/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/131030.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, October 30, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 215
Headlines
77 DEERHURST CORP: Faces "Ajcuc" Class Suit Over Unpaid OT Wages
ACHILLION PHARMA: Wolf Haldenstein Commences Class Action in Conn.
AERIAL PRECAST: Pays Only 40 Hrs. for 50-60 Work Hrs., Suit Says
AMERICAN GREETINGS: Has Final OK of $12.5MM Wolfe, Collier Claims
AMERICAN GREETINGS: Court Stayed Amended Wolfe Action II Complaint
ASSISTED LIVING: December 19 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
ATLANTIC RICHFIELD: Kanner & Whiteley Secures $19.5MM Settlement
BA CREDIT CARD: Court Reserved Decision on $6.6-Bil Settlement
BANK OF AMERICA: 9th Cir. Reverses Class Action Remand Decision
BMO HARRIS BANK: Helps Usurious Payday Lenders, Suit Claims
BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Faces Class Action Suit in California
BRIGHTON HALL: Clayton Utz Discusses Class Action Court Ruling
CANADA: Sued Over Decision to Dismantle Wheat Board
CHICAGO, IL: Gets Favorable Judgment in "Portis" Suit
CIERRA MARINE: Owed Overtime Wages and Other Damages, Suit Says
CINTAS CORP: U.S. Supreme Court Remanded EEOC & Serrano Claims
CINTAS CORP: Court Denied Class Certification of Lawsuits
CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: Court Dismisses Cactus Petroleum Suit
CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: Faces Class Suits Over Bakken Royalties
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Lies About Job Placement Rates, AG Suit Says
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: "Erickson" Suit Transferred to California
DAVID BLOTT: Blood Tribe Members Launch Class Action
DENSO CORP: Faces Antitrust Class Suit Over Air Conditioners
DIAMOND FOODS: Jan. 9 Final Hearing on $11 Million Settlement
FIFTH THIRD: Maguire Obtains Favorable Ruling in "Bihn" Class Suit
FORD MOTOR: Settles Class Action Over Navistar Diesel Engines
HARLEY-DAVIDSON INC: Recalls More Than 29,000 2014 Motorcycles
JANSSEN PHARMA: Faces Suits Over Topamax Birth Defect Risks
JEFFERIES GROUP: Still Faces 7 Suits Over Leucadia Merger
JPMORGAN CHASE: $5BB Settlement Hardly Ends Legal Troubles
KB HOME: Seven Drywall Suits Being Dismissed
KEY WEST SEAPORT: Faces "Spartichino" Class Suit in Florida
KORE OF INDIANA: Capstone Discusses Judge Posner's Ruling
MERACORD LLC: "Lomax" Class Suit Transferred to Wash. Dist. Court
MOYLE INC: Consent Judgment Entered in "Jousma" Class Action
MTR GAMING: Being Sold to Eldorado for Too Little, Suit Says
NATROL INC: Faces Consumer Fraud Class Action in California
RICHARDSON ELECTRONICS: Received $2.1MM From Settlement of Suit
ROTH II ENTERPRISES: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Suit Claims
SAC CAPITAL: Institutional Investor Can Serve as Lead Plaintiff
SCHNUCK MARKETS: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Action
SITEL OPERATING: Violates WARN Act, Class Claims in Nevada
SMITH BARNEY: June 2014 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
STM: Canada High Court Rejects Class Suit v. Maintenance Workers
TOYOTA MOTOR: Enters Into Settlement With Camry Crash Victims
TRAVELERS LLOYDS: Seeks Dismissal of Hurricane Ike Class Action
UNILEVER US: Suave Keratin Infusion Kit Melts Hair, Suit Says
UNITED FURNITURE: Accused of Violating Fair Labor Standards Act
VALEO SA: Faces Antitrust Class Suit Over Air Conditioning System
VERIFONE HOLDINGS: Feb. 6 Fairness Hearing on $95MM Accord
VOXX INTERNATIONAL: Received $5.2-Mil Settlement Funds
WARNER CHILCOTT: Four Class Suits Consolidated in Antitrust MDL
WHITE CASTLE: Must Answer Discovery Bid in "Jenkins" Suit
* Class Action Litigation Funding in Australia Needs Regulation
*********
77 DEERHURST CORP: Faces "Ajcuc" Class Suit Over Unpaid OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pablo Ajcuc, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. 77 Deerhurst Corp. d/b/a Servco Industries, Case No.
1:13-cv-07138-JMF (S.D.N.Y., October 9, 2013) seeks monetary
damages and affirmative relief based upon the Defendant's alleged
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the New York
Labor Law and other appropriate rules, regulations, statutes and
ordinances.
