California law. Solotko also amended his petition to assert
claims solely under California law.
LegalZoom nevertheless chided Solotko for failing to conduct a 50-
state analysis of substantive law required to certify a nationwide
class. It also argued that Solotko was not an adequate class
representative, among other things.
The plaintiff appealed after the trial court denied his motion and
concluded that he failed to show sufficient common issues of law
nationwide.
A three-judge panel of the Austin-based Third District Court of
Appeals affirmed Thursday, July 11, 2013.
Denying class certification was not an abuse of discretion, and
Solotko failed to show why a 50-state analysis was unnecessary,
according to the ruling.
"Solotko, as the class representative, bore the burden to
demonstrate compliance with class action requirements, including
that common questions of law predominate," Justice Melissa Goodwin
wrote for the panel. "It was his burden then to show that
California law applied to the other class members. Given
Solotko's position to the trial court and the Supreme Court's
admonishment not to accept a plaintiff's assertions 'on faith,'
the trial court could have concluded that Solotko failed in his
burden to provide the trial court with sufficient information to
perform the choice of law analysis and, therefore, that he failed
in his burden to show that California law applied and that common
questions of law predominate."
Solotko likewise failed to identify problem with how the trial
court described its approach to the choice-of-law analysis.
"He contends that the proper analysis would have shown that there
was no need to consider each state's choice of law principles,
that the trial court should have applied Texas choice of law
principles, and that Texas principles would start with the
parties' contractual choice of California law," the opinion
states. "Even if we assume that Texas choice of law rules apply,
however, analysis of other jurisdiction's substantive laws
remained necessary."
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert B. Kleinman, Esq.
THE KLEINMAN LAW FIRM PLLC
404 W 7th St.
Austin, TX 78701
Telephone: (512) 299-5329
Facsimile: (512) 628-3390
E-mail: robert@kleinmanlawfirm.com
- and -
Roger F. Claxton, Esq.
10000 N. Central Expressway, Suite 725
Dallas, TX 75231-2351
Telephone: (214) 969-9029
- and -
Don Cruse, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF DON CRUSE
1108 Lavaca Street, #110-436
Austin, TX 78701
Telephone: (512) 853-9100
Facsimile: (512) 870-9002
E-mail: don.cruse@texasappellate.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Peter D. Kennedy, Esq.
GRAVES, DOUGHERTY, HEARON & MOODY, P.C.
401 Congress Avenue, Suite 2200
Austin, TX 78701
Telephone: (512) 480-5764
Facsimile: (512) 536-9908
E-mail: pkennedy@gdhm.com
- and -
Daniel O. Ramon, Esq.
GRAVES, DOUGHERTY, HEARON & MOODY, P.C.
401 Congress Avenue, Suite 2200
Austin, TX 78701
Telephone: (512) 480-5679
Facsimile: (512) 480-5859
E-mail: dramon@gdhm.com
The appellate case is Simon Solotko, on Behalf of Himself and All
Others Similarly Situated v. Legalzoom.Com, Inc., a Delaware
Corporation, Case No. 03-10-00755-CV, in the Texas Court of
Appeals, Third Court of Appeals. The original case is Simon
Solotko, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v.
Legalzoom.Com, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Case No. D-1-GN-08-
000766, in the District Court of Travis County, 261st Judicial
District.
LOUISIANA-PACIFIC CORP: "Holbrook" Claim Dismissal Ruling Vacated
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In HOLBROOK v. LOUISIANA-PACIFIC CORPORATION, the United States
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit vacated a district court
decision dismissing Mr. Holbrook's breach-of-express-warranty
claim with respect to a 10-year written warranty; affirmed a
district court decision dismissing all other counts; and remanded
the case for further proceedings.
Jason Holbrook appealed from the district court's decision
granting Louisiana-Pacific Corporation's motion to dismiss his
amended putative class action complaint. On appeal, Mr. Holbrook
claims that the district court erred in dismissing his claims that
Louisiana-Pacific violated the Ohio Uniform Commercial Code, the
Ohio Products Liability Act, and the Ohio Deceptive Trade
Practices Act. These claims are based on the alleged failure of
Trimboard, an alternative to real wood trim that was manufactured
by Louisiana-Pacific, to withstand normal weather conditions.
The Sixth Circuit concluded that the allegations in the amended
complaint were sufficient to assert a plausible claim of breach of
express contract with respect to the 10-year written warranty.
The case is JASON HOLBROOK, Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LOUISIANA-
PACIFIC CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee, No. 12-4166 (6th Cir.).
A copy of the Appeals Court's July 12, 2013 decision is available
at http://is.gd/4SaQm9from Leagle.com.
MAGNUM HUNTER: Faces Securities Class Suits in New York & Texas
---------------------------------------------------------------
Magnum Hunter Resources Corporation is facing class action
lawsuits alleging violations of securities laws, according to the
Company's June 14, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.
On April 23, 2013, Anthony Rosian, individually and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated, filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court, Southern District
of New York, against the Company and certain of its officers, two
of whom also serve as directors. On April 24, 2013, Horace
Carvalho, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, filed a similar class action complaint in the
United States District Court, Southern District of Texas, against
the Company and certain of its officers, two of whom also serve as
directors. Several substantially similar putative class actions
have been filed in the Southern District of New York and in the
Southern District of Texas. All such cases are collectively
referred to as the Securities Cases. The complaints in the
Securities Cases allege that the Company made certain false or
misleading statements in its filings with the SEC, including
statements related to the Company's internal and financial
controls, the calculation of non-cash share-based compensation
expense, the late filing of the Company's 2012 Form 10-K, the
dismissal of Magnum Hunter's previous independent registered
accounting firm, and other matters identified in the Company's
April 16, 2013 Form 8-K, as amended. The complaints demand that
the defendants pay unspecified damages to the class action
plaintiffs, including damages allegedly caused by the decline in
the Company's stock price between February 22, 2013, and April 22,
2013. The Company and the individual defendants intend to
vigorously defend the Securities Cases. It is possible that
additional putative class action lawsuits could be filed over
these events.
Based in Houston, Texas, Magnum Hunter Resources Corporation --
http://www.magnumhunterresources.com/-- is an independent oil and
gas company engaged in the exploration for and the exploitation,
acquisition, development and production of crude oil, natural gas
and natural gas liquids resources in the United States and Canada.
The Company is also engaged in midstream and oil field services
operations, primarily in West Virginia, Ohio and Texas.
MCGLAUGHLIN SPRAY: Court Refused to Dismiss Suit Over Spray Foam
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rose Bouboushian, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
that the manufacturer and installer of spray polyurethane foam
cannot dismiss claims that the allegedly carcinogenic insulation
"remains toxic" after installation, a federal judge ruled.
After Pennsylvania residents Daniel and Paula Slemmer had
McGlaughlin Spray Foam Insulation Inc. install SPF in their home
last year, they sued the certified installer and the foam
manufacturer, Barnhardt Manufacturing Co.
Purporting to represent a class, the Slemmers say SPF contains
carcinogenic chemicals, "remains toxic" after installation, and
poses health hazards to occupants of homes where it is used.
The complaint, filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, says
the class members "have developed a significantly increased risk
of contracting a serious latent disease" due to the insulation,
which has resulted in "off-gassing, damaging the real and personal
property of plaintiffs and class members and/or caused personal
injuries resulting in eye irritations, sore throats and cough,
nausea, fatigue, shortness of breath, and/or neurological harm."
The only remedy for the "highly toxic" insulation is its complete
removal, the plaintiffs say.
They assert claims against Barnhardt and McGlaughlin for
negligence, strict liability, breach of warranty, unjust
enrichment and violation of Consumer Protection Acts, seeking
equitable and injunctive relief, as well as medical monitoring.
Meanwhile they have charged the manufacturer with only negligent
supervision.
The complaint requests a recall of SPF, remediation of class
members' homes, the creation of a public awareness campaign, and
an end to the misrepresentation of the dangers of SPF.
Both defendants moved to dismiss, and the plaintiffs cross-moved
for discovery.
U.S. District Judge Jan DuBois partially granted the defendants'
motions and denied the plaintiffs' cross-motion as moot July 3,
holding that the Slemmers "have failed to identify either a
serious latent disease which requires monitoring or a medical
monitoring procedure suitable in this case."
The court also tossed aside the claims for negligent supervision
and breach of express warranties.
"Plaintiffs cite no law, and the court has found none, supporting
the contention that Barnhardt's training and certification created
a legal duty to supervise SPF installers," DuBois wrote.
But the breach of implied warranty, negligence, unjust enrichment,
and Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection
Law claims survived, even though the plaintiffs did not purchase
SPF directly from Barnhardt.
"According to the complaint, defendants marketed and advertised
SPF as a 'safe, "green," and non-toxic product,' and such
marketing 'caused actual damages to consumers, including
plaintiffs and class members who purchased defendants' SPF system
because of defendants' representations and conduct,'" DuBois
wrote. "Plaintiffs further plead that 'they would not have
purchased SPF had the damaging side effects been disclosed to
plaintiffs.' The court agrees that plaintiffs have alleged
justifiable reliance upon specific misrepresentations by
defendants."
The plaintiffs may amend the claims that were dismissed, according
to the judgment.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jonathan Shub, Esq.
SEEGER WEISS LLP
1515 Market Street, Suite 1380
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Telephone: (215) 564-2300
Facsimile: (215) 851-8029
E-mail: jshub@seegerweiss.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Stephen M. McManus, Esq.
