/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/130820.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, August 20, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 164 Headlines AFFINION GROUP: Response Date in Trilegiant-Related Suit Stayed AFFINION GROUP: Calif. Court Dismisses Suit v. Webloyalty AFFINION GROUP: Webloyalty Awaits Order on Bid to Junk Conn. Suit AFFINION GROUP: Webloyalty Still Faces Suit Over Customer Info AMERICAN HEART: Faces Class Action Over Heart Check Mark Logo APPLE INC: Plaintiff Must Amend Claims in MacBook Pro Class Action ATLAS AIR: N.Y. Antitrust Suit in Class Certification Phase ATLAS AIR: Faces Antitrust Suits in Several Canadian Provinces BOULDER BRANDS: Still Faces Suit Over Fat Free Milk Labeling BOULDER BRANDS: Faces Two Suits in Calif. Over Product Marketing BROMLEY TEA: Loses Bid to Nix Suit Over Misleading Product Claims CAESAR'S ENTERTAINMENT: Sued in Nevada Over Spam Calls & Texts CLOVER LEAF: Recalls 150 g. Gorgonzola Cheese DAIMLER TRUCKS: Recalls 28 SAF-T-LINER EFX & HDX School Buses DEERE & COMPANY: Recalls 7,000 Compact Utility Tractors DOMINO'S PIZZA: Faces Class Action Over Spam Text Messages DYNEGY INC: Settles Stockholder Suit Over Blackstone-Icahn Merger DYNEGY INC: Dismissal of Claims in Suit Over Restructuring Sought FORD MOTOR: Says Too Early to Appoint Lead Plaintiffs Lawyers GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Still Faces Suits Over RESPA Violations HENDERSON, LA: Class Action Seeks $2+MM in Ticket Refunds HEWLETT PACKARD: Investors Must Amend Securities Fraud Claims HYUNDAI: Recalls 52,317 Azera and Sonata Model Cars JUNIPER NETWORKS: Sued for Allegedly Inflating Share Prices LOCKHEED: 7th Circuit Reverses Class Certification Denial LTD COMMODITIES: Recalls Microwave Crisper Pans Due to Fire Hazard MAKO SURGICAL: Securities Lawsuit in Florida Now Closed MONSANTO CORP: Questions Remain After GMO Crops Ruling MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS: Plaintiffs' Lawyers to Get 27.5% Fee Award NATURAL BALANCE: Faces Class Action Over False Claims NESTLE SA: Class Must Amend Claims in Misleading Advertising Suit NIKE CORP: Faces Class Action Over FuelBand Bracelet NTD APPAREL: Recalls Short Sleeve Superman Onesie Bodysuit ORTHOFIX INTERNATIONAL: Faces Suit Over Misleading Statements PH BEAUTY: Sued Over Bogus Claims About "Stem Cell" Products PROCTER & GAMBLE: Recalls Dry Pet Food Over Salmonella Presence RIVER TECHNOLOGY: Suit by Former Zeus Shareholders Still Active SENTRY SERVICES: Former Employees Sue Over Stock Option Plan TARGET CORP: Faces Class Action Over Banzai's Deceptive Packaging TIME WARNER: Faces Suit From Customers for Dropping Showtime & CBS TOURO UNIVERSITY: Faces Suit Over Hiding of Tuition Fee Cost VANGUARD NATURAL: Dismissal of ENP Unitholder's Lawsuit Affirmed VITAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Must Amend Claims in Meltdown Product Suit ZELTIQ AESTHETICS: Calif. Super. Junks "Marcano" Securities Suit ********* AFFINION GROUP: Response Date in Trilegiant-Related Suit Stayed --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut entered an order staying the date for all Defendants, including Affinion Group, Inc., to respond to a Complaint related to the sale of Trilegiant Corporation membership program until 21 days after the court rules on the motion to consolidate, according to Affinion's Aug. 1, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013. On June 17, 2010, a class action complaint was filed against the Company and Trilegiant Corporation ("Trilegiant") in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. The complaint asserts various causes of action on behalf of a putative nationwide class and a California-only subclass in connection with the sale by Trilegiant of its membership programs, including claims under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act, the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the California Unfair Competition Law, the California False Advertising Law, and for unjust enrichment. On September 29, 2010, the Company filed a motion to compel arbitration of all of the claims asserted in this lawsuit. On February 24, 2011, the court denied the Company's motion. On March 28, 2011, the Company and Trilegiant filed a notice of appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, appealing the district court's denial of their motion to compel arbitration. On September 7, 2012, the Second Circuit affirmed the decision of the District Court denying arbitration. While that issue was on appeal, the matter proceeded in the district court. There was written discovery and depositions. Previously, the court had set a briefing schedule on class certification that called for the completion of class certification briefing on May 18, 2012. However, on March 28, 2012, the court suspended the briefing schedule on the motion due to the filing of two other overlapping class actions in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. The first of those cases was filed on March 6, 2012, against the Company, Trilegiant, Chase Bank USA, N.A., Bank of America, N.A., Capital One Financial Corp., Citigroup, Inc., Citibank, N.A., Apollo Global Management, LLC, 1-800-Flowers.Com, Inc., United Online, Inc., Memory Lane, Inc., Classmates Int'l, Inc., FTD Group, Inc., Days Inn Worldwide, Inc., Wyndham Worldwide Corp., People Finderspro, Inc., Beckett Media LLC, Buy.com, Inc., Rakuten USA, Inc., IAC/InteractiveCorp., and Shoebuy.com, Inc. The second of those cases was filed on March 25, 2012, against the same defendants as well as Adaptive Marketing, LLC, Vertrue, Inc., Webloyalty.com, Inc., and Wells Fargo & Co. These two cases assert similar claims as the claims asserted in the earlier-filed lawsuit in connection with the sale by Trilegiant of its membership programs. On April 26, 2012, the court consolidated these three cases. The court also set an initial status conference for May 17, 2012. At that status conference, the court ordered that Plaintiffs file a consolidated amended complaint to combine the claims in the three previously separate lawsuits. The court also struck the class certification briefing schedule that had been set previously. On September 7, 2012, the Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint asserting substantially the same legal claims. The consolidated amended complaint added Priceline, Orbitz, Chase Paymentech, Hotwire, and TigerDirect as Defendants and added three new Plaintiffs; it also dropped Webloyalty and Rakuten as Defendants. On December 7, 2012, all Defendants filed motions seeking to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint and to strike certain portions of the complaint. Plaintiff's response brief was filed on February 7, 2013, and Defendants' reply briefs were filed on April 5, 2013. The Company does not know when the court will rule on that motion. Also, on December 5, 2012, the Plaintiffs' law firms in these consolidated cases filed an additional action in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. That case is identical in all respects to this case except that it was filed by a new Plaintiff (the named Plaintiff from the class action complaint previously filed against the Company, Trilegiant, 1-800- Flowers.com, and Chase Bank USA, N.A., in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on November 10, 2010). On January 23, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion to consolidate that case into the existing set of consolidated cases. The Company does not know when the court will rule on that motion. On June 13, 2013, the Court entered an order staying the date for all Defendants to respond to the Complaint until 21 days after the court rules on the motion to consolidate. AFFINION GROUP: Calif. Court Dismisses Suit v. Webloyalty --------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Southern District of California dismissed a consumer complaint filed against Webloyalty, a client of Affinion Group, Inc., according to Affinion's Aug. 1, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013. On June 25, 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed against Webloyalty.com Inc. and one of its clients in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California alleging, among other things, violations of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and Electronic Communications Privacy Act, unjust enrichment, fraud, civil theft, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, California Consumers Legal Remedies Act violations, false advertising and California Consumer Business Practice violations. This lawsuit relates to Webloyalty's alleged conduct occurring on and after October 1, 2008. On February 17, 2011, Webloyalty filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in this lawsuit. On April 12, 2011, the Court granted Webloyalty's motion and dismissed all claims against the defendants. On May 10, 2011, plaintiff filed a notice appealing the dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Plaintiff filed its opening appeals brief with the Ninth Circuit on October 17, 2011, and defendants filed their respective answering briefs on December 23, 2011. Plaintiff filed its reply brief on January 23, 2012. On January 11, 2013, the Ninth Circuit heard oral argument on the plaintiff's appeal and, thereafter, took the matter under advisement. On April 25, 2013, the Ninth Circuit decided Plaintiffs' appeal dismissing the case without prejudice. Thereafter, on May 9, 2013, Plaintiff petitioned for rehearing of the Ninth Circuit's decision, which petition the Court rejected on May 20, 2013. The District Court followed the mandate of the Ninth Circuit and finally dismissed the action on June 24, 2013. AFFINION GROUP: Webloyalty Awaits Order on Bid to Junk Conn. Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Webloyalty.com, Inc. is still awaiting a ruling on its motion to dismiss a suit alleging, among others, violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, according to Affinion Group, Inc.'s Aug. 1, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013. On August 27, 2010, another substantially similar class action lawsuit was filed against Webloyalty, one of its former clients and one of the credit card associations in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut alleging, among other things, violations of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, Electronic Communications Privacy Act, unjust enrichment, civil theft, negligent misrepresentation, fraud and Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act violations. This lawsuit relates to Webloyalty's alleged conduct occurring on and after October 1, 2008. On December 23, 2010, Webloyalty filed a motion to dismiss this lawsuit, which had since been amended in its entirety. The court has not yet scheduled a hearing or ruled on Webloyalty's motion. AFFINION GROUP: Webloyalty Still Faces Suit Over Customer Info -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California is yet to rule on a motion by Webloyalty.com, Inc. to dismiss a complaint claiming unlawful business practices in violation of a section of the California Business and Professional Code, according to Affinion Group, Inc.'s Aug. 1, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013. On June 7, 2012, another class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California against Webloyalty that was factually similar to the foregoing California and Connecticut actions. The action claims that Webloyalty engaged in unlawful business practices in violation of California Business and Professional Code Section 17200, et seq. and in violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act. Both claims are based on allegations that in connection with enrollment and billing of the plaintiff, Webloyalty charged plaintiff's credit or debit card using information obtained through a data pass process and without obtaining directly from plaintiff his full account number, name, address, and contact information, as purportedly required under Restore Online Shoppers' Confidence Act. On September 25, 2012, Webloyalty filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety, scheduling a hearing on the motion for January 14, 2013. Webloyalty also sought judicial notice of the enrollment page and related enrollment and account documents. Plaintiff filed his opposition on December 12, 2012, and Webloyalty filed its reply submission on January 7, 2013. Thereafter, on January 10, 2013, the Court cancelled the previously scheduled January 14, 2013 hearing and indicated that it would rule based on the parties' written submissions without the need for a hearing, although it has not yet done so. AMERICAN HEART: Faces Class Action Over Heart Check Mark Logo ------------------------------------------------------------- Cheryl Armstrong at Courthouse News Service reports that the American Heart Association defrauds consumers by selling its "Heart Check Mark" to Campbell Soup, whose products' true designation should be: "Unhealthy, but maybe not as bad for you as other products," a class action claims in Federal Court in New Jersey. Lead plaintiff Kerry O'Shea sued Campbell Soup Co. and the American Heart Association in Federal Court. Ms. O'Shea claims the Heart Association sells/licenses it "Heart Check mark" logo as a "certification" of a heart-healthy food, even for foods that are processed and unhealthy. Campbell Soup has purchased certification for "at least 97 (ninety-seven) of its products," the complaint states, "and pays annual fees to maintain these products' certifications." The 41-page lawsuit begins: "The AHA claims that its mission is 'to build healthier lives, free of cardiovascular diseases and stroke. That single purpose drives all we do.' This worth mission is, in truth, tainted by what the AHA does not tell the public: that for a fee, the AHA will allow manufacturers of unhealthy, processed foods -- including over thirty varieties of Campbell's soups -- to place the AHA's certification and endorsement on products that run directly counter to the AHA's stated mission. "The AHA's nationally recognized 'Heart-Check Mark' certification thus fools consumers by misrepresenting that products bearing the Heart-Check Mark certification meet the AHA's heart-healthy nutritional guidelines. That misrepresentation (or omission of the true facts) is unfair, deceptive, and misleading, because the AHA's Heart-Check Mark certification does not signify adherence to those guidelines. "Properly characterized, the real meaning of the AHA's Heart-Check mark certification is, 'Unhealthy, but maybe not as bad for you as other products.' "As alleged herein, the AHA, for a fee, abandons its general, noncommercial dietary and nutritional guidelines -- which categorically rule out unhealthy processed products, including Campbell's soups, as demonstrated below -- and agrees to certify as heart-healthy products that merely meet the minimum criteria for certain FDA-regulated health claims, rather than the AHA's own more demeaning standards. The deceptive practice not only causes consumers to overpay for Campbell's AHA-certified soups, but also presents substantial health risks to all consumers, including the more than five million American consumers suffering from congestive heart failure. "The AHA's Heart-Check Mark certification scheme runs directly counter to its noncommercial nutritional guidance. Instead of aiding the consuming public, the AHA's certification scheme confuses and misleads the consuming public, because it employs standards that have nothing to do with the AHA's general nutritional guidelines. "As a result, the AHA certifies products that are far less healthy, and far less heart-healthy than it otherwise advises consumers to eat. A single serving of Campbell's AHA certified soups contains nearly three times the amount of sodium permitted by the AHA's noncommercial nutritional guidelines, while a full can contains between six and seven times that amount. "Indeed, manufacturers, including Campbell's, buy AHA approval, by paying a fee on a per-product basis, plus administrative costs and fees, plus additional annual fees to maintain their AHA heart- healthy product certifications and to claim endorsement and certification by that widely trusted organization. "By the AHA selling, and Campbell's buying, the right to affix the AHA's seal of approval to its products, they falsely represent to the public that AHA-certified products manufactured by Campbell's possess some cardiovascular benefit not enjoyed by products that have not been certified by the AHA. In truth, however, the only difference between AHA-certified Campbell's products and non- certified competing products is that Campbell's has paid money to the AHA to license its logo. "In sum, the AHA benefits from the monies paid to it by food manufacturers and the advertising and organizational name recognition that come from having its logo placed on millions of food containers. Campbell's benefits by being able to affix the AHA's Heart-Check Mark logo on the products for which it has paid for it and is able to enjoy increased sales and higher profits due to their premium pricing and perceived health advantage. These benefits to Campbell's and AHA, however, come at the substantial cost to plaintiff and the other class members, both in the form of purchasing falsely labeled products based on defendants 'heart- healthy' pretext, and materially overpaying for those products." In an email to Courthouse News, American Heart Association spokesman Amit Chitre said: "The American Heart Association does not comment on pending litigation. But for more information about our food certification program, including our criteria, visit: www.heart.org/foodcertification. Our Food Certification Program regularly conducts laboratory testing to verify that products earning the Heart Check meet our nutritional criteria, which are more stringent than those of the Food and Drug Administration. Food manufacturers applying to the Food Certification Program pay an administrative fee, which is only sufficient for the program's product testing, public information and program operating expenses. If a food product does not meet our criteria, it does not receive our Heart Check certification. No public donations are used to support the Heart-Check program." Ms. O'Shea seeks restitution and damages for consumer fraud, breach of express warranty and unjust enrichment. Ms. O'Shea is represented by James Cecchi with Carella, Byrne, Cecchi, Olstein, Brody & Agnello, of Roseland, N.J. The lawyer may be reached at: James E. Cecchi, Esq. CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Tel: (973) 994-1700 APPLE INC: Plaintiff Must Amend Claims in MacBook Pro Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------------ Courthouse News Service reports that a MacBook Pro user must amend claims that Apple put an LG retina display in his model instead of Samsung's superior product, a federal judge ruled. A copy of the Order Granting Apple's Motion to Dismiss with Leave to Amend and Motion to Strike with Leave to Amend in Hodges v. Apple Inc., Case No. 13-cv-01128 (N.D. Calif.) (Orrick J.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/08/14/retina.pdf ATLAS AIR: N.Y. Antitrust Suit in Class Certification Phase ----------------------------------------------------------- A consolidated complaint about the pricing practices of a number of air cargo carriers, including Atlas Air Worldwide Holdings, Inc., is currently in the class certification phase, according to Atlas Air's Aug. 1, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013. In 2010, Old Polar entered into a plea agreement with the United States Department of Justice (the "DOJ") relating to the previously disclosed DOJ investigation concerning alleged manipulation by cargo carriers of fuel surcharges and other rate components for air cargo services (the "DOJ Investigation"). As a result of the DOJ Investigation, the Company and Old Polar have been named defendants, along with a number of other cargo carriers, in several class actions in the United States arising from allegations about the pricing practices of a number of air cargo carriers that have now been consolidated for pre-trial purposes in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The consolidated complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants, including the Company and Old Polar, manipulated the market price for air cargo services sold domestically and abroad through the use of surcharges, in violation of United States, state, and European Union antitrust laws. The suit seeks treble damages and injunctive relief. In 2007, the Company and Old Polar commenced an adversary proceeding in bankruptcy court against each of the plaintiffs in this class action litigation seeking to enjoin the plaintiffs from prosecuting claims against the Company and Old Polar that arose prior to 2004, the date on which the Company and Old Polar emerged from bankruptcy. In 2007, the plaintiffs consented to the injunctive relief requested and the bankruptcy court entered an order enjoining plaintiffs