/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/130902.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, September 2, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 173 Headlines AGL RESOURCES: Illinois Suit vs. Nicor Units Remains Pending ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI: 3 Law Firms Join Forces in Silicosis Suit BAXTER INT'L: Awaits Ruling on Certification Bid in Illinois Suit BAXTER INT'L: Defends Consolidated Plasma-Derived Therapies Suit BIOLASE INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Action BLACKSTONE GROUP: Trial to Commence Sept. 16 in IPO Suit BLUE CROSS: Court Dismisses Suit Because Claims Already Released BUCCANEERS LP: Urges Court to Dismiss Spam Fax Class Action CANADA LITHIUM: Ontario Court Allows Class Action to Proceed CLECO CORP: Plea to Review Customer Suit Ruling Remains Pending COCA-COLA CO: Sued to Stop From Allegedly Deceiving Consumers COMMUNITY HEALTH: Still Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Suit COSMOPOLITAN OF LAS VEGAS: Employees May Join Wage-and-Hour Suit CYPRUS: Class Action Suit Mulled Over Bank Bailout ERNST & YOUNG: Can Enforce Arbitration in Wage-and-Hour Suit EXPEDIA INC: Robins Geller Files Class Action in Washington FRITO-LAY: Unlawfully Sold Misbranded Food Products, Suit Claims GOOGLE INC: Five U.S. Privacy Groups Oppose $8.5MM Settlement HUNTSMAN CORP: Agreed to Settle TiO2 Direct Purchasers' Claims J.M. SMUCKER: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Class Suit Over Labels LIGHTINTHEBOX HOLDING: Robins Geller Files Class Action in N.Y. LIME ENERGY: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit to Be Heard Oct. 24 MAHWAH, NJ: Affordable Housing Owners Mull Class Action MAPLEWOOD MARKETS: Nov. 12 Settlement Final Approval Hearing Set MOODY'S CORP: Appeal in "Abu Dhabi" Class Suit Remains Pending MOODY'S CORP: Awaits Summary Judgment Ruling in Securities Suit MOORE CAPITAL: Settles Close-Banging Class Action for $8.4 Mil. NETFLIX INC: Judge Dismisses Securities Class Action PG&E CORP: All Class Claims Over San Bruno Accident Dismissed PG&E CORP: Class Suit Over Business Practices Dismissed in May PINNACLE FINANCIAL: Has Deal to Settle "Higgins" Suit POLYONE CORP: Has Yet to Submit Docs in Merger Suit Settlement QEP RESOURCES: Received Final OK of "Chieftain" Suit Settlement SIFY TECHNOLOGIES: Insurer Has Settled Exposure in IPO Suit Deal TOYOTA CANADA: Settles Consumer Claims Over 2009 & 2010 Recalls UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Registered Nurses Sue Employers for Overtime URBAN OUTFITTERS: Seeks Dismissal of Wage-and-Hour Class Action VALSPAR: Employees Can Bring Collective Action Over Unpaid Wages VOLVO: S60, S80, XC60, and XC70 SUV Models Recalled in Canada WILLIAMS COS: Bid for Summary Judgment vs. FHRA Remains Pending WILLIAMS COS: Units Face Class Suits Over Geismar Incident WILLIAMS COS: WPX to Seek Writ of Certiorari From Supreme Court WINSTAR COMMUNICATIONS: Nov. 13 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ********* AGL RESOURCES: Illinois Suit vs. Nicor Units Remains Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ Northern Illinois Gas Company, doing business as Nicor Gas Company; Nicor Energy Services Company; and Nicor Inc. -- an acquisition completed by AGL Resources Inc. in December 2011 and former holding company of Nicor Gas, are defendants in a putative class action initially filed in September 2011, in state court in Cook County, Illinois. The plaintiffs purport to represent a class of customers of Nicor Gas who purchased the Gas Line Comfort Guard product from Nicor Services. The plaintiffs variously allege that the marketing, sale and billing of the Nicor Services Gas Line Comfort Guard violate the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, constitute common law fraud and result in unjust enrichment of Nicor Services and Nicor Gas. The plaintiffs seek, on behalf of the classes they purport to represent, actual and punitive damages, interest, costs, attorney fees and injunctive relief. While the Company is unable to predict the outcome of these matters or to reasonably estimate its potential exposure related thereto, if any, and have not recorded a liability associated with this contingency, the final disposition of this matter is not expected to have a material adverse impact on the Company's liquidity or financial condition. No further updates were reported in the Company's July 31, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013. Headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia, AGL Resources Inc. is an energy services holding company whose principal business is the distribution of natural gas in seven states -- Illinois, Georgia, Virginia, New Jersey, Florida, Tennessee and Maryland -- through its seven natural gas distribution utilities. ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI: 3 Law Firms Join Forces in Silicosis Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Legalbrief Today, citing Beeld, reports that the three legal teams that have been fighting different battles to claim compensation for silicosis sufferers have joined forces. The Legal Resources Centre, Abrahams Kiewitz Attorneys and Richard Spoor Attorneys have filed an application in the South Gauteng High Court to join three separate class actions into one. Together, the legal teams represent 25 000 mine workers claiming compensation from 32 groups, including AngloGold Ashanti, Harmony and Goldfields. The case involves 82 gold mines in operation since 1956. The mining companies have five days to indicate whether they oppose the latest bid to join the class action. Richard Spoor said he cannot see any grounds for opposition to the move. The case can then be heard as soon as the first quarter of 2014, he said. The case will test the rights of employees to compensation following exposure to health risks. It was brought after the Constitutional Court ruled in 2011 that the Occupational Diseases in Mines & Works Act does not bar employees from suing for damages under common law. BAXTER INT'L: Awaits Ruling on Certification Bid in Illinois Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Baxter International Inc. is awaiting a court decision on a motion to certify a consolidated class action lawsuit pending in Illinois, according to the Company's July 31, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013. Baxter is a defendant in a number of lawsuits alleging that certain of the Company's current and former executive officers and its board of directors failed to adequately oversee the operations of the company and issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's plasma-based therapies business, the Company's remediation of its COLLEAGUE infusion pumps, its heparin product, and other quality issues. The Plaintiffs allege these actions damaged the company and its shareholders by resulting in a decline in stock price in the second quarter of 2010, payment of excess compensation to the board of directors and certain of the Company's current and former executive officers, and other damage to the Company. In September 2012, a federal court dismissed a consolidated derivative lawsuit pending in the U.S.D.C. for the Northern District of Illinois, and in October 2012, the plaintiffs appealed this dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Two derivative actions have been filed in state court: one pending in the Circuit Court of Lake County, Illinois has been stayed pending the outcome of the federal action and another, in Delaware Chancery Court, was filed in June 2013. In addition, a consolidated alleged class action is pending in the U.S.D.C. for the Northern District of Illinois against the Company and certain of its current executive officers seeking to recover the lost value of investors' stock. In April 2013, the Company filed its opposition to the plaintiff's motion to certify a class action. Based in Deerfield, Illinois, Baxter International Inc. is a global, diversified healthcare company. Baxter, through its subsidiaries, develops, manufactures and markets products that save and sustain the lives of people with hemophilia, immune disorders, infectious diseases, kidney disease, trauma, and other chronic and acute medical conditions. BAXTER INT'L: Defends Consolidated Plasma-Derived Therapies Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Baxter International Inc. continues to defend itself against a consolidated class action lawsuit over plasma-derived therapies, according to the Company's July 31, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013. The Company is a defendant, along with others, in a number of lawsuits consolidated for pretrial proceedings in the U.S.D.C. for the Northern District of Illinois alleging that Baxter and certain of its competitors conspired to restrict output and artificially increase the price of plasma-derived therapies since 2003. Some of the complaints attempt to state a claim for class action relief and some cases demand treble damages. In February 2011, the court denied the Company's motion to dismiss certain of the claims and the parties are proceeding with discovery. In January 2012, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss certain federal claims brought by indirect purchasers. The trial court returned the remaining indirect purchaser claims to the court of original jurisdiction (U.S.D.C. for the Northern District of California) in August 2012. The indirect purchaser complaint was amended to remove class action allegations in May 2013. Based in Deerfield, Illinois, Baxter International Inc. is a global, diversified healthcare company. Baxter, through its subsidiaries, develops, manufactures and markets products that save and sustain the lives of people with hemophilia, immune disorders, infectious diseases, kidney disease, trauma, and other chronic and acute medical conditions. BIOLASE INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP on Aug. 26 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit against Biolase, Inc. and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Central District of California, and docketed under SACV 13-1317-DMG, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of Biolase between November 5, 2012 and August 7, 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 Biolase securities during the Class Period, you have until October 22, 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. Biolase is a biomedical company that develops, manufactures, and markets lasers in dentistry and medicine and also markets and distributes dental imaging equipment, including cone beam digital x-rays and CAD/CAM intra-oral scanners. 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: (i) the Company was facing near term solvency issues; (ii) the Company faced severe liquidity problems; (iii) the Company's sales were not as strong as reported; and (iv) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial statements were false and misleading at all relevant times. On August 9, 2013, the Company announced in its quarterly report for the period ending June 30, 2013, that Biolase was in breach if its financial covenants related to its lines of credit. On this news, shares of Biolase declined $1.61 per share, more than 47%, to close at 1.81 per share on August 13, 2013. Then on August 14, 2013, an analyst report was published on seekingalpha.com which criticized the Company for misleading investors regarding the extent of its solvency problems as well as providing the market with false guidance regarding the Company's sales and the state of adoption of the Company's products by practitioners. On this news, shares of Biolase declined $0.61 per share, more than 33%, to close at 1.20 per share on August 14, 2013. The Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. The firm has offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and San Diego. BLACKSTONE GROUP: Trial to Commence Sept. 16 in IPO Suit -------------------------------------------------------- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Aug. 22 announced Blackstone Group Securities Litigation. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK LANDMEN PARTNERS, INC., Individually And On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. THE BLACKSTONE GROUP L.P., et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 08-CV-03601-HB NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION ATTENTION PURCHASERS OF THE BLACKSTONE GROUP, L.P. COMMON UNITS If you purchased The Blackstone Group, L.P. common units in its initial public offering of such common units in the United States or in the open market on the New York Stock Exchange between June 21, 2007 And March 12, 2008, inclusive, you should read this Notice carefully as your rights may be affected Investors, called the "Plaintiffs" in this Action, have sued The Blackstone Group L.P. and four of its current or former senior executives, Stephen A. Schwarzman, Peter J. Peterson, Hamilton E. James, and Michael A. Puglisi alleging violations of the federal securities laws. This Action, which is known as Landmen Partners Inc. v. The Blackstone Group, L.P., et al., 08-CV-03601-HB-FM, is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York before the Honorable Harold Baer, Jr. Trial of this Action is scheduled to commence on September 16, 2013. Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court has approved, or "certified" this case to proceed as a class action on behalf of a class of Blackstone investors and directed that this Notice is issued to Class members before the commencement of the trial. The Class certified by the Court is defined as all persons and entities who purchased common units of Blackstone in Blackstone's initial public offering of such common units in the United States or in the open market on the New York Stock Exchange between June 21, 2007 and March 12, 2008, inclusive, and who sustained compensable damages in connection with any such purchases of Blackstone units pursuant to Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. Excluded from the Class are (i) Defendants; (ii) members of the immediate family of each of the Defendants; (iii) any entity that acted as an underwriter of the IPO; (iv) any natural person who sold Blackstone common units to the public in the IPO or who serves or served as an officer or director of Blackstone or as a partner of any predecessor to Blackstone, the members of the immediate families of any such persons, and any entity in which any of Defendants have or had a controlling interest; and (v) the legal representatives, agents, affiliates, heirs, successors-in-interest or assigns of any such excluded party. Please note that, for the avoidance of doubt, the Excluded Persons are excluded from the Class only to the extent they purchased Blackstone common units in the IPO for their own account and not for or on behalf of a third-party customer or for resale to customers. Further, to the extent that any of the Excluded Persons were a statutory "seller" who resold the Blackstone common units to a third-party customer, client, account, fund, trust, or employee benefit plan that otherwise falls within the Class, or purchased Blackstone common units in a fiduciary capacity or otherwise on behalf of any third-party customer, client, account, fund, trust, or employee benefit plan that falls within the Class, the Excluded Person is excluded from the Class but the third-party customer, client, account, fund, trust, or employee benefit plan is not excluded from the Class with respect to such purchases of Blackstone common units. By agreement of Plaintiffs and Defendants and Order of the Court, Plaintiffs' claims under Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 were dismissed, without prejudice and without costs, on August 13, 2013. No class was certified by the Court to prosecute those claims on behalf of Class members. What This Lawsuit IS About Generally, Plaintiffs allege that this case is about whether Defendants violated the United States federal securities laws by misrepresenting and/or failing to disclose, in the offering documents associated with Blackstone's IPO (on or about June 21, 2007), material information regarding adverse facts, trends, developments or uncertainties facing certain of Blackstone's investments in certain Blackstone-managed investment funds, which, in turn, were reasonably likely to have a material adverse impact on Blackstone's financial and/or operating condition. Plaintiffs seek money damages for themselves and the other members of the Class. Defendants vigorously deny all of the Plaintiffs' allegations and assert that they are not liable to Plaintiffs or the Class. The Court has not decided whether the Plaintiffs or the Defendants are right. The lawyers for the Class will have to prove their claims at trial unless a settlement is reached beforehand, and there is no guarantee that Plaintiffs will win the case at trial. What A Class Action IS In a class action, one or more persons sue on behalf of all people who have similar claims (i.e., a class), and the claims of