During his employment with the Company, Mr. Ajcuc says that he
worked more than 65 hours in most workweeks. He alleges that the
Defendant failed to compensate him for time he worked in excess of
40 hours per week at a rate of at least 1 and 1/2 times his
regular rate. He adds that the Defendant had also failed to
furnish him with accurate statements of wages listing hours worked
and rates paid, among other things.
Mr. Ajcuc is a resident of Suffolk County, New York. He was
employed by the Defendant from April 2004 until August 2013 to
clean and maintain the K-Mart located in Riverhead, New York.
Servco is a New York domestic corporation headquartered in Bronx.
The Company is engaged in the commercial janitorial and general
building maintenance business.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Troy L. Kessler, Esq.
Marijana Frances Matura, Esq.
Ilan Weiser, Esq.
SHULMAN KESSLER, LLP
510 Broadhollow Road, Suite 110
Melville, NY 11747
Telephone: (631) 499-9100
Facsimile: (631) 499-9120
E-mail: tk@shulmankessler.com
mm@shulmankessler.com
iw@shulmankessler.com
ACHILLION PHARMA: Wolf Haldenstein Commences Class Action in Conn.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP on Oct. 24 disclosed
that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States
District Court, District of Connecticut, on behalf of all persons
who purchased or otherwise acquired common stock of Achillion
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. between August 8, 2012 and September 30,
2013, inclusive, against the Company and certain of the Company's
officers, alleging securities fraud pursuant to Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 [15 U.S.C. ----
78j(b) and 78t(a)] and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the
SEC [17 C.F.R. -- 240.10b-5].
The litigation is styled Jiang v. Achillion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
C.A. No. 3:13-cv-01543. A copy of the Complaint filed in this
action is available from the Court, or can be viewed on the Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP website at
http://www.whafh.com
The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Achillion
engaged in a fraudulent scheme to artificially inflate the
Company's stock price by disseminating materially false and
misleading statements concerning its clinical trials of the drug
sovaprevir. The Company falsely represented that sovaprevir, one
of the protease inhibitor compounds in its portfolio of oral
treatments for the hepatitis C virus, was well-tolerated and had a
low potential for drug-drug interactions. Indeed, Achillion
touted the results of its clinical tests even though, in
July 2013, the United States Food and Drug Administration placed a
clinical hold on sovaprevir after elevations in liver enzymes were
noted in a phase 1 interaction study.
As recently as September 10, 2013, while the FDA's clinical hold
was still in place, the Company's CEO, Milind S. Deshpande, stated
in an investor presentation that Achillion would likely "receive a
favorable response from the [FDA]" and projected, with a "99.99%
confidence interval," that there would be "no overlap between the
exposures . . . with [] clinical doses versus the exposure . . .
in the [drug-drug interaction] study." Despite the Company's
repeated assurances, on September 27, 2013, Achillion announced
that the FDA ultimately concluded that the removal of the clinical
hold was not warranted. On this news, shares of Achillion fell
$4.30 per share, more than 59.53% on intraday trading, to $2.94
per share on September 30, 2013.
The suit alleges that in ignorance of the false and misleading
nature of the statements described in the Complaint, and the
deceptive and manipulative devices and contrivances employed by
said Defendants, Plaintiff and the other members of the Class
relied, to their detriment, on the integrity of the market price
of Achillion common stock. Had Plaintiff and the other members of
the Class known the truth, they would not have purchased said
securities, or would not have purchased them at the inflated
prices that were paid.
If you purchased ACHN common stock during the Class Period, you
may request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff by
December 9, 2013. A lead plaintiff is a representative party that
acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.
In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine
that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other
class members, and that the class member will adequately represent
the class. Under certain circumstances, one or more class members
may together serve as "lead plaintiff." Your ability to share in
any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or
not to serve as a lead plaintiff. You may retain Wolf Haldenstein,
or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in this
action.
Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of
securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and
federal trial and appellate courts across the country. The firm
has approximately 70 attorneys in various practice areas; and
offices in Chicago, New York City, and San Diego. The reputation
and expertise of this firm in shareholder and other class
litigation has been repeatedly recognized by the courts, which
have appointed it to major positions in complex securities multi-
district and consolidated litigation.
If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions, please
contact Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP at 270 Madison
Avenue, New York, New York 10016, by telephone at (800) 575-0735
(Gregory M. Nespole, Esq.), via e-mail at classmember@whafh.com
or visit our website at http://www.whafh.com
All e-mail correspondence should make reference to "Achillion".