from prosecuting Company claims arising prior to 2004. The court in the antitrust class actions has heard and decided a number of procedural motions. Among those was the plaintiffs' motion to join Polar Air Cargo Worldwide, Inc. as an additional defendant, which the court granted on April 13, 2011. There was substantial pre-trial written discovery and document production, and a number of depositions were taken. The case is currently in the class certification phase. The company is unable to reasonably predict the court's ruling on the motion or the ultimate outcome of the litigation. ATLAS AIR: Faces Antitrust Suits in Several Canadian Provinces -------------------------------------------------------------- Atlas Air Worldwide Holdings, Inc., Old Polar and a number of other cargo carriers have also been named as defendants in civil class action suits in the provinces of British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec, Canada that are substantially similar to the class action suits in the United States, according to Atlas Air's Aug. 1, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013. The plaintiffs in the British Columbia case have indicated they do not intend to pursue their lawsuit against the Company and Old Polar. The company is unable to reasonably predict the outcome of the litigation in Ontario and Quebec. BOULDER BRANDS: Still Faces Suit Over Fat Free Milk Labeling ------------------------------------------------------------ Boulder Brands, Inc. continues to face a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York relating to the labeling of Smart Balance Fat Free Milk products, according to the company's Aug. 1, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013. On February 21, 2013, a class action lawsuit relating to the labeling of Smart Balance Fat Free Milk products was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, or the "Southern District," alleging the label and marketing was misleading because, although the labels says "Fat Free Milk" the product contains 1g of fat from the Omega-3 fatty acid oil blend in the products. The Company has moved to dismiss the lawsuit and intends to vigorously defend itself against these allegations. The company does not expect that the resolution of this matter will have a material adverse effect on the company's business. BOULDER BRANDS: Faces Two Suits in Calif. Over Product Marketing ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California stayed all activity in a second lawsuit filed against Boulder Brands Inc. over the labeling and marketing of Smart Balance Butter & Canola Oil Blend products, according to the company's Aug. 1, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013. On July 28, 2012, a class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California claiming that the labeling and marketing of Smart Balance Butter & Canola Oil Blend products is false, misleading and deceptive (the "California Case"). The company's motion to dismiss the complaint was denied by the court. The company filed an answer, denying all substantive allegations. A substantially similar class action lawsuit related to the labeling and marketing of Smart Balance Butter & Canola Oil Blend products was filed on August 9, 2012 in the Southern District. In light of its similarity to the California Case, the Southern District stayed all activity in the case pending a decision in the California Case on class certification. The company believes the allegations contained in both of these complaints are without merit and the company intends to vigorously defend ourselves against these allegations. The company does not expect that the resolution of this matter will have a material adverse effect on the company's business. BROMLEY TEA: Loses Bid to Nix Suit Over Misleading Product Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that The Bromley Tea Co. failed to persuade a federal judge to dismiss claims that it makes misleading claims about the healthful properties of its products. A copy of the Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and Motion to Strike, and Denying Defendants' Motion to Stay Discovery in Clancy v. The Bromley Tea Company, et al., Case No. 12-cv-03003 (N.D. Calif.) (Tigar, J.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/08/14/bromley.pdf CAESAR'S ENTERTAINMENT: Sued in Nevada Over Spam Calls & Texts -------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Caesar's Entertainment Corp. and Serendipity III asked for a guest's cellphone number to let her know when her restaurant table would be ready, then sent her spam calls and texts without permission, she claims in a federal class action in Las Vegas. CLOVER LEAF: Recalls 150 g. Gorgonzola Cheese --------------------------------------------- Starting date: August 9, 2013 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Notification Subcategory: Microbiological - Listeria Hazard classification: Class 1 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Clover Leaf Cheese (1978) Ltd. Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 8243 Affected products: Brand name Common name Size ---------- ----------- ---- Clover Leaf Cheese Gorgonzola Cheese 150 g. DAIMLER TRUCKS: Recalls 28 SAF-T-LINER EFX & HDX School Buses ------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: August 14, 2013 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: School Bus Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Fuel Supply Units affected: 28 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2013281 TC ID number: 2013281 Manufacturer recall number: FL-643 Affected products: Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- THOMAS BUILT SAF-T-LINER HDX SCHOOL BUS 2013, 2014 THOMAS BUILT SAF-T-LINER EFX SCHOOL BUS 2013, 2014 On certain school buses, an information label may detach from the auxiliary heater fuel pickup tube and block the engine fuel suction tube, which could restrict or stop the flow of fuel to the engine. Engine stalling would result in a loss of vehicle propulsion which, in conjunction with traffic and road condition and the driver's reactions, could increase the risk of a crash causing property damage and/or personal injury. Dealers will inspect the fuel tank. If a label is found, it will be removed from the tank. DEERE & COMPANY: Recalls 7,000 Compact Utility Tractors ------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Deere & Company, of Moline, Ill., announced a voluntary recall of about 7,000 John Deere Compact Utility Tractors. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The spring locking pins in the rollover protective system (ROPS) can break and cause the ROPs to fail in the event of a rollover. This presents a risk of serious injury or death to the operator. John Deere received three reports of broken spring locking pins and identified two failed spring locking pins in the manufacturing assembly process. The firm has received no reports of injuries. The recall involves 19 models of John Deere 1000, 2000, 3000 and 4000 series compact utility tractors manufactured between February 2013 and July 2013. The tractors are green and yellow with a foldable black, metal rollover protection bar that extends above the operator's head. The model number is on the hood. The serial number is located on the right hand side of the frame above the front axle. Compact utility tractors with serial numbers in the following ranges are included in this recall: Model Number Vehicle Identification Number Ranges ------------ ------------------------------------ 1023E 1LV1023EXXX310006 to 1LV1023EXXX310083 1025R 1LV1025RXXX111788 to 1LV1025RXXX116214 2025R 1LV2025RXXX110121 to 1LV2025RXXX110202 2032R 1LV2032RXXX110008 to 1LV2032RXXX110283 2320H 1LV2320HXXX712151 to 1LV2320HXXX712593 2520H 1LV2520HXXX811702 to 1LV2520HXXX811703 2720H 1LV2720HLCH511543 (Only) 3320H 1LV3320HXXX910198 to 1LV3320HXXX910700 3320P 1LV3320PXXX910129 to 1LV3320PXXX910299 3520H 1LV3520HXXX910239 to 1LV3520HXXX910579 3520P 1LV3520PXXX910098 to 1LV3520PXXX910188 3720H 1LV3720HXXX910181 to 1LV3720HXXX910429 4120H 1LV4120HXXX916152 to 1LV4120HXXX916350 4120P 1LV4120PXXX916013 to 1LV4120PXXX916014 4320H 1LV4320HXXX916166 to 1LV4320HXXX916420 4320P 1LV4320PXXX916036 to 1LV4320PXXX916112 4520H 1LV4520HXXX916127 to 1LV4520HXXX916276 4520P 1LV4520PXXX916034 to 1LV4520PXXX916135 4720H 1LV4720HXXX916129 to 1LV4720HXXX916919 Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/KMu4Og The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold at John Deere dealers nationwide from February 2013 through July 2013 for between $11,500 and $35,700. Consumers should immediately stop using the compact utility vehicles and contact a John Deere dealer for a free repair. John Deere is contacting all registered owners of the recalled compact utility tractors directly. DOMINO'S PIZZA: Faces Class Action Over Spam Text Messages ---------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Domino's Pizza is costing people money with spam text messages, from which they cannot unsubscribe, a woman claims in federal class action. DYNEGY INC: Settles Stockholder Suit Over Blackstone-Icahn Merger ----------------------------------------------------------------- Parties in a lawsuit filed in connection with the 2010 and 2011 terminations of the merger agreement with an affiliate of The Blackstone Group L.P. ("Blackstone") and the merger agreement with an affiliate of Icahn Enterprises L.P. reached an agreement to settle the matter, according to Dynegy Inc.'s Aug. 1, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013. In connection with the 2010 and 2011 terminations of the merger agreement with an affiliate of The Blackstone Group L.P. ("Blackstone") and the merger agreement with an affiliate of Icahn Enterprises L.P. ("Icahn"), respectively, numerous stockholder lawsuits and one alleged stockholder derivative lawsuit previously filed in the District Courts of Harris County, Texas, the Southern District of Texas, and the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware were commenced. In July 2011, the Harris County District Court granted the motion of the plaintiff's lead class counsel for an award of attorney's fees and expenses. On April 4, 2013, the parties settled the matter for an immaterial amount. DYNEGY INC: Dismissal of Claims in Suit Over Restructuring Sought ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants in a stockholder litigation relating to the 2011 prepetition restructuring of DH Debtor Entities filed a substantive motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' remaining