MCCORMICK & PRIORE
Four Penn Center, Ste. 800
1600 John F. Kennedy Boulevard
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 972-0161
Facsimile: (215) 972-5580
E-mail: smcmanus@mccormickpriore.com
The case is Slemmer, et al. v. McGlaughlin Spray Foam Insulation,
Inc., et al., Case No. 2:12-cv-06542-JD, in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia).
MICHELIN: Recalls 3,644 Units of 2012 and 2013 Tires
----------------------------------------------------
Starting date: July 15, 2013
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Tire
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Tires
Units affected: 3,644
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2013245
TC ID number: 2013245
Affected products:
Make Model Model year(s) affected
---- ----- ----------------------
MICHELIN LTX M/S2 P275/55R20 2012, 2013
MICHELIN X RADIAL LT2 P275/55R20 2013
MICHELIN LTX M/S2 P265/65R18 2013
On certain tires, incorrect handling during the manufacturing
process may have caused a pinhole in the sidewall. A loss of
inflation pressure could cause increased tire temperature, which
could lead to tire failure. This could result in a vehicle crash
causing property damage and/or personal injury.
Retailers will replace affected tires.
NATURA PET: Recalls Various Dry Pet Food Products and Treats
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: July 16, 2013
Posting date: July 16, 2013
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Microbiological - Salmonella
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Product Safety, Contamination, Microbial
Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-34585
Affected products: Various dry pet food products and treats
manufactured by Natura Pet Products, Inc.
The recall involves the following brands of dry pet food with an
expiration date prior to June 10, 2014:
-- California Natural;
-- EVO;
-- HealthWise;
-- Innova;
-- Karma; and
-- EVO treats and Innova Cat treats
Additionally, the recall includes Mother Nature dry pet food with
an expiration date prior to June 10, 2014.
A manufacturer in the United States, Natura Pet Products, Inc. has
recalled several batches of its dry pet food products due to
possible contamination with Salmonella.
Pets such as dogs and cats, and their food can carry Salmonella
bacteria. People can get infected with the bacteria from handling
pets, pet food or feces. Symptoms of salmonellosis often include:
-- sudden onset of fever;
-- headache;
-- stomach cramps;
-- diarrhea; and
-- vomiting
Neither Health Canada nor Natura Pet Products, Inc. has received
any reports of illnesses related to the recalled pet food
products.
Approximately 582,536 bags of recalled dry pet food and treat
products have been distributed in Canada.
The recalled pet food products were sold prior to June 10, 2013.
Companies:
Manufacturer Natura Pet Products Inc.
2779 Rademakers Way
Fremont
68025
Nebraska
United States
Distributor Harmony Dog Products
Halifax
Nova Scotia
Canada
Distributor Le Gastronome Animal Inc.
St-Jean-sur-Richelieu
Quebec
Canada
Distributor Maddies Natural Pet Products
Edmonton
Alberta
Canada
Distributor Maddies Natural Pet Products
Delta
British Columbia
Canada
Distributor Pet Science Ltd.
Brampton
Ontario
Canada
Consumers should stop using the product and contact Natura Pet
Products, Inc. for further information, product replacement or
refund.
Consumers may call Natura toll-free at 1-800-224-6123 (Monday-
Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. CST). Additional information on
the recalled products is found at the following firm's website.
NEWLY WEDS: Recalls Brand Spice Blends
--------------------------------------
Starting date: July 11, 2013
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Notification
Subcategory: Extraneous Material
Hazard classification: Class 3
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection
Agency
Recalling firm: Newly Weds Foods Co.
Distribution: Alberta, Ontario,
Saskatchewan
Extent of the product distribution: Warehouse
CFIA reference number: 8169
Affected Products:
Brand name Common name Size
---------- ----------- ----
NWF GC MWNI Maple Fresh SSG Seasoning Spices 4.24 kg
NWF GC MWNI Maple Fresh SSG Seasoning Spices 20.00 kg
NWF GC MWNI Honey Garlic SSG Seasoning Spices 4.75 kg
NWF GC MWNI Honey Garlic SSG Seasoning Spices 20.00 kg
NWF GC MWNI SWT Thai CHL Seasoning Spices 20.00 kg
NWF GC PC FF Smoke Seasoning Spices 20.88 kg
NWF GC Nat Pork WNR SP Seasoning Spices 15.40 kg
NWF GC MWNI Nat Pork WNR Seasoning Spices 19.96 kg
NWF MWNI Tumble Unit Seasoning Spices 20.00 kg
NWF GC MWNI Orig GR Lems Seasoning Spices 1.32 kg
PALOMAR MEDICAL: Inks MOU to Settle Merger-Related Suits in Mass.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Palomar Medical Technologies, Inc., entered into a memorandum of
understanding to settle merger-related lawsuits in Massachusetts,
according to the Company's June 14, 2013, Form 8-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company said that the Current Report on Form 8-K is being
filed in connection with a Memorandum of Understanding (the
"Massachusetts Memorandum of Understanding") regarding the
settlement of certain litigation relating to the transactions
contemplated by the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of
March 17, 2013, as amended and restated by an Amended and Restated
Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of May 15, 2013 (as so
amended and restated, the "Merger Agreement"), by and among
Palomar Medical Technologies, Inc., a Delaware corporation
("Palomar"), Cynosure, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Cynosure"),
and Commander Acquisition, LLC (formerly Commander Acquisition
Corp.), a Delaware limited liability company and a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Cynosure (the "Merger Subsidiary"). The Merger
Agreement provides for, among other things, the acquisition of
Palomar by Cynosure through the merger (the "Merger") of Palomar
with and into the Merger Subsidiary, with the Merger Subsidiary
surviving as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Cynosure at the
effective time of the Merger.
As disclosed in the definitive joint proxy statement/prospectus
filed by Palomar with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
"SEC") on May 23, 2013 (the "Proxy Statement"), on March 21, 2013,
a putative stockholder class action complaint, captioned Edgar
Calin v. Palomar Medical Technologies, Inc., et al., No. 13-1051
BLS1 (Superior Court, Suffolk County), was filed against Palomar,
its board of directors, Cynosure and the Merger Subsidiary in
Massachusetts Superior Court in Suffolk County. On April 9, 2013,
a second putative stockholder class action complaint, captioned
Vladimir Gusinsky Living Trust v. Palomar Medical Technologies,
Inc., et al., No. 13-1328 BLS1 (Superior Court, Suffolk County),
was filed against Palomar, its board of directors and Cynosure in
Massachusetts Superior Court in Suffolk County. On April 12,
2013, a third putative stockholder class action complaint,
captioned Albert Saffer v. Palomar Medical Technologies, Inc., et
al., No. 13-1385 BLS1 (Superior Court, Suffolk County), was filed
against Palomar, its board of directors, Cynosure and the Merger
Subsidiary in Massachusetts Superior Court in Suffolk County. On
April 23, 2013, each of the plaintiffs in the lawsuits filed an
amended complaint. Each amended complaint alleges that members of
the Palomar board of directors breached their fiduciary duties in
connection with the approval of the Merger and that Cynosure and,
with respect to the Calin and Saffer lawsuits, the Merger
Subsidiary aided and abetted the alleged breach of fiduciary
duties. Each amended complaint alleges that the Palomar directors
breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed
transaction by, among other things, conducting a flawed sale
process and failing to maximize stockholder value and obtain the
best financial and other terms, and that the Proxy Statement is
materially deficient. Each of these plaintiffs seeks injunctive
and other equitable relief, including enjoining the defendants
from consummating the Merger, in addition to other unspecified
damages, fees and costs.
Also as disclosed in the Proxy Statement, on April 19, 2013, a
fourth putative stockholder class action complaint, captioned Gary
Drabek v. Palomar Medical Technologies, Inc., et al., No. 8491
(Del. Ch.), was filed against Palomar, its board of directors,
Cynosure and the Merger Subsidiary in Delaware Chancery Court. On
May 1, 2013, a fifth putative stockholder class action complaint,
captioned Daniel Moore v. Palomar Medical Technologies, Inc., et
al., No. 8516 (Del. Ch.), was filed against Palomar, its board of
directors, Cynosure and the Merger Subsidiary in Delaware Chancery
Court. Each of the lawsuits alleges that members of the Palomar
board of directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection
with the approval of the Merger and that Cynosure and the Merger
Subsidiary aided and abetted the alleged breach of fiduciary
duties. Each complaint alleges that the Palomar directors
breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed
transaction by, among other things, conducting a flawed sale
process and failing to maximize stockholder value and obtain the
best financial and other terms, and that the Proxy Statement is
materially deficient. Each of these plaintiffs seeks injunctive
and other equitable relief, including enjoining the defendants
from consummating the Merger, in addition to other unspecified
damages, fees and costs. On May 7, 2013, the plaintiffs in the
Drabek and Moore actions jointly submitted a proposed order of
consolidation to consolidate the class actions as In re Palomar
Medical Technologies Shareholder Litigation, C.A. No. 8491-VCP,
which order was granted by the court on the same day.
On May 28, 2013, a sixth putative stockholder class action
complaint, captioned Melvin Lax v. Palomar Medical Technologies,
Inc., et al., No. 13-11276 (D. Mass.), was filed against Palomar,
its board of directors, Cynosure, and the Merger Subsidiary in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
The lawsuit alleges that members of the Palomar board of directors
breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the approval of
the Merger, that Cynosure and the Merger Subsidiary aided and
abetted the alleged breach of fiduciary duties, and that the
defendants violated Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder by issuing a
materially misleading Proxy Statement. The Plaintiff seeks
injunctive and other equitable relief, including enjoining the
defendants from consummating the Merger, in addition to other
unspecified damages, fees and costs.