CONTACT: Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
Gregory M. Nespole, Esq.
Telephone: 800-575-0735
E-mail: classmember@whafh.com
AERIAL PRECAST: Pays Only 40 Hrs. for 50-60 Work Hrs., Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Muniram Lackraj v. Aerial Precast Concrete, L.L.C., Case No. 1:13-
cv-23646-PCH (S.D. Fla., October 9, 2013) is brought to recover
from the Defendant overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and
the costs and reasonable attorneys' fees.
On average, Plaintiff says he worked between 50 and 60 hours per
week. However, he contends, the Defendant would only pay him for
40 hours of work each week at the rate of $15 per hour. He adds
that he was not paid at an overtime rate for any of the overtime
hours he worked each week, which will be evidenced by the time
records that are in the Defendant's possession.
Muniram Lackraj worked for the Defendant and performed non-exempt
duties as a welder for the Defendant in numerous Florida counties.
Aerial Precast Concrete owns and operates a construction company
that manufactures concrete floor and roof systems, and performs
work throughout Florida.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Dennis Card, Jr., Esq.
CONSUMER LAW ORGANIZATION, P.A.
2501 Hollywood Boulevard, #100
Hollywood, FL 33020
Telephone: (954) 921-9994
Facsimile: (305) 574-0132
E-mail: Dcard@consumerlaworg.com
AMERICAN GREETINGS: Has Final OK of $12.5MM Wolfe, Collier Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
American Greetings Corporation reported that on September 20,
2013, the Court granted final approval to settle all of the claims
of the Wolfe and Collier estates in the amount of $12.5 million,
according to the Company's in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
August 30, 2013.
American Greetings Corporation is a defendant in two putative
class action lawsuits involving corporate-owned life insurance
policies (the "Insurance Policies"): one filed in the Northern
District of Ohio on January 11, 2012 by Theresa Baker as the
personal representative of the estate of Richard Charles Wolfe
(the "Baker Litigation"); and the other filed in the Northern
District of Oklahoma on October 1, 2010 by Keith Collier as the
personal representative of the estate of Ruthie Collier (the
"Collier Litigation").
In the Baker Litigation, the plaintiff claims that American
Greetings Corporation (1) misappropriated its employees' names and
identities to benefit itself; (2) breached its fiduciary duty by
using its employees' identities and personal information to
benefit itself; (3) unjustly enriched itself through the receipt
of corporate-owned life insurance policy benefits, interest and
investment returns; and (4) improperly received insurance policy
benefits for the insurable interest in Mr. Wolfe's life. The
plaintiff seeks damages in the amount of all pecuniary benefits
associated with the subject Insurance Policies, including
investment returns, interest and life insurance policy benefits
that American Greetings Corporation received from the deaths of
the former employees whose estates form the putative class.
In the Collier Litigation, the plaintiff claims that American
Greetings Corporation did not have an insurable interest when it
obtained the subject Insurance Policies and wrongfully received
the benefits from those policies. The plaintiff seeks damages in
the amount of policy benefits received by American Greetings
Corporation from the subject Insurance Policies, as well as
attorney's fees, costs and interest. On April 2, 2012, the
plaintiff filed its First Amended Complaint, adding
misappropriation of employee information and breach of fiduciary
duty claims as well as seeking punitive damages. On April 20,
2012, American Greetings Corporation moved to transfer the Collier
Litigation to the Northern District of Ohio, where the Baker
Litigation is pending. On July 6, 2012, the Court granted American
Greetings Corporation's Motion to Transfer and transferred the
case to the Northern District of Ohio, where the Baker Litigation
is pending.
On May 22, 2013, the Court preliminarily approved a full and final
settlement of all of the claims of the Wolfe and Collier estates,
as well as the classes they seek to represent. As a result of the
preliminary approval, the Court consolidated the two cases and
certified a single class that consists of the heirs or estates of
the estates and heirs of all former American Greetings Corporation
employees (i) who are deceased; (ii) who were not officers or
directors of American Greetings; (iii) who were insured under one
of the following corporate-owned life insurance plans: Provident
Life & Accident 61153, Provident Life & Accident 61159, Mutual
Benefit Life Insurance Company 111, Connecticut General ENX219,
and Hartford Life Insurance Company 361; and (iv) for whom
American Greetings has received a death benefit on or before the
date on which the Court enters the Order of Preliminary Approval.
Required notices to potential class members and to state attorney
generals as required under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005
were mailed May 30, 2013. On September 20, 2013, the Court entered
a final order approving the settlement in the amount of $12.5
million. One half of the settlement amount was deposited by
American Greetings Corporation into a settlement fund account on
September 27, 2013, and the remaining half of the settlement
amount will be deposited by American Greetings Corporation into
the same settlement fund account on or before December 19, 2013.