claims, according to Dynegy Inc.'s Aug. 1, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013. The DH Debtor Entities are: Dynegy Holdings, LLC and four of its wholly-owned subsidiaries, Dynegy Northeast Generation, Inc. ("DNE"), Hudson Power, L.L.C. ("Hudson"), Dynegy Danskammer, L.L.C. ("Danskammer") and Dynegy Roseton, L.L.C. In connection with the prepetition restructuring and corporate reorganization of the DH Debtor Entities and their non-debtor affiliates in 2011 (the "2011 Prepetition Restructuring"), and specifically the DMG Transfer, a putative class action stockholder lawsuit captioned Charles Silsby v. Carl C. Icahn, et al., Case No. 12CIV2307 (the "Securities Litigation"), was filed in the United States District Court of the Southern District of New York. The lawsuit challenged certain disclosures made in connection with the DMG Transfer. The company believes the plaintiff's complaint lacks merit and the company continues to oppose the Securities Litigation vigorously. As a result of the filing of the voluntary petition for bankruptcy by Dynegy Inc., this lawsuit was stayed as against Dynegy Inc. and as a result of the confirmation of the Plan, the claims against Dynegy Inc. in the Securities Litigation are permanently enjoined. On August 24, 2012, the lead plaintiff in the Securities Litigation filed an objection to the confirmation of the Plan asserting, among other things, that lead plaintiff should be permitted to opt-out of the non-debtor releases and injunctions (the "Non-Debtor Releases") in the Plan on behalf of all putative class members. The company opposed that relief. On October 1, 2012, the Bankruptcy Court ruled that lead plaintiff did not have standing to object to the Plan and did not have authority to opt-out of the Non-Debtor Releases on behalf of any other party-in-interest. Accordingly, the Securities Litigation may only proceed against the non-debtor defendants with respect to members of the putative class who individually opted out of the Non-Debtor Releases. The lead plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on October 10, 2012. On June 4, 2013, the District Court dismissed the appeal. On July 3, 2013, the lead plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On July 19, 2013, the defendants filed a substantive motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' remaining claims. FORD MOTOR: Says Too Early to Appoint Lead Plaintiffs Lawyers ------------------------------------------------------------- John O'Brien, writing for The West Virginia Record, reports that Ford Motor Company says it is too early to worry about which plaintiffs lawyers will be given leadership positions in the class action lawsuits filed against it, while one of those lawyers says Ford has no standing to oppose the issue. Ford filed a response in opposition to a motion recently submitted by plaintiffs lawyers in three class actions filed against Ford in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia. That motion asks U.S. District Judge Robert C. Chambers to appoint interim co-lead counsel and a plaintiffs steering committee. Ford says the motion would only be appropriate if all cases were before the same court. Currently, there's a class action pending in South Carolina federal court. "Should the District of South Carolina choose to stay Thomas and then transfer it to this Court, a motion to appoint Interim Lead Counsel would be appropriate," Ford's response says. "Until that time, this Court does not have power to compel any action in Thomas; choosing 'lead counsel' in this case would only confuse the question of who speaks for the purported class. "In reality, no one does. Until a class is certified, nothing in these cases is binding on absent class members." Timothy Bailey -- of Bucci, Bailey & Javins in Charleston -- is one of the attorneys asking to be named interim co-lead counsel. "The motion pending is for appointment of 'interim' lead counsel prior to class certification," he said. "While Ford may have standing to offer a position once motions for class certification and class counsel are made at a later time, there appears to be no legal precedent for the proposition that Ford has standing to oppose the interim lead counsel issue." Mr. Bailey may be reached at: Timothy Bailey, Esq. BUCCI, BAILEY & JAVINS LC 213 Hale Street Charleston, WV 25301 Tel: 304-932-4639 Toll Free: 800-889-5851 Mr. Bailey and the plaintiffs attorneys filed their motion on July 30. The three cases were filed by attorneys from across the country on behalf of Ford drivers from several states. The first lawsuit was filed in April and the second in June. A third was filed on July 25. Along with Mr. Bailey, Niall A. Paul -- npaul@spilmanlaw.com -- of Spilman Thomas & Battle in Charleston is asking to be appointed interim co-lead counsel. They are joined in their request by Adam J. Levitt -- alevitt@gelaw.com -- of Grant & Eisenhofer in Chicago; Stephen M. Gorny -- steve@bflawfirm.com -- of Bartimus, Frickleton, Robertson & Gorny in Leawood, Kan.; and Mark DiCello -- madicello@dicellolaw.com -- of The DiCello Law Firm in Mentor, Ohio. The three lawsuits make the same allegations -- that those who purchased Ford vehicles manufactured between 2002-10 would not have paid as much for them or purchased them at all if they were made aware of the sudden acceleration problems. The vehicles at issue were manufactured between 2002 and 2010. They were equipped with an electronic throttle control but not adequate fail-safe systems to prevent incidents of sudden unintended acceleration, the complaint says. "In addition, and most significantly, regardless of the cause of these admittedly foreseeable events, the Ford vehicles share a common design defect in that they lack adequate fail-safe systems, including a reliable Brake Over Accelerator system that would allow a driver to mitigate sudden unintended acceleration by depressing the brake," the complaints say. "Each person who has owned or leased a Ford vehicle vulnerable to sudden unintended acceleration during the time period relevant to this action paid more for the Ford vehicle than they would have paid, or would not have purchased or leased the Ford vehicle altogether, because of the defective nature of the Ford vehicles resulting from the absence of a fail-safe such as a BOA to prevent sudden unintended acceleration events in each of them." The complaints say they have also been filed before the tolling of the statute of limitations because the plaintiffs could not have known their vehicles were vulnerable to sudden unintended acceleration because Ford concealed this from them. Lincoln and Mercury vehicles from the same years are included in the complaints. Charleston attorney Edgar F. Heiskell III -- hikeheiskell@rocketmail.com --is also asking to be a part of the Plaintiffs Steering Committee. Others asking to be placed on the SPC are John T. Murray of Murray and Murray in Sandusky, Ohio; John Scarola of Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley in West Palm Beach, Fla.; Joseph J. Siprut -- jsiprut@siprut.com -- of Siprut PC in Chicago; Keith G. Bremer of Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara in Newport Beach, Calif.; E. Powell Miller -- epm@millerlawpc.com -- of The Miller Law Firm in Rochester, Mich.; Grant L. Davis of Davis Bethune & Jones in Kansas City, Mo.; and Gregory M. Travalio -- gtravalio@isaacwiles.com -- of Isaac Wiles Burkholder & Teetor in Columbus, Ohio. Other firms that signed the last two complaints were Gomez & Iagmin of San Diego and Laffey, Bucci & Kent in Philadelphia. On June 27, Ford asked Judge Chambers to dismiss the lawsuit or have certain "objectionable" paragraphs from the complaint stricken. "Plaintiffs seek a court-ordered recall and monetary damages in connection with nearly every Ford Motor Company vehicle sold in the United States between 2002 and 2010 . . . because the vehicles lack a particular driver-assistance feature referred to as Brake Over Accelerator or Brake-Throttle Override, which depowers the engine if the gas pedal is trapped by a floor mat and the driver engages the brake," the memorandum in support of the motion to dismiss says. "Notably, as conceded by Plaintiffs, a BTO feature does not prevent an unwanted acceleration resulting from a trapped gas pedal, but it may assist the driver in overcoming such a situation if it does occur. "Although Ford never marketed the vehicles at issue as having a BTO feature, Plaintiffs contend that its absence from their vehicles diminishes their value, and that Ford's failure to disclose that absence was fraudulent." The paragraphs Ford finds "objectionable" allege that in the 1980s, the company intentionally disposed of internal reports regarding sudden acceleration events and that it concealed the information from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Ford says those allegations have already been rejected by the NHTSA and a Florida appellate court. "Second, the allegations are simply irrelevant to Plaintiffs' claims and, therefore, immaterial and impertinent," the memorandum in support says. "The allegations in the Objectionable Paragraphs are scandalous, injurious to Ford's reputation, and have no bearing on Plaintiffs' present claims. The allegations are clearly designed only to inflame the jury and the public. "Moreover, the continued presence of these objectionable allegations of decades-old conduct will prejudice Ford by requiring extensive and unnecessary expenditures of resources in litigation." The company recently agreed to pay $17.35 million to settle an investigation by the National Highway Traffic Safety Agency. The NHTSA alleged Ford took too long to recall Escapes that could have defects that cause unintended acceleration. Ford recalled 423,000 Escapes in 2012. Ford denied it broke any laws in the settlement agreement. Judge Chambers recently granted the plaintiffs' motion to consolidate the first two cases filed for pretrial purposes. GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Still Faces Suits Over RESPA Violations ----------------------------------------------------------- Genworth Financial, Inc. provides updates on putative class action lawsuits alleging that certain of its "captive reinsurance arrangements" were in violation of RESPA, according to the company's Aug. 1, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013. Beginning in December 2011 and continuing through January 2013, one of the company's U.S. mortgage insurance subsidiaries was named along with several other mortgage insurance participants