On June 7, 2013, Palomar entered into a memorandum of
understanding with the Delaware plaintiffs regarding the
settlement of the Delaware putative stockholder class actions (the
"Delaware Memorandum of Understanding") and, on June 10, 2013,
Palomar filed with the SEC a Current Report on Form 8-K to
supplement the Proxy Statement pursuant to the terms of the
Delaware Memorandum of Understanding.
On June 14, 2013, Palomar entered into the Massachusetts
Memorandum of Understanding, pursuant to which the plaintiffs in
the Massachusetts state and federal actions agreed to be bound by
the terms of the Delaware Memorandum of Understanding and Palomar
agreed to file additional supplemental disclosures to the Proxy
Statement.
Palomar believes that no further disclosure is required to
supplement the Proxy Statement under applicable laws; however, to
avoid the risk that the putative stockholder class actions may
delay or otherwise adversely affect the consummation of the Merger
and to minimize the expense of defending such action, Palomar has
agreed, pursuant to the terms of the proposed settlement, to make
certain supplemental disclosures related to the proposed Merger.
The Massachusetts Memorandum of Understanding contemplates that
the parties will enter into a stipulation of settlement. The
stipulation of settlement will be subject to customary conditions,
including court approval following notice to Palomar's
stockholders. In the event that the parties enter into a
stipulation of settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at which
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware will consider the
fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement. If the
settlement is finally approved by the court, it will resolve and
release all claims in all actions that were or could have been
brought challenging any aspect of the proposed Merger, the Merger
Agreement, and any disclosure made in connection therewith (but
excluding claims for appraisal under Section 262 of the Delaware
General Corporation Law), among other claims, pursuant to terms
that will be disclosed to stockholders prior to final approval of
the settlement. In addition, in connection with the settlement,
the parties contemplate that plaintiffs' counsel will file a
petition in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware for an
award of attorneys' fees and expenses to be paid by Palomar or its
successor, which the defendants may oppose. Palomar or its
successor will pay or cause to be paid any attorneys' fees and
expenses awarded by the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware. There can be no assurance that the parties will
ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware will approve the
settlement even if the parties were to enter into such
stipulation. In such event, the proposed settlement as
contemplated by the Massachusetts Memorandum of Understanding may
be terminated.
Palomar Medical Technologies, Inc. --
http://www.palomarmedical.com/-- designs, produces and sells the
most advanced cosmetic lasers and intense pulsed light (IPL)
systems to dramatically improve the appearance of women's and
men's skin. The Company is headquartered in Burlington,
Massachusetts.
PRO UNLIMITED: Obtains Final OK of Workers' Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd issued an order granting final
approval of a class and collective action settlement; class
representative enhancement; administrative expenses; and
attorney's fees and costs in the case captioned MICHAEL LAZARIN;
STEPHEN KOHLER; and PAUL CAPANO, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. PRO UNLIMITED, INC., and
JUNIPER AWARDS; NETWORKS, INC. Defendants, NO. C11-03609 HRL,
(N.D. Cal.).
The Court designates Michael Lazarin, Stephen Kohler, and Paul
Capano as Class Representatives, and Rukin Hyland Doria & Tindall
LLP as Class Counsel.
The Court directs the parties to implement the Settlement, except
for the provision discussing distribution to a cy pres
beneficiary. Despite the fact that the Settlement Agreement
directs distribution of unclaimed funds to an unnamed cy pres
beneficiary, any unclaimed funds will be sent to the State of
California unclaimed property fund and/or to the remaining
eligible Class Members who cashed their Settlement Award checks.
For purposes of settlement, the FLSA Plaintiffs shall consist of
all persons employed by Pro Unlimited, Inc. in Covered Positions
who worked at Juniper Networks, Inc. between July 22, 2008 and
June 6, 2012, and who affirmatively opt in to the Settlement by
cashing a settlement award check. The California Class shall
consist of all persons employed by Pro Unlimited, Inc. in Covered
Positions who worked at Juniper between July 22, 2007 and June 6,
2012, and who did not submit a valid request for exclusion (i.e.,
opt out of the Settlement). Covered Positions include persons
employed in any of the following job titles: Agency Finance
Management; Agency IT Management; Agency Marketing Management;
Agency Recruiter; Agency Talent Acquisition; Agency Talent
Acquisition-Recruiter; Contract Recruiter-APG; Contract Sr.
Technical Recruiter; Manager, Contingent Workforce; Marketing
Contractor; Recruiter; Sr. Recruiter; Sr. Talent Acquisition; Sr.
Talent Acquisition Consultant; University Relations/Diversity
Recruiter; and University Relations/Diversity Recruiter II. The
"Class Period" for the FLSA Plaintiffs shall be from July 22, 2008
and June 6, 2012; the "Class Period" for the California Class
shall be from July 22, 2007 and June 6, 2012. Any California Class
Member who opted out of the California Class is not a FLSA
Plaintiff and shall not receive a settlement check. The Settlement
Classes shall not include any person who previously settled or
released the claims covered by this Settlement, including any
person who was previously paid or received an award through a
civil or administrative action for the claims covered by this
Settlement.
The Defendants will pay a total of $1,250,000 to fully resolve the
lawsuit ("Maximum Settlement Amount"), to be distributed as
follows:
a. Payment to the California Labor and Workforce Development
Agency (LWDA) in the amount of $7,500 in connection with
Plaintiffs' claims for civil penalties under the Private Attorneys
General Act ("PAGA");
b. Payment for the actual claims administration expenses
incurred by Simpluris, Inc., not to exceed $11,000;
c. Payment to Class Representatives Michael Lazarin, Stephen
Kohler, and Paul Capano of an Enhancement Award of $25,000 each,
for their service as Class Representatives;
d. Payment of an award of attorneys' fees and costs in the
amount of $312,500 as final payment for and complete satisfaction
of any and all attorneys' fees and costs incurred by and/or owed
to Class Counsel and any other person or entity related to Class
Counsel, administered pursuant to the terms of the Settlement
Agreement and transferred and/or made payable to Class Counsel;
e. Payment to the FLSA Plaintiffs and the California Class
pursuant to the procedures set forth in the Settlement Agreement;
The Court orders the payment schedule be administered as provided
within the Implementation Schedule set forth within the Court's
Preliminary Approval Order, with the following revisions:
"Deadline for Defendant to pay, and the August 1, 2013 Settlement
Administrator to distribute, the Settlement Awards, and the Court-
approved (21 calendar days after Settlement is attorneys' fees,
costs, Final and Effective under Paragraph Enhancement Awards and
settlement 14(b)) administration expenses Deadline for Class
Counsel to file joint November 29, 2013 request to obtain Court
order to identify FLSA Plaintiffs covered by and bound )120
calendar days after issuance of the to the Settlement Settlement
Awards)."
The Court enters judgment, and DISMISSAL of the entire Action WITH
PREJUDICE, as of July 11, 2013, pursuant to the terms set forth in
the Settlement Agreement.
A copy of the District Court's July 11, 2013 Order is available at
http://is.gd/tIzo4ofrom Leagle.com.
Plaintiffs Michael Lazarin, Stephen Kohler and Paul Capano are
represented by represented by Carol Josephine Morganstern, Esq. --
cmorganstern@nelsonhr.com -- at Rukin Hyland Doria & Tindall LLP;
Peter Scott Rukin, Esq. -- peterrukin@rhdtlaw.com -- at Rukin
Hyland Doria & Tindall LLP; and Whitney Stark, Esq., at Terrell
Marshall Daudt & Willie, PLLC.
Pro Unlimited, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Cary G. Palmer,
Esq. -- PalmerC@jacksonlewis.com -- at Jackson Lewis LLP; Heath
Aaron Havey, Esq. -- HarveyH@jacksonlewis.com -- at Jackson Lewis
LLP; and Joel Paul Kelly Esq. -- Paul.Kelly@jacksonlewis.com -- at
Jackson Lewis LLP.
SABA SOFTWARE: Faces Shareholder Class Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that publicly traded Saba Software
Inc. has not published financial statement for 18 months, nor held
a shareholders meeting for 20 months, citing shareholders, who
filed a complaint in San Mateo County Court.
The case is Jonathan Stoll, et al. v. Michael R. Abbott, et al.,
Case No. CIV522809, filed on July 12, 2013, in the Superior Court
of California for the County of San Mateo.
Several law firms have announced since the start of the year that
they are investigating whether Saba Software has made false and
misleading statements in violations of securities laws. These
firms include:
Jason L. Brodsky, Esq.
Evan J. Smith, Esq.
BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
Two Bala Plaza, Suite 602
Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
Telephone: (610) 667-6200
Facsimile: (610) 667-9029
E-mail: jbrodsky@brodsky-smith.com
esmith@brodsky-smith.com
- and -
Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 697-6484
Facsimile: (212) 697-7296
E-mail: info@bgandg.com
- and -
Richard Frankowski, Esq.
BURKE, HARVEY & FRANKOWSKI, LLC
One Highland Place
2151 Highland Avenue, Suite 120
Birmingham, AL 35205-4008
Telephone: (205) 930-9091
Toll Free: (888) 930-9091
E-mail: rfrankowski@bhlegal.com
- and -
Michael Goldberg, Esq.
GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-9150
Toll Free: (888) 773-9224
E-mail: mgoldberg@glancylaw.com
- and -
Robert I. Harwood, Esq.
Matthew M. Houston, Esq.
Benjamin I. Sachs-Michaels, Esq.
HARWOOD FEFFER LLP
488 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (877) 935-7400
(212) 935-7400
E-mail: rharwood@hfesq.com
mhouston@hfesq.com
bsachsmichaels@hfesq.com
- and -
Todd M. Garber, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. GARBER
Los Angeles, CA
Telephone: (213) 700-7262
E-mail: info@toddgarberlaw.com
- and -
Joshua M. Lifshitz, Esq.
