/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/130805.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, August 5, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 152 Headlines AVIS BUDGET: Shift Managers Seek to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay BAYER AG: Adelaide Law Firm Mulls Class Action Over Yasmin Risks BE AMAZING!: Recalls Monster Science & Super Star Water Balls BMC SOFTWARE: Lead Plaintiff Agreed to Withdraw Injunction Bid BP PLC: Law Firm Loses Bid to Get Clients Paid in Oil Spill Accord CAMDEN HIGH SCHOOL: Hundreds Join Class Action Over Cancer Cluster CASCADE DESIGNS: Recalls MSR Hubba Tents CHICAGO, IL: Sued by 300+ Retired Employees Over Benefit Cuts CSX CORP: Summary Judgment Bids in Antitrust Suit Due October 2 DENSO CORP: Faces 2 Class Suits Alleging Price Fixing in Canada DIRECTV INC: Arbitration Won't Include Best Buy, 9th Cir. Ruled ELECTRONIC ARTS: May Be Sued by Ex-College Stars, Court Says ELECTRONIC ARTS: Seeks Dismissal of Antitrust Class Action ELMER'S PRODUCTS: Faces Class Action Over Krazy Glue Claims FACEBOOK INC: Supreme Court Review Sought for Cy Pres Settlement FAR EAST BROKERS: Recalls Ladybug-Themed Kids' Outdoor Furniture FIRST FINANCIAL: Signs MOU to Settle SCBT Merger-Related Suits HEWLETT-PACKARD: Wachtell Replaces MoFo as Atty. in Autonomy Suits INTUIT INC: Settles Silicon Valley Anti-Poaching Class Action JP BODEN: Recalls Kensington High Heels Shoes Due to Fall Hazard KEYSTONE: Recalls 76 Laredo Model Trailers Over Defective Battery MOSAIC CO: Has Final Approval of Potash Antitrust Suit Settlement MURPHY USA: Continues to Defend Suits Over Hot Fuel NATIONAL BEEF: Recalls Beef Products Due to E. Coli Presence NULOOK BLINDS: Recalls Horizontal Venetian Blinds PIAGGIO GROUP: Recalls Griso, Norge, and Stelvio NTX Models SAFELITE: Judge Approves Overtime Class Action Settlement SCBT FINANCIAL: Inks MOU to Settle First Financial Merger Suits SUZUKI: Recalls 97 GSX1250FA Model Motorcycles THOMAS M. COOLEY: Appeals Court Affirms Dismissal of Class Action TRADITIONS: Recalls Frozen Chicken Meals Due To Misbranding UNITED STATES: Bernanke to Give Deposition in AIG Bailout Suit UNITED STATES: Faces Suits Over Fannie & Freddie Stock Agreements WORLD FAMOUS: Recalls North 49 Air Horn WYETH PHARMA: Settles Off-Label Marketing Suit for $490.9 Million YUM! BRANDS: 9th Circuit Dismissed "Moeller" Suit Appeal in June YUM! BRANDS: Consolidated Securities Suit Pending in Kentucky YUM! BRANDS: Parties in "Rosales" Suit to Submit Settlement YUM! BRANDS: Parties in "Whittington" Suit to Submit Settlement YUM! BRANDS: Still Finalizing List of Opt-ins in "Smith" Suit YUM! BRANDS: Taco Bell Still Defends Wage and Hour Suit in Calif. * Judge Strikes Down Regulations on Debit-Card Transaction Fees * Origin of Cyclospora-Linked Salad Mix Not in Iowa & Nebraska * Severe NFL Injuries Rise From 2009 to 2012, NFL Data Show ********* AVIS BUDGET: Shift Managers Seek to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay --------------------------------------------------------------- Erica Johnson and Jose Santiago, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated who consent to their inclusion v. Avis Budget Car Rental, LLC, a Foreign Limited Liability Corporation; and Budget Rent A Car System, Inc., a Foreign Corporation, Case No. 1:13-cv-11796-JLT (D. Mass., July 29, 2013), is a collective action brought on behalf of all "shift managers" and "operations managers," who are or were employed by of the Defendants at one of their Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Maine, or Rhode Island locations within the last three years to recover unpaid overtime and similar relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs and the putative collective class contend that they are entitled to unpaid overtime compensation for all hours worked but not compensated at a rate not less than 1.5 times their regular rate of pay, liquidated damages, and their reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the FLSA. The Plaintiffs also bring this action to recoup owed overtime compensation under the Minimum Fair Wages Act, along with treble damages and their reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants at their Boston's Logan International Airport location. Erica Johnson is a resident of Essex County, Massachusetts. She began her employment with the Defendants in November 2011 as a Shift Manager at Boston-Logan, and is currently employed by the Defendants in this capacity. Jose Santiago is a resident of Bristol County, Massachusetts. He began his employment with the Defendants in 1988 at a non-airport location. In 1999, he began his employment as a Shift Manager at the Boston-Logan, and is currently employed by the Defendants in this capacity. Avis and Budget Rent a Car are foreign for-profit corporations organized and existing under the laws of Delaware, with their principal place of business located in Parsippany, New Jersey. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Armando A. Ortiz, Esq. Dale J. Morgado, Esq. FELDMAN MORGADO, P.A. 100 North Biscayne Boulevard, 29th Floor, Suite 2902 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 222-7850 Facsimile: (305) 384-4676 E-mail: aortiz@ffmlawgroup.com dmorgado@ffmlawgroup.com BAYER AG: Adelaide Law Firm Mulls Class Action Over Yasmin Risks ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jordanna Schriever, writing for The Advertiser, reports that an Adelaide law firm is investigating the potential for a class action on behalf of women who say they have suffered serious side effects after taking popular contraceptive pill Yasmin. In 2011, an American study of more than 800,000 women who took the pill found that the risk of blood clots was up to three times higher than other contraceptives. Forty women from across Australia have contacted Tindall Gask Bentley, and lawyers say they are surprised at the level of interest. Among them is Helen Beal, who was planning a nine-week holiday to Canada to meet her future husband but instead spent her dream getaway in hospital. At the time, in August 2008, she had just started taking the pill. Mrs. Beal, 46, of Hawthorndene began experiencing pain and swelling in her left arm about a week before her departure. Within days of arriving in Canada she was in severe pain, her arm became red and the swelling meant she was unable to fit into some clothes. She spent the entire visit in and out of hospital. "About a week before I left my arms started hurting . . . then about five days after arriving I went to hospital and they said it was a blood clot that went from my elbow to my shoulder," she said. "The doctors in Canada deduced it was either the pill or the fact I was going to the gym, but I'd only been to the gym once." Mrs. Beal says she is one of the lucky ones, because there were reports women had died after starting on Yasmin, or its sister contraceptive, Yaz. Yasmin was marketed as a "miracle" pill which did not cause weight gain or mood swings while improving skin. But for Mrs. Beal, who began taking the pill on her GPs suggestion, it has caused ongoing pain in her arm, which impedes her ability to lift of carry objects using her left arm. She cannot take the pill or any other hormone treatment, cannot have IVF and must plan to inject medication before any long-haul flight. Tindall Gask Bentley partner Tim White said the law firm had posted a form on its website at the end of May seeking interest in a class action from women, but had not advertised its intention. "We are really surprised at the level of interest," he said. "We've certainly spoken to a number of women that have been hospitalized or put in intensive care for several days." He said that in most cases, women who were hospitalized suffered pulmonary embolism, a life-threatening blockage in the lungs -- usually caused by a blood clot from another part of the body -- has moved into the lungs. Mr. White said the firm began investigating the class action potential after seeing similar actions overseas, particularly in Canada and the US. Media reports suggest the pharmaceutical company that produces the drug, Bayer, has settled thousands of cases and paid out hundreds of millions of dollars to women who claim they suffered blood clots while on Yasmin and Yaz. The Therapeutic Goods Administration said it closely monitored all contraceptive medicines, including Yaz or Yasmin. "There have been no new safety concerns identified for this product," a TGA spokeswoman said. She said product information documents outlined the risks and possible adverse events, which may also be associated with other oral combined contraceptives, and women should discuss any concerned with their doctor. "Both the Yas and the Yasmin Consumer Medicines Information documents already include information to consumers to consumers about these adverse events." A spokeswoman for Bayer said the small risk of clots from combined contraceptive pills had been "recognized for many years". "Several large studies in the US and Europe have shown that the risk of a clot during pregnancy and after delivery is considerably higher than during the use of an oral contraceptive pill," she said. The spokeswoman said women who smoke, have high blood pressure or cholesterol, were obese or have a family history of clotting disorders have an increased risk of clots. "All prescribing doctors should be aware of the risks associated with combined oral contraceptives, and will need to take them into consideration when discussing and prescribing the most appropriate contraceptive." BE AMAZING!: Recalls Monster Science & Super Star Water Balls ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Be Amazing! Toys, of Salt Lake City, announced a voluntary recall of about 14,200 in the United States and 1,200 in Canada Water- Absorbing Polymer Balls. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The soft and colorful product can be easily mistaken by a child for candy. When the marble-sized toy is ingested, it can expand inside a child's body and cause intestinal obstructions, resulting in severe discomfort, vomiting, dehydration and could be life threatening. The toys do not show up on an x-ray and require surgery to be removed from the body. There were no incidents that were reported. CPSC is aware of one incident with a similar water-absorbing polymer ball product in which an 8-month-old girl ingested the ball and it had to be surgically removed. The recall involves marble-sized toys that absorb water and grow up to 400 times their original size. They were sold as Monster Science Colossal Water Balls (model #7255) and Super Star Science! Colossal Water Balls (model #7704). Monster Science packages contain eight balls and "Growth Powder". Super Star Science! packages contain five balls. The balls were sold in an assortment of blue, green, orange, purple, red, yellow or clear colors. The "Be Amazing! Toys" star logo, "Ages 8+", the name of the toy, "Colossal Water Balls" and a warning not to use without adult supervision are on the front of each product's packaging. Model numbers are printed on the back of the packaging. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/XFV1OL The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Specialty retailers and education centers nationwide and online at Amazon.com, BeAmazingToys.com and WorldMarket.com from September 2010 through November 2012 for about $3 per package. Consumers should immediately take this recalled toy away from children and contact Be Amazing! Toys for a refund. BMC SOFTWARE: Lead Plaintiff Agreed to Withdraw Injunction Bid -------------------------------------------------------------- The lead plaintiff in the consolidated merger-related lawsuit pending in Delaware agreed to withdraw its motion for a preliminary injunction, according to BMC Software, Inc.'s July 16, 2013, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. On May 6, 2013, BMC Software, Inc., a Delaware corporation, entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger pursuant to which it will be acquired by Boxer Parent Company Inc. (Parent), a Delaware corporation formed by affiliates of investment funds advised by Bain Capital, LLC, Golden Gate Private Equity, Inc. and Insight Venture Management, LLC, and an entity affiliated with GIC Special Investments Pte Ltd (together, the Sponsors), through a merger of a wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent with and into the Company (the Merger). The Merger Agreement provides that, subject to the terms and conditions thereof, at the effective time of the Merger (the Effective Time), each outstanding share of common stock of the Company, other than certain excluded shares, will cease to be outstanding and will be converted into the right to receive $46.25 in cash, without interest (the Merger Consideration). As disclosed in the definitive proxy statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") by BMC on June 25, 2013 (the "proxy statement"), putative class action lawsuits challenging the proposed transaction have been filed on behalf of BMC stockholders in Texas and Delaware state courts. The outstanding Texas action is captioned Abekeian v. BMC Software, Inc., No. ED101J017493759 (Tex. D. Ct., Harris Cty.). The consolidated Delaware action is captioned In re BMC Software, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, C.A. No. 8544-VCG (Del. Ch.). On July 12, 2013, the lead plaintiff in the consolidated Delaware action filed a motion seeking a preliminary injunction against the special meeting of the stockholders of BMC scheduled on July 24, 2013. In its injunction application, the lead plaintiff argued that the proxy statement omitted material information necessary for the stockholder vote on the proposed transaction. On July 15, 2013, the lead plaintiff in the Delaware action agreed to withdraw its motion for a preliminary injunction in view of the supplemental disclosures contained in the current filing. Headquartered in Houston, Texas, BMC Software, Inc., -- http://bmc.com/-- is one of the world's largest software companies. The Company provides IT management solutions for large, mid-sized and small enterprises and public sector organizations around the world. The Company's extensive portfolio of IT management software solutions simplifies and automates the management of IT processes, mainframe, distributed, virtualized and cloud computing environments, as well as applications and databases. The Company also provides its customers with maintenance and support services for its products and assists customers with software implementation, integration, IT process and organizational transformation and education services. BP PLC: Law Firm Loses Bid to Get Clients Paid in Oil Spill Accord ------------------------------------------------------------------ Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that a law firm whose oil spill claims were halted as part of an investigation into potential fraud in the administration of the $7.8 billion Deepwater Horizon settlement has lost a bid to get its clients paid while BP, which has asserted potential fraud in the process, raised its estimated costs of the deal to $9.6 billion. U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier hired former FBI director Louis Freeh a month ago to investigate allegations that two former staff attorneys for claims administrator Patrick Juneau had corrupted the process by accepting payments from The Andry Law Firm in New Orleans. Pending that investigation, Mr. Juneau froze claims payments to The Andry Law Firm and Andry Lerner, also in New Orleans. Andry Lerner had sought to lift the freeze on its clients' payments, asserting that the decision, made without an opportunity to defend against the allegations, violated due process and equal treatment protections. "The firm is concerned that there is an evolving perception that this firm can't get their clients paid," said James Cobb Jr., a solo practitioner in New Orleans who filed the motion for Andry Lerner. "And we need to address that on behalf of our clients, which we're attempting to do." On July 29, Judge Barbier denied Andry Lerner's request. BP's fraud claims are tied to an investigative report citing an unnamed "confidential source" who told a member of Mr. Juneau's office that one of his staff attorneys, Lionel "Tiger" Sutton III, had been in business with The Andry Law Firm and had originally filed some of the claims. Upon further investigation, Mr. Juneau discovered that Mr. Sutton's wife, Christine Reitano, another of his staff attorneys who previously ran a law firm with her husband, had filed claims on behalf of oil spill victims, one of which was passed along to The Andry Law Firm. The search found evidence that the firm represented 675 oil spill victims and had its own claim for $7.6 million in economic losses. Mr. Sutton resigned and Ms. Reitano was terminated. Brothers Jonathan and Gilbert Andry, who once practiced together at The Andry Law Firm, now insist they work at separate firms and that BP, in attempting to back out of its settlement, has purposely confused them to assert fraud in the claims process. According to Andry Lerner's motion, which was filed July 29 with numbers and names redacted, Juneau and Barbier had no authority to freeze claims on behalf of its clients because, under the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of due process, they should have had an opportunity to defend themselves. Further, according to the motion, Andry Lerner's clients face unequal treatment because they have been discriminated against as a group based entirely on the fact that Andry Lerner represents them. "The continued cessation of processing of AL clients' processing will result in delayed awards of tens of millions of dollars to deserving BP oil spill victims, many of whom urgently need their awards to rebuild their lives, homes, and businesses," Cobb wrote in court papers. "The injury they are suffering is severe and inexplicable." On July 19, Judge Barbier rejected BP's request to halt all payments in the claims process until Freeh's investigation was completed. He chastised BP's attorneys for their lack of evidence. BP has been pushing its fraud claims while also challenging the method in which payments have been made. Since Judge Barbier approved the settlement December 21, BP has insisted that the claims calculations have encouraged businesses to file for "fictitious losses," resulting in "windfall" payments. Judge Barbier rejected that contention, and BP took its case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which heard oral arguments on July 8. On July 30, BP CEO Robert Dudley took to the airwaves after the company announced less than expected earnings for the second quarter, in part due to an estimated increase in anticipated oil spill costs that included upping the settlement's value to $9.6 billion. In interviews with the business press, Dudley explained that BP's settlement had been misinterpreted. "The biggest beneficiaries I can see . . . are plaintiffs' attorneys themselves, who are not just collecting fees on behalf of claims that have been submitted but also their own firms are submitting their own claims," he told CNBC. CAMDEN HIGH SCHOOL: Hundreds Join Class Action Over Cancer Cluster ------------------------------------------------------------------ Hayden Cooper and Chloe-Amanda Bai, writing for 7.30, reports that hundreds of former students and teachers of a Sydney high school have added their names to a potential class action over toxic contaminants. The old Camden High School was moved in 2001 after dangerous substances were discovered. The school was built on top of an old gasworks. Now former students and teachers believe cases of cancer, tumours and birth defects may have been caused by exposure to the chemicals. 