The settlement fund will be distributed in its entirety to those
members of the class who present valid claims, their counsel, and
a settlement administration vendor.
American Greetings Corporation is engaged in the design,
manufacture and sale of everyday and seasonal greeting cards and
other social expression products. The Company manufactures or
sells greeting cards, gift packaging, party goods, stationery and
giftware in North America, primarily in the United States and
Canada, and throughout the world, primarily in the United Kingdom,
Australia and New Zealand. In addition, its subsidiary, AG
Interactive, Inc., distributes social expression products,
including electronic greetings and a range of graphics and digital
services and products, through a variety of electronic channels,
including Websites, Internet portals, instant messaging services
and electronic mobile devices. In August 2013, American Greetings
Corporation announced the completion of its acquisition by the
Weiss Family.
AMERICAN GREETINGS: Court Stayed Amended Wolfe Action II Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------------
In its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended August 30, 2013,
American Greetings Corporation reported that on Aug. 1, 2013, the
Federal Court granted the parties' joint motion to defer briefings
on defendants' motions to dismiss and to stay the Wolfe Action II
amended Complaint pending resolution of the settlement of the
State Court Action.
The Company states: "On September 26, 2012, we announced that our
Board of Directors received a non-binding proposal from Zev Weiss,
the Corporation's Chief Executive Officer, and Jeffrey Weiss, the
Corporation's President and Chief Operating Officer, on behalf of
themselves and certain other members of the Weiss family and
related parties to acquire all of the outstanding Class A common
shares and Class B common shares of the Corporation not currently
owned by them (the "Going Private Proposal"). On September 27,
2012, Dolores Carter, a purported shareholder, filed a putative
shareholder derivative and class action lawsuit (the "Carter
Action") in the Court of Common Pleas in Cuyahoga County, Ohio
(the "Cuyahoga County Court"), against American Greetings
Corporation and all of the members of the Board of Directors. The
Carter Action alleges, among other things, that the directors of
the Corporation breached their fiduciary duties owed to
shareholders in evaluating and pursuing the proposal. The Carter
Action further alleges claims for aiding and abetting breaches of
fiduciary duty. Among other things, the Carter Action seeks
declaratory relief. Subsequently, six more lawsuits were filed in
the Cuyahoga County Court purporting to advance substantially
similar claims on behalf of American Greetings Corporation against
the members of the Board of Directors and, in certain cases,
additional direct claims against American Greetings Corporation.
One lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed. The other lawsuits, which
remain pending, were consolidated by Judge Richard J. McMonagle on
December 6, 2012 (amended order dated December 18, 2012) as In re
American Greetings Corp. Shareholder Litigation, Lead Case No. CV
12 792421 (the "State Court Action"). Lead plaintiffs and lead
plaintiffs' counsel also were appointed.
On April 30, 2013, lead plaintiffs' counsel filed a Consolidated
Class Action Complaint. The Consolidated Complaint brings a single
class claim against the members of the Corporation's Board of
Directors for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and aiding and
abetting. The plaintiffs allege that the preliminary proxy
statement on Schedule 14A filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC") on April 17, 2013 omits information necessary
to permit the Corporation's shareholders to determine if the
Merger is in their best interest, that the controlling
shareholders have abused their control of the Corporation, that
the special committee appointed to oversee the transaction is not
independent, and that the other members of the Board of Directors
are also not independent.
On June 13, 2013, defendants filed motions to dismiss the
Consolidated Class Action Complaint based on plaintiffs' failure
to properly plead their claims as derivative actions, to exercise
their statutory appraisal rights as the sole remedy for
dissatisfaction with the proposed share price, and to overcome the
business judgment rule with respect to their breach of fiduciary
duty claims. The motions remain pending.
On July 16, 2013, the parties entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding ("MOU") agreeing in principle to settle the State
Court Action on behalf of themselves and the putative settlement
class, which includes all persons who owned any interest in the
common stock of American Greetings Corporation (either of record
or beneficially) at any time between and including September 26,
2012 and the effective date of the Merger. A Stipulation of
Settlement subsequently was filed with the Cuyahoga County Court
on August 8, 2013, and the Cuyahoga County Court preliminarily
approved the settlement on August 15, 2013 (amended order dated
September 4, 2013). The settlement provides for dismissal with
prejudice of the State Court Action and a release of claims
against defendants and released parties.