all members of the class are decided in a single proceeding for all members of the class, and all members of the class that do not request to be excluded from the class before entry of judgment are bound by the outcome of the suit, whether favorable or unfavorable to all members of the class. The Court decided that the lawsuit should proceed as a class action because it meets the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, which governs class actions in the United States federal courts, and the Court has appointed Martin Litwin and Francis Brady as the Class Representatives. The Court found that common questions of fact and law predominate over individual questions, that the Class Representatives' claims are typical of Class members' claims, that there are numerous Class members, that the Class Representatives and their lawyers will fairly and adequately represent Class members' interests, and that a class action is a fair, efficient, and superior way to resolve the claims in the lawsuit for investors. The Court also appointed Plaintiffs' counsel, the firms of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP and Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation, as Co-Lead Counsel for the Class. Therefore, unless a class members requests exclusion from the Class by September 10, 2013, all Class members will be bound by the result in the case, whether Plaintiffs win or lose, and all Class members will be represented by Plaintiffs' counsel in the Action. The Court's certification of the Class is not an expression of any opinion by the Court as to the merits of the claims of Plaintiffs or any member of the Class. YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS AND OPTIONS IN THIS LAWSUIT RIGHT TO REMAIN IN THE CLASS If you do nothing, you will remain a member of the Class. As a Class member, you will be represented at no cost whatsoever to you by Plaintiffs' counsel. If Plaintiffs win the case, and there is a recovery, Plaintiffs' counsel will then seek to be paid by the Court for their services from any recovery they obtain. If there is no recovery, Plaintiffs' counsel will receive no payment for their services. If you remain a member of the Class, you may share in any recovery obtained from Defendants through trial or settlement of this Action. As a Class member, you will have no financial obligations or liability to anyone by remaining a Class member. If Plaintiffs win at trial or the Action is settled, you will be asked to fill out and submit a claim form and to submit certain supporting documents to demonstrate your purchases and sales (if any) of Blackstone common units between June 21, 2007 and March 12, 2008. There is no claim form available now. But you are strongly urged to obtain copies of your brokerage records relating to all of your Blackstone common unit purchases and sales between June 21, 2007 and March 12, 2008 and to retain those copies in a secure place. If the Action is successful for the Class, you will need to supply copies of that documentation to support your claim for payment. Finally, if you remain in the Class, you will bound by any judgment entered in the Action as to any claim you have under the Securities Act of 1933 against Defendants related to your purchases of Blackstone common units between June 21, 2007 and March 12, 2008 as alleged in the Action, whether Plaintiffs win or lose the suit, and you will not have the right to bring a separate, individual action to recover for any such claims should you desire to do so and should you not already be barred by the applicable statute of limitations from doing so. RIGHT TO APPEAR AND BE REPRESENTED BY YOUR OWN COUNSEL The Court has appointed Plaintiffs' counsel, which are firms that have experience in the litigation of complex securities class actions, as counsel for the Class. If you remain in the Class, you will be represented by those firms, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP and Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation. You will not be separately charged for the services of such lawyers in connection with their representation of the Class. If the lawsuit results in a recovery for the Class, the Court will determine the amount of any fees and reimbursement of expenses that may be awarded, out of the recovery, to the lawyers representing the Class. If you wish to be represented by your own lawyer, you may, solely at your own expense, hire an attorney to personally represent you with respect to whatever individual claim you may have. In the event that you wish to hire your own counsel to represent you with respect to any individual claims you may have, any such attorney(s) must be admitted to practice before the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and file a formal Notice of Appearance on your behalf on the Court's electronic filing system in this Action: Landmen Partners Inc. v. The Blackstone Group, L.P., et al., 08-CV-03601-HB-FM, along with all pretrial materials required by the Court's July 18, 2013 Trial Notification by August 29, 2013 as it relates to such individual claims. You must be prepared to submit all pretrial materials required by the Court's July 18, 2013 Trial Notification as it relates to such individual claims no later than 5:00 p.m. (Eastern Time) on August 29, 2013. You may appear personally to represent yourself without counsel and you do not need to be admitted to practice before the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. This is called appearing "pro se." To appear on your own behalf without counsel, you must file a Notice of Appearance with the Clerk of the Court for the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York along with all pretrial materials required by the Court's July 18, 2013 Trial Notification as it relates to your individual claims and deliver copies of such Notice of Appearance along with all pretrial materials required by the Court's July 18, 2013 Trial Notification as it relates to your individual claims upon counsel for Plaintiffs and Defendants, no later than 5:00 p.m. (Eastern Time) on August 29, 2013. Counsel for Plaintiffs and Defendants are: Joseph Russello, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, New York 11747 Telephone: (631) 367-7100 E-mail: jrussello@rgrdlaw.com Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs Bruce D. Angiolillo, Esq. SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP 425 Lexington Avenue New York, New York 10017 Telephone: (212) 455-2000 Counsel for Defendants If you wish to appear pro se, you are urged to contact the Pro Se Office for the Southern District of New York to learn the procedures for doing so. The Pro Se Office for the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York is located at The Daniel Patrick Moynihan Unites States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, Room 200, New York, New York 10017. RIGHT TO REQUEST EXCLUSION FROM THE CLASS You have the right to request to be excluded from the Class. If you timely and properly request exclusion from the Class, you will not be permitted to share in any recovery from Defendants obtained by Plaintiffs on behalf of the Class members in this Action, whether through trial or settlement. If you timely and properly request exclusion from then Class, you will retain any rights you have to sue Defendants yourself with respect to the claims asserted in the Action to the extent those claims are viable under the statute of limitations applicable to claims under the Securities Act of 1933. You should note that, pursuant to a recent decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, entitled Police & Fire Ret. Sys. v. Indymac MBS, Inc., Docket Nos. 11-2998-cv(L), 11-3036-cv(CON) (2d Cir.), 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 13203 (Jun. 27, 2013) (A copy of this decision may be reviewed at http://www.BlackstoneInvestorClassActionQuestions.com if you exclude yourself from the Class you may forfeit any claims you may have against Defendants related to Blackstone's IPO or your purchases of Blackstone common units between June 21, 2007 and March 12, 2008 under the Securities Act of 1933, because the 3-year statute of repose of the Securities Act of 1933 (which is three years from the date the common units were bona fide offered to the public) has otherwise expired. It is therefore possible that only members of the Class whose claims are tolled by virtue of their continuing membership in the Class are able to pursue those claims against Defendants under the law currently applicable to this Action. Before you decide to request exclusion from the Class, you are urged to consult your own counsel, at your own expense, to fully evaluate your rights and the consequences of excluding yourself from the Class. To exclude yourself from the Class, you must send a letter by mail saying that you want to be excluded from this Action, Landmen Partners Inc. v. The Blackstone Group, L.P., et al., 08-CV-03601- HB-FM. Your exclusion request letter must state your name, current address, your day-time and night-time telephone numbers, and include your signature; clearly state that you wish to be excluded from the Class in this Action; and set forth the number of Blackstone common units you purchased, acquired, and/or sold between June 21, 2007 and March 12, 2008, inclusive, the dates of each of those purchases and /or sales and the prices paid and/or received for each of those purchases and/or sales. Exclusion request letters must be sent by first class United States mail and postmarked no later than September 10, 2013, to: Blackstone Securities Litigation c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC Notice Administration P.O. Box 8040 San Rafael, CA 94912-8040 FURTHER INFORMATION This Action has been pending for over five years. The foregoing information is only a summary to assist you in making a decision regarding how you will exercise your rights as a Class member. To further assist you, additional information about this Action, including Plaintiffs' Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint For Violations of the Federal Securities Laws, Defendants' Answer of Defendants to the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws, the District Court's ruling granting Defendants' motion to dismiss the Action, dated September 22, 2009, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals decision reversing the dismissal of the Action dated February 10, 2011, and the Court's July 18, 2013 Trial Notification, are available for your review at http://www.BlackstoneIPOCase.com Additionally, should you have any question about this Notice, the Action or your rights as a Class member, you can obtain further information by writing to: Joseph Russello, at Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, 58 South Service Road, Suite 200, Melville, New York 11747, or Brian C. Kerr at Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation, 33rd Floor, 475 Park Avenue South, New York, NY 10016, or by emailing your inquiry to http://www.BlackstoneIPOCase.com PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, JUDGE BAER OR THE CLERK OF THE COURT FOR THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. ALL INQUIRIES SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL. SPECIAL NOTICE TO SECURITIES BROKERS AND OTHER NOMINEES If you are a bank, broker or other entity who purchased or acquired Blackstone common units in the IPO or in the open market on the New York Stock Exchange between June 21, 2007 and March 12, 2008, inclusive, as nominee for a beneficial owner, then within five (5) calendar days after you receive this Notice, you must either: (a) provide a list of the names and addresses of such beneficial owners to the Notice Administrator or (b) send a copy of this Notice by first class mail to all such beneficial owners (you may request additional copies of this Notice by contacting the Notice Administrator): Blackstone Securities Litigation c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC Notice Administration P.O. Box 8040 San Rafael, CA 94912-8040 Clerk of the Court United States District Court Southern District of New York 500 Pearl Street New York, NY 10007 BLUE CROSS: Court Dismisses Suit Because Claims Already Released ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lorraine Bailey, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports settlements in previous multidistrict litigation preclude physicians from bringing claims against Blue Cross/Blue Shield for conspiring to underpay doctors, a federal judge ruled. In the multidistrict class action Thomas v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield Ass'n, doctors claimed that WellPoint, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, and Highmark conspired to systematically "deny, delay, and diminish payments to them," according to the dismissal order in Miami Federal Court. Each defendant settled between 2005 and 2007, agreeing to pay class members and changes their business practices. The insurers paid class members more than $384 million, and spent $535 million making internal changes, which had an estimated value to the class of more than $3 billion. In return, the plaintiffs signed broad releases prohibiting them from bringing their claims back to court. But in January this year, Dr. Corey Musselman filed a class action based on similar claims, and sought a declaration that the settlement agreements did not preclude his case. U.S. District Judge Federico Moreno on Aug. 20 found for the insurance companies, and ruled that Musselman's claims were released under the prior litigation. "The settlement agreement is clearly intended to embrace all potential claims and not merely those that were expressly pled at the time the record was frozen based on the parties' decision to conduct settlement negotiations," Moreno wrote. Musselman tried to distinguish between "denied, delayed, or diminished payments," and manipulation of the rates of reimbursement. But "the court rejects plaintiffs' argument that rates of reimbursement are not aspects of fee for service claims but are more accurately considered aspects of the agreements between providers and defendants. This distinction is artificial. The amount a physician is paid is plainly an aspect of a fee for service claim, whether or not reimbursement is addressed in a contract or agreement between a participating provider and an insurer," the 14-page opinion states. Moreno concluded, "Here, the cause of action alleged so clearly relates to matters of underpayment and non-payment of fee-for- service claims, the court has no choice but to dismiss those claims." A copy of the Aug. 20, 2013, Order is available from Courthouse News Service at: http://is.gd/9CgCKf BUCCANEERS LP: Urges Court to Dismiss Spam Fax Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Scurria, writing for Law360, reports that the Tampa Bay Buccaneers asked a federal judge on Aug. 21 to scuttle accusations that the franchise sent spam fax transmissions to Florida residents, saying settlement offers had rendered the proposed class action moot. Buccaneers LP, which operates the NFL franchise, urged the court to toss a proposed class action from Jeffrey M. Stein and five other plaintiffs, saying the club had made settlement offers to each of the plaintiffs of $1,500 for each fax they received. That amount is equal to the statutory maximum that can be recovered for a violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, according to the Buccaneers, depriving the plaintiffs of an interest in the outcome of the case since they had not filed a motion for class certification when the offers were extended. "Given that the offers of judgment provide the plaintiffs full relief in this case, and the plaintiffs had not moved for class certification at the time that the offers were made, this matter is moot, defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction should be granted and the case should be dismissed with prejudice," the motion said. The offers were extended on Aug. 19, according to court records, and the club is arguing that the plaintiffs lost their standing at that time, regardless of a 14-day window during which litigants are permitted to consider a settlement under procedural rules. "The fact that plaintiffs' 14-day time frame to accept the offers of judgment has not run as of the date of filing this motion is irrelevant to the court's determination whether the plaintiffs' claims are moot," the Buccaneers said. The suit, filed in state court last month, alleges that in 2009 and 2010, the team peppered more than 100,000 fax numbers with advertisements for tickets to home games that could be purchased through the club's website or through Ticketmaster. The faxes didn't include instructions on how recipients could opt out of future messages, precluding the Buccaneers from proffering a defense that the plaintiffs had consented to receiving promotional materials from the company, according to the complaint. The suit brought three causes of action -- one under the TCPA and two for violations of subsequent