7.30 first reported that lawyers were preparing a class action against the Education Department on behalf of a group of 70 people. Now that number has grown to 195. Leonie Curry, 41, is the lead plaintiff for the case. She is dying of a terminal brain tumour, and wants an investigation into whether the school is to blame. "There are so many people that are sick and died, they've died already and there's a lot of people with brain tumours, it makes you wonder," she said. Mrs. Curry has already had one tumour removed, but doctors say another tumour is inoperable. "The prognosis is they just don't know because it's a very rare tumour, it's a very rare position and even though it's a benign tumour they still grow and because of the position it can grow and your brain stem is where all the functions for your body are, your breathing, your heart rate, all that kind of stuff, so if it takes a function that's it," she said. Mrs. Curry approached lawyers after hearing of many former students of the school who were being diagnosed with serious illnesses. One of her closest friends, Raelean Borg, died of breast cancer last year. "When we discovered that I had a brain tumour and I wouldn't be around much longer either we were having a bit of a joke about how long we were going to last and then came round to how it was so bizarre that the two of us were going to be dead very soon," Mrs. Curry said. Teachers, former students alike affected Mrs. Curry set up a Facebook page and was swamped with feedback from former students who suspect the contaminants at the site made them sick. Former teachers are also involved in the potential class action. Art teacher Dale Hodges, 45, died in 2007 of thyroid and ovarian cancer. Her partner Glenn Carson says she was fit, and had no family history of cancer. "She trained hard, she worked hard, she wanted to live and she wanted to teach and it didn't happen," he said. Ms. Hodges taught at the school for 18 years. For much of the time she taught in a classroom directly on top of the site of the former gasworks. She kept records of the contamination uncovered in 1996. The records include a letter from the Environmental Protection Authority warning of high levels of contamination. The letter was addressed to the NSW Education Department. Some remediation work was done a year later, but the school was not moved until 2001. Mr. Carson says it should have happened sooner. "You turn up to your workplace thinking it's safe -- which is what a workplace should be -- but obviously this workplace wasn't safe," he said. "We just need answers. "You need to be able to find out why in '96 they didn't do something more drastic than wait until '97 for a start, wait another year before they did anything at all, then wait another four years until they got the land at Cawdor." Another family of seven siblings has also added their names to the case. Mary Nolan says of her six brothers and sisters, two died of cancer and tumours, and three more have had repeated tumours detected and removed. She wants the Education Department to investigate. "The Education Department should do a thorough investigation into it yes. Absolutely," she said. "I mean we went to a rural community to have seven children raised in a rural healthy environment. "Our public school is absolutely the first place of safety that you would think you would get a healthy upbringing from. "What's the point of giving children milk every day when you're going to actually have them sitting on toxic ground for six years every day that they attend there, there is just no point to it." 7.30 asked the Education Department why it took five years to close the school. It ignored the question and instead sent this statement: "The department is open to review any new information available in relation to the former Camden High School site. However, at this time we have not received any complaints or claims. If any complaints or claims are received, the department will review the information and work with the relevant government agencies to take appropriate action." Ms. Nolan says her mother is devastated by the doubts about the school, and blames herself for sending her seven children there to study. "To watch them die one by one when you think you gave them the best -- she was watching out for food and vitamins and all of those sorts of things -- to find out she's been sending them to a toxic waste dump everyday for so many years in their growth periods, it is very heartbreaking for her, she'd like somebody other than herself to take responsibility for it," she said. Although almost 200 people have now joined the legal action -- it remains just a small portion of the many students who went to the school. Those involved acknowledge that proving the cause of their illnesses may be impossible. Nonetheless, Glenn Carson, who is still struggling with the death of his partner, also wants an official inquiry. "It'd be nice just to be able to find out what happened, why it happened and how it happened," he said. "If it could've been prevented, why wasn't it prevented?" CASCADE DESIGNS: Recalls MSR Hubba Tents ---------------------------------------- Starting date: July 31, 2013 Posting date: July 31, 2013 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Outdoor Living Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Product Safety, Flammability Hazard Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-34775 Affected products: Hubba Solo backpacking tent, Hubba Hubba 2-person backpacking tent, Mutha Hubba 3-person backpacking tent Health Canada's testing process revealed that the materials used in these tents do not meet the requirements for tent flammability under Canadian law. The tents could easily catch fire if exposed to a continuous flame or other ignition source and cause severe burns to consumers. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/9GodDW Neither Cascade Designs Inc. nor Health Canada has received any reports of incidents or injuries related to the use of these tents. Approximately 13,903 tents were sold by retailers across Canada. The recalled tents were manufactured in Taiwan and sold from June 20, 2011 to July 8, 2013. Companies: Manufacturer Tai Chung Canvas Taiwan, Province of China Distributor Cascade Designs Inc. Seattle Washington United States Consumers should stop using the tent immediately and return it to the place of business for a full refund or replacement. CHICAGO, IL: Sued by 300+ Retired Employees Over Benefit Cuts ------------------------------------------------------------- Jack Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service reports that more than 300 retired city employees sued Chicago, claiming the city is cutting their medical coverage though they were promised lifetime health benefits. Lead plaintiff Michael C. Underwood and 331 others filed a class action against the City of Chicago and trustees of the retirement funds for Chicago Policemen, Firemen, Municipal Employees and Laborers, in Cook County Court. The retirees, all of whom were hired before 1986, seek "permanent relief for annuitant healthcare participants in litigation that has continued off and on for 26 years." After the case was originally filed in 1987, the city and trustees "entered into a 10-year class action settlement that was approved by the circuit court over the participant class' objections, and affirmed by the Illinois Appellate Court," according to the new lawsuit. At the end of the 10 years, the class revived litigation, and the parties eventually entered into another 10-year agreement that expired in June this year. Now that the second settlement has expired, the plaintiffs again seek the health-care coverage they were promised. From 1984 until 1987, Chicago held pre-retirement seminars that informed employees "that they would be able to participate in the health plan for life, that their own coverage was to be for life at no cost; and that they would only have to pay for additional coverage for spouse and dependents," the complaint states. "It thus became widely understood among City employees that they could rely on this subsidized fixed-rate plan for their lifetime following retirement from their City employment; at no out-of- pocket premium cost for police and fire annuitants own coverage, subsidized at $25 per month for municipal and laborers annuitants. "Many employees worked, retired and made plans on the basis of the representations made to them in these seminars. Additionally, it was the common understanding among City employees that the City would provide medical coverage for life upon retirement, and that was a significant factor for many individuals in choosing to work for the City, rather than work for a private sector employee. "Many individual employees retired on the basis that this coverage existed, and did not seek medical coverage elsewhere," the plaintiffs say. According to complaint: "Local government employees who were originally hired and began their work prior to April 1, 1986 (federal Combined Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985) cannot qualify for healthcare coverage under the Medicare plan by their government employment, regardless of their length of service." The city recently announced that it intends to reduce participants' benefits beginning in January 2014, according to the complaint. "Participants assert that the funds' obligations to provide and subsidize healthcare coverage for annuitants are themselves benefits of participation in their respective fund protected by the Illinois Constitution Article XIII, Section 5 from being diminished from the levels in existence during any participant's lifetime," the complaint states. The retirees add: "Each plaintiff and class member has a property right to a lifetime healthcare plan unreduced from the best terms during a person's participation in one of the retirement funds." The retirees seek an injunction preventing Chicago from reducing their retirement benefits below the level they were provided during their employment. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Clinton A. Krisiov, Esq. Kenneth T. Goldstein, Esq. KRISLOV & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Civic Opera Building 20 North Wacker Drive, Suite 1300 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 606-0500 E-mail: clint@krislovlaw.com ken@krislovlaw.com The case is Underwood, et al., v. City of Chicago, et al., Case No. 2013-CH-17450, in Illinois Circuit Court, Cook County. CSX CORP: Summary Judgment Bids in Antitrust Suit Due October 2 --------------------------------------------------------------- CSX Corporation said in its Company's July 17, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 28, 2013, that motions for summary judgment and expert exclusions in the fuel surcharge antitrust litigation are due on October 2, 2013. In May 2007, class action lawsuits were filed against the Company's principal operating subsidiary, CSX Transportation, Inc. ("CSXT") and three other U.S.-based Class I railroads alleging that the defendants' fuel surcharge practices relating to contract and unregulated traffic resulted from an illegal conspiracy in violation of antitrust laws. In November 2007, the class action lawsuits were consolidated and are now pending in federal court in the District of Columbia. The lawsuit seeks treble damages allegedly sustained by purported class members as well as attorneys' fees and other relief. The Plaintiffs are expected to allege damages at least equal to the fuel surcharges at issue. In June 2012, the court certified the case as a class action. The decision was not a ruling on the merits of the plaintiffs' claims, rather a decision to allow the plaintiffs to seek to prove the case as a class. The defendant railroads petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit for permission to appeal the District Court's class certification decision. In August 2012, the Court of Appeals referred the petition to a merits panel, and directed the parties to submit briefs addressing both the petition and the merits of the appeal. The Court of Appeals heard oral arguments on May 3, 2013, but has not issued a ruling as of July 17, 2013. Although the District Court issued an order to delay dissemination of notice to members of the certified class pending the outcome of the appeal, all other aspects of the underlying case are moving forward. Expert reports have been filed and motions for summary judgment and expert exclusions are due October 2, 2013. CSXT believes that its fuel surcharge practices were arrived at and applied lawfully and that the case is without merit. Accordingly, the Company intends to defend itself vigorously. However, penalties for violating antitrust laws can be severe, and an unexpected adverse decision on the merits could have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, results of operations or liquidity in that particular period or for the full year. CSX Corporation -- http://www.csx.com/-- based in Jacksonville, Florida, is a transportation company providing rail, intermodal and rail-to-truck transload services. The Company's transportation network spans approximately 21,000 miles with service to 23 eastern states and the District of Columbia, and connects to more than 70 ocean, river and lake ports. DENSO CORP: Faces 2 Class Suits Alleging Price Fixing in Canada --------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Denso, Mitsubishi and Hitachi fixed prices on auto alternators and starters for more than 10 years in Canada, two class actions (one for each part) claim in British Columbia Supreme Court. DIRECTV INC: Arbitration Won't Include Best Buy, 9th Cir. Ruled --------------------------------------------------------------- Writing for Courthouse News Service, Tim Hull reports that Best Buy customers unhappy with the rental agreements for DirecTV equipment must arbitrate with the television provider, not the retailer, the 9th Circuit ruled Tuesday, July 30, 2013. In a putative class action, lead plaintiffs John Murphy, Greg Masters and Roberta Weiss had claimed that both Best Buy and DirecTV failed to make it clear that Best Buy leases, rather than sells, DirecTV equipment. They also alleged that those leases are unfair and come with exorbitant fees. U.S. District Court Judge Jacqueline Nguyen in Los Angeles compelled the plaintiffs to arbitrate their claims against DirecTV, and that Best Buy must participate in the arbitration. A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit agreed as to DirecTV but let the retailer off the hook in a unanimous ruling, rejecting the "imaginative" arguments of both parties. "Plaintiffs agreed to arbitrate their claims against DirecTV," Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw wrote for the Pasadena-based panel Tuesday, July 30, 2013. "They did not agree to arbitrate their claims against Best Buy. Notwithstanding the parties' many imaginative legal arguments, in this case they remain bound by the agreements they made and not by any they did not make. We affirm the district court's order compelling plaintiffs to arbitrate with DirecTV, and reverse its order compelling them to arbitrate with Best Buy." The Plaintiffs are represented by: Leslie Bailey, Esq. PUBLIC JUSTICE, PC 555 12th Street Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 622-8150 E-mail: lbailey@publicjustice.net - and - Michael Reese, Esq. REESE RICHMAN LLP 875 Sixth Avenue New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 579-4625 E-mail: mreese@reeserichman.com - and - F. Paul Bland, Jr., Esq. PUBLIC JUSTICE, P.C. 1825 K Street Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 797-8600 E-mail: pbland@publicjustice.net - and - Robert S. Green, Esq. GREEN & NOBLIN, P.C. 700 Larkspur Landing Circle Larkspur, CA 94939 Telephone: (415) 477-6700 E-mail: gn@classcounsel.com - and - James Robert Noblin, Esq. GREEN & NOBLIN, P.C. 4500 East Pacific Coast Highway, Fourth Floor Long Beach, CA 90804 Telephone: (562) 391-2487 E-mail: gn@classcounsel.com The Defendants are represented by: Robyn Eileen Bladow, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 333 South Hope Street Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 680-8400 (213) 680-8634 E-mail: rbladow@kirkland.com - and - Melissa Dawn Ingalls, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 333 South Hope Street Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 680-8400 (213) 680-8400 E-mail: melissa.ingalls@kirkland.com - and - Michael A. Geibelson, Esq. Roman M. Silberfeld, Esq. ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER & CIRESI L.L.P. 2049 Century Park East Los Angeles, CA 90067-3208 Telephone: (310) 552-0130 E-mail: mageibelson@rkmc.com rmsilberfeld@rkmc.com The appellate case is John Murphy, et al. v. DirecTV, Inc., et al., Case No. 11-57163, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The original case is John Murphy, et al. v. DirecTV, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-06465-JHN-VBK, in the U.S. District Court for Central California, Los Angeles. ELECTRONIC ARTS: May Be Sued by Ex-College Stars, Court Says ------------------------------------------------------------ Joe Palazzolo at The Wall Street Journal reports that a federal appeals court on July 31, 2013, cleared the way for a group of college athletes to sue Electronic Arts Inc. for allegedly stealing their likenesses for its videogames. The ruling by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco advanced a claim by former Nebraska and Arizona State quarterback Sam Keller and other ex-athletes, who allege EA used their attributes in its NCAA football and basketball games. EA's videogames are coveted for their attention to detail. "NCAA Football" represents college players with look-alike avatars with the same jersey number, height, weight, build, skin tone, hair color and home state. In the 2005 edition of the game, the virtual starting quarterback for Arizona State shared the real Mr. Keller's physical traits, play style and facial features. EA's lawyers argued the depiction of college players in its games amounts to expression protected by the First Amendment. But to earn that protection under California law, EA had to show its game added creative elements that transformed the avatars into something more than a "mere celebrity likeness or imitation," wrote Judge Jay Bybee for the majority. EA's use of Mr. Keller's likeness, the judge said, "does not qualify for First Amendment protection as a matter of law, because it literally recreates Keller in the very setting in which he has achieved renown." A spokesman for EA said the company was disappointed by the ruling and would seek "further court review." EA could ask the Ninth Circuit to rehear the case or petition the U.S. Supreme Court. If the courts decline, the lawsuit would go to trial. The ruling was the second this year in which a federal appeals court said the company couldn't use the First Amendment as a shield against legal claims. In May, the Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held that former Rutgers University quarterback Ryan Hart could sue EA in a bid to collect some of the profits the company made from the 2004, 2005 and 2006 installments of "NCAA Football," which featured his likeness without his permission. The lawsuits are part of a broader legal campaign that, if successful, could force the National Collegiate Athletic Association to tweak its longstanding rule that college athletes can't profit from their celebrity. Electronic Arts pays the Collegiate Licensing Co., the NCAA's licensing arm, to use school and team names, uniforms and even fight songs. But the company doesn't compensate college players. The NCAA declined to comment. It is facing antitrust claims by college athletes over the use of their names and likenesses. The association has denied any wrongdoing. It announced in July that it won't renew its contract with EA due to the "current business climate and costs of litigation." Ninth Circuit Judge Sidney R. Thomas, who dissented Wednesday, July 31, 2013, said the majority placed too much emphasis on the individual likenesses of the virtual players and not enough on the creative elements that comprise the game. "I would not punish EA for the realism of its games and for the skill of the artists who created realistic settings for the football games," Judge Thomas wrote. Rob Carey, a lawyer at Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP representing Mr. Keller, said, "You have a property right in your image, and EA took it without permission." Mr. Carey said his next move would be to ask a federal judge to certify the case as a class action, allowing him to draft thousands of current and former NCAA athletes as plaintiffs. * * * Ross Todd, writing for The Litigation Daily, reports that Electronic Arts Inc. and its lawyers at Davis Wright Tremaine and Keker & Van Nest got mixed tidings on July 31 in a pair of decisions from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. But the news was mostly bad for the video game maker, and nothing but good for plaintiffs lawyer Steve Berman of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro. In a closely watched case Mr. Berman is spearheading on behalf of a group of former NCAA college athletes, a divided Ninth Circuit panel ruled 2-1 that EA's use of the athletes' likenesses in video games isn't shielded by the First Amendment. But in a separate unanimous decision from the same Ninth Circuit panel, EA fended off trademark claims from NFL legend Jim Brown, who accused the company of misleading consumers about his involvement with the Madden NFL series of games. EA was represented by counsel from Davis Wright and Keker in both cases. Davis Wright Tremaine's Kelli Sager -- kellisager@dwt.com -- argued the appeals before the Ninth Circuit last summer. She wasn't immediately available to comment on July 31. Mr. Berman said he now plans to move for summary judgment as quickly as possible in the underlying litigation. "The First Amendment defense was one of their strongest," Mr. Berman told us. "There's not any serious dispute that they use the players likenesses." The challenge to EA's NCAA basketball and football game franchises began in 2009, when former college athletes including ex-Arizona State University quarterback Samuel Keller and former UCLA basketball star Ed O'Bannon filed class actions claiming EA had misappropriated their likenesses without compensation. The Keller and O'Bannon lawsuits were later consolidated before U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken in Oakland. Judge Wilken refused to toss the cases in February 2010, rejecting EA's arguments that its depiction of the players was "transformative" and thus protected by the First Amendment. Writing for the majority on July 31, Ninth Circuit Judge Jay Bybee affirmed Judge Wilken's ruling, finding that EA's First Amendment argument failed because the company "literally recreates Keller in the very setting in which he has achieved renown." "In the 2005 edition of the game, the virtual starting quarterback for Arizona State wears number 9, as did Keller, and has the same height, weight, skin tone, hair color, hair style, handedness, home state, play style (pocket passer), visor preference, facial features, and school year as Keller," Judge Bybee wrote. The July 31 decision follows a similar ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in a case brought by former Rutgers University quarterback Ryan Hart. In May a split Third Circuit panel agreed with EA that video games enjoy First Amendment protections, but found that those free speech rights could be trumped by an individual's intellectual property rights in some instances. The Litigation Daily named Hart's lawyer, Michael Rubin of Altshuler Berzon, Litigator of the Week for the win. In the second Ninth Circuit EA case decided on July 31, the court sided unanimously with Electronic Arts. "[Jim] Brown's likeness is artistically relevant to the games and there are no alleged facts to support the claim that EA explicitly misled consumers as to Brown's involvement with the games," Judge Bybee wrote for the panel. Mr. Brown's lawyer, Ronald Katz -- rkatz@manatt.com -- of Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, declined to comment on his clients plans for further appeals. An EA spokesman said in a statement that the company was "pleased with the outcome regarding Jim Brown's likeness, but equally disappointed with the ruling against First Amendment protection in the Keller case." "We believe the reasoning in Judge Thomas' dissent in that decision will ultimately prevail as we seek further court review," EA added. In related news, the NCAA announced earlier in July that it was not renewing its contract with EA, citing "the current business climate and the costs of litigation." ELECTRONIC ARTS: Seeks Dismissal of Antitrust Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Jessica Conditt, writing for Joystiq, reports that EA asked a judge to dismiss the latest complaint in a lawsuit brought on by college athletes alleging EA, the NCAA and the Collegiate Licensing Company used players' names and likenesses in games without proper compensation. EA motioned to dismiss the plaintiffs' third amended complaint, which added six current NCAA athletes with the goal of certifying it as a class action lawsuit. EA argued that the plaintiffs' new complaint pleaded "no facts to support their theory that EA participated in an antitrust conspiracy with the NCAA and CLC." This wasn't a new strategy -- EA and the CLC previously argued they were following NCAA rules and were therefore not involved in an antitrust conspiracy, and EA repeated this defense in the motion for dismissal. This was the second lawsuit against EA from the law firm Hagens Berman. The first case alleged EA violated antitrust laws by entering into exclusive deals with the AFL, NFL and NCAA. EA settled in this case in 2012 for $27 million and the loss of its exclusive licensing deal with the NCAA. In July, the NCAA announced it would no longer work with EA, exclusively or otherwise. Steve Berman of Hagens Berman said he viewed the dead deal between EA and the NCAA as a direct result of the pressure of litigation. The court will rule on the class status of the current lawsuit, and respond to EA's motion to dismiss, by September 5. According to Game Informer's Mike Futter, if successful, EA and the CLC will be removed from the suit before the group of athletes even has a chance to be certified as a class. The maneuver asks the court to examine whether or not the plaintiffs' case has legal merit. The NCAA recently announced it would not renew EA's license and has essentially removed itself from the video game business. ELMER'S PRODUCTS: Faces Class Action Over Krazy Glue Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- WKZO reports that two suburban Detroit residents are suing the company that makes Krazy Glue in federal court over allegations of false advertising. The lawsuit argues that the front of the packaging claims the adhesive works on wood, but the fine print on the back instructs not to use the product on wooden surfaces. Attorneys for Elmer's Products of Westerville, Ohio explained in a federal court filing in Detroit that the words "wood" and "leather" have been removed from the front of newer packages. FACEBOOK INC: Supreme Court Review Sought for Cy Pres Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that the doctrine of cy pres -- from the French for 'cy pres comme possible,' or 'as near as possible' -- may have originated in trust law, but it has had its full flowering in class actions. Both defendants and plaintiffs lawyers have good reasons to resolve cases involving potentially large numbers of claimants with minuscule damages by directing money to charity instead of tracking down class members. Cy pres settlements wipe cases off the docket, which is good for defendants. And they generate fee awards, which is good for the class action bar. Class actions are, of course, overseen by federal judges, and the practice of naming a particular judge's favorite charity as the recipient of cy pres funds in order to boost the odds of court approval has fallen into disrepute. Nevertheless, it's the rare cy pres settlement that is rejected. Judges may ask for money to go to a different charity or may restrict attorneys' fees, but courts usually conclude that there's a benefit to class members in supporting charity rather than risking a trial of their claims. Ted Frank of the Center for Class Action Fairness is not so sure. On July 26, Mr. Frank and lawyers from Baker Hostetler filed a petition for a writ of certiorari at the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the justices to review the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals' approval of a $9.5 million settlement of class action allegations that Facebook's now-dismantled "Beacon" program violated users' privacy by revealing their online purchases. More than $6 million of that money was directed to the establishment of a new Internet privacy foundation with an advisory board that includes a Facebook representative and a plaintiffs' lawyer from the case. Class counsel were also awarded $2.3 million in fees. Class members, meanwhile, received no direct compensation at all from the settlement. The new cert petition contends that the 9th Circuit's split ruling in the case conflicts with cy pres decisions from the 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 7th and 8th Circuits. "If allowed to stand, the circuit split created by the 9th Circuit's decision creates an enormous incentive for forum- shopping by plaintiffs' attorneys seeking to sue and settle nationwide class actions like this one," the petition said. "Bringing suit within the 9th Circuit's footprint now guarantees that minor things like compensating class members for their injuries, holding defendants liable to the extent the law allows, and preventing defendants from injuring class members in the exact same manner will not stand in the way of reaching a quick settlement to the mutual benefit of defendants and class counsel, at the expense of class counsel's putative clients. The court should grant certiorari to resolve this circuit conflict, provide guidance to the lower courts on the use of cy pres awards, and correct a serious abuse of the class action mechanism that puts the interests of those it is intended to benefit, class members, dead last." There's a heavy dose of polemic in that paragraph, but it's indisputable that other federal circuits have recently expressed doubts about the cy pres mechanism. In Klier v. Elf Atochem, the 5th Circuit ruled in 2011 that unclaimed funds from a toxic exposure class action should have been disbursed to members of a subclass rather than given to charity. In April 2012, the 1st Circuit held in In re Lupron that cy pres distributions must "reasonably approximate the interests of class members," though it found that the giveaway of unclaimed funds from the Lupron sales and marketing case met that standard. A few months after the Lupron ruling, the 3rd Circuit found in In re Baby Products Antitrust Litigation that cy pres distributions are constitutional but present a potential conflict of interest between class counsel and their clients because the lawyers get paid regardless of where the money goes. Courts, according to the 3rd Circuit, must evaluate "whether the settlement provides sufficient direct benefit to the class." Even in the Facebook Beacon case (which is different from the similar "Sponsored Stories" class action, in which a $10 million cy pres settlement was rejected by U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg, who had previously approved the Beacon deal), 9th Circuit Judge Andrew Kleinfeld said in a dissenting opinion that his colleagues in the majority had failed to exercise adequate judicial oversight. "The majority approves ratification of a class action settlement in which class members get no compensation at all," Judge Kleinfeld wrote. "They do not get one cent. They do not get even an injunction against Facebook doing exactly the same thing to them again. Their purported lawyers get millions of dollars. Facebook gets a bar against any claims any of them might make for breach of their privacy rights. The most we could say for the cy pres award is that in exchange for giving up any claims they may have, the exposed Facebook users get the satisfaction of contributing to a charity to be funded by Facebook, partially controlled by Facebook, and advised by a legal team consisting of Facebook's counsel and their own purported counsel whom they did not hire and have never met." Judge Kleinfeld's strong dissent helped persuade Mr. Frank and the Center for Class Action Fairness that the Facebook Beacon case was a good candidate for Supreme Court review of cy pres. Mr. Frank, who litigated the In re Baby Products case at the 3rd Circuit and has written and spoken for years about what he considers the dangerous conflicts inherent in cy pres settlements, wasn't involved in the Facebook Beacon appeal at the 9th Circuit. According to Mr. Frank, after the entire appellate court declined to take the Beacon objectors' case en banc, he asked objectors' counsel from Public Citizen if they were going to file a cert petition and, if so, if he could help. "They didn't get back to us with interest," he said. So Mr. Frank spoke to John W. Davis of the Law Office of John W. Davis, who represented a second group of objectors. Mr. Davis's clients agreed to proceed. "This issue has been percolating, and we've been looking for an opportunity to clarify the law," Mr. Frank said, "This was such a delicious case -- so obviously a bad settlement." Mr. Frank said he's actively seeking amicus support for his Supreme Court bid from public interest groups along the political spectrum. He'd still like Public Citizen to get involved, and he's hoping the U.S. Chamber of Commerce won't feel conflicted because corporate defendants benefit from settling cases through cy pres deals. The Cato Institute, Mr. Frank said, has already expressed interest in the Supreme Court appeal. "This is not an ideological split," he said. "We're just saying class actions were not intended to be a free-floating, private AG thing." Reuters' Ms. Frankel left a message for Scott Nelson of Public Citizen but didn't hear back. Class counsel Scott Kamber of Kamber Law -- skamber@kamberlaw.com -- and David Parisi -- dparisi@parisihavens.com -- of Parisi & Havens also didn't return Ms. Frankel's calls. Facebook counsel Michael Rhodes -- rhodesmg@cooley.com -- of Cooley referred Ms. Frankel's call to a company representative who declined to comment. FAR EAST BROKERS: Recalls Ladybug-Themed Kids' Outdoor Furniture ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Far East Brokers and Consultants Inc., of Jacksonville, Fla., announced a voluntary recall of about 14,000 Leisure Ways Brands Kids Outdoor Furniture. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The red surface paint on the furniture contains excessive levels of lead, a violation of the federal lead paint standard. There were no incidents that were reported. The recall involves red ladybug-themed kids' metal-framed outdoor furniture sold under the Leisure Ways brand. The recalled items have large ladybug images on the fabric and include a camp chair, folding chair, moon chair, double-seat swing chair and patio set that includes two chairs, a table and an umbrella. A tracking label sewn into the seat of each chair includes the production date "December/2012" and the words, "Distributed by: Far East Brokers and Consultants, Inc." Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/Rsbac6 The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Weis Markets, wholesale distributors, grocery and drug stores nationwide from January 2013 to May 2013 for between $10 and $50, depending on the item. Consumers should immediately take the recalled outdoor furniture away from children and return them to the place of purchase for a full refund. FIRST FINANCIAL: Signs MOU to Settle SCBT Merger-Related Suits -------------------------------------------------------------- First Financial Holdings, Inc., disclosed in its July 16, 2013, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it entered into a memorandum of understanding to settle class action lawsuits brought in connection with its proposed merger with SCBT Financial Corporation. On July 16, 2013, SCBT Financial Corporation, a South Carolina corporation ("SCBT") and First Financial Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("First Financial"), entered into a memorandum of understanding (the "MOU") with plaintiffs and other named defendants regarding the settlement of a putative class action lawsuit filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Court") in response to the announcement of the execution of an Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of February 19, 2013 (the "Merger Agreement"), by and between SCBT and First Financial. Pursuant to, and subject to the terms and conditions of, the Merger Agreement, First Financial will merge with and into SCBT, with SCBT as the surviving entity following the merger (the "Merger"). On March 5, 2013, a purported shareholder of First Financial filed a lawsuit in the Court, captioned Arthur Walter v. R. Wayne Hall et al., No. 8386-VCN. On March 25, 2013, another purported shareholder of First Financial filed a lawsuit in the same court captioned Emmy Moore v. R. Wayne Hall et al., No. 8434-VCN. On April 18, 2013, the Court of Chancery issued an order consolidating the two lawsuits into one action captioned In re First Financial Holdings, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, No. 8386- VCN (the "Lawsuit"). On May 7, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on behalf of a putative class of First Financial's common shareholders (the "Complaint"). The Complaint names as defendants First Financial, the current members of First Financial's board of directors (the "Director Defendants") and SCBT. Under the terms of the MOU, SCBT, First Financial, the Director Defendants and the plaintiffs have agreed to settle the Lawsuit subject to the approval of the Court. If the Court approves the settlement contemplated by the MOU, the Lawsuit will be dismissed with prejudice and the defendants will be released from any claims that plaintiffs and the alleged class of First Financial shareholders may have based upon, arising out of, or related to the Merger, Defendants' consideration of the Merger, and any disclosures or public filings related to the Merger (other than any claims of First Financial stockholders under the federal securities law entirely unrelated to the Merger or any disclosures related thereto). Pursuant to the terms of the MOU, SCBT and First Financial have agreed to make available additional information to First Financial shareholders. In return, the plaintiffs have agreed to the dismissal of the Lawsuit with prejudice and not to seek any interim relief in favor of the alleged class of First Financial stockholders. The parties to the MOU have not had any discussions regarding potential fees and expenses of the plaintiffs' attorneys; however, the parties have agreed to engage in good faith negotiations regarding an award of such fees and expenses. The defendants have reserved all rights to oppose the amount of any petition by the plaintiffs and their attorneys for an award of fees and expenses (to the extent any arguments do not contradict the MOU) in the event that the parties are unable to reach agreement on such an award. The parties to the MOU have agreed that final resolution by the Court of any fee petition will not be a precondition to the dismissal of the Lawsuit. There can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the Court will approve the settlement, even if the parties were to enter into such stipulation. In such event, the proposed settlement as contemplated by the MOU may be terminated. The settlement will not affect the consideration to be paid to First Financial shareholders in connection with the Merger or the timing of the special meetings of First Financial and SCBT shareholders, which were scheduled on July 24, 2013, in Charleston, South Carolina and Columbia, South Carolina, respectively, to consider and vote upon a proposal to approve the Merger Agreement, among other things. SCBT, First Financial and the Director Defendants deny each of the allegations in the Lawsuit and believe the prior disclosures in the Definitive Proxy are adequate under applicable law. First Financial and the Director Defendants have informed SCBT that they maintain that they have complied with their fiduciary duty and other applicable legal duties in all respects in connection with the Merger and any disclosure obligations in connection therewith. SCBT, First Financial and the Director Defendants have agreed to settle the Lawsuit in order to avoid costly litigation and reduce the risk of any delay to the completion of the Merger. Nothing in this Current Report or any stipulation of settlement shall be deemed an admission of the legal necessity or materiality under applicable laws of any of the disclosures set forth herein or therein. First Financial Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.firstfinancialholdings.com/-- is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive office located in Charleston, South Carolina. First Financial offers integrated financial solutions, including personal, business and wealth management services. HEWLETT-PACKARD: Wachtell Replaces MoFo as Atty. in Autonomy Suits ------------------------------------------------------------------ Julia Love, writing for The Recorder, reports that Hewlett-Packard Co. is churning through outside counsel as it confronts an avalanche of shareholder suits over its widely panned acquisition of Autonomy. The embattled personal computer maker has tapped New York's Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz and San Francisco's Farella, Braun & Martel to defend it, ousting its newly hired lawyers at Morrison & Foerster, according to a substitution of counsel filed on July 30 in federal court. The team is the third in just more than a month to represent HP in securities actions stemming from its 2011 purchase of Autonomy, a British software maker. MoFo partners Darryl Rains, Judson Lobdell and Mark Foster entered the fray for HP in late June after the company ditched Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, a long-time favorite firm. HP's lineup now consists of Wachtell partners Marc Wolinsky -- MWolinsky@wlrk.com -- George Conway III -- GTConway@wlrk.com -- and Rachelle Silverberg -- RSilverberg@wlrk.com -- along with Farella partners Neil Goteiner -- ngoteiner@fbm.com -- and Thomas Mayhew -- tmayhew@fbm.com Lawyers at both firms referred requests for comment on the change of counsel to HP, as did MoFo. An HP spokeswoman wrote in an email that the switch had nothing to do with the quality of Morrison & Foerster's work. "We've simply decided to go in a different direction with Wachtell," she said. HP announced the change on the eve of a key deadline in the derivative shareholder suits. A stay in that litigation was set to expire on July 31. In one of their first actions on behalf of their new client, Wolinsky and Goteiner asked U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer to renew the stay to give an independent committee formed by HP's board of directors more time to investigate potential claims by the company and make a recommendation to the board about related litigation. "It's very unusual to replace counsel at this stage of the case, let alone twice," said Mark Molumphy -- mmolumphy@cpmlegal.com -- a principal at Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, which has been named lead counsel in the derivative shareholder suits. "I'm kind of scratching my head." Both MoFo and Morgan Lewis had a hand in the HP-Autonomy merger. Morgan Lewis handled antitrust work for Autonomy on the deal. MoFo represented Qatalyst Partners, Autonomy's financial adviser in the acquisition. HP's spokeswoman declined to comment on whether conflict concerns played a role in the latest switch. Earlier this month, lawyers at MoFo filed a motion to dismiss the shareholder class actions, attempting to discredit the plaintiffs' theory that HP executives knew about improper accounting at Autonomy but hid it from shareholders to push the acquisition through. "In an attempt to spin Autonomy's accounting fraud into an investor class action, plaintiff has filed a complaint recasting the victim -- HP -- as the perpetrator," Rains, Lobdell and Foster wrote. INTUIT INC: Settles Silicon Valley Anti-Poaching Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Howard Mintz, writing for San Jose Mercury News, reports that Intuit has become the third company to settle a class-action lawsuit alleging its top executives were part of a Silicon Valley conspiracy to not poach workers from rival tech companies, according to a letter filed on July 30 with the federal judge overseeing the case. Lawyers for employees who sued over the anti-poaching allegations informed U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh of the pact in a brief letter. The letter did not disclose the terms of the settlement with Intuit, which has now joined Lucasfilm and Pixar in resolving their part of the long-running legal battle. Apple, Intel, Google and Adobe remain as defendants in the case, and there is no indication those valley powerhouses have settled. The case is set to go to trial next year. The lawsuit alleges that by agreeing to not poach from rivals' work forces, the companies doused competition, costing tens of thousands of employees a chance to jump to more lucrative jobs in the valley's competitive job market. The companies are accused of cutting deals with each other to not raid employees, particularly in the engineering ranks. In previous orders, Judge Koh has indicated the employees have presented strong evidence that top executives, including late Apple CEO Steve Jobs and Google CEO Eric Schmidt, had side assurances to steer clear of raiding rival work forces. The companies have repeatedly denied the allegations, which mirror an antitrust case they've already settled with the U.S. Justice Department. The federal government has a separate case pending against eBay involving the same allegations. JP BODEN: Recalls Kensington High Heels Shoes Due to Fall Hazard ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with JP Boden Services Inc., of Pittston, Pa., announced a voluntary recall of about 190 Kensington Court Women's Shoes. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The heel on the shoe can loosen with wear and become unstable, posing a fall hazard. There were no incidents that were reported. The Kensington Court 3 1/2 inch high heel patent leather shoes were sold in four colors including dark blue with beige trim, cream with tan trim, red with gray trim and turquoise blue with beige trim. The plain toe pump women's shoes were sold in sizes 5-1/2 to 10-1/2. The Boden logo is printed on a label on the inside sole of the shoe. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/MRsRas The recalled products were manufactured in Spain and sold at Boden catalog nationwide and online at http://www.bodenusa.comfrom January 2013 through June 2013 for about $170. Consumers should stop wearing the shoes and contact JP Boden to receive postage paid label to return the shoes and receive a full refund. KEYSTONE: Recalls 76 Laredo Model Trailers Over Defective Battery ----------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: July 29, 2013 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Travel Trailer Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Electrical Units affected: 76 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2013259 TC ID number: 2013259 Manufacturer recall number: 13-194 Affected products: Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- KEYSTONE LAREDO 2013, 2014 On certain fifth wheel travel trailers, the battery box may detach from its supports. This could cause the battery to fall from the vehicle, resulting in property damage and a possible hazard to other road users. Dealers will install a reinforcement kit. MOSAIC CO: Has Final Approval of Potash Antitrust Suit Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Mosaic Company received in June 2013 final approval of its settlement of the Potash Antitrust Litigation, according to the Company's July 17, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended May 31, 2013. On September 11, 2008, separate complaints (together, the "September 11, 2008 Cases") were filed in the United States District Courts for the District of Minnesota (the "Minn-Chem Case") and the Northern District of Illinois (the "Gage's Fertilizer Case"), on October 2, 2008, another complaint (the "October 2, 2008 Case") was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, and on November 10, 2008, and November 12, 2008, two additional complaints (together, the "November 2008 Cases" and collectively with the September 11, 2008 Cases and the October 2, 2008 Case, the "Direct Purchaser Cases") were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the "Northern Illinois District Court") by Minn-Chem, Inc., Gage's Fertilizer & Grain, Inc., Kraft Chemical Company, Westside Forestry Services, Inc. d/b/a Signature Lawn Care, and Shannon D. Flinn, respectively, against The Mosaic Company, Mosaic Crop Nutrition, LLC and a number of unrelated defendants that allegedly sold and distributed potash throughout the United States. On November 13, 2008, the plaintiffs in the cases in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois filed a consolidated class action complaint against the defendants, and on December 2, 2008, the Minn-Chem Case was consolidated with the Gage's Fertilizer Case. On April 3, 2009, an amended consolidated class action complaint was filed on behalf of the plaintiffs in the Direct Purchaser Cases. The amended consolidated complaint added Thomasville Feed and Seed, Inc. as a named plaintiff, and was filed on behalf of the named plaintiffs and a purported class of all persons who purchased potash in the United States directly from the defendants during the period July 1, 2003, through the date of the amended consolidated complaint ("Class Period"). The amended consolidated complaint generally alleged, among other matters, that the defendants: conspired to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the price at which potash was sold in the United States; exchanged information about prices, capacity, sales volume and demand; allocated market shares, customers and volumes to be sold; coordinated on output, including the limitation of production; and fraudulently concealed their anticompetitive conduct. The plaintiffs in the Direct Purchaser Cases generally sought injunctive relief and to recover unspecified amounts of damages, including treble damages, arising from defendants' alleged combination or conspiracy to unreasonably restrain trade and commerce in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The plaintiffs also sought costs of lawsuit, reasonable attorneys' fees and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest. On September 15, 2008, separate complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois by Gordon Tillman (the "Tillman Case"); Feyh Farm Co. and William H. Coaker Jr. (the "Feyh Farm Case"); and Kevin Gillespie (the "Gillespie Case;" the Tillman Case and the Feyh Farm Case together with the Gillespie case being collectively referred to as the "Indirect Purchaser Cases;" and the Direct Purchaser Cases together with the Indirect Purchaser Cases being collectively referred to as the "Potash Antitrust Cases"). The defendants in the Indirect Purchaser Cases were generally the same as those in the Direct Purchaser Cases. On November 13, 2008, the initial plaintiffs in the Indirect Purchaser Cases and David Baier, an additional named plaintiff, filed a consolidated class action complaint. On April 3, 2009, an amended consolidated class action complaint was filed on behalf of the plaintiffs in the Indirect Purchaser Cases. The factual allegations in the amended consolidated complaint were substantially identical to those with respect to the Direct Purchaser Cases. The amended consolidated complaint in the Indirect Purchaser Cases was filed on behalf of the named plaintiffs and a purported class of all persons who indirectly purchased potash products for end use during the Class Period in the United States, any of 20 specified states and the District of Columbia defined in the consolidated complaint as "Indirect Purchaser States," any of 22 specified states and the District of Columbia defined in the consolidated complaint as "Consumer Fraud States", and/or 48 states and the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico defined in the consolidated complaint as "Unjust Enrichment States." The plaintiffs generally sought injunctive relief and to recover unspecified amounts of damages, including treble damages for violations of the antitrust laws of the Indirect Purchaser States where allowed by law, arising from defendants' alleged continuing agreement, understanding, contract, combination and conspiracy in restraint of trade and commerce in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, Section 16 of the Clayton Act, the antitrust, or unfair competition laws of the Indirect Purchaser States and the consumer protection and unfair competition laws of the Consumer Fraud States, as well as restitution or disgorgement of profits, for unjust enrichment under the common law of the Unjust Enrichment States, and any penalties, punitive or exemplary damages and/or full consideration where permitted by applicable state law. The plaintiffs also sought costs of lawsuit and reasonable attorneys' fees where allowed by law and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest. On June 15, 2009, the Company and the other defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaints in the Potash Antitrust Cases. On November 3, 2009, the court granted the Company's motions to dismiss the complaints in the Indirect Purchaser Cases except (a) for plaintiffs residing in Michigan and Kansas, claims for alleged violations of the antitrust or unfair competition laws of Michigan and Kansas, respectively, and (b) for plaintiffs residing in Iowa, claims for alleged unjust enrichment under Iowa common law. The court denied the Company's and the other defendants' other motions to dismiss the Potash Antitrust Cases, including the defendants' motions to dismiss the claims under Section 1 of the Sherman Act for failure to plead evidentiary facts which, if true, would state a claim for relief under that section. The court, however, stated that it recognized that the facts of the Potash Antitrust Cases present a difficult question under the pleading standards enunciated by the U.S. Supreme Court for claims under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, and that it would consider, if requested by the defendants, certifying the issue for interlocutory appeal. On January 13, 2010, at the request of the defendants, the court issued an order certifying for interlocutory appeal the issues of (i) whether an international antitrust complaint states a plausible cause of action where it alleges parallel market behavior and opportunities to conspire; and (ii) whether a defendant that sold product in the United States with a price that was allegedly artificially inflated through anti-competitive activity involving foreign markets, engaged in 'conduct involving import trade or import commerce' under applicable law. On September 23, 2011, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (the "Seventh Circuit") vacated the district court's order denying the defendants' motion to dismiss and remanded the case to the district court with instructions to dismiss the plaintiffs' Sherman Act claims. On December 2, 2011, the Seventh Circuit vacated its September 23, 2011 order and on June 27, 2012, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the order of the Northern Illinois District Court to deny the defendants' motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims. The decision was not a ruling on the merits of the case, but the Seventh Circuit's decision allowed pretrial discovery to proceed in this matter, and the Northern Illinois District Court scheduled trial to begin February 10, 2014. The Company sought U.S. Supreme Court review of the Seventh Circuit's decision. On January 30, 2013, the Company entered into agreements to settle the Potash Antitrust Cases for an aggregate of $43.8 million. The Company chose to settle the Potash Antitrust Cases to avoid the significant costs, burden and distraction of protracted litigation and the Company did not admit any wrongdoing. Following preliminary approval by the Northern Illinois District Court on January 30, 2013, the Company funded the settlement subject to final court approval. On June 12, 2013, the Northern Illinois District Court entered an order of final approval of the settlement. The majority of the settlement was recorded in the third quarter of fiscal year 2013. The Mosaic Company -- http://www.mosaicco.com/-- is one of the world's leading producers and marketers of concentrated phosphate and potash crop nutrients. The Company is the largest integrated phosphate producer in the world and one of the largest producers and marketers of phosphate-based animal feed ingredients