/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/131024.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Thursday, October 24, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 211
Headlines
ACHILLION PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued Over Sovaprevir's Misleading Info
AMAG PHARMACEUTICAL: Supreme Court Allows Class Action to Proceed
AMERICAN HONDA: Gets Initial Approval of "Soto" Suit Settlement
AMERICAN INT'L: Faces NJ Suit Over Underreported WC Insurance
AMERICAN INT'L: Faces NY Suit Over Underreported WC Insurance
AST SPORTS: Anabolic Rush-Related Claims Are False, Suit Says
BE AMAZING: Recalls Monster Science Growing Spider
BELDI INC: Recalls Light Fixtures Due to Fall Hazard
BELMONT MEATS: Recalls Certain Frozen Beef Burgers
BLUE SHIELD: Holds Policyholders Liable for Own Mistake, Suit Says
BRICKMAN GROUP: Owes Supervisors Overtime Wages, Suit Claims
BURLINGTON RESOURCES: Faces Class Actions Over Royalty Payments
CALIFORNIA DAIRIES: Judge Escapes Milk Pricing Class Action
CENTRAL REFRIGERATED: Fails to Pay Proper Compensation, Suit Says
COMCAST CABLE: Gets Partial Summary Judgment Ruling in Faust Suit
D.C. TAXICAB COMMISSION: Cabbies Fight Change in Dome Lights
DELTA AIR: Illinois Judge Tosses Flight Payment Class Action
DUKE ENERGY: Consumer Advocates Want Settlement Decision Delayed
EBAY INC: Seeks Preliminary Approval for Class Action Settlement
ENHANCED RECOVERY: Faces TCPA Violations Suit in California
GEORGIA: "Edwards" Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
HOUSEHOLD INT'L: Faces $2.46-Bil. Securities Class Action Judgment
JPMORGAN CHASE: Bid to Intervene in "Saccoccio" Action Denied
JPMORGAN CHASE: "Seng" Suit Moved to Mortgage Foreclosure MDL
LEHMAN BROTHERS: Australia LGUs to Recoup From Insurance
LIGHTINTHEBOX HOLDING: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action
MATCH.COM LLC: Dismissal of Unconscionability Claim Affirmed
MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Court Narrows Claims in Car Owners' Suit
MERCK & CO: $688-Mil. Settlement in Vytorin/Zetia Suit Approved
MJ HOLDING: Recalls LED Light Up Floating Ball Toys
MONRO MUFFLER: Bid for Initial OK of "Michaud" Suit Accord Nixed
MONTREAL, CANADA: Anarchist Panda Mulls Class Action Over P6 Bylaw
NATIONAL BUILDERS: Wins Summary Judgment Bid in "Drywall" Suit
ONE'S BETTER: Recalls Q Sweety Musical Plush Doll
PELLA CORP: Judge Dismisses Express Warranty Claims
PILOT FLYING J: Small Percentage of Firms Opt Out of Settlement
PRICE CHOPPER: Recalls Coconut Custard Pies Due to Allergens
REGAL SNACKS: Recalls Various Baked Goods Due to Allergen
RESER'S FINE: Recalls Cheesy Macaroni Salad
SKYPE INC: Dismissal of False Advertising Class Action Reversed
ST. JUDE MEDICAL: Seeks Dismissal of Shareholder Class Action
SUNNY PINE: Recalls Chevre Cheese Due to Possible Health Risk
TRAIL CREST: Recalls Children's Hooded Sweatshirts
UNILEVER PLC: Faces Class Action Over Formaldehyde in Suave
UNITED CONTINENTAL: Sued by Customers Over MileagePlus Program
UNITED NATIONS: Contaminated Haiti's Main Water Source, Suit Says
VERENIUM CORP: Faces Merger-Related Class Suit in California
WHIRLPOOL CORP: 3 Lawsuits Now in Federal Court in Fort Smith
WINE.COM INC: Inflates Prices to Offset Shipping Costs, Suit Says
* Australian Courts May Face Class Action Litigation Influx
*********
ACHILLION PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued Over Sovaprevir's Misleading Info
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Sniezak, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Achillion Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Michael D. Kishbauch,
Milind S. Deshpande, and Mary Kay Fenton, Case No. 3:13-cv-01479-
AWT (D. Conn. October 8, 2013) is a federal securities class
action lawsuit brought on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons other than the Defendants, who purchased Achillion
securities between April 21, 2012, and September 27, 2013. The
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.
During the Class Period, the Company noted on its Web site that a
large market exists for its hepatitis drugs, and that its
sovaprevir product provides for a safe and effective method to
fight the disease and prevent liver failure and death. Throughout
the Class Period, however, the Defendants failed to inform
investors that sovaprevir, in fact, did not interact well with
other drugs commonly administered to treat hepatitis and HIV.
Joseph Sniezak purchased Achillion securities at alleged
artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.
Achillion is a Delaware corporation headquartered in New Haven,
Connecticut. Achillion is a biopharmaceutical company that
discovers and develops solutions for infectious diseases, like
HIV, hepatitis and resistant bacterial infections. The Individual
Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Henry Elstein, Esq.
GOLDMAN, GRUDER & WOODS, LLC
105 Technology Drive, Suite 2
Trumbull, CT 06611
Telephone: (203) 880-5333
Facsimile: (203) 880-5532
E-mail: helstein@goldgru.com
- and -
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
POMERANTZ GROSSMAN HUFFORD DAHLSTROM & GROSS LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
lfportnoy@pomlaw.com
- and -
Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
POMERANTZ GROSSMAN HUFFORD DAHLSTROM & GROSS LLP
10 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3505
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 377-1181
Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com
AMAG PHARMACEUTICAL: Supreme Court Allows Class Action to Proceed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP on Oct. 17 disclosed that on
October 7, 2013, the United States Supreme Court denied a petition
by AMAG Pharmaceuticals, Inc. for a Writ of Certiorari to appeal a
decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the First
Circuit allowing plaintiffs' claims to go forward in the
litigation entitled Silverstrand Investments v. AMAG
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 10 CIV 10470, pending in
the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.
This case is a class action lawsuit on behalf of investors who
purchased AMAG common stock in the Company's secondary public
offering on or about January 21, 2010. The complaint alleges that
the Company and certain officers violated the Securities Act of
1933 by failing to disclose adverse reactions to the Company's
primary drug Feraheme that occurred prior to the Secondary
Offering. On August 15, 2011, the District Court dismissed all of
the plaintiffs' claims. Plaintiffs appealed, and on February 4,
2013, the Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's decision
in part. The Court of Appeals concluded that the Complaint stated
claims of actionable omissions because "the 23 undisclosed reports
of serious adverse effects linked to Feraheme gave rise to (1)
uncertainties AMAG reasonably knew would adversely affect future
revenues, and (2) risk factors that made the Offering risky and
speculative." AMAG attempted to reverse the Court of Appeal's
decision by petitioning the Supreme Court to hear the case.
However, on October 7, 2013, the Supreme Court denied AMAG's
petition for a Writ of Certiorari, thus allowing the case to
proceed.
Plaintiffs continue to seek the recovery of damages suffered on
behalf of all purchasers of AMAG's common stock in the Secondary
Offering. The plaintiffs are represented by Abraham, Fruchter &
Twersky, LLP which has extensive experience in litigating
securities class action lawsuits, having been ranked among the
leading class action law firms in terms of recoveries achieved by
a survey of class action law firms conducted by Institutional
Shareholder Services.
If you would like to discuss this action or if you have any
questions concerning this notice or the progress of this case, you
may contact: Jack Fruchter of Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP at
212-279-5050, or via e-mail at jfruchter@aftlaw.com
AMERICAN HONDA: Gets Initial Approval of "Soto" Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Susan Illston gave preliminary approval of a class
action settlement resolving the case captioned, ALEX SOTO and
VINCE EAGEN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.,
Defendant, CASE NO. 3:12-CV-01377-SI, (N.D. Calif.).
The Court preliminarily certifies, for settlement purposes only,
this Settlement Class pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure:
All purchasers and lessees who reside in, and who purchased or
leased their vehicles in the United States (other than for
purposes of resale or distribution), of any: (a) Model-Year 2008,
2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012 Honda Accord vehicles equipped with a
6-cylinder engine with VCM-2; (b) Model-Year 2008, 2009, 2010,
2011, 2012, and 2013 Honda Odyssey vehicles equipped with a 6-
cylinder engine with VCM-2; (c) Model-Year 2009, 2010, 2011,
2012, and 2013 Honda Pilot vehicles equipped with a 6-cylinder
engine with VCM-2; (d) Model-Year 2010 and 2011 Honda Accord
Crosstour vehicles equipped with a 6-cylinder engine with VCM-2;
and (e) Model Year 2012 Crosstour vehicles equipped with a 6-
cylinder engine with VCM-2.
The Court appoints Mr. Vince Eagen as Settlement Class
Representative and his counsel, Berk Law PLLC; Terrell Marshall
Daudt & Willie PLLC; Ram, Olson, Cereghino & Kopczynski; and
Berger & Montague, P.C. as Class Counsel.
Honda will be appointed as Settlement Administrator.
No later than March 10, 2014, the Settlement Administrator will
submit to the Court all objections it received from Settlement
Class Members. Any request for exclusion must be postmarked no
later than February 24, 2014.
Class Counsel may apply to the Court for Class Counsel Fees and
Expenses Award and an Incentive Award no later than January 10,
2014. AHM may file its response, if any, on or before February 7,
2014, and Class Counsel may file a reply, if any, on or before
March 7, 2014. Class Counsel agrees not to seek from the Court or
to accept Class Counsel Fees and Expenses Award in excess of
$800,000.00, and Honda agrees not to contest an award of that sum.
The Court sets March 21, 2014, at 9:00 a.m., as the date and time
of the Final Approval Hearing, at which the Court will determine
whether the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate
and should finally be approved by the Court.
The Final Approval Hearing will be held at the United States
District Court, Northern District of California, San Francisco
Courthouse, Courtroom 10-19th Floor, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San
Francisco, CA 94102.
A copy of the District Court's October 9, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/ggyvmLfrom Leagle.com.
AMERICAN INT'L: Faces NJ Suit Over Underreported WC Insurance
-------------------------------------------------------------
JPS Collision, Inc., individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated v. American International Group, Inc; AIG Risk
Management Inc.; American Home Assurance Company; AIU Insurance
Company; American Fuji Fire and Marine Insurance Company; Chartis
Property Casualty Company; Commerce and Industry Insurance
Company; Granite State Insurance Company; Illinois National
Insurance Company; Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania;
National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania;
New Hampshire Insurance Company; AIG Risk Management, Inc.;
Maurice R. Greenberg; and Does 1 through 10 inclusive, Case No.
2:13-cv-05990-JLL-MAH (D.N.J. October 8, 2013) is a class action
brought by New Jersey employers seeking restitution, disgorgement,
compensatory, punitive, and treble damages, a constructive trust,
and injunctive relief arising from the Defendants' alleged long-
term, unlawful and fraudulent underreporting of workers'
compensation ("WC") insurance premium.
By engaging in a systematic underreporting of WC premiums written,
the Defendants not only wrongly enriched themselves in various
ways, but their systematic practice of underreporting WC premium
caused the Plaintiff and other WC policyholders in New Jersey to
pay improperly inflated state insurance surcharges and to suffer
other damage, the Plaintiff alleges. The Plaintiff also asserts
claims for common law fraud and negligent misrepresentation.
JPS Collision, Inc. is a New Jersey headquartered in Newark, New
Jersey. JPS Collision operates an automobile repair business in
Newark. From approximately 1999 through the present, JPS
Collision has employed between 6 and 15 New Jersey workers and was
required under New Jersey law to have in effect a policy of WC
insurance that would cover the potential work-related injury
claims of its New Jersey workers. During this timeframe, JPS
Collision purchased WC insurance from different insurers.
American International Group, Inc. is a Delaware corporation
headquartered in New York. AIG is a publicly traded holding
company which, through its subsidiaries and affiliates, engages in
a broad range of financial and insurance-related activities in the
United States and throughout the world. AIG, through its
subsidiaries and affiliates, is the largest underwriter of
commercial and industrial insurance in the U.S.
American Home Assurance Company, formerly known as American Home
Fire Assurance Company, is a New York corporation with its
principal place of business in New York. AHAC is a subsidiary and
affiliate of AIG. AIU Insurance Company, formerly known as
American International Insurance Company, is a New York
corporation with its principal place of business in New York. AIU
is a subsidiary or affiliate of AIG. American Fuji Fire and
Marine Insurance Company was incorporated in Illinois and is a
subsidiary or affiliate of AIG. Chartis Property Casualty
Company, formerly known as AIG Casualty Company and Birmingham
Fire Insurance Company of Pennsylvania, is a Pennsylvania
corporation based in New York, and is a subsidiary or affiliate of
AIG. Commerce and Industry Insurance Company is a New York
corporation and a subsidiary or affiliate of AIG. Granite State
Insurance Company, formerly known as Granite State Fire Insurance
Company, is a Pennsylvania corporation based in New York and is a
subsidiary or affiliate of AIG.
Illinois National Insurance Company is an Illinois corporation
based in Illinois, and is a subsidiary or affiliate of AIG.
Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania is a Pennsylvania
corporation based in New York, and is an affiliate of AIG.
National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA, is a
Pennsylvania corporation headquartered in New York, and is a
subsidiary or affiliate of AIG. New Hampshire Insurance Company,
formerly known as New Hampshire Fire Insurance Company, is a
Pennsylvania corporation headquartered in New York, and is a
subsidiary or affiliate of AIG. AIG Risk Management, Inc. is a
New York corporation and is a subsidiary or affiliate of AIG and
CPC. The AIG Companies have been major participants in the New
Jersey WC market for decades.
Maurice R. Greenberg is a resident of Key Largo, Florida. Mr.
Greenberg joined AIG in approximately 1967 and served as the
Chairman and Chief Executive of AIG until his forced resignation
in March 2005. In his capacity as head of AIG, Greenberg was
responsible for conducting the business operations of AIG and the
AIG Companies.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony J. Davis, Esq.
Jack Spinella, Esq.