As consideration to class members, the Corporation agreed to and
did disclose additional information via a Form 8-K relating to the
Merger, which was filed with the SEC on July 18, 2013. In
addition, defendants acknowledge that the State Court Action
contributed to the Weiss family shareholders' decision to increase
the Merger consideration from $18.20 per share to $19.00 per
share. The settlement also contemplates the payment of attorneys'
fees and reimbursement of expenses to class counsel, which the
Corporation expects will be fully paid by the Corporation's
insurer.
The settlement is conditioned upon, among other things, final
certification of the settlement class and final approval of the
proposed settlement by the Cuyahoga County Court. The Cuyahoga
County Court has scheduled a hearing concerning, among other
things, whether the settlement should be approved as fair,
reasonable, adequate, and in the best interest of the settlement
class for October 24, 2013. There can be no assurance that the
Cuyahoga County Court will approve the settlement. If the
settlement conditions are not met, the proposed settlement would
become void.
On November 6, 2012, R. David Wolfe, a purported shareholder,
filed a putative class action (the "Wolfe Action") in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (the
"Federal Court") against certain members of the Weiss Family and
the Irving I. Stone Oversight Trust, the Irving Stone Limited
Liability Company, the Irving I. Stone Support Foundation, and the
Irving I. Stone Foundation ("Stone Entities") alleging breach of
fiduciary duties in proposing and pursuing the proposal, as well
as against American Greetings, seeking, among other things,
declaratory relief. Shortly thereafter, on November 9, 2012, the
Louisiana Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System also filed
a purported class action in the Federal Court (the "LMPERS
Action") asserting substantially similar claims against the same
defendants and seeking substantially similar relief.
On November 30, 2012, plaintiffs in the Wolfe and LMPERS Actions
filed motions (1) to consolidate the Wolfe and LMPERS Actions, (2)
for appointment as co-lead plaintiffs, (3) for appointment of co-
lead counsel, and, in the Wolfe Action only, (4) for partial
summary judgment. On December 14, 2012, the Corporation filed its
oppositions to the motions (a) to consolidate the Wolfe and LMPERS
Actions, (b) for appointment as co-lead plaintiffs, and (c) for
appointment of co-lead counsel. On the same day, the Corporation
also moved to dismiss both the Wolfe and LMPERS Actions. The
Corporation answered both complaints on January 8, 2013, and on
January 11, 2013, it filed its opposition to the motion for
partial summary judgment. On February 14, 2013, the Federal Court
dismissed both the Wolfe and LMPERS Actions for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction. On March 15, 2013, plaintiffs in both the
Wolfe and LMPERS Actions filed notices of appeal with the Sixth
Circuit Court of Appeals. On April 18, 2013, plaintiff Wolfe moved
to dismiss his appeal, which motion was granted on April 19, 2013.
On May 8, 2013, plaintiff LMPERS's moved to dismiss its appeal as
well, which motion was granted.
Plaintiffs in the Wolfe and LMPERS Actions alleged, in part, that
Article Seventh of the Corporation's articles of incorporation
prohibited the special committee from, among other things,
evaluating the Merger. The Corporation considered these
allegations and concluded that the Article is co-extensive with
Ohio law and thus allows the Corporation to engage in any activity
authorized by Ohio law. The Corporation also has consistently
construed Article Seventh as permitting directors to approve a
transaction so long as they are both disinterested and
independent.
On April 17, 2013, R. David Wolfe filed a new derivative and
putative class action ("Wolfe Action II") in the Federal Court
against the Corporation's directors, certain members of the Weiss
Family, and the Stone Entities, as well as the Corporation as a
nominal defendant, challenging the Merger as financially and
procedurally unfair to the Corporation and its minority
shareholders. Mr. Wolfe subsequently filed an Amended Complaint on
April 29, 2013. The Wolfe Action II seeks a declaratory judgment
that Article Seventh precludes the Board of Directors and special
committee from approving the Merger. In addition, the Wolfe Action
II includes a derivative claim for breach of fiduciary duty
against the Corporation's directors for allegedly violating
Article Seventh. Finally, the Wolfe Action II includes both a
derivative and class action claim for breach of fiduciary duty
against the Weiss Family defendants and the Stone Entities for
allegedly seeking to acquire the minority shareholders' interests
at an unfair price. Defendants filed their Motions to Dismiss the
Wolfe Action II amended Complaint on July 8, 2013.
On August 1, 2013, the Federal Court granted the parties' joint
motion to defer briefings on defendants' motions to dismiss and to
stay the action pending resolution of the settlement of the State
Court Action.