Federal Communications Commission rules -- each of which asked for class certification, statutory damages of between $500 and $1,500 for each facsimile sent to the putative class, and an injunction halting further violations of the TCPA statute or federal regulations. The Buccaneers removed the suit to federal court and made the settlement offers, and now argue that the court should follow the lead of a judge in Florida's Southern District who ruled last month in an unrelated text-spamming case that a class action complaint does not prevent a claim from being rendered moot where the sole plaintiff is offered full relief before moving for class certification. "The court concluded that the defendant's offer of judgment provided plaintiff full relief in the case, and therefore plaintiff's federal case was over as soon as the offer was made," the Buccaneers argued. The team's motion also cited the U.S. Supreme Court's April ruling in Genesis HealthCare Corp. v. Symczyk, in which the high court said a nurse's Fair Labor Standards Act collective action against Genesis Healthcare Corp. couldn't proceed because the case was properly dismissed after the employer's offer of full relief for her individual claims rendered the case moot. The Symczyk decision did not reach the question of whether an unaccepted offer that fully satisfies a plaintiff's claim is sufficient to render the claim moot, leaving in place a split among the federal appeals courts. The Buccaneers offered all the relief the plaintiffs could have received -- the maximum statutory damages and a stipulated injunction prohibiting future junk faxes -- depriving them of an ongoing interest in the case's resolution, according to the motion. Representatives for the parties were not immediately available for comment on Aug. 21. The plaintiffs are represented by James M. Thomas of the Law Office of James M. Thomas PA. The Buccaneers are represented by Barry A. Postman -- barry.postman@csklegal.com -- and Justin C. Sorel -- justin.sorel@csklegal.com -- of Cole Scott & Kissane PA. The case is Stein et al. v. Buccaneers LP, case number 8:13-cv- 02136, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. CANADA LITHIUM: Ontario Court Allows Class Action to Proceed ------------------------------------------------------------ Natasha Odendaal, writing for miningweekly.com, reports that the Ontario Superior Court of Justice has permitted a class-action lawsuit, initiated by Ontario-based Siskinds LLP against TSX- listed Canada Lithium for misrepresentation of mineral resources, to go to trial. John Keyton and Hugh Latimer, on behalf of various shareholders, accused the lithium miner of supplying misleading information in an October 2010 resource statement and a January 2011 prospectus regarding the volume of mineralized ore and the grade of lithium at the company's Quebec lithium project. The plaintiffs were seeking the cancellation and refund of shares bought between October 28, 2010 and February 28, 2011 based on the resource statement. The losses were allegedly the result of Canada Lithium's March 2011 independent review of the mineral resource estimate for the lithium project, which identified geological modelling errors and led to a material reduction in the mineral resource estimate. The company, along with deputy chairperson and CEO Peter Secker, president and COO Charles Taschereau, director and VP for explorations Mitchell Lavery and geologist Michelle Stone, who were also named in the lawsuit, would defend the allegations and denied that they would be proven at trial. None of the allegations in the class action had been assessed or determined by the court. The class action excluded the defendants and the standstill defendants, affiliates, officers, directors, senior employees, legal representatives, heirs, predecessors and successors of the company, besides others. The action against standstill defendants Kerry Knoll, James Fairbairn, Sheila Pickens, Patrick Mohan, Robert Cudney, Ian MacDonald and Germaine Coombs was discontinued in 2012. CLECO CORP: Plea to Review Customer Suit Ruling Remains Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- The request to review a ruling in favor of Cleco Corporation's subsidiary remains pending in the 19th Judicial District Court for Baton Rouge Parish, according to the Company's July 31, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013. In March 2010, a complaint was filed in the 27th Judicial District Court of St. Landry Parish, State of Louisiana, on behalf of three Cleco Power LLC customers in Opelousas, Louisiana. The complaint alleges that Cleco Power overcharged the plaintiffs by applying to customers in Opelousas the same retail rates as Cleco Power applies to all of its retail customers. The plaintiffs claim that Cleco Power owes customers in Opelousas more than $30.0 million as a result of the alleged overcharges. The plaintiffs allege that Cleco Power should have established, solely for customers in Opelousas, retail rates that are separate and distinct from the retail rates that apply to other customers of Cleco Power and that Cleco Power should not collect from customers in Opelousas the storm surcharge approved by the Louisiana Public Service Commission (LPSC) following hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Cleco Power currently operates in Opelousas pursuant to a franchise granted to Cleco Power by the City of Opelousas in 1986 and an operating and franchise agreement dated May 14, 1991, pursuant to which Cleco Power operates its own electric facilities and leases and operates electric facilities owned by the City of Opelousas. In July 2011, the operating and franchise agreements were amended and extended for a period of ten years, until August 2021. In April 2010, Cleco Power filed a petition with the LPSC appealing to its expertise in declaring that the ratepayers of Opelousas have been properly charged the rates that are applicable to Cleco Power's retail customers and that no overcharges have been collected. In addition, Cleco Power removed the purported class action lawsuit filed on behalf of Opelousas electric customers from the state court to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana in April 2010, so that it could be properly addressed under the terms of the Class Action Fairness Act. In May 2010, a second class action lawsuit was filed in the 27th Judicial District Court for St. Landry Parish, State of Louisiana, repeating the allegations of the first complaint, which was submitted on behalf of 249 Opelousas residents. Cleco Power responded in the same manner as with the first class action lawsuit. In September 2010, the federal court remanded both cases to the state court in which they were originally filed for further proceedings. In January 2011, the presiding judge in the state court proceeding ruled that the jurisdiction to hear the two class actions resides in the state court and not with the LPSC as argued by both Cleco and the LPSC Staff. Both Cleco and the LPSC Staff appealed this ruling to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals for the State of Louisiana (Third Circuit). In September 2011, the Third Circuit denied both appeals. In October 2011, both Cleco and the LPSC appealed the Third Circuit's ruling to the Louisiana Supreme Court. In November 2011, the Louisiana Supreme Court granted the appeals and remanded the case to the Third Circuit for further briefing, argument, and opinion. In February 2011, the administrative law judge (ALJ) in the LPSC proceeding ruled that the LPSC has jurisdiction to decide the claims raised by the class action plaintiffs. At its December 2011 Business and Executive Session, the LPSC adopted the ALJ's recommendation that Cleco be granted summary judgment in its declaratory action finding that Cleco's ratepayers in the City of Opelousas have been served under applicable rates and policies approved by the LPSC and Cleco's Opelousas ratepayers have not been overcharged in connection with LPSC rates or ratemaking. In January 2012, the class action plaintiffs filed their appeal of such LPSC decision to the 19th Judicial District Court for Baton Rouge Parish, State of Louisiana. In February 2012, the Third Circuit ruled that the state court, and not the LPSC, has jurisdiction to hear the case. In March 2012, Cleco Power appealed the Third Circuit's ruling to the Louisiana Supreme Court asking that it overturn the Third Circuit decision and confirm the LPSC's exclusive jurisdiction over this matter. The LPSC also appealed the Third Circuit's ruling to the Louisiana Supreme Court in March 2012. In May 2012, the Louisiana Supreme Court granted the writ application of Cleco Power and the LPSC and set the matter for further briefing on the merits of the jurisdiction question raised in the writ application. In December 2012, the Louisiana Supreme Court issued its opinion accepting Cleco's jurisdictional arguments and dismissed the state court claims. The only matter remaining is before the 19th Judicial District Court to review the LPSC ruling in Cleco's favor that it had properly charged the ratepayers of Opelousas. In view of the uncertainty of the claims, management is not able to predict or give a reasonable estimate of the possible range of liability, if any, of these claims. However, if it is found that Cleco Power overcharged customers resulting in a refund, any such refund could have a material adverse effect on the Registrants' results of operations, financial condition, and cash flows. Headquartered in Pineville, Louisiana, Cleco Corporation is a regional energy company that conducts substantially all of its business operations through its two primary subsidiaries: (1) Cleco Power LLC, a regulated electric utility company, which owns nine generating units, and (2) Cleco Midstream Resources LLC, a wholesale energy business, which owns Cleco Evangeline LLC, which operates the Coughlin Power Station. COCA-COLA CO: Sued to Stop From Allegedly Deceiving Consumers ------------------------------------------------------------- George Engurasoff and Joshua Ogden, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Coca-Cola Company and Coca- Cola Refreshments USA, Inc., Case No. 4:13-cv-03990 (N.D. Cal., August 27, 2013) is brought not only to recover damages, but to stop the Defendants from continuing to engage in alleged unlawful actions and from continuing to deceive consumers. The Plaintiffs allege that the containers of Coca-Cola, the world's most popular soft drink, fail to state that they contain artificial flavoring or chemical preservatives. The Plaintiffs contend that many containers of Coca-Cola affirmatively and falsely state that they contain no artificial flavoring or chemical preservatives, in violation of both federal law and California state law. George Engurasoff and Joshua Ogden are residents of San Jose, California. Both Plaintiffs purchased more than $25 worth of Coca-Cola in San Francisco or Alameda County, within the four years preceding the filing of this action. The Coca-Cola Company and Coca-Cola Refreshments are Delaware corporations with their principal place of business at One Coca- Cola Plaza, in Atlanta, Georgia. The Coca-Cola Company is the world's largest beverage company and has the world's largest beverage distribution system. Coca-Cola Refreshments is The Coca- Cola Company's bottling and customer service organization for North America. Coca-Cola Refreshments manufactures, distributes, and sells approximately 88% of The Coca-Cola Company's unit case volume in the United States. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ben F. Pierce Gore, Esq. PRATT & ASSOCIATES 1871 The Alameda, Suite 425 San Jose, CA 95126 Telephone: (408) 429-6506 Facsimile: (408) 369-0752 E-mail: pgore@prattattorneys.com COMMUNITY HEALTH: Still Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Three purported class action cases have been filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee; namely, Norfolk County Retirement System v. Community Health Systems, Inc., et al., filed May 9, 2011; De Zheng v. Community Health Systems, Inc., et al., filed May 12, 2011; and Minneapolis Firefighters Relief Association v. Community Health Systems, Inc., et al., filed June 21, 2011. All three seek class certification on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock between July 27, 2006, and April 11, 2011, and allege that misleading statements resulted in artificially inflated prices for the Company's common stock. In December 2011, the cases were consolidated for pretrial purposes and NYC Funds and its counsel were selected as lead plaintiffs/lead plaintiffs' counsel. The Company's motion to dismiss this case has been fully briefed and is pending before the court. The Company believes this consolidated matter is without merit and will vigorously defend this case. No further updates were reported in the Company's July 31, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013. Community Health Systems, Inc. -- http://www.chs.net/-- is a publicly-traded operator of hospitals in the United States. The Company provides healthcare services through the hospitals that it owns and operates in non-urban and selected urban markets. The Company generates revenues by providing a broad range of general and specialized hospital and other outpatient healthcare services to patients in the communities in which it is located. The Company is headquartered in Franklin, Tennessee. COSMOPOLITAN OF LAS VEGAS: Employees May Join Wage-and-Hour Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Thierman Law Firm on Aug. 22 disclosed that beginning August 30, 2013, pursuant to the order of United States District Court Magistrate Judge George Folely, Jr., over 7,000 present and former employees of Deutsche Bank's Cosmopolitan of Las Vegas hotel resort and casino will be mailed a copy of an official federal court notice and given the opportunity to participate in what is likely one of largest wage and overtime lawsuit in Nevada history. According to Plaintiff's class counsel attorney Mark R. Thierman of Reno, Nevada, the mailing in the case of Darlene Lewis v. Nevada Property 1, LLC, d/b/a the Cosmopolitan of Las Vegas, Nevada federal Court Case No.: 2:12-cv-01564-MMD-GWF, is going forward because the parties failed to reach a satisfactory settlement at mediation. According to Josh Buck, another attorney for the plaintiff class in the case, given the sheer size of the class affected this is likely one of the largest wage hour class action to receive conditional certification and court ordered notice in the history of the state of Nevada. Those who receive notice must complete the form and return it or they will not be entitled to participate in any award of wages, overtime and/or liquidated damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the federal wage hour law. State law claims, including a claim for 30 days of pay for any employee who was terminated by the employer without payment in full of the wages he or she was due under this lawsuit, will be litigated later. The lawsuit seeks over 70 Million dollars for employees who, according to company documents, were required to change into and out of company uniforms on site without compensation. Some of these employees were also required to pick up, reconcile and drop off their "cash bank" at designated cashier locations "off the clock" before they clocked in and/or after they clocked out for the day. The suit also alleges a miscalculation of the overtime rate of pay. In addressing Defendant's denial of liability the federal court order stated: "Defendant's argument would be more persuasive were it not for the "CoStar Guidebook" which stated that 'all CoStars provided with uniforms are expected to report to the Garment District daily to obtain the uniform for the day and return the uniform to The Garment District at the end of the shift.'" Mr. Thierman added, "Defendant broke the law, then documented it, and now claims it didn't happen -- that's absurd." The case arose from the Cosmopolitan's August 2011 decision to terminate Melodee Megia a "room service sales clerk" in her ninth month of pregnancy, on the grounds she said "bye-bye" instead of "good bye" after she finished taking a customer's order over the phone. Represented by the same attorneys, Megia filed a pregnancy discrimination lawsuit in Nevada State Court in Clark County based upon a series of offensive remarks by her supervisor and the trivial nature of the company's reason for her termination. Her complaint also alleged the employer required workers to work off the clock without compensation in violation of state labor laws. The Megia case was widely reported especially in the Filipino community, which represents a large percentage of the service worker industry and has a long history of respecting traditional family values like motherhood. Ms. Lewis' complaint was filed subsequently in federal court because she alleged federal law violations from working employees off the clock claims as well. Although local papers report union organizing continues at the hotel, the two actions do not