NICOLL DAVIS & SPINELLA LLP
95 Route 17 South, Suite 316
Paramus, NJ 07652
Telephone: (201) 712-1616
Facsimile: (201) 712-9444
E-mail: adavis@ndslaw.com
JSpinella@ndslaw.com
- and -
Derek Y. Brandt, Esq.
Emily J. Kirk, Esq.
John R. Phillips, Esq.
SIMMONS BROWDER GIANARIS ANGELIDES & BARNERD LLC
One Court Street
Alton, IL 62002
Telephone: (618) 259-2222
Facsimile: (618) 259-2251
E-mail: dbrandt@simmonsfirm.com
ekirk@simmonsfirm.com
jphillips@simmonsfirm.com
- and -
Deborah R. Rosenthal, Esq.
SIMMONS BROWDER GIANARIS ANGELIDES & BARNERD LLC
455 Market Street, Suite 1150
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 536-3986
Facsimile: (415) 537-4120
E-mail: drosenthal@simmonsfirm.com
- and -
Drew E. Pomerance, Esq.
Nicholas P. Roxborough, Esq.
ROXBOROUGH POMERANCE NYE & ADREANI
5820 Canoga Ave., Suite 250
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Telephone: (818) 992-9999
Facsimile: (818) 992-9991
E-mail: dep@rpnalaw.com
npr@rpnalaw.com
- and -
Paul J. Hanly, Jr., Esq.
Andrea Bierstein, Esq.
Thomas I. Sheridan, III, Esq.
HANLY CONROY BIERSTEIN SHERIDAN FISHER & HAYES LLP
112 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10016-7416
Telephone: (212) 784-6400
Facsimile: (212) 213-5949
E-mail: phanly@hanlyconroy.com
abierstein@hanlyconroy.com
tsheridan@hanlyconroy.com
AMERICAN INT'L: Faces NY Suit Over Underreported WC Insurance
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jayarvee, Inc., d/b/a Birdland, and TMG-Emedia, Inc., individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. American
International Group, Inc; AIU Insurance Company; American Home
Assurance Company; American International Overseas Limited;
Chartis Property Casualty Company; Commerce and Industry Insurance
Company; Granite State Insurance Company; Illinois National
Insurance Company; Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania;
National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania;
New Hampshire Insurance Company; Yosemite Insurance Company; AIG
Risk Management Inc.; Maurice R. Greenberg; and Does 1 through 10
inclusive, Case No. 1:13-cv-07137-RWS (S.D.N.Y., October 8, 2013)
arises from the Defendants' alleged long-term, unlawful and
fraudulent underreporting of workers' compensation ("WC")
insurance premium.
The Plaintiffs accuse the Defendants of engaging in a systematic
underreporting of WC premiums written, which not only wrongly
enriched themselves in various ways, but this practice caused the
Plaintiffs and other WC policyholders in New York to pay
improperly inflated state insurance surcharges and to suffer other
damage. The Plaintiffs bring the action pursuant to the
Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act.
Jayarvee, Inc., doing business as Birdland, is New York
corporation also headquartered in New York. Jayarvee operates the
well known Birdland jazz club. From approximately 1996 through
the present, Jayarvee has employed workers in New York. Jayarvee
currently has more than 40 employees in New York, and is required
under New York law to have in effect a policy of WC insurance that
would cover potential work-related injury claims of its New York
workers. During this timeframe, Jayarvee purchased WC insurance
from different insurers.
TMG-Emedia, Inc., is New York corporation also headquartered in
New York. TMG provides information technology support services to
businesses. TMG employs workers in New York, and is required
under New York law to have in effect a policy of WC insurance that
would cover potential work-related injury claims of its New York
workers. During this timeframe, TMG purchased WC insurance from
the State Insurance Fund.
American International Group, Inc. is a Delaware corporation
headquartered in New York. AIG is a publicly traded holding
company which, through its subsidiaries and affiliates, engages in
a broad range of financial and insurance-related activities in the
United States and throughout the world. AIG, through its
subsidiaries and affiliates, is the largest underwriter of
commercial and industrial insurance in the U.S.
AIU Insurance Company, formerly known as American International
Insurance Company, is a New York corporation with its principal
place of business in New York. AIU is a subsidiary or affiliate
of AIG. American Home Assurance Company, formerly known as
American Home Fire Assurance Company, is a New York corporation
with its principal place of business in New York. AHAC is a
subsidiary and affiliate of AIG. American International Overseas
Limited, formerly known as AIUO Insurance, Ltd., American
International Underwriters Overseas Ltd., and Chartis Overseas
Limited, is a Bermuda corporation based in Bermuda, and is a
subsidiary and affiliate of AIG. Chartis Property Casualty
Company, formerly known as AIG Casualty Company and Birmingham
Fire Insurance Company of Pennsylvania, is a Pennsylvania
corporation based in New York, and is a subsidiary or affiliate of
AIG. Commerce and Industry Insurance Company is a New York
corporation and a subsidiary or affiliate of AIG. Granite State
Insurance Company, formerly known as Granite State Fire Insurance
Company, is a Pennsylvania corporation based in New York and is a
subsidiary or affiliate of AIG.
Illinois National Insurance Company is an Illinois corporation
based in Illinois, and is a subsidiary or affiliate of AIG.
Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania is a Pennsylvania
corporation based in New York, and is an affiliate of AIG.
National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA, is a
Pennsylvania corporation headquartered in New York, and is a
subsidiary or affiliate of AIG. New Hampshire Insurance Company,
formerly known as New Hampshire Fire Insurance Company, is a
Pennsylvania corporation headquartered in New York, and is a
subsidiary or affiliate of AIG. Yosemite Insurance Company is an
Indiana corporation based in Indiana, and is a subsidiary or
affiliate of AIG. AIG Risk Management, Inc. is a New York
corporation and is a subsidiary or affiliate of AIG and CPC. The
AIG Companies have been major participants in the New Jersey WC
market for decades.
Maurice R. Greenberg is a resident of Key Largo, Florida. Mr.
Greenberg joined AIG in approximately 1967 and served as the
Chairman and Chief Executive of AIG until his forced resignation
in March 2005. In his capacity as head of AIG, Greenberg was
responsible for conducting the business operations of AIG and the
AIG Companies.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Andrea B. Bierstein, Esq.
Paul J. Hanly, Jr., Esq.
Thomas I. Sheridan, III, Esq.
HANLY CONROY BIERSTEIN SHERIDAN FISHER & HAYES, LLP
112 Madison Avenue, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 784-6400
Facsimile: (212) 213-5949
E-mail: abierstein@hanlyconroy.com
phanly@hanlyconroy.com
tsheridan@hanlyconroy.com
- and -
Derek Y. Brandt, Esq.
John R. Phillips, Esq.
Emily J. Kirk, Esq.
SIMMONS BROWDER GIANARIS ANGELIDES & BARNERD LLC
One Court Street
Alton, IL 62002
Telephone: (618) 259-2222
Facsimile: (618) 259-2251
E-mail: dbrandt@simmonsfirm.com
jphillips@simmonsfirm.com
ekirk@simmonsfirm.com
- and -
Deborah R. Rosenthal, Esq.
SIMMONS BROWDER GIANARIS ANGELIDES & BARNERD LLC
455 Market Street, Suite 1150
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 536-3986
Facsimile: (415) 537-4120
E-mail: drosenthal@simmonsfirm.com
- and -
Drew E. Pomerance Brandt, Esq.
Nicholas P. Roxborough, Esq.
ROXBOROUGH POMERANCE NYE & ADREANI
5820 Canoga Ave., Suite 250
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Telephone: (818) 992-9999
Facsimile: (818) 992-9991
E-mail: dep@rpnalaw.com
npr@rpnalaw.com
AST SPORTS: Anabolic Rush-Related Claims Are False, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Corey Jones, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. AST Sports Science, Inc.; and Does 1-10, Inclusive,
Case No. 3:13-cv-02434-BEN-RBB (S.D. Cal., October 9, 2013) is
brought to enjoin the alleged ongoing deception of tens of
thousands of California and United States consumers by the
Defendant, and to recover the money taken by this unlawful
practice.
AST Sports manufactures, markets, and sells "Anabolic Rush"
("Anabolic Rush" or "the Product") as a "Dietary Supplement,"
which the Defendant advertises as containing citrulline malate.
The Company claims that the citrulline malate in the Product,
along with the other ingredients, is designed to provide "Energy",
"Strength", "Size", and "Power."
In reality, the Plaintiff alleges, a laboratory analysis conducted
utilizing state-of-the-art liquid chromatography-mass spectroscopy
("LCMS") protocol shows that the product contains no citrulline
malate, and, thus, cannot provide the results promised, cannot
perform as the Defendant claims, and does not contain the active
ingredients promised. Thus, the Plaintiff contends, not only are
the Defendant's claims based on the ingredient's capabilities
completely false, but the Defendant's listed ingredients are
blatantly false and, therefore, untrustworthy and possibly
dangerous.
Corey Jones is a resident of California and purchased the
Defendant's Product in 2012.
AST Sports is a Colorado corporation that manufactures, markets,
and sells the Product, and does business across the United States.
The true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are currently
unknown to the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
David W. Reid, Esq.
Victoria C. Knowles, Esq.
NEWPORT TRIAL GROUP, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
4100 Newport Place Dr., Suite 800
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Telephone: (949) 706-6464
Facsimile: (949) 706-6469
E-mail: sferrell@trialnewport.com
dreid@trialnewport.com
vknowles@trialnewport.com
BE AMAZING: Recalls Monster Science Growing Spider
--------------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 21, 2013
Posting date: October 21, 2013
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Toys
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Product Safety
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-36335
Affected products: Monster Science Growing Spider Marketed by
Spirit Halloween Superstores and Be Amazing! Toys
The recall involves marble-sized toys that absorb water and can
grow to many times their original size. They were sold as Monster
Science Growing Spider toy sets (model #7280). The Monster
Science packages contain three marble-sized polymer balls "spider
eggs" in assorted colors and one polymer spider. The Be Amazing!
Toys star logo is located on the top left corner and the Spirit
Halloween logo is located on the top right corner. The words
Monster Science Growing Spider, Ages 8+, Just drop in water, Grow
Giant Spider Eggs and Eggs Grow Up to 8X Original Size are also
printed on the front of the packaging. The model number is
printed on the back of the packaging. Date Code: 15-05-11.
UPC 813268012551.
The soft and colorful product can be mistaken by a child for
candy. When the marble-sized toy is ingested, it expands inside
the body and causes a blockage in the small intestine, resulting
in severe discomfort, vomiting, dehydration and could be life
threatening. The toys do not show up on an X-ray and may require
surgery to be removed from the body.
Health Canada has not received any reports of incidents or
injuries in Canada.
For some tips to help consumers choose safe toys and to help them
keep children safe when they play with toys, see General Toy
Safety Tips.
Approximately 238 of the recalled products have been sold at
Spirit Halloween Superstores across Canada.
The recalled toy Monster Science Growing Spiders were manufactured
in China and sold from September 2011 to September 2013.
Companies:
Manufacturer Be Amazing! Toys
Salt Lake City
Utah
United States
Distributor Spirit Halloween Superstores, LLC
Egg Harbor Township
New Jersey
United States
Consumers should immediately take this recalled product away from
children and contact Be Amazing! Toys for a refund.
BELDI INC: Recalls Light Fixtures Due to Fall Hazard
----------------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 21, 2013
Posting date: October 21, 2013
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Tools and Electrical Products
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Suspected quality concern
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-36311
Affected products: Beldi light fixtures
The recall involves two Beldi light fixtures. They are composed
of one or three lamps with a chrome finish and transparent glass
and measuring 5.5 centimeters in width and 180 centimeters in
height.
The following light fixtures distributed by BMR are affected:
BMR code Beldi code Description
-------- ---------- -----------
037-2226 1840-H MARTIGNY HANGING LAMP 1L
037-2235 1840-P3 MARTIGNY HANGING LAMP 3L
The light fixture overheats at the mounting point and in the
wires. This can cause a short circuit and make the globes fall.
In Canada, Beldi Inc. and Groupe BMR have received reports of five
incidents and no reports of injuries.
Health Canada has not received any reports of incidents or
injuries related to these light fixtures.
Approximately 188 light fixtures were sold in Canada.
The recalled light fixtures were manufactured in China and sold
between January 2013 and September 2013.
Companies:
Manufacturer Beldi Inc.
Terrebone
China
Distributor Groupe BMR
Boucherville
Quebec
Canada
Consumers seeking further information should call Beldi Inc. at
1-514-276-2861 to determine whether their light fixture is one of
the recalled products. If so, they should return it to the store
for refund or replacement.
BELMONT MEATS: Recalls Certain Frozen Beef Burgers
--------------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 22, 2013
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Updated Health Hazard Alert
Subcategory: Microbiological - E. coli O157:H7
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Belmont Meats Ltd.
Distribution: Ontario, Quebec, Alberta, British
Columbia, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova
Scotia, Saskatchewan, Newfoundland and
Labrador, Prince Edward Island
Extent of the product
distribution: Retail
The public warning issued on October 20, 2013 has been updated to
include additional products.
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and Belmont Meats Ltd.
(Est. 112) are warning the public not to consume the beef burgers
because they may be contaminated with E. coli O157:H7.
The recall is the result of an ongoing food safety investigation
initiated as a result of a recent outbreak investigation. There
may be recalls of additional products or best before dates as the
food safety investigation at this facility continues.
There have been no reported illnesses associated with the
consumption of these products.
The manufacturer, Belmont Meats Ltd., Toronto, Ontario, is
voluntarily recalling all affected products from the marketplace.
The CFIA is monitoring the effectiveness of the recall.
The following products, sold frozen, are affected by this alert.