American Greetings Corporation is engaged in the design,
manufacture and sale of everyday and seasonal greeting cards and
other social expression products. The Company manufactures or
sells greeting cards, gift packaging, party goods, stationery and
giftware in North America, primarily in the United States and
Canada, and throughout the world, primarily in the United Kingdom,
Australia and New Zealand. In addition, its subsidiary, AG
Interactive, Inc., distributes social expression products,
including electronic greetings and a range of graphics and digital
services and products, through a variety of electronic channels,
including Websites, Internet portals, instant messaging services
and electronic mobile devices. In August 2013, American Greetings
Corporation announced the completion of its acquisition by the
Weiss Family.
ASSISTED LIVING: December 19 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP on Oct. 24 announced
Proposed Settlement in the In re Assisted Living Concepts, Inc.
Securities Litigation.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
PENSION TRUST FUND FOR OPERATING ENGINEERS and ROBERT LIFSON,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ASSISTED LIVING CONCEPTS, INC. and LAURIE BEBO,
Defendants.
Case No. 12-C-884-JPS
CLASS ACTION
SUMMARY NOTICE
TO:
ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED THE
PUBLICLY-TRADED CLASS A COMMON STOCK OF ASSISTED LIVING CONCEPTS,
INC. ("ALC STOCK") BETWEEN MARCH 4, 2011 AND AUGUST 6, 2012,
INCLUSIVE:
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a proposed settlement has been
reached in this action. A hearing will be held with respect to
the settlement on December 19, 2013, at 10:00 a.m. before the
Honorable J.P. Stadtmueller in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, 362 United States
Courthouse, 517 East Wisconsin Ave., Milwaukee, WI 53202.
The purpose of the hearing is to determine whether the proposed
settlement of the securities class action claims asserted in this
litigation, pursuant to which Defendants will pay or cause to be
paid the sum of $12,000,000.00 in cash into a settlement fund in
exchange for the dismissal of the litigation and a release of
claims against Defendants and their related persons and entities,
should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, adequate and
in the best interests of the Class, which includes all persons and
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired ALC Stock between
March 4, 2011 and August 6, 2012, inclusive, and were allegedly
damaged thereby, with certain exclusions.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired ALC Stock at any time
between March 4, 2011 and August 6, 2012, inclusive, and were
allegedly damaged thereby, you may be potentially eligible to
share in the distribution of the settlement fund if you submit a
claim form no later than February 6, 2014, establishing that you
may be entitled to a recovery.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired ALC Stock at any time
between March 4, 2011 and August 6, 2012, inclusive, and were
allegedly damaged thereby, you have the right to object to the
settlement, the plan of allocation and/or the request by Lead
Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses, or otherwise
request to be heard, by submitting for receipt no later than
November 29, 2013, a written objection in accordance with the
procedures described in a more detailed notice that has been
mailed to persons known to be purchasers or other acquirers of ALC
Stock between March 4, 2011 and August 6, 2012, inclusive. You
also have the right to exclude yourself from the class by
submitting for receipt no later than November 29, 2013 a written
request for exclusion from the Class in accordance with the
procedures described in the more detailed notice. If the
settlement is approved by the Court, you will be bound by the
settlement and the Court's final order and judgment, including the
releases provided for in the final order and judgment, unless you
submit a timely and valid request to be excluded.
This notice provides only a summary of matters regarding the
litigation and the settlement. A detailed notice describing the
litigation, the proposed settlement, and the rights of members of
the Class to appear in Court at the hearing, to request to be
excluded from the Class and/or to object to the settlement, the
plan of allocation and/or the request by Lead Counsel for an award
of attorneys' fees and expenses has been mailed to persons known
to be purchasers or other acquirers of ALC Stock between March 4,
2011 and August 6, 2012, inclusive. You may obtain a copy of this
notice, a proof of claim form, or other information by writing to
the following address or calling the following telephone number:
ALC SECURITIES LITIGATION
CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR
c/o A.B. DATA, LTD.
PO BOX 170500
MILWAUKEE, WI 53217-8091
TOLL-FREE TELEPHONE: 866-963-9978
EMAIL: INFO@ALCSECURITIESLITIGATION.COM
or by downloading the same from
http://www.ALCSecuritiesLitigation.comor http://www.blbglaw.com
PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE. Inquiries, other than requests for the detailed
notice referenced above and a proof of claim form, may be made to
plaintiffs' counsel:
Blair A. Nicholas, Esq.
Niki L. Mendoza, Esq.
