/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/130723.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, July 23, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 143 Headlines APOLLO GROUP: Appeal in "Investors Group" Suit Remains Pending APOLLO GROUP: Appeal in "Teamsters Fund" Suit Remains Pending APOLLO GROUP: Reverses Charges in Income Statements Ending May 31 APOLLO GROUP: TCPA Violations Complaint Voluntarily Dismissed ATLANTIC RICHFIELD: Trial Begins in Suit Over Lead Paint Risks AVANTAIR INC: Faces "Heisman" Class Action Suit in Oklahoma BANK OF AMERICA: Disputes Allegations of Ex-Mortgage Employees BAYER AG: Faces Product Liability Suit Over Mirena System BEST BUY: Still Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit CALIFORNIA: Class Action Over Parole Revocation System Dismissed CANADA: "Sixties Scoop" Class Action Can Proceed to Trial CANADA: "Sixties Scoop" Class Action Lawyer Seeks More Plaintiffs CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Royalties Class Action Arbitration Underway COLUMBIA LABORATORIES: Plaintiffs Amend Securities Class Action DANNY'S CABARET: Settles EEOC Gender Bias Suit for $50,000 EBIX INC: Has Terminated Merger Agreement With Goldman Sachs Unit FORD MOTOR: Files Motion to Dismiss Sudden Acceleration Suit FORD MOTOR: Recalls 12,569 Vehicles Over Faulty Child Locks GARELICK FARMS: Truck Drivers Lose Class Certification Bid GENERAL MOTORS: Retirees Win Class Action Over Insurance Benefits GEORGIA-PACIFIC: Appeals Court Upholds Class Action Certification H&R BLOCK: Appeal From Judgment in "Drake" Suit Remains Pending H&R BLOCK: "Barrett" Class Suit Remains Pending in Massachusetts H&R BLOCK: "Basile" Class Suit Still Pending in Pennsylvania H&R BLOCK: Faces Suits by Form 8863 Filers During Tax Season 2013 H&R BLOCK: Motion to Compel Arbitration in Fee Litigation Pending H&R BLOCK: "Petroski" Suit Plaintiffs Appealed Summary Judgment H&R BLOCK: Plea to Compel Arbitration in RAL-Related Suit Pending H&R BLOCK: Trial Date in "Ugas" Class Suit Set for October 21 H&R BLOCK: Trial in RSM McGladrey-Related Suit Set for Sept. 9 IEC ELECTRONICS: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action INSTAGRAM LLC: Faces Class Action Over New User Policy INSTAGRAM LLC: Judge Tosses Privacy Breach Class Action JPMORGAN CHASE: Judge Approves $546MM Class Action Settlement LENOVO GROUP: Judge Trims Claims in Defective Laptop Class Action LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Faces Shareholder Class Action MADISON-KIPP CORP: Class Action Settlement Gets Prelim. Court OK MEDTRONIC INC: Stockholders File Class Action Over Infuse MEDTRONIC INC: USDA Recalls MiniMed Paradigm Insulin Pump NEWCREST MINING: Slater & Gordon Gets Funding for Class Action NVIDIA CORP: Sept. 30 Hearing Set to Approve Settlement Agreement PAYDAY FINANCIAL: Faces Class Action Over High Interest Rates PILOT FLYING J: Truck Driver & Two Law Firms File Class Action PILOT FLYING J: Lawyer Opposes Fuel Rebate Class Action Settlement PILOT FLYING J: Lawyer Says Fuel Rebate Settlement Intriguing PILOT FLYING J: July 25 Judicial Panel Meeting in Rebate Suit Set PORSCHE CARS: Settles Class Action Over Defective IMS QUALITY EGG: Settles Lawsuit Over 2010 Salmonella Outbreak Recalls RESPIRONICS CALIFORNIA: Recalls Nearly 19,200 V60 Ventilators SAMSUNG: Loses Bid to Dismiss Class Action Over Energy Star Logos SEARS: Recalls Nearly 800,000 Dehumidifiers Over Fire Risk SHOPPERS DRUG: Franchisees Get Partial Certification Ruling SKECHERS USA: Consumers Set to Get Shape-Ups Settlement Checks SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Faces Shareholder Class Action THERATECHNOLOGIES INC: Court Nixes Motion to Dismiss Class Action TITLE MAX: Wants to Move Truck Title Class Action to Federal Court WORLD FUEL: Faces Class Action Over Lac-Megantic Train Derailment ********* APOLLO GROUP: Appeal in "Investors Group" Suit Remains Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- An appeal filed by the "Apollo Institutional Investors Group" from the dismissal of their consolidated securities class action lawsuit remains pending, according to Apollo Group, Inc.'s June 25, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 31, 2013. On August 13, 2010, a securities class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona by Douglas N. Gaer naming the Company, John G. Sperling, Gregory W. Cappelli, Charles B. Edelstein, Joseph L. D'Amico, Brian L. Swartz and Gregory J. Iverson as defendants for allegedly making false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business practices and prospects for growth. That complaint asserted a putative class period stemming from December 7, 2009, to August 3, 2010. A substantially similar complaint was also filed in the same Court by John T. Fitch on September 23, 2010, making similar allegations against the same defendants for the same purported class period. Finally, on October 4, 2010, another purported securities class action complaint was filed in the same Court by Robert Roth against the same defendants as well as Brian Mueller, Terri C. Bishop and Peter V. Sperling based upon the same general set of allegations, but with a defined class period of February 12, 2007, to August 3, 2010. The complaints allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On October 15, 2010, three additional parties filed motions to consolidate the related actions and be appointed the lead plaintiff. On November 23, 2010, the Fitch and Roth actions were consolidated with Gaer and the Court appointed the "Apollo Institutional Investors Group" consisting of the Oregon Public Employees Retirement Fund, the Mineworkers' Pension Scheme, and Amalgamated Bank as lead plaintiffs. The case is now entitled, In re Apollo Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, Lead Case Number CV-10-1735- PHX-JAT. On February 18, 2011, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint naming Apollo, John G. Sperling, Peter V. Sperling, Joseph L. D'Amico, Gregory W. Cappelli, Charles B. Edelstein, Brian L. Swartz, Brian E. Mueller, Gregory J. Iverson, and William J. Pepicello as defendants. The consolidated complaint asserts a putative class period of May 21, 2007, to October 13, 2010. On April 19, 2011, the Company filed a motion to dismiss and oral argument on the motion was held before the Court on October 17, 2011. On October 27, 2011, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss and granted plaintiffs leave to amend. On December 6, 2011, the lead plaintiffs filed an Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint, which alleges similar claims against the same defendants. On January 9, 2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint. On June 22, 2012, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss and entered a judgment in the Company's favor. On July 20, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and their appeal remains pending before that Court. If the plaintiffs are successful in their appeal, the Company anticipates they will seek substantial damages. Because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise, the outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this point. Based on information available at present, the Company cannot reasonably estimate a range of loss for this action and, accordingly, the Company has not accrued any liability associated with this action. Headquartered in Phoenix, Arizona, Apollo Group, Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiaries has been an education provider since 1973. The Company offers innovative and distinctive educational programs and services both online and on-campus at the undergraduate, master's and doctoral levels principally through these wholly-owned subsidiaries: The University of Phoenix, Inc., Apollo Global, Inc., BPP Holdings Limited, Western International University, Inc., Universidad Latinoamericana, Universidad de Artes, Ciencias y Comunicacion, Institute for Professional Development and The College for Financial Planning Institutes Corporation. APOLLO GROUP: Appeal in "Teamsters Fund" Suit Remains Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- An appeal from the dismissal of the securities class action lawsuit commenced by the "Teamsters Local 617 Pensions and Welfare Funds," remains pending, according to Apollo Group, Inc.'s June 25, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 31, 2013. On November 2, 2006, the Teamsters Local 617 Pension and Welfare Funds filed a class action complaint purporting to represent a class of shareholders who purchased the Company's stock between November 28, 2001, and October 18, 2006. The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, is entitled Teamsters Local 617 Pension & Welfare Funds v. Apollo Group, Inc. et al., Case Number 06-cv-02674-RCB, and alleges that the Company and certain of its current and former directors and officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by purportedly making misrepresentations concerning the Company's stock option granting policies and practices and related accounting. The defendants are Apollo Group, Inc., J. Jorge Klor de Alva, Daniel E. Bachus, John M. Blair, Dino J. DeConcini, Kenda B. Gonzales, Hedy F. Govenar, Brian E. Mueller, Todd S. Nelson, Laura Palmer Noone, John R. Norton III, John G. Sperling and Peter V. Sperling. On September 11, 2007, the Court appointed The Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers as lead plaintiff. The Lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on November 23, 2007, asserting the same legal claims as the original complaint and adding claims for violations of Section 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and allegations of breach of fiduciary duties and civil conspiracy. On April 30, 2009, the plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint, which alleges similar claims for alleged securities fraud against the same defendants. On March 31, 2011, the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona dismissed the case with prejudice and entered judgment in the Company's favor. The Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of this ruling, and the Court denied this motion on April 2, 2012. On April 27, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and their appeal remains pending before that Court. If the plaintiffs are successful in their appeal, the Company anticipates they will seek substantial damages. Because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise, the Company says the outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this point. Based on the information available to it at present, the Company cannot reasonably estimate a range of loss for this action. Headquartered in Phoenix, Arizona, Apollo Group, Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiaries has been an education provider since 1973. The Company offers innovative and distinctive educational programs and services both online and on-campus at the undergraduate, master's and doctoral levels principally through these wholly-owned subsidiaries: The University of Phoenix, Inc., Apollo Global, Inc., BPP Holdings Limited, Western International University, Inc., Universidad Latinoamericana, Universidad de Artes, Ciencias y Comunicacion, Institute for Professional Development and The College for Financial Planning Institutes Corporation. APOLLO GROUP: Reverses Charges in Income Statements Ending May 31 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Apollo Group, Inc., reversed previously recorded charges associated with the securities class action lawsuit brought by the Policeman's Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago, which are included in litigation credit on its condensed consolidated statements of income during the nine months ended May 31, 2013, according to the Company's June 25, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 31, 2013. In January 2008, a jury returned an adverse verdict against the Company and two remaining individual co-defendants in a securities class action lawsuit entitled, In re Apollo Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. CV04-2147-PHX-JAT, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. In September 2011, the Company entered into a settlement agreement with the plaintiffs to settle the litigation for $145.0 million, which was approved by the Court on April 20, 2012. Under the settlement agreement and during fiscal year 2012, the $145.0 million the Company had previously deposited into a common fund account in December 2011 was paid to the plaintiffs. During fiscal year 2013, the Company resolved the dispute with its insurers regarding the previously advanced defense costs for this action. As a result, the Company reversed previously recorded charges associated with this dispute, which are included in litigation credit on its Condensed Consolidated Statements of Income during the nine months ended May 31, 2013. The Company does not believe it has any exposure associated with this matter in the future. Headquartered in Phoenix, Arizona, Apollo Group, Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiaries has been an education provider since 1973. The Company offers innovative and distinctive educational programs and services both online and on-campus at the undergraduate, master's and doctoral levels principally through these wholly-owned subsidiaries: The University of Phoenix, Inc., Apollo Global, Inc., BPP Holdings Limited, Western International University, Inc., Universidad Latinoamericana, Universidad de Artes, Ciencias y Comunicacion, Institute for Professional Development and The College for Financial Planning Institutes Corporation. APOLLO GROUP: TCPA Violations Complaint Voluntarily Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiff of a purported class action lawsuit alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act voluntarily dismissed her complaint in April 2013, according to Apollo Group, Inc.'s June 25, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 31, 2013. On March 12, 2013, Del-Rio Swink filed a class action complaint against University of Phoenix and Receivable Management Services Corporation alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Action ("TPCA"). The complaint, which is captioned Swink v. University of Phoenix et al., 4:13-cv-00461 and which was filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, alleges that defendants, in seeking to collect tuition debt, violated the TCPA by using automatic dialing systems to place unsolicited telephone calls to the cellular telephones of plaintiff and other former students. It seeks to recover damages on behalf of plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals. On April 9, 2013, plaintiff voluntarily dismissed her complaint, and the Company does not believe it has any exposure associated with this matter in the future. Headquartered in Phoenix, Arizona, Apollo Group, Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiaries has been an education provider since 1973. The Company offers innovative and distinctive educational programs and services both online and on-campus at the undergraduate, master's and doctoral levels principally through these wholly-owned subsidiaries: The University of Phoenix, Inc., Apollo Global, Inc., BPP Holdings Limited, Western International University, Inc., Universidad Latinoamericana, Universidad de Artes, Ciencias y Comunicacion, Institute for Professional Development and The College for Financial Planning Institutes Corporation. ATLANTIC RICHFIELD: Trial Begins in Suit Over Lead Paint Risks -------------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that in a trial that began on July 15, 10 California cities and counties are seeking nearly $1 billion from paint manufacturers to remove lead paint from millions of older homes, arguing that they sold the product despite being aware of its potential health effects. The industry argues that it never deliberately sold a harmful product to consumers and that the old paint is no longer a significant public health risk. The lawsuit, filed in 2000, named five paint manufacturers, including Atlantic Richfield, NL Industries and Sherwin-Williams. Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge James Kleinberg will decide whether the manufacturers are responsible for the use of lead-based paint in homes throughout the state decades ago. Lead paint has been banned in California for decades but remains in homes built before 1978, including an estimated 5 million in the cities and counties that brought the lawsuit. Los Angeles County, San Francisco and Oakland are among the parties in the suit. Exposure to lead is linked to learning disabilities and other health problems, especially in children. The case has taken 13 years to reach trial because of objections from the industry, but appeals courts have allowed it to proceed. It alleges the manufacturers knew of lead-paint dangers starting in the 1890s but still sold it to consumers without health warnings. Former Iowa Attorney General Bonnie Campbell, who is working with the industry, said the lawsuit is puzzling given the fact that lead paint has been banned for so long and so much of it already has been dealt with. But those who work in local public health say the problem is far from resolved. "We've had a lot of success," Julie Twichell, an official with Alameda County's lead poison prevention program, told the San Jose Mercury News. "But there is still a lot of work to do." AVANTAIR INC: Faces "Heisman" Class Action Suit in Oklahoma ----------------------------------------------------------- Avantair, Inc., disclosed in its June 26, 2013, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it is facing a class action lawsuit in Oklahoma. On June 26, 2013, Avantair, Inc. commenced employee furloughs as the Company addresses liquidity issues and seeks alternative financing arrangements that it hopes will enable it to resume operations as quickly and efficiently as possible. In addition, on June 24, 2013, the Company received notice of service of a class action lawsuit filed by Heisman Square, L.L.C. in Oklahoma County District Court, Oklahoma. On June 13, 2013, the Company also entered into a Forbearance Agreement with Midsouth Services, Inc. and Clear Aircraft, Inc. ("Lessor") related to past due lease payments for certain core fleet aircraft leased to the Company by the Lessor. On June 18, 2013, and June 25, 2013, the Company was notified by the Lessor that it was in breach of the terms of the Forbearance Agreement and the Lessor has been exercising and will continue to exercise all rights and remedies available under the Forbearance Agreement and applicable law, including taking possession of its leased aircraft and aircraft engines. About Avantair Inc. Headquartered in Clearwater, Florida, Avantair, Inc. -- http://www.avantair.com/-- sells fractional ownership interests in, and flight hour card usage of, professionally piloted aircraft for personal and business use, and the management of its aircraft fleet. Avantair also operates fixed flight based operations (FBO) in Camarillo, California, and in Caldwell, New Jersey. Through these FBOs and its headquarters, Avantair provides aircraft maintenance, concierge and other services to its customers as well as to the Avantair fleet. BANK OF AMERICA: Disputes Allegations of Ex-Mortgage Employees -------------------------------------------------------------- Adam O'Daniel, writing for Charlotte Business Journal, reports that Bank of America Corp. has attempted to discredit, debunk and dissect allegations made by former mortgage employees. In court filings on July 12, the Charlotte-based bank said sworn statements from six ex-employees and one contractor contain "wild misrepresentations" about the work they performed for the bank. BofA also says most of the workers were fired, did not work in the capacity they claim and overall have made false accusations about their former employer, according to the court documents. The former workers filed