Affected products:
-- 4.54 kg. Sunspun Bearpaw-shaped Beef Burgers with Best
before date 2014-02-24 B## and sold in the following Loblaw
banner stores:
Ontario: Loblaws, nofrills, Real Canadian Superstore, Your
Independent Grocer, Zehrs Markets, Real Canadian Wholesale Club,
Extra Foods, Fortinos, Freshmart, AXEP and Cash&Carry
Atlantic: Real Canadian Wholesale Club, Cash&Carry, Freshmart, Red
& White and Save Easy
Quebec: Loblaws, Maxi, Presto/Club Entrepot and Provigo
West: Real Canadian Superstore, Real Canadian Wholesale Club,
Extra Foods, nofrills, Shop Easy, SuperValu and Westfair
Independents
-- 1.36 kg. Compliments Traditional Beef Burgers with Best
before date 2014 MA 26 B and sold in the following Sobeys
banner stores:
Ontario: Sobeys, FreshCo, FoodLand and Price Chopper
West: Sobeys, IGA and Price Chopper
BLUE SHIELD: Holds Policyholders Liable for Own Mistake, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Blue Shield of California
Life & Health Insurance fraudulently holds policyholders
responsible for mistakes it makes in benefit payments to
providers, a class claims in California court.
BRICKMAN GROUP: Owes Supervisors Overtime Wages, Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Amador, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. The Brickman Group, Ltd., LLC, Case No.
3:13-cv-02529-MEM (M.D. Pa., October 8, 2013) is a class and
collection action seeking all available relief under the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, the
Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law, as well as for
unjust enrichment.
Landscaping/crew supervisors and other employees of the Company
were paid fluctuating work week-type half-time overtime for hours
worked over 40 in a workweek, Mr. Amador alleges. He asserts that
he and the members of the classes he proposed to represent are
entitled to unpaid wages, statutory liquidated damages, pre-
judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs.
Mr. Amador, at all relevant times, worked for the Company
performing landscaping labor under the job title of "Supervisor."
Brickman Group is a Delaware corporation headquartered in
Gaithersburg, Maryland. The Company operates a landscaping
company.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
1622 Locust St.
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 875-4656
Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
E-mail: scarson@bm.net
sschalman-bergen@bm.net
- and -
C. Andrew Head, Esq.
FRIED & BONDER, LLC
White Provision, Suite 305
1170 Howell Mill Road, N.W.
Atlanta, GA 30318
Telephone: (404) 995-8808
Facsimile: (404) 995-8899
E-mail: ahead@friedbonder.com
BURLINGTON RESOURCES: Faces Class Actions Over Royalty Payments
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Smith, writing for Bismarck Tribune, reports that ten class-
action lawsuits filed on Oct. 16 seek millions of dollars in
damages for what they say are lost royalty payments to mineral
owners from natural gas flared by energy companies.
The mineral owners allege the companies have been flaring natural
gas in violation of state laws.
"Our firm and other firms have been doing a lot of research and
investigation for more than a year," said Derrick Braaten --
derrick@baumstarkbraaten.com -- a partner with Baumstark Braaten
Law Partners of Bismarck.
The lawsuits were filed in McKenzie, Williams, Mountrail and
Divide counties, Mr. Braaten said. The defendants are Burlington
Resources Oil and Gas Co. LP, Continental Resources Inc., Crescent
Point Energy U.S. Corp., HRC Operating LLC, Marathon Oil, Samson
Resources Company, SM Energy Company, Statoil Oil and Gas LP, WPX
Energy and XTO Energy Inc.
The mineral owners claim they have lost millions of dollars in
royalties because oil drilling companies burn off large quantities
of gas instead of capturing and selling it.
Mr. Braaten said the lawsuits seek to force oil drilling operators
to comply with state law and pay royalties to mineral owners for
the value of flared gas going back six years.
North Dakota law limits the flaring of natural gas during the
first year of production, Mr. Braaten said. After that, companies
must apply to the North Dakota Industrial Commission for an
exemption and if they fail to do so, they must pay royalties and
state taxes, Mr. Braaten said.
The lawsuits allege that companies have been in violation of the
limits set for the first year and have not sought exemptions.
Mr. Braaten said clients began contacting his firm and others
based in Colorado, Texas, Montana and Wyoming with experience in
such lawsuits.
"It's going to be in the millions," Mr. Braaten said of the cost.
Ron Ness, president of the North Dakota Petroleum Council, said he
had not seen the details of the lawsuits on Oct. 16.
"I don't quite get what they're after here," Mr. Ness said.
"Certainly the operators are in compliance; they go to the North
Dakota Industrial Commission."
Mr. Ness said he did not know enough about the lawsuits on Oct. 16
to comment further.
Jeff Zent, a spokesman for Gov. Jack Dalrymple, released a
statement saying: "Everyone is in favor of greater utilization of
natural gas and the reduction of flaring. The Industrial
Commission continues to work hard to do just that," Mr. Zent said.
Liz Brocker, a spokeswoman for Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem,
said the office received notification of the intent to file the
lawsuits, as a courtesy. She had no further comment.
A message left with the North Dakota Department of Mineral
Resources Oil and Gas Division was unanswered on Oct. 16.
The lawsuits can be found at www.ndgasflaringlitigation.com.
Twenty-nine percent of all natural gas in North Dakota was being
flared as of August, the most recent state numbers available.
Nationally only 1 percent is flared.
An oil and gas industry task force is holding meetings over the
coming months to provide the Industrial Commission with ideas for
reining in natural gas flaring.
Lynn Helms, director of North Dakota Department of Mineral
Resources, said he will attend a meeting later this week of an oil
and gas industry task force looking at ways to reduce flaring.
The Industrial Commission will use those ideas to craft policy
changes.
CALIFORNIA DAIRIES: Judge Escapes Milk Pricing Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Brian Mahoney, writing for Law360, reports that a California
federal judge on Oct. 16 dismissed California Dairies Inc. from a
class action accusing it and affiliate DairyAmerica Inc. of
lowballing nonfat dry milk prices, but found that the plaintiffs
adequately argued that DairyAmerica's alleged misreporting
affected other dairy farmers' payments for raw milk.
U.S. District Court Judge Anthony W. Ishii dismissed the bulk of
the dairy farmers' class claims against DairyAmerica as well,
finding their negligent interference, unjust enrichment and unfair
business practice claims inadequate. He said, however,
DairyAmerica remains on the hook for negligent misrepresentation
after it allegedly made false reports regarding prices and volumes
on nonfat dry milk sales to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
National Agricultural Statistical Service.
The dairy farmers have successfully alleged that those reports can
affect how milk producers, such as the plaintiffs, are compensated
for milk products, Judge Ishii said in his ruling.
"Price inputs that are false because they include disallowed
transaction inputs influence the quantity of the milk producers'
allowance in a way that is both known to the parties and is
precisely determined by the formulas that constitute the [federal
milk marketing orders]," Judge Ishii wrote in his ruling.
"Thus, there is a one-to-one correlation between the degree to
which the average wholesale price of [nonfat dry milk] is
artificially depressed by DairyAmerica's wrongful inclusion of
forward contract prices and the plaintiffs' total compensation for
raw milk sold," he wrote.
Judge Ishii dismissed California Dairies from the case, agreeing
with the firm's argument that it isn't liable for DairyAmerica's
actions because, even though it is a majority owner in the
DairyAmerica cooperative, it doesn't control the cooperative's
day-to-day operations.
"Given the nonprofit nature of DairyAmerica, any judgment against
it will be born by it is owner-members in proportion to their
obligations to the producers' settlement fund. The [complaint]
alleges no facts to show that California Dairies should be
burdened any more or less than their proportional responsibility,"
Judge Ishii wrote in his ruling.
California Dairies is "delighted" to be dismissed from the suit, a
spokeswoman for the company said.
"As but a member of another cooperative, we strongly believe that
under California law insulating members of a cooperative from
liability on account of alleged actions of the co-op in which it
was a member, DairyAmerica, California Dairies, Inc., could not be
held liable for the purported wrongs of DairyAmerica. The
decision of the district court clearly upholds that contention,"
she said.
Representatives for the other parties did not immediately respond
to requests for comment on Oct. 16.
The underlying lawsuit stems from federal milk marketing order
prices assessed on nonfat dry milk, which is used as an ingredient
in manufactured dairy products such as butter and cheese. In a
survey administered by the National Agricultural Statistics
Service, DairyAmerica allegedly provided incorrect pricing
information for nonfat dry milk that resulted in a lower rate for
the product -- to DairyAmerica's purchasers' advantage and to the
farmers' disadvantage.
A series of subsequent class actions that were consolidated in
California in 2009 alleged the violation of a number of state
laws, including claims of negligent misrepresentation and unjust
enrichment.
DairyAmerica and California Dairies, which is one of
DairyAmerica's nine members, successfully fended off the suit the
following year, when Judge Ishii granted dismissal, calling on the
filed rate doctrine.
The dairy farmers appealed his ruling to the Ninth Circuit, which
revived the case, saying Judge Ishii was wrong to bar the suit
under the pricing regulation. DairyAmerica in turn appealed to
the U.S. Supreme Court, which declined to take the case.
The dairy farmers are represented by Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll
PLLC and by Berman DeValerio.
The defendants are represented by Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Ober
Kaler, Baker Manock & Jensen and Hanson Bridgett LLP.
The case is Carlin et al v. DairyAmerica, Inc. et al, case number
1:09-cv-00430, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of California.
CENTRAL REFRIGERATED: Fails to Pay Proper Compensation, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Roberts, and Collective Action Plaintiffs John Does 1-10 v.
Central Refrigerated Service, Inc., Jon Isaacson, Bob Baer, and
John Does 1-10, Case No. 2:13-cv-00911-EJF (D. Utah, October 8,
2013) is brought to redress violations by Defendants of the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") of Named Plaintiff and the putative
class.
The Defendants intentionally failed to compensate the Named
Plaintiff and the Collective Action Plaintiffs for wages earned
while in the employ of the Defendants, the Plaintiffs allege. As
a result of the Defendants' unlawful actions, the Plaintiffs have
been harmed, the Plaintiffs argue.
Jacob Roberts is a resident of Trustville, Alabama.
Central Refrigerated Service, Inc. is a Nebraska Corporation
headquartered in West Valley, Utah. The Company is engaged in the
hauling and delivery of freight across the United States.
Jon Isaacson was the acting chief executive officer during the
time that the alleged violations occurred. Bob Baer was the
acting chief financial officer during the time that the allged
violations occurred. The Doe Defendants are presently unknown
persons who, directly or indirectly, directed, aided, abetted, and
assisted with creating and executing the policies and practices of
the Defendants, which resulted in the Defendants' failing to pay
the Plaintiffs proper compensation pursuant to the FLSA.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
James E. Harward, Esq.
W. Earl Webster, Esq.
PIA ANDERSON DORIUS REYNARD MOSS
222 S. Main Street, Suite 1830
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Telephone: (801) 350-9000
Facsimile: (801) 350-9010
E-mail: JHarward@padrm.com
earl.webster@harwardlaw.com
- and -
Justin L. Swidler, Esq.
Richard S. Swartz, Esq.
SWARTZ SWIDLER
1878 Marlton Pike East, Suite 10
Cherry Hill, NJ 08003
Telephone: (856) 685-7420
E-mail: jswidler@swartz-legal.com
rswartz@swartz-legal.com
COMCAST CABLE: Gets Partial Summary Judgment Ruling in Faust Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In FAUST v. COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS MANAGEMENT, LLC, Senior
District Judge William M. Nickerson granted in part and denied in
part Comcast Cable's motion for partial summary judgment as to
named plaintiffs Joel Faust and Marshall Feldman.
Summary judgment is granted to the extent that Plaintiff Faust
claims overtime compensation for work performed prior to April 22,
2008, says the court ruling.
Judge Nickerson, however, held that a mere recitation in pleadings
of the phrase "individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated," absent any further indication in the Complaint or
subsequent filings of an intention to proceed in a dual capacity,
is not sufficient to put the employer and the Court on notice of
an individually-filed action.
The case is JOEL FAUST et al. v. COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS
MANAGEMENT, LLC, CIVIL ACTION NO. WMN-10-2336, (D. Md.).
A copy of the District Court's October 9, 2013 Memorandum is
available at http://is.gd/DnAd7Sfrom Leagle.com.
D.C. TAXICAB COMMISSION: Cabbies Fight Change in Dome Lights
------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Abbott, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that new
dome light regulations for D.C. taxicabs remove the life-saving
"call 911" system that drivers use when in distress, a class
claims in Federal Court.
The cabbies sued the D.C. Taxicab Commission, the City Council and
the city, alleging disability discrimination and violations of the
14th Amendment. Lacking the "call 911" feature of the old dome
lights, the new dome light system that becomes mandatory next
month puts cab drivers with disabilities at risk, according to the
complaint.
Along with the dome light, the new "Modern Taximeters Systems
Regulations" will also allow GPS tracking of cabs and their
passengers. The system works with a smart chip that reveals the
identity of passengers who pay with a credit or debit card, as
well as the time and location from the moment they catch the cab
to the time they disembark.
"All the information after a credit card transaction is processed
is downloaded in real time to the District of Columbia Taxicab
Commission," the complaint states. "This GPS tracking is an
invasion of privacy for the driver and the passenger and is a
violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States
Constitution."
As for the dome lights, drivers say the new lights those with
disabilities at risk unless they pony up the cash for a more
expensive light.
"A taxicab driver with a disability has no other option but to
purchase the more expensive dome light in order to accommodate
their disability," the class says. "The new dome light
requirement presents a cost prohibitive imposition upon the
taxicab drivers with a disability and presents an employment
obstacle because of the higher cost of the proper equipment to
accommodate their disability.
"This impediment did not exist under the prior dome light system."
The complaint notes that the old dome lights had a flashing "call
911" signal that a cab driver could activate by a trigger within
the cab.
"The call 911 sign alerts pedestrians, other drivers and law
enforcement officials that a taxicab driver's life is in distress
due to a medical crisis or physical harm by a third party," the
complaint states.
Illuminating the new lights can only be done from the outside of
the cab, a feature that poses additional challenges for drivers
with disabilities, according to the complaint.
"Under the Modern Taximeters Systems Regulations ('MTS'), the
plaintiffs and the class member are required to establish an
account with an approved payment service provider ('PSP') for the
credit card transactions," the cabbies say. "The Commission has
the full authority to mine all information from every taxicab
drivers' transaction.
"The Commission is privy to all of the taxicab drivers'
activities."
Since the lead plaintiffs and the class "are literally all foreign
born or are African-Americans," the new "draconian measures"
violate the Equal Protection Clause, according to the complaint.