and mortgage lenders as a defendant in twelve putative class action lawsuits alleging that certain "captive reinsurance arrangements" were in violation of RESPA. The Barlee case was dismissed by the Court with prejudice as to the company's subsidiary and certain other defendants on February 27, 2013. In the Riddle case, the defendants' motion to dismiss was denied, but the Court limited discovery at this stage to issues surrounding the statute of limitations. The Manners case was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs in March 2013. In the Moriba BA case, the Court denied defendants' motion to dismiss by order dated June 26, 2013. In the White case, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint to address the deficiencies that the Court identified in previously dismissing the action. On July 22, 2013, the company's mortgage insurance subsidiary moved to dismiss the second amended complaint. In the Hill case, the defendants' motion to dismiss was denied on June 27, 2013, but the Court limited discovery at this stage to issues surrounding the statute of limitations. In the Samp and Orange cases, the plaintiffs have appealed the dismissals to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Menichino case was dismissed by the Court without prejudice as to the company's subsidiary and certain other defendants on July 19, 2013. In the Riddle case, on July 19, 2013, the company moved for summary judgment dismissing the case. The company intends to vigorously defend the remaining actions. HENDERSON, LA: Class Action Seeks $2+MM in Ticket Refunds --------------------------------------------------------- Richard Burgess, writing for The Advocate, reports that a class- action lawsuit seeks more than $2 million in refunds for drivers ticketed along Interstate 10 by Henderson police under an allegedly illegal ticket quota system that paid officers $15 per ticket issued. The quota system has led to criminal charges against the town's police chief and his assistant, both of whom pleaded not guilty at their arraignment on Aug. 12 on charges of public payroll fraud, filing false public records and malfeasance in office. In addition to claims stemming from the quota system, the civil suit alleges Henderson police have routinely given tickets outside their jurisdiction, nabbing drivers for violating the 60 mph speed limit on the Atchafalaya Basin Bridge as they come off the bridge into a 70 mph zone approaching the Henderson exit off I-10. Breaux Bridge attorney Glenn Soileau, who filed the lawsuit, said the Henderson town limits stop short of the Basin bridge. "That's where they are clocking people, coming right off the bridge," he said. He may be reached at: Glenn Soileau, Esq. 1454 E Bridge St Breaux Bridge, LA 70517 Tel: (337) 332-4561 Fax: (337) 332-4562 Mr. Soileau filed the lawsuit on behalf on St. Landry Parish resident Mark Anthony Thomas, who paid a $213 traffic fine last year for a ticket he received coming off the Basin Bridge in June 2012, according to the lawsuit. Mr. Soileau is seeking class-action status for the lawsuit and believes potential plaintiffs could number in the thousands, with fines averaging about $150 per ticket. The lawsuit comes after prosecutors filed charges last month against Henderson Police Chief Leroy Guidry and Deputy Chief Oliver Mack Lloyd. They are accused of overseeing an illegal ticket quota system that allowed officers to earn $15 per ticket on I-10 as long as they issued at least two tickets per hour. State law forbids paying officers based on how many citations they issue. The criminal charges arose from a 2012 investigation of the quota system by the state Office of Inspector General in a case sparked by a complaint from a former Henderson officer. A report by the inspector general found that fines and forfeitures coming mainly from traffic stops generated upwards of $2.4 million for the town from 2009 to 2011 -- about 80 percent of Henderson's budget for that period. Both Messrs. Guidry and Lloyd, who pleaded not guilty at the arraignment on Aug. 12, remain on the job and have the support of Henderson Mayor Sherbin Collette. He has said he believes they did nothing wrong. Collette, who was served with the lawsuit on Aug. 13, disputes the allegation that officers have been giving tickets outside the town limits. The mayor said Henderson annexed a small portion of the Basin bridge, but declined to discuss the issue in detail other than to say the town is preparing to have an engineer map out the precise boundary. "In the next couple of days, it should be cleared up," Mr. Collette said. In the criminal case, Mr. Collette has said that there was never a formal quota system for tickets on I-10 but that officers were encouraged to write two tickets per hour. Henderson officers were not directly paid $15 per ticket but rather the payment came as an enhanced hourly wage, with officers expected to issue at least two tickets per hour to receive $30 per hour, according to an affidavit filed to support the criminal charges against Mr. Guidry. Officers could make more money if they issued more than two tickets an hour but would make only $12.50 an hour if they issued fewer than two tickets per hour, according to the allegations in the affidavit. The affidavit states that Mr. Guidry allegedly told Inspector General's Office investigators that the enhanced payments served as a "productivity" system to ensure officers were active while working under a traffic safety program funded through a state- administered grant. Messrs. Guidry and Lloyd are set for trial on Dec. 16. If convicted, they face up to five years in prison on the charges of malfeasance and filing false public records and up to two years in prison on the charge of payroll fraud. HEWLETT PACKARD: Investors Must Amend Securities Fraud Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that following a trend in the Northern District of California, a federal judge ordered Hewlett Packard investors to amend their securities fraud claims. A copy of the Order Granting Motions to Dismiss in Cement & Concrete Workers District Council Pension Fund, et al. v. Hewlett Packard Company, et al., Case No. 12-cv-04115 (N.D. Calif.) (Tigar, J.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/08/14/hp.pdf HYUNDAI: Recalls 52,317 Azera and Sonata Model Cars --------------------------------------------------- Starting date: August 12, 2013 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Car Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Structure Units affected: 52317 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2013280 TC ID number: 2013280 Manufacturer recall number: R0081 Affected products: Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- HYUNDAI SONATA 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 HYUNDAI AZERA 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 On certain vehicles, road salt can corrode the rear crossmember assembly, which may ultimately lead to separation of the control arm at the mounting point. This would allow the wheel to rotate off its designed axis, and could result in a loss of vehicle control and a crash causing property damage and/or personal injury. Dealers will repair or replace the rear crossmember assembly. JUNIPER NETWORKS: Sued for Allegedly Inflating Share Prices ----------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Juniper Networks and its officers inflated share prices with misleading information, a class claims in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP on Aug. 12 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit against Juniper Networks, Inc. and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Northern District of California, and docketed under 13-cv-03733, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of Juniper Networks between April 24, 2012 and August 8, 2013 both dates inclusive. This class action seeks to recover damages against the Company and certain of its officers and directors as a result of alleged violations of the federal securities laws pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. If you are a shareholder who purchased Juniper Networks securities during the Class Period, you have until October 11, 2013 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at http://www.pomerantzlaw.com To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, x237. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. Juniper Networks, Inc. designs, develops, and sells products and services that provide network infrastructure for networking requirements of service providers, enterprises, governments, and research and public sector organizations worldwide. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business and operations. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company was in violation of the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act ("FCPA"); (2) the Company lacked effective internal controls over financial reporting; and, (3) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On August 8, 2013, after the market closed, the Company disclosed that the SEC and the U.S. Department of Justice, "are conducting investigations into possible violations by the Company of the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act." On this news, shares fell $1.24 approximately 5.13% percent to close at $20.92 per share on August 9, 2013. The Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. It has offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and San Diego. LOCKHEED: 7th Circuit Reverses Class Certification Denial --------------------------------------------------------- Charlie Thomas, writing for aiCIO, reports that a panel of judges in the Seventh Circuit of the US Court of Appeals has reversed an earlier decision denying class certification in a legal battle between an employer and members of its 401(k) plans. The decision opens the door for further claimants to come forward and contest the issue at stake in court -- namely whether Lockheed breached its fiduciary duty to the two 401(k) plans by investing a large proportion of its stable value fund in money markets, losing it money over the long term. A typical stable value fund will invest in a mixture of short and intermediate-term securities, such as treasury securities, corporate bonds, and mortgage-backed securities, the court document seen by aiCIO noted. The longer-duration holdings mean that stable value funds normally outperform money market funds, which invest exclusively in short- term securities. The plaintiffs who brought the case to