LIFSHITZ LAW FIRM
18 East 41st Street, Suite 1105
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 213-6222
Toll Free: (866) 313-6222
Facsimile: (212) 213-9405
E-mail: jml@jlclasslaw.com
info@jlclasslaw.com
- and -
Robert S. Willoughby, Esq.
POMERANTZ GROSSMAN HUFFORD DAHLSTROM & GROSS LLP
600 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Toll Free: 1-888-4-POMLAW
Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
E-mail: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
- and -
Bill Kyros, Esq.
SHAREHOLDER LAWSUITS CENTER
Telephone: 1-800-934-2921
- and -
Kip B. Shuman, Esq.
Rusty E. Glenn, Esq.
THE SHUMAN LAW FIRM
885 Arapahoe Avenue
Boulder, CO 80302
Telephone: (866) 974-8626
Facsimile: (303) 484-4886
E-mail: kip@shumanlawfirm.com
rusty@shumanlawfirm.com
STEINWAY MUSICAL: Being Sold for Too Little, Class Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sean Kelly, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
Steinway Musical Instruments is selling itself too cheaply through
an unfair process to Kohlberg & Co., for $438 million or $35 a
share, a stockholder claims in a class action in Delaware Chancery
Court.
Named plaintiff Joseph Tillo Jr. alleges that the Steinway board
of directors breached their fiduciary duties by selling the
Company "for inadequate consideration and through a flawed
process."
Kohlberg's $35 per share offer is a 15 percent premium to the
closing stock price before to the offer, according to the
complaint.
Steinway is the modern world's most prestigious maker of musical
instruments. In addition to the famous pianos, its brands include
Selmer saxophones, Leblanc clarinets, King trombones, Conn French
horns, and Ludwig snare drums. It also sells classical music
through its online retailer ArkivMusic.
Though there is a "45-day "go-shop" period for competing
proposals, the Steinway board of directors agreed to "certain
onerous and preclusive deal protection devices" that make the
Kohlberg deal a "fait accompli and ensure that no competing offers
will emerge for the company" Tillo says in the complaint.
Tillo also claims that the Kohlberg merger "unfairly assures that
any 'auction' will favor Kohlberg and permit Kohlberg to piggy-
back upon the due diligence of the second bidder."
With a termination fee of $13.4 million, "coupled with the
matching rights and solicitation restrictions," the complaint
adds, Kohlberg is "all but ensure(d) that no competing offer will
be forthcoming."
Tillo claims that he and the class "will suffer irreparable injury
in that they have not and will not receive the highest available
value for their interest in Steinway."
Steinway recently has reported increasing profits worldwide,
especially in China, the largest piano market in Asia. Its band
and orchestral instruments division has improved revenue as well,
according to the complaint.
Heinrich Engelhard Steinweg established Steinway & Sons in
Manhattan in 1853; he anglicized his name to Steinway in 1864,
according to the Company Web site.
The Company grew rapidly and expanded its operations in Hamburg,
Germany, to meet the growing demand for the high-end pianos in
Europe.
Vladimir Horowitz, Glenn Gould and hundreds of other legendary
pianists performed and recorded on Steinways.
Steinway & Sons produced limited edition and art case pianos
throughout the Company's history. One piece, the Sir Lawrence
Alma-Tadema, sold for a record $1.2 million at Christie's auction
house in 1997.
The Steinway family sold the Company to CBS in 1972. The
Company's shares trade on the New York Stock Exchange under the
ticker LVB, which stands for Ludwig van Beethoven.
Tillo wants the sale enjoined "from soliciting shareholder votes
relating to the Proposed Transaction, unless and until the Company
adopts and implements a procedure or process to obtain a merger
agreement providing the best available terms for shareholders,"
and costs.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
Brian D. Long, Esq.
Gina M. Serra, Esq.
RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
Wilmington, DE 19803
Telephone: (302) 295-5310
E-mail: sdr@rigrodskylong.com
bdl@rigrodskylong.com
gms@rigrodskylong.com
- and -
Brian C. Kerr, Esq.
BROWER PIVEN PC
475 Park Avenue South, 33rd Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 501-9000
Facsimile: (212) 501-0300
E-mail: kerr@browerpiven.com
The lawsuit is Joseph Tillo Jr. v. Steinway Musical Instruments
Inc., et al., Case No. 8713, in the Delaware Court of Chancery.
TULLOCH SUGAR: Recalls Pure Maple Syrup
---------------------------------------
Starting date: July 12, 2013
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Notification
Subcategory: Chemical
Hazard classification: Class 2
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection
Agency
Recalling firm: Tulloch Sugar Bush
Distribution: Ontario
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 8143
Affected products: 375 mL. Pure Maple Syrup Tulloch Sugar Bush
UNITED STATES: Black Farmers' Counsel to Collect $90MM in Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bonnie Barron, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
lawyers who made the government pay $1.25 billion to settle claims
that it discriminated against black farmers can recoup $90.8
million in fees, a federal judge ruled.
The settlement class in this case had missed the deadline to
submit claims in the Pigford v. Glickman consent decree from 1999.
They claimed that U.S. Department of Agriculture officers were
racially motivated when they denied benefits to black applicants
and ignored their complaints from January 1983 to January 1997.
In the $1.25 billion agreement that U.S. District Judge Paul
Friedman approved in 2011, attorneys for the farmers can collect
between 4.1 percent and 7.4 percent of the settlement funds after
the deduction of implementation costs.
While the attorneys sought the highest amount possible to cover
costs and fees, the government urged the court to stick to the
lower percentage.
Lauding the efforts of the farmers' representatives, Friedman
granted the maximum award of $90.8 million on Thursday, July 11,
2013.
"All told, class counsel's adept negotiation of the settlement
agreement dramatically benefitted the class by ensuring that a
greater number of plaintiffs likely will prevail on their claims
than otherwise, that these claims will be resolved and payments
issued in a timely manner, and that adequate funding will exist to
provide meaningful compensation to each successful plaintiff," the
33-page opinion states.
Friedman noted that few class members challenged the fee range
provided for in the settlement.
"Out of a class comprising tens of thousands of plaintiffs -- each
holding a potential stake of $50,000 or more in this litigation
(that being the minimum payment to which successful Pigford
plaintiffs were entitled) -- only 25 individuals filed objections
to the proposed settlement agreement (including its range of 4.1
percent to 7.4 percent in attorneys' fees) or to class counsel's
request for a 7.4 percent fee award," the opinion states
(parentheses in original). "And among this relatively small
group, many of the ostensible objections actually expressed no
real disagreement with the terms of the settlement agreement
(including the attorneys' fees provision), while others were
submitted by individuals who were not class members and therefore
had no right to object to either the settlement agreement or class
counsel's motion for a fee award."
In representing the farmers, the attorneys dealt with a
complicated process of settling with the government and carrying
out the claims resolution process, while unsure of what they would
receive in return for the time-consuming work, according to the
opinion.
"Class counsel have undertaken the immense challenge presented by
this action with the utmost professionalism and integrity,
exhibiting skill, diligence, and efficiency in all aspects of
their duties," Friedman concluded.
Distribution of the award is set to take place when the farmers
receive payment for their claims.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Andrew H. Marks, Esq.
COFFEY BURLINGTON
2699 South Bayshore Drive, Penthouse
Miami, FL 33133
Telephone: (305) 858-2900
Facsimile: (305) 858-5261
E-mail: amarks@coffeyburlington.com
- and -
David Joseph Frantz, Esq.
CONLON, FRANTZ & PHELAN, LLP
1818 N Street, NW, Suite 400
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 331-7050
Facsimile: (202) 331-9306
E-mail: dfrantz@conlonfrantz.com
- and -
Faya R. Toure, Esq.
P.O. Box 1290
Selma, AL 36702
Telephone: (334) 875-9264
Facsimile: (334) 875-9853
E-mail: fayarose@gmail.com
- and -
Precious T. Martin, Sr., Esq.
PRECIOUS MARTIN, SR & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
Post Office Box 373
821 North Congress Street
Jackson, MS 39205-0373
Telephone: (601) 944-1447
Facsimile: (601) 944-1448
E-mail: pmartin@ptmandassoc.com
- and -
Scott William Weinstein, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
12800 University Drive, Suite 600
Fort Myers, FL 33907-5337
Telephone: (239) 433-6880
E-mail: sweinstein@forthepeople.com
- and -
Alphonso Michael Espy, Esq.
MIKE ESPY, PLLC
Lamar Life Building
317 East Capital Street, Suite 101
Jackson, MS 39201
Telephone: (601) 355-9101
- and -
Anurag Varma, Esq.
PATTON BOGGS LLP
2550 M Street, NW
Washington, DC 20037
Telephone: (202) 457-6490
Facsimile: (202) 457-6315
E-mail: avarma@PattonBoggs.com
- and -
Benjamin G. Chew, Esq.
PATTON BOGGS LLP
2550 M Street, NW
Washington, DC 20037
Telephone: (202) 457-6015
Facsimile: (202) 457-6315
E-mail: bchew@pattonboggs.com
- and -
Brian P. Phelan, Esq.
CONLON, FRANTZ & PHELAN LLP
1818 N Street, NW, Suite 400
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 331-7050
Facsimile: (202) 331-9306
E-mail: bphelan@conlonfrantz.com
- and -
David C. Silver, Esq.
SILVER LAW GROUP
11780 W. Sample Road, Suite 101
Coral Springs, FL 33065
Telephone: (954) 755-4799
Facsimile: (954) 755-4684
E-mail: dsilver@silverlaw.com
- and -
Gary Edward Mason, Esq.
WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP
1625 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Suite 605
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 429-2290
Facsimile: (202) 429-2294
E-mail: gmason@wbmllp.com
- and -
Gregorio Francis, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1600
Orlando, FL 32801
Telephone: (407) 420-1414
- and -
Harris L. Pogust, Esq.
POGUST & BRASLOW, LLC
161 Washington Street, Suite 1520
Eight Tower Bridge
Conshohocken, PA 19428
Telephone: (610) 941-4204
Facsimile: (610) 941-4245
E-mail: hpogust@pbmattorneys.com
- and -
Henry Sanders, Esq.
CHESTNUT SANDERS SANDERS & PETTAWAY
1 Union Street
Selma, AL 36701
Telephone: (334) 875-9264
Facsimile: (334) 875-9853
- and -
J Andrew Meyer, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
12800 University Drive, Suite 600
Fort Myers, FL 33907-5337
Telephone: (813) 223-5505
E-mail: ameyer@forthepeople.com
- and -
Joseph P. Strom, Esq.
STROM LAW FIRM, LLC
2110 North Beltline Boulevard
Columbia, SC 29204
Telephone: (803) 252-4800
Facsimile: (803) 252-4801
E-mail: petestrom@stromlaw.com
- and -
Laurel Pyke Malson, Esq.
CROWELL & MORING LLP
1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20004-2595
Telephone: (202) 624-2576
Facsimile: (202) 628-5116
E-mail: lmalson@crowell.com
- and -
Phillip L. Fraas, Esq.
STINSON MORRISON HECKER, LLP
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 800
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 572-9904
Facsimile: (202) 572-9946
E-mail: pfraas@stinson.com
- and -
Rose M. Sanders, Esq.
P.O. Box 1290
Selma, AL 36702-1290
Telephone: (334) 875-9264
Facsimile: (334) 875-9853
- and -
April England-Albright, Esq.
P.O. Box 312293
Atlanta, GA 31131
Telephone: (334) 327-0451
Facsimile: (866) 276-1131
- and -
Kindaka J. Sanders, Esq.
SANDERS LAW
P.O. Box 1290
Selma, AL 36701
Telephone: (334) 327-1993
Facsimile: (334) 460-6611
E-mail: docksanders@gmail.com
- and -
Michael Wyld Lieberman, Esq.
CROWELL & MORING LLP
1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20004-2595
Telephone: (202) 624-2776
E-mail: mlieberman@crowell.com
- and -
Jennifer I. Klar, Esq.
John Peter Relman, Esq.
Reed Colfax, Esq.
RELMAN, DANE & COLFAX, PLLC
1225 19th Street, NW, Suite 600
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 728-1888
Facsimile: (202) 728-0848
E-mail: jklar@relmanlaw.com
jrelman@relmanlaw.com
RColfax@relmanlaw.com
- and -
Robert C. Hilliard, Esq.
HILLIARD MUNOZ GONZALES, LLP
719 S. Shoreline, Suite 500
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
Telephone: (361) 882-1612
Facsimile: (361) 882-3015
E-mail: dee@hmglawfirm.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Doris Denise Coles-Huff, Esq.
U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FOR DC
555 4th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Telephone: (202) 514-7170
Facsimile: (202) 514-8780
E-mail: doris.coles@usdoj.gov
- and -
Michael Sitcov, Esq.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001
Telephone: (202) 514-1944
Facsimile: (202) 616-8187
E-mail: michael.sitcov@usdoj.gov
- and -
Rudolph Contreras, Esq.
US ATTORNEYS OFFICE
Judiciary Center Building
555 Fourth Street, NW, Room E-4226
Washington, DC 20530
Telephone: (202) 514-7151
Facsimile: (202) 514-8780
E-mail: rudolph.contreras@usdoj.gov
- and -
Tamra Tyree Moore, Esq.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Telephone: (202) 514-8095
Facsimile: (202) 616-8460
E-mail: tamra.moore@usdoj.gov
Certain interested parties are represented by:
Ronald Otto Gaiser, Jr., Esq.
GAISER & JOHNSTON
36B Church Street
Birmingham, AL 35213
Telephone: (205) 870-1088
E-mail: ron@gaiserandjohnston.com
- and -
Alexander John Pires, Jr., Esq.
PIRES COOLEY
4401 Q Street, NW
Washington, DC 20007
Telephone: (202) 905-6706
Facsimile: (202) 338-3635
E-mail: farmerslawyer@aol.com
- and -
Jesse Strauss, Esq.
STRAUSS LAW PLLC
305 Broadway, 9th Floor
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 822-1496
E-mail: jesse@strausslawpllc.com
The case is In re Black Farmers Discrimination Litigation, Case
No. 08-0511 (PLF), in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia.
UNITED STATES: Gov't Agents Not Liable on Abuse of Illegal Minors
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bonnie Barron at Courthouse News Service reports that undocumented
minors who were sexually abused at a shelter cannot sue the
federal agents responsible for their care, a federal judge ruled.
Away From Home Inc. ran a facility in Nixon, Texas, that housed
undocumented minors with pending immigration issues.
In 2007 Belinda Leal pleaded guilty to molesting four children
during her brief stint as a care worker at the facility. She is
currently serving time in a state prison for sexual assault.
A group of Central American men, including three of the victims
Leal admitted to harming, sued the U.S. government, Leal, Away
From Home and a number of other individuals, in February 2008.
The men sought relief for the sexual, physical and emotional abuse
allegedly inflicted on them by various staff members during their
stay at the Nixon facility. Their complaint alleges violations of
the 1997 class-action settlement in Flores v. Reno, which
encouraged less restrictive housing for unaccompanied minors in
federal custody.
U.S. District Judge Xavier Rodriguez dealt a blow to the men's
case on Friday when he nixed the claims for deliberate
indifference against three officials from the Office of Refugee
Resettlement. The Homeland Security Act of 2002 assigned the care
and placement of unaccompanied alien children to the federal
agency.
Federal Field Specialist Supervisor James De La Cruz, Federal
Field Specialist Jose Gonzalez and Project Officer Tsegaye Wolde
deserve qualified immunity, according to the 83-page order.
"Plaintiffs fail to establish that defendants were actually aware
of a significant risk of abuse, that the risk of abuse was
obvious, or that they deliberately disregarded or ignored such a
risk," Rodriguez wrote. "To the extent defendants were made aware
of abuses or risk of abuse, defendants took steps to address them
and to protect residents from future abuse. Their conduct was
objectively reasonable. To the extent their response was
ineffective, it nevertheless demonstrated concern rather than
deliberate indifference.
"Plaintiffs' failure to train, failure to supervise, and failure
to adopt policy claims also fail because there was no such failure
or, assuming there was such a failure, it was not the cause of the
constitutional violation. Even if there was such a failure and it
was the cause of the constitutional violation, defendants were not
deliberately indifferent."
In a separate 84-page order issued the same day, Rodriguez
dismissed the men's federal tort claims for lack of jurisdiction.
Rodriguez gave the parties two weeks to notify him of any pending
claims.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kevin Lashus, Esq.
TINDAL & FOSTER
100 Congress Avenue-Suite 1500
Austin, TX 78701-2751
Telephone: (512) 852-4130
Facsimile: (512) 495-9139
E-mail: klashus@tindallfoster.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Aaron David Nelson, Esq.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
P. O. Box 878 Ben Franklin Station
Washington, DC 20044
Telephone: (202) 305-0691
E-mail: aaron.nelson@usdoj.gov
- and -
Arthur LaVerne Rizer, Esq.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
450 5th Street
Washington, DC 20530
Telephone: (202) 305-0106
E-mail: arthur.rizer@usdoj.gov
- and -
Glenn S. Greene, Esq.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
P.O. Box 7146, Ben Franklin Station
Washington, DC 20044-4392
Telephone: (202) 616-4143
Facsimile: (202) 616-4314
E-mail: Glenn.Greene@usdoj.gov
- and -
Laura Katherine Smith, Esq.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, CIVIL DIVISION
P.O. Box 7146, Ben Franklin Station
Washington, DC 20044-6663
Telephone: (202) 616-0419
Facsimile: (202) 616-0419
E-mail: Laura.Smith2@usdoj.gov
- and -
James E. Perschbach, Esq.
BRACEWELL & GIULIANI LLP
106 S. St. Mary's Street, Suite 800
San Antonio, TX 78205
Telephone: (210) 299-3527
Facsimile: (210) 299-0133
E-mail: James.perschbach@bgllp.com
- and -
Kelli M. Borbon, Esq.
BRACEWELL & GIULIANI, L.L.P.
106 S. St. Mary's Street, Suite 800
San Antonio, TX 78205
Telephone: (210) 299-3425
Facsimile: (210) 299-0119
E-mail: kelli.borbon@bgllp.com
The case is E.A.F.F., et al. v. United States Of America, et al.,
Case No. SA-08-CA-124-XR, in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division.
UNITED STATES: Wins Court Approval of "Wilhoite" Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey granted in part and denied in
part a Joint Motion for Approval of Class Action Settlement and
Payment of Attorneys' Fees, Reasonable Litigation Costs and
Expenses, and Payment of Claims Administration Costs in the case
captioned WILHOITE v. MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES.
The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Knox, who
presided over the mediation in the case, is approved consistent.
The Settlement Agreement and incorporated exhibits are also
approved.