statements last month in a three-year-old lawsuit that is seeking class-action status. Those workers claimed BofA paid bonuses in the form of gift cards to encourage employees to reject loan modification applications, steered applicants into higher-priced loans to boost profits and lied to homeowners seeking aid in order to reduce the bank's backlog. The suit contends BofA wrongfully denied Home Affordable Modification Program mortgage modifications to thousands of homeowners. The sworn statements were filed as exhibits in federal court last month by the plaintiff's attorneys. However, BofA is disputing the claims and discrediting the former employees' statements. "The declarants wildly misrepresented their duties at the bank, and most had only minimal involvement with HAMP -- or none at all," BofA says in its response. The bank contends the allegations are no more than "statements their lawyers have commissioned from a few ex- employees/contractors, which were clearly drafted by plaintiffs' counsel to support their theory that the outcomes they contest reflect indiscriminate (and inexplicable) corporate malevolence." Of the seven ex-workers, BofA says Simone Gordon, Theresa Terrelonge and Recorda Simon "were call-center operators whose only involvement with HAMP would have been to forward calls to other departments." BofA says Gordon even spent most of her tenure in a credit-card department unaffiliated with the HAMP efforts. BofA says contractor Bert Sheeks was responsible for processing customer complaints, not HAMP applications. William Wilson, the Charlotte-based worker, did not work as a loan underwriter as he claimed, BofA says. "The declarants' wild misrepresentations about their roles lead to impossible claims about what they did and saw," the bank says. Further, BofA in its filings tried to debunk the claims made by the workers. BofA filed statements from supervisors who claim that bonuses and gift cards as incentives for rejecting applications and pushing homeowners into foreclosure was never a company policy. In addition, ex-employee Wilson contended BofA held "blitzes" in which workers were instructed to lie to applicants about which paperwork had been received and reject hundreds of applications with broad strokes. BofA fired back: "Blitzes were used to help approve applications, not deny them: A 'blitz' describes the use of overtime hours on evenings and weekends (when CRMs had the greatest chance of reaching borrowers) to call large numbers of borrowers to obtain outstanding documentation needed to process their applications." BofA also says Mr. Wilson's claim that the bank steered borrowers into higher-priced internal refinancings instead of government HAMP modifications is untrue -- and unlikely since federal incentives made HAMP loans more profitable. "In sum, the declarants could not have witnessed what they claim to have witnessed because they were not in a position to do so -- and would not have witnessed such things in any event because Bank of America's actual practices were diametrically opposite," the bank says. In the filings on July 12, BofA asked the court to reject class- action status for the lawsuit. The lender says the claims lack the standing to be considered as a class action. "On its face, this case is no different from the myriad cases brought by individual plaintiffs claiming that mortgage servicers breached trial loan modification agreements under the federal Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) by not giving them permanent modifications," BofA says. "These cases have been dismissed by literally hundreds of courts on a variety of grounds. . . . The putative class thus amounts to a hodgepodge of differently situated borrowers, including those who cannot establish a contract, those who cannot establish their own performance, those who cannot establish damages, and those who can only try to establish these things with individualized evidence of their personal course of dealings." Bank of America says, despite the allegations, it has a track record of helping distressed homeowners by offering more trial and permanent HAMP modifications than any other loan servicer. The bank says complaints stem from problems with HAMP's guidelines, not the bank's policies. "The program has not been free of challenges, but Bank of America has dedicated enormous resources to HAMP based on its commitment to promoting modifications as an alternative to foreclosure that benefits homeowners, investors, and servicers." BAYER AG: Faces Product Liability Suit Over Mirena System --------------------------------------------------------- Jon Campisi, writing for The Pennsylvania Record, reports that Bayer Pharmaceuticals is facing yet another product liability claim stemming from allegations that a woman was injured by her use of the birth control system Mirena. Lourdes Gonzalez claims in her newly filed federal civil action that she became injured after the Mirena, which was inserted into her body by a Pittsburgh doctor in early 2009, began to migrate throughout her body by late June 2011. The device ended up perforating the plaintiff's cervix, the suit states. Ms. Gonzalez had to undergo surgery in late July of that year to have the medical product removed because it had migrated and was no longer in its proper position. The surgery to remove the device caused the woman to experience pain, suffering, financial loss and caused permanent injury to Gonzalez in the firm of scarring and a permanent risk of placenta accreta, the complaint states. Ms. Gonzalez says that she would never have elected to have had the birth control system implanted inside of her body had she been made aware of the true risks associated with the use of Mirena. "In other words, Ms. Gonzalez would not have elected to have the Mirena device implanted if she knew the true rate of migration, embedment and perforation of the Mirena," the suit reads. The complaint asserts that the plaintiff's doctors couldn't make their patient aware of the injury risks associated with Mirena implantation because they themselves had not been told of the problems associated with the device. Bayer and the other defendants in the suit have a history of overstating the efficacy of Mirena and of understating the potential safety concerns relating to the use of the device, the complaint reads. Mirena, which is an intrauterine contraceptive system made of flexible plastic, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2000. More than two million American women use the device today, and it has been used by more than 15 million women worldwide to date, according to the complaint. Nevertheless, the suit claims, the defendants never placed a warning on the device's label that tells of the potential for Mirena to spontaneously migrate throughout the body; the label on the product only states that migration may occur if the uterus is perforated during insertion. "Additionally, the Mirena label does not disclose the true risk of Mirena, including, but not limited to, the risk of it becoming embedded within the body, or the true risk of ectopic pregnancy," the suit states. Bayer Pharmaceuticals and various company subsidiaries are listed as defendants in the suit. The complaint contains counts of defective manufacturing, design defect, negligence, failure to warn, strict liability, breach of implied and express warranties, negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation, and fraud by concealment. The plaintiff seeks more than $150,000 in compensatory, statutory and punitive damages, in addition to interest, litigation costs, attorneys' fees and other legal relief. Ms. Gonzalez is being represented by attorneys from Philadelphia- based NastLaw LLC. The federal case number is 2:13-cv-04082-JP. BEST BUY: Still Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Best Buy Co., Inc., is still awaiting a court decision on its motion to dismiss a consolidated securities class action lawsuit, according to the Company's June 21, 2013, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. In February 2011, a purported class action lawsuit captioned, IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Best Buy Co., Inc., et al., was filed against the Company and certain of its executive officers in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. This federal court action alleges, among other things, that the Company and the officers named in the complaint violated Sections 10(b) and 20A of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 under the Exchange Act in connection with press releases and other statements relating to the Company's fiscal 2011 earnings guidance that had been made available to the public. Additionally, in March 2011, a similar purported class action was filed by a single shareholder, Rene LeBlanc, against the Company and certain of its executive officers in the same court. In July 2011, after consolidation of the IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund and Rene LeBlanc actions, a consolidated complaint captioned, IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund v. Best Buy Co., Inc., et al., was filed and served. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint in September 2011, and in March 2012, subsequent to the end of fiscal 2012, the court issued a decision dismissing the action with prejudice. In April 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion to alter or amend the court's decision on the Company's motion to dismiss. In October 2012, the court granted plaintiff's motion to alter or amend the court's decision on the Company's motion to dismiss in part by vacating such decision and giving plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint, which plaintiff did in October 2012. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in November 2012 and all responsive pleadings were filed in December 2012. A hearing was scheduled for April 26, 2013. The court's decision will be rendered thereafter. In June 2011, a purported shareholder derivative action captioned, Salvatore M. Talluto, Derivatively and on Behalf of Best Buy Co., Inc. v. Richard M. Schulze, et al., as Defendants and Best Buy Co., Inc. as Nominal Defendant, was filed against both present and former members of the Company's Board of Directors serving during the relevant periods in fiscal 2011 and the Company as a nominal defendant in the U.S. District Court for the State of Minnesota. The lawsuit alleges that the director defendants breached their fiduciary duty, among other claims, including violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, in failing to correct public misrepresentations and material misstatements and/or omissions regarding the Company's fiscal 2011 earnings projections and, for certain directors, selling stock while in possession of material adverse non-public information. Additionally, in July 2011, a similar purported class action was filed by a single shareholder, Daniel Himmel, against the Company and certain of its executive officers in the same court. In November 2011, the respective lawsuits of Salvatore M. Talluto and Daniel Himmel were consolidated into a new action captioned, In Re: Best Buy Co., Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation, and a stay ordered until after a final resolution of the motion to dismiss in the consolidated IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund v. Best Buy Co., Inc., et al. case. The plaintiffs in the securities actions seek damages, including interest, equitable relief and reimbursement of the costs and expenses they incurred in the lawsuits. The Company believes the allegations in the securities actions are without merit, and the Company intends to defend these actions vigorously. Based on the Company's assessment of the facts underlying the claims in the securities actions, their respective procedural litigation history, and the degree to which the Company intends to defend itself in these matters, the amount or range of reasonably possible losses, if any, cannot be estimated. Best Buy Co., Inc. -- http://www.bestbuy.com/-- is a multi- national, e-commerce and physical retailer of consumer electronics, including mobile phones, tablets and computers, large and small appliances, televisions, digital imaging, entertainment products and related accessories. The Richfield, Minnesota-based Company also offers consumers technology services, including support, repair, troubleshooting and installation, under the Geek Squad brand. CALIFORNIA: Class Action Over Parole Revocation System Dismissed ---------------------------------------------------------------- Hanson Bridgett LLP on July 17 disclosed that it successfully argued for decertification and termination of a nineteen-year-old class action case that was brought against the State of California challenging the constitutionality of California's adult parole revocation process. Judge Lawrence K. Karlton presided over the matter in California's Eastern District Court. The court originally found that the State did not provide adult parolees with adequate due process and required the State to overhaul its parole revocation system. The State has made great strides in transforming the system, including approving legislation resulting in a dramatic reduction in the number of adult parolees in California and requiring parole revocation hearings to be adjudicated by State superior courts, rather than the Board of Parole Hearings. As a result of these legislative changes, attorneys at Hanson Bridgett argued -- and the Court agreed -- that the case was moot as of July 1, 2013. The Court decertified the class and ordered the case dismissed. "We are extremely pleased that justice has been served in terminating this case," said Paul B. Mello, Hanson Bridgett Partner. "Judge Karlton has rightly ordered that this case is moot as a result of criminal justice realignment and that Plaintiffs' counsel may not continue to litigate this case, and monitor the superior courts, as they had requested." Judge Karlton's order, issued on July 3, 2013, will terminate the case in early August after resolution of administrative matters. CANADA: "Sixties Scoop" Class Action Can Proceed to Trial --------------------------------------------------------- CBC News reports that a Toronto lawyer representing Aboriginal people taken from their families during the so-called "Sixties Scoop" say they deserve the same acknowledgement given to residential school survivors. On July 16, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruled a class- action lawsuit against the federal government can proceed to trial. Jeffery Wilson said about 16,000 Aboriginal children in Ontario were sent to live in non-Aboriginal homes between 1965 and 1985. "The motivating issue for the representative plaintiffs is less about money and more about taking steps that assures this cannot happen again." Mr. Wilson said the children were robbed of their Aboriginal culture, language and identity and are suffering the consequences as adults. 'What happened to them was wrong' Beaverhouse First Nation Chief Marcia Brown Martel was one of those thousands of children who were taken from their families. "My biological family was given the information that I was mentally handicapped," she said. "That's what the social workers told my family." Authorities sent Brown Martel to live with a non-Aboriginal family in southern Ontario, where she grew up without any connection to First Nations culture or language. "I cannot be, nor am I, the person that I would have been," she said. Brown Martel and another plaintiff, Robert Commanda, began their attempt to launch a class action lawsuit against the Attorney General of Canada four years ago. Mr. Wilson said his clients hope proceeding to trial will ultimately result in "a ruling that really says that what happened to them was wrong and shouldn't have occurred." Like residential schools, the "Sixties Scoop" stole the Aboriginal identity of an entire generation, he said. "It's hard to reconcile how the Prime Minister or how Canada can say 'we're sorry' for the effect in respect to the residential schools case and not offer the same form of acceptance . . . of these persons' harm and suffering." Brown Martel said she hopes the trial will bring some assurance "that this will never be, ever, ever allowed in this country to . . . happen [to] any children." Now that the lawsuit has been granted certification, Wilson said he hopes other affected people will come forward. "Any Aboriginal person who was placed in a non-Aboriginal home between 1964 and 1985 . . . can register to be a participant in this class action," he said. CANADA: "Sixties Scoop" Class Action Lawyer Seeks More Plaintiffs ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Aiken, writing for KenoraOnline.com, reports that the lead counsel in a massive class action related to foster care says it's not too late to join. Jeffery Wilson estimates 16,000 applicants in Ontario could eventually be part of the lawsuit, which is focused on the deprivation of aboriginal culture for children in care. "People are still able to apply. It's going to be, very likely, a self-registration form of a class-action, which they can get by going on-line," he says, referring to a web site created for the purpose. Mr. Wilson says the class of plaintiffs is defined as a person, who would've been placed in foster care -- or placed for adoption -- between 1965 and 1984. They would've been placed with a non- aboriginal person or family, while under the authority of a children's aid or family services agency within the province of Ontario. He adds that the definition of aboriginal includes First Nations, status or non-status, on or off-reserve, as well as Metis. A claimant would've been placed with a non-aboriginal family within Ontario. They could also have been transferred to a location outside of the province or even outside of the country. One of the two main claimants, Wilson notes, was moved to a community in the United States. "Whether you were raised by loving non-aboriginal parents, who showed tender care, or unfortunately if you were raised by people who were not very kind, they were mean, that doesn't matter. The issue is, you as an aboriginal person, lost your culture," he emphasized. This is similar to the common experience claims under the residential schools settlement agreement, which still allowed individuals to file lawsuits for physical or sexual abuse. Mr. Wilson agrees that claimants will be seeking a similar agreement to the one reached in 2005 with residential school survivors, except it would be for those who were apprehended from their families during the 60's Scoop. "So, we're hoping that if the prime minister was -- as I know he was -- sincere -- or I hope he was in his apology -- that he will cause some steps to be taken perhaps to embrace the action in the sense of dialogue between the plaintiffs and defendants, and we come up with some kind of common result. A result that recognizes their harm and makes sure it never happens again," he continued, referring to the landmark 2008 Residential School Apology in Ottawa. "The prime minister made an apology in June of 2008 to the children of the residential schools. Part of that apology included the acknowledgement of the harm caused by assimilation policies that resulted in those children being deprived of their culture, their religion, their customs," he said. For the last four years, the law firm and plaintiffs have been part of a long-term court battle, which has already seen its share of ups and downs. "Since 2009, we've been involved in procedural, highly-legalistic, technical wrangling. It's had its impact. It's costly to everybody concerned. I think we should no go beyond the wrangling," he stated. By the end of September, Mr. Wilson hopes to receive a copy of the court's reasons for its decision to go to trial. The plaintiffs - Chief Marcia Brown Martel of Beaverhouse and Robert Commanda -- are hoping to reach a negotiated agreement that ensures aboriginal