claim to be related. It's more than a coincidence that those who were mistreated at work would seek union representation, said attorney Thierman, but there is no official link between our litigation and the union's organizing attempt. A copy of both the Lewis overtime and the Megia discrimination cases and a consent to join form can be found at http://thiermanlaw.com/case-information/ Contact: Mark Thierman, Esq. Thierman Law Firm Telephone: (775) 284-1500 Fax: (775) 703-5027 E-mail: mark@thiermanlaw.com CYPRUS: Class Action Suit Mulled Over Bank Bailout -------------------------------------------------- Stefanos Evripidou, writing for Cyprus Mail, reports that the UK-based Anglo-Hellenic and Cypriot Law Association is organizing a conference in Nicosia in September to gauge the level of interest in a class action suit against the troika's decision to 'bail-in' the island's biggest banks. In a statement released on Aug. 21, the association said the troika's "unprecedented" decision to impose a haircut on deposits in Laiki Bank and Bank of Cyprus (BoC) last March "caused unbearable problems" for many citizens who saw their life savings vanish. The association argued that no explanation for the haircut was given beyond vague references to Cyprus' serious financial problems and near bankruptcy. In particular, no explanation was given on why this measure was implemented "for the first time in Cyprus on unsuspecting and innocent depositors". The Anglo-Greek association of Cypriot and Greek lawyers described the troika's measure on Cyprus as arbitrary and lacking respect for the individual and their property. The association acknowledged that many depositors have already applied to the Supreme Court of Cyprus seeking justice, noting that this effort has yet to yield any result beyond the referral of these cases to the district courts. As a result, many depositors are seeking advice on whether can claim compensation against the troika in international courts for the losses suffered as a result of the decision to wind down Laiki, wiping out uninsured deposits, and impose a 47.5 per cent haircut on BoC's large depositors. According to its announcement, the association has decided to file actions challenging the troika measures at the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in Luxembourg. The cases have been assigned to Sir Francis Jacobs (Professor of European Law at King's College London and former rapporteur at the ECJ), and London-based barrister Takis Tridimas (Counsellor to the European Commission and European Central Bank). The two will be assisted by Highgate Hills Solicitors based in London. The association hopes to use the conference to inform the public on the prospect of group action against the troika. The location and date will be determined depending on the size of interest among the public. Those interested in taking part are requested to contact Highgate Hill Solicitors or the Anglo-Hellenic and Cypriot Law Association at +44-207-2636445 or via email at Highgatehillsolicitors.eu.cy@cytauk.net Meanwhile, another London-based lawyer has already filed six cases at the ECJ against the European Commission and European Central Bank (ECB). The nature of the claims, however, dictated a two-month time limitation from the signing of the memorandum between Cyprus and its foreign lenders on March 26, 2013, meaning the window of opportunity closed on May 27, 2013. Christakis Pascalides filed the cases against the two European institutions on behalf of three Cyprus-based companies (two foreign interest, one local) and three individuals (Cyprus residents). Speaking to the Cyprus Mail, he argued that most Cypriot lawyers adopted the view that the statute of limitations to file a claim against the EU institutions at the ECJ was five years. This is correct, but only if one is applying for damages on the basis of strict liability, where the only thing to be decided is the size of damages to be awarded following losses incurred by depositors. Mr. Pascalides argued the ECJ might not view the matter as one of strict liability, and may wish to hear evidence on causation as to how the haircut came about and what the basis of it was. With that in mind, Mr. Pascalides' firm filed six claims against the Commission and ECB at the EU's Court of Justice, within the two- month time period, challenging the memorandum signed between the two EU institutions and the Cyprus Republic. The essence of the claims is that the preconditions imposed on the Cyprus government in the memorandum which led to the haircut of Laiki and BoC deposits were "unacceptable and irregular and should not have been imposed". "Quite a few lawyers in Cyprus did not comprehend the fact that if you are challenging the memorandum, you had to file within two months," he said. "We decided to get six cases running in the ECJ on a technical basis. The Commission and ECB have been served and we are waiting for their reply." Mr. Pascalides said many depositors had approached the firm to seek redress at the ECJ, but that he recommends waiting to see how the ECB and Commission respond to the six test cases filed within the two-month time limit before filing new claims under the five- year time limitation. "If there is a decision in favor of persons and companies for the loss suffered as a result of the haircut, this will open the floodgates for all the others," he said. ERNST & YOUNG: Can Enforce Arbitration in Wage-and-Hour Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Abigail Rubenstein, writing for Law360, reports that the Ninth Circuit ruled on Aug. 21 that Ernst & Young LLP's arbitration agreement, which contains a class waiver, should be applied in a wage-and-hour suit against the accounting giant, and refused to follow the National Labor Relations Board's controversial D.R. Horton decision. The appeals court held that a California federal court had erred in denying Ernst & Young's bid to force arbitration in a state law wage-and-hour class action led by former financial managing associate Michelle Richards because the company had waived its right to arbitrate by not raising the issue as a defense in an action brought by two former employees, whose case was consolidated with Ms. Richards' suit. "Because Ms. Richards has not established any prejudice as a result of Ernst & Young's alleged delay in asserting its arbitral rights, we reverse the judgment of the district court," the Ninth Circuit's per curiam opinion said. Ernst & Young had argued in the appeal that it did not move to compel arbitration in the case until after the U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling in favor of arbitration class waivers in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion because prior to that both the Ninth Circuit and the California Supreme Court had held that class action waivers in employee arbitration agreements were unconscionable. The plaintiffs argued that Ernst & Young had deliberately delayed, but the Ninth Circuit found that even though the district court had trimmed meal break claims and a claim for injunctive relief from Ms. Richards' suit and Richards' had incurred discovery costs, she was not prejudiced by Ernst & Young's decision not to seek arbitration sooner. The court then rebuffed the plaintiffs' alternate argument that it should follow the NLRB's D.R. Horton decision, which found it to be a violation of federal labor law for an employer to require as a condition of employment that employees agree to waive their rights to bring class claims in any forum. Noting that the overwhelming majority of courts to consider D.R. Horton had found it to be in conflict with the explicit pronouncements of the Supreme Court concerning the policies undergirding the Federal Arbitration Act, the Ninth Circuit declined to follow the NLRB's ruling. The Supreme Court has ruled that courts must rigorously enforce arbitration agreements according to their terms unless the FAA's mandate has been overturned by a contrary congressional command, and Congress did not explicitly include such a command in federal labor law, the Ninth Circuit said. The court stated that because it found that the district court should have compelled arbitration, and because the arbitration agreement between Ernst & Young and Richards precludes class arbitration, it was also vacating the district court's order certifying a class of litigants with Richards as its representative. An attorney for Ms. Richards, Max Folkenflik -- MFolkenflik@fmlaw.net -- of Folkenflik & McGerity, told Law360 that he plans to appeal the case further. "The decision in my opinion opens the door to parties with arbitration clauses attempting to game the system by starting in litigation and moving to arbitration if it's not going their way, so we intend to file a petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc pointing this out to the court," Mr. Folkenflik said. An attorney for Ernst & Young declined to comment. The case marks the second recent appeals court victory for Ernst & Young in enforcing its class waiver in wage-and-hour cases. On Aug. 9, the Second Circuit ruled that the company's individual arbitration agreement should be applied in a proposed collective action accusing the firm of misclassifying its accountants as overtime-exempt, ruling that the Fair Labor Standards Act does not contain a contrary congressional command that would prohibit the enforcement of class action waivers. The Second Circuit also declined to follow D.R. Horton. Judges Consuelo Callahan, Mary Shroeder and Kenneth Francis Ripple sat on the panel for the Ninth Circuit. Ms. Richards is represented by H. Tim Hoffman -- hth@hoffmanandlazear.com -- Arthur W. Lazear -- awl@hoffmanandlazear.com -- and Ross Libenson of Hoffman & Lazear and Max Folkenflik -- mmm@hoffmanandlazear.com -- of Folkenflik & McGerity. Ernst & Young is represented by Rex Heinke -- rheinke@akingump.com -- Daniel Nash -- dnash@akingump.com -- Gregory Knopp -- gknopp@akingump.com -- and Katharine J. Galston -- kgalston@akingump.com -- of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. The case is Richards v. Ernst & Young LLP, case number 11-17530, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. EXPEDIA INC: Robins Geller Files Class Action in Washington ----------------------------------------------------------- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Aug. 27 disclosed that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on behalf of purchasers of Expedia, Inc. common stock during the period between July 27, 2012 and July 25, 2013. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from August 27, 2013. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Samuel H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the complaint as filed or join this class action online at http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/expedia/ Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. The complaint charges Expedia and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Expedia, together with its subsidiaries, operates as an online travel company in the United States and internationally. In 2011, Expedia split into two publicly traded companies by spinning off the TripAdvisor brand of travel sites. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business and prospects, including the impact that spinning off TripAdvisor would have on Expedia's revenues and profits. As a result of defendants' false statements and/or omissions, Expedia's stock traded at artificially inflated levels during the Class Period. On July 25, 2013, after the close of trading, Expedia issued a press release announcing its second quarter 2013 financial results for the quarter ended June 30, 2013. Expedia's second-quarter 2013 profit fell to $71.5 million from $105.2 million a year earlier. Overall, bookings rose only 13%, well below the 19% surge the Company posted during fiscal 2012. The Company also lowered its guidance for 2013 adjusted earnings, predicting growth in the mid to high single digits. In response to this announcement, on July 26, 2013, the price of Expedia common stock declined $17.80 per share -- or more than 27% -- on extremely high trading volume. According to the complaint, during the Class Period defendants misrepresented or failed to disclose the following adverse facts which were known to or recklessly disregarded by them: (a) that following the spin-off, TripAdvisor had been directing a significant amount of lucrative web traffic to Expedia pursuant to an informal strategic partnership between the two companies that inured to the benefit of Expedia and to the detriment of TripAdvisor; (b) that the lucrative web traffic directed to Expedia from TripAdvisor following the spin-off had been a material source of Expedia's outsized revenues following the spin- off; (c) that TripAdvisor would stop directing web traffic to Expedia in early 2013; and (d) that performance at the Company's Hotwire unit was failing. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Expedia common stock during the Class Period (the "Class"). The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has expertise in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in actions involving financial fraud. Robbins Geller -- http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- represents U.S. and international institutional investors in contingency-based securities and corporate litigation. With nearly 200 lawyers in nine offices, the firm represents hundreds of public and multi- employer pension funds with combined assets under management in excess of $2 trillion. FRITO-LAY: Unlawfully Sold Misbranded Food Products, Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Figy and Mary Swearingen, for themselves and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Frito-Lay North America, Inc., Case No. 3:13-cv-03988 (N.D. Cal., August 27, 2013) seeks to recover for the injuries suffered by the Plaintiffs and the Class as a direct result of the Defendant's alleged unlawful sale of misbranded food products. Under California law, misbranded food products cannot be legally sold or possessed, have no economic value and are legally worthless, the Plaintiffs assert. By selling illegal products to the unsuspecting the Plaintiffs, the Defendant profited at their expense and unlawfully deprived them of the money they paid to purchase illegal food products, the Plaintiffs contend. Robert Figy and Mary Swearingen are citizens of the state of California. During the Class Period, the Plaintiffs purchased, in San Francisco, California, Frito-Lay's Rold Gold Pretzels, among other products, that were unlawfully labeled "Low Fat" or "Fat Free"despite containing a disqualifying amount of sodium necessitating a disclosure statement not present on the label. Frito-Lay is a Texas corporation with its principal place of business in Plano, Texas. Frito-Lay manufactures, advertises, markets and sells alleged misbranded food products to tens of thousands of consumers nationwide, including many residing in California. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ben F. Pierce Gore, Esq. PRATT & ASSOCIATES 1871 The Alameda, Suite 425 San Jose, CA 95126 Telephone: (408) 429-6506 Facsimile: (408) 369-0752 E-mail: pgore@prattattorneys.com GOOGLE INC: Five U.S. Privacy Groups Oppose $8.5MM Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- Loek Essers, writing for IDG News Service, report that five U.S. privacy groups have opposed a proposed $8.5 million settlement with Google in a class action lawsuit over search privacy, as it fails to require Google to change its business practices, they said. Google was sued in October 2010 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The Internet giant allegedly transmitted user search queries to third parties without their knowledge or consent in order to enhance advertising revenue and profitability. Google shares search queries "via referrer headers," according to a court document. The headers identify the address of a Web page that linked to the current page. When a Google user clicks on a link from Google's search results page, the owner of the website that the user clicks on will receive from Google the user's search terms in the referrer header because the search terms are included in the URL. The search terms can contain users' real names, street addresses, phone numbers, credit card numbers and social security numbers, all of which increases the risk of identity theft, according to the original complaint. Those queries can also contain highly- personal and sensitive issues, such as confidential medical information, racial or ethnic origins, political or religious beliefs or sexuality, according to the complaint. "The proposed agreement provides for a single settlement class, in this case all persons in the U.S. who submitted a search query to Google at any time from Oct. 25, 2006 until the date of the notice of the proposed class action settlement." On Aug. 19, the plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit filed a motion for settlement. Google has agreed to pay $8.5 million in cash into a settlement fund, according to the motion. The proposed agreement provides for a single settlement class, in this case all persons in the U.S. who submitted a search query to Google at any time from Oct. 25, 2006 until the date of the notice of the proposed class action settlement, according to the document. The money however will not be divided among all Google users in the U.S., but rather be paid to organizations that can protect the interests of individuals. Part of the settlement fee is meant to cover settlement administration expenses and part will be paid to the World Privacy Forum, Carnegie-Mellon, Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University and Stanford Center for Internet and Society among others, according to the document. The recipients must agree to devote the funds to promote public awareness and education, and/or to support research, development, and initiatives, related to protecting privacy on the Internet, according to the proposed settlement. Changing its ways Besides a monetary settlement, Google also agreed to notify users as to its conduct so that users can make informed choices about whether and how to use Google search. But the settlement proposal is not good enough, according to privacy organizations including the Electronic Privacy Information Center, Consumer Watchdog, Patient Privacy Rights, the Center for Digital Democracy and the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse. In a joint letter sent to Judge Edward J. Davila on Aug. 22, they urge him not to accept the proposed settlement. The main problem with the proposal is that it fails to require Google to change its business practices, they said. "The only change brought about by the proposed settlement is a modification of Google's privacy policy to allow the company to continue the disputed practice," they wrote, adding that privacy notices are widely ineffective because users don't read them. If users read them, it requires considerable sophistication as well as a considerable amount of time. Also, reading a notice typically produces no practical benefit because the terms are pre- determined by the companies and may be changed at any time, the groups added. "Thus, additional notice will provide no meaningful benefit to the class. To the contrary, the revised notice will essentially ratify the company's continuation of the practice that gave rise to this suit," they said. The proposed settlement also fails to provide any monetary relief to the class, they wrote. Of the organizations that will benefit from the settlement, with the exception of the World Privacy Forum, none have the protection of privacy as a mission, they added. "The absence of a benefit to the class combined with the proposed allocation of awards to institutions not aligned with the interests of class members is not accidental," the privacy groups wrote. "Proposed class counsel, seeking to settle the matter and obtain their fees, have prioritized their own personal financial interests above the interests of the Class. It may serve their interests to have the preliminary settlement approved; it serves the putative Class members not all. For these reasons, the preliminary settlement agreement should be rejected," they added. The plaintiffs asked Judge Davila to grant preliminary approval of the proposed class action settlement on Aug. 23. HUNTSMAN CORP: Agreed to Settle TiO2 Direct Purchasers' Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Huntsman Corporation disclosed in its July 31, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013, that it agreed to pay an amount not material to its consolidated financial statements to settle the claims of direct purchasers of titanium dioxide sold in the U.S. The Company has been named as a defendant in consolidated class action civil antitrust lawsuits filed on February 9, and 12, 2010, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland alleging that the Company and its co-defendants and other asserted co- conspirators conspired to fix prices of titanium dioxide sold in the U.S. between at least March 1, 2002, and the present. The other defendants named in this matter are DuPont, Kronos and Cristal (formerly Millennium). On August 28, 2012, the court certified a class consisting of all U.S. customers who purchased titanium dioxide directly from defendants (the "Direct Purchasers") since February 1, 2003. The Company has also been named as a defendant in a class action civil antitrust lawsuit filed on March 15, 2013, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California by purchasers of products made from titanium dioxide (the "Indirect Purchasers") making essentially the same allegations as the Direct Purchasers. On July 15, 2013, the Company agreed to pay an amount not material to its consolidated financial statements to settle the claims of the Direct Purchasers. Although the Company vigorously deny any wrongdoing alleged in the litigation, the Company determined to enter into the settlement to avoid the burdens and uncertainties inherent in complex litigation. In exchange for the settlement payment, the Company will receive from the Direct Purchasers a release of all claims against it, as described in the settlement agreement. The settlement is subject to final approval by the court after notice is given to the class members. The Company says it had fully accrued for this matter as of June 30, 2013. The settlement does not resolve the Indirect Purchasers litigation and, while it is difficult to reasonably estimate any loss or range of loss associated with these kinds of complex claims, the Company does not believe that costs related to this matter will be material to its consolidated financial statements. No accrual has been made for the Indirect Purchasers litigation. Headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah, Huntsman Corporation is a global manufacturer of differentiated organic chemical products and of inorganic chemical products. The Company's products comprise a broad range of chemicals and formulations, which the Company markets globally to a diversified group of consumer and industrial customers. J.M. SMUCKER: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Class Suit Over Labels ---------------------------------------------------------------- Angela Watkins, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports Smucker's cannot trash a potential class action alleging that it mislabels Crisco Oil products as "all natural," a federal judge ruled. In a federal complaint earlier this year, Diane Parker claimed the J.M. Smucker Co. deceives consumers by labeling Crisco Pure Vegetable Oil, Crisco Pure Canola Oil, Crisco Pure Corn Oil and Crisco Natural Blend Oil as "all natural." She said the oils are actually made with genetically modified (GM) crops, and are "so heavily processed that they bear no chemical resemblance to the ingredients from which they were derived." Parker, who hopes to represent a class of oil purchasers, said it would be impossible for Smucker's oils not to contain genetically modified (GM) ingredients because "70% of U.S. corn, over 90% of U.S. soy, and over 80% of U.S. canola crops are GM." The California resident also claimed that Smucker's tricks consumers "into buying products they otherwise would have avoided, whether due to health concerns or mere preference" because products with an "all natural" label are perceived to be "better, healthier, and more wholesome." Smucker's used standing and federal pre-emption as a basis to dismiss the amended class action. The Ohio-based retailer said Parker had failed to provide enough evidence that the oils contained genetically modified ingredients, and that her claim conflicted with both Federal Drug Administration policies on bioengineered foods and federal food labeling regulations. U.S. District Judge Samuel Conti shot the challenge down Aug. 23, finding that Parker had shown it was "more than a sheer possibility" that the oils contain genetically modified ingredients. Claims of federal pre-emption also failed to stick. "Various parties have repeatedly asked the FDA to rule on 'natural' labeling, and the FDA has declined to do so because of its limited resources and preference to focus on other priorities," Conti wrote. The action makes no mention of Smucker's other products, such as ice cream toppings and peanut butter. A copy of the 17-page Order dated Aug. 23, 2013, is available from Courthouse News Service at: http://is.gd/6UkmAo LIGHTINTHEBOX HOLDING: Robins Geller Files Class Action in N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------------- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Aug. 27 disclosed that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of LightInTheBox Holding Co., Ltd. American Depository Shares ("ADSs") during the period between its June 6, 2013 initial public stock offering ("IPO") and August 19, 2013, inclusive. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from today. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Samuel H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231- 1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the complaint as filed or join this class action online at http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/lightinthebox/ Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. The complaint charges LightInTheBox and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. LightInTheBox, organized under the laws of the Cayman Islands and headquartered in Beijing, China, is a global online retail company that sells directly to consumers via the Internet. The Company offers products in three core categories: apparel (including wedding dresses), small accessories and gadgets, and home and garden. The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's financial performance and future prospects. In particular, defendants misrepresented or failed to disclose the following adverse facts, which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them: (a) LightInTheBox's sales growth had dramatically decreased during the second quarter of 2013, the period ended June 30, 2013; (b) LightInTheBox's costs had grown more than its sales during the second quarter of 2013; and (c) as a result of the foregoing, the Company was not on track to achieve the financial results defendants had led the market to expect during the Class Period. On August 19, 2013, after the close of trading, the Company issued a press release announcing its actual second quarter 2013 financial results for the quarter ended June 30, 2013, less than one month after the IPO. Rather than the earnings of $.06 per share on revenues of $75.8 million the investment community had been led to expect, LightInTheBox reported revenues of just $72.2 million and profits (excluding items) of $.05 per share. In addition, revenues rose only 52.6% while operating costs rose 57%. The Company also forecast revenues of just $68-$70 million for the third quarter of 2013 (ending just a little more than a month away, on September 30, 2013), whereas analysts had been led to expect $75.8 million. On this news, the price of LightInTheBox ADSs, which had traded as high as $23.38 per share in intraday trading during the Class Period (on August 14, 2013), plummeted approximately 40% from their close on August 19, 2013, to close below $12 per share on August 20, 2013. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of LightInTheBox ADSs during the Class Period. The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has expertise in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in actions involving financial fraud. Robbins Geller -- http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- represents U.S. and international institutional investors in contingency-based securities and corporate litigation. With nearly 200 lawyers in nine offices, the firm represents hundreds of public and multi- employer pension funds with combined assets under management in excess of $2 trillion. LIME ENERGY: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit to Be Heard Oct. 24 --------------------------------------------------------------- A status hearing on a motion to dismiss a consolidated securities lawsuit has been set for October 24, 2013, according to Lime Energy Co.'s July 31, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012. The putative class action captioned Satterfield v. Lime Energy Co. et al., Case No. 12-cv-5704 (N.D. Ill.) was filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities between May 14, 2008, and December 27, 2012, inclusive. Following an announcement by the Company dated July 17, 2012, four separate putative class actions were filed alleging violations of the federal securities laws. The four cases were consolidated. Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (the "PSLRA"), on October 26, 2012, the Court appointed Lead Plaintiffs. The Lead Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint on January 18, 2013, alleging that Defendants (the Company, John O'Rourke, Jeffrey Mistarz and David Asplund) issued false and misleading statements concerning Lime's revenues during the class period and thereby artificially inflated the Company's stock price. On May 15, 2013, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint failed to plead facts sufficient to establish a "strong inference" that the Defendants acted with scienter (i.e., either knowingly or recklessly) in connection with any of the alleged misstatements, as required by the PSLRA. The Plaintiffs' response to the motion to dismiss was filed on July 22, 2013, and the Defendants' reply was due August 22, 2013. A status hearing on the motion before Judge Gettleman has been set for October 24, 2013. Lime Energy Co. -- http://www.lime-energy.com/-- designs and implements energy efficiency programs that enable its utility clients to reach their underserved markets and achieve their energy reduction goals. Utility-sponsored energy efficiency programs help reduce customer demand for electricity. The Company is headquartered in Huntersville, North Carolina. MAHWAH, NJ: Affordable Housing Owners Mull Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Jessica Mazzola, writing for Mahwah Patch, reports that Mahwah may be the town to decide whether or not a state regulation regarding Affordable Housing is legitimate, thanks to a group of about 150 residents who say they are organizing to sue the township. The group owns affordable housing units in Mahwah purchased some time in the past 25 years. The homes are coming upon their maturation point, which potentially means that residents could sell them at full market value, as opposed to the COAH-regulated affordable value they've been held to for the past quarter century. Over the past several months, township officials have held meetings informing residents of a state regulation passed in 2004, known as the "95-5" rule, which states that if an affordable housing homeowner sells at full market value, 95% of the difference between the affordable rate and the full-market value, goes to the town's Affordable Housing fund. According to township attorney Andy Fede, Mahwah's interpretation of the state regulation is that Mahwah is obligated to enforce it, and that it is retroactive, applying to all of the 25-year-old units in town. About 150 of the affordable housing unit owners say the rule isn't fair, and they are willing to go to court to prove it. "A lot of people have owned these homes for 25 years, and were banking on this money," resident and affordable housing unit owner Joe Gill told Patch. "We have contracts, and the problem is that you can't just pull those back." Mr. Gill says he is no exception. He's owned his condo in Mahwah for about 10 years. The single dad grew up in the township, and says his unit was recently appraised for $70,000 more than what he would make selling it at its affordable rate. "We are not talking a few thousand bucks," he said. "That's a lot of money. That could be my daughter's college tuition." According to Mr. Gill, he and others facing the 95-5 rule are organizing to file a class-action lawsuit against the township. The group has been handing out fliers, knocking on doors, and attempting to spread awareness of the suit in order to get "as many [affected] people as possible to join in," Mr. Gill said. So far, about 150 are involved, but hundreds more affordable housing unit owners could become involved, he said. However, the group is currently in talks with legal representation, and cannot accept any more defendants to sign onto the suit after the end of the month. "Once we sign on for this, it's closed," Mr. Gill said. "So we are trying to find everyone who could be involved now." Mr. Fede said on Aug. 21 he could not comment further on the matter because potential litigation against the township is involved. Mayor Bill Laforet said after three recent Affordable Housing Commission meetings discussing the 95-5 rule with residents, he was expecting the lawsuit. "The only way to get this decided is by a judge," he said on Aug. 21. "We are not