The cabbies also say that the commission's power and authority now
outweigh the Internal Revenue Service.
Taxicab Commission Chairman Ronald Linton is also a named
defendant, facing claims that the regulations are a result of the
city's negligent hiring of him.
The class wants a court order enjoining the Taxicab Commission
from enforcing the new regulations and damages to be determined at
trial.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Billy L. Ponds, Esq.
PONDS LAW FIRM
1250 24th Street, NW, Suite 300
Washington, DC 20037
Telephone: (202) 333-2922
Facsimile: (202) 333-4114
E-mail: PLFPC@aol.com
Azam, et al. v. District of Columbia Taxicab Commission, et al.,
Case No. 1:13-cv-01558-ESH, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia (Washington, DC).
DELTA AIR: Illinois Judge Tosses Flight Payment Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Lipkin, writing for Law360, reports that a putative class
of Delta Air Lines Inc. passengers who say a European Union
regulation mandates they be compensated for flight delays and
cancellations hasn't shown the regulation is enforceable outside
the EU, an Illinois federal judge ruled on Oct. 16, throwing out
the suit.
U.S. District Court Judge Edmond E. Chang rejected the passengers'
arguments that the EU's requirement for airlines to provide
standardized compensation to passengers on disrupted flights could
be enforced in the U.S. because the foreign law did not
specifically limit enforcement to courts in EU member states.
"The regulation's enforcement provisions are all directed at
mechanisms of the member states," Judge Chang wrote. "The one
time [the EU rule] refers to benefits or compensation in a
nonmember country, [the regulation] says that the regulation does
not apply."
The decision granting Delta's motion to dismiss the complaint with
prejudice marks the end of the putative class action against
Delta, though the court notes in a footnote that five other cases
filed by the same plaintiffs' lawyers in the Northern District of
Illinois make similar claims against other airlines.
Named plaintiffs Gennadiy Volodarskiy and Oxana Volodarskaya
brought the suit in February 2011 after they and their two
children had their flight from London's Heathrow Airport to
Chicago's O'Hare Airport delayed for more than eight hours and
they did not receive compensation, according to the ruling.
The Oct. 16 ruling ending the suit noted that the plaintiff's
failure to state a claim was alone sufficient to warrant
dismissal, but the court analyzed Delta's other arguments for
dismissal "for the sake of completeness."
Though Delta prevailed in dismissing the case, Judge Chang
rejected the company's alternative arguments that the Airline
Deregulation Act preempted the plaintiffs' claims or that the case
should be dismissed on international comity grounds.
The Airline Deregulation Act restricts U.S. states from regulating
the price, route or service of an airline. Judge Chang ruled that
the act did not apply because the EU regulation requiring
standardized compensation to passengers who experience delays or
cancellations is not enforced by a U.S. state.
"If plaintiffs could enforce their rights under [the EU rule] in
this court (which, to be clear, this court now holds they cannot),
the Airline Deregulation Act would not preempt that claim," the
judge wrote. "The preemption provision does not even apply
because there are no state claims under the statute's unambiguous
definition."
Delta's third argument for dismissal was based on international
comity, and claimed that the plaintiffs were forum shopping to
enforce EU rights with an American-style class action lawsuit,
which is not universally allowed in the EU, according to the
ruling.
But Judge Chang wrote that "purported mismatch" was a possibility
in any lawsuit based on diversity jurisdiction, and he would not
have dismissed the case on comity grounds.
"United State citizens are on both sides of the dispute," the
judge wrote. "And as the facts of the lawsuit stand now, this
court would only have to interpret the case law of England and
France, a manageable task."
Representatives for the parties could not immediately be reached
for comment on Oct. 17.
The plaintiffs are represented by Joseph Henry Bates III of Carney
Bates & Pulliam PLLC, Vladimir M. Gorokhovsky of Gorokhovsky Law
Office LLC and Daniel O. Herrera and Jennifer Winter Sprengel of
Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel LLP.
Delta is represented by Gabor Balassa --
gabor.balassa@kirkland.com -- Mark Robert Filip --
mark.filip@kirkland.com -- and Martin Louis Roth --
martin.roth@kirkland.com -- of Kirkland & Ellis LLP.
The case is Volodarskiy et al. v. Delta Airlines, Inc., case
number 1:11-cv-00782, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.
DUKE ENERGY: Consumer Advocates Want Settlement Decision Delayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Palombo, writing for WFSU, reports that a settlement
agreement that puts most of the cost of failed nuclear power
plants on Florida customers has the support of utility company
Duke Energy Florida, business groups and a Legislature-appointed
customer representative. On Oct. 16, the settlement parties asked
the state utility regulating board to approve the agreement. But
several consumer advocates urged the commission to delay a
decision and gather more input from affected rate payers.
The Oct. 16 hearing is the latest in the years-long fallout over a
shuttered Citrus County nuclear power plant and a planned -- but
never built -- plant in Levy County, both of which customers
continue to pay for. Duke Energy Florida reached the new
agreement with the Florida Retail Federation and others, including
state-appointed consumer advocate J.R. Kelly.
Deputy public counsel Charles Rehwinkel testified: "Mr. Kelly
signed this agreement on behalf of the customers not because he is
convinced that the outcome fully vindicates deeply held views
contained in litigation positions contained in this docket and not
because he believes the outcome is ideal."
He says the new agreement contains more than $2.25 billion in
money Duke customers won't have to pay or will get back, including
an additional $300 million than wasn't included in a 2012
agreement.
Florida Industrial Power Users Group lawyer Jon Moyle says the new
pact is a less than ideal end to a terrible situation.
"It kind of feels like a tie football game. You know, nobody
walked away happy from this. The rate payers are paying for things
that will not be operational, for power plants that will not be
operational. That's not a particularly good fact," Mr. Moyle
said.
Florida Retail Federation attorney Sheff Wright says, though, the
agreement gives out a fair amount of pain to everyone involved.
"To the best of my knowledge, this settlement imposes more pain on
Duke shareholders than has ever been imposed on a utility that has
suffered any sort of major loss in Florida regulatory history and
perhaps anywhere in the U.S.," he said.
Duke and the other parties also said continuing with a lawsuit in
the complex case might take several more years.
But Alice Vickers with the Florida Consumer Action Network said,
"What I can tell is a huge collective sigh of relief that this
settlement has been reached because it's going to be a lot of work
to litigate this issue. But that's not a reason to settle."
Members of the Florida Public Interest Research Group also spoke,
threatening a class-action lawsuit against the utility and urging
the commission to delay a decision on the agreement.
The hearing was scheduled to continue on Oct. 17.
EBAY INC: Seeks Preliminary Approval for Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kurt Orzeck and Sean McLernon, writing for Law360, report that
EBay Inc. and a disgruntled former user asked a California federal
judge on Oct. 16 to preliminarily approve a settlement in a
putative class action accusing the company of violating agreements
with its mobile users by charging them fees for services they
allegedly didn't request.
Under the terms of the deal, class members with active eBay
accounts will automatically get a credit that can be applied to
any current or future fees owed to the company, according to a
partially redacted motion that also sought certification of the
class. The company will also pay a total of $95,000 to an
unspecified number of class members, minus attorneys' fees.
EBay user Tasha Keirsey had claimed the online auction giant
deceived customers by charging for optional features that users
didn't select and imposing fees for features advertised as free.
The parties told a judge on Oct. 16 that the use of credits
ensures the class members will receive a direct economic benefit
without any effort on their part and with a minimum of
distribution costs.
"The use of credits is particularly appropriate in this case given
the relatively small amounts in dispute for each class member,"
the motion said. "Regardless of whether a credit is applied to
existing or future fees, class members will benefit because the
credit will reduce or eliminate any amount that they would
otherwise have had to pay out-of-pocket."
According to the suit, Ms. Keirsey used eBay's mobile software to
list items for sale on the auction site. Although she allegedly
never selected any of the optional feature upgrades available for
purchase, the company automatically added them and levied upgrade
fees.
The charges included a fee for uploading photos with her listings,
a feature that should have been free according to the user
agreement, the suit said.
After discovering the charges, Ms. Keirsey notified eBay of the
problem on multiple occasions, but the company still refused to
fully refund the hidden, automatic charges, according to the
complaint.
EBay argued that Ms. Keirsey's suit should be tossed because her
allegations were vague and lacked detail about which items she
listed, when she listed them and what alleged charges were levied
against her. But a California federal court said last year it
wasn't persuaded, ruling that Ms. Keirsey had presented enough
facts to sustain a breach of contract and implied covenant claim.
Ms. Keirsey acknowledged that eBay's overcharging was corrected as
of Oct. 31, 2012, court filings said. EBay continues to deny any
wrongdoing or liability throughout the litigation, saying it
didn't breach its contract with Ms. Keirsey nor breach a duty of
good faith and fair dealing.
The user credits provided through the settlement will be applied
to active eBay accounts, although users can request a check
instead. Class members without active eBay accounts will receive a
check by default.
Ms. Keirsey will seek $500 for her participation as the sole named
plaintiff in the action, the motion said. EBay said in the motion
that it won't oppose class counsel's request for fees so long as
they don't exceed $30,000.
A final hearing is scheduled for Feb. 14.
Attorneys for Keirsey and eBay declined to comment on Oct. 16.
Ms. Keirsey is represented by Keith R. Verges, Parker D. Young and
Raymond E. Walker of Figari & Davenport LLP and by Shawn T.
Leuthold of the Law Office of Shawn T. Leuthold.
EBay is represented by John D. Dwyer -- dwyerjc@cooley.com --
Michael G. Rhodes -- rhodesmg@cooley.com -- Whitty Somvichian --
wsomvichian@cooley.com -- and Ray A. Sardo -- rsardo@cooley.com --
of Cooley LLP.
The case is Tasha Keirsey v. eBay Inc., case number 3:12-cv-01200,
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Francisco Division.
ENHANCED RECOVERY: Faces TCPA Violations Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rubith Hernandez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC, and Does 1
through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 3:13-cv-02427-H-
NLS (S.D. Cal., October 8, 2013) accuses the Defendants of
negligent and willful violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.
The lawsuit is brought for damages, injunctive relief, and any
other available legal or equitable remedies, resulting from the
illegal actions of ERC and its related entities, subsidiaries and
agents in negligently, knowingly, and willfully contacting her on
her cellular telephone, in violation of the TCPA, Ms. Hernandez
argues. She adds that despite telling the Defendant to stop
contacting her, the Defendant continued to contact her, including
auto-dialing her up to and including August 9, 2013.
Ms. Hernandez is a citizen and resident of the state of
California.
ERC is a corporation whose primary corporate address is
Jacksonville, Florida. ERC, at all times relevant, conducted
business in the state of California and in the county of San
Diego.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
369 S. Doheny Dr., #415
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Telephone: (877) 206-4741
Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com
- and -
Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Telephone: (800) 400-6808
Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
- and -
Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
HYDE & SWIGART
411 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 301
San Diego, CA 92108
Telephone: (619) 233-7770
Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com
GEORGIA: "Edwards" Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
------------------------------------------------
District Judge W. Louis Sands granted the motion filed by the
plaintiff in EDWARDS v. STATE BOARD OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION-DOAS
to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. However, the Plaintiff's Complaint
is dismissed without prejudice.
JOANNE EDWARDS, Plaintiff, v. STATE BOARD OF WORKERS'
COMPENSATION-DOAS, WENDY SIMPSON, TAMMY RINGO, ATTORNEY JUDY
VARNELL, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY ROBIN GOLIVESKY, DR. ANDREW CORDISTA,
and DR. CRAIG FREDERICKS, Defendants, CASE NO. 1:13-CV-142 (WLS),
(M.D. Ga.), brought pursuant to the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, 42 U.S.C. Sections 1983, 1985
and 1986, names the State Board of Workers' Compensation, Wendy
Simpson, Tammy Ringo, Attorney Judy Varnell, Assistant Attorney
Robin Golivesky, and Drs. Andrew Cordista and Craig Fredericks, as
Defendants.
In an October 9, 2013 Order available at http://is.gd/XqfnTCfrom
Leagle.com, the Court held that the Plaintiff's purported RICO
claim is subject to dismissal because Plaintiff has failed to
allege any act by any defendant constituting a RICO violation.
The Plaintiff's motion to proceed forward with a class action
lawsuit is denied as moot, Judge Sands said.
HOUSEHOLD INT'L: Faces $2.46-Bil. Securities Class Action Judgment
------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Hals, writing for Reuters, reports that a unit of British bank
HSBC Holdings Plc was hit on Oct. 17 with a record $2.46 billion
final judgment in a U.S. securities class action lawsuit against a
business formerly known as Household International Inc.
The judgment by U.S. Judge Ronald Guzman in Chicago was the
largest in a securities fraud class action that went to a trial,
according to a statement from the Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd law
firm that represented investors.
Almost all securities fraud class action cases settle before going
to a jury.
The suit was filed in 2002 and alleged Household International,
its chief executive, chief financial officer and head of consumer
lending made false and misleading statements that inflated the
company's share price.
The plaintiffs also claimed that Household artificially boosted
its share price by engaging in predatory lending and hid the
quality of its loan portfolio. When reports about Household's
lending practices began to emerge in 2001, the share price sank to
a seven-year low.
HSBC bought the U.S. lender in November 2002.
HSBC believes it has a strong case and plans to appeal, according
to an HSBC spokesman. He added that the matter has been noted in
HSBC regulatory filings.
In 2010 a Manhattan federal jury found Vivendi SA liable for
misleading statements to investors and damages were estimated at
$9.3 billion. However, after various challenges and appeals, the
vast majority of that case was dismissed.
The case is Lawrence E. Jaffe Pension Plan v Household
International Inc, U.S. District Court, Northern District of
Illinois, No. 02-C-5893.
JPMORGAN CHASE: Bid to Intervene in "Saccoccio" Action Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Federico A. Moreno denied a motion to intervene
filed in SALVATORE SACCOCCIO, et al., Plaintiff, v. JP MORGAN
CHASE BANK, N.A. et al., Defendant, CASE NO. 13-21107-CIV-MORENO,
(S.D. Fla.).
The case involves force-placed hazard insurance. On October 1,
2013, the Court held a hearing on the Parties motion for
preliminary approval of class action settlement. The Court also
entertained Garry and Kathryn Varnes' Motion to Intervene.