children aren't deprived of their cultural roots. Mr. Wilson notes agreements have been reached, which allow Jewish families to care for their children, not to mention systems created for Catholic children. CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Royalties Class Action Arbitration Underway -------------------------------------------------------------- Marie Cusick, writing for StateImpact Pennsylvania, reports that an effort is underway to bring class action arbitration against Pennsylvania's biggest gas driller -- Chesapeake Energy -- over allegations the company is underpaying royalties. About 60 people turned out to the Towanda Fire Department on July 17 to hear a pitch from a group of attorneys seeking to bring the case. Chesapeake leaseholders in particular have been alleging the company is underpaying royalties by deducting the costs of moving the gas from the well to the market, for things like pipelines and compressor stations. Scranton-area lawyer Doug Clark is heading up the group of attorneys. He says while some leases do allow for these types of deductions, other contracts explicitly prohibit the practice. "We're seeking to identify these landowners and let them know they have these rights and pursue claims on their behalf," says Mr. Clark. Mr. Clark is working with another Scranton lawyer and two New York City-based attorneys to file class action arbitration against Chesapeake. Mr. Clark says many leases require disputes to be dealt with through arbitration and not in a traditional courtroom. He says his group has already started the process and is looking for more clients. David Moon was among the landowners in the audience. He owns about 200 acres in New Albany. Mr. Moon says three of the four companies involved in his property are taking deductions out of his royalty payments, including Chesapeake. He's anxious for some legal action on the issue. "[The deductions are] extremely substantial when you start adding it up," he says, "I don't believe these companies are entitled to it." Under Pennsylvania law, an oil and gas lease must provide a minimum 12.5% royalty in order for the contract to be valid. However, in a unanimous 2010 decision, the State Supreme Court held that since the word royalty was not defined in the law, the industry could rely on its own interpretation, which allowed for subtracting the costs of moving the gas to market. The state legislature recently passed a law requiring more transparency from companies about royalty check deductions. A spokesman for Chesapeake did not respond to a request for comment. COLUMBIA LABORATORIES: Plaintiffs Amend Securities Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Columbia Laboratories, Inc. on July 17 disclosed that plaintiffs in the putative class action lawsuit filed against the Company, Actavis, Inc. and certain officers of both companies in the United States District Court, District of New Jersey, entitled In re Columbia Laboratories, Inc., Securities Litigation, which on June 10 was dismissed without prejudice, have filed an amended complaint. The Company continues to believe the case is without merit. About Columbia Laboratories Columbia Laboratories, Inc. -- http://www.columbialabs.com-- is a publicly traded specialty pharmaceutical company with a successful history of developing proprietary, vaginally administered products for women's health indications. The Company receives sales and royalty revenues from CRINONE(R) (progesterone gel), which is marketed by Actavis, Inc. in the United States and by Merck Serono S.A. in over 60 foreign countries. DANNY'S CABARET: Settles EEOC Gender Bias Suit for $50,000 ---------------------------------------------------------- A Jackson, Miss., "gentlemen's club" which features "adult entertainment" will pay $50,000 and furnish other relief to settle a race discrimination and retaliation lawsuit by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced on July 8. The EEOC's charged that Danny's Cabaret violated federal law when it subjected four black female entertainers to less advantageous terms and conditions of employment than white entertainers, including openly segregated work schedules. The EEOC also charged that Danny's retaliated after one of the entertainers complained about discrimination by reducing the work hours for each of the entertainers and forcing one of the entertainers to quit to escape the mistreatment. Race discrimination and retaliation against employees who report or complain about unlawful discrimination in the workplace violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit (No. 3:10-CV-00681) in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, Jackson Division, after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. The court issued a two-year consent decree settling the litigation on June 28. Under the decree, Danny's will implement new policies and practices designed to prevent racial discrimination and retaliation, conduct supervisor and employee training on anti- discrimination and retaliation laws and establish a confidential process for persons to submit discrimination and retaliation complaints. The process will include employer protections of non- retaliation and requirements for a prompt, thorough and impartial investigation. Danny's will also post notices at the work site and provide other injunctive relief, including providing reports to the EEOC on new allegations of race discrimination and retaliation during the two-year period. "Employers who allow their workplaces to be havens for racial harassment and retaliation are not meeting their obligations under federal law," said Delner Franklin-Thomas, district director for the EEOC's Birmingham District Office. "When employers choose not to meet those obligations, the EEOC is prepared to pursue all appropriate means to hold them accountable." Steven Murray, senior trial attorney for the EEOC's Birmingham District Office, said, "This action demonstrates the EEOC's broad commitment to eradicating racial discrimination and retaliation in all workplaces. We are pleased that Danny's has resolved this matter early in the litigation and will be a leader in implementing better policies and procedures to eliminate discrimination." The EEOC is responsible for enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. The EEOC's Birmingham District consists of Alabama, Mississippi (except 17 northern counties) and the Florida Panhandle. EBIX INC: Has Terminated Merger Agreement With Goldman Sachs Unit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ebix, Inc., terminated in June 2013 its merger agreement with an affiliate of Goldman, Sachs & Co., according to the Company's June 21, 2013, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Ebix, Inc. a leading international supplier of On-Demand software and E-commerce services to the insurance industry, has announced that it and an affiliate of Goldman, Sachs & Co. ("Goldman Sachs") have agreed to terminate their previously announced merger agreement. The merger agreement, announced on May 1, 2013, had provided for Ebix to be acquired by an affiliate of Goldman Sachs. The decision to terminate the merger agreement was the result of a letter received by the Company on June 14, 2013, from the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia that it had opened an investigation into allegations of intentional misconduct that had been brought to its attention from the pending shareholder class action lawsuits against the Company's directors and officers, the media and other sources. The pending shareholder class action lawsuits and an SEC investigation involving the same subject matters as these lawsuits were previously disclosed by the Company in its periodic reports filed with the SEC. The Company has been informed by the office of the U.S. Attorney that their investigation is in its preliminary stages and that it is too early to make a determination of whether any violation of the securities laws or other laws has occurred, or whether any individual or entity could be considered a target, subject or witness in the investigation. The merger agreement is being terminated without payment of a termination fee by either party and each party and certain significant shareholders of the Company and each of their respective affiliates have agreed to release each other from all claims arising under or related to the terminated merger agreement and related transaction agreements. "We believe the allegations in the class action suits are without merit." said Robin Raina, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Ebix. "We want to thank Goldman Sachs for their interest in acquiring Ebix and we are naturally disappointed that we could not complete a transaction at this time. The Company remains focused on running its business and continuing to provide its customers with the high quality products and services on which they rely. The Company's balance sheet remains strong and we believe the Company is well positioned for future growth and success." Mr. Pavan Bhalla, Chairman of the Special Committee of the Board of Directors said, "We are committed to fully cooperate with all the regulatory authorities, as they conduct their investigations and believe that the allegations in the class action lawsuits, which we have understood to form the basis of these investigations are without any merit. We look forward to what we expect will be a favorable resolution of these matters. We are committed to the highest standards of integrity in our business and have confidence in the ability of the Ebix management team to lead the Company forward." The Company Board of Directors also announced that it intends to continue to evaluate strategic options for the Company. On May 10, 2013, the Company announced results for the first quarter of 2013. Total first quarter 2013 revenue was $52.6 million, an increase of 20% on a year-over-year basis, as compared to first quarter 2012 revenue of $43.8 million. Diluted earnings per share ("EPS") for the first quarter 2013 rose 13% year-over-year to $0.45, as compared to $0.40 in the first quarter of 2012. For purposes of the first quarter 2013 EPS calculation, there was an average of 38.8 million diluted shares outstanding during the quarter, as compared to 39.5 million diluted shares outstanding in first quarter 2012. Ebix continues to have highly diversified revenue streams across thousands of clients, with the largest client accounting for only 2.5% of the Company's first quarter 2013 revenues. About Ebix, Inc. A leading international supplier of On-Demand software and E- commerce services to the insurance industry, Ebix, Inc., (NASDAQ: EBIX) provides end-to-end solutions ranging from infrastructure exchanges, carrier systems, agency systems and BPO services to custom software development for all entities involved in the insurance industry. With 30+ offices across Brazil, Singapore, Australia, the US, New Zealand, India and Canada, Ebix powers multiple exchanges across the world in the field of life, annuity, health and property & casualty insurance while conducting in excess of $100 billion in insurance premiums on its platforms. Through its various SaaS- based software platforms, Ebix employs hundreds of insurance and technology professionals to provide products, support and consultancy to thousands of customers on six continents. For more information, visit the Company's Web site at http://www.ebix.com/ FORD MOTOR: Files Motion to Dismiss Sudden Acceleration Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ John O'Brien, writing for The West Virginia Record, reports that Ford Motor Company has filed a response to a class action lawsuit that alleges its vehicles suffer from sudden acceleration problems. Ford is moving to dismiss the lawsuit, filed earlier this year in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, and is seeking to have certain "objectionable" paragraphs in the complaint stricken. Ford filed the motions on June 27 in the first of two class actions that have been filed in the court. The company is seeking to have them consolidated. The class actions do not allege any physical injuries. Instead, they say purchasers of Ford vehicles would not have bought them -- or paid as much -- if they knew the vehicles had sudden acceleration problems. "Plaintiffs seek a court-ordered recall and monetary damages in connection with nearly every Ford Motor Company vehicle sold in the United States between 2002 and 2010 . . . because the vehicles lack a particular driver-assistance feature referred to as Brake Over Accelerator or Brake-Throttle Override, which depowers the engine if the gas pedal is trapped by a floor mat and the driver engages the brake," the memorandum in support of the motion to dismiss says. "Notably, as conceded by Plaintiffs, a BTO feature does not prevent an unwanted acceleration resulting from a trapped gas pedal, but it may assist the driver in overcoming such a situation if it does occur. "Although Ford never marketed the vehicles at issue as having a BTO feature, Plaintiffs contend that its absence from their vehicles diminishes their value, and that Ford's failure to disclose that absence was fraudulent." The two complaints include plaintiffs from several states who purchased a variety of Ford, Mercury and Lincoln vehicles. Several attorneys nationwide combined efforts on the complaint. From West Virginia are Niall A. Paul of Spilman Thomas & Battle in Charleston; Guy Bucci, Timothy Bailey and Lee Javins of Bucci Bailey & Javins in Charleston; and Edgar F. Heiskell III of Charleston. The paragraphs Ford finds "objectionable" allege that in the 1980s, the company intentionally disposed of internal reports regarding sudden acceleration events and that it concealed the information from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Ford says those allegations have already been rejected by the NHTSA and a Florida appellate court. "Second, the allegations are simply irrelevant to Plaintiffs' claims and, therefore, immaterial and impertinent," the memorandum in support says. "The allegations in the Objectionable Paragraphs are scandalous, injurious to Ford's reputation, and have no bearing on Plaintiffs' present claims. The allegations are clearly designed only to inflame the jury and the public. "Moreover, the continued presence of these objectionable allegations of decades-old conduct will prejudice Ford by requiring extensive and unnecessary expenditures of resources in litigation." The out-of-state firms on the second complaint are: Grant & Eisenhofer of Chicago; The DiCello Law Firm of Mentor, Ohio; Bartimus, Frickleton, Robertson & Gorny of Leawood, Kan.; Murray and Murray of Sandusky, Ohio; Searcy, Denney, Scarola, Barnhart & Shipley of West Palm Beach, Fla.; Siprut P.C. of Chicago; Bremer, Whyte, Brown & O'Meara of Newport Beach, Calif.; The Miller Law Firm of Rochester, Mich.; Davis, Bethune & Jones of Kansas City, Mo.; Isaac, Wiles, Burkholder & Teetor of Columbus, Ohio; Gomez & Iagmin of San Diego; Laffey, Bucci & Kent of Philadelphia. The last three firms listed were not on the March complaint. Grant & Eisenhofer filed another class action in California federal court over Ford's MyFord Touch, a dashboard interface that allows the vehicle owner to operate the audio systems, GPS navigation, climate systems and a Bluetooth enabled mobile device. The lawsuit claims MyFord Touch has been plagued with serious defects. Adam Levitt, a director with Grant & Eisenhofer and head of the firm's Consumer Practice group, said: "The MyFord Touch problems in Ford vehicles are legion and now well-documented. Had consumers known about the numerous and widespread issues with the system in Ford's cars, they would not have purchased or leased these vehicles. We intend to see that they are properly compensated for defective systems, and will call on Ford take affirmative steps to see that customers' expectations are met." FORD MOTOR: Recalls 12,569 Vehicles Over Faulty Child Locks ----------------------------------------------------------- James R. Healey, writing for USA Today, reports that Ford Motor is recalling 12,569 cars and SUVs because the child locks on the rear doors could fail, allowing kids to unlock and open the back doors from the inside when parents thought they couldn't. Affected are 2013 Ford Explorer, Taurus, and Lincoln MKS vehicles that were built Nov. 29 through Dec. 12, 2012. The potentially faulty pats were made in Mexico and supplied to Ford by Brose, NA of Auburn Hills, Mich., according to Ford's recall filing with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Opening and closing the doors enough times can move the mechanism from locked to unlocked without warning, Ford says. That could "lead to personal injury to an unrestrained child," NHTSA says in its recall notice. The locks, found on any modern vehicle, are simple sliding mechanisms that can be set to allow the doors to only be opened from the outside. The thinking is that using the locks prevents kids from accidentally or impulsivley opening the back doors while the car is moving or at other times when it could be dangerous. Dealers will replace faulty locks free. Ford says it will begin the recall Aug. 5. Ford says owners can determine if their vehicles are involved by calling Ford's toll-free line at 1-866-436-7332, or by contacting a local Ford or Lincoln dealer who can obtain specific information regarding the vehicles from the Ford On-line Automotive Service Information System (OASIS) database. GARELICK FARMS: Truck Drivers Lose Class Certification Bid ---------------------------------------------------------- Tom Egan, writing for Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, reports that where plaintiff truck drivers, claiming to be owed compensation for unpaid meal breaks which they did not take, have requested that the court certify a class consisting of "all individuals who have worked as delivery drivers for Garelick Farms in Massachusetts since Sept. 27, 2005," the plaintiffs have not satisfied the commonality element and as a result the certification request must be denied. GENERAL MOTORS: Retirees Win Class Action Over Insurance Benefits ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jeff Gray, writing for The Globe and Mail, reports that about 3,000 salaried retirees have won a class-action case against their former employer, General Motors of Canada Ltd., after the auto giant slashed their health and life insurance benefits as it scrambled to stay afloat during the financial crisis. The ruling could cost the company hundreds of millions of dollars in past and future benefits that it tried to clear from its books as it teetered toward insolvency five years ago. The final bill must still be worked out, but the plaintiffs' statement of claim initially demanded C$350-million. Faye Roberts, a spokeswoman for GM, said the company was disappointed with the decision and planned to file an appeal. In a judgment released on July 17, Mr. Justice Edward Belobaba of the Ontario Superior Court ruled that GM's contract language was not "sufficiently clear and unambiguous" to enable it to slash most of its retirees benefits unilaterally. However, the judge ruled that in the case of a smaller group of retirees, 67 former executives, GM was entitled to deny them an enhanced set of benefits they were promised. As outlined in the ruling, during the two-year financial meltdown from 2007 to 2009 GM slashed the benefits it was paying to its non-unionized salaried retirees and executive retirees, affecting semi-private hospital coverage, drug costs, and dropped the basic life insurance benefit to $20,000 from $100,000 or more. GM argued that its benefit documents allowed it to "amend, modify, suspend or terminate" benefits "at any time," but the judge ruled this only applied to employees, not retirees. "The salaried employees, some of whom had worked for decades at [GM Canada] and were told repeatedly in the benefit documents that they could rely on the promised health care and