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
12481 High Bluff Drive, Suite 300
San Diego, CA 92130
Telephone: 866-648-2524
Dated: September 25, 2013
By Order of the Clerk of the Court United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Wisconsin
ATLANTIC RICHFIELD: Kanner & Whiteley Secures $19.5MM Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
On October 21, Kanner & Whiteley, L.L.C. secured a class action
settlement valued at up to $19.5 million on behalf of property
owners and residents in Yerington, Nevada to resolve class
members' property damage and medical monitoring claims against
Atlantic Richfield Co. and BP America, Inc. involving groundwater
contamination resulting from operations at the former Anaconda
Mine Site.
Pursuant to the settlement, Atlantic Richfield Co. and BP America,
Inc. have agreed to provide approximately $7 million in payments
to members of the property damage class and the medical monitoring
class. Additionally, Atlantic Richfield Co. and BP America, Inc.
have agreed to fund the extension of, and connection to, the City
of Yerington Water System for residences within the class area
currently without access to city water at an estimated cost of
$6.5 million to $12.5 million.
Due to the unique legal circumstances involved in extending the
City Water System, Kanner & Whiteley also worked to develop
provisions within the settlement that would allow owners of
property within the class area on which a domestic well was
located to obtain water rights at Atlantic Richfield Co. and BP
America, Inc.'s expense. Securing these rights enables well
owners to maintain the use of their well for outdoor domestic uses
once their property is connected to the City Water System.
"We are proud of our work in Yerington, Nevada to make sure
property owners' claims are resolved in a timely and efficient
manner," said Allan Kanner -- a.kanner@kanner-law.com -- of Kanner
& Whiteley, L.L.C.
Kanner & Whiteley has over 30 years of experience in handling a
wide range of landmark environmental and toxic tort cases for the
effects of contaminated ground and surface waters, which have
resulted in multi-million dollar settlements. Samples v. Conoco,
Inc., No. 01-631 (Fla. 1 JDCC); Petrovic v. Amoco Oil Co., 200
F.3d 1140 (8th Cir. 1999).
For more information on Kanner & Whiteley, L.L.C., please visit
kanner-law.com or call 504-524-5777.
About Kanner & Whiteley, L.L.C.
Kanner & Whiteley, L.L.C. -- http://kanner-law.com-- is a
litigation boutique headquartered in New Orleans, Louisiana.
Kanner & Whiteley has extensive experience with pharmaceutical and
other complex litigation and has served as lead counsel in In re
Budeprion XL Marketing and Products Litigation, MDL No. 2107 and
In re Synthroid Marketing Litigation, MDL No. 1182. Since its
founding in 1981, the firm has been dedicated to representing
consumers, governmental entities, businesses, and individual
clients in cases protecting the environment, promoting fair
business practices, serving insurance policyholders, and
safeguarding consumer rights. Having practiced throughout the
United States, and with a strong presence in the Gulf Coast area,
Kanner & Whiteley's attorneys currently hold licenses in Alabama,
California, the District of Columbia, Florida, Illinois,
Louisiana, Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma,
Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico (Federal) and Texas.
BA CREDIT CARD: Court Reserved Decision on $6.6-Bil Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
In its Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2013, BA Credit Card
Funding, LLC, reported that on Sept. 12, 2013, the court reserved
decision during the final approval hearing to the $6.6 billion
settlement agreement with class plaintiffs' claims alleging
conspiracy to fix the level of default interchange rates.
In 2005, a group of merchants filed a series of putative class
actions and individual actions directed at interchange fees
associated with Visa and MasterCard payment card transactions.
These actions, which were consolidated in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York under the caption In Re
Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Anti-Trust
Litigation, named Visa, MasterCard and several banks and bank
holding companies, including Bank of America Corporation, as
defendants. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants conspired to fix
the level of default interchange rates, which represent the fee an
issuing bank charges an acquiring bank on every transaction.
Plaintiffs also challenged as unreasonable restraints of trade
under Section 1 of the Sherman Act certain rules of Visa and
MasterCard related to merchant acceptance of payment cards at the
point of sale. Plaintiffs sought unspecified damages and
injunctive relief based on their assertion that interchange would
be lower or eliminated absent the alleged conduct.
On October 19, 2012, defendants, including Bank of America
Corporation, entered an agreement to settle the class plaintiffs'
claims. The defendants also separately agreed to resolve the
claims brought by a group of individual retailers that opted out
of the class to pursue independent litigation. The settlement
agreements provide for, among other things, (i) payments by
defendants to the class and individual plaintiffs totaling
approximately $6.6 billion; (ii) distribution to class merchants
of an amount equal to 10 bps of default interchange across all
Visa and MasterCard credit card transactions for a period of eight
consecutive months, which period began on July 29, 2013, which
otherwise would have been paid to Visa and MasterCard issuers,
including Bank of America Corporation, and which effectively
reduces credit interchange for that period of time; and (iii)
modifications to Visa and MasterCard rules regarding merchant
point of sale practices.