Judge Moreno denied the request saying the parties in the
litigation have been negotiating a settlement for months. A
settlement has been reached, and the Court recently preliminarily
approved the class action settlement. "Permitting the intervention
at this late juncture would require renegotiating and would
disrupt the settlement," he says. "Anything the Movants wish to
accomplish as intervenors, they can accomplish as objectors," he
added.
A copy of the District Court's October 9, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/qgzk1Pfrom Leagle.com.
JPMORGAN CHASE: "Seng" Suit Moved to Mortgage Foreclosure MDL
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
accepted on October 8, 2013, Paul N. Seng's motion for transfer
and consolidation of his lawsuit with a related case captioned
Neary, et al. v. Federal National Mortgage Association, et al.,
Case No. 1:13-cv-00665, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Rhode Island.
Mr. Seng's lawsuit was captioned Paul N. Seng, and all others
similarly situated v. JPmorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Case No. 5:13-cv-
00699, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
North Carolina.
The consolidated class action lawsuit is captioned IN RE: Mortgage
Industry Foreclosure Litigation, Case No. 2500 (U.S.J.P.M.L.
October 8, 2013).
The consolidated lawsuit alleges that the Defendants wrongfully
attempted or completed foreclosure actions against the Plaintiffs
and others in violation of the Uniform Commercial Code and State
foreclosure statutes.
Mr. Seng of Raleigh, North Carolina, is not represented by any law
firm.
LEHMAN BROTHERS: Australia LGUs to Recoup From Insurance
--------------------------------------------------------
The Sydney Morning Herald reports that local governments and
charities across Australia are set to get some of their money back
from collapsed American investment bank Lehman Brothers.
PPB Advisory, the liquidator of Lehman Brothers' Australian
assets, has approved a scheme to recover $US45 million and $3
million from insurance policies held in the US and Australia.
This means that 320 creditors will receive between 44 cents and 54
cents in the dollar from their investments with Lehman Brothers,
which collapsed in 2008, PPB chairman Stephen Parbery said.
Those creditors include a group of 72 councils, charities,
churches and private investors who had launched a class action
against Lehman Brothers prior to when liquidators were appointed
to the bank.
"By settling the insurance policies, we're now in a very good
position to reach a settlement in relation to class action
creditors and we're also in a very good position to now put before
the court a way to deal with the other 250 contingent creditors,"
he said.
It is PPB's priority to reach a settlement in that class action so
distributions can be made to creditors in early 2014, he said.
The long-running class action was led by Wingecarribee Shire
Council, in southern NSW.
Mr Parbery said attempts to settle that case have been problematic
due to the risk of jeopardizing an insurance recovery.
"The insurance policies might have been voided if we'd actually
settled the claim with the class action parties without approval
of the insurers," he said.
"These are very complex matters of working out what are the rights
of people that buy products."
LIGHTINTHEBOX HOLDING: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP on Oct. 16
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit against
LightInTheBox Holding Co., Ltd. and certain of its officers. The
class action, filed in United States District Court, Southern
District of New York, and docketed under 13-CIV-7310, is on behalf
of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired LightInTheBox securities between June 6, 2013
and August 19, 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 LightInTheBox securities
during the Class Period, you have until October 28, 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.
LightInTheBox is a global online retail company that sells
directly to consumers via the Internet. The Complaint alleges
that throughout the Class Period, Defendants issued materially
false and misleading statements regarding the Company's financial
performance and future prospects. Specifically, 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.
LightInTheBox reported revenues of just $72.2 million and profits
(excluding items) of $0.05 per share below the earnings of $0.06
per share on revenues of $75.8 million forecast by analysts. The
Company also forecast revenues of just $68-$70 million for the
third quarter of 2013, whereas analysts had been led to expect
$75.8 million.
On this news, the price of LightInTheBox shares, which had traded
as high as $23.38 per share in intraday trading on August 14,
2013, fell approximately 40% from their close on August 19, 2013
of $19.27, to close at $11.58 per share on August 20, 2013.
With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and San Diego, The
Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its
practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust
class litigation.
MATCH.COM LLC: Dismissal of Unconscionability Claim Affirmed
------------------------------------------------------------
Writing for Courthouse News Service, David Lee reports that
subscribers of Match.com cannot sue the dating Web site for
unconscionable conduct over the alleged inflation of active member
numbers, the 5th Circuit ruled.
A three-judge panel of the New Orleans-based federal appeals court
unanimously agreed with a ruling by a federal judge in Dallas that
the subscribers failed to state a claim in an opinion released on
October 4.
The subscribers filed six separate cases in Dallas federal court,
which were later consolidated into a putative class action.
The plaintiffs claimed they were induced to pay $40 in monthly
subscription fees for a dating service that allows fake profiles
of potential mates, failed to remove inactive or duplicate
profiles, and doesn't accurately disclose the size of the
reachable, valid member base.
Each of the lawsuit and the consolidated class action alleged
breach of contract, breach of duty of good faith and
unconscionable conduct under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices
Act.
The trial judge dismissed the first two claims; then later
dismissed the unconscionable conduct claim with prejudice that
resulted in this appeal.
The plaintiffs argued that regarding the third claim, Match.com
"took advantage of their lack of knowledge, ability, experience
and/or capacity to a grossly unfair degree."
Writing for the 5th Circuit panel, U.S. Circuit Judge Edward C.
Prado disagreed. He concluded the plaintiffs' claim only alleges
breaches of contract alone, which renders the Deceptive Trade
Practices Act inapplicable.
"Appellants' complaint alleges conduct that suggests Match did an
insufficient job of fulfilling its contract with members by:
leaving inactive profiles visible on the site; falsely labeling
inactive profiles as recently active; notifying users of romantic
matches that were in fact inactive profiles; failing to vet new
profiles for authenticity; and failing to remove fake or duplicate
profiles," Prado wrote. "Appellants have not alleged 'an act or
practice which [took] advantage of [their] lack of knowledge,
ability, experience, or capacity . . . to a grossly unfair
degree.'"
To uphold the plaintiffs' claims, Prado added, "would convert ever
breach of contract into a DTPA claim."
The court also upheld the lower court's decision to dismiss the
unconscionable conduct claim with prejudice because the plaintiff
had "fair opportunity" to make their case.
"Various related actions against Match have been pending since
December 2008," Prado wrote. "Multiple rounds of briefing
occurred regarding the motions to dismiss in this consolidated
action, giving ample opportunity for appellants to present their
case, and yet appellants did not request leave to amend until
after the district court's dismissal with prejudice on October 17,
2012.
"Given the length of time these claims have persisted and the
multiple opportunities at amendment that have passed, the district
court did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed appellants'
unconscionability claim with prejudice," Prado concluded.
Amy Canaday, a spokeswoman for Match.com, said the company is
pleased the appeals court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of
the case with prejudice.
The Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by:
Jeffrey M. Norton, Esq.
NEWMAN FERRARA LLP
1250 Broadway
New York, NY 10001
Telephone: (212) 619-5400
Facsimile: (212) 619-3090
E-mail: JNorton@nfllp.com
The Defendant-Appellee is represented by:
James Edward Maloney, Esq.
BAKER BOTTS, L.L.P.
910 Louisiana Street
1 Shell Plaza
Houston, TX 77002-4995
Telephone: (713) 229-1255
The appellate case is David Robinson, et al. v. Match.com, L.L.C.,
Case No. 12-11123, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit.
MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Court Narrows Claims in Car Owners' Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Thelton E. Henderson granted, in part, and denied,
in part, defendant's motion to dismiss claims in the case
captioned MAJEED SEIFI AND TRACEY DEAKIN, Plaintiffs, v. MERCEDES-
BENZ USA, LLC, Defendant, NO. C12-5493 THE, (N.D. Cal.).
In this suit brought under the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C
Section 1332(d), Plaintiffs Majeed Seifi and Tracy Deakin assert
claims on behalf of themselves and a proposed class of "owners and
lessees within California of Mercedes vehicles equipped with
either the M272 or the M273 engines" bearing certain serial
numbers. Plaintiffs allege that these engines contain gears made
of sintered steel alloy that wear out prematurely, causing their
engines to misfire, which poses a safety concern and necessitates
major repairs. Defendant Mercedes-Benz, USA, LLC filed motions to
dismiss and strike certain allegations in the First Amended
Complaint.
Judge Henderson ruled that Defendant's motion to dismiss is
granted without prejudice as to Plaintiffs' express warranty claim
and Plaintiffs' money damages claim under the California Consumers
Legal Remedies Act for vehicles containing the M273 engine. The
motion to dismiss the CLRA money damages claim is otherwise
denied, he said. Judge Henderson also denied the motion to
strike.
According to the Court, Plaintiffs' amended complaint, if any,
must be filed no later than November 8, 2013. If Plaintiffs fail
to file a timely amended complaint, the Court will dismiss the
express warranty claim and CLRA money damages claim as to vehicles
containing the M237 engine with prejudice, Judge Henderson
concluded.
A copy of the District Court's October 9, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/KuorDAfrom Leagle.com.
MERCK & CO: $688-Mil. Settlement in Vytorin/Zetia Suit Approved
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rose Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service reports that Merck and
Schering-Plough must pay $688 million for lying to shareholders
about the benefits of cholesterol drug Vytorin over its cheaper,
generic version, a federal judge ruled.
The complaint, filed in New Jersey federal court in 2008, accused
Merck & Co. Inc. fka Schering-Plough Corp. of hiding from the
public that its drug Vytorin, a fixed-dose combination pill
containing the anti-cholesterol agent Zetia, was no more effective
at reducing formation of plaque in carotid arteries than Zocor, a
cheaper, generic drug containing only Simvastatin. Though the
drugs' clinical trial ended in May 2006, Merck and Schering -- to
avoid damaging their common stock price -- only partially reported
the results in January 2008, and did not release the full results
until several months later, the complaint states.
The defendants meanwhile not only blamed the delay on data issues,
but also publicly touted the purportedly greater benefits of
Vytorin over Simvastatin alone, the plaintiffs say.
Around the time the partial results were published, reports on
Congressional and regulatory investigations into Merck and
Schering's improper marketing were released, causing the
manufacturer's common stock price to drop from $60.55 to $54.87
per share.
The price had dropped to $38.75 per share by the end of March,
according to an unpublished ruling by U.S. District Judge Dennis
Cavanaugh in September 2012.
Therein, the judge certified a class of all those who purchased or
acquired Merck common stock or call options and/or sold Merck put
options from December 6, 2006, to March 28, 2008, and did not sell
them on or before January 14, 2008.
Lead plaintiffs included Stichting Pensioenfonds ABP, the
Netherlands' pension fund for government employees; Luxembourg's
International Fund Management S.A.; the Jacksonville Police and
Fire Retirement System in Florida; and Detroit's General
Retirement System.
Also named as defendants were Merck's American and Singapore
distribution services companies, as well as its Chairman,
President, and former CEO Richard Clark and several other
executives.
After a 36-state settlement was reached in 2009, Merck and
Schering ultimately agreed to pay a total of $688 million to
damaged investors.
Upon reviewing two special masters' report and recommendation on
the matter, Judge Cavanaugh finally approved the settlement as
consistent with the 3rd Circuit's 1975 decision in Girsh v.
Jepson, on October 1.
Although more than a million potential class members were notified
of the settlement, only two oppositions have been filed, the
unpublished ruling states.
"Here, the litigation is at a very advanced stage, as the
settlements were reached only a few weeks before trial was to
begin," Cavanaugh wrote. "Discovery has been going on for years
and has consisted of a vast number of depositions, the review of
millions of documents, mock trials, and extensive pre-trial-
preparation. The parties have clearly had the opportunity to gain
a detailed understanding of the case during this time."
The court further held that the benefits of accepting the
immediate settlement funds outweigh the potential woes of a jury
trial.
Cavanaugh also agreed to award co-lead counsel in the Schering
case more than $4 million attorneys' fees and costs.
Movant Steelworkers Pension Trust is represented by:
Lisa J. Rodriguez, Esq.
SCHNADER HARRISON SEGAL & LEWIS LLP
220 Lake Drive East, Suite 200
Cherry Hill, NJ 08002-1165
Telephone: (856) 482-5222
Facsimile: (856) 482-6980
E-mail: ljrodriguez@schnader.com
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
James R. Banko, Esq.
431 Drexel Place
Swarthmore, PA 19081
Telephone: (610) 544-3140
E-mail: jamesbanko@msn.com
- and -
James E. Cecchi, Esq.
CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
5 Becker Farm Road
Roseland, NJ 07068
Telephone: (973) 994-1700
Facsimile: (973) 994-1744
E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com
- and -
Jay W. Eisenhofer, Esq.
GRANT & EISENHOFER PA
123 Justison Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 622-7000
Facsimile: (302) 622-7001
E-mail: jeisenhofer@gelaw.com
- and -
Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
SEEGER WEISS LLP
77 Water Street, 26th Floor
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 584-0700
Facsimile: (212) 584-0799
E-mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com
- and -
Tina Moukoulis, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF BERNARD M. GROSS, PC
John Wanamaker Building, Suite 450
Juniper and Market Streets
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Telephone: (215) 561-3600
E-mail: tina@bernardmgross.com
- and -
Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq.
CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO
5 Becker Farm Road
Roseland, NJ 07021
Telephone: (973) 994-1700
E-mail: ltaylor@carellabyrne.com
The Intervenor Plaintiff, Plymouth County Contributory Retirement
System, is represented by:
Judith S. Scolnick, Esq.
SCOTT & SCOTT LLP
405 Lexington Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10174
Telephone: (212) 223-6444
E-mail: jscolnick@scott-scott.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Douglas Scott Eakeley, Esq.
Gavin J. Rooney, Esq.
Jason E. Halper, Esq.
LOWENSTEIN SANDLER PC
65 Livingston Avenue
Roseland, NJ 07068-1791
Telephone: (973) 597-2500
E-mail: deakeley@lowenstein.com
grooney@lowenstein.com
jhalper@lowenstein.com
- and -
James L. Brochin, Esq.
Theodore V. Wells, Jr.
PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON, & GARRISON LLP
1285 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212) 373-3582
E-mail: jbrochin@paulweiss.com
twells@paulweiss.com
- and -
William B. McGuire, Esq.
Brian M. English, Esq.
TOMPKINS, MCGUIRE, WACHENFELD & BARRY, LLP
Four Gateway Center
100 Mulberry Street
Newark, NJ 07102
Telephone: (973) 622-3000
E-mail: wmcguire@tompkinsmcguire.com
benglish@tompkinsmcguire.com
- and -
Ronni E. Fuchs, Esq.
PEPPER HAMILTON LLP
301 Carnegie Center, Suite 400
Princeton, NJ 08540
Telephone: (609) 951-4183
E-mail: fuchsr@pepperlaw.com
- and -
Gerald Krovatin, Esq.
KROVATIN KLINGEMAN LLC
60 Park Place, Suite 1100
Newark, NJ 07102
Telephone: (973) 424-9777
E-mail: gkrovatin@krovatin.com
The case is In Re Merck & Co., Vytorin/Zetia Securities
Litigation, Case No. 2:08-cv-02177-DMC-JBC, in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey.
MJ HOLDING: Recalls LED Light Up Floating Ball Toys
---------------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 21, 2013
Posting date: October 21, 2013
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Toys
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Product Safety
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-36337
Affected products: LED Light Up Floating Eye Ball and LED Light Up
Floating Ball Girls (Magic)
The recall involves the LED Light Up Floating Eye Ball and LED
Light Up Floating Ball Girls (Magic) sold exclusively at Walmart
stores.
The toy is a ball that has a fake floating ball inside and various
colored lights that turn on when the ball is knocked against a
hard surface.
The products can also be identified by their UPC and SKU numbers
as follows:
Product Name UPC SKU
------------ --- ---
LED Light Up Floating Eye Ball 8-18929-01011-2 30769582
LED Light Up Floating Ball Girls 8-18929-01017-4 30769583
(Magic)
The floating ball toys contain petroleum distillates which can be
harmful or fatal if swallowed. Low viscosity petroleum
distillates can be highly toxic if ingested or if aspirated into
the lungs, and may cause central nervous system depression,
chemical pneumonia, pulmonary damage or death.
Neither Health Canada nor MJ Holding has received any reports of
incidents or injuries related to the recalled toy.
For some tips to help consumers choose safe toys and to help them
keep children safe when they play with toys, see Healthy
Canadians' General toy safety tips.
Approximately 3132 units of the recalled toys were distributed.
These products were sold exclusively at Walmart stores across
Canada.
The recalled toys were sold manufactured in China and sold from
August 8, 2013 to August 26, 2013.
Companies:
Importer MJ Holding Company Canada, ULC
Cambridge
Ontario
Canada
Consumers should immediately take the recalled toy away from
children and return it to any Walmart store for a refund.
MONRO MUFFLER: Bid for Initial OK of "Michaud" Suit Accord Nixed
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Nancy Torresen denied a request for preliminary
approval of a class action settlement agreement in CHRISTOPHER
MICHAUD Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. MONRO MUFFLER BRAKE INC., Defendant,
DOCKET NO. 2:12-CV-353-NT, (D. Me.).
The parties in the case filed a joint motion for preliminary
approval of a class (the Technician Class) and for settlement of a
group of claims at issue in the case (the Spiff Claims). On
September 16, 2013, the Court held a telephonic conference of
counsel regarding the motion. The Spiff Claims involve alleged
underpayment of overtime to individuals employed at Monro since
October 9, 2009. The alleged underpayment arose out of Monro's
failure to include in its calculations for the rate of overtime
pay amounts that Monro had paid to its employees for tire
installation and alignments, called "spiffs." The claims are made
under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and under the state
laws of the jurisdictions in which the Technician Class plaintiffs
worked. The settlement proposed to extinguish claims under both
federal and state law, but the operative complaint at the time the
parties moved for settlement did not assert claims under the state
laws at issue.
Judge Torresen held that the parties' joint motion for class
certification and preliminary approval of settlement is denied
without prejudice to the filing of a revised motion.
"Although the parties propose to settle Spiff Claims for employees
in Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont,
the parties have not added claims under Rhode Island law. For this
reason, the Court cannot accept the settlement currently
proposed," she said. "It may be revised to either exclude Rhode
Island plaintiffs altogether, or to simply exclude the
extinguishment of state law claims for this class of technicians."
As part of any revision, Judge Torresen added, the parties should
also request approval of the four sub-classes now named in the
Third Amended Complaint.
A copy of the District Court's October 9, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/cwa3Adfrom Leagle.com.
MONTREAL, CANADA: Anarchist Panda Mulls Class Action Over P6 Bylaw
------------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Curtis, writing for The Montreal Gazette, reports that
the philosophy professor known to many as the Anarchist Panda is
helping launch a class-action lawsuit against the city of Montreal
in hopes of having the controversial P6 bylaw thrown out.
The bylaw was modified in 2012 to restrict the definition of what
constitutes a legal protest and impose fines of up to $650 on
anyone caught participating in a demonstration not previously
approved by police. Under the bylaw, a protest is considered an
illegal assembly if organizers don't submit a parade route to
police at least 24 hours before the march.
Julien Villeneuve, the College de Maisonneuve professor who wore a
panda costume to protests during the 2012 student crisis, says P6
won't survive a constitutional challenge because it violates the
right to free expression and free assembly.
The law was inconsistently applied during the hundreds of student
protests leading up to the 2012 provincial election, often only
being invoked after a skirmish between a handful of protesters and
riot police. But in early 2013, police used the law to pre-
emptively shut down protests.
Many see the turning point as the March 15 anti police brutality
protest, in which police descended on the crowd before they could
even start marching and made about 250 arrests despite little
evidence of violence or wrongdoing. The same pattern of
"preventive arrests" and fines repeated itself at subsequent
student and anti capitalist protests.
"I'd seen a lot of questionable behavior in 2012 but that was
probably the most depressing point," Mr. Villeneuve said of the
March 15 mass arrest. "For a second it was like, 'Okay, it's
over, we can't protest anymore in Montreal.' Cops were telling us
exactly that."
The class-action suit is being carried by out by Montreal-based
lawyer Sibel Ataogul. The lawyer will also argue that the people
arrested were mistreated while in police custody and targeted for
their political beliefs -- a violation of the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms.
Police wouldn't comment on an ongoing file but in the past
Montreal police chief Marc Parent has said P6 is a necessary law
enforcement tool to ensure the maintenance of order and peace
within the city. Parti Quebecois Premier Pauline Marois has
echoed Parent's defense of the bylaw.
"P6 breaks the right to spontaneously protest and that's something
enshrined in our constitution," Mr. Villeneuve said. "People who
break the P6 bylaw are subjected to a shitty experience. Let's
face it, this is a ticket, not a criminal offence, They're being
confined to a small space with no access to water, washrooms,
often kept in the cold for hours so they can receive a ticket."
NATIONAL BUILDERS: Wins Summary Judgment Bid in "Drywall" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Halil Suleyman Ozerden granted defendant's motion
for summary judgment, and denied plaintiff's motion for partial
summary judgment in the case, PRESTIGE PROPERTIES, INC.,
Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL BUILDERS AND CONTRACTORS INSURANCE COMPANY,
A RISK RETENTION GROUP, INC., Defendant, CIVIL NO. 1:12CV205-HSO-
RHW, (S.D. Miss.).
Plaintiff's claims asserted in this action will be dismissed with
prejudice, Judge Ozerden held.
In early 2006, Plaintiff Prestige Properties, Inc., contracted
with an individual by the name of Lillian Elmore to perform repair
work on Elmore's home, which had been damaged by Hurricane
Katrina. The work included replacing drywall. In December 2009,
Elmore and more than 2,000 other plaintiffs filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana an
omnibus class action complaint in multi-district litigation
asserting claims against certain manufacturers of "Chinese
drywall." Other defendants, including builders, were grouped into
"subclasses." Prestige maintains that Elmore is the only plaintiff
who has named Prestige as a defendant. The Class Action Complaint
claims that Prestige built Elmore's home and "directly or through
agents, installed defective drywall . . . which has resulted in
harm and damages' to Elmore." The complaint alleges that chemical
components of the drywall break down and produce noxious gases
that cause corrosion and damage to personal property, including
appliances, wiring and other objects with metal surfaces, as well
as personal injury resulting from eye irritation, sore throat,
nausea, fatigue, shortness of breath, fluid in the lungs and
neurological harm.
The parties agree that at all material times Prestige was insured
by a commercial general liability policy issued by Defendant
National Builders and Contractors Insurance Company, a Risk
Retention Group, Inc. Prestige made application under the Policy
with NBCI for the defense and indemnity of the claims asserted by
Elmore but NBCI denied coverage. Prestige seeks indemnity for any
judgment rendered against it in the Elmore MDL matter, "litigation
and investigation damages in the sum of $100,000.00 or greater,"
exemplary and punitive damages, attorneys' fees, and costs.
NBCI filed the Motion for Summary Judgment seeking dismissal of
Prestige's claims. Prestige filed the Counter Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment asking the Court to find that coverage exists and
grant summary judgment in its favor on the breach of contract
claim.
A copy of the District Court's October 10, 2013 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at http://is.gd/JJ9jonfrom Leagle.com.
ONE'S BETTER: Recalls Q Sweety Musical Plush Doll
-------------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 22, 2013
Posting date: October 22, 2013
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Toys
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Choking Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-36369
Affected products: Q Sweety Musical Plush Doll
The doll is approximately 33 centimeters in length with beige yarn
hair and imitation pearls on the feet. The musical doll comes in
various colors (Brown-White, Green-White, Blue-Red and Pink).
Some dolls have a heart attached on the front left side. Lastly,
the doll plays music when key located on the back is turned.
Serial #4892300922443.
Health Canada's sampling and evaluation program has revealed that
the eyes and imitation pearls can detach from these dolls; these
small components pose a choking hazard to young children.
Neither Health Canada nor One's Better Living has received reports
of incidents or injuries related to the use of these dolls.
For some tips to help consumers choose safe toys and to help them
keep children safe when they play with toys, see Health Canada's
Toy Safety Tips.
Approximately 223 of the recalled dolls were sold at One's Better
Living retail stores across Canada.
The recalled dolls were manufactured in China and sold from
November 2010 to October 2013.
Companies:
Distributor One's Better Living
Markham
Ontario
Canada
Consumers should immediately take the recalled doll away from
children and contact One' Better Living to obtain further
instructions on how to return the product for a full refund.
PELLA CORP: Judge Dismisses Express Warranty Claims
---------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin reports that Louisiana homeowners who sued Pella
Corp. claiming its windows are defective cannot assert express
warranty claims against the company because their class
allegations fail to explain how they were induced by the
manufacturer into buying the product, a federal judge ruled.
Judge Helen G. Berrigan of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana ruled Oct. 7 that the cause of action must
be dismissed because supporting allegations fall short of the
Louisiana Product Liability Act's requirements for asserting such
claims.
PILOT FLYING J: Small Percentage of Firms Opt Out of Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Clarissa Hawes, writing for Land Line, reports that the Oct.15
deadline has passed for trucking companies to opt out of a
proposed class action settlement over the alleged fuel rebate scam
that has rocked Pilot Flying J.
However, Rachel Albright of The Ingram Group, which is the public
relations firm representing Pilot, told Land Line on Oct. 16, in
an emailed statement that, "Based on our information to date, a
very small percentage of eligible companies are opting out, but we
do not have complete information at this time, and we will not be
releasing any specifics until we do."
Some media accounts are reporting that more than 50 trucking
companies have opted out of the deal, which would pay eligible
companies what they are owed, plus 6 percent. Trucking companies
had until Oct. 15 to opt out of the proposed class action
settlement. A hearing is set for November in federal court in
Arkansas, which seeks preliminary approval on a class action
settlement.
Just days prior to the deadline, at least two trucking companies
filed complaints in federal court, opting out of the proposed
class action lawsuit.
An Illinois-based trucking company, J.F. Freight Co. Inc., of
Palatine, Ill., joined a lawsuit filed by an Ohio trucking
company, FST Express Inc.
Both companies claim they did not receive money they were owed
through Pilot's fuel rebate program and seek compensatory and
punitive damages and have requested a jury trial.
This brings the number of trucking companies that have filed
lawsuits in state and federal court to nearly 30.
So far, seven Pilot employees have pleaded guilty to their roles
in the alleged fuel rebate scam.
PRICE CHOPPER: Recalls Coconut Custard Pies Due to Allergens
------------------------------------------------------------
Price Chopper Supermarkets is issuing a recall on Price Chopper
eight inch (8") and ten inch (10") coconut custard pies, with UPC
numbers 41735 23713, 41735 23721 and 41735 22453 due to a lack of
ingredient information on the label; the pies contain milk, egg,
soy, wheat and tree nut (coconut), which are known allergens.
Other than this labeling issue, the product is safe for
consumption for those not allergic to the above allergens.
The pies were sold between August 11 and October 18.
Products should be returned to a local Price Chopper for a full
refund. For more information visit pricechopper.com or call
800-666-7667, option 3, Monday through Friday, 8:30am -7pm and
Saturday and Sunday from 10am - 4pm.
In addition to alerting the media, Price Chopper has initiated its
Smart Reply notification program, which uses purchase data and
consumer phone numbers on file in connection with the company's
AdvantEdge (loyalty) card to alert those households that may have
purchased the product in question. All customers who purchased
the product except for one have already been contacted using Smart
Reply.
REGAL SNACKS: Recalls Various Baked Goods Due to Allergen
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 21, 2013
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Updated Allergy Alert
Subcategory: Allergen - Egg
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Regal Snacks Inc.
Distribution: Ontario
Extent of the product
distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 8411
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and Regal Snacks Inc.
are warning people with allergies to eggs not to consume the KCB
and RFP brand products. The affected products may contain egg
which is not declared on the labels.
There have been no reported illnesses associated with the
consumption of these products.
Consumption of these products may cause a serious or life-
threatening reaction in persons with allergies to egg.
The importer, Regal Snacks Inc., Etobicoke, ON, is voluntarily
recalling the affected products from the marketplace. The CFIA is
monitoring the effectiveness of the recall.