in the United States. The Company mines phosphate rock in Florida and process rock into finished phosphate products at facilities in Florida and Louisiana. The Company mines potash in Saskatchewan, New Mexico and Michigan. The Company has other production, blending or distribution operations in Brazil, China, India, Argentina, and Chile, and a strategic equity investment in a phosphate rock mine in the Bayovar region in Peru. MURPHY USA: Continues to Defend Suits Over Hot Fuel --------------------------------------------------- Murphy USA Inc. continues to defend a subsidiary against class action lawsuits brought by retail purchasers of motor fuel, according to the Company's July 18, 2013, Form 10-12B/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Since the beginning of fiscal 2007, over 45 class action lawsuits have been filed in federal courts across the country against numerous companies in the petroleum industry. Major petroleum companies and significant retailers in the industry have been named as defendants in these lawsuits. Murphy USA's subsidiary, Murphy Oil USA, Inc., is a defendant in eight of these cases. Pursuant to an Order entered by the Joint Panel on Multi-District Litigation, all of the cases, including those in which Murphy Oil USA, Inc. is named, have been transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Kansas and consolidated for all pre-trial proceedings. The plaintiffs in the lawsuits generally allege that they are retail purchasers who received less motor fuel than the defendants agreed to deliver because the defendants measured the amount of motor fuel they delivered in non-temperature adjusted gallons which, at higher temperatures, contain less energy. These cases seek, among other relief, an order requiring the defendants to install temperature adjusting equipment on their retail motor fuel dispensing devices. In certain of the cases, including some of the cases in which Murphy Oil USA, Inc. is named, plaintiffs also have alleged that because defendants pay fuel taxes based on temperature adjusted 60 degree gallons, but allegedly collect taxes from consumers on non-temperature adjusted gallons, defendants receive a greater amount of tax from consumers than they paid on the same gallon of fuel. The plaintiffs in these cases seek, among other relief, recovery of excess taxes paid and punitive damages. Both types of cases seek compensatory damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs, and prejudgment interest. The defendants filed motions to dismiss all cases for failure to state a claim, which were denied by the court on February 21, 2008. A number of the defendants, including Murphy Oil USA, Inc., subsequently moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or, in the alternative, for summary judgment on the grounds that plaintiffs' claims constitute non-justiciable "political questions." The Court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss on political question grounds on December 3, 2009, and defendants request to appeal that decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit was denied on August 31, 2010. In May 2010, in a lawsuit in which Murphy Oil USA, Inc. was not a party, the Court granted class certification to Kansas fuel purchasers seeking implementation of automated temperature controls and/or certain disclosures, but deferred ruling on any class for damages. The Defendants sought permission to appeal that decision to the Tenth Circuit in June 2010, and that request was denied on August 31, 2010. On November 12, 2011, the Defendants in the Kansas case filed a motion to decertify the Kansas classes in light of a new favorable United States Supreme Court decision. On January 19, 2012, the Judge denied the Defendants' motion to decertify and granted plaintiffs' motion to certify a class as to liability and injunctive relief aspects of plaintiffs' claims. The court has continued to deny certification of a damages class. On September 24, 2012, the jury in the Kansas case returned a unanimous verdict in favor of defendants finding that defendants did not violate Kansas law by willfully failing to disclose temperature and its effect on the energy content of motor fuel. On October 3, 2012, the judge in the Kansas case also ruled that defendants' practice of selling motor fuel without disclosing temperature or disclosing the effect of temperature was not unconscionable under Kansas law. On January 23, 2013, the judge ordered that three cases venued in California be remanded for trial. At this stage of proceedings, losses are reasonably possible, however, the Company cannot estimate its loss, range of loss or liability, if any, related to these lawsuits because there are a number of unknown facts and unresolved legal issues that will impact the amount of any potential liability, including, without limitation: (i) whether defendants are required, or even permitted under state law, to sell temperature adjusted gallons of motor fuel; (ii) the amounts and actual temperature of fuel purchased by plaintiffs; and (iii) whether or not class certification is proper in cases to which Murphy Oil USA, Inc. is a party. The Company says an adverse outcome in this litigation could have a material adverse effect on its business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. Upon completion of Murphy USA Inc.'s -- http://www.murphyusa.com/ -- separation from Murphy Oil Corporation, the Company's business will consist primarily of marketing of retail motor fuel products and convenience merchandise through a large chain of retail stations owned and operated by the Company, almost all of which are in close proximity to Walmart stores. The Company's retail stations under the brand name Murphy USA(R) participate in the Walmart discount program that the Company offers at most locations. The Walmart discount program offers a cents-off per gallon purchased for fuel when using specific payment methods as decided by Murphy USA and Walmart. NATIONAL BEEF: Recalls Beef Products Due to E. Coli Presence ------------------------------------------------------------ National Beef Packing Company, a Liberal, Kan., firm, is recalling approximately 50,100 pounds of ground beef products that may be contaminated with E. coli O157:H7, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The following products are subject to recall: * 10 lb. chub of "National Beef" 93/ 7 Fine Ground Beef, Product Code 0707; * 10 lb. chub of "NatureSource" 80/20 Fine Ground Chuck, Product Code 7031; * 10 lb. chub of "NatureSource" 85/15 Fine Ground Beef, Product Code 7054; * 10 lb. chub of "NatureSource" 90/10 Fine Ground Beef, Product Code 7344; * 10 lb. chub of "NatureSource" 93/ 7 Fine Ground Beef, Product Code 7004; * 10 lb. chub of "NatureWell" 80/20 Fine Ground Chuck, Product Code 7484; * 10 lb. chub of "NatureWell" 85/15 Fine Ground Beef, Product Code 7454; * 10 lb. chub of "NatureWell" 90/10 Fine Ground Sirloin, Product Code 7577; and * 10 lb. chub of "NatureWell " 93/7 Fine Ground Beef, Product Code 7404 All these products bear the establishment number "EST. 208A" inside the USDA mark of inspection. The products were produced on July 18, 2013 and were shipped in 40 to 60 pound cases to retailers, wholesalers, and food service distributors nationwide. The problem was discovered through routine FSIS monitoring which confirmed a positive result for E.coli O157:H7. An investigation determined National Beef Packing Co. was the sole supplier of the source materials used to produce the positive product. FSIS and the company have received no reports of illnesses associated with consumption of these products. Individuals concerned about an illness should contact a healthcare provider. FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify recalling firms notify their customers (including restaurants) of the recall and to ensure that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls. E. coli O157:H7 is a potentially deadly bacterium that can cause bloody diarrhea, dehydration, and in the most severe cases, kidney failure. The very young, seniors and persons with weak immune systems are the most susceptible to foodborne illness. FSIS advises all consumers to safely prepare their raw meat products, including fresh and frozen, and only consume ground beef that has been cooked to a temperature of 160� F. The only way to confirm that ground beef is cooked to a temperature high enough to kill harmful bacteria is to use a food thermometer that measures internal temperature. Media with questions regarding the recall should contact National Beef's spokesperson, Keith Welty, at 816-713-8631. Consumers can call 1-866-761-9472 or go to http://www.nationalbeef.comfor the link to details about the recall and the company's return and reimbursement policy. Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. "Ask Karen" live chat services are available Monday through Friday from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. ET. The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a day. NULOOK BLINDS: Recalls Horizontal Venetian Blinds ------------------------------------------------- Starting date: July 31, 2013 Posting date: July 31, 2013 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Household Items Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Product Safety, Labelling and Packaging Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-34779 Affected products: Horizontal Venetian Blinds by Nulook Blinds P.E.I. The recall involves all horizontal venetian blinds manufactured by Nulook Blinds P.E.I. The products are custom made to order in various dimensions and colors. Health Canada's sampling and evaluation program has determined that the recalled blinds pose a strangulation hazard by not having an inner cord stop. Inner cord stops are devices that prevent an inner cord from being pulled and forming a loop in which young children may pull around their neck, posing a risk of strangulation. The blinds also do not have the required hang tag warnings, correct bottom rail labeling, company information or year of manufacture listed on the product. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/8mGES9 Neither Health Canada nor Nulook Blinds P.E.I. has received reports of incidents or injuries related to the use of these blinds. Approximately 150 of the affected products were sold in Canada. The recalled products were manufactured in Canada and sold at the time the Corded Window Covering Products Regulations came into force in April 2009 until February 2013. Corded window covering products sold before 2009 may not have safety devices, warning labels, and instructions to keep pull cords out of the reach of children. Companies: Manufacturer Nulook Blinds P.E.I Charlottetown Canada Consumers should stop using the recalled product immediately. PIAGGIO GROUP: Recalls Griso, Norge, and Stelvio NTX Models ----------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: July 26, 2013 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Motorcycle Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Suspension Units affected: 107 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2013256 TC ID number: 2013256 On certain motorcycles, the rear suspension double connecting rod may have been manufactured incorrectly and could fail. This could result in a loss of vehicle control and increase the risk of a crash causing injury and/or property damage. Dealers will replace the double connecting rod. SAFELITE: Judge Approves Overtime Class Action Settlement --------------------------------------------------------- Jenna Reed, writing for glassBYTES, reports that a judge for the U.S. Northern District Court of California has given preliminary approval for a settlement reached in a class action suit filed against Safelite stemming from allegations related to overtime pay. In the deal, Safelite agreed to pay $1,097,000 to be distributed among class members. "The court conditionally approves the motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement," Judge Charles R. Breyer writes in court documents. The court extended the notice period for class members to submit their claims from 60 to 90 days. According to court documents, the settlement class "means all persons employed in California by [Safelite] as a windshield repair specialist or replacement technician between November 14, 2007, and June 3, 2013." In response to this preliminary decision and extension, attorneys have submitted a deadline timetable to the court for the judge's approval. This proposed calendar includes: -- The deadline for mailing notices to class members is August 16. -- The deadline for claim members to submit claims forms to the administrator is November 14. -- The deadline for the claims administrator to provide final claims information to the parties is November 18. -- The deadline for the defendant to revoke the settlement is November 22. -- The deadline for the filing motion for final approval from the court for the settlement is November 29. -- The final approval hearing is December 13. The court had not yet ruled on the proposed timetable at press time. The settlement agreement notes that Safelite "has asserted defenses to the claims alleged in the class action [suit] and expressly denies each of the claims asserted against it and any and all liability arising out of the conduct and facts alleged in the class action." "Defendant nevertheless desires to settle the class action," writes counsel for Safelite. "[Safelite] has concluded that further defense of the class action would be protracted and expensive. Substantial amounts of time, energy and resources of [Safelite] have been and, unless this settlement is made, will continue to be devoted to the defense of the claims asserted in the class action." Demetriot Lewis, who worked as a mobile windshield repair technician from April 2010 to December 2010 in the San Francisco Bay area, filed the suit originally, alleging that he was regularly scheduled to work eight hours per day, but that the company "did not pay [him] wages for all the hours [he] worked." "Defendant required plaintiff to clock in for work at a specified time, but regularly suffered or permitted [him] to work prior to the specified time for clocking in," alleged Mr. Lewis in the original case. "Tasks that defendant knowingly allowed or required plaintiff to perform prior to the specified time for clocking in included calling customers; retrieving paperwork, supplies or equipment from defendant's warehouse; attending meetings or taking tests at defendant's warehouse; and driving to customer locations from defendant's warehouse." SCBT FINANCIAL: Inks MOU to Settle First Financial Merger Suits --------------------------------------------------------------- SCBT Financial Corporation entered into a memorandum of understanding to settle class action lawsuits brought in connection with its proposed merger with First Financial Holdings, Inc., according to the Company's July 16, 2013, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. On July 16, 2013, SCBT Financial Corporation, a South Carolina corporation ("SCBT") and First Financial Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("First Financial"), entered into a memorandum of understanding (the "MOU") with plaintiffs and other named defendants regarding the settlement of a putative class action lawsuit filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Court") in response to the announcement of the execution of an Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of February 19, 2013 (the "Merger Agreement"), by and between SCBT and First Financial. Pursuant to, and subject to the terms and conditions of, the Merger Agreement, First Financial will merge with and into SCBT, with SCBT as the surviving entity following the merger (the "Merger"). On March 5, 2013, a purported shareholder of First Financial filed a lawsuit in the Court, captioned Arthur Walter v. R. Wayne Hall et al., No. 8386-VCN. On March 25, 2013, another purported shareholder of First Financial filed a lawsuit in the same court captioned Emmy Moore v. R. Wayne Hall et al., No. 8434-VCN. On April 18, 2013, the Court of Chancery issued an order consolidating the two lawsuits into one action captioned In re First Financial Holdings, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, No. 8386- VCN (the "Lawsuit"). On May 7, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on behalf of a putative class of First Financial's common shareholders (the "Complaint"). The Complaint names as defendants First Financial, the current members of First Financial's board of directors (the "Director Defendants") and SCBT. Under the terms of the MOU, SCBT, First Financial, the Director Defendants and the plaintiffs have agreed to settle the Lawsuit subject to the approval of the Court. If the Court approves the settlement contemplated by the MOU, the Lawsuit will be dismissed with prejudice and the defendants will be released from any claims that plaintiffs and the alleged class of First Financial shareholders may have based upon, arising out of, or related to the Merger, Defendants' consideration of the Merger, and any disclosures or public filings related to the Merger (other than any claims of First Financial stockholders under the federal securities law entirely unrelated to the Merger or any disclosures related thereto). Pursuant to the terms of the MOU, SCBT and First Financial have agreed to make available additional information to First Financial shareholders. In return, the plaintiffs have agreed to the dismissal of the Lawsuit with prejudice and not to seek any interim relief in favor of the alleged class of First Financial stockholders. The parties to the MOU have not had any discussions regarding potential fees and expenses of the plaintiffs' attorneys; however, the parties have agreed to engage in good faith negotiations regarding an award of such fees and expenses. The defendants have reserved all rights to oppose the amount of any petition by the plaintiffs and their attorneys for an award of fees and expenses (to the extent any arguments do not contradict the MOU) in the event that the parties are unable to reach agreement on such an award. The parties to the MOU have agreed that final resolution by the Court of any fee petition will not be a precondition to the dismissal of the Lawsuit. There can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the Court will approve the settlement, even if the parties were to enter into such stipulation. In such event, the proposed settlement as contemplated by the MOU may be terminated. The settlement will not affect the consideration to be paid to First Financial shareholders in connection with the Merger or the timing of the special meetings of First Financial and SCBT shareholders, which were scheduled on July 24, 2013, in Charleston, South Carolina and Columbia, South Carolina, respectively, to consider and vote upon a proposal to approve the Merger Agreement, among other things. SCBT, First Financial and the Director Defendants deny each of the allegations in the Lawsuit and believe the prior disclosures in the Definitive Proxy are adequate under applicable law. First Financial and the Director Defendants have informed SCBT that they maintain that they have complied with their fiduciary duty and other applicable legal duties in all respects in connection