the district court originally alleged that by investing the stable value fund heavily in money market investments, Lockheed's decision led to a low rate of return, such that the stable value fund did "not beat inflation by a sufficient margin to provide a meaningful retirement asset". As such, managing the investments in this way was "imprudent" and violated Lockheed's fiduciary duty to manage the 401(k) plans with care, skill, prudence and diligence. Stable value funds are a mainstay of many defined contribution plans and their assets are growing. Out of 12,000 401(k) plans tracked by San Diego research firm Brightscope, stable value funds or similar vehicles held $339 billion US in assets at the end of 2011, up from $317 billion in year-end 2009. The plaintiff's attorney in the Lockheed case Jerome Schlichter told Business News Network the ruling would strengthen claims on behalf of 56,000 investors who now would not have to sue individually. "This decision means if imprudent management causes poor performance in the 401(k) plan, plan fiduciaries are on the hook for the full damages," he continued, adding there were other parts of the case which were also on track to proceed as class actions, such as claims of excessive record-keeping fees. The hearing has now been remanded for further proceedings. Lockheed's press team had not responded to a request for comment at the time of going to press. LTD COMMODITIES: Recalls Microwave Crisper Pans Due to Fire Hazard ------------------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with LTD Commodities LLC, of Bannockburn, Ill., announced a voluntary recall of about 18,220 Microwave Crisper Pan with Lid. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The metal washer used to secure the knob to the lid can spark, posing a fire hazard to consumers. The firm has received 16 reports of incidents including sparks, flames, and shattered or exploding glass lids. The recall involves microwave crisper pans. The carbon steel pan is sold with a glass lid that has a white ceramic knob on top. The non-stick pan has bottom grooves and a silicone base. Catalog number MUP or 4040011017 is printed on the outside of the box, near the UPC bar code 707569068464. Shipments made after July 2013 include a label on the knob that reads "inspected" and are not included in this recall. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/exZ8bu The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at LTD Commodities, ABC Distributing and The Lakeside Collection catalogs and online at http://www.ltdcommodities.com http://www.abcdistributing.com,and http://www.lakeside.com between June 2013 and July 2013 for about $10. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled crisper pan and contact LTD Commodities for a free repair. Known consumers were notified directly about the recall. MAKO SURGICAL: Securities Lawsuit in Florida Now Closed ------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida closed the case In re MAKO Surgical Corp. Securities Litigation, No. 12-60875-CIV-Cohn/Seltzer, and entered final judgment for the Company, according to the company's Aug. 1, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013. In May 2012, two shareholder complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida against the Company and certain of its officers and directors as purported class actions on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's common stock between January 9, 2012 and May 7, 2012. The cases were filed under the captions James H. Harrison, Jr. v. MAKO Surgical Corp. et al., No. 12-cv-60875 and Brian Parker v. MAKO Surgical Corp. et al., No. 12-cv-60954. The court consolidated the Harrison and Parker complaints under the caption In re MAKO Surgical Corp. Securities Litigation, No. 12-60875-CIV- Cohn/Seltzer, and appointed Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System and Baltimore County Employees' Retirement System to serve as co-lead plaintiffs. In September 2012, the co-lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that expanded the proposed class period through July 9, 2012. The amended complaint alleged the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, President and Chairman, Maurice R. Ferre, M.D., and its Chief Financial Officer, Fritz L. LaPorte, violated federal securities laws by making misrepresentations and omissions during the proposed class period about the Company's financial guidance for 2012 that artificially inflated the Company's stock price. The amended complaint sought an unspecified amount of compensatory damages, interest, attorneys' and expert fees, and costs. In October 2012, the Company, Dr. Ferre, and Mr. LaPorte filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety. On May 15, 2013, the court granted the motion to dismiss and found that the challenged statements in the amended complaint were not material misrepresentations or omissions but rather were forward- looking statements accompanied by meaningful cautionary language and thus not actionable. In its order, the court gave co-lead plaintiffs an opportunity to request leave to file a second amended complaint, which they declined. Accordingly, on June 14, 2013 the court closed the case and entered final judgment for the Company, Dr. Ferre and Mr. LaPorte. No appeal was filed and the time for filing an appeal has expired. MONSANTO CORP: Questions Remain After GMO Crops Ruling ------------------------------------------------------ Robert Kahn at Courthouse News Service reports that though the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously that Monsanto can sue farmers to death for doing what farmers have done since before time began -- save seeds to plant next spring -- questions remain. The Supreme Court ruled on "genetically modified" crops -- DNA tinkering in seeds from glyphosate-resistant "Roundup Ready" plants. But farmers have been genetically modifying crops since women descended from the trees. Planting seeds from the biggest fruits and grains, year after year, is genetic modification. That's how the Toltecs and Teotihuacanos turned a pathetic little grass called teosintle into corn. Five hundred years later, Luther Burbank invented the nectarine by grafting one tree onto another. Can we no longer mess around in the garden without paying someone? Organic farmers have sued Monsanto repeatedly for contaminating their crops with genetically modified pollen. A cursory search of the Courthouse News database turned up 12 such lawsuits, six of them class actions, the latest one filed Monday in Mississippi. Once crops are out in the fields, pollen blows on the wind. You can't stop it. It's what the world does. The organic plaintiffs who sued Monsanto say their customers don't want to eat food contaminated by genetic modifications. So here's a question: If Monsanto's genetically modified pollen fertilizes an organic farm's crops, and the organic farm incorporates a subsidiary to sell seeds from its accidentally fertilized, genetically modified wheat, who can sue whom? And why? And for what? For doing what farmers have done for 10,000 years? Who is the pirate here? Is it the organic farmer whose crops were contaminated by Monsanto? Is it Monsanto, seizing crops from downwind farmers, with the consent of the Supreme Court, and putting farmers out of business? Is it the Supreme Court -- (technically, a corsair: a pirate backed by the state) -- legitimizing state-backed piracy? Is the pirate the wind? Or the grains of pollen that fertilize pistils downwind? And who should pay damages for the wind? These questions are raised -- not directly -- by an excellent new book published by those radicals at the Harvard Business Review: "The Pirate Organization: Lessons from the Fringes of Capitalism." The authors, business professors Rodolphe Durand and Jean-Philippe Vergne, view piracy as a creative, inherently unstable force that -- were business a living organism -- we could say has been introducing and replicating its DNA into capitalism for hundreds of years. From the Golden Age of pirates, who preyed off the Dutch and British East India Companies, to Internet pirates today, pirates have formed organizations that because of their profits, their efficiency, their short-term superiority to what the professors call the milieu, have forced businesses and governments to adopt pirate models: to incorporate piracy into the system. Piracy today operates in the ether -- the Internet -- in microspace -- at the level of DNA, such as the Monsanto patent -- and soon will operate at the other end of the size spectrum, in outer space. One reason the Internet has been so productive is that governments couldn't figure out how to regulate it until pirates were sailing the waters: just as governments were unable, for centuries, to figure out how to regulate the open sea, or capitalism. Durand and Vergne do not idolize pirates. Pirate organizations are unstable and short-lasting. Pirates cannot claim rights to property, since their business model is based upon challenging rights to property. The most interesting aspect of the professors' short book -- actually, all of it is interesting -- is their insistence upon treating piracy as an organization. Pirates introduced labor reforms that forced governments to copy them: popular election of leaders, rejection of leadership inheritance through bloodline, admission of women to the workforce and to leadership, even social insurance: some pirate groups gave workers who lost an arm in the assault triple spoils. MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS: Plaintiffs' Lawyers to Get 27.5% Fee Award -------------------------------------------------------------- Elizabeth Warmerdam at Courthouse News Service reports that lawyers who won a $200 million settlement from Motorola Solutions deserve 27.5% in fees because the securities class action was risky, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled. The crux of the suit was that Motorola had allegedly concealed its inability in 2006 to produce a competitive mobile phone that could employ 3G protocols. Motorola's stock declined when the problem became public. Four years into the case, a federal judge in Chicago denied Motorola's motion for summary judgment and the parties then settled for $200 million. "None of the class members contends that this is inadequate -- but two contend that the judge abused her discretion by approving counsel's proposal that they receive 27.5% of the fund," Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote for a three-judge panel of the 7th Circuit. The