Judge Laughrey granted the parties' joint request to decertify the
two classes previously certified in the matter and to certify a
single, settlement class. The new class is defined as:
Missouri citizens who have received Medicaid benefits and who had
liens asserted and monies taken by Defendants out of their third-
party civil settlements or judgments where Defendants identified
the Medicaid recipients' claims between February 10, 2005 and
July 1, 2010, except for: (1) those cases where payments to the
Missouri Department of Social Services were payments received
from the assets remaining in an individual's Special Needs Trust
upon that individual's death pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section
1396p(d)(4)(A); (2) cases where the payments were adjudicated in
a hearing under Mo. Rev. Stat. Section 208.215.9 where the amount
of payment was judicially determined; and (3) cases where the
underlying claims were made against the federally-administered
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program under 42 U.S.C.
Section 300aa.
Current Class Counsel, attorneys Craig R. Heidemann and Nathan A.
Duncan, are appointed as Class Counsel for the settlement class.
Notice to Class Members will be provided in the manner and form
proposed in the Settlement Agreement. This notice will provide
each Class Member the opportunity to opt-out of both the Class and
the proposed Settlement Agreement.
A hearing will be held regarding the proposed Settlement Agreement
on September 9, 2013, at 4:00 p.m. in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Missouri, at 80 Lafayette
Street, Jefferson City, Missouri 65101, during which the Court
will hear any objections to the proposed Settlement Agreement.
The case is RAMONA DENISE WILHOITE, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MISSOURI DEPARTMENT
OF SOCIAL SERVICES, by and through its director, Ronald J. Levy,
Defendant. RENE DAMPIER, et al., Intervenors, NO. 2:10-CV-03026-
NKL, (W.D. Mo.).
A copy of the District Court's July 11, 2013 Order is available at
http://is.gd/leEG40from Leagle.com.
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Movant,
represented by Warren E. Harris, Esq., at Taylor, Stafford,
Clithero, FitzGerald & Harris, LLP.
USAA Casualty Insurance Company, Movant, represented by Kathleen
S. Hamilton, Esq. -- khamilton@heplerbroom.com -- at HeplerBroom
LLC.
Ramona Denise Wilhoite, Plaintiff, represented by Craig R.
Heidemann, Esq. -- cheidemann@bolivarlaw.com -- at Douglas, Haun &
Heidemann; and Nathan A. Duncan, Esq. -- nduncan@bolivarlaw.com --
at Douglas, Haun & Heidemann. They also represent these
Intervenor Plaintiffs: Rene Dampier, Justin Epperson, Donna
Collinge, Dickerson Shadow, Kelly Forest, Kenley Esry, Kathleen
Mitchell, Sandy Stidham, Kathryne Harris, and K. E.
Missouri Department of Social Services, Defendant, represented by
Jennifer Redel-Reed, MO Attorney General, Joanna L.W.
Trachtenberg, Missouri Attorney General's Office, Laura E.
Elsbury, Missouri Attorney General's Office & Rochelle L. Reeves,
Missouri Attorney General's Office.
Ronald J Levy, Defendant, represented by Jennifer Redel-Reed, MO
Attorney General, Joanna L.W. Trachtenberg, Missouri Attorney
General's Office, Rochelle L. Reeves, Missouri Attorney General's
Office & Laura E. Elsbury, Missouri Attorney General's Office.
Julie Creach, Defendant, represented by Jennifer Redel-Reed, MO
Attorney General, Joanna L.W. Trachtenberg, Missouri Attorney
General's Office, Rochelle L. Reeves, Missouri Attorney General's
Office & Laura E. Elsbury, Missouri Attorney General's Office.
Director Ian McCaslin, Defendant, represented by Jennifer Redel-
Reed, MO Attorney General, Joanna L.W. Trachtenberg, Missouri
Attorney General's Office, Rochelle L. Reeves, Missouri Attorney
General's Office & Laura E. Elsbury, Missouri Attorney General's
Office.
Deborah E. Scott, Defendant, represented by Jennifer Redel-Reed,
MO Attorney General, Joanna L.W. Trachtenberg, Missouri Attorney
General's Office, Rochelle L. Reeves, Missouri Attorney General's
Office & Laura E. Elsbury, Missouri Attorney General's Office.
Chris Reeter, Defendant, represented by Jennifer Redel-Reed, MO
Attorney General, Joanna L.W. Trachtenberg, Missouri Attorney
General's Office, Rochelle L. Reeves, Missouri Attorney General's
Office & Laura E. Elsbury, Missouri Attorney General's Office.
Steven Renne, Defendant, represented by Jennifer Redel-Reed, MO
Attorney General, Joanna L.W. Trachtenberg, Missouri Attorney
General's Office, Rochelle L. Reeves, Missouri Attorney General's
Office & Laura E. Elsbury, Missouri Attorney General's Office.
K. Gary Sherman, Defendant, represented by Jennifer Redel-Reed, MO
Attorney General, Joanna L.W. Trachtenberg, Missouri Attorney
General's Office, Rochelle L. Reeves, Missouri Attorney General's
Office & Laura E. Elsbury, Missouri Attorney General's Office.
Christine Rackers, Defendant, represented by Jennifer Redel-Reed,
MO Attorney General, Joanna L.W. Trachtenberg, Missouri Attorney
General's Office, Rochelle L. Reeves, Missouri Attorney General's
Office & Laura E. Elsbury, Missouri Attorney General's Office.
Q. Michael Ditmore, Defendant, represented by Jennifer Redel-Reed,
MO Attorney General, Joanna L.W. Trachtenberg, Missouri Attorney
General's Office, Rochelle L. Reeves, Missouri Attorney General's
Office & Laura E. Elsbury, Missouri Attorney General's Office.
Michael Rehagen, Defendant, represented by Jennifer Redel-Reed, MO
Attorney General, Joanna L.W. Trachtenberg, Missouri Attorney
General's Office, Rochelle L. Reeves, Missouri Attorney General's
Office & Laura E. Elsbury, Missouri Attorney General's Office.
Judy Muck, Defendant, represented by Jennifer Redel-Reed, MO
Attorney General, Joanna L.W. Trachtenberg, Missouri Attorney
General's Office, Rochelle L. Reeves, Missouri Attorney General's
Office & Laura E. Elsbury, Missouri Attorney General's Office.
David Hart, Defendant, represented by Jennifer Redel-Reed, MO
Attorney General, Joanna L.W. Trachtenberg, Missouri Attorney
General's Office, Laura E. Elsbury, Missouri Attorney General's
Office & Rochelle L. Reeves, Missouri Attorney General's Office.
Marcus Cicka, Defendant, represented by Jennifer Redel-Reed, MO
Attorney General, Joanna L.W. Trachtenberg, Missouri Attorney
General's Office, Rochelle L. Reeves, Missouri Attorney General's
Office & Laura E. Elsbury, Missouri Attorney General's Office.
Marcus Cicka, Intervenor Defendant, represented by Joanna L.W.
Trachtenberg, Missouri Attorney General's Office, Rochelle L.
Reeves, Missouri Attorney General's Office & Laura E. Elsbury,
Missouri Attorney General's Office.
Julie Creach, Intervenor Defendant, represented by Joanna L.W.
Trachtenberg, Missouri Attorney General's Office, Rochelle L.
Reeves, Missouri Attorney General's Office & Laura E. Elsbury,
Missouri Attorney General's Office.
MD Michael Ditmore, Intervenor Defendant, represented by Joanna
L.W. Trachtenberg, Missouri Attorney General's Office, Rochelle L.
Reeves, Missouri Attorney General's Office & Laura E. Elsbury,
Missouri Attorney General's Office.
David Hart, Intervenor Defendant, represented by Joanna L.W.
Trachtenberg, Missouri Attorney General's Office, Laura E.
Elsbury, Missouri Attorney General's Office & Rochelle L. Reeves,
Missouri Attorney General's Office.
Ronald J Levy, Intervenor Defendant, represented by Joanna L.W.
Trachtenberg, Missouri Attorney General's Office, Rochelle L.
Reeves, Missouri Attorney General's Office & Laura E. Elsbury,
Missouri Attorney General's Office.
Director Ian McCaslin, Intervenor Defendant, represented by Joanna
L.W. Trachtenberg, Missouri Attorney General's Office, Rochelle L.
Reeves, Missouri Attorney General's Office & Laura E. Elsbury,
Missouri Attorney General's Office.
Missouri Department of Social Services, Intervenor Defendant,
represented by Joanna L.W. Trachtenberg, Missouri Attorney
General's Office, Rochelle L. Reeves, Missouri Attorney General's
Office & Laura E. Elsbury, Missouri Attorney General's Office.
Judy Muck, Intervenor Defendant, represented by Joanna L.W.
Trachtenberg, Missouri Attorney General's Office, Rochelle L.
Reeves, Missouri Attorney General's Office & Laura E. Elsbury,
Missouri Attorney General's Office.
Christine Rackers, Intervenor Defendant, represented by Joanna
L.W. Trachtenberg, Missouri Attorney General's Office, Rochelle L.
Reeves, Missouri Attorney General's Office & Laura E. Elsbury,
Missouri Attorney General's Office.
chris reeter, Intervenor Defendant, represented by Joanna L.W.
Trachtenberg, Missouri Attorney General's Office, Rochelle L.
Reeves, Missouri Attorney General's Office & Laura E. Elsbury,
Missouri Attorney General's Office.
Michael Rehagen, Intervenor Defendant, represented by Joanna L.W.
Trachtenberg, Missouri Attorney General's Office, Rochelle L.
Reeves, Missouri Attorney General's Office & Laura E. Elsbury,
Missouri Attorney General's Office.
Steven Renne, Intervenor Defendant, represented by Joanna L.W.
Trachtenberg, Missouri Attorney General's Office, Rochelle L.
Reeves, Missouri Attorney General's Office & Laura E. Elsbury,
Missouri Attorney General's Office.