objecting to that. We've been encouraging residents to get organized." Residents can get more information about the class action lawsuit by reaching out to mahwahaffordableowners@yahoo.com or to Chris Davey at 926 Juniper Way. MAPLEWOOD MARKETS: Nov. 12 Settlement Final Approval Hearing Set ---------------------------------------------------------------- Christina Stueve Hodges, writing for The Madison-St. Clair Record, reports that St. Clair County Circuit Judge Vincent Lopinot set a final approval hearing for Nov. 12 in a class action settlement in a lawsuit against a Cahokia grocery store. Plaintiff Willie Hadley claims he cashed a check for $1,875 at defendant Maplewood Markets, formerly known as Cahokia Mor for Less, in August 2011. In turn for cashing the check, Cahokia Mor for Less charged Mr. Hadley a $38 check cashing fee, according to the complaint filed last October in St. Clair County Circuit Court. The lawsuit claims Illinois law does not allow for check cashing fees of more than 50 cents or 1 percent of the face value of the check. Cahokia Mor for Less charged him more than was statutorily allowed, and Cahokia Mor for Less did the same thing to numerous other Illinois residents, the complaint alleges. Judge Lopinot on Aug. 14 ordered the parties in the case to submit a motion for final approval of class action settlement no later than seven days prior to the final approval hearing. According to the motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement, the terms of the settlement agreement impose a permanent injunction on the defendant to comply with the Illinois Check Cashing Act. Defendant will charge the greater of $.50 or 1% of the face value of the check cashed for all customers of the defendant's store until such time as defendant applies and receives a different license or permit from Illinois that would enable the defendant to charge a fee exceeding the limits of the Illinois Check Cashing Act. Also according to the settlement agreement, the defendant is to pay $10,000 to the plaintiff and his attorneys, which sum shall cover any and all amounts due plaintiff, a class representative incentive award, notice fees, filing and service of process fees, and attorney's fees. Plaintiff Willie Hadley shall receive $800 as an incentive award for "his time effort and services as class representative, which shall be payable and delivered to class counsel within 30 days of the date the Court grants final approval of this settlement," according to the class action settlement agreement and release. Class counsel shall receive a $9,200 payment, subject to court approval. Hadley had requested class certification of the case, seeking more than $50,000 in damages. The plaintiff was represented by Peter J. Maag of Maag Law Firm in Wood River, but Thomas Maag substituted his appearance for Peter Maag on Aug. 5. In April, Lopinot indicated in an order that the parties in the lawsuit had reached a preliminary settlement. Ryan Mahoney -- rmahoney@cateslaw.com -- of Cates Mahoney in Swansea represents the defense. St. Clair County Circuit Court case number: 12-L-534. MOODY'S CORP: Appeal in "Abu Dhabi" Class Suit Remains Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- An appeal in the class action lawsuit originally filed by Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank remains pending, according to Moody's Corporation's July 31, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013. On August 25, 2008, Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank filed a purported class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York asserting numerous common-law causes of action against two subsidiaries of the Company, another rating agency, and Morgan Stanley & Co. The action related to securities issued by a structured investment vehicle called Cheyne Finance (the "Cheyne SIV") and sought, among other things, compensatory and punitive damages. The central allegation against the rating agency defendants was that the credit ratings assigned to the securities issued by the Cheyne SIV were false and misleading. In early proceedings, the court dismissed all claims against the rating agency defendants except those for fraud and aiding and abetting fraud. In June 2010, the court denied plaintiff's motion for class certification, and additional plaintiffs were subsequently added to the complaint. In January 2012, the rating agency defendants moved for summary judgment with respect to the fraud and aiding and abetting fraud claims. Also in January 2012, in light of new New York state case law, the court permitted the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint that reasserted previously dismissed claims against all defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and related aiding and abetting claims. In May 2012, the court, ruling on the rating agency defendants' motion to dismiss, dismissed all of the reasserted claims except for the negligent misrepresentation claim, and on September 19, 2012, after further proceedings, the court also dismissed the negligent misrepresentation claim. On August 17, 2012, the court ruled on the rating agencies' motion for summary judgment on the plaintiffs' remaining claims for fraud and aiding and abetting fraud. The court dismissed, in whole or in part, the fraud claims of four plaintiffs as against Moody's but allowed the fraud claims to proceed with respect to certain claims of one of those plaintiffs and the claims of the remaining 11 plaintiffs. The court also dismissed all claims against Moody's for aiding and abetting fraud. Three of the plaintiffs whose claims were dismissed filed motions for reconsideration, and on November 7, 2012, the court granted two of these motions, reinstating the claims of two plaintiffs that were previously dismissed. On February 1, 2013, the court dismissed the claims of one additional plaintiff on jurisdictional grounds. Trial on the remaining fraud claims against the rating agencies, and on claims against Morgan Stanley for aiding and abetting fraud and for negligent misrepresentation, was scheduled for May 2013. On April 24, 2013, pursuant to confidential settlement agreements, the 14 plaintiffs with claims that had been ordered to trial stipulated to the voluntary dismissal, with prejudice, of these claims as against all defendants, and the Court so ordered that stipulation on April 26, 2013. The settlement did not cover certain claims of two plaintiffs that were previously dismissed by the Court. On May 23, 2013, these two plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the Second Circuit, seeking reversal of the dismissal of their claims and also seeking reversal of the Court's denial of class certification. According to pleadings filed by the plaintiffs in earlier proceedings, they seek approximately $76 million in total compensatory damages in connection with the two claims at issue on the appeal. New York-based Moody's Corporation is a provider of credit ratings; credit, capital markets and economic research, data and analytical tools; software solutions and related risk management services; quantitative credit risk measures, financial services training and certification services; and outsourced research and analytical services to institutional customers. MOODY'S CORP: Awaits Summary Judgment Ruling in Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Moody's Corporation is awaiting a court decision on its motion for summary judgment in the consolidated securities class action lawsuit pending in New York, according to the Company's July 31, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013. Two purported class action complaints have been filed by purported purchasers of the Company's securities against the Company and certain of its senior officers, asserting claims under the federal securities laws. The first was filed by Raphael Nach in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on July 19, 2007. The second was filed by Teamsters Local 282 Pension Trust Fund in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on September 26, 2007. Both actions have been consolidated into a single proceeding entitled In re Moody's Corporation Securities Litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. On June 27, 2008, a consolidated amended complaint was filed, purportedly on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's securities during the period February 3, 2006, through October 24, 2007. The Plaintiffs allege that the defendants issued false and/or misleading statements concerning the Company's business conduct, business prospects, business conditions and financial results relating primarily to Moody's Investors Service's (MIS's) ratings of structured finance products including residential mortgage-backed security, collateralized debt obligation and constant-proportion debt obligations. The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory damages and their reasonable costs and expenses incurred in connection with the case. The Company moved for dismissal of the consolidated amended complaint in September 2008. On February 23, 2009, the court issued an opinion dismissing certain claims and sustaining others. On January 22, 2010, the plaintiffs moved to certify a class of individuals who purchased Moody's Corporation common stock between February 3, 2006, and October 24, 2007, which the Company opposed. On March 31, 2011, the court issued an opinion denying plaintiffs' motion to certify the proposed class. On April 14, 2011, plaintiffs filed a petition in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit seeking discretionary permission to appeal the decision. The Company filed its response to the petition on April 25, 2011. On July 20, 2011, the Second Circuit issued an order denying the plaintiffs' petition for leave to appeal. On September 14, 2012, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment, which was fully briefed on December 21, 2012. Oral arguments on the motion for summary judgment took place on April 9, 2013. New York-based Moody's Corporation is a provider of credit ratings; credit, capital markets and economic research, data and analytical tools; software solutions and related risk management services; quantitative credit risk measures, financial services training and certification services; and outsourced research and analytical services to institutional customers. MOORE CAPITAL: Settles Close-Banging Class Action for $8.4 Mil. --------------------------------------------------------------- Metal Bulletin reports that Moore Capital has paid $48.4 million to settle a class-action lawsuit accusing the hedge fund of banging the close in Nymex platinum and palladium markets in 2007 and 2008. The New York-based fund paid the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) a $25 million penalty to settle charges of attempted manipulation of the Nymex contracts in April 2010, and also submitted to restrictions on its trading in the PGM markets. NETFLIX INC: Judge Dismisses Securities Class Action ---------------------------------------------------- Dominic Patten, writing for Deadline.com, reports that the online streaming and DVD rental service can take one putative securities class action out of its instant queue. A federal judge on Aug. 20 dismissed the amended suit by investors claiming that Netflix played fast and loose back in 2011 with the financial truths of its shift to a streaming business model. "Plaintiffs do not plead plausible facts indicating that Defendants touted the streaming business's profitability as opposed to the projected or hoped-for strength of the interrelated DVD and streaming business," said Judge Samuel Conti on August 20 of the suit whose class action period covered October 2010 to October 2011. The initial complaint was field in January 2012. "None of what Plaintiffs plead therefore shows that Defendants made any false or misleading statements about the profitability of the streaming business," he added. In a 24-page order, the US District Judge dismissed the suit against Netflix, CEO Reed Hastings, current CFO David Wells and past CFO Barry McCarthy with prejudice and no leave to amend. The order came after Judge Conti granted Netflix's motion to dismiss the original complaint back on February 2 of this year. At the time, the judge said that the City of Royal Oak Retirement System and other plaintiffs hadn't uncovered any evidence that Netflix had specific expenses and revenues for its domestic streaming service before Q4 2011 nor that insiders cashed in on bloated stock. The dismissal on Aug. 20 was of an amended complaint filed in March that shifted its focus to claims that the company and its execs were talking up "the streaming business and creating the false impression that it was driving Netflix's profitability." The Judge didn't buy it. "As for the statements the Court addressed in its prior Order, and to the application of Plaintiffs' newly cited cases more generally, Plaintiffs have not shown that Defendants touted the independent profitability of streaming such that they would have a duty to disclose any of the negative aspects of their streaming business. Indeed, Defendants explicitly refused to discuss the independent profitability of streaming," Conti wrote. What was or was not explicitly discussed, profit was, as almost always is the case, at the core of the whole action. The original 2012 suit was set off by the freefall of Netflix stock in late 2011 after the company revealed it was going to splice into two entities with one concentrating on streaming and another on DVD rentals. Though that idea lasted less than month before Netflix pulled the plug on its own plan, the plaintiffs claimed that the company had broken federal Securities and Exchange Commission rules and common accounting methods by reporting revenues from DVD rental and streaming services together and not separately from July to September 2011. Netflix countered by saying that it wasn't under an obligation to split the two until that September. On a parallel track, the company's stock, which fell over $40 during the time of the ill-consider duel entity notion, has seen steady growth since that time and with the introduction of original programming like House Of Cards and the Arrested Development reboot on Netflix. The stock currently sits around $269 with a 52-week high of $274. Netflix is represented by: Keith Eggleton, Esq. Luke Liss, Esq. Rodney Strickland, Esq. Boris Feldman, Esq. WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI 650 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304 Tel: 650-320-4893 Fax: 650-493-6811 E-mail: keggleton@wsgr.com lliss@wsgr.com rstrickland@wsgr.com ncarvalho@wsgr.com PG&E CORP: All Class Claims Over San Bruno Accident Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------------- All class action allegations in the lawsuits arising from the San Bruno accident were dismissed in the second quarter of 2013, according to PG&E Corporation's July 31, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013. On September 9, 2010, a natural gas transmission pipeline owned and operated by the Company's subsidiary, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Utility), ruptured in San Bruno, California. The ensuing explosion and fire resulted in the deaths of eight people, numerous personal injuries, and extensive property damage. Following the San Bruno accident, various regulatory proceedings, investigations, and lawsuits were commenced. Since the San Bruno accident, approximately 160 lawsuits involving third-party claims for personal injury and property damage, including two class action lawsuits, have been filed against PG&E and the Utility in connection with the accident on behalf of approximately 500 plaintiffs. These lawsuits seek compensation for personal injury and property damage, and other relief, including punitive damages. All cases were coordinated and assigned to one judge in the San Mateo County Superior Court. The Utility has entered into settlement agreements to resolve the claims of approximately 150 plaintiffs and other claimants. In the second quarter of 2013, all class action allegations were dismissed by the court. The Utility has recorded cumulative charges of $455 million for estimated third-party claims, including personal injury, property damage, damage to infrastructure, and other damage claims. At June 30, 2013, the Utility has made cumulative payments of $388 million for settlements. The Utility estimates it is reasonably possible that it may incur as much as an additional $145 million for unresolved claims, for a total possible loss of $600 million since the San Bruno accident. The Utility and most of the plaintiffs with unresolved claims are engaged in settlement discussions with the assistance of mediators. Settlement discussions with some plaintiffs may conclude in the third quarter of 2013. PG&E Corporation and the Utility are unable to estimate the amount or range of reasonably possible losses associated with punitive damages, if any, related to these matters. Through June 30, 2013, the Utility has recognized cumulative