life insurance benefits, were stunned," the judge writes. The class action case was originally launched by GM retiree Joseph O'Neill, who retired in 2002 and then saw his health and life insurance benefits slashed in 2007-2009. But he died last year, and another retiree was named as the representative plaintiff in his place. A lawyer for the retirees, Louis Sokolov, said the plaintiffs were pleased with the decision: "These are people who were planning their retirement based on what was promised to them." Mr. Sokolov said the ruling could affect retirees at other companies in distress, depending on how their contracts are worded. GEORGIA-PACIFIC: Appeals Court Upholds Class Action Certification ----------------------------------------------------------------- DeAnn Komanecky, writing for SavannahNow.com, reports that the Georgia Court of Appeals, in a 4-3 vote, has upheld the class action certification of a lawsuit against Georgia-Pacific. Kirbi and Aaron Ratner and David and Kathy McDonald, who live near the Fort Howard Road plant, originally filed the suit against Georgia-Pacific's Savannah River Mill Plant in 2010. Class action certification was granted by Effingham County Superior Court Chief Judge William E. Woodrum in July of 2012. The class-action certification will allow lawsuit members to include owners of 116 properties that neighbor the plant. The properties include an area west of Fort Howard Road, south of the railroad line and east of Rincon-Stillwell Road. The lawsuit presents claims of nuisance, trespass and negligence, alleging that sludge dumped in disposal cells at the plant release hydrogen sulfide, a gas that causes egg-like smells and is corrosive to metal. The property owners claim the gas has caused loss of property values and physical damage to homes. Much of the reported damage has been from corrosion to air- conditioning systems. As of last summer Georgia-Pacific has paid to replace a portion of 20-30 of the air-conditioning systems, mainly in the Mallard Pointe Subdivision, according to court documents. Ben Perkins, a Savannah attorney representing the plaintiffs, said that practice has continued while both sides have waited on the appeal ruling. "Georgia-Pacific has replaced a number of units (since last year)," Mr. Perkins said. GP has said they are aware of odor issues and a project to close the three landfill sludge cells most responsible for odor issues has recently been completed. The GP disposal area is on about 170 acres. The site currently has one closed sludge cell, two active cells and the three cells that have been closed, Carrie Thompson, spokesman for GP said. The waste comes from the remnants of GP's manufacturing process that chiefly uses recycled paper and cardboard. The cells have been capped and have a gas collection system. GP assertions in their appeal of Judge Woodrum's ruling included that the trial court abused its discretion in certifying the class. The appeals court ruled the plaintiff's met class certification requirements of Georgia law and the court's certification would not be reversed unless factual findings were "clearly erroneous." The justices noted that the defendants did not list any errors of factual findings by the trial court. Mr. Perkins said the Court of Appeals ruling sends the right message. "My clients and their entire legal team are very pleased that the Court of Appeals affirmed Judge Woodrum's thoughtful and well- reasoned decision to certify this property damage case as a class action," Mr. Perkins said. "In reaching its decision, the Court of Appeals made it clear that property owners in Georgia are entitled to, and deserve, protection of their property rights." Ms. Thompson said GP officials had just received the appeal ruling, handed down on July 16. "We are evaluating it and the impact it will have," Ms. Thompson said. "It's one step in the legal process and we will continue to move forward in that process and be a good neighbor," Ms. Thompson said. Mr. Perkins said once the case has been returned to Superior Court, Judge Woodrum will be asked to sign an order to approve a class notice. The notice will be sent to property owners in the impacted area informing them of their right to opt out of the suit. "We are eager to give our clients the long-awaited opportunity to have their day in Court," Mr. Perkins said. "We look forward to presenting our clients' claims to a jury as soon as possible." The Savannah River Mill has been in operation over 25 years and employs 1,200. H&R BLOCK: Appeal From Judgment in "Drake" Suit Remains Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- H&R Block, Inc.'s affiliate, Sand Canyon Corporation (SCC), previously known as Option One Mortgage Corporation, ceased originating mortgage loans in December 2007 and, in April 2008, sold its servicing assets and discontinued its remaining operations. Mortgage loans purchased by H&R Block Bank (HRB Bank) from SCC represent 57% of total loans held for investment at April 30, 2013. On December 9, 2009, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against SCC and H&R Block, Inc. styled Jeanne Drake, et al. v. Option One Mortgage Corp., et al. (Case No. SACV09-1450 CJC). The Plaintiffs allege breach of contract, promissory fraud, intentional interference with contractual relations, wrongful withholding of wages and unfair business practices in connection with not paying severance benefits to employees when their employment transitioned to American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc. (now known as Homeward Residential, Inc. (Homeward)) in connection with the sale of certain assets and operations of SCC. The Plaintiffs seek to recover severance benefits of approximately $8 million, interest and attorney's fees, in addition to penalties and punitive damages on certain claims. On September 2, 2011, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on all claims. The Plaintiffs filed an appeal, which remains pending. No further updates were reported in the Company's June 26, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended April 30, 2013. The Company says it has not concluded that a loss related to this matter is probable nor has it established a loss contingency related to this matter. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims in this case and intends to defend the case vigorously, but there can be no assurances as to its outcome or its impact on the Company's consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows. Headquartered in Kansas City, Missouri, H&R Block, Inc. -- http://www.hrblock.com/-- and its subsidiaries provide tax preparation and banking services. The Company's Tax Services segment provides assisted income tax return preparation, digital tax solutions and other services and products related to income tax return preparation to the general public primarily in the United States, and also in Canada and Australia. H&R BLOCK: "Barrett" Class Suit Remains Pending in Massachusetts ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Cecil Barrett, et al. v. Option One Mortgage Corp., et al., remains pending, according to H&R Block, Inc.'s June 26, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended April 30, 2013. H&R Block's affiliate, Sand Canyon Corporation (SCC), previously known as Option One Mortgage Corporation, ceased originating mortgage loans in December 2007 and, in April 2008, sold its servicing assets and discontinued its remaining operations. Mortgage loans purchased by H&R Block Bank (HRB Bank) from SCC represent 57% of total loans held for investment at April 30, 2013. On February 1, 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts against SCC and other related entities styled Cecil Barrett, et al. v. Option One Mortgage Corp., et al. (Civil Action No. 08- 10157-RWZ). The Plaintiffs allege discriminatory practices relating to the origination of mortgage loans in violation of the Fair Housing Act and Equal Credit Opportunity Act, and seek declaratory and injunctive relief in addition to actual and punitive damages. The court dismissed H&R Block, Inc. from the lawsuit for lack of personal jurisdiction. In March 2011, the court issued an order certifying a class, which the defendants sought to appeal. On August 24, 2011, the First Circuit Court of Appeals declined to hear the appeal, noting that the district court could reconsider its certification decision in light of a recent ruling by the United States Supreme Court in an unrelated matter. SCC subsequently filed a motion to decertify the class, which the court granted. The Plaintiffs' petition for appeal was denied. The Company says a portion of its loss contingency accrual is related to this lawsuit for the amount of loss that it considers probable and reasonably estimable. The Company believes SCC has meritorious defenses to the claims in this case and it intends to defend the case vigorously; however the Company does not currently believe this case is material. Headquartered in Kansas City, Missouri, H&R Block, Inc. -- http://www.hrblock.com/-- and its subsidiaries provide tax preparation and banking services. The Company's Tax Services segment provides assisted income tax return preparation, digital tax solutions and other services and products related to income tax return preparation to the general public primarily in the United States, and also in Canada and Australia. H&R BLOCK: "Basile" Class Suit Still Pending in Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------------ On April 23, 1993, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against H&R Block, Inc. in the Court of Common Pleas, First Judicial District Court of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia County, styled Sandra J. Basile, et al. v. H&R Block, Inc., et al. (April Term 1992, Civil Action No. 3246). The plaintiffs allege inadequate disclosures with respect to the refund anticipation loan (RAL) product and assert claims for violation of consumer protection statutes, negligent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, common law fraud, usury, and violation of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA). The Plaintiffs seek unspecified actual and punitive damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs. A Pennsylvania class was certified, but later decertified by the trial court in December 2003. The intermediate appellate court subsequently reversed the decertification decision. On September 7, 2012, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed the decision of the intermediate appellate court, thereby allowing the trial court's decertification ruling to stand. No further updates were reported in the Company's June 26, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended April 30, 2013. The Company has not concluded that a loss related to this matter is probable, nor has it accrued a loss contingency related to this matter. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to this case and intends to defend the case vigorously, however, the Company does not currently believe this case is material. Headquartered in Kansas City, Missouri, H&R Block, Inc. -- http://www.hrblock.com/-- and its subsidiaries provide tax preparation and banking services. The Company's Tax Services segment provides assisted income tax return preparation, digital tax solutions and other services and products related to income tax return preparation to the general public primarily in the United States, and also in Canada and Australia. H&R BLOCK: Faces Suits by Form 8863 Filers During Tax Season 2013 ----------------------------------------------------------------- H&R Block, Inc., is facing class action lawsuits brought by those who filed Form 8863 during tax season 2013 through an H&R Block office and other services, according to the Company's June 26, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended April 30, 2013. A series of putative class action lawsuits were filed against the Company in various federal courts and one state court beginning on March 13, 2013 (including, by way of example, Danielle Pooley v. H&R Block, Inc., No. 1:13-cv-01549-JBS-KMW (D.N.J. Mar. 13, 2013); Arthur Green and Amy Hamilton v. H&R Block, Inc., et al., No. 4:13-cv-11206 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 19, 2013); Juan Ortega v. H&R Block, Inc., et al., No. 2:13-cv-02023-MMM-RZ (C.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2013); and Nikki R. Nevill v. H&R Block, Inc., et al., No. 1316- CV07264 (Jackson Cnty., Mo. Cir. Ct. Mar. 21, 2013)). Taken together, the plaintiffs in these actions purport to represent clients nationwide who filed Form 8863 during tax season 2013 through an H&R Block office or using H&R Block at Home(R) online tax services or tax preparation software, and allege breach of contract, negligence and violation of state consumer laws in connection with transmission of the form. The plaintiffs seek damages, pre-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs. The Company says it has not concluded that a loss related to these lawsuits is probable, nor has it accrued a liability related to these lawsuits. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims in these cases and intends to defend the cases vigorously, but there can be no assurances as to the outcome of these cases or their impact on the Company's consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows. Headquartered in Kansas City, Missouri, H&R Block, Inc. -- http://www.hrblock.com/-- and its subsidiaries provide tax preparation and banking services. The Company's Tax Services segment provides assisted income tax return preparation, digital tax solutions and other services and products related to income tax return preparation to the general public primarily in the United States, and also in Canada and Australia. H&R BLOCK: Motion to Compel Arbitration in Fee Litigation Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- On April 16, 2012, and April 19, 2012, putative class action lawsuits were filed against H&R Block, Inc. in Missouri state and federal courts, respectively, concerning a compliance fee charged to retail tax clients in the 2011 and 2012 tax seasons. These cases are styled Manuel H. Lopez III v. H&R Block, Inc., et al., in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri (Case # 1216CV12290), and Ronald Perras v. H&R Block, Inc., et al., in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri (Case No. 4:12-cv-00450-DGK). Taken together, the plaintiffs seek to represent all retail tax clients nationwide who were charged the compliance fee, and assert claims of violation of state consumer laws, money had and received, and unjust enrichment. The Company is seeking to compel arbitration of certain claims. No further updates were reported in the Company's June 26, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended April 30, 2013. The Company says it has not concluded that a loss related to these lawsuits is probable, nor has it accrued a liability related to either of these lawsuits. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims in these cases and intends to defend the cases vigorously, but there can be no assurances as to the outcome of these cases or their impact on the Company's consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows. Headquartered in Kansas City, Missouri, H&R Block, Inc. -- http://www.hrblock.com/-- and its subsidiaries provide tax preparation and banking services. The Company's Tax Services segment provides assisted income tax return preparation, digital tax solutions and other services and products related to income tax return preparation to the general public primarily in the United States, and also in Canada and Australia. H&R BLOCK: "Petroski" Suit Plaintiffs Appealed Summary Judgment --------------------------------------------------------------- Barbara Petroski, et al., appealed from a summary judgment issued in favor of H&R Block, Inc., according to the Company's June 26, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended April 30, 2013. On January 25, 2010, a wage and hour class action lawsuit was filed against the Company in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri styled Barbara Petroski, et al. v. H&R Block Eastern Enterprises, Inc., et al., (Case No. 10- 00075-CV-W-DW). The plaintiffs generally allege failure to compensate tax professionals nationwide for training that is required to be eligible for rehire the following tax season, and seek compensatory damages, liquidated damages, statutory penalties, pre-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs. A conditional class was certified under the Fair Labor Standards Act in March 2011 (consisting of tax professionals nationwide who worked in company-owned offices and who were not compensated for such training on or after April 15, 2007). Two classes were also certified under state laws in California and New York (consisting of tax professionals who worked in company-owned offices in California and New York and who were not compensated for such training on or after March 4, 2006, and on or after March 4, 2004, respectively). The Company filed a motion to decertify the classes, along with a motion for summary judgment on all claims. On April 8, 2013, the court granted summary judgment in the Company's favor on all claims. The plaintiffs filed an appeal, which remains pending. The Company says it has not concluded that a loss related to this matter is probable, nor has it accrued a loss contingency related to this matter. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims in this matter and intends to defend them vigorously, but there can be no assurances as to the outcome of the matter or its impact on the Company's consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows. Headquartered in Kansas City, Missouri, H&R Block, Inc. -- http://www.hrblock.com/-- and its subsidiaries provide tax preparation and banking services. The Company's Tax Services segment provides assisted income tax return preparation, digital tax solutions and other services and products related to income tax return preparation to the general public primarily in the United States, and also in Canada and Australia. H&R BLOCK: Plea to Compel Arbitration in RAL-Related Suit Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- A series of putative class action lawsuits were filed against H&R Block, Inc. in various federal courts beginning on November 17, 2011 concerning the anticipation loan (RAL) and refund anticipation check (RAC) products. The plaintiffs generally allege the Company engaged in unfair, deceptive or fraudulent acts in violation of various state consumer protection laws by facilitating RALs that were accompanied by allegedly inaccurate Truth in Lending Act (TILA) disclosures, and by offering RACs without any TILA disclosures. Certain plaintiffs also allege violation of disclosure requirements of various state statutes expressly governing RALs and provisions of those statutes prohibiting tax preparers from charging or retaining certain fees. Collectively, the plaintiffs seek to represent clients who purchased RAL or RAC products in up to forty-two states and the District of Columbia during timeframes ranging from 2007 to the present. The plaintiffs seek equitable relief, disgorgement of profits, compensatory and statutory damages, restitution, civil penalties, attorneys' fees and costs. These cases were consolidated by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation into a single proceeding in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois for coordinated pretrial proceedings, styled IN RE: H&R Block Refund Anticipation Loan Litigation (MDL No. 2373). The Company filed a motion to compel arbitration, which remains pending. The Company says it has not concluded that a loss related to this matter is probable, nor has it accrued a loss contingency related to this matter. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims in these cases and intends to defend the cases vigorously, but there can be no assurances as to the outcome of these cases or their impact on the Company's consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows. No further updates were reported in the Company's June 26, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended April 30, 2013. Headquartered in Kansas City, Missouri, H&R Block, Inc. -- http://www.hrblock.com/-- and its subsidiaries provide tax preparation and banking services. The Company's Tax Services segment provides assisted income tax return preparation, digital tax solutions and other services and products related to income tax return preparation to the general public primarily in the United States, and also in Canada and Australia. H&R BLOCK: Trial Date in "Ugas" Class Suit Set for October 21 ------------------------------------------------------------- A trial date has been set for October 21, 2013, in the wage and hour class action lawsuit initiated by Delana Ugas, et al., according to H&R Block, Inc.'s June 26, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended April 30, 2013. On July 13, 2009, a wage and hour class action lawsuit was filed against the Company in the United States District Court for the Central District of California styled Delana Ugas, et al. v. H&R Block Enterprises LLC, et al. (Case No. BC417700). The plaintiffs generally allege failure to compensate tax professionals in California for all hours worked and to provide meal periods. The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, pre-judgment interest, statutory penalties, attorneys' fees and costs. The court initially certified a class on the claim for failure to provide meal periods (consisting of tax professionals who worked in company-owned offices in California from 2006 to 2011), but subsequently decertified the class in a ruling dated July 9, 2012. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals declined to hear an appeal. The court also certified a class on the claim for failure to compensate tax professionals for all hours worked (consisting of tax professionals who worked in company-owned offices in a single district in California from 2006-2009). That class remains pending. A trial date has been set for October 21, 2013. The Company says it has not concluded that a loss related to this matter is probable, nor has it accrued a loss contingency related to this matter. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims in this case and intends to defend them vigorously, however, the Company does not currently believe this case is material. Headquartered in Kansas City, Missouri, H&R Block, Inc. -- http://www.hrblock.com/-- and its subsidiaries provide tax preparation and banking services. The Company's Tax Services segment provides assisted income tax return preparation, digital tax solutions and other services and products related to income tax return preparation to the general public primarily in the United States, and also in Canada and Australia. H&R BLOCK: Trial in RSM McGladrey-Related Suit Set for Sept. 9 -------------------------------------------------------------- A trial date has been set for September 9, 2013, on the remaining claims in the lawsuit commenced by Brian P. Menezes, et al., according to H&R Block, Inc.'s June 26, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended April 30, 2013. On April 17, 2009, a shareholder derivative complaint was filed by Brian Menezes, derivatively and on behalf of nominal defendant International Textile Group, Inc. against McGladrey Capital Markets LLC (MCM) in the Court of Common Pleas, Greenville County, South Carolina (C.A. No. 2009-CP-23-3346) styled Brian P. Menezes, Derivatively on Behalf of Nominal Defendant, International Textile Group, Inc. (f/k/a Safety Components International, Inc.) v. McGladrey Capital Markets, LLC (f/k/a RSM EquiCo Capital Markets, LLC), et al. The Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in October 2011 styled In re International Textile Group Merger Litigation, adding a putative class action claim. The Plaintiffs allege claims of aiding and abetting, civil conspiracy, gross negligence and breach of fiduciary duty against MCM in connection with a fairness opinion MCM provided to the Special Committee of Safety Components International, Inc. (SCI) in 2006 regarding the merger between International Textile Group, Inc. and SCI. The Plaintiffs seek actual and punitive damages, pre-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs. On February 8, 2012, the court dismissed plaintiffs' civil conspiracy claim against all defendants. A class was certified on the remaining claims on November 20, 2012. The court granted summary judgment in favor of MCM on June 3, 2013, on the breach of fiduciary duty claim. A trial date has been set for September 9, 2013 on the remaining claims. The Company says it has not concluded that a loss related to this matter is probable, nor has it established a loss contingency related to this matter. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims in this case and intends to defend the case vigorously, but there can be no assurances as to its outcome or its impact on the Company's consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows. In connection with the sale of RSM and MCM, the Company indemnified the buyers against certain litigation matters. The indemnities are not subject to a stated term or limit. A portion of the Company's accrual is related to these indemnity obligations. Headquartered in Kansas City, Missouri, H&R Block, Inc. -- http://www.hrblock.com/-- and its subsidiaries provide tax preparation and banking services. The Company's Tax Services segment provides assisted income tax return preparation, digital tax solutions and other services and products related to income tax return preparation to the general public primarily in the United States, and also in Canada and Australia. IEC ELECTRONICS: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action ---------------------------------------------------- Securities lawyers at Deans & Lyons announced a class action against the board of IEC Electronics, Corp. Concerned IEC investors who purchased between February 8, 2012 and May 21, 2013 are encouraged to contact securities attorney Hamilton Lindley at 877-819-8033 or hlindley@deanslyons.com about their rights and remedies before August 27, 2013. "The suit filed against IEC accuses the company of misconstruing inventory and thus overstating gross profits, a clear violation of securities law standards," said Mr. Lindley. "Our potential securities fraud lawsuit will seek to restore value at the company." Deans & Lyons has significant experience representing shareholders in securities lawsuits nationwide. IEC stockholders -- or anyone with knowledge about this situation -- should contact lawyer Hamilton Lindley at hlindley@deanslyons.com or 877-819-8033 with questions or concerns. Contact: Hamilton Lindley, Esq. DEANS & LYONS LLP 325 North Saint Paul Street, Suite 1500 Dallas, TX 75201 Tel: 214-736-7861 Fax: 214-965-8505 Toll-free: 877-819-8033 E-mail: hlindley@deanslyons.com Web site: http://www.deanslyons.com INSTAGRAM LLC: Faces Class Action Over New User Policy ------------------------------------------------------ David McAfee and Juan Carlos Rodriguez, writing for Law360, report that Instagram LLC was hit with a proposed class action in California state court on July 16 over the site's new policy that allows it to hang on to users' photos after they delete their accounts, just days after a federal judge tossed similar claims for lack of jurisdiction. The complaint comes just three days after a California federal judge tossed a proposed class action alleging Instagram has rules that violate California privacy laws by giving broad rights over users' personal pictures, saying there is no federal court jurisdiction in the matter. That lawsuit was filed in December in response to Instagram's changes to its user agreement, which triggered widespread backlash because of the company's allegedly overreaching claims to the rights of posted photos as well as liability conditions that purportedly restricted users' ability to seek damages through lawsuits or other means. The new suit, brought by plaintiff Lucy Rodriguez on behalf of Instagram's users who entrusted their photos to Instagram prior to the announcement of the changes in December, says the new terms allow the company to commercially exploit and sublicense users' property in perpetuity. "When a user deletes their Instagram profile, Instagram keeps all property that was previously uploaded to Instagram's servers, even though the user no longer has access to it," the complaint says. "Instagram does not purge user photographs after they delete their Instagram account, and does not segregate property uploaded prior to notice of the new terms from property uploaded after the new terms came into effect." The Facebook-owned photo-sharing application allows its users to take, edit and share images. Users can take photographs from their Apple- or Android-powered mobile devices, apply artistic filters to the images and upload the results to their Instagram profile. Instagram announced the changes to its user policy in December and they went into effect on Jan. 19. Even though the new terms significantly expand the scope of the license granted to Instagram as to its users' photos, Instagram doesn't purge users' data if they delete their account or provide a mechanism to opt out of the new terms, according to the complaint. Ms. Rodriguez argues that, based on statements made by the company and the language of Instagram's new terms granting the site "transferrable and sublicensable" worldwide license to the photographs and likeness of its users, Instagram is negotiating contracts with advertisers or other third parties to sublicense class members' property for the purposes of advertising. Ms. Rodriguez seeks an order declaring the suit is properly maintained as a class action, a temporary restraining order enjoining Instagram from enforcing the new terms, an order for injunctive, declaratory and other equitable relief, and an order awarding attorneys' fees and costs of suit. Representatives for the parties didn't immediately return requests for comment on July 17. Ms. Rodriguez is represented by Jeffrey R. Krinsk -- jrk@classactionlaw.com -- Mark L. Knutson -- mlk@classactionlaw.com -- and William R. Restis of Finkelstein & Krinsk LLP. Counsel information for Instagram wasn't immediately available on July 17. The case is Lucy Rodriguez v. Instagram LLC, case number CGC-13- 532875, in the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco. INSTAGRAM LLC: Judge Tosses Privacy Breach Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Juan Carlos Rodriguez, writing for Law360, reports that a federal judge on July 12 tossed a proposed class action alleging Instagram, the Facebook Inc.-owned photo sharing application, has rules that violate California privacy laws by giving it broad rights over users' personal pictures, saying there is no federal court jurisdiction in the matter. The lawsuit was filed in December in response to Instagram's changes to its user agreement. When the changes were announced, it triggered widespread backlash because of the company's allegedly overreaching claims to the rights of posted photos as well as liability conditions that purportedly restricted users' ability to seek damages through lawsuits or other means. U.S. District Judge William Alsup said on July 12 that he agreed with Instagram's motion to dismiss and declined to exercise jurisdiction based on the "home-state controversy" exception to Class Action Fairness Act. "This order also determines that leave to amend should not be granted since, among other things, the sole purpose of the amendment would be to contrive federal subject-matter jurisdiction," Judge Alsup said. He said the complaint asserts a class of California residents, and noted CAFA contains an exception for home-state controversies. "District courts 'shall decline to exercise jurisdiction' under [the act] where 'two-thirds or more of the members of all proposed plaintiff classes in the aggregate, and the primary defendants, are citizens of the state in which the action was originally filed,'" the judge said. "The home-state controversy exception plainly applies." He said a consumer class defined as California residents is, by and large, a class of people who actually live in California, and that the unusual case in which a California resident actually lives in another state "is so rare as to fall far short of the one-third needed to defeat the exception." "The aberrated case could be, for example, a soldier stationed in California (and thus a resident) but whose domicile is New Mexico. Yes, there will be some of those but they will be few and far between. The idea that at least one-third of all California residents claim a domicile elsewhere is fanciful," Judge Alsup said. And he said the proposed second amended complaint would "skirt around" the home-state controversy exception by alleging a nationwide class, while still asserting California law claims. "The amendment in question is not aimed at the merits. Instead it is aimed at contriving subject matter jurisdiction where none previously existed. The contrived character of the amendment seems plain. It is one thing to apply California law to adjudicate the claims of a California class (this is a normal occurrence) but quite another to apply California law to adjudicate the rights of the residents of the other 49 states," the judge said. The judge said he has worked through that same issue in many previous proposed nationwide class actions. "When the claims are based on state law, as here, the law of 50 states is likely to apply (in absence of a choice-of-law provision) and it is unmanageable. And, a single resident in California with standing to assert California claims is not an adequate representative of residents, say, in Hawaii, who might be better off having their rights adjudicated under their own state law," he said. He said the lawsuit would likely require a choice-of-law analysis for all 50 states and would further necessitate the application of contract law for all 50 states. "We've read over the opinion of the judge and we'll respect the holding indicating uncertainty as to federal jurisdiction and we'll refile in state court," plaintiffs' attorney Jeffrey R. Krinsk of Finkelstein & Krinsk LLP said on July 16. Counsel for Instagram declined to comment. The plaintiffs are represented by William R. Restis, Jeffrey R. Krinsk and Mark L. Knutson of Finkelstein & Krinsk LLP. Instagram is represented by Mazda K. Antia -- mantia@cooley.com -- Michael G. Rhodes -- rhodesmg@cooley.com -- and Matthew D. Brown -- brownmd@cooley.com -- of Cooley LLP. The case is Lucy Funes v. Instagram Inc. et al., case number 3:12- cv-06482, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. JPMORGAN CHASE: Judge Approves $546MM Class Action Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- Nate Raymond, writing for Reuters, reports that customers of MF Global's failed broker-dealer unit and the trustee overseeing its liquidation won court approval on July 3 for a $546 million settlement with JPMorgan Chase & Co. The settlement, announced in March, resolved claims levied by James Giddens, the trustee winding down MF's broker-dealer unit MF Global Inc., and by the broker's former customers, who are pursuing a federal class action over MF Global's collapse in 2011. MF Global, the commodities brokerage headed by ex-New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine, filed for bankruptcy amid concerns by investors about its exposure to $6.3 billion in sovereign debt. Approval of the JPMorgan settlement comes a week after the Commodity Futures Trading Commission sued Gov. Corzine over the collapse and announced a $100 million settlement with MF's broker- dealer. At a rare joint hearing in Manhattan, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Martin Glenn, who is overseeing the liquidation, and U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero, who presides over the class action, approved the JPMorgan accord. "I find the proposal fair, reasonable and in the best interests of the class," Mr. Marrero said. Mr. Giddens has said the settlement will allow him to eventually return 100 percent of customers' money, which was frozen when MF Global went bankrupt. Most customers have already recovered around 90 percent of their funds. JPMorgan had been the lead on a $1.2 billion revolving credit facility to MF Global's parent and one of its primary clearing banks leading up to its bankruptcy. Under the settlement, JPMorgan will pay $100 million to benefit former customers. It has also agreed to return more than $29 million in brokerage funds and to release claims on $417 million it earlier returned to Mr. Giddens. The latest settlement also ties up a loose end in Mr. Giddens' settlement with MF Global's UK unit, announced earlier this year. That settlement, expected to bring in $500 million to $600 million for the broker-dealer's estate, required a resolution of JPMorgan's claims. "The overall settlement unlocks over $1 billion for customers and other creditors," James Kobak, the lead attorney for Giddens, said at the July 3 court hearing. The bank will make a separate $7.5 million payment for attorneys' fees and expenses to lawyers representing the customers in the class action, court papers show. Marrero approved the fees Wednesday. The cases are In re: MF Global Inc, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York, No. 11-2790, and Deangelis v. Corzine, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 11-7866. LENOVO GROUP: Judge Trims Claims in Defective Laptop Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Drew Singer, writing for Law360, reports that a federal judge in California trimmed a class action lawsuit against computer maker Lenovo on July 16 that claims some of its laptops connect to wireless Internet slowly or don't connect at all, but he left intact some of the suit's most crucial components. U.S. District Judge Cormac Carney refused to dismiss the lawsuit's request for a permanent injunction requiring Lenovo to establish a common fund for repairs of its U Series laptops, despite argument from the computer company that its defects were public knowledge prior to their sale. The judge also left intact claims under California's Unfair Competition Law and Consumer Legal Remedies Act. "The fact that information about consumer complaints may have been available on the Internet does not negate a claim for fraudulent omission," Judge Carney wrote. Lenovo had cited customer complaints posted on its website and Facebook page, reviews on Amazon.com and other online retailers, plus a negative review from an online publication as forms of disclosure that would have exempted the manufacturer from liability. But by dismissing some of lead plaintiff Garrett Kacsuta's claims, Judge Carney may have reduced the statutory damages Lenovo will ultimately pay if the plaintiff's other claims succeed. Judge Carney dismissed a claim against Lenovo for breach of an express warranty, because Mr. Kacsuta filed the lawsuit before giving Lenovo a chance to repair or otherwise correct its alleged mistake. Another claim was dismissed that alleged a breach of an implied contract, because there was an actual contract governing the purported implications. "Kacsuta's complaint acknowledges the existence of an express enforceable contract between the parties, the warranty, governing their rights and responsibilities with respect to his laptop," Judge Carney wrote. "There are no allegations in the complaint to suggest that the warranty is unenforceable." In February, Mr. Kacsuta asked a federal judge for the injunction plus an award for actual, statutory and punitive damages because the company's laptops allegedly had a design flaw that made the Wi-Fi cards ineffective for standard Web browsing. Lenovo's $50 million advertising campaign told customers that the U Series