court nixed the first objector, Paul Liles, for missing the deadline and never actually claiming a penny from the settlement. Edward Falkner meanwhile objected on the grounds that the award was fixed at the end of the litigation, when fee schedules should be set at the beginning, preferably by an auction in which the judge picks the low bidder among the law firms competing to represent the class. While the 7th Circuit agreed that attorneys' fees in class actions should approximate the market rate between willing buyers and willing sellers of legal services, it also found that "solvent litigants do not select their own lawyers by holding auctions, because auctions do not work well unless a standard unit of quality can be defined and its delivery verified. There is no 'standard quality' of legal services, and verification is difficult if not impossible." Circuit precedent does note the desirability of establishing fee structures at the beginning of lawsuits, but that does not mean that they are the only lawful way to compensate class counsel in common-fund cases, according to the ruling. "It is unfortunate that the district judge originally assigned to this case did not consider the possibility of establishing a fee schedule when he appointed a lead plaintiff and approved the party's choice of counsel," Judge Easterbrook wrote. "By the time that judge died, and the case had been reassigned to the judge who awarded the fees, it was not possible to recreate the conditions that existed at the case's outset. Too much legal time had been sunk into litigation, and it would have been counterproductive to invite other law firms to make other offers and, if selected, start over." The ruling also notes data about attorneys' fees in other class action settlements. An empirical study found that the mean award from settlements that range from $100 to $250 million is 12%, and the median is 10.2%. Courts usually award counsel a declining percentage as the size of the settlement fund increases. Though "an award fixed at 27.5% of a $200 million fund is exceptionally high," that does not make the award legally excessive, the nine-page opinion states. Judge Easterbrook highlighted one expert's conclusion that "this suit was unusually risky. Defendants prevail outright in many securities suits. This one took more than four years, and more than $5 million in out-of-pocket expenses by counsel to conduct discovery and engage experts, before reaching the summary-judgment stage." Indeed, Motorola had been primed to prevail on its summary judgment motion until class counsel uncovered some unanticipated facts during discovery. Motorola was only willing to settle for a substantial sum after its motion was denied. In addition, no other law firm wanted to take on the case in the beginning. "Lack of competition not only implies a higher fee but also suggests that most members of the securities bar saw this litigation as too risky for their practices," Judge Easterbrook wrote. "The district judge did not abuse her discretion in concluding that the risks of this suit justified a substantial award, even though compensation in most other suits has been lower." Investors would certainly reap more from the settlement if the court reined in the fees, but Judge Easterbrook highlighted the lack of protest from the pension funds, university endowments and other large institutional investors that hold claim to more than 70% of the settlement fund. "The difference between 27.5% of $200 million and a smaller award (say, one averaging 20%) could be a tidy sum for institutional investors (including this suit's lead plaintiff, a pension fund), one worth a complaint to the district judge if the lawyers' cut seems too high," he wrote. "Yet none of the institutional investors has protested -- either by filing a motion asking the judge to reduce the fees or by supporting Falkner's position in this court. This award may be at the outer limit of reasonableness, but, given the way the subject was litigated in the district court, deferential appellate review means that the decision must stand." NATURAL BALANCE: Faces Class Action Over False Claims ----------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Natural Balance and Nutraceutical International Corp. sell "Cobra Sexual Energy" pills with false claims, two men claim in a federal class action. NESTLE SA: Class Must Amend Claims in Misleading Advertising Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that a class must amend claims that Nestle misleads consumers about the nutritional value of its chocolate and other products, including Buitoni, Dreyer's, and Lean and Hot Pockets, a federal judge ruled. A copy of the Order Granting-in-Part Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike in Trazo, et al. v. Nestle USA, Inc., Case No. 12-cv- 02272 (N.D. Calif.) (Grewal, Mag.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/08/14/nestle.pdf NIKE CORP: Faces Class Action Over FuelBand Bracelet ---------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Nike claims its FuelBand bracelet "tracks each step and calorie burned," though Nike knows that "the product does no such thing," a class action claims in Federal Court. NTD APPAREL: Recalls Short Sleeve Superman Onesie Bodysuit ---------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: August 14, 2013 Posting date: August 14, 2013 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Children's Products, Clothing and Accessories Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Product Safety Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-34955 Affected products: Short Sleeve Superman Onesie Bodysuit The recall involves the short sleeve Superman Onesie Bodysuit, style number DA3147ST115, with the following UPC: Bodysuits affected by this recall: Size UPC ---- --- 0-3M 68439334732 3-6M 68439334733 6-12M 68439334734 12-18M 68439334735 18-24M 68439334736 The recalled bodysuits do not meet the requirements under Canadian law related to small parts on a product for young children less than three years of age. It was determined by laboratory testing that a part of the decal may peel and separate from the bodysuit, creating a rigid small part that can be swallowed by young children, posing a choking hazard to those children. Small objects in a child's environment present choking, ingestion and inhalation hazards. Clothing used by a child less than three years of age should not have small or separable hard components, or small parts that detach during reasonable foreseeable use of the garment. Walmart Canada has received one reported incident without injury. Health Canada has not received any reports of incidents or injuries related to the use of these bodysuits. Approximately 6,183 units of the recalled bodysuits were sold by Walmart Canada. The recalled bodysuits were manufactured in Bangladesh and sold from March 25th, 2013 to June 15th, 2013. Companies: Manufacturer Shadin Garments (PVT) Ltd Konabari, Gazipur Bangladesh Distributor NTD Apparel Inc. Montreal Ontario Canada Consumers should take the recalled bodysuits away from children immediately. To coordinate a refund, consumers should contact NTD Apparel Inc. by telephone at 1-514-341-8330, extension 244, or via email. ORTHOFIX INTERNATIONAL: Faces Suit Over Misleading Statements ------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Orthofix International shares dropped from $27.40 to $22.71 on July 30 after directors propped up the price with false and misleading statements, shareholders claim in a federal class action. PH BEAUTY: Sued Over Bogus Claims About "Stem Cell" Products ------------------------------------------------------------ Courthouse News Service reports that PH Beauty Labs dba Freeman Beauty Labs make bogus claims for their so-called "Stem Cell" skin care products, a class action claims in Federal Court in California. PROCTER & GAMBLE: Recalls Dry Pet Food Over Salmonella Presence --------------------------------------------------------------- The Procter & Gamble Company (P&G) has voluntarily recalled specific lots of dry pet food because they have the potential to be contaminated with Salmonella. These lots were distributed in the United States and represent roughly one-tenth of one percent (0.1%) of annual production. No Salmonella-related illnesses have been reported to date in association with these product lots. Salmonella can affect animals eating the products and there is risk to humans from handling contaminated pet products, especially if they have not thoroughly washed their hands after having contact with the products or any surfaces exposed to these products. Healthy people infected with Salmonella should monitor themselves for some or all of the following symptoms: nausea, vomiting, diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, abdominal cramping and fever. Rarely, Salmonella can result in more serious ailments, including arterial infections, endocarditis, arthritis, muscle pain, eye irritation, and urinary tract symptoms. Consumers exhibiting these signs after having contact with this product should contact their healthcare providers. Pets with Salmonella infections may be lethargic and have diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, fever, and vomiting. Some pets will have only decreased appetite, fever and abdominal pain. Infected but otherwise healthy pets can be carriers and infect other animals or humans. If your pet has consumed the recalled product and has these symptoms, please contact your veterinarian. This issue is limited to the specific dry pet food. This affects roughly one-tenth of one percent (0.1%) of total annual production. The affected product was distributed to select retailers across the United States. These products were made during a 10 day window at a single manufacturing site. P&G's routine testing determined that some products made during this timeframe have the potential for Salmonella contamination. As a precautionary measure, P&G is recalling the potentially impacted products made during this timeframe. No other dry dog food, dry cat food, dog or cat canned wet food, biscuits/treats or supplements are affected by this announcement. P&G is retrieving these products as a precautionary measure. Consumers who purchased a product listed below should stop using the product and discard it and contact P&G toll-free at 800-208- 0172 (Monday - Friday, 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM EST), or via website at http://www.iams.comor http://www.eukanuba.com Media Contact: Jason Taylor 513-622-1111. RIVER TECHNOLOGY: Suit by