insurance recoveries of $329 million for third-party claims and related legal expenses. (The Utility has incurred cumulative legal expenses of $81 million in addition to the $455 million charge). Insurance recoveries for the three and six months ended June 30, 2013, were $45 million. These amounts were recorded as a reduction to operating and maintenance expense in PG&E Corporation's and the Utility's Condensed Consolidated Statements of Income. Although the Utility believes that a significant portion of costs incurred for third-party claims relating to the San Bruno accident will ultimately be recovered through its insurance, it is unable to predict the amount and timing of additional insurance recoveries. PG&E Corporation is a holding company that conducts its business through Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Utility). The Utility's revenues are generated mainly through the sale and delivery of electricity and natural gas to customers. The Company is headquartered in San Francisco, California. PG&E CORP: Class Suit Over Business Practices Dismissed in May -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit alleging PG&E Corporation engaged in unfair business practices was dismissed in May 2013, according to the Company's July 31, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013. On August 23, 2012, a complaint was filed in the San Francisco Superior Court against PG&E Corporation and its subsidiary, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Utility), and other unnamed defendants, by individuals who seek certification of a class consisting of all California residents who were customers of the Utility between 1997 and 2010, with certain exceptions. The plaintiffs allege that the Utility collected more than $100 million in customer rates from 1997 through 2010 for the purpose of various safety measures and operations projects but instead used the funds for general corporate purposes such as executive compensation and bonuses. The plaintiffs allege that PG&E Corporation and the Utility engaged in unfair business practices in violation of California state law. The plaintiffs seek restitution and disgorgement, as well as compensatory and punitive damages. PG&E and the Utility contest the plaintiffs' allegations. On May 23, 2013, the court granted PG&E's and the Utility's request to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate the issues raised by the plaintiffs' allegations. PG&E and the Utility are unable to estimate the amount or range of reasonably possible losses that may be incurred in connection with this matter. PG&E Corporation is a holding company that conducts its business through Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Utility). The Utility's revenues are generated mainly through the sale and delivery of electricity and natural gas to customers. The Company is headquartered in San Francisco, California. PINNACLE FINANCIAL: Has Deal to Settle "Higgins" Suit ----------------------------------------------------- Pinnacle Financial Partners, Inc., disclosed in its July 31, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013, that it has reached a tentative settlement agreement with John Higgins, et al., during the second quarter of 2013. During the fourth quarter of 2011, a customer of Pinnacle Bank filed a putative class action lawsuit (styled John Higgins, et al., v. Pinnacle Financial Partners, Inc., d/b/a Pinnacle National Bank) in Davidson County, Tennessee Circuit Court, against Pinnacle Bank and Pinnacle Financial, on his own behalf, as well as on behalf of a purported class of Pinnacle Bank's customers within the State of Tennessee alleging that Pinnacle Bank's method of ordering debit card transactions had caused customers of Pinnacle Bank to incur higher overdraft charges than had a different method been used. In support of his claims, the plaintiff asserts theories of breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment or unconscionability. The plaintiff is seeking, among other remedies, an award of unspecified compensatory damages, pre- judgment interest, costs and attorneys' fees. Pinnacle Financial and Pinnacle Bank are vigorously contesting this matter. On January 17, 2012, Pinnacle Financial and Pinnacle Bank filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. The motion to dismiss was granted without prejudice to Pinnacle Financial and denied as to Pinnacle Bank on April 13, 2012, and Pinnacle Bank filed an answer on May 30, 2012. Pinnacle Financial and Pinnacle Bank reached a tentative settlement agreement with the plaintiff during the second quarter of 2013. Although the settlement has not yet been finalized, Pinnacle Financial does not believe that any liability arising from this legal matter will have a material adverse effect on Pinnacle Financial's consolidated financial condition, operating results or cash flows. Pinnacle Financial Partners, Inc. -- http://www.mypinnacle.com/-- operates as the bank holding company for Pinnacle National Bank that provides various commercial banking services to individuals, small-to medium-sized businesses, and professional entities primarily in Tennessee. The Company was founded in 2000 and is headquartered in Nashville, Tennessee. POLYONE CORP: Has Yet to Submit Docs in Merger Suit Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- PolyOne Corporation has yet to submit documents with respect to its settlement of a consolidated merger-related class action lawsuit, according to the Company's July 31, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013. On March 13, 2013, pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Agreement and Plan of Merger dated October 23, 2012 (Spartech Merger Agreement), PolyOne acquired Spartech Corporation (Spartech), a supplier of sustainable plastic sheet, color and engineered materials, and packaging solutions, based in Clayton, Missouri. Spartech expands PolyOne's specialty portfolio with adjacent technologies in attractive end markets where the Company already participate, as well as new end markets such as aerospace and security. Five derivative and purported class action lawsuits were filed by alleged Spartech stockholders against various defendants including Spartech, its directors, PolyOne, Merger Sub, and Merger LLC concerning the acquisition of Spartech by PolyOne through its wholly-owned subsidiaries Merger Sub and Merger LLC. The lawsuits alleged, among other things, that the directors of Spartech breached their fiduciary duties owed to stockholders by approving the then-proposed acquisition of Spartech by PolyOne and by failing to disclose certain information to stockholders. Three of the lawsuits (including two filed in the Delaware Chancery Court, and one filed in the United States District Court of the Eastern District of Missouri) have been dismissed. The remaining two lawsuits, filed in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri, were consolidated for all purposes as In re Spartech Corporation Shareholder Litigation. On March 5, 2013, counsel for the parties in the lawsuits entered into a memorandum of understanding, in which they agreed on the terms of a settlement of the In re Spartech Corporation Shareholder Litigation, including dismissal with prejudice and a release of all claims made therein against all defendants. The Defendants agreed to the terms of the proposed settlement in order to avoid the substantial burden, expense, risk, inconvenience, and distraction of continued litigation, including the risk of delaying or adversely affecting the merger. The proposed settlement remains conditioned upon, among other things, the execution of a stipulation of settlement and final approval of the proposed settlement by the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri. The Company says there can be no assurance that the court will approve the settlement even if the parties enter into such a stipulation, or that the settlement conditions will be met. PolyOne is insured with respect to these lawsuits. PolyOne Corporation -- http://www.polyone.com/-- is a provider of specialized polymer materials, services and solutions. The Company is headquartered in Clayton, Missouri. QEP RESOURCES: Received Final OK of "Chieftain" Suit Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- QEP Resources, Inc. received final approval of its settlement of a class action lawsuit filed by Chieftain Royalty Company in May 2013, according to the Company's July 31, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013. The statewide class action captioned Chieftain Royalty Company v. QEP Energy Company, Case No CIV-11-0212-R, U. S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, was filed in January 2011 on behalf of QEP's Oklahoma royalty owners asserting various claims for damages related to royalty valuation on all of QEP's Oklahoma wells operated by QEP or from which QEP marketed gas. These claims include breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, unjust enrichment, tortious breach of contract, conspiracy, and conversion, based generally on asserted improper deduction of post-production costs. The Court certified the class as to the breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment claims. The parties successfully mediated the case in January 2013. On February 13, 2013, the parties executed a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement (the Chieftain Settlement Agreement) providing for a cash payment from QEP to the class in the amount of $115.0 million. In consideration for the settlement payment, QEP received a full release of all claims regarding the calculation, reporting and payment of royalties from the sale of natural gas and its constituents for all periods prior to February 28, 2013, and all class members are enjoined from asserting claims related to such royalties. As part of the Chieftain Settlement Agreement, the parties also agreed on the methodology for the calculation and payment of future royalties payable by QEP, or its successors and assigns, under all class leases for the life of such leases. On May 31, 2013, the Court issued a final order approving the settlement, which is subject to appeal. Denver, Colorado-based QEP Resources, Inc. is a holding company with three major lines of business: natural gas and crude oil exploration and production; midstream field services; and energy marketing. These businesses are conducted through the Company's three principal subsidiaries: (1) QEP Energy Company acquires, explores for, develops and produces natural gas, crude oil, and natural gas liquids (NGL); (2) QEP Field Services Company provides midstream field services, including natural gas gathering and processing, compression and treating services, for affiliates and third parties; and (3) QEP Marketing Company markets affiliate and third-party natural gas and oil, and owns and operates an underground gas storage reservoir. SIFY TECHNOLOGIES: Insurer Has Settled Exposure in IPO Suit Deal ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sify Technologies Limited said in its July 31, 2013, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended March 31, 2013, that the exposure under its settlement of a securities class action lawsuit has been settled by the insurer. The Company and certain of its officers and directors are named as defendants in a securities class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. This action, which is captioned In re Satyam Infoway Ltd. Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, also names several of the underwriters involved in Company's initial public offering of American Depository Shares as defendants. This class action is brought on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of Company's American Depositary Shares ("ADSs") from the time of Company's Initial Public Offering ("IPO") in October 1999 through December 2000. The central allegation in this action is that the underwriters in Company's IPO solicited and received undisclosed commissions from, and entered into undisclosed arrangements with, certain investors who purchased Company's ADSs in the IPO and the aftermarket. The complaint also alleges that Company violated the United States Federal Securities laws by failing to disclose in the IPO prospectus that the underwriters had engaged in these allegedly undisclosed arrangements. More than 300 issuers have been named in similar lawsuits. On April 2, 2009, the parties lodged with the Court a motion for preliminary approval of a proposed settlement between all parties, including the Company and its former officers and directors. The proposed settlement provides the plaintiffs with $586 million in recoveries from all defendants. Under the proposed settlement, the Issuer Defendants collectively would be responsible for $100 million, which would be paid by the Issuers' insurers, on behalf of the Issuer Defendants and their officers and directors. Accordingly, any direct financial impact of the proposed settlement is expected to be borne by the Company's insurers. On June 12, 2009, the Federal District Court granted preliminary approval of the proposed settlement. On October 6, 2009, the District Court issued an order granting final approval of the settlement. Subsequent to the final approval of Settlement agreement by the District court, there were several notices of appeal filed. Most were filed by the same parties that objected to the settlement in front of the District Court. These appeals were consolidated into a single appeal and briefing schedule was held. On January 9, 2012, the class counsel and objectors counsel entered into a settlement agreement, which includes an agreement to dismiss the appeal. Thus, the Appeal has been dismissed with prejudice confirming the Settlement agreement entered before the District Court. As of March 31, 2013, the exposure under this settlement has been settled by the insurer as per the settlement agreement. Sify Technologies Limited -- http://www.sify.com/-- is one of the largest integrated Internet, network and electronic commerce services companies in India, offering end-to-end solutions with a comprehensive range of services delivered over a common Internet backbone infrastructure. The Company's services enable its business and consumers to communicate, transmit and share information, access online content and conduct business remotely using the Company's private data network or the Internet. The Company is headquartered in Tamil Nadu, India. TOYOTA CANADA: Settles Consumer Claims Over 2009 & 2010 Recalls --------------------------------------------------------------- The Canadian Press reports that Toyota Canada has agreed to settle consumer claims related to losses stemming from its recalls in 2009 and 2010. About 14,500 Lexus RX350 and RX450h models from the 2010 model year were recalled because of suspected throttle control problems The Canadian recalls were part of Toyota's global recall of more than 14 million vehicles to fix various problems that included sticky gas pedals and floor mats. A statement from law firms involved in the case say the class action settlement is pending approval by Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan courts. If approved, the settlement will cover claims against Toyota on behalf of all Canadian owners of Toyotas with an electronic throttle control system. Eligible owners will receive an enhanced warranty for a minimum of three years to cover repairs and to have their vehicles equipped with a brake override system. If their vehicle is ineligible for the free system, owners will get cash instead. In addition, Toyota has agreed to fund scholarships at four Canadian engineering schools totaling $600,000. "It's a relief to know that Toyota will be offering substantial benefits to a very large number of Canadian consumers in order to resolve these actions" said representative plaintiff Steven Hamilton in a statement. "I think that this is a fair settlement for Toyota owners across the country." Toyota Canada said in a statement that "turning the page on this legacy legal issue is in the best interests of the company, employees, dealers and, most of all, customers." UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Registered Nurses Sue Employers for Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Universal Health Services stiffs registered nurses for overtime at seven hospitals, RNs claim in a class action. Here are the defendants in the RNs' overtime class action: Universal Health Services, Inc.; Universal Health Services Foundation; Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc.; Universal Health Services of Palmdale, Inc.; Corona Regional Medical Center; Inland Valley Medical Center; Rancho Springs Medical Center; Palmdale Regional Medical Center; and Temecula Valley Hospital. URBAN OUTFITTERS: Seeks Dismissal of Wage-and-Hour Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Raphael Pope-Sussman, writing for Law360, reports that clothing retailer Urban Outfitters Inc. asked a New Jersey federal judge on Aug. 21 to toss a proposed wage-and-hour class action by a former