Affected products:
-- 340 g. KCB Cake Rusk with UC 8 12024 00115 0;
-- 700 g. KCB Cake Rusk with UPC 8 12024 00109 9;
-- 200 g. KCB Whole Wheat Tea Rusk with UPC 8 12024 00210 8;
-- 283 g. KCB Bakar Khani with UPC 8 12024 00126 2;
-- 369 g. KCB Kalonji Biscuits with UPC 8 12042 00118 7;
-- 369 g. KCB Cashew Khatie with UPC 8 12042 00124 8;
-- 850 g. KCB Pista Khatie with UPC 8 12042 00296 2;
-- 850 g. KCB Coconut Biscuits with UPC 8 12042 00290 0;
-- 850 g. KCB Badam and Coconut Biscuits with UPC 812042 002924
-- 850 g. KCB Elaichi Khatie with UPC 8 12042 00293 1;
-- 850 g. KCB Nan Khatie with UPC 8 12042 00295 5;
-- 850 g. KCB Kalonji Biscuits with UPC 8 12042 00289 4;
-- 255 g. KCB Desi Bakar Khani with UPC 8 12042 00304 4;
-- 765 g. KCB Punjabi Vegetarian Cookies with UPC 812042
001378;
-- 227 g. KCB Punjabi Crispy Suji Toast with UPC 812024001651;
-- 709 g. KCB Atta Vegetarian Cookies with UPC 8 12042 00167 5;
-- 680 g. KCB Desi Pure Punjabi Biscuit (Gur/Jaggery) with UPC
8 12042 00167 5;
-- 227 g. KCB Mumbai Pav with UPC 8 12042 00145 7;
-- 255 g. KCB Fruit Pound Cake with UPC 8 12042 00303 7;
-- 369 g. KCB Fruit Pound Cake with UPC 8 12042 00220 7;
-- 1 lb RFP Muri - Oil Fried with UPC 8 12042 00197 2.
RESER'S FINE: Recalls Cheesy Macaroni Salad
-------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 21, 2013
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Updated Health Hazard Alert
Subcategory: Microbiological - Listeria
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Reser's Fine Foods Inc.
Distribution: Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova
Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador,
Prince Edward Island
Extent of the product
distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 8410
Affected products: 1.25 kg. Reser's Fine Foods Cheesy Macaroni
Salad with code no. 2013 NO 02
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and Reser's Fine Foods
Inc. are warning the public not to consume certain Reser's Fine
Foods brand Cheesy Macaroni salad, because it may be contaminated
with Listeria monocytogenes.
This product has been distributed in Walmart stores.
There have been no reported illnesses associated with the
consumption of this product.
The manufacturer, Reser's Fine Foods Inc., Beaverton, Oregon, USA,
is voluntarily recalling the affected product from the
marketplace. The CFIA is monitoring the effectiveness of the
recall.
SKYPE INC: Dismissal of False Advertising Class Action Reversed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Skype must face a class action lawsuit from a California woman who
claims the company falsely advertises its Internet calling plan,
Jeff D. Gorman at Courthouse News Service reports, citing a state
appellate court ruling.
Melissa Chapman claimed in Los Angeles Superior Court that Skype
falsely touts its calling plans as "unlimited." Chapman said
Skype limits the number calls per day, as well as the calling
minutes per day and month. She sued Skype on behalf of its
customers for unjust enrichment, negligent and intentional
misrepresentation, and violations of laws prohibiting unfair
competition and false advertising.
At the bottom of its web page, Skype's "Fair Usage Policy" stated
that the calling plan is limited to six hours per day, 10,000
minutes per month and 50 numbers called per day.
Skype succeeded in getting the trial court to throw out Chapman's
case without leave to amend, due to the website's footnote about
the Fair Usage Policy.
However, the Los Angeles-based Second District California Court of
Appeals reversed the decision, ruling that Chapman made valid
claims of false and deceptive advertising and unfair competition.
The opinion, written by Justice H. Walter Croskey, also allows her
to amend her claims for intentional and negligent representation.
"The trier of fact could reasonably conclude based on the facts
alleged in the complaint and those judicially noticed that
consumers are likely to believe that Skype's 'Unlimited US &
Canada" calling plan offers unlimited calling within the United
States and Canada for a fixed monthly fee, and that they will fail
to notice the disclosure to the contrary in the fair usage
policy," Croskey wrote.
"Moreover, the fact that Skype ultimately discloses the limits in
its 'Fair Usage Policy' does not excuse its practice of labeling
the plan 'Unlimited' in its initial dealings with potential
customers," he added.
The Plaintiffs and Appellants are represented by:
James K. Kawahito, Esq.
Noelle Margherita Shanahan Cutts, Esq.
KAWAHITO SHRAGA & WESTRICK LLP
1990 South Bundy Drive, Suite 280
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Telephone: (310) 598-1588
Facsimile: (310) 593-2520
- and -
Geoffrey Thomas Stover, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF GEOFFREY T. STOVER
445 S. Figueroa St., Suite 2230
Los Angeles, CA 90071
The Defendant-Respondent is represented by:
Michael A. Sherman, Esq.
John Warren Rissier, Esq.
BINGHAM MCCUTCHEN LLP
355 S Grand Avenue, Suite 4400
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3106
E-mail: michael.sherman@bingham.com
warren.rissier@bingham.com
The appellate case is Chapman, et al. v. Skype, Inc., Case No.
B241398, in the California Court of Appeal for the Second
Appellate District. The lower court case is Chapman, et al. v.
Skype, Inc., Case No. BC462511, in the Superior Court of
California for the County of Los Angeles.
ST. JUDE MEDICAL: Seeks Dismissal of Shareholder Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brad Perriello, writing for MassDevice, reports that St. Jude
Medical wants a federal judge in Minnesota to toss a class action
lawsuit filed by shareholders after the medical device company's
stock took a dive in 2009 when it reduced its guidance.
The lawsuit, filed in March 2010, alleges that St. Jude and its
management concealed evidence of slowing demand and lower orders
for its cardiac rhythm management products. St. Jude lowered its
guidance ahead of its fiscal 3rd-quarter earnings release, citing
"lower than expected sales" due to what CEO Daniel Starks called
at the time "macro-economic factors coupled with the continuous
pressures surrounding healthcare reform," according to court
documents.
In the period leading up to the lowered outlook, St. Jude "failed
to disclose and misrepresented . . . material adverse facts, which
were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them," the
lawsuit alleges.
In a motion for summary judgment filed Oct. 15, however, St. Jude
countered that the plaintiffs "cannot prove the allegations of
'fraud' in their complaint," according to the documents.
"With respect to forward-looking guidance provided to investors
regarding revenue the evidence shows management made good faith
efforts to inform the market. Importantly, and directly contrary
to the complaint, the guidance was lower than the internal
forecasts," according to the documents [emphasis theirs]." No
defendant stood to (or did) profit from the purported fraud;
indisputably, as significant shareholders, they lost money. The
SEC filings which plaintiffs contend are misleading were fully
vetted by professionals and were accurate.
SUNNY PINE: Recalls Chevre Cheese Due to Possible Health Risk
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sunny Pine Farm of Twisp, Washington is voluntarily recalling
Organic Chevre, Organic Parsley Chive Chevre and Organic Honey
Lavender Chevre due to possible improper pasteurization.
Pasteurization heats milk to effectively eliminate all illness-
causing bacteria such as Listeria monocytogenes and Salmonella.
Sunny Pine Farm does not know of any illness or complaints
associated with the recalled Chevre cheese.
The recalled Chevre cheeses were sold in plastic 6 oz tubs in the
Twisp-Winthrop area in Washington State. Recalled Chevre cheese
sold through community supported agriculture (CSA) and retail
outlets have an expiration date of 10/16/2013 on a sticker located
on the bottom of the container.
Chevre cheese products sold at Methow Valley Farmers Market (aka
Twisp Farmers Market) between 7/27/13 and 10/12/13 are also
recalled. These products were not labeled with an expiration
date.
Washington State Department of Agriculture discovered inadequate
pasteurization records during a routine inspection. A review of
the pasteurization recorder charts did not prove adequate time for
pasteurization. The recorder chart may have not been operating
correctly. While it's possible the products were adequately
pasteurized, Sunny Pine Farm has made the decision to recall any
products which could affect consumer safety. While producing
organic goat cheese since 2007 Sunny Pine Farm has not received
any complaints of illness from customers nor has there been any
products recalls before this one.
Consumers who have purchased these products should not consume
them and are urged to return it to the place of purchase for a
full refund or replacement. Consumers with questions may contact
the company at 509-997-4812 between 8AM and 6PM PST.
TRAIL CREST: Recalls Children's Hooded Sweatshirts
--------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Trail Crest, Brooklyn, N.Y., announced a voluntary recall of about
350 Trail Crest boys and girls hooded sweatshirts and jackets.
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.
The hoodies and jackets have drawstrings through the hood or neck
which pose a strangulation hazard to young children. In February
1996, CPSC issued guidelines about drawstrings in children's upper
outerwear. In 1997, those guidelines were incorporated into a
voluntary standard. Then, in July 2011, based on the guidelines
and voluntary standard, CPSC issued a federal regulation. CPSC's
actions demonstrate a commitment to help prevent children from
strangling or getting entangled on neck and waist drawstrings in
upper outerwear, such as jackets and sweatshirts.
No injuries have been reported.
The recall involves Trail Crest brand boys and girls hooded
sweatshirts sold in sizes x-small, small and medium. They have a
camouflage pattern on shoulders and arms, with drawstrings in the
hood and zippers at the neck. They come in birch and camouflage,
pink and camouflage, and purple and camouflage. There is a tag
sewn on the outside of the jacket left sleeve with style number
29121. There is an additional Trail Crest tag in the neckline
Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/zWVIMI
The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Zulily.com and other stores nationwide from November 2012 to
February 2013 for about $15.
Consumers should immediately take the garments away from children.
Consumers can remove the drawstrings to eliminate the hazard or
return the garments to Trail Crest for a full refund. Contact
Trail Crest for a return address label and instructions for
returning the garment.
UNILEVER PLC: Faces Class Action Over Formaldehyde in Suave
-----------------------------------------------------------
ABC News' Melissa Lustrin and Juju Chang report that keratin was
once a high-end treatment used to straighten hair. But now,
Suave, the company that brought Keratin to the masses, faces a
class action that alleges, among other claims, that one of its
products contained formaldehyde and caused significant damage to
the hair of some customers.
The lawsuit was first filed last year by women who say Keratin
singed their hair and caused it to break off in clumps. The
makers of the product tried to get the case dismissed, but a
Kentucky federal judge recently ruled that the class action could
move forward and it is headed to court.
Tonja Millet of Dallas and Darlene Johnson of Los Angeles are part
of the lawsuit against Unilever, the manufacturer of Suave
products, claiming Suave Professionals Keratin Infusion 30-Day
Smoothing Kit contains harsh chemicals that burned their scalps
and even melted or permanently destroyed their hair.
"The product was also advertised as formaldehyde-free, and in
fact, we believe that it contained formaldehyde," Ms. Millet's
attorney, Amy Davis, told ABC News.
Suave did recall the kit in May 2012, but the lawsuit claims the
company still didn't do enough to warn customers.
"Many of the women that we represent purchased the product and
used the product after the so-called recall," said Ms. Davis, who
represents 14 women in the suit.
"It has definitely affected my self esteem . . . my ability to
actually want to go places" added Ms. Millet.
The lawsuit is also highlighting what many in the beauty industry
are calling the root of a growing problem, that many women are
turning to chemicals rather than just blow-drying or straightening
their hair.
Style expert Gretta Monahan suggests any chemical treatment on
hair should be left to the professionals.
"Any time you're permanently changing the hair from its natural
state, you're causing damage to do it," Ms. Monahan explained.
"And that's why it's very difficult to administer those chemicals
yourself at home."
Unilever, the company that manufactures the Suave 30-Day Keratin
Kit would not comment on an ongoing lawsuit directly but did tell
ABC News, "The company takes these claims very seriously," and
that "the safety of all of our products is of paramount concern to
Unilever."
Hair care professionals ABC News spoke to said that for permed or
color-treated hair, great care must be taken in adding more harsh
chemicals, even if the product says it's formaldehyde-free. The
Suave 30-Day Smoothing Kit did come with several warnings for the
types of hair that might not react well to the product, but at
least one of the women we spoke with who is a plaintiff in the
lawsuit said she didn't fall under any of those categories and
still had terrible results.
UNITED CONTINENTAL: Sued by Customers Over MileagePlus Program
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Gordon and Melissa Chan, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. United Continental Holdings, Inc.,
Mileage Plus Holdings, LLC and United Airlines, Inc., Case No.
2:13-cv-05967-SDW-MCA (D.N.J., October 8, 2013) is brought on
behalf of all persons, who were damaged by United's alleged
MileagePlus rewards program.
United represent that the amount of miles needed for an award is a
set published amount -- the amount of mileage necessary to redeem
each award will be set by United and published to the members.
United, however, does not disclose that it charges customers, who
have more available miles, additional miles for the same service,
the Plaintiffs allege. Unbeknownst to frequent flyer customers,
the Plaintiffs contend, when a customer has more miles, United
charges them more miles to be able to avail rewards.
According to the complaint, United required Mr. Gordon, who had
38,183 miles, to have 40,750 miles for a three-night stay in a
double semi room in a trip that the Plaintiffs are taking to
Japan. However, when Ms. Chan, who had 41,773 miles, went to book
the same room, United required her to use 44,550 miles, not the
40,750 miles that United required of Mr. Gordon. The Plaintiffs
argue United failed to disclose this information to them and the
Class, and that this material omission is deceptive corporate
practice.
The Plaintiffs are residents and citizens of New Jersey.
United Continental Holding, Inc. is a publicly held company
incorporated under Delaware law and is headquartered in Chicago,
Illinois. United Airlines, Inc., is a wholly owned subsidiary of
United Continental Holding. Mileage Plus Holdings is a wholly
owned subsidiary of United Airlines. United is the world's
largest airline in terms of fleet size and number of destinations.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gary S. Graifman, Esq.
KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C.