with the Merger and any disclosure obligations in connection therewith. SCBT, First Financial and the Director Defendants have agreed to settle the Lawsuit in order to avoid costly litigation and reduce the risk of any delay to the completion of the Merger. Nothing in this Current Report or any stipulation of settlement shall be deemed an admission of the legal necessity or materiality under applicable laws of any of the disclosures set forth herein or therein. Headquartered in Columbia, South Carolina, SCBT Financial Corporation -- http://www.scbtonline.com/-- operates as the holding company for SCBT, N.A., that provides retail and commercial banking services in the Carolinas. The Company's deposit products include checking accounts; savings and time deposits; and certificates of deposit, as well as interest-bearing transaction accounts, including NOW, HSA, IOLTA, and market rate checking accounts. SUZUKI: Recalls 97 GSX1250FA Model Motorcycles ---------------------------------------------- Starting date: July 29, 2013 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Motorcycle Notification type: Compliance Mfr System: Accessories Units affected: 97 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2013258 TC ID number: 2013258 Affected products: Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- SUZUKI GSX1250FA 2014 On certain motorcycles, the Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) has an incorrect character in the 10th position, identifying the model year of the vehicle as 2013 instead of 2014. Note: This does not pose a safety risk. Owners will be sent a letter than can be presented to insurers or future potential buyers explaining the discrepancy. THOMAS M. COOLEY: Appeals Court Affirms Dismissal of Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Karen Sloan, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that a federal appeals court on July 30 affirmed dismissal of a fraud class action against Thomas M. Cooley Law School, concluding that Michigan's consumer protection law did not apply to the purchase of a legal education and that Cooley's job placement claims were not "objectively false." Following the ruling by three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, plaintiffs attorney Jesse Strauss said his team would consider whether to seek an en banc hearing. "We're disappointed," Mr. Strauss said. "We thought they would reverse. For the court to say [Cooley's claims] were not misleading because of the fine print, or because this is a business purchase instead of a personal purchase, is a bit of a dodge, we think." Cooley president and dean Don LeDuc said the ruling sends a strong message. "Now that a federal court of appeals has ruled in this matter, no one can credibly say any longer that any accredited law school that followed American Bar Association and National Association for Law Placement guidelines in reporting the basic employment status of its graduates, as Cooley did, was misleading anyone," he said in a formal statement. Twelve recent Cooley graduates -- many of them either unemployed, working in solo practices or doing contract legal work -- initially sued Cooley in 2011 seeking $300 million for themselves and other alumni. They alleged the school misrepresented its job- placement and salary statistics to lure students. On July 20, 2012, U.S. District Judge Gordon Quist dismissed the suit, ruling that the Michigan Consumer Protection Act did not apply to education, which amounts to a business purpose. The appeals panel comprising appeal judges Boyce Martin Jr. and Deborah Cook and U.S. District Judge James Graham agreed. They said that because the students attended Cooley to improve their circumstances and snag a legal job, that equates to a business purchase for which the consumer-protection law offers no remedy. "If, for example, the graduates alleged that they attended Cooley to get a legal education with no intention of using it to make money, the district court might have erred in holding that the Act did not apply," the opinion reads. "But because the graduates admitted in their complaint that they bought their legal education for a business purpose, to make a living, the district court concluded that they failed to state a claim under the Act." The second part of the appeal focused on two specific claims made by Cooley in 2010: That 76 percent of its graduates were employed as of nine months after graduation and that graduates earned an average salary of $54,796. The plaintiffs argued that those statistics were fraudulent because the first represented students in all types of jobs -- not just full-time legal ones -- and the second was based on the 83 percent of graduates who reported their earning to the school rather than the entire class. A reasonable person would assume that he or she had a high likelihood of getting a fulltime legal job that paid close to $55,000 a year by attending, the plaintiffs argued. But the trial and appeals judges said the employment figure was not technically false. "The statistic does not say percentage of graduates 'employed in full-time, permanent positions for which a law degree is required or preferred,'" the appeals court wrote. "It only says percentage of graduates 'employed.' " Similarly, the court agreed that any reliance by the plaintiffs on the average salary statistic was unreasonable because other data in Cooley's employment report indicated that the figures were based only on graduates who completed the school's job survey. The plaintiffs alleged that Cooley's failure to explicitly state that the average salary figure was based on information from only a portion of the recent graduates and that the employment figure included any type of job constituted a silent fraud. The appeals court rejected that argument, saying that they failed to establish that Cooley had a duty to make that disclosure. Cooley and New York Law School were the first targets of plaintiffs represented by Strauss and David Anziska. (Thomas Jefferson School of Law was hit with a similar suit filed by a different attorney just weeks before the Cooley and New York suits were filed.) Mr. Strauss and his team followed up three months later with nearly identical actions against a dozen law schools across the country. Suits against schools in Illinois, Michigan and New York have since been dismissed, but those against four law schools in California -- California Western School of Law, Golden Gate University School of Law, the University of San Francisco School of Law and Southwestern Law School -- each survived initial motions to dismiss and are in discovery. Similarly, a suit targeting Widener University School of Law is in discovery. A court has yet to weigh in on a pending case against Florida Coastal School of Law. "Clearly, the courts don't want to grapple with this issue, but we're hoping that the [U.S.] Department of Education of the [American Bar Association] steps in to deal with schools like Cooley and Florida Coastal, because they are doing a huge disservice to their students," Mr. Strauss said. He added that while the attorneys haven't met their primary goal -- which is to secure compensation for the plaintiffs -- they are proud that their efforts have helped place a spotlight on the issue of law school transparency. But Mr. LeDuc insisted other motives are at play. "From its start, this case, and others like it, has been nothing more than a misguided crusade, brought by lawyers who had to search for their clients on social media, to shift blame onto law schools for the difficulty of finding jobs in a recessionary economy," he said. "And yet the legal profession always has been, and remains, one of the most resilient professions with one of the lowest unemployment rates of any profession." TRADITIONS: Recalls Frozen Chicken Meals Due To Misbranding ----------------------------------------------------------- Traditions, a Pearl, Miss., establishment, is recalling 2,486 pounds of frozen chicken meals because of misbranding and an undeclared allergen, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service announced. The products contain milk, a known allergen, which is not declared on the label. The products subject to recall include: A three-compartment tray containing "Lemon Pepper Chicken Breast Filet with Rib Meat Smoke Flavor Added / Mixed Vegetables / Basil and Garlic Fettuccine" bearing the establishment number "P-13850" inside the USDA mark of inspection. The products were produced and packaged on Oct. 5, 2012, Dec 19, 2012 and Jan. 28, 2013 The products were distributed to food service institutions nationwide. The problem was discovered by the firm during a routine label review. Milk is a sub ingredient of butter flavoring used in the product. The problem occurred after a change in formulation which resulted in milk being omitted from the label. FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about a reaction should contact a health care professional. FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers. Media with questions about the recall should contact Greg Shoemaker, Executive Vice President, at (601) 664-3107. Consumers should contact Sherry Goodwin, Customer Service Representative, at (601) 420-8847. Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. "Ask Karen" live chat services are available Monday through Friday from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. ET. The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a day. UNITED STATES: Bernanke to Give Deposition in AIG Bailout Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Annie Youderian, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke can be questioned for a class action challenging the government's 2008 bailout of American International Group, a U.S. judge ruled. Judge Thomas Wheeler of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims ordered the deposition of Bernanke by lawyers for AIG shareholders, including lead plaintiff Starr International Co. The shareholders say the bailout constituted an unconstitutional government "taking," and Bernanke's testimony would help unravel the decision-making process leading up to the bailout. Wheeler agreed. "Mr. Bernanke repeatedly has acknowledged that he was a key decision-maker on behalf of the government, and his testimony unquestionably is relevant to the Fifth Amendment taking and illegal exaction claims before the court," he wrote. At the height of the financial crisis, the Government gave the financial services company an $85 million revolving credit line in exchange for a 79.9 percent equity stake in AIG. The move came amid fears that AIG would collapse and take other Wall Street firms with it, causing unsustainable ripples in the U.S. economy. Federally appointed trustees also oversaw a 1-for-20 reverse stock split approved by AIG's board of directors. Wheeler certified two classes in March: a credit agreement class and a stock split class. Shareholders sought to depose the Fed chairman, but the Government asked for a protective order, claiming the plaintiffs needed to show that the information he could give was "essential to his case" and "not obtainable from another source." Wheeler denied the Government's motion on July 29, 2013, and ordered Bernanke's deposition. "The court is persuaded that Mr. Bernanke is a key witness in this case, and that his testimony will be highly relevant to the issues presented," Wheeler wrote. "Because of Mr. Bernanke's personal involvement in the decision-making process to bail out AIG, it is improbable that plaintiff would be able to obtain the same testimony or evidence from other persons or sources." He added that the court would "extend appropriate deference and courtesies" to the Fed chairman, including "appropriate judicial oversight" to ensure "that proper and efficient use of time is maintained." Starr International tentatively set the deposition for August 13, though Wheeler told its lawyers to coordinate the date with Bernanke. The Plaintiff is represented by: David Boies, Esq. BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP 333 Main Street Armonk, NY 10504 Telephone: (914) 749-8200 Facsimile: (914) 749-8300 E-mail: dboies@bsfllp.com - and - Robert J. Dwyer, Esq. Nicholas A. Gravante Jr., Esq. Alanna C. Rutherford, Esq. Julia C. Hamilton, Esq. BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP 575 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 446-2300 E-mail: rdwyer@bsfllp.com ngravante@bsfllp.com arutherford@bsfllp.com jchamilton@bsfllp.com - and - Hamish P. M. Hume, Esq. Samuel C. Kaplan, Esq. 5301 Wisconsin Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20015 Telephone: (202) 237-2727 E-mail: hhume@bsfllp.com skaplan@bsfllp.com - and - John L. Gardiner, Esq. SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP Four Times Square New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 735-3000 E-mail: john.gardiner@skadden.com The case is Starr International Company, Inc. v. The United States of America and American International Group, Inc., Case No. 11-CV- 00779C, in the United States Court of Federal Claims. UNITED STATES: Faces Suits Over Fannie & Freddie Stock Agreements ----------------------------------------------------------------- According to an article posted by Zoe Tillman at The Blog of Legal Times, earlier in July, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher's Theodore Olson made headlines when he filed a lawsuit accusing the federal government of blocking private stockholders of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from getting their fair share. Since then, more than a half dozen plaintiff firms have gotten into the game, filing related cases in Washington's federal district court and in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. The cases challenge an August 2012 agreement between the conservator of Fannie and Freddie -- the Federal Housing Finance Agency -- and the U.S. Department of Treasury that changed the structure of preferred stock purchase agreements held by Treasury. According to the complaint, the 2012 agreement essentially diverted Fannie and Freddie's net worth to the Treasury Department, leaving no money to pay dividends on stocks held by private companies and individuals. The plaintiffs accused the government of making the change just as Fannie and Freddie were recovering from the economic downturn and posting profits. Similar cases were also filed in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, although one of those lawsuits, filed by Seattle's Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro and Philadelphia's Spector Roseman Kodroff & Willis in June, is challenging the overarching legitimacy of the conservatorships of Fannie and Freddie, as opposed to just the August 2012 agreement. Gibson Dunn kicked off the district court action July 7, filing a case for investment fund manager Perry Capital LLC. Three days later, Washington's Cooper & Kirk sued on behalf of mutual fund Fairholme Funds Inc. and a group of insurance companies that held stock in Fannie and Freddie. Cooper & Kirk also filed an action in federal claims court on July 9. Boies, Schiller & Flexner is also pursuing claims in federal district and federal claims court. With Radnor, Pa.'s Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check serving as co-counsel in both instances, Boies Schiller filed complaints in the federal claims court on July 10 and in district court on July 29. "I think what happened is unprecedented," Boies Schiller's Hamish Hume said. "I really think it is about as egregious a case of appropriation as we've seen in a while." Finkelstein Thompson is representing plaintiffs in two separate district court cases. In the first, filed on July 16, the firm is working with Los Angeles' Glancy Binkow & Goldberg to represent individuals that owned Fannie and Freddie securities. On July 30, the firm filed another case, this time with New York's Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross, on behalf of insurance companies that held stock. Pomerantz and Brower Piven in Stevenson, Md., also filed a case in federal claims court on July 19. Mr. Hume said that given differences in the cases, from the scope of claims to the type of relief sought, he didn't think they would be consolidated, although they might be coordinated under the same judges; so far they've been assigned to Judge Robert Wilkins. No consolidation motion has been filed. Hagens Berman is attempting to consolidate the cases in federal claims court. In its motion, the firm disputed a claim by Mr. Hume's client that there were "important differences" between the cases. Those cases have all been assigned to Judge Margaret Sweeney. (Partner Steven Berman could not be reached for comment.) Also worth noting: the cases have brought together Gibson Dunn and Boies Schiller with former foe Cooper & Kirk. Gibson Dunn and Boies Schiller sparred with Cooper & Kirk in the U.S. Supreme Court legal fight last term over California's Proposition 8 ballot initiative barring same sex marriage. "We look forward to working with both Gibson Dunn and Cooper & Kirk," Mr. Hume said. WORLD FAMOUS: Recalls North 49 Air Horn --------------------------------------- Starting date: July 31, 2013 Posting date: July 31, 2013 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Specialized Products Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Product Safety, Labelling and Packaging Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-34763 Affected products: North 49 Air Horn The recall involves the North 49 Air Horn. The product is used to generate loud noise for different outdoor events such as sporting events and marine use. The product is sold in an aerosol can and the contents are under pressure. The product can be identified by item number 2870 and UPC 069808028708. The recalled products do not have the mandatory labelling required under Canadian Law. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/o9JtiB This consumer chemical product lacks the explosive hazard symbol and warnings required by the Consumer Chemical and Container Regulations, 2001 under the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act. The lack of appropriate hazard symbol and bilingual warnings on the label could result in improper handling and lead to serious injury. Health Canada received one incident report resulting in property damage. World Famous Sales of Canada Inc. also received one incident report. No injuries were reported related to the use of this product. Approximately 5,958 units of North 49 Air Horn were sold in Canada The affected products were manufactured in China and sold from September 2011 to June 2013. Companies: Distributor World Famous Sales of Canada Inc. Concord Ontario Canada Consumers should stop using the recalled product immediately and return it to the store where it was purchased. The store will give a credit or an exchange for a replacement product with the correct label. WYETH PHARMA: Settles Off-Label Marketing Suit for $490.9 Million ----------------------------------------------------------------- Matthew Huisman, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that a Pfizer Inc. subsidiary on July 30 entered into a $490.9 million settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice to resolve civil and criminal allegations of off-label pharmaceutical marketing abuses. The complaint alleged that Wyeth Pharmaceuticals Inc., acquired by Pfizer in 2009, illegally marketed its immunosuppressant drug Rapamune, which is intended to help kidney patients accept transplanted organs. From 1998 through 2009, Wyeth allegedly instructed sales representatives to promote the drug for unapproved uses to boost sales. "FDA's drug approval process ensures companies market their products for uses proven safe and effective," Stuart Delery, acting assistant attorney general for the civil division, said in a written statement. "We will hold accountable those who put patients' health at risk in pursuit of financial gain." Wyeth pleaded guilty to criminal misbranding under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act and will pay a criminal fine of $157.58 million and forfeit $76 million. A $257.4 million civil settlement will go to the federal government and states including Arkansas, California, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia and the District of Columbia. The complaint, filed in 2005 by whistleblowers Marlene Sandler and Scott Paris, two former sales representatives, accused Wyeth of hyping Rapamune for use in transplants of organs other than kidneys and in place of or in combination with other immunosuppressants. In 2006, the DOJ declined to intervene in the case, a decision it reversed in 2010 following an inquiry by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Representing Sandler and Paris were Grant & Eisenhofer director Reuben Guttman -- rguttman@gelaw.com -- and senior counsel Traci Buschner -- tbuschner@gelaw.com Wyeth and Pfizer were represented by Montgomery McCracken Walker & Rhoads chairman Richard Scheff -- rscheff@mmwr.com -- and associate Erin Dougherty -- edougherty@mmwr.com Neither Mer. Scheff nor Ms. Dougherty responded to a request for comment. "You've got a case that speaks to countless patients whose medical regimens were dictated by marketing schemes and money as opposed to being dictated solely by medical rationale," Mr. Guttman said in an interview. "It's not just about money, it's about people." Mr. Guttman pointed to additional False Claims Act litigation outcomes, including last year's $1.5 billion settlement with Abbott Laboratories Inc., as evidence that problems persist in the health care industry. "It shows the vulnerability of the health care system in the United States," he said. YUM! BRANDS: 9th Circuit Dismissed "Moeller" Suit Appeal in June ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dismissed in June 2013 the plaintiff's appeal in the class action lawsuit styled Moeller, et al. v. Taco Bell Corp., according to YUM! Brands, Inc.'s July 16, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 15, 2013. On December 17, 2002, Taco Bell Corp. was named as the defendant in a class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California styled Moeller, et al. v. Taco Bell Corp. On August 4, 2003, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint alleging, among other things, that Taco Bell has discriminated against the class of people who use wheelchairs or scooters for mobility by failing to make its approximately 200 Company-owned restaurants in California accessible to the class. The Plaintiffs contend that queue rails and other architectural and structural elements of the Taco Bell restaurants relating to the path of travel and use of the facilities by persons with mobility-related disabilities do not comply with the U.S. Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"), the Unruh Civil Rights Act (the "Unruh Act"), and the California Disabled Persons Act (the "CDPA"). The Plaintiffs have requested: (a) an injunction from the District Court ordering Taco Bell to comply with the ADA and its implementing regulations; (b) that the District Court declare Taco Bell in violation of the ADA, the Unruh Act, and the CDPA; and (c) monetary relief under the Unruh Act or CDPA. Plaintiffs, on behalf of the class, are seeking the minimum statutory damages per offense of either $4,000 under the Unruh Act or $1,000 under the CDPA for each aggrieved member of the class. The Plaintiffs contend that there may be in excess of 100,000 individuals in the class. In February 2004, the District Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The class included claims for injunctive relief and minimum statutory damages. In May 2007, a hearing was held on plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment seeking judicial declaration that Taco Bell was in violation of accessibility laws as to three specific issues: indoor seating, queue rails and door opening force. In August 2007, the court granted plaintiffs' motion in part with regard to dining room seating. In addition, the court granted plaintiffs' motion in part with regard to door opening force at some restaurants (but not all) and denied the motion with regard to queue lines. On December 16, 2009, the court denied Taco Bell's motion for summary judgment on the ADA claims and ordered the plaintiffs to select one restaurant to be the subject of a trial. The trial for the exemplar restaurant began on June 6, 2011, and on October 5, 2011, the court issued Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law ruling that plaintiffs established that classwide injunctive relief was warranted with regard to maintaining compliance as to corporate Taco Bell restaurants in California. The court declined to order injunctive relief at the time, however, citing the pendency of Taco Bell's motions to decertify both the injunctive and damages class. The court also found that twelve specific items at the exemplar store were once out of compliance with applicable state and/or federal accessibility standards. Taco Bell filed a motion to decertify the class in August 2011, and in July 2012, the court granted Taco Bell's motion to decertify the previously certified state law damages class but denied Taco Bell's motion to decertify the ADA injunctive relief class. On September 13, 2012, the court set a discovery and briefing schedule concerning the trials of the four individual plaintiffs' state law damages claims, which the court stated will be tried before holding further proceedings regarding the possible issuance of an injunction. On September 17, 2012, the court issued an order modifying its October 2011 Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law deleting the statement that an injunction was warranted. The Plaintiffs appealed that order, and on June 24, 2013, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed plaintiff's appeal. Taco Bell denies liability and intends to vigorously defend against all claims in this lawsuit. Taco Bell has taken steps to address potential architectural and structural compliance issues at the restaurants in accordance with applicable state and federal disability access laws. The costs associated with addressing these issues have not significantly impacted the Company's results of operations. The Company has provided for a reasonable estimate of the possible loss relating to this lawsuit. However, in view of the inherent uncertainties of litigation, there can be no assurance that this lawsuit will not result in losses in excess of those currently provided for in the Company's Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements. A reasonable estimate of the amount of any possible loss or range of loss in excess of that currently provided for in the Company's Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements cannot be made at this time. YUM! Brands, Inc. -- http://www.yum.com/-- is the world's largest quick service restaurant ("QSR") company based on number of system units, with over 39,000 units in more than 125 countries and territories. Primarily through the three concepts of KFC, Pizza Hut and Taco Bell, the Company develops, operates, franchises and licenses a worldwide system of restaurants which prepare, package and sell a menu of competitively priced food items. Units are operated by a Concept or by independent franchisees or licensees under the terms of franchise or license agreements. The Company was incorporated in North Carolina in 1997, and is headquartered in Louisville, Kentucky. YUM! BRANDS: Consolidated Securities Suit Pending in Kentucky ------------------------------------------------------------- The consolidated securities class action lawsuit against YUM! Brands, Inc., is currently pending in Kentucky, according to the Company's July 16, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 15, 2013. Beginning on January 24, 2013, four purported class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against the Company and certain of its executive officers. The complaints allege claims under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of a purported class of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's publicly traded securities between October 9, 2012, and January 7, 2013 (the "class period"). The Plaintiffs allege that during the class period, defendants purportedly made materially false and misleading statements concerning the Company's current and future business and financial condition, thereby inflating the prices at which the Company's securities traded. The complaints seek damages in an undefined amount. On March 25, 2013, two prospective lead plaintiffs filed motions seeking consolidation of the four actions, appointment as lead plaintiff, and approval of their selection of counsel. In addition, on March 26, 2013, the Company filed a motion to transfer venue to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky. On May 1, 2013, the court granted: (1) the Company's motion to transfer and (2) Frankfurt Trust Investment GMBH's motions to be appointed lead plaintiff, for consolidation of the cases and for approval of its selection of class counsel. The cases pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California were therefore closed, and the consolidated case is now pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky. The Company denies liability and intends to vigorously defend against all claims in these complaints. A reasonable estimate of the amount of any possible loss or range of loss cannot be made at this time. YUM! Brands, Inc. -- http://www.yum.com/-- is the world's largest quick service restaurant ("QSR") company based on number of system units, with over 39,000 units in more than 125 countries and territories. Primarily through the three concepts of KFC, Pizza Hut and Taco Bell, the Company develops, operates, franchises and licenses a worldwide system of restaurants which prepare, package and sell a menu of competitively priced food items. Units are operated by a Concept or by independent franchisees or licensees under the terms of franchise or license agreements. The Company was incorporated in North Carolina in 1997, and is headquartered in Louisville, Kentucky. YUM! BRANDS: Parties in "Rosales" Suit to Submit Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------- The parties in the class action lawsuit initiated by Marisela Rosales are in the process of submitting their settlement for court approval, according to YUM! Brands, Inc.'s July 16, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 15, 2013. On September 28, 2009, a putative class action styled Marisela Rosales v. Taco Bell Corp. was filed in Orange County Superior Court. The plaintiff, a former Taco Bell crew member, alleges that Taco Bell failed to timely pay her final wages upon termination and seeks restitution and late payment penalties on behalf of herself and similarly situated employees. This case appears to be duplicative of the In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions. Taco Bell filed a motion to dismiss, stay or transfer the case to the same district court as the In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions case. The state court granted Taco Bell's motion to stay the Rosales case on May 28, 2010. After the September 2011 denial of class certification in the In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions, the court granted the plaintiff leave to amend her lawsuit, which the plaintiff filed and served on January 4, 2012. Taco Bell filed its responsive pleading on February 8, 2012, and the plaintiff has since filed two additional amended complaints. On May 22, 2013, the parties agreed to settle this matter. The parties are in the process of submitting the settlement to the court for approval. The Company says the costs associated with the settlement were not material. YUM! Brands, Inc. -- http://www.yum.com/-- is the world's largest quick service restaurant ("QSR") company based on number of system units, with over 39,000 units in more than 125 countries and territories. Primarily through the three concepts of KFC, Pizza Hut and Taco Bell, the Company develops, operates, franchises and licenses a worldwide system of restaurants which prepare, package and sell a menu of competitively priced food items. Units are operated by a Concept or by independent franchisees or licensees under the terms of franchise or license agreements. The Company was incorporated in North Carolina in 1997, and is headquartered in Louisville, Kentucky. YUM! BRANDS: Parties in "Whittington" Suit to Submit Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- The parties in the class action lawsuit filed by Jacquelyn Whittington are in the process of submitting their settlement for court approval, according to YUM! Brands, Inc.'s July 16, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 15, 2013. On August 6, 2010, a putative class action styled Jacquelyn Whittington v. Yum Brands, Inc., Taco Bell of America, Inc. and Taco Bell Corp. was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. The plaintiff seeks to represent a nationwide class, with the exception of California, of salaried assistant managers who were allegedly misclassified and did not receive compensation for all hours worked and did not receive overtime pay after 40 hours worked in a week. The Company has been dismissed from the case without prejudice. Taco Bell filed its answer on September 20, 2010, and the parties commenced class discovery. On September 16, 2011, plaintiffs filed their motion for conditional certification under the FLSA. The court heard plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification under the FLSA on January 10, 2012, granted conditional certification and ordered the notice of the opt-in class be sent to the putative class members. Approximately 488 individuals submitted opt-in forms. On June 14, 2013, the parties agreed to settle this matter. The parties are in the process of submitting the settlement to the court for approval. The costs associated with the settlement were not material. YUM! Brands, Inc. -- http://www.yum.com/-- is the world's largest quick service restaurant ("QSR") company based on number of system units, with over 39,000 units in more than 125 countries and territories. Primarily through the three concepts of KFC, Pizza Hut and Taco Bell, the Company develops, operates, franchises and licenses a worldwide system of restaurants which prepare, package and sell a menu of competitively priced food items. Units are operated by a Concept or by independent franchisees or licensees under the terms of franchise or license agreements. The Company was incorporated in North Carolina in 1997, and is headquartered in Louisville, Kentucky. YUM! BRANDS: Still Finalizing List of Opt-ins in "Smith" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- YUM! Brands, Inc., disclosed in its July 16, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 15, 2013, that parties in the class action lawsuit commenced by Mark Smith against a subsidiary of YUM! Brands, Inc., are still working to finalize the list of class opt- ins. On July 9, 2009, a putative class action styled Mark Smith v. Pizza Hut, Inc. was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. The complaint alleged that Pizza Hut did not properly reimburse its delivery drivers for various automobile costs, uniforms costs, and other job-related expenses and seeks to represent a class of delivery drivers nationwide under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Colorado state law. On January 4, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a motion for conditional certification of a nationwide class of current and former Pizza Hut, Inc. delivery drivers. However, on March 11, 2010, the court granted Pizza Hut's pending motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, with leave to amend. On March 31, 2010, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which dropped the uniform claims but, in addition to the federal FLSA claims, asserted state-law class action claims under the laws of sixteen different states. Pizza Hut filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, and the plaintiffs sought leave to amend their complaint a second time. On August 9, 2010, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion to amend. Pizza Hut filed another motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. On July 15, 2011, the Court granted Pizza Hut's motion with respect to the plaintiffs' state law claims but allowed the FLSA claims to go forward. The Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Conditional Certification on August 31, 2011, and the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion April 21, 2012. The opt-in period closed on August 23, 2012, and the parties are working to finalize the list of opt-ins. The final number has yet to be determined but is expected to be approximately 6,000. Pizza Hut denies liability and intends to vigorously defend against all claims in this lawsuit. A reasonable estimate of the amount of any possible loss or range of loss cannot be made at this time. YUM! Brands, Inc. -- http://www.yum.com/-- is the world's largest quick service restaurant ("QSR") company based on number of system units, with over 39,000 units in more than 125 countries and territories. Primarily through the three concepts of KFC, Pizza Hut and Taco Bell, the Company develops, operates, franchises and licenses a worldwide system of restaurants which prepare, package and sell a menu of competitively priced food items. Units are operated by a Concept or by independent franchisees or licensees under the terms of franchise or license agreements. The Company was incorporated in North Carolina in 1997, and is headquartered in Louisville, Kentucky. YUM! BRANDS: Taco Bell Still Defends Wage and Hour Suit in Calif. ----------------------------------------------------------------- YUM! Brands, Inc.'s subsidiary, Taco Bell Corp., was named as a defendant in a number of putative class action lawsuits filed in 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 alleging violations of California labor laws including unpaid overtime, failure to timely pay wages on termination, failure to pay accrued vacation wages, failure to pay minimum wage, denial of meal and rest breaks, improper wage statements, unpaid business expenses, wrongful termination, discrimination, conversion and unfair or unlawful business practices in violation of California Business & Professions Code Section 17200. Some plaintiffs also seek penalties for alleged violations of California's Labor Code under California's Private Attorneys General Act as well as statutory "waiting time" penalties and allege