computers could "handle any mobile computing task" and are "dependable enough to use whenever you want," the complaint says. Attorneys for the parties could not be reached for comment. The plaintiffs are represented by Paul Paradis -- pparadis@hhplawny.com -- Gina Tufaro -- gtufaro@hhplawny.com -- and Mark Butler -- MButler@hhplawny.com -- of Horwitz Horwitz & Paradis. Lenovo is represented by Allan Gabriel -- agabriel@dykema.com -- Vivian S. Lee -- vlee@dykema.com -- and Daniel Stephenson -- dstephenson@dykema.com -- of Dykema Gossett LLP. The case is Garrett Kacsuta v. Lenovo, case number 8:13-cv-00316, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Faces Shareholder Class Action --------------------------------------------------- Securities lawyers at Deans & Lyons announced a class action against Lululemon Athletica. Concerned LULU investors who purchased between March 21, 2013 and June 10, 2013 are encouraged to contact securities attorney Hamilton Lindley at 877-819-8033 or hlindley@deanslyons.com about their rights and remedies by September 3, 2013. "The complaint accuses Lululemon and its directors with issuing misleading and potentially false statements in regards to future business and existing product quality," said Mr. Lindley. "Our potential shareholder lawsuit will seek to ensure that all relevant information is disclosed to shareholders." Deans & Lyons has significant experience representing shareholders in securities lawsuits nationwide. LULU stockholders -- or anyone with knowledge about this situation -- should contact lawyer Hamilton Lindley at hlindley@deanslyons.com or 877-819-8033 with questions or concerns. Contact: Hamilton Lindley, Esq. DEANS & LYONS, LLP 325 North Saint Paul Street, Suite 1500 Dallas, TX 75201 Toll-free: 877-819-8033 Tel: 214-965-8500 Fax: 214-965-8505 E-mail: hlindley@deanslyons.com Web site: http://www.deanslyons.com MADISON-KIPP CORP: Class Action Settlement Gets Prelim. Court OK ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dan Simmons, writing for Wisconsin State Journal, reports that a Dane County judge on July 17 gave initial approval of the $2.6 million settlement reached between Madison-Kipp Corp. and 52 neighboring homeowners on South Marquette, Waubesa, Dixon and Fairview streets to settle an environmental impact lawsuit. "I do find it is fair, just, reasonable and adequate," Dane County Circuit Judge Richard Niess said of the settlement, which would give each property in the class-action suit about $32,000 in addition to other measures. The settlement now goes to the homeowners for review, with a hearing to make the settlement final scheduled for Sept. 19, also before Judge Niess. In the settlement, Kipp agreed to continue to investigate and remediate environmental conditions. The company will also pay for each home to receive a sub-slab depressurization system, similar to those used in radon remediation, which draws gases out from under the homes, along with a soil vapor extraction system. Chicago lawyer Michael Hayes, one of the lawyers for homeowners in this lawsuit plus others in a separate federal suit, said the promise of a sub-slab depressurization system was particularly important, as only about 8 of the 52 homes have those systems currently. Mr. Hayes said he had met on July 15 with some of the 52 homeowners in the state case and the settlement was "extremely favorably received." Another meeting will occur soon, he said. Under questioning from Judge Niess, Mr. Hayes said, "there's absolutely no reason to believe" any of the neighbors will oppose the settlement. The other suit, involving a $4.6 million settlement that encompasses a separate set of 33 homes adjacent to Kipp's Waubesa Street plant on South Marquette and Waubesa streets, will have a hearing on final approval before U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb on Oct. 28. Homeowners in that suit have until Aug. 23 to file a claim or opt out. MEDTRONIC INC: Stockholders File Class Action Over Infuse --------------------------------------------------------- Nathaniel Zimmerman, writing for Injury Lawyer News, reports that on June 27, a Medtronic Infuse class action lawsuit was filed by stockholders alleging that misleading statements about the safety and efficacy of Infuse led them to buy stock in the company at inflated prices. The plaintiffs claim that they bought the stock because they believed that Infuse was a safe and effective bone graft product, based on information provided by the company to the public and to government regulatory agencies. When information later surfaced showing that Medtronic may have covered up Infuse bone graft problems, company stock prices plummeted and investors lost money as a result. Infuse bone grafts When a patient must undergo bone surgery, the traditional method often involved removing some bone tissue from one part of the patient's body and grafting it into the surgical site. Often, the bone tissue was taken from the hip. The removal of bone tissue from the hip or another body part can result in numerous complications and side effects, including pain, infection, and a lengthy recovery period. Medtronic introduced Infuse in 2002 with FDA approval and marketed it to patients as a better alternative to bone removal and grafting. Instead of using bone tissue, Infuse contains a protein that causes the body to grow new bone. The Infuse bone graft is placed at the surgical site and the new bone grows into the implant over time. Infuse is approved for use in spinal surgery in the lower back, for tibial fractures, and for two dental procedures. Infuse bone graft problems Although initial studies certified the safety and efficacy of Infuse, it was later revealed that Medtronic may have influenced the results of the study by paying a total of $210 million to researchers investigating the product. Congressional investigators found that the company appeared to have deliberately removed or left out information about the risks and side effects of Infuse, which include back and leg pain, extra unwanted bone growth, male sterility, and infection. Infuse has also been linked to a higher risk of cancer. Recent studies reviewed all data on clinical trials of Infuse and found that in addition to producing side effects and a possibly increased cancer risk, Infuse is also no more effective than traditional bone graft surgery. Some researchers claim that in light of this information, the balance of risk and reward no longer favors the use of Infuse bone grafts. In addition to these problems, Medtronic has also been accused of marketing Infuse for off-label uses. The product has not been approved for these uses, and in some cases, patients receiving Infuse off-label have experienced more severe side effects or complications than patients who received Infuse for approved surgeries. Medtronic Infuse bone class action lawsuit According to the Medtronic Infuse class action lawsuit, many stockholders bought Medtronic stock at inflated prices due to the false information available about Infuse and then lost money when the truth about Infuse came to light. The West Virginia Pipe Trades Health & Welfare Fund filed the complaint on behalf of all such stockholders. The complaint says prices were elevated between December 8, 2010 and August 3, 2011. Stock prices dropped over $10 per share between May 18, 2011 and August 4, 2011 as a result of a series of academic papers and news articles addressing the problems with Infuse. MEDTRONIC INC: USDA Recalls MiniMed Paradigm Insulin Pump --------------------------------------------------------- James Walsh, writing for Star Tribune, reports that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on July 12, announced the recall of a Medtronic Inc. product used with the company's Paradigm insulin pump, saying the product could result in diabetes patients dangerously getting too much -- or too little -- insulin. The Class I recall involves Medtronic's MiniMed Paradigm Insulin Infusion Sets. Last month, Medtronic sent an urgent safety notification to doctors and other health care professionals warning that if insulin or other fluids come into contact with the inside of the device's tubing connectors, it could temporarily block the vents that allow the pump to properly prime. If that happens, the patient may receive too much or too little insulin, potentially leading to serious illness, the FDA said. A Class I recall is issued on products when "there is a reasonable chance that they could cause serious health problems or death." Amanda Sheldon, a Medtronic spokeswoman, said on July 12 that the company has received some reports of hospitalizations that may be related to this problem, although those cases have not been confirmed. She said she cannot confirm any deaths in connection to the problem. Medtronic's diabetes-related products accounted for about 9 percent of the company's $16.4 billion revenue last year. Fewer than 500,000 patients worldwide use the Paradigm pump and customers generally replace their infusion sets every two to three days. Customers could have several months' worth of supplies. Affected models were manufactured from October 2001 through June 2013 and distributed from December 2001 through June 2013. A list of affected models can be found online on the FDA's website. Patients also can contact Medtronic's 24-hour helpline at 1-888- 204-7616. In a message to patients on its website, Medtronic said there is no need to replace the infusion sets in question. Insulin pumps have been around for about 30 years and are an alternative to injections for diabetes patients who need insulin to maintain healthy blood glucose levels. They pump tiny amounts of insulin into the body all day long. Patients can keep it in their pocket, clipped to their belt or hidden under their clothes. A tiny tube goes from the pump to a smaller tube, called the cannula, that is just beneath the patient's skin. This tubing is the infusion set. In its message, Medtronic recommends to patients that if they notice anything unusual during the infusion set prime process -- such as the insulin continuing to drip from the tip of the infusion set cannula when priming has been completed -- it may mean the connector vents are not working properly. If this occurs, Medtronic said to not insert the infusion set but immediately call the helpline for assistance. "As long as liquid does not get on the inside of the tubing connector, your infusion set should work as it's supposed to," the company wrote. "We are reminding customers of the instructions for filling their reservoir, and asking them to pay particular attention to making sure the vial of insulin is held upright when removing the reservoir from the blue transfer guard. If you do see any liquid on the top of the reservoir or inside of the tubing connector, be sure to start over with a new reservoir and infusion set." Also on July 12, Medtronic announced it is recalling certain manufacturing lots of Paradigm reservoirs that may have the potential to leak. The reservoir is the part of the pump that contains the insulin. A leak in the reservoir may result in delivery of less insulin than intended. Medtronic said it will be contacting patients and asking them to check the lot numbers on the reservoirs they have on hand, and to stop using reservoirs from the recalled lot numbers immediately. NEWCREST MINING: Slater & Gordon Gets Funding for Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Barry Fitzgerald, writing for The Australian, reports that law firm Slater & Gordon has secured litigation funding from the US group Comprehensive Legal Funding for a potential class action against Newcrest over its continuous disclosure controversy. Slater & Gordon have been investigating whether Newcrest shareholders have any causes of action arising from the heavy share price falls posted by the goldminer as a result of its market update on June 7, which revealed up to AUD6 billion in writedowns, a production downgrade and cancellation of its final dividend. While CLF has agreed to fund both the investigation and any follow-up litigation against Newcrest, it is likely to be on the basis that a sufficient number of shareholders first sign up to funding agreements for any action. Just how Slater & Gordon's round-up of interested investors has gone could not be ascertained on July 18. CLF is best known in this market for having funded the Slater & Gordon class action against Sigma Pharmaceuticals. That action was settled in December last year for AUD57.7 million. Newcrest's June 7 market update came almost eight weeks after the gold price suffered its biggest one day loss in 33 years. So while Newcrest's share price was under pressure, anyway, the shares did fall heavily in the days immediately before the market update, prompting accusations of the selective briefings of analysts. The accusations were a response to the flurry of negative broker reports ahead of the market update. Newcrest has denied it has done anything wrong, saying in response to a query from the ASX after the June 7 update that it treats its "disclosure obligations seriously and engages with the investment community in a manner consistent with these obligations". ASIC is investigating whether Newcrest has a case to answer under section 674 of the Corporations Act. ASIC has the power to issue infringement fines and can pursue criminal and civil penalty actions while Newcrest has called in former ASX chairman Maurice Newman to conduct an internal probe. Announcing the probe last month, Newcrest chairman Don Mercer said: "We don't think we've done anything wrong. Let's be quite clear about that." But he added that if Newcrest had done something wrong it would "hold people accountable from top to bottom". Another law firm, Maurice Blackburn, has said previously it was also investigating a class action against Newcrest for potential breaches of continuous disclosure laws. Meanwhile, Newcrest executive general manager Peter Smith yesterday echoed previous comments by Newcrest managing director Greg Robinson that the group's Lihir goldmine in PNG -- acquired for AUD10 billion and now the subject of a AUD3.6 billion impairment charge -- was one of the group's top assets. NVIDIA CORP: Sept. 30 Hearing Set to Approve Settlement Agreement ----------------------------------------------------------------- Harrison Pensa LLP on July 18 disclosed that a settlement has been reached with NVIDIA Corporation in a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of Canadians who purchased a computer for use and not for resale equipped with a defective NVIDIA graphics card known as either a Graphics Processing Unit or a Media Communications Chip ("GPUs"). The proposed settlement is subject to court approval. Under the terms of the settlement, NVIDIA will pay CAD$1,900,000 for the benefit of those Canadians who purchased an "Affected Computer" that experienced a "Qualifying Symptom": (a) distorted or scrambled video on the computer screen; (b) no video on the screen even when the computer is on; (c) random characters, lines or garbled images on the computer screen; (d) intermittent video issues; or (e) failure to detect wireless adaptor or wireless networks. Not all computers contain the defective NVIDIA GPU. The exact dates of sale and qualifying symptoms vary by computer manufacturer. Qualifying class members will receive cash compensation based on the severity of the Qualifying Symptoms experienced, the loss of use of the computer, the age of the Affected Computer, any out-of- pocket repair expenses, any loss of use, and other relevant factors. Information about how to submit a claim will be provided once the settlement has been approved. Class members who fall within the definition of the class and who want to participate as a class member in the NVIDIA Graphics Processing Units Class Action, need not do anything to continue to be included as a class member. They will be entitled to participate in the Settlement and will be legally bound by the result of the NVIDIA Graphics Processing Units Class Action. Class members who do not want to be part of the NVIDIA Graphics Processing Units Class Action must exclude themselves by September 16, 2013. A hearing to approve the settlement agreement will take place in London, Ontario on September 20, 2013 at 9:30 AM. PAYDAY FINANCIAL: Faces Class Action Over High Interest Rates ------------------------------------------------------------- Timberlakesouthdakota.com reports that Timber Lake's largest employer, Payday Financial/Lakota Cash, is facing a class action lawsuit filed in US District Court in Pierre. Attorney Wade Fischer of Pierre filed the suit against Payday owner and president Butch Webb of Isabel on behalf of clients who say they received loans from Webb's companies and were charged interest rates higher than allowed in their states. Legal counsel for Webb had this comment: "While it would be inappropriate for Mr. Webb or his legal counsel to discuss an ongoing proceeding, we look forward to correcting the record in this matter. This litigation is a direct attack against on- reservation economic development opportunities and if successful may result in a loss of tribal member jobs." In September, 2011 the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed a complaint against Webb for allegedly attempting to garnish clients' wages illegally. That case is still pending, as are actions in several states, including Colorado, West Virginia, Maryland and Washington. Mr. Webb has argued that only the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe has jurisdiction over his company, as he is a CRST member operating on the reservation. Payday Financial is headquartered in Timber Lake and also has a call center in Eagle Butte. Over 100 people are employed at the two locations. PILOT FLYING J: Truck Driver & Two Law Firms File Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Bob Sanders, writing for New Hampshire Business Review, reports that a New Hampshire truck driver and two local law firms have filed yet another class action suit against Pilot Corp. and Pilot Travel Centers (known as Pilot Flying J), accusing the national truck stop chain of shorting its customers on fuel rebates. The suit was filed a week before Pilot announced the preliminary court approval of national settlement. Fred Woodward, a long-distance trucker from Epping, filed suit in U.S. District Court in Concord on July 9, aided by four law firms, including Dover-based Shaheen and Gordon and Bonsignore and Brewer of Belmont. William Shaheen, husband of U.S. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, was one of the lawyers listed in the filing. The suit echoes many of the 20 (and counting) lawsuits filed since April against the nation's largest truck stop operator. They were filed after the FBI and IRS raided the company's Knoxville, Tenn., headquarters as part of an ongoing federal probe into the rebate scheme. The New Hampshire lawsuit, citing secretly made recordings based on FBI affidavits used to justify the April 15 raid, said the company paid "unsophisticated customers" less in rebates than others, sometimes by manually changing spreadsheets. Informants also allegedly recorded training sessions during which sales representatives were advised to commit the fraud and were told how to determine which customers would have more difficulty discovering the price discrepancies. The suit charges that Pilot executives discussed teaching the "rebate fraud system" at Pilot's sales meetings as well as how to deflect questions by blaming any error on a computer glitch. Pilot CEO James Haslam III, President Mark Hazelwood and Chief Financial Officer Mitch Steenrod were aware of the fraud and consented to it, according to the suit. The New Hampshire suit class would include all truckers -- not limited to those in New Hampshire -- receiving rebates dating back to 2005. It does not spell out a figure, but said that at least 1,000 truckers would be affected and the amount to be over $5 million. There is one Pilot truck stop in New Hampshire, located on Route 3A in Bow near Interstate 93. No information about Woodward is provided in the New Hampshire lawsuit, and he could not be reached for comment. Calls to all plaintiff law firms involved in the suit (including one in Georgia and another in Ohio) were not returned by NHBR deadline. It is unclear how the class action settlement filed on July 16 in Little Rock, Ark., would affect the New Hampshire litigation. Although the Arkansas settlement only involved the eight firms involved in that lawsuit -- first filed on April 24, nine days after the FBI raid -- it includes all truckers who received a discount from 2008 forward. The settlement offers a full rebate, plus 6 percent interest, plus attorney's fees. The settlement does not spell out the fees, but USA Today reported the deal enables attorneys to receive one-third of the settlement amount, capped at a total of $14 million. Such an early settlement that includes attorney's fees is unusual. Some observers credit the firm with quick damage control. Mr. Haslam -- who's also majority owner of the Cleveland Browns -- released a statement saying that the company was settling in order to "do the right thing" so that customers "are made whole as soon as possible with interest," without them "incurring extraordinary legal or investigation expenses." "Customers who are concerned about their accounts may join the class by simply doing nothing," Mr. Haslam said. Pilot has 600 retail locations, sells 9 billions gallons of petroleum annually and employs 25,000 people. PILOT FLYING J: Lawyer Opposes Fuel Rebate Class Action Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------------ Walter F. Roche Jr., writing for The Tennessean, reports that a Knoxville attorney for a trucking firm suing Pilot Flying J said he is advising his clients and others not to join a settlement with the truck stop chain that was approved earlier last week by a federal judge. Drew McElroy, one of the attorneys for Georgia-based Atlantic Coast Carriers, said the eight firms that have accepted the offer will be getting little more than what had already been promised by Pilot CEO Jimmy Haslam to all companies that were shorted rebates. Under the settlement, the trucking companies would get the amount they were shorted plus 6 percent interest. Mr. Haslam for several weeks has said publicly that his company would pay back any money owed with interest, and on July 15 he shared with news media a letter sent to customers that promised interest at 6 percent. Mr. McElroy said it was astonishing that a settlement would come before there was any gathering of evidence, or questioning of witnesses in depositions. The proposed settlement was approved on July 16 by U.S. District Judge James M. Moody in Little Rock, Ark. Mr. McElroy noted that under the 38-page agreement, Pilot did not admit to any wrongdoing and the victims will get no payments for punitive damages. "Pilot rebate fraud occurred on top of the toughest economic times for the trucking industry," he said, adding it was understandable that some victims "will accept these terms simply because of economic pressure." But, he said, it is "hard to comprehend how breaking even with a company that has perpetrated fraud is a good deal." Defending the settlement was Elizabeth A. Alexander, a Nashville attorney whose law firm represents a Nebraska trucker, Paul Otto, who has agreed to the settlement. She noted that the agreement also calls for audits to ensure that the calculations by the Pilot audit team are accurate. The agreement calls for Horne LLP to perform audits on a sample of the accounts. "It also includes an agreement that Pilot will not engage in those practices in the future," she said. "Pilot's commercial customers will get every penny they are owed." Legal fees separate Dennis Francis, another Knoxville attorney, noted that the settlement provides for the attorneys to get a payment equal to one-third of the settlement amount or $14 million, whichever is smaller. "It looks to me like all the money is going to the lawyers," Mr. Francis said. "How do you settle something without doing anything?" The legal fees will be paid by Pilot and are separate from the estimated $42 million set aside for trucking firms owed rebates. The settlement stems from a practice within Pilot in which sales staff promised certain rebates to truckers on diesel fuel purchases, but then reduced those rebates for customers they thought wouldn't realize the discrepancy. Five Pilot employees have pleaded guilty to the scheme in plea bargains with prosecutors, and a federal investigation that could result in charges against the company or more executives remains under way. PILOT FLYING J: Lawyer Says Fuel Rebate Settlement Intriguing ------------------------------------------------------------- WBIR-Knoxville reports that in the three months since the FBI raid at Pilot Flying J headquarters on April 15, lawsuits against the fuel company related to allegations of rebate fraud have come out of the woodwork. As of last week there were 21 lawsuits against Pilot Flying J. Now eight of the suing law firms and Pilot Flying J have worked out a class action settlement agreement in federal court. On July 16, a federal judge in Arkansas gave his preliminary approval to the plan. The agreement says Pilot will audit itself to determine how much it underpaid each of its customers, have the results certified by a court-approved accountant, and repay every company that was short-changed what they are owed plus six percent interest. Pilot also agrees to cover all legal costs and fees. Clients have the right to dispute any audit results. The agreement is also noteworthy for what it does not include. Pilot specifically states it does not admit any wrong-doing. The agreement also does not include any punitive damages. The use of a court-approved accountant while Pilot self-audits also means the private fuel company does not open its financial records to the public. Knoxville lawyer and WBIR Inside Tennessee panelist Dennis Francis says the agreement is intriguing because it was apparently arranged without any of the suing law firms digging through Pilot's financial records. "There has been absolutely no discovery done in this case, best I know," said Mr. Francis. "There has been no depositions, interrogatories, or review of documents. So it is quite interesting that there would be a settlement proposal made without anybody talking about it." While the agreement says Pilot does not admit to doing anything wrong, it also includes a provision where Pilot agrees not to engage in any deceptive practices or rebate fraud in the future. "They [Pilot] are agreeing whatever they've done wrong, even though they don't admit they've done anything wrong, they're not going to do in the future," said Francis. The proposed agreement says more than 4,000 Pilot Flying J customers may qualify for the settlement. Customers are automatically included in the class action settlement, unless the companies seek an exclusion. Knoxville lawyer Drew McElroy was one of the first to file a lawsuit against Pilot in the wake of the FBI raid. Mr. McElroy told 10News he will advise his clients to opt out of the class action settlement and continue with their lawsuits. "They make no provision for punitive damages," said Mr. McElroy. "It is a case of fraud. We will advise our clients to opt out of the class." Mr. McElroy said he does not fault those who decide to take the quick settlement because some trucking companies need the money sooner than later. Pilot CEO Jimmy Haslam issued a statement to that end, saying the settlement allows the fuel company and plaintiffs "to avoid further expense, inconvenience, and the distraction of burdensome and protracted litigation." Statement by Pilot Flying J CEO Jimmy Haslam: "[July 16] in the United States District Court, Western Division of the Eastern District of Arkansas, our attorneys, working together with attorneys for eight of the companies that have filed class action lawsuits against Pilot Flying J, agreed to a plan to pay all customers who join the class 100% of the money they are owed, plus 6% interest, as soon as possible and without the need for unnecessary time in court, plaintiff legal fees or out of pocket costs. I commend all of these individuals for their hard work and dedication to ensuring our customers are paid back quickly and fairly for any potential discrepancies found in their accounts. "Customers who already received checks with interest based on our internal field audit team's ongoing review will receive supplemental checks for any additional interest not included in the original calculation. In addition, all of our customers, as defined by the court agreement, may join the class and have a free independent accountant, approved by the court, validate Pilot Flying J's internal audit process of the customer's account. "In addition, Pilot Flying J will pay all court, administrative, accounting, mailing, processing and legal costs incurred as part of the procedure approved by the court [July 16], ensuring our customers will get every dollar they are owed, with interest, without protracted legal battles, time delays or costly legal expenses. "Under the court agreement, Pilot Flying J will distribute a statement to all of its customers and to the media as part of notice provision to ensure all of our customers have the opportunity to resolve any concerns they may have in this fashion. We also will make available to attorneys for the class a mailing of all of our customers. "Customers who are satisfied with their accounts may continue with business as usual, and we assure them our utmost attention, 24-7, 365 days a year, serving them and their drivers. Customers who are concerned about their accounts may join the class by simply doing nothing. Their accounts will be audited free to the customer. Finally, customers have the right to opt out and pursue their own legal objectives at their own expense, which can be significant. "This is an unfortunate time for our customers and our company, but we remain committed to making things 100% right with our customers, to put systems in place to help ensure this does not happen again, and to re-earn our customers trust." PILOT FLYING J: July 25 Judicial Panel Meeting in Rebate Suit Set ----------------------------------------------------------------- Convenience Store News reports that Pilot Flying J's legal troubles continue in the criminal courts -- with a federal grand jury currently investigating the company's alleged rebate fraud -- but things could be moving toward a resolution on the civil front. According to a news release from Pilot Flying J, a motion was filed in Arkansas federal court regarding a proposed class settlement that could resolve the more than 20 lawsuits filed against the company since the April 15 raid on its Knoxville, Tenn., headquarters. National Trucking Financial Reclamation Services, Bruce Taylor, Edis Trucking, Jerry Floyd, Mike Campbell, Paul Otto, Townes Trucking and R&R Transportation are involved in the settlement. The terms of the settlement include: -- An audit of accounts of all customers who received a rebate and/or discount from Pilot Flying J dating back to 2008. -- All customers will receive 100 percent of any money owed, with 6 percent interest, as soon as discrepancies are verified. -- An independent accountant, approved by the court and paid for by Pilot Flying J, will validate Pilot Flying J's internal audit process. -- The right to dispute audit results. -- Customers have the opportunity to opt out because they do not like the agreement or because they simply do not want to participate in the class action. -- Pilot Flying J will pay all costs related to the process of the customer claims and the litigation, which includes audit costs (both internal and external), administrative costs and legal fees, saving customers significant time and money. A judge has granted preliminary approval to the settlement, according to a report by WBIR-TV. More than 4,000 Pilot Flying J customers fall into the settlement class. Each one will automatically be included in the class settlement unless the companies seek an exclusion, the news report noted. In a statement, Pilot Flying J CEO Jimmy Haslam commended the individuals who worked hard toward settling the issues. "This is an unfortunate time for our customers and our company, but we remain committed to making things 100 percent right with our customers, to put systems in place to help ensure this does not happen again and to re-earn our customers trust," he said. The company's legal troubles stem from allegations of fraud around its rebate fuel program. After a two-year investigation, federal officials raided Pilot Flying J's headquarters in mid-April. In the two months since the raid, five former employees have pleaded guilty in connection with the alleged rebate fraud and more than 20 lawsuits have been filed against the company, many of them seeking class-action status. Las Cruces, N.M.-based Triple D Supply became the 21st company to bring a lawsuit against Pilot Flying J, filing in federal court. It is the first company from New Mexico to sue the retailer, WBIR- TV reported. The news station noted that the federal lawsuits are expected to merge into one large lawsuit when a judicial panel meets July 25. Since the raid, several Pilot Flying J employees have left the company -- either by their choice or the company's -- and checks have been sent to all customers who had a discrepancy with their rebate discounts, according to an update letter sent to customers by Mr. Haslam. In the letter, he said Pilot Flying J's audit team has completed its initial review of manual diesel discounts and sent checks to customers who had a discrepancy, in their favor. In addition, six sales team members have resigned or been terminated. The letter also reports that Pilot Flying J has hired Scott Nelson as a vice president and brought on Dave Rewers to lead the inside sales department. Mr. Nelson was formerly president and CEO of Premier Trailer Leasing Solutions. Mr. Rewers was previously group vice president for fleet sales at Fleet One LLC in Nashville. In addition, the company appointed David Hughes as its new vice president of sales. Mr. Hughes, who previously worked for Covenant Transportation, joined Pilot Flying J last year, according to media reports. Pilot Flying J is still working to fill the role of chief compliance officer. Mr. Haslam said it has taken longer than expected due to the importance of getting the right person for the job. PORSCHE CARS: Settles Class Action Over Defective IMS ----------------------------------------------------- Planet 9 reports that Porsche Cars North America agrees to reimburse current and prior 2001 through 2005 Porsche 911 and Boxter owners and lessees for out-of-pocket money spent on IMS engine failure repairs. The law firm of Knapp Petersen & Clarke announces that a settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit filed on behalf of certain Porsche owners and lessees who have faced or will face expensive Porsche engine failure repairs because of a defective component part, known as the IMS. The settlement reached in Eisen v. Porsche Cars North America., Inc. will reimburse present and former owners and lessees of Porsche Boxster and 911 cars, model years 2001 through 2005, for money they spent to repair their vehicle due to a failure of the Intermediate Shaft (IMS), an engine component whose failure can lead to catastrophic engine failure and thousands of dollars in repair bills. Porsche owners and lessees may be reimbursed up to 100% of their out-of-pocket costs, depending upon the mileage on the vehicle at the time of repair. The reimbursement includes all out-of-pocket engine damage and replacement costs, up to ten years from the vehicle first being placed in service, regardless of whether such damage or loss occurs before or after the notice of this settlement. The Porsche owners and lessees are also entitled up to $200.00 in expenses for mileage and towing. Class Counsel Stephen M. Harris, of Knapp, Petersen & Clarke is pleased to have achieved a settlement that allows class members to recover their out-of-pocket losses as soon as possible, rather than having to wait through years of litigation and face the potential risks present in any trial. "This settlement represents a wonderful result on behalf of current and former Porsche owners and lessees who had had to pay out-of-pocket costs related to repairing or replacing an engine which sustained damage as a result of a defective IMS," Stephen Harris said. Informative Website Established for Class Members: A website has been established for class members and members of the public to find out more information about the settlement. Please visit http://www.IMSPorscheSettlement.comto determine whether you are covered by the settlement, obtain a claim form, communicate with Class Counsel, or to learn more about the class action and its resolution. About Class Counsel, Stephen M. Harris Stephen M. Harris is a Director of Knapp Petersen & Clarke with over 30 years in the practice of law. Mr. Harris was appointed by the court as Class Counsel in the IMS Porsche Litigation. He attended DePaul University School of Law, receiving a Juris Doctor degree in 1983. Contact Information Stephen M. Harris, Esq. Knapp Petersen & Clarke, a Professional Corporation Telephone: 818-547-5100 QUALITY EGG: Settles Lawsuit Over 2010 Salmonella Outbreak Recalls ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ryan J. Foley, writing for The Associated Press, reports that the Iowa egg producers blamed for a 2010 salmonella outbreak have settled a lawsuit brought by a California distributor that lost profits from the foodborne illnesses and the resulting product recalls, court records show. Quality Egg and Hillandale Farms reached the settlement on July 11 with NuCal Foods Inc., ending three years of litigation in federal court in Sacramento that shed light on the outbreak and its aftermath. Financial terms were not immediately released. Quality Egg was based in Galt, Iowa, and owned by Jack DeCoster, who built one of the nation's largest egg production empires while amassing a long history of violating food safety, labor and environmental rules. Hillandale Farms had ties to Mr. DeCoster's operations, processing and marketing shell eggs from some Quality Egg plants. The companies issued recalls covering 550 million eggs in 2010, after scientists traced illnesses back to their farms in northern Iowa, which were described by investigators as having filthy conditions. The government has estimated that up to 62,000 people were sickened in the outbreak. An attorney representing NuCal, Jason Takenouchi, declined to comment Monday on the settlement, which was reached during a conference in the chambers of U.S. Magistrate Judge Edmund Brennan. Attorneys for Quality Egg and Hillandale Farms did not return messages. Hillandale Farms had filed counterclaims against Mr. DeCoster, blaming his operations for the outbreak. Ripon, Calif.