Deborah E. Scott, Intervenor Defendant, represented by Joanna L.W.
Trachtenberg, Missouri Attorney General's Office, Rochelle L.
Reeves, Missouri Attorney General's Office & Laura E. Elsbury,
Missouri Attorney General's Office.
K. Gary Sherman, Intervenor Defendant, represented by Joanna L.W.
Trachtenberg, Missouri Attorney General's Office, Rochelle L.
Reeves, Missouri Attorney General's Office & Laura E. Elsbury,
Missouri Attorney General's Office.
Missouri Department of Social Services, Counter Claimant,
represented by Laura E. Elsbury, Missouri Attorney General's
Office.
Ramona Denise Wilhoite, Counter Defendant, represented by Craig R.
Heidemann, Douglas, Haun & Heidemann & Nathan A. Duncan, Douglas,
Haun & Heidemann.
VOTORANTIM CIMENTOS: Continues to Defend Cartel Formation Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Votorantim Cimentos S.A. continues to defend itself against a
class action lawsuit alleging breach of Brazilian antitrust law as
a result of alleged cartel formation, according to the Company's
June 14, 2013, Form F-1/A filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.
The Office of the Public Prosecutor of Rio Grande do Norte filed a
civil class action against Votorantim Cimentos S.A. (VCSA),
together with eight other defendants, including several of
Brazil's largest cement manufacturers alleging breach of Brazilian
antitrust law as a result of alleged cartel formation, and
seeking, among other things, that: (1) defendants pay an
indemnity, on joint basis, in the amount of R$5,600 million in
favor of the class action plaintiffs for moral and collective
damages; (2) defendants pay 10.0% of the total amount paid for
cement or concrete acquired by the consumers of the brands
negotiated by the defendants, between the years 2002 and 2006, as
compensation for damages to individual consumers; and (3)
defendants suffer the following penalties under Articles 23, Item
I and 24 of the Law No. 8.884/94: (i) in addition to the fine
referred to in item (1), a fine ranging from 1.0% to 30.0% of the
annual gross revenues relating to the fiscal year immediately
prior to the year in which the administrative proceeding was
initiated, which may never be in an amount less than the monetary
advantage gained; and (ii) ineligibility, for a period of at least
five years, to obtain financing from governmental financial
institutions or to participate in competitive government bidding
processes conducted by federal, state or municipal governmental
entities or with governmental agencies.
Because the total amount of the claims referred to in item (1)
amounts to R$5,600 million and the claims allege joint liability,
the Company has estimated that, based on its market share, its
share of the liability would be approximately R$2,400 million.
However, there can be no assurance that this apportionment would
prevail and that the Company will not be held liable for a
different portion, which may be larger, or for the entire amount
of this claim. The Company's expectation of loss under this
matter is considered possible, and the Company has not established
any provision for this claim. Furthermore, there can be no
assurance that the Company will not be required to pay other
amounts as compensation for damages caused to consumers in
accordance with item (2), and/or the fine referred to in item (3).
The Company's expectation of loss under this matter is considered
possible, and the Company has not established any provision for
this claim.
Votorantim Cimentos S.A. -- http://www.vcimentos.com.br/-- is a
global vertically-integrated heavy building materials company,
with operations in North and South America, Europe, Africa and
Asia. The Company is headquartered in Sao Paulo, Brazil.
VOTORANTIM CIMENTOS: Still Awaits Expert Report in Imbituba Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In July 2011, the Associacao dos Moradores da Rua de Baixo, the
Instituto Conexao Ambiental and the Associacao de Surf de Imbituba
filed a class action against CRB Operacoes Portuarias S.A., or
CRB, Votorantim Cimentos S.A.'s indirect subsidiary, Companhia
Docas de Imbituba, the city of Imbituba and the Fundacao do Meio
Ambiente, or FATMA, claiming that the storage and transportation
of petcoke in the Port of Imbituba resulted in environmental
damage and also adversely affected the health of residents of the
area. The plaintiffs also claim that CRB breached a conduct
agreement (termo de ajustamento de conduta) it entered into with
the State Attorney's Office, pursuant to which it: (1) would adopt
steps towards adequate storage of petcoke at the terminal of the
Port of Imbituba; (2) would adequately store petcoke in the
terminal until November 30, 2003; (3) would provide an
environmental operating permit to FATMA by the end of 2003; (4)
would delay restrictions on the use of the property of the city's
fire department until the end of the concession of the Port of
Imbituba, intermediate with the federal government the permanent
transfer property ownership to the facilities of the city's fire
department and stimulate the local business community by donating
R$52,000,000 to the Fundo Municipal do Corpo de Bombeiros, or
FMCB, by the end of 2003; (5) would donate R$100,000,000 to the
FMCB for the acquisition of a paramedical vehicle to be used in
the city by the end of 2003; and (6) the State Attorney would
agree not to take any legal action against the agencies, entities
or individuals that signed the conduct agreement in the event the
conditions of the conduct agreement were fulfilled during the
applicable period. In addition, an injunction was issued against
CRB and other defendants that prohibited these companies from
storing and transporting petcoke in the Port of Imbituba. CRB has
provided evidence demonstrating the renovations and investments
made and appealed the injunction that caused it to close its
petcoke operations at the port and appealed a daily fine of
U.S.$100,000 in the event that CRB did not close its petcoke
operations. As a result of the appeal, the injunction was
temporarily suspended.
On December 12, 2011, the CRB and the plaintiffs reached a partial
agreement before the District Court of Imbituba, pursuant to which
CRB has undertaken to carry out six proposed improvements.
Moreover, on January 5, 2012, CRB entered into an adjustment of
conduct agreement (termo de ajustamento de conduta) with FATMA,
pursuant to which FATMA agreed to reduce certain previously
imposed penalties in light of the costs involved in implementing
the improvements. In May 2012, the District Court of Imbituba
appointed expert testimony to provide support for the alleged
environmental damage arising from the storage of petcoke at the
terminal of the Port of Imbituba. The District Court notified the
parties to present their inquiries and the names of their
technical assistants.
The Company is currently waiting for the expert report to be
prepared and issued by the court's expert. Based on the advice of
its external legal counsel, CRB believes the probability of loss
under this claim is probable. The Company has not recorded any
provision with respect to this claim because this claim is related
to an obligation to limit the emissions of solid particles with
respect to its future operations. The amount in dispute is
R$1,000,000.
No further updates were reported in the Company's June 14, 2013,
Form F-1/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
Votorantim Cimentos S.A. -- http://www.vcimentos.com.br/-- is a
global vertically-integrated heavy building materials company,
with operations in North and South America, Europe, Africa and
Asia. The Company is headquartered in Sao Paulo, Brazil.
VOTORANTIM CIMENTOS: Still Awaits Next Move of Fla. AG and DOJ
--------------------------------------------------------------
Prestige Concrete Products, a subsidiary of Votorantim Cimentos
S.A., was party to two consolidated civil class actions alleging
antitrust violations by a number of companies having cement and
ready-mix concrete operations in the State of Florida. The court
dismissed certain of the claims and parties in motions to dismiss
and subsequently refused to certify any classes. The cases were
all settled and/or voluntarily dismissed in February and March
2012. Subsequent to the commencement of the civil class actions,
the Florida Attorney General and the U.S. Department of Justice
conducted investigations having, to the Company's knowledge,
similar subject matter but a narrower scope than the civil class
actions. The last communications with either agency occurred in
May 2012 with no indication by either agency of any intention to
conduct further investigation or to file any charges.
No further updates were reported in the Company's June 14, 2013,
Form F-1/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
Votorantim Cimentos S.A. -- http://www.vcimentos.com.br/-- is a
global vertically-integrated heavy building materials company,
with operations in North and South America, Europe, Africa and
Asia. The Company is headquartered in Sao Paulo, Brazil.
VOTORANTIM CIMENTOS: Still Awaits Ruling in "Mato Grosso" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
On December 11, 2000, the Public Prosecutor of Mato Grosso filed a
civil class action against Votorantim Cimentos S.A. seeking the
annulment of certain environmental licenses granted to the Company
and the suspension of its operations in the Paraguai/Parana River.
The court excluded the Company from the civil class action and the
Public Prosecutor has appealed. In August 2007, a court, in a
unanimous decision, agreed that the Brazilian Institute of the
Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (Instituto Brasileiro
do Meio Ambiente e dos Recursos Naturais Renovaveis), or IBAMA,
correctly granted the licenses to the Company. The Company is
awaiting a final decision from a higher court.
No further updates were reported in the Company's June 14, 2013,
Form F-1/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
Based on the advice of its external legal counsel, the Company
believes the probability of loss under this claim is possible.
The Company has not recorded any provision with respect to this
claim.
Votorantim Cimentos S.A. -- http://www.vcimentos.com.br/-- is a
global vertically-integrated heavy building materials company,
with operations in North and South America, Europe, Africa and
Asia. The Company is headquartered in Sao Paulo, Brazil.
VOTORANTIM CIMENTOS: Still Defends "Oliveira" Suit vs. VCNNE
------------------------------------------------------------
In August 2007, Marcelo Soares de Oliveira filed a class action
(acao popular) against Votorantim Cimentos S.A.'s subsidiary,
Votorantim Cimentos Norte e Nordeste S.A. (VCNNE), the legal
representative of Companhia de Mineracao do Tocantins -
Mineratins, the State of Tocantins, State Governor of Tocantins
and the President of the Permanent Commission for Tender Processes
of the Treasury Secretariat of State of Tocantins, claiming that
the tender process by means of which VCNNE won the rights to be
the assignee of the mineral rights related to the DNPM Process No.