violations of California's Unfair Business Practices Act. The Plaintiffs seek to represent a California state-wide class of hourly employees. On May 19, 2009, the court granted Taco Bell's motion to consolidate these matters, and the consolidated case is styled In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions. The In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint in June 2009, and in March 2010, the court approved the parties' stipulation to dismiss the Company from the action. The Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on the vacation and final pay claims in December 2010, and on September 26, 2011, the court issued its order denying the certification of the vacation and final pay claims. The Plaintiffs then sought to certify four separate meal and rest break classes. On January 2, 2013, the District Court rejected three of the proposed classes but granted certification with respect to the late meal break class. No further updates were reported in the Company's July 16, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 15, 2013. Taco Bell denies liability and intends to vigorously defend against all claims in this lawsuit. A reasonable estimate of the amount of any possible loss or range of loss cannot be made at this time. YUM! Brands, Inc. -- http://www.yum.com/-- is the world's largest quick service restaurant ("QSR") company based on number of system units, with over 39,000 units in more than 125 countries and territories. Primarily through the three concepts of KFC, Pizza Hut and Taco Bell, the Company develops, operates, franchises and licenses a worldwide system of restaurants which prepare, package and sell a menu of competitively priced food items. Units are operated by a Concept or by independent franchisees or licensees under the terms of franchise or license agreements. The Company was incorporated in North Carolina in 1997, and is headquartered in Louisville, Kentucky. * Judge Strikes Down Regulations on Debit-Card Transaction Fees --------------------------------------------------------------- Zoe Tillman, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that a federal judge on July 31 struck down federal regulations on debit- card transaction fees, finding that the Federal Reserve adopted rules that "inappropriately" inflated fees by billions of dollars. The decision was a win for retailers and retail trade associations that challenged the debit-transaction regulations adopted by the Fed in 2011. The agency, the retailers claimed, ignored Congress' directives to consider only certain costs in setting the fee standard and, as a result, set it too high. The ruling won't change transaction fees just yet, though. U.S. District Judge Richard Leon ordered the Federal Reserve to vacate the rules, but simultaneously said he would stay that order to give the agency time to replace the problematic sections. Judge Leon asked the parties to weigh in on the length of the stay, noting that he was leaning towards "months, not years." Steptoe & Johnson partners Shannen Coffin -- scoffin@steptoe.com -- and Linda Bailey -- lbailey@steptoe.com -- were lead counsel for the retailers. Firm partner Douglas Kantor, who also serves as general counsel for plaintiff NACS (formerly the National Association of Convenience Stores) said the decision meant "the reform of the interchange fees ought to be what it should have been in the first place, which is a real change to allow for merchants and consumers to save more money and transactions to be more efficient." A spokesperson for the Federal Reserve was not immediately available for comment. Under a provision of the Dodd Frank Act known as the Durbin Amendment, the Federal Reserve was tasked in 2010 with developing a new standard for debit-transaction fees and regulating the how they are routed over networks. The Fed adopted a final rule allowing financial institutions that issued debit cards to receive up to 21 cents per transaction. The fee covered costs related to the "authorization, clearance, or settlement" of a debit transaction, as required by the Durbin Amendment. In addition, the Fed's standard included other costs related to a transaction -- such as the software or hardware used -- and transaction monitoring, as well as network processing fees. In addition to the 21 cents, the issuers could recover a certain percentage of the transaction's value to cover losses from fraud. In November, a group of six retailers and trade association sued the Federal Reserve. The plaintiffs included NACS, the National Retail Federation, the Food Marketing Institute, Miller Oil Co. Inc., Boscov's Department Store LLC and the National Restaurant Association. The retailers argued that Congress only intended the Fed to consider costs related to the "authorization, clearance, or settlement" of a debit transaction and barred the agency from considering "other costs." The Fed said the Durbin Amendment was silent on whether the agency could consider other costs specific to a transaction but not "authorization, clearance, or settlement" costs -- meaning it had discretion to decide. The judge rejected the Fed's position, saying he had "no difficulty" (emphasis in original) finding Congress explicitly divided the costs associated with debit-card transaction fees into two categories: the "authorization, clearance, or settlement" costs, which the Fed could consider in setting the fee standard, and all "other costs," which it could not. The other costs included in the Fed's standard, the judge wrote, from the fraud- loss coverage to network processing fees, weren't what Congress intended. By including the other costs, Judge Leon said, the Fed's final rule significantly increased rates for small-ticket debit transactions under $12, which it wasn't supposed to do under the Durbin Amendment. "Ultimately, the Board asserts that it was given broad discretion to fill statutory gaps in establishing the interchange transaction fee standard," Judge Leon wrote. "But even if this were true, which it is not, such discretion does not give the Board the authority to ignore the expressed will of Congress." Judge Leon said the Fed also ran afoul of Congress' intent in how it regulated the networks used in debit transactions. Under the Durbin Amendment, the Fed was supposed to come up with rules that would give merchants more choices in what networks they could use to process transactions. The agency required at least two unaffiliated networks for each debit card. The plaintiffs argued Congress wanted merchants to have more choices per transaction, and that requiring two unaffiliated networks per debit card was too limiting because there were multiple ways consumers could authenticate debit transactions (entering a PIN or using a signature being the primary methods). "Congress adopted the network non-exclusivity and routing provisions to ensure that for multiple unaffiliated routing options were available for each debit card transaction, regardless of the method of authentication," Judge Leon wrote. "The Board's Final Rule not only fails to carry out Congress's intention; it effectively countermands it!" A status conference is scheduled for August 14. * Origin of Cyclospora-Linked Salad Mix Not in Iowa & Nebraska -------------------------------------------------------------- Grant Schultemary and Clare Jalonick, writing for The Associated Press, report that a food-safety inspector said on July 31 that most, if not all, of the prepackaged salad mix that sickened hundreds of people in Iowa and Nebraska wasn't grown in either state. Iowa Food and Consumer Safety Bureau chief Steven Mandernach said at least 80 percent of the vegetables were grown and processed outside both states' jurisdictions. Mr. Mandernach said officials haven't confirmed the origins of 20 percent and may never know because victims can't always remember what they ate. Officials have said the salad was infected with cyclospora, a rare parasite that causes a lengthy gastrointestinal illness. Outbreaks have been reported in 15 states, although it's not clear whether they're connected. Iowa law allows public health officials to withhold the identities of any person or business affected by an outbreak. However, business names can be released to the public if the state epidemiologist or public health director determines that disclosing the information is needed to protect public safety. Mr. Mandernach said there is no immediate threat, so his office is not required to release information about where the product came from. He said state officials believe the affected salad has already spoiled and is no longer in the supply chain. Food-safety and consumer advocates say the agencies shouldn't withhold the information. "It's not clear what the policy is, and at the very least they owe it to us to explain why they come down this way," said Sandra Eskin, director of the Pew Charitable Trusts' food safety project. "I think many people wonder if this is all because of possible litigation." Bill Marler, a Seattle attorney who specializes in class-action food-safety lawsuits, said withholding the information can create general fears that damage the reputation of good actors in food production. Mr. Marler said consumers should be allowed to decide for themselves whether to shop and grocery stores or eat at restaurants where tainted produce was sold. Some states also are slow to interview infected people, he said, which reduces the chances that they remember where they ate. "If you want the free market to work properly, then you need to let people have the information they need to make informed decisions," he said. The Food and Drug Administration said on July 31 that it didn't have enough information to name a possible source of the outbreak. In the past, the agencies have at times declined to ever name a source of an outbreak, referring to "Restaurant A" or using vague terms. Lack of Information Nearly 400 people across the country have been sickened by cyclospora, a lengthy intestinal illness usually contracted by eating contaminated food. But if you're looking to find out exactly where it came from, you may be out of luck. Federal officials warned on July 31 that it was too early to say whether the outbreak of the rare parasite reported in at least 15 states was over. Health officials in Nebraska and Iowa say they've traced cases there to prepackaged salad. They haven't revealed the company that packaged the salad or where it was sold, explaining only that most if not all of it wasn't grown locally. The lack of information has fueled concern from consumers and food safety advocates who argue that companies should be held accountable when outbreaks happen and customers need the information about where outbreaks came from to make smart food choices. Mark Hutson, who owns a Save-Mart grocery story in Lincoln, Neb., said he was unaware of customers who had raised concern about the product, which was unusual in situations involving foodborne illnesses. But Mr. Hutson said the lack of specific brand information threatened to hurt all providers, including the good actors that did nothing wrong. "I think there was so little information as to what was causing the problem, that people just weren't sure what to do," he said. "Frankly, we would prefer to have the names out there." Authorities said they still hadn't determined whether the cases of cyclospora in the different states are connected. "It's too early to say for sure whether it's over, and thus too early to say there's no risk of still getting sick," said Mar�a- Bel�n Moran, spokeswoman for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Only Iowa and Nebraska officials had directly linked the outbreak in their states to a salad mix of iceberg and romaine lettuce, carrots and red cabbage. Heath authorities in California, which provides much of the nation's leafy green produce, said on July 31 the state had not received any reports of cyclospora cases. "Based on the most currently available information, the leafy greens being implicated in this outbreak were not grown or processed in California," added spokesman Corey Egel in a statement to the Associated Press. Still, grocery shoppers far from known outbreak areas acknowledged it was a factor as they shopped for produce. "I can't say I really want to go and buy particularly any lettuce right now," said Laura Flanagan, 35, who was shopping at a Whole Foods in Dallas with her two young children. "I'm being pretty cautious about it." The product was widely distributed in Iowa by wholesalers who could have supplied the bagged salad mix to all types of food establishments, including restaurants and grocery stores, said Iowa Food and Consumer Safety Bureau chief Steven Mandernach. Nebraska public health officials said they still hadn't traced the exact origins of the outbreaks. "I am by no means giving all-clear, green light on the issue," said Dr. Joseph Acierno, the state's chief medical officer and director of public health. "We're encouraging the medical community to stay vigilant." Some states also are slow to interview infected people, he said, which reduces the chances that they remember where they ate. The Food and Drug Administration said on July 31 that it didn't have enough information to name a possible source of the outbreak. In the past, the agencies have at times declined to ever name a source of an outbreak, referring to "Restaurant A" or using vague terms. Caroline Smith DeWaal of the Center for Science in the Public Interest says that the decision to withhold a company's name may not only hurt consumers but the food industry, as well. When an item is generally implicated but officials give few specifics, like with the bagged salad, people may stop buying the product altogether. "I think consumers need more information to make good buying decisions," she said. Responsibility for disclosing the names of businesses involved general falls to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration because their authority crosses state lines, said Doug Farquhar, a program director with the National Conference of State Legislatures. Mr. Farquhar said most states have laws that prohibit the disclosure of businesses that are affected by a foodborne illness. "In some cases, states go 'rogue' and release the names without FDA approval, in the name of public safety," Mr. Farquhar said. "But for the most part, states prefer to let the FDA release the names and take the heat. * Severe NFL Injuries Rise From 2009 to 2012, NFL Data Show ----------------------------------------------------------- Howard Fendrich, writing for The Associated Press, reports that sure didn't take long for some significant injuries at NFL training camps -- Philadelphia Eagles receiver Jeremy Maclin, Baltimore Ravens tight end Dennis Pitta, Denver Broncos center Dan Koppen, to name only three. Immediately, some theories developed: Too much offseason work. Not enough. New labor-contract rules limiting padded practices to one per day, while generally seen as helpful, are hardly a cure-all. Washington Redskins linebacker London Fletcher thinks some guys get hurt in camp because players are trying so hard to impress coaches and earn a roster spot or a starting job. "You know now coaches are really evaluating you," said Mr. Fletcher, whose teammate, second-year linebacker Keenan Robinson, tore his left pectoral muscle on Day 1 of training camp. "You've got guys with a competitive spirit and they're looking at it, like, 'My job's on the line. I need to make a play' and not realizing there's going to be times to show that coaches that you can hit, you can make plays in preseason games, but you don't want to have a guy go down because of something that happened in practice." Whatever the cause, severe injuries are increasing in the NFL lately. The number of injuries that forced a player to miss at least eight days jumped every year from 2009 to 2012, according to an analysis of NFL injury data released on July 31. The study by Edgeworth Economics, based on information collected by the league, also shows that players with concussions missed an average of 16 days last season, up from only four days in 2005, while the length of time out for other types of injuries has been steadier. "Severe injuries are increasing in frequency," Jesse David, the economist overseeing the study, said in a telephone interview from Pasadena, Calif. "I know that's a very important issue for both the players' association and the league -- trying to tweak the rules and the equipment to deal with that. But despite everything they've been doing, it's still going on." Mr. David said his company has done consulting for the NFL Players Association in the past and received the data for this study from the union, but wasn't paid by it. The study says there were 1,095 instances of injuries sidelining a player for eight or more days in 2009 -- including practices and games in the preseason, regular season and postseason -- and that climbed to 1,272 in 2010, 1,380 in 2011, and 1,496 in 2012. That's an increase of 37 percent. "The way I look at it, really, is that injuries are part of the game," said cornerback Kyle Wilson of the New York Jets, who lost another cornerback, Aaron Berry, for the season when he tore a knee ligament on the first day of practice last week. "Injuries happen sometimes. They're unfortunate, but it really is just part of the game." Concussions have become a far-more-noticed part of football in recent years, with more discussion of the links between head injuries and brain disease, hundreds of lawsuits brought by thousands of former players, and rules changes made by the NFL to try to better protect players. During the nine years examined in Mr. David's study, the average number of days missed because of head injuries by players in the league went from 4.8 in 2004, four in 2005, and 4.1 in 2006, to 10.9 in 2010, 12 in 2011, and 16 last season. "We have experts at practice every day to let you know, as a coach, if someone does have a concussion, so that makes it pretty easy. They leave it out of our hands; they put in the experts' hands," Redskins coach Mike Shanahan said. "But, yeah, I think there's more awareness in a lot of different areas when it comes to injuries over the last few years, and rightfully so." Mr. David said "you now have more severe injuries overall" because of the hike in lengthy absences for reported concussions. "Are the brain injuries actually more severe now than they were five years ago? Or is that players simply being held out longer for the same injury? That we can't tell from the data," Mr. David said. "My guess is it's both, but how much of each factor, I don't know." NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy, who said the league will look at the study's findings, attributed the longer absences for players with concussions to more caution in the treatment of those types of injuries. "We do know that the game is safer now, but we still have work to do. We continue to work hard on many fronts to make the game better and safer for our sport at all levels," Mr. McCarthy wrote in an email. "Our ongoing efforts include making rule changes designed to take dangerous techniques out of the game and also improving medical care to properly manage and treat concussions and raise awareness of their seriousness." ********* 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 * * *