-based NuCal sued the companies and Mr. DeCoster, contending they were aware their farms were contaminated with salmonella but continued marketing their eggs as safe. Citing documents that its lawyers obtained, NuCal alleged that testing by an Iowa State University lab had found salmonella in up to 43 percent of Mr. DeCoster's poultry houses and in the internal organs of their birds, which were dying at high rates and likely laying tainted eggs. A consultant had proposed steps to clean up the conditions, warning, "We have to get this level of (salmonella) knocked down!" NuCal said it purchased millions of eggs in 2010 from the Iowa egg producers, then distributed those eggs to retail customers. After the companies announced the recalls in August 2010, NuCal had to recall the eggs it bought, which led to demands for refunds and lawsuits from those who fell sick. The outbreak also led to a reduced demand for eggs, which hurt NuCal's sales, the lawsuit contended. The case exposed the existence of a federal grand jury investigation in Iowa examining the outbreak, which remains active. Lawyers for Jack DeCoster and his son, Peter, said in court documents they were targets of the criminal investigation and therefore could not be deposed in the civil case. Quality Egg's attorneys said in a court filing July 5 that the DeCosters remained under investigation. One DeCoster supervisor who played a key role in responding to the outbreak, Tony Wasmund, has pleaded guilty to bribing a federal inspector and is facing sentencing next month. He is the only person charged so far. Jack DeCoster and Peter DeCoster, who ran day-to-day operations, were blasted for the outbreak when they testified in front of a congressional panel. Jack DeCoster said he was horrified to learn of the tainted products and apologized. Hilldandale's chief executive, Orland Bethel, cited his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and remained silent. A judge had ordered Mr. DeCoster and Bethel to attend the July 11 settlement conference, but it's unclear whether they did. RESPIRONICS CALIFORNIA: Recalls Nearly 19,200 V60 Ventilators ------------------------------------------------------------- Respironics California, Inc., a Philips Healthcare business, on June 25 disclosed that the company's worldwide recall of approximately 19,200 Philips Respironics V60 Ventilators has been designated a Class I recall by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). On June 4, Respironics initiated a voluntary recall to correct a software issue that may cause the V60 ventilator device to shut down. Following FDA review, Respironics was notified on June 17 of the Class I designation, as a situation in which there is a reasonable probability that the use of or exposure to a violative product will cause serious adverse health consequences or death. The Philips Respironics V60 ventilator is an assist ventilator and is intended to augment patient breathing. It is intended for spontaneously breathing individuals who require mechanical ventilation: patients with respiratory failure, chronic respiratory insufficiency, or obstructive sleep apnea in a hospital or other institutional settings under the direction of a physician. The recall was initiated to correct an issue with the V60 Ventilator Power Management (PM) Printed Circuit Board Assembly (PCBA) PlC software that was discovered through routine product monitoring. If the issue were to occur, there is a possibility that the V60 Ventilator could cease functioning during use, resulting in the loss of ventilator support, potentially with no audible alarm from the ventilator. Respironics has notified all United States distributors, providers, sales personnel and customers that may have devices subject to this recall. The PM PCBA PIC software issue has been corrected, and Respironics will update the software on all V60 ventilators shipped from the manufacturer prior to April 1, 2013. Customers who have questions about the recall or require further information or support concerning this issue, may contact their local Respironics representative via the Customer Care Center phone number: 800-722-9377, which is active 24/7. Any adverse events experienced with the use of this product should be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Program by phone at 1-800-FDA- 1088, by fax at 1-800-FDA-0178, by mail at MedWatch, HF-2, FDA, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20852-9787, or on the MedWatch Web site at http://www.fda.gov/medwatch SAMSUNG: Loses Bid to Dismiss Class Action Over Energy Star Logos ----------------------------------------------------------------- Susanna Kim, writing for ABC News, reports that a lawsuit against Samsung and Lowe's is moving forward after a judge ruled the companies can't dismiss allegations they used Energy Star logos on refrigerators that didn't meet federal energy-efficiency standards though selling them at higher prices. "Overall, we're pleased with the judge's decision," said Anthony Vozzolo, an attorney for the two plaintiffs who will ask a judge to certify their case as a class action suit. "Qualification under the Energy Star program is a significant marketing tool for companies and one of the most highly recognized symbols for marketing purposes. Companies need to know they will be held accountable if they fail to live up to their promise to consumers." The complaint alleges that damages are in excess of $5 million. A statement from Samsung stated, "It is Samsung's policy to not comment on pending litigation." A spokeswoman for Lowe's said the company is unable to comment on pending litigation. U.S. District Judge Kevin McNulty in New Jersey sustained a number of complaints from the plaintiffs' original claims, originally filed in Nov. 2011. Plaintiffs Lynne Avram and Margaret Lark each bought Samsung RF26VAB model refrigerators with the U.S. Department of Energy's Energy Star label from Lowe's Home Centers in Scottsdale, Ariz., and Maryland in 2009. The suit explains that they paid a premium for what they believed were energy-efficient fridges. On Feb. 18, 2010, the Energy Department alerted Samsung that the refrigerators did not meet the Energy Star efficiency requirements under the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Avram looked only at Energy Star models when she purchased her refrigerator at a Lowe's store in Scottsdale, Ariz. for $1,213.20 plus tax on June 26, 2009. As part of the voluntary Energy Star program, to earn the Energy Star label, refrigerators and freezers must be at least 20 percent more energy efficient than the minimum mandated by federal law. That purchase price included a "substantial premium" based on claims that the refrigerator was energy efficient and met the qualifications of Energy Star program, the suit states, adding that Avram would not have purchased the refrigerator had she known it was not Energy Star-compliant. "When you sell an Energy Star appliance, you command a premium in the marketplace," Mr. Vozzolo said, adding that people often look for the Energy Star logo when they purchase appliances. Ms. Lark bought a refrigerator on Nov. 1, 2009 in Maryland for $2,100. "As a result, Avram and Lark did not receive the benefit of the Energy Star bargain. They paid a price premium for what purported to be an Energy Star product but did not receive the energy savings they had paid for," the plaintiffs claim in their lawsuit. Now that the judge has dismissed many of the defendants' motion to dismiss, Mr. Vozzolo said he will engage in discovery along with Lowe's and Samsung to ascertain additional facts, including how many of those refrigerator models were sold, thereby expanding the class. Mr. Vozzolo and his clients will later move to certify the class. The plaintiffs allege breach of express warranty and implied warranty of merchantability, violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, unjust enrichment, and consumer fraud under New Jersey and Maryland law. Similar lawsuits related to Energy Star status for appliances have been dismissed, including a case involving a Maytag Centennial MVWC6ESWW1 washing machine whose energy-efficiency status was later revoked. The defendants were Home Depot U.S.A. and Whirlpool Corporation, both of which had moved to dismiss the lawsuit. A judge in Ohio dismissed that case last August, ruling, in part, that the plaintiff's claim for damages was barred by the statute of limitations of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act. In addition, the judge for the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, said "the plaintiff's failure to allege that any connection between his decision to purchase the washer and either the Energy Star logo or an advertisement is fatal to his claim." SEARS: Recalls Nearly 800,000 Dehumidifiers Over Fire Risk ---------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that Sears is re-announcing the recall of nearly 800,000 dehumidifiers because of new reports of fires and because so few consumers have responded to the first recall. The Consumer Product Safety Commission says Sears has received seven additional reports of shorting and fire linked to the Kenmore dehumidifiers. One case resulted in severe burns to a person's foot. Three of the fires caused more than $300,000 in property damage. During the original recall last year, CPSC said Sears had more than 100 reports of problems with the dehumidifiers, including property damage and several cases of smoke inhalation. The recall involves 35-, 50- and 70-pint dehumidifiers with a Kenmore logo. They were manufactured by LG Electronics Appliance Co. between 2003 and 2005. Consumers can call 855-400-4641 or visit http://www.Kenmoredehumidifierrecall.comfor more information. SHOPPERS DRUG: Franchisees Get Partial Certification Ruling ----------------------------------------------------------- Drew Hasselback, writing for Financial Post, reports that disgruntled Shoppers Drug Mart franchisees received another judicial thumbs up in their efforts to mount a $1-billion class action lawsuit against the corporate owner of the pharmacy chain. Mr. Justice Paul Perell of the Ontario Superior Court issued a ruling on July 9 that adds to the partial certification he granted in the case last October. The partial certification prompted the plaintiffs to file a fresh as amended statement of claim in March. This resulted in the July 9 decision. The case is brought by representative plaintiffs John Spina and Romeo Vandenburg, two pharmacists who own and run Shoppers Drug Mart franchises in the Toronto area. Kenneth Rosenberg -- ken.rosenberg@paliareroland.com -- of Paliare Roland is representing the plaintiffs. Mark A. Gelowitz -- mgelowitz@osler.com -- Jennifer Dolman -- jdolman@osler.com -- and Evan Thomas -- ethomas@osler.com -- of Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP represent the defendants. The franchisees claim a variety of breaches in their agreements with Shoppers Drug Mart. A key allegation is that the corporation didn't pass on to franchisees so-called "professional allowances" that the chain had received from drug makers. The defendants deny the allegations, which have yet to be proven in court. The class includes all current and former Shoppers "associates" resident in Canada, save for those in Quebec. The term "associate" is the word Shoppers uses for its franchisees. Shoppers, of course, recently became the subject of a friendly $12.4-billion takeover by Loblaw Co. Ltd. SKECHERS USA: Consumers Set to Get Shape-Ups Settlement Checks -------------------------------------------------------------- The Skechers Lawsuit Lawyers at Wright & Schulte LLC report that consumers who participated in a class-action Skechers lawsuit should expect to receive a Skechers settlement check within the coming week, as a settlement administrator has recently started mailing out refund checks to the more than 509,000 plaintiffs in this case. Consumers who receive these Skechers lawsuit settlement checks will have until October 10, 2013 to cash them, and the specific amounts of the checks will depend on the precise portion of their claim that was approved. In general, however, consumers involved in this Skechers Lawsuit case are eligible to receive a full refund for the purchase of their Skechers Shape-Ups (up to $80), their Resistance Runner shoes (up to $84), their Podded Sole shoes (up to $54) and their Tone-Ups (up to $40) as part of this Skechers lawsuit settlement. In May 2013, Federal Judge Thomas B. Russell of Louisville approved a deal that granted a $40 million settlement to the hundreds of thousands of consumers in this class-action Skechers lawsuit. This case consolidated more than 70 Skechers lawsuits throughout the U.S., and the judge's approval of the $40 million settlement in this class-action Skechers lawsuit had been handed down just about one year after Skechers and the plaintiffs had initially agreed upon it. While the two primary plaintiffs in this Skechers lawsuit will receive $2,500, the attorneys representing the consumers have been awarded a total of $5 million to split, which will not come out of the $40 million awarded to consumers. Once all of the other consumers who were plaintiffs in this case have received their refund checks, any remaining money will be sent to the FTC, according to Judge Russell's ruling. Wright & Schulte, LLC specializes in defending the rights of those who have suffered severe injuries after using products with defective or dangerous designs experienced Skechers attorneys have a proven track record of successfully going up against large corporations. We are here for individuals who think that they have been injured due to these toning shoes to speak to our Skechers lawyers by visiting yourlegalhelp.com or by calling 1- 800-399-0795. Deceptive Advertising Regarding Skechers Toning Shoes Alleged Benefits At the heart of this recently settled class-action Skechers lawsuit was the claim that Skechers intentionally misled consumers in advertising for its toning shoes by claiming that these shoes provided health benefits that had not been substantiated by scientific evidence. Specifically, Skechers toning shoes ads claimed that wearing these shoes could tone leg and buttocks muscles, tighten abdominal muscles, and reduce knee joint stress. However, an independent study conducted by the American Council on Exercise (ACE) and published in June 2010 found that, "there is simply no evidence to support the claims that these shoes will help wearers exercise more intensely, burn more calories or improve muscle strength and tone." Although Skechers has denied allegations of falsely advertising the health benefits of its toning shoes, company representatives have stated that Skechers ultimately decided to settle this case to avoid having to a endure a long, expensive trial. In fact, when the $40 million settlement was first reached in May 2012, Skechers' chief financial officer, David Weinberg, stated that, "while we vigorously deny the allegations made in these legal proceedings and looked forward to vindicating these claims in court, Skechers could not ignore the exorbitant cost and endless distraction of several years spent defending multiple lawsuits in multiple courts across the country." About Wright & Schulte LLC Wright & Schulte LLC, is a personal injury firm. Contact: Wright & Schulte LLC 812 East National Road Vandalia, Ohio 45377 1-800-399-0795 http://www.yourlegalhelp.com SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Faces Shareholder Class Action -------------------------------------------------- Securities lawyers at Deans & Lyons, LLP announced a class action against the board of Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc. Investors who purchased between May 5, 2011 and October 24, 2012 are encouraged to contact securities attorney Hamilton Lindley, Esq. at 877-819-8033 or hlindley@deanslyons.com about their rights and remedies by August 2, 2013. "Spirit AeroSystems is accused of failing to carry out its growth and diversification strategy," said Mr. Lindley. "The complaint alleges that the company lacks proper internal financial controls in relation to several programs. Our potential shareholder lawsuit will seek to ensure that all relevant information is disclosed and available to shareholders." Deans & Lyons has significant experience representing shareholders in securities lawsuits nationwide. SPR stockholders -- or anyone with knowledge about this situation -- should contact lawyer Hamilton Lindley at hlindley@deanslyons.com or 877-819-8033 with questions or concerns. Contact: Hamilton Lindley, Esq. DEANS & LYONS LLP 325 North Saint Paul Street, Suite 1500 Dallas, TX 75201 Tel: 214-736-7861 Fax: 214-965-8505 Toll-free: 877-819-8033 E-mail: hlindley@deanslyons.com Web site: http://www.deanslyons.com THERATECHNOLOGIES INC: Court Nixes Motion to Dismiss Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Theratechnologies Inc. on July 17 disclosed that the Court of Appeal of Quebec has dismissed Theratechnologies' motion to dismiss the authorization to institute a class action and an action based on the secondary market liability provisions of the Securities Act (Quebec) against Theratechnologies, a former Chair of the Board of Directors and a former president and chief executive officer. The Court of Appeal decision confirms a decision issued by the Superior Court of Quebec on February 24, 2012 which granted an authorization to the representative of persons who were shareholders at May 21, 2010 and who sold their common shares of the Company on May 25 or 26, 2010 to institute a class action against the Company, a former Chair of the Board of Directors and a former president and chief executive officer. Theratechnologies intends to contest any class action that the shareholders' representative could institute as a result of this decision since we consider that it would be without merit. About Theratechnologies Theratechnologies is a biopharmaceutical company that specializes in innovative therapeutic peptide products, with an emphasis on growth-hormone releasing factor peptides. TITLE MAX: Wants to Move Truck Title Class Action to Federal Court ------------------------------------------------------------------ Peggy Heinkel-Wolfe, writing for DentonRC.com, reports that Title Max answered the class action lawsuit filed by Christman Kelley PC on behalf of several Denton residents who had borrowed against their car or truck title. In addition to denying the allegations in the lawsuit, the company filed to move the case to federal court, in the Eastern District of Texas, U.S. District Court. DentonRC.com's Ms. Wolfe called the plaintiff's firm to find out whether they would go along with the change or file a motion to remand it back to state district court in Denton. Attorney Kenton Brice said they are still investigating the matter. However, in general, plaintiffs have a harder time in federal court than in state court, he said. The firm has about 30 days to respond with a motion to remand. WORLD FUEL: Faces Class Action Over Lac-Megantic Train Derailment ----------------------------------------------------------------- Rochon Genova LLP on July 18 disclosed that the class action proceeding (motion for authorization) issued on July 15 relating to the Lac-Megantic train derailment and subsequent devastation suffered by the community was amended on July 17 to include further defendants, including World Fuel Services Corp., Dakota Plains Holdings, Irving Oil Limited, and their subsidiaries. World Fuel Services is a publicly traded U.S. corporation and Irving Oil is one of Canada's largest oil companies. The claims made against the newly added defendants include the allegation that they failed to ensure that the highly flammable contents of the DOT-111 tankers that derailed in Lac-Megantic's downtown area in the early morning hours of July 6, 2013 were properly contained and safely transported. The Motion to authorize was amended to reflect the fact that the liability for the accident is spread across a broader network of involved corporations. As the facts develop additional entities may be implicated. The class action is being pursued to ensure that the victims of the July 6, 2013 derailment and all those affected obtain compensation for their substantial losses. The proposed representative plaintiffs are Guy Ouellet, whose partner, Diane Bizier, died in the explosion and Yannick Gagne, the owner of the popular restaurant, Musi-Cafe, which was destroyed as a result of the derailment and ensuing explosions. A team of class action lawyers has been assembled to assist the Lac-Megantic community to litigate the action, and consists of Lac-Megantic lawyer Daniel E. Larochelle, Consumer Law Group Inc. in Montreal, Rochon Genova LLP of Toronto and Lieff Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein LLP of New York and San Francisco. ********* 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 * * *