210 Summit Avenue
Montvale, NJ 07645
Telephone: (201) 391-7000
Facsimile: (201) 307-1086
E-mail: ggraifman@kgglaw.com
- and -
Alvin C. Gordon, Esq.
Ava Gordon, Esq.
THE GORDON LAW FIRM OF NEW YORK, LLP
45 Broadway, 12th Floor
New York, NY 10006
Telephone: (212) 766-2200
E-mail: Alvin.gordon@gordonlawfirmny.com
UNITED NATIONS: Contaminated Haiti's Main Water Source, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United Nations contaminated Haiti's main water source in 2010,
causing an outbreak of cholera that has killed thousands, a class
claims in court, according to Deshayla Strachan at Courthouse News
Service.
The federal complaint filed in New York attributes the cholera
epidemic in Haiti to the allegedly negligent, reckless and
tortious conduct of the UN.
"Prior to defendants' introduction of the cholera bacterium to
Haiti in October 2010, Haiti had no reported cases of cholera,"
the complaint states.
Named as defendants alongside the United Nations are Ban Ki-Moon
and Edmund Mulet, the current and former secretaries general,
respectively, and the UN Stabilization Mission in Haiti
(Minustah).
The class led by Delama Georges blames the UN for an outbreak that
has killed 8,300 people and sickened 679,000 others in Haiti.
Cholera cases have also allegedly spread to the Dominican
Republic, the United States and Cuba.
The complaint states that the UN did not take steps to prevent an
outbreak of disease despite its knowledge of Haiti's weak water
and sanitation infrastructure that create a heightened possibility
of waterborne disease.
Cholera allegedly hit Haiti when the UN sent the island nation
personnel from Nepal, "a country in which cholera is endemic and
where a surge in infections had just been reported."
The UN stationed these troops on the banks of the Meille Tributary
that flows into the Artibonite River, Haiti's longest river and
primary water source, the Haitians say.
Untreated human waste was allegedly disposed of by the UN in open-
air pits outside the base where it flowed into the tributary.
The contamination exposed residents to raw sewage, according to
the complaint.
Haitians say they have been harmed by the contamination, and have
family members who have died or will die as a direct result of the
cholera introduced to Haiti by the UN.
Cholera allegedly continues to sicken and kill both Haitians and
Americans at the time the complaint was filed.
The Agency for Technical Cooperation and Development has projected
that 120,000 will contract cholera in Haiti this year.
The UN waited 15 months to respond to the 5,000 complaints it
received, during which time 1,386 people died and another 168,988
suffered from nonfatal injuries, according to the complaint.
Minustah and the UN have continued to deny responsibility for
causing the cholera epidemic, according to the complaint.
The UN denied reports and investigations linking it to the
outbreak, saying that it "does not present any conclusive
scientific evidence linking the outbreak to the Minustah
Peacekeepers or the Mirebalais camp."
Class members also claim the UN did not test their soldiers or
vaccinate them to prevent the foreseeable transmission of the
disease.
The class seeks more than $2.2 billion for the Haitian government
to eradicate cholera.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Beatrice Lisa Young Lindstrom, Esq.
INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE & DEMOCRACY IN HAITI
666 Dorchester Ave.
Boston, MA 02127
Telephone: (404) 217-1302
E-mail: beatrice@ijdh.org
The case is Georges, et al. v. United Nations, et al., Case No.
1:13-cv-07146-JPO, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York (Foley Square).
VERENIUM CORP: Faces Merger-Related Class Suit in California
------------------------------------------------------------
Tony Jackson, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. Verenium Corporation, James Cavanaugh, John Dee, Peter
Johnson, Fernand Kaufmann, James Levine, Holger Liepmann, Joshua
Ruch, Cheryl Wenzinger, Pastinaca Acquisition Inc., and BASF
Corporation, Case No. 3:13-cv-02436-JAH-WMC (S.D. Cal., October 9,
2013) seeks to enjoin the acquisition of Verenium by BASF through
its wholly owned subsidiary Pastinaca Acquisition Inc. ("Merger
Sub").
Verenium's Board of Directors has breached its fiduciary duties by
conducting a conflicted and flawed sales process designed to
ensure the sale of the Company to BASF on terms that favor the
Defendants and certain Verenium insiders, Mr. Jackson contends.
He asserts that the Proposed Transaction is being driven entirely
by the Board and the Company management, who collectively hold and
control (as of September 19, 2013) 2.6% of Verenium's outstanding
stock.
Verenium is a California-based biotechnology company engaged in
the development and commercialization of enzymes for industrial
processes in North America, Europe, South America and Asia. The
Company uses microbial DNA to manufacture enzymes to supply
businesses involved in animal health and nutrition, grain
processing and oilfield services. The Individual Defendants are
directors and officers of the Company.
Merger Sub is a wholly-owned subsidiary of BASF, and is a Delaware
corporation duly organized for the purpose of facilitating the
Proposed Transaction. BASF was incorporated in Delaware, and is
the world's largest chemical company, ahead of Dow and DuPont.
BASF has manufacturing facilities and does business worldwide
through six business segments: plastics (polymers and
polyurethanes), performance products, chemicals, oil and gas
exploration and production, functional solutions and agricultural
products.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David E. Bower, Esq.
FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1470
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Telephone: (424) 256-2884
Facsimile: (424) 256-2885
E-mail: dbower@faruqilaw.com
- and -
Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 983-9330
Facsimile: (212) 983-9331
E-mail: jmonteverde@faruqilaw.com
WHIRLPOOL CORP: 3 Lawsuits Now in Federal Court in Fort Smith
-------------------------------------------------------------
Times Record reports that three lawsuits filed against Whirlpool
are now in U.S. District Court in Fort Smith.
A class-action complaint was filed in Sebastian County Circuit
Court on May 20, but Whirlpool filed notice June 25 removing the
case to federal court in Fort Smith.
The complaint seeks unspecified damages for nuisance, trespass,
violations of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, accuses
Whirlpool of fraudulent concealment and seeks punitive damages.
Two additional complaints were filed May 23, by Taylor Law
Partners LLP of Fayetteville and McMath Woods P.A. of Little Rock
in circuit court. One lawsuit was brought on behalf of three
homeowners and the other on behalf of landlords who own 12
properties in an area affected by a Whirlpool chemical leak.
The lawsuits seek damages for "the reasonable expense of necessary
repairs and restoration of the property which was damaged, plus
the difference in the value of the property before contamination
and the value of the property before contamination and the value
after restoration," damages for the loss of enjoyment and use of
their properties, and punitive damages.
According to Whirlpool, which closed its Fort Smith plant in June
2012, a plume of trichloroethylene, or TCE, a known carcinogen,
leaked into groundwater at the plant site, then later into a
neighborhood to the north. TCE was used at Whirlpool as a
degreasing solvent between the late 1960s and early 1980s,
according to the company.
Concerns of the contamination emerged after Whirlpool requested a
ban on new wells around the site earlier this year.
The May 23 complaints weren't served on Whirlpool until after
those lawsuits were amended Sept. 11 to add additional plaintiffs
and properties, bring the number of plaintiffs in the homeowner
complaint to 10 and the number of properties in the landlord
complaint to 36.
Former Fort Smith Whirlpool plant manager Kenneth Thompson was
also added as a defendant.
In its removal filing, Whirlpool attacks the addition of
Mr. Thompson as a defendant, arguing the complaints fail to "state
a reasonable basis in fact and law to support a claim against
Thompson under Arkansas law" and errs in describing Thompson and
his responsibilities at the plant between.
The complaint describes Thompson as the current plant manager,
while Whirlpool states he was manager between April 2007 and
December 2011.
The complaint argues Mr. Thompson had the responsibility to
inspect and maintain the facility, prevent, discover and delineate
the TCE plume, remediate the plume, prevent the spread of the
plume and warn or inform of the plume.
Whirlpool responded that by the plaintiff's own admission,
Whirlpool used TCE at the plant from 1967 until sometime prior to
1990, so Mr. Thompson clearly couldn't have a duty to prevent a
TCE spill.
Mr. Thompson also had no involvement or authority to address the
TCE plume; that responsibility fell to Whirlpool's director for
environmental, health and safety for the North American region,
who reports to Whirlpool's vice president for manufacturing in
Benton Harbor, Mich., according to the notice of removal.
The Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality will hold a Nov.
12 public hearing in Fort Smith to explain a cleanup plan for the
contamination and seek community input.
A report on the plan to clean the site is available online at
fortsmithar.gov/Whirlpool.
WINE.COM INC: Inflates Prices to Offset Shipping Costs, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Writing for Courthouse News Service, Purna Nemani reports that an
online wine retailer that promises free shipping actually inflates
the prices of its products to make up the difference, a class
claims in court.
Lead plaintiff Aaron Paul sued Wine.com in San Francisco County
Superior Court on behalf of a class of paid the Web site's
members.
Wine.com proclaims on its website to be the "# l online wine store
since 1998" and purports to offer "great selection, low prices,
convenient delivery and information that's impossible to replicate
in a store."
It offers customers the option to purchase into a "Steward-Ship
Program" for an annually billed fee of $49 that is supposed to
give members free standard shipping on all eligible purchases,
according to the complaint.
Paul says he purchased an SSP membership in September 2012 but
found, when he renewed, that the terms and conditions did not
match what he was told.
According to the complaint, until recently, the terms of the SSP
program were "buried" in a separate webpage rather than presented
conspicuously on Wine.com's Web site.
"Rather than providing these disclosures in larger
type/contrasting font than the surrounding text, defendant
provided them nowhere on the sales screen," Paul says. "Rather
they were buried in a separate document, wine.com's Steward-Ship
Terms and Conditions, that were not even displayed to customers."
Despite the claims of shipping-charge relief, "the base price of
the wine changes depending on the location of where the wine was
to be shipped," the complaint states (emphasis in original). "In
other words, in some instances the same bottle of wine costs more
to ship to one state than another, even for SSP member-customers
who have paid for 'free shipping.'"
Paul also says that Wine.com began in September 2013 to increase
the annual SSP fee it automatically rebilling customers to $53.29.
Wine.com allegedly charged Paul's card this higher amount without
his consent.
Paul says the consumer complaint he initiated in October 2012
about Wine.com's practices triggered the company to add certain
disclosures to its Web site.
The parties nevertheless allegedly failed to reach a settlement
after several months of negotiations.
When Courthouse News visited Wine.com's Web site from separate
computers, a required pop-up box prompted the entry of a shipping
destination state to begin navigating the Web site.
The same wine, with a different shipping destination state,
produced different base pricing, but it is not apparent whether
that base price would be the same without entering the details of
a paid, SSP membership.
Wine.com's general counsel Bill Tomaszewski did not return a
request for comment.
The class seeks injunctive relief, restitution and damages under
Calfornia's Automatic Purchase Renewal Law, Unfair Competition Law
and False Advertising Law.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gillian L. Wade, Esq.
Sara D. Avila, Esq.
MILSTEIN ADELMAN, LLP
2800 Donald Douglas Loop North
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Telephone: (310) 396-9600
E-mail: gwade@milsteinadelman.com
savila@milsteinadelman.com
- and -
Allan Kanner, Esq.
Conlee S. Whiteley, Esq.
John Davis, Esq.
KANNER & WHITELEY, LLC
701 Camp St.
New Orleans, LA 70130
Telephone: (504) 524-5777
E-mail: a.kanner@kanner-law.com
c.whiteley@kanner-law.com
j.davis@kanner-law.com
- and -
KU & MUSSMAN, PA
Brian T. Ku, Esq.
M. Ryan Casey, Esq.
12550 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 406
Miami, FL 33181
Telephone: (305) 891-1322
E-mail: brian@kumussman.com
ryan@kumussman.com
The case is Paul v. Wine.com, Inc., Case No. CGC-13-534734, in the
California Superior Court for San Francisco County.
* Australian Courts May Face Class Action Litigation Influx
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chris Merritt, writing for The Australian, reports that
Australia's courts could be about to face an influx of
international litigants who are keen to use the nation's
plaintiff-friendly class action regime as a method of side-
stepping tort restrictions in the US.
US constitutional lawyer Samuel Issacharoff issued this warning on
Oct. 17 while praising Australia's class action lawyers and
litigation funders for rapidly creating a class action industry
that was attracting international attention.
"The dynamism of Australia's federal class action regime is all
the more striking for its recent vintage," Professor Issacharoff
said. "Australia is emerging as an attractive potential forum for
securities class actions.
"This uptick is due both to several plaintiff-friendly aspects of
Australian law, and to the innovations that Australian courts and
litigators have implemented to develop the class action as an
efficient and equitable tool.
"Much of the innovation in securities class actions is a result of
the maturation of the bar and funding institutions in Australia, a
maturation that is currently pushing the boundaries of Australian
class action law."
While the US remained the world's dominant class action
jurisdiction, he believed recent court decisions limiting
international access to the US courts "may work in combination
with the maturation of the Australian class action system to
redirect more litigation to the austral regions".
Professor Issacharoff's remarks are contained in his keynote
address to a class action conference in Sydney that was hosted by
national class action firm Maurice Blackburn.
Professor Issacharoff, Reiss professor of constitutional law at
New York University, said the plaintiff-friendly aspects of
Australian law included an objective test for determining whether
companies intended to deceive shareholders.
This meant "the universe of cases that can potentially be brought
in Australia is therefore broader than those that can be brought
in the United States, at least in theory".
But the "most dramatic advantage for plaintiffs" in Australian
class actions was the fact that there was no US-style
certification test. This meant class actions in Australia had "a
much lower initial barrier to overcome".
After outlining why Australia was an "inviting forum" for class
actions, he mentioned those aspects of Australian law that
restricted litigation, such as the absence of contingency fees and
the use of the loser-pays rule.
"Like many things that offer salvation in theory, the details
often tell a confounding tale," he said.
At the same conference, the national head of Maurice Blackburn's
class action practice, Andrew Watson, described the loser-pays
rule as the greatest deterrent to bringing frivolous and
unmeritorious class actions.
"If I can say so without discourtesy to those distinguished
speakers who have travelled from the US, we have in this country
created a class action system that provides access to justice
without American excess," Mr. Watson said.
There had been no litigation explosion in Australia and he
expected class action growth to be modest and sustainable.
*********
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 * * *