Former Zeus Shareholders Still Active --------------------------------------------------------------- Riverbed Technology, Inc. continues to be involved in a suit filed by the former shareholders of Zeus in the Superior Court of the State of California, according to Riverbed's Aug. 1, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013. In October 2012 the company served the representative of the Zeus Technology, Ltd. shareholders, as lead defendant and proposed defendant class representative for all other similarly situated former shareholders of Zeus, with a lawsuit, filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, for declaratory relief. The lawsuit seeks declaratory judgment that, among other things, (a) Riverbed is not in breach of the share purchase agreement, and (b) Riverbed does not owe any acquisition-related contingent consideration under the share purchase agreement because the necessary conditions precedent to the payment of acquisition- related contingent consideration did not occur. In November 2012, the representative of the Zeus shareholders filed a cross-complaint against Riverbed and Riverbed Technology Limited in the Superior Court of the State of California. The cross-complaint claims breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and seeks declaratory judgment that Riverbed has breached the share purchase agreement and that the entire $27.0 million in contingent consideration is payable to Zeus shareholders. The company believes that the contention of the representative of the Zeus shareholders is without merit and intend to vigorously defend the company's determination. SENTRY SERVICES: Former Employees Sue Over Stock Option Plan ------------------------------------------------------------ Courthouse News Service reports that Sentry Services, Mayrich Construction Group et al. refused to pay from, provide an accounting or even admit the existence of a multimillion-dollar employee stock option plan, former employees claim in a federal class action in New York. TARGET CORP: Faces Class Action Over Banzai's Deceptive Packaging ----------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Target sells Banzai brand water slides and pools in deceptive packaging that make them appear larger than they are, a class action claims in Federal Court. TIME WARNER: Faces Suit From Customers for Dropping Showtime & CBS ------------------------------------------------------------------ Matt Reynolds at Courthouse News Service reports that Time Warner Cable faces a class action from customers who are angry at its dropping of Showtime and CBS from its lineup, as part of the corporations' bitter dispute over fees. Lead plaintiff James Armstrong sued Time Warner Cable breach of contract, unfair business practices, unjust enrichment and unconscionability, in Superior Court. Time Warner and Showtime owner CBS are fighting over how much Time Warner should pay to rebroadcast CBS network shows. Time Warner pulled the plug on CBS on Aug. 2, leaving 3.5 million customers without its programming. Though Time Warner dropped Showtime, The Movie Channel, and Los Angeles station KCAL, Armstrong says the cable giant has not given customers credit for shortchanging them on channels. Time Warner, in no mood to cave to what it calls CBS's "outrageous demands," has offered customers Starz and Encore instead. That does not sit well with Armstrong, who says he subscribed to those channels before the blackout. He complains that the offer is not "fungible" to Showtime, home to the acclaimed shows "Dexter" and "Homeland." "Prior to the dispute with CBS, defendant utilized Showtime as a significant incentive to induce customer subscriptions of general cable services through advertisement and marketing materials. Defendant also utilizes CBS's news content and sports content, including CBS's local affiliate, as a significant inducement to cause general consumers to subscribe to its basic services," Armstrong says in the 21-page lawsuit. Time Warner knew a contract dispute was brewing when it reeled in new customers last year by offering three months of Showtime for free, Armstrong says. He claims he would not have subscribed to Time Warner if he knew it was going to drop the channel. "No actual notice of the blackout, or impending dispute that might cause a blackout, was received by plaintiffs so they were in effect, forced to pay for services," the complaint states. Time Warner does not mention in its ads that it dropped Showtime/CBS from its lineup, Armstrong says. Showtime claims it offered to let Time Warner keep airing the premium cable channel during negotiations, and "even if an agreement could not be achieved." "Time Warner Cable declined this offer," Showtime said in a statement. "We take pride in the fact that our networks have never gone dark and that our subscribers have never been deprived of their programming," according to the Showtime statement. "Time Warner Cable, on the other hand, has taken nearly 50 channels off the air in the last five years in disputes like the one we are having right now." In a statement posted on its own website, Time Warner Cable said: "CBS is making outrageous demands for the right to continue carrying their channels. We are holding the line against broadcasters who continue to make their stations available free over-the-air and online while they demand more from cable customers without delivering any additional value." Armstrong seeks restitution and costs of suit. He is represented by: Daniel Weintraub, Esq. WEINTRAUB & SELTH, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 11766 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1170 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Tel: 310-584-7702 866-572-2423 (Toll Free) Fax: 310-442-0660 TOURO UNIVERSITY: Faces Suit Over Hiding of Tuition Fee Cost ------------------------------------------------------------ Courthouse News Service reports that Touro University Nevada does not reveal the cost of tuition, as required by Nevada law, a class action claims in Clark County Court. VANGUARD NATURAL: Dismissal of ENP Unitholder's Lawsuit Affirmed ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of In re: Encore Energy Partners LP Unitholder Litigation, C.A. No. 6347-VCP, according to Vanguard Natural Resources, LLC's Aug. 1, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013. On April 5, 2011, Stephen Bushansky, a purported unitholder of ENP, filed a putative class action complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery on behalf of the unitholders of ENP. Another purported unitholder of ENP, William Allen, filed a similar action in the same court on April 14, 2011. The Bushansky and Allen actions have been consolidated under the caption In re: Encore Energy Partners LP Unitholder Litigation, C.A. No. 6347-VCP (the "Delaware State Court Action"). On December 28, 2011, those plaintiffs jointly filed their second amended consolidated class action complaint naming as defendants ENP, Scott W. Smith, Richard A. Robert, Douglas Pence, W. Timothy Hauss, John E. Jackson, David C. Baggett, Martin G. White, and Vanguard. That putative class action complaint alleged, among other things, that defendants breached the partnership agreement by recommending a transaction that was not fair and reasonable. Plaintiffs sought compensatory damages. Vanguard filed a motion to dismiss this lawsuit. On August 31, 2012, the Chancery Court entered an order granting Vanguard's motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim and dismissing the Delaware State Court Action with prejudice. On September 27, 2012, Mr. Allen filed a notice of appeal of the dismissal of his lawsuit. On July 22, 2013, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the lawsuit. VITAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Must Amend Claims in Meltdown Product Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that a class must amend claims that Vital Pharmaceuticals dba VPX Sports misleads consumers about the effectiveness of its Meltdown Fat Incinerator, a federal judge ruled in Florida. A copy of the Order Granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint in Karhu v. Vital Pharmaceuticals, Inc., d/b/a VPX Sports, Case No. 13-cv-60768 (S.D. Fla.) (Cohn, J.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/08/16/Meltdown.pdf ZELTIQ AESTHETICS: Calif. Super. Junks "Marcano" Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Superior Court of California, County of Alameda entered a judgment dismissing the securities class action entitled Marcano v. Nye, et al., Case No. RG12621290 with prejudice, according to ZELTIQ Aesthetics, Inc.'s Aug. 1, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013. On March 13, 2012, an alleged purchaser of the Company's publicly traded common stock, Ivan Marcano, filed a securities class action in the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, entitled Marcano v. Nye, et al., Case No. RG12621290. The complaint alleged that the Company made false and misleading statements or omitted to state facts necessary to make the disclosures not misleading in its Form S-1, and the amendments thereto, issued in connection with the Company's initial public offering. The claims were asserted under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. On March 15, 2012, April 3, 2012, and May 24, 2012, three additional and substantially similar lawsuits were filed in the same court, some adding the Company's underwriters as defendants. All four cases were consolidated and a consolidated complaint was deemed operative. On August 24, 2012, the Company filed a demurrer to the consolidated complaint. Subsequently, Plaintiffs agreed to dismiss the Company's outside directors and its underwriters from the litigation without prejudice. On November 9, 2012, the court sustained the Company's demurrer with leave to amend. Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on January 14, 2013, again asserting claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. The second amended complaint sought compensatory damages and equitable relief on behalf of the class for an amount to be proven at trial. On February 25, 2013, the Company filed a demurrer to the second amended complaint. On May 17, 2013, the Court issued an order sustaining the demurrer without leave to amend and ordering the action dismissed. On June 7, 2013, the Court entered a judgment dismissing the action with prejudice. Plaintiffs have agreed to waive their right to appeal the judgment. ********* 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 * * *