860.933/1982 then held by Companhia de Mineracao do Tocantins -
Mineratins should be nullified due to failure in the tender
procedures which shall cause damages to the State Treasury. It is
also requested an injunction in order to immediately suspend the
effects of the tender, which has not been decided by the court
yet.
In May 2008, VCNNE presented defense arguing that such lawsuit is
related (conexo) to another lawsuit and, therefore, this new one
should be judged together with the previously filed one and
requesting the lawsuit to be dismissed. In April 2009, the State
Prosecutor agreed that the lawsuits are related and should be
judged together. The expectation of loss under this claim is
considered possible and the Company has not recorded any provision
in connection with this claim.
No further updates were reported in the Company's June 14, 2013,
Form F-1/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
Votorantim Cimentos S.A. -- http://www.vcimentos.com.br/-- is a
global vertically-integrated heavy building materials company,
with operations in North and South America, Europe, Africa and
Asia. The Company is headquartered in Sao Paulo, Brazil.
VOTORANTIM CIMENTOS: Still In Talks to Settle Serra do Mar Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Office of the Public Prosecutor of the State of Sao Paulo has
filed a civil class action against Votorantim Cimentos S.A.
("VCSA") and other companies alleging that their respective
operations are causing serious environmental damage in the Serra
do Mar region and consequently seeking indemnification to
compensate such damage. The court has ordered expert testimony to
estimate the environmental damages in the Serra do Mar region.
However, this expert testimony has not yet been completed given
that the appointed expert has declined to testify. This civil
class action was last suspended in May 2012 for a term of 90 days.
The suspension was renewed for another 90-day period commencing in
August 2012. The parties are currently negotiating a settlement
with the Public Prosecutor of the State of Sao Paulo. Based on
the advice of its external legal counsel, the Company believes the
probability of loss under this claim is probable, and the Company
has recorded a provision of R$1.8 million in connection with this
claim.
No further updates were reported in the Company's June 14, 2013,
Form F-1/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
Votorantim Cimentos S.A. -- http://www.vcimentos.com.br/-- is a
global vertically-integrated heavy building materials company,
with operations in North and South America, Europe, Africa and
Asia. The Company is headquartered in Sao Paulo, Brazil.
WALGREEN COMPANY: 8th Cir. Affirms Remand Ruling in "Dalton" Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed
a district court order remanding DALTON v. WALGREEN COMPANY to
state court.
Christiane Dalton and William Aaron, Jr., filed this putative
class action against Walgreen Company in Missouri state court on
April 5, 2012, seeking damages relating to Walgreens's alleged
practice of coding its web pages to cause tracking codes or "flash
cookies" to be downloaded onto the Plaintiffs' computers.
Walgreens filed its notice of removal on March 29, 2013, nearly
one year after the Plaintiffs initially filed the putative class
action.
The case is Christiane Dalton; William Aaron, Jr., individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-
Appellees v. Walgreen Company, Defendant-Appellant, No. 13-2047
(8th Cir.).
A copy of the Appeals Court's July 12, 2013 decision is available
at http://is.gd/bPPjmgfrom Leagle.com.
WHITEWAVE FOODS: Continues to Defend Mislabeling Class Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
The WhiteWave Foods Company continues to defend itself against
class action lawsuits alleging mislabeling of products, according
to the Company's June 14, 2013, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company was named in a total of eight putative class action
mislabeling complaints filed in U.S. District Courts beginning in
2011. Six of these lawsuits allege generally that the Company
lacks scientific substantiation for certain product claims
primarily related to its Horizon Organic products supplemented
with DHA Omega-3, and two of these lawsuits allege that the
Company's use of certain nomenclature on its labels is misleading.
The Company says a significant product liability, consumer fraud,
or other legal judgment against it or a widespread product recall
would negatively impact its profitability. Moreover, claims or
liabilities of this sort might not be covered by insurance or by
any rights of indemnity or contribution that the Company may have
against others. Even if a product liability, consumer fraud, or
other claim is found to be without merit or is otherwise
unsuccessful, the negative publicity surrounding such assertions
regarding the Company's products or processes could materially and
adversely affect its reputation and brand image, particularly in
categories that are promoted as having strong health and wellness
credentials. Any loss of consumer confidence in the Company's
product ingredients or in the safety and quality of its products
would be difficult and costly to overcome.
Headquartered in Dallas, Texas, The WhiteWave Foods Company, is a
consumer packaged food and beverage company focused on high-growth
product categories that are aligned with emerging consumer trends.
The Company manufactures, markets, distributes and sells branded
plant-based foods and beverages, coffee creamers and beverages,
and premium dairy products throughout North America and Europe.
The Company's widely-recognized, leading brands include Silk
plant-based foods and beverages, International Delight and LAND O
LAKES coffee creamers and beverages, Horizon Organic premium dairy
products, Alpro and Provamel.
WI HEALTH SERVICES: Class Cannot Sue Wisconsin Over Subsidy Cuts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Koeninger at Courthouse News Service reports that a group of
Wisconsinites with developmental disabilities lack standing to sue
the state over cuts to their benefits, the 7th Circuit ruled.
The Wisconsin Care Program funds disabled persons who live in
group homes among other things, but the state reduced the
program's subsidies in 2011 to save money, cutting back mostly on
those whose care is most costly.
A group of these individuals filed suit in August 2012, claiming
that the cuts improperly singled out those with disabilities and
would force them into institutions.
U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb nevertheless refused to grant an
injunction to the class led by Michael Amundson and his guardians.
The Madison judge said the class's fears of being moved from group
homes to institutions were not ripe, and that the allegations
otherwise failed to allege discrimination.
A three-judge panel of the 7th Circuit affirmed Wednesday,
July 10, 2013.
"None of the plaintiffs has been placed in an institution," Chief
Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote for the panel. "Indeed, plaintiffs
do not allege that any developmentally disabled person in
Wisconsin has been moved, involuntarily, from group to
institutional care. Plaintiffs do allege that some of their
number have been required to leave group settings where they would
have preferred to remain, but they do not allege inability to find
another group home willing to accept the level of reimbursement
that the Wisconsin Care Program now offers." (Emphasis in
original)
Defending the state's cuts, the Chicago-based appellate panel also
noted Wisconsin's belied that the changes "will reduce the cost of
care by excluding the highest-cost providers from the program, but
without landing any developmentally disabled person in an
institution."
"If that's so, Wisconsin has fulfilled its obligations under
federal law, no matter how much plaintiffs prefer the comfort and
amenities of the more-expensive group homes," Easterbrook wrote.
"And whether that is so, the District Court concluded, cannot be
determined without more experience under the current rates.
Plaintiffs fear the worst, but their fears may be unwarranted."
The plaintiffs failed to show the court that Wisconsin
discriminated by targeting the developmentally disabled, as
opposed to persons with visual impairments, for cuts.
The plaintiffs "have not offered any comparison group or any
standard by which 'worse treatment' could be identified,"
Easterbrook wrote. "Before the change made in 2011,
developmentally disabled persons received greater subsidies than
any other sub-category of the disabled. The 2011 revisions cut
their subsidy, but plaintiffs do not contend that they are now
treated worse than some other set of disabled individuals.
"Suppose it costs at least $50,000 a year to provide for care of a
developmentally disabled person in a group home and more (say,
$75,000) to pay for top-quality group care. Suppose that it costs
only $40,000 a year to provide for care of a blind person in a
group home. Finally, suppose that until 2011 Wisconsin was paying
$75,000 a year for each developmentally disabled person and
$40,000 a year for each blind person, but that in 2011 the
payments were cut to $50,000 and $40,000 for these groups.
Although one group lost money and the other did not, this would
not be discrimination against the developmentally disabled; it
would instead be the end of discrimination in favor of the
developmentally disabled."
Denying "optimal" placement to the developmentally disabled
represents an "untenable" discrimination claim, "unless the state
is providing other groups of disabled persons with whatever care,
in whatever location, their physicians most favor, and plaintiffs
do not contend this," according to the ruling.
"Plaintiffs tell us nothing about what kind of care persons with
other disabilities receive in Wisconsin," Easterbrook added.
"Their sole argument is that Wisconsin reduced their own
subsidies."
The appellate case is Michael Amundson, et al. v. Wisconsin
Department of Health, et al., Case No. 13-1351, in the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The original case is Michael
Amundson, et al. v. Wisconsin Department of Health, et al., Case
No. 3:12-cv-00609-bbc , in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Wisconsin.
The Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by:
Robert Theine Pledl, Esq.
PLEDL & COHN
Riverfront Plaza
1110 N. Old World Third Street
Milwaukee, WI 53203-0000
Telephone: (414) 225-8999
E-mail: rtp@pledlcohn.com
The Defendants-Appellees are represented by:
Clayton P. Kawski, Esq.
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
17 W. Main Street
P.O. Box 7857
Madison, WI 53707-7857
- and -
Amy F. Scholl, Esq.
COYNE, NIESS, SCHULTZ, BECKER & BAUER
150 E. Gilman Road
Madison, WI 53703-0000
Telephone: (608) 255-1388
Facsimile: (608) 255-8592
E-mail: ascholl@cnsbb.com
- and -
Andrew T. Phillips, Esq.
PHILLIPS & BOROWSKI, S.C.
10140 N. Port Washington Road
Mequon, WI 53092-0000
Telephone: (262) 241-7788
E-mail: atp@phillipsborowski.com
- and -
Beth J. Kushner, Esq.
VON BRIESEN & ROPER, S.C.
411 E. Wisconsin Avenue
P.O. Box 3262
Milwaukee, WI 53202-3262
Telephone: (414) 276-1122
E-mail: bkushner@vonbriesen.com
*********
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 * * *