assistant department manager, arguing that her rejection of a proposed $4,000 settlement offer barred the continuation of the suit. In a motion for judgment on the pleadings, Urban Outfitters said that because it had offered the settlement to Lesley Mitchel- Tockman, a former assistant department manager at one of Urban Outfitters' Anthropologie stores in Princeton, N.J., and because no one else had signed on to the action, the district court should find any class claims in the case moot. Urban Outfitters also said that the complaint failed because it lacked specific allegations about wage-and-hour abuses, such as information about the number of overtime hours worked by Ms. Mitchel-Tockman, the number of alleged uncompensated overtime hours she worked or the length of her employment. "Urban Outfitters made an offer of judgment which provided Ms. Mitchel-Tockman, the sole plaintiff in this case, complete satisfaction of her individual Fair Labor Standards Act claim before any other potential plaintiffs opted into her collective action claim," the motion said. "Urban Outfitters' offer thus mooted not only Ms. Mitchel-Tockman's individual FLSA claim but the collective action claim as well." On June 21, Ms. Mitchel-Tockman brought suit alleging violations of New Jersey Wage and Hour Laws and Regulations and of the federal FLSA. She claimed that Urban Outfitters had refused to record or had manipulated the overtime hours of assistant department managers. Ms. Mitchel-Tockman worked on average over 40 hours per week but didn't receive overtime pay because her supervisor, at Urban Outfitters' approval and direction, routinely shaved hours from her time card in order to avoid overtime payments, the complaint said. Ms. Mitchel-Tockman said she complained multiple times to her supervisors, but the time card alterations continued, the complaint said. Her supervisors began to treat her more harshly than other employees, and she also suffered a reduction in work hours, although she was hired with the expectation that she would work at least 40 hours, the complaint said. In October, Ms. Mitchel-Tockman was terminated from Anthropologie in retaliation for speaking up about the company's labor practices, the complaint said. The complaint sought restitution for unpaid overtime, lost future wages, lost benefits, punitive damages and costs, as well as declaratory judgment that Urban Outfitters' practices violated state and federal labor law. Urban Outfitters currently faces a similar proposed wage-and-hour collective action in New York, brought June 24 by former store department managers who claim they were improperly classified as exempt from the FLSA' overtime provisions, even though the company did not engage in a person-by-person analysis to determine if the exemptions were warranted. Urban Outfitters did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Aug. 22. Counsel for Ms. Mitchel-Tockman declined to comment on the case. Ms. Mitchel-Tockman is represented by Lance Brown & Associates LLC. Urban Outfitters is represented by Thomas J. Barton -- Thomas.Barton@dbr.com -- and William R. Horwitz -- William.Horwitz@dbr.com -- of Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP. The case is Lesley Mitchel-Tockman et al. v. Urban Outfitters Inc., case number 3:13-cv-03852, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. VALSPAR: Employees Can Bring Collective Action Over Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- The HR Specialist reports that a federal court has authorized a group of employees who claim they were misclassified as exempt outside sales employees to bring a collective action alleging unpaid wages. Recent case: Shane worked for Valspar, a paint company, as a team territory manager. His job (and that of others who joined in the suit) involved traveling to designated Lowe's stores to work in the paint department organizing shelves, offering painting tips to customers and mixing gallons of paint for customers to purchase at Lowe's. Shane and the other managers sued. Although they worked at least 50 hours per week, they weren't paid for each hour. Instead, they had a set salary plus commissions on each gallon of Valspar paint sold. Valspar classified them as exempt outside salespersons and/or administrative employees. The court allowed the lawsuit to proceed. (Simmons v. Valspar, No. 10-3026, DC MN, 2013) VOLVO: S60, S80, XC60, and XC70 SUV Models Recalled in Canada ------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: August 26, 2013 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Car, SUV Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Other Units affected: 366 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2013285 TC ID number: 2013285 Affected products: -- VOLVO S80 2014 model; -- VOLVO S60 2014 model; -- VOLVO XC70 2014 model; and -- VOLVO XC60 2014 On certain vehicles equipped with Keyless Ignition, the Central Electronic Module (CEM) may not perform as intended. When starting the engine, the amber colored warning light in the driver information module may illuminate and there may be a message displayed such as "Alarm System Service Required" (other messages may be displayed depending on individual vehicle equipment). In addition, one or all of the following may occur: The front windshield wipers may operate continuously while the ignition is ON. The turn signals may not function. The headlight switch may not work. The high beam headlamps may not work. The battery may drain. Dealers will upgrade the CEM software. WILLIAMS COS: Bid for Summary Judgment vs. FHRA Remains Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- The Williams Companies, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment against Flint Hills Resources Alaska, LLC, remains pending, according to the Company's July 31, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013. In January 2010, James West filed a class action lawsuit in state court in Fairbanks, Alaska, on behalf of individual property owners whose water contained sulfolane contamination allegedly emanating from the Flint Hills Oil Refinery in North Pole, Alaska. The lawsuit named the Company's subsidiary, Williams Alaska Petroleum Inc. (WAPI), and Flint Hills Resources Alaska, LLC (FHRA), a subsidiary of Koch Industries, Inc., as defendants. The Company owned and operated the refinery until 2004 when the Company sold it to FHRA. The Company and FHRA have made claims under the pollution liability insurance policy issued in connection with the sale of the North Pole refinery to FHRA. The Company and FHRA also filed claims against each other seeking, among other things, contractual indemnification alleging that the other party caused the sulfolane contamination. In 2011, the Company and FHRA settled the James West claim. The Company's claims against FHRA and their claims against the Company remain outstanding. The Company and FHRA filed motions for summary judgment on the other's claims, but the motions are unlikely to resolve all the outstanding claims. The Company says it currently estimates that its reasonably possible loss exposure in this matter could range from an insignificant amount up to $32 million, although uncertainties inherent in the litigation process, expert evaluations, and jury dynamics might cause the Company's exposure to exceed that amount. Independent of the West litigation matter, the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) indicated that it views FHRA and the Company as responsible parties. During the first quarter 2013, ADEC informed FHRA and the Company that it intends to enter a compliance order to address the environmental remediation of sulfolane and other possible contaminants including cleanup work outside the refinery's boundaries to be performed in 2014. In addition, ADEC will seek from each of FHRA and the Company an adequate financial performance guarantee for the benefit of ADEC. As such, the Company will likely be required to contribute some amount, whether to reimburse the State, to reimburse FHRA, or to comply with an ADEC order. Due to the ongoing assessment of the level and extent of sulfolane contamination and the ultimate cost of remediation and division of costs between the named responsible parties, the Company is unable to estimate a range of liability at this time. Headquartered in Tulsa, Oklahoma, The Williams Companies, Inc., is primarily engaged in gas marketing and the gathering, storing, and processing of natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGLs). WILLIAMS COS: Units Face Class Suits Over Geismar Incident ---------------------------------------------------------- The Williams Companies, Inc.'s subsidiaries are facing class action lawsuits arising from the Geismar Incident, according to the Company's July 31, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013. The Company's Williams Partners segment consists of its consolidated master limited partnership, Williams Partners L.P. (WPZ), and includes gas pipeline and domestic midstream businesses. On June 13, 2013, an explosion and fire occurred at WPZ's Geismar olefins plant located south of Baton Rouge, in a remote industrial complex, that resulted in the tragic deaths of two employees and injuries of additional employees and contractors. The fire was extinguished on the day of the incident. The incident (Geismar Incident) rendered the facility temporarily inoperable and resulted in significant human, financial and operational effects. As a result of the Geismar Incident, there were two fatalities and numerous individuals (including employees and contractors) reported injuries, which varied from minor to serious. WPZ is cooperating with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the Chemical Safety Board, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to conduct investigations to determine the cause of the incident. Also, on June 28, 2013, the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality issued a Consolidated Compliance Order & Notice of Potential Penalty to Williams Olefins, L.L.C. that consolidates claims of unpermitted emissions and other deviations under the Clean Air Act that the parties had been negotiating since 2010 and alleged unpermitted emissions arising from the Geismar Incident. Any potential fines and penalties from these agencies would not be covered by the Company's insurance policy. Additionally, multiple lawsuits, including class actions for alleged offsite impacts, property damage, and personal injury, have been filed against various of the Company's subsidiaries. Due to the recent nature of the incident, the preliminary and ongoing investigation into its cause, and the limited information available associated with the filed lawsuits, which do not specify any amounts for claimed damages, the Company says it cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential loss related to these lawsuits at this time. Headquartered in Tulsa, Oklahoma, The Williams Companies, Inc., is primarily engaged in gas marketing and the gathering, storing, and processing of natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGLs). WILLIAMS COS: WPX to Seek Writ of Certiorari From Supreme Court --------------------------------------------------------------- WPX Energy, Inc. and other defendants in a consolidated lawsuit alleging manipulation of published gas price indices intend to seek a writ of certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court, according to The Williams Companies, Inc.'s July 31, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013. On December 1, 2011, the Company announced that its Board of Directors approved a tax-free spinoff of 100 percent of its exploration and production business, WPX Energy, Inc. (WPX), to the Company's shareholders. On December 31, 2011, the Company distributed one share of WPX common stock for every three shares of Williams common stock. As a result, with the exception of the December 31, 2011 balance sheet which no longer includes WPX, the Company's consolidated financial statements reflect the results of operations and financial position of WPX as discontinued operations. Direct and indirect purchasers of natural gas in various states filed class actions against WPX and others alleging the manipulation of published gas price indices and seeking unspecified amounts of damages. Such actions were transferred to the Nevada federal district court for consolidation of discovery and pre-trial issues. In 2011, the Nevada district court granted WPX's joint motions for summary judgment to preclude the plaintiffs' state law claims because the federal Natural Gas Act gives the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) exclusive jurisdiction to resolve those issues. The court also denied the plaintiffs' class certification motion as moot. The plaintiffs appealed the court's ruling and on April 10, 2013, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court and remanded the cases to the district court to permit the plaintiffs to pursue their state antitrust claims for natural gas sales that were not subject to FERC jurisdiction under the Natural Gas Act. WPX and the other defendants intend to seek a writ of certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court. Because of the uncertainty around the remaining pending unresolved issues, including an insufficient description of the purported classes and other related matters, the Company says it cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential exposures at this time. However, it is reasonably possible that the ultimate resolution of these items and the Company's related indemnification obligation could result in future charges that may be material to the Company's results of operations. Headquartered in Tulsa, Oklahoma, The Williams Companies, Inc., is primarily engaged in gas marketing and the gathering, storing, and processing of natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGLs). WINSTAR COMMUNICATIONS: Nov. 13 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set --------------------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK IN RE WINSTAR COMMUNICATIONS SECURITIES LITIGATION Master File No.01 Civ. 3014 (GBD) This Document Relates To: All Actions SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT, SETTLEMENT HEARING, AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES THAT DURING THE PERIOD FROM MARCH 10, 2000 THROUGH AND INCLUDING APRIL 2, 2001 PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED THE COMMON STOCK, BONDS, OR OTHER SECURITIES PUBLICLY ISSUED BY WINSTAR COMMUNICATIONS, INC. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, that the above- captioned action has been certified as a class action and that a settlement for $10,000,000.00 in cash or other immediately available funds has been proposed. A hearing will be held at 9:30 a.m., on November 13, 2013, before the Honorable George B. Daniels, at the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Courtroom 11A, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York 10007, to determine whether: the proposed settlement of the Action and the proposed plan for distributing the proceeds of the settlement should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against Grant Thornton LLP; and the application of the plaintiffs' counsel for awards of attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses should be approved. IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS DESCRIBED ABOVE, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED. CLASS MEMBERS MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE SETTLEMENT FUND. If you have not yet received the full printed Notice of Pendency of Class Action and Proposed Settlement, Settlement Hearing, and Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses and a Proof of Claim and Release form, you may obtain copies of these documents by identifying yourself as a member of the Class and requesting those documents from: Claims Administrator, In re Winstar Communications Securities Litigation, P.O. Box 5100, Larkspur, CA 94977-5100 -- http://www.gilardi.com Inquiries regarding the Action, other than requests for the Notice and Proof of Claim and Release form, may be made to Lead Counsel for the Class: Patrick L. Rocco, Esq., Stone Bonner & Rocco LLP, 447 Springfield Ave., 2nd Floor, Summit, NJ 07901. To participate in this settlement, Class members must file a Proof of Claim and Release no later than December 12, 2013. To exclude yourself from the Class, you must submit a request for exclusion that is received no later than October 23, 2013. IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS AND DO NOT EXCLUDE YOURSELF AND DO NOT FILE A PROPER PROOF OF CLAIM, YOU WILL NOT SHARE IN THE SETTLEMENT, BUT YOU WILL BE BOUND BY THE FINAL ORDER AND JUDGMENT OF THE COURT. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE FOR INFORMATION REGARDING THE SETTLEMENT. Dated: July 24, 2013 By Order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York SOURCE Stone Bonner & Rocco LLP ********* 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 * * *