Subject to the loss-sharing agreements Bank of America Corporation
and certain affiliates previously entered into with Visa,
MasterCard and other financial institutions, Bank of America
Corporation will contribute a total of $738 million to the
settlement of the class and individual actions. Of that amount,
$539 million will be paid from the proceeds that Visa previously
placed into an escrow fund pursuant to Visa's Retrospective
Responsibility Plan to cover Bank of America Corporation's share
of Visa-related claims.
The court granted preliminary approval of the class settlement
agreement on November 9, 2012, over the objections of several
class members. The objecting class members appealed to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which denied appellants'
motion for expedited appeal and deferred briefing until after
final approval of the settlement. The final approval hearing was
held on September 12, 2013 and the court reserved decision.
BA Credit Card Funding, LLC, a limited liability company formed
under the laws of Delaware and a subsidiary of Banc of America
Consumer Card Services, LLC, an indirect subsidiary of FIA Card
Services, National Association, is the transferor and depositor to
BA Master Credit Card Trust II.
BANK OF AMERICA: 9th Cir. Reverses Class Action Remand Decision
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Lipkin and Beth Winegarner, writing for Law360, report
that the Ninth Circuit on Oct. 23 reversed a district court's
decision sending to state court a mass action against Bank of
America NA and other lenders for allegedly using deceptive
mortgage lending practices, ruling it belongs in federal court
because the plaintiffs sought a single trial when they filed suit.
Circuit Judge Milan D. Smith, Jr., writing for a unanimous panel,
said a ruling remanding the suit misinterpreted the Class Action
Fairness Act, which gives federal jurisdiction to civil actions
with 100 or more people seeking monetary relief and proposing to
be tried jointly because the claims involve common questions of
law or fact. Even if the claims are later found not to involve
common questions, the circuit panel ruled, the district court
needed to consider what was invoked at the time of filing.
"CAFA's text is unambiguous," the panel wrote, remanding the case
back to district court. "Because plaintiffs proposed a joint
trial in state court, defendants properly removed this case.
Whether plaintiffs' claims ultimately proceed to a joint trial is
irrelevant."
The circuit court also ruled that an amended complaint filed by
the plaintiffs did not establish common questions of law or fact,
dismissing the claims of all the plaintiffs except named plaintiff
Carla Visendi without prejudice.
The ruling dealt a blow to the more than 100 borrowers who accused
Bank of America, Countrywide Home Loans Inc., Bank of New York
Mellon Corp., HSBC Bank USA and more than 20 others of using
deceptive mortgage lending and securitization practices that
decreased the values of their homes.
The plaintiffs filed suit in August 2011, and the defendants
removed the suit to federal court under CAFA the next month. The
plaintiffs later filed an amended complaint which abandoned their
original causes of action for negligent misrepresentation, among
other state claims, now alleging that the banks mismanaged their
applications for loan modifications, according to the Oct. 23
ruling.
The banks moved to dismiss the amended complaint, claiming it did
not present common questions of law or fact. The district court
agreed that the plaintiffs were improperly joined, but remanded
the case to state court and accused the banks of "gamesmanship,"
saying the banks' motion conceded the case was improperly removed,
according to the Oct. 23 ruling.
But the banks' subsequent dismissal motion should not change the
district court's earlier decision to remove the case, the circuit
court said on Oct. 21.
"The district court's post-removal conclusion that plaintiffs'
claims were improperly joined does not affect the court's
jurisdiction, because -- at the time of removal -- plaintiffs
proposed a joint trial," the court wrote.
The plaintiffs had argued that CAFA's exception for local
controversies gave state courts jurisdiction over the case, but
the circuit court declined to consider that argument because it
was not raised in district court.
The circuit court also agreed with the lower court's decision that
the amended complaint did not present common questions of law or
fact because the claims involved more than 100 different
transactions secured by different properties across the country.
"Nothing unites all of these plaintiffs but the superficial
similarity of their allegations and their common choice of
counsel," the court wrote. "Plaintiffs merely allege that
defendants violated the same laws in comparable ways."
The circuit court remanded the case back to district court with
instructions to dismiss without prejudice the claims of all
plaintiffs but the lead plaintiff.
Circuit Judges Dorothy W. Nelson, Milan D. Smith Jr. and Sandra S.
Ikuta sat on the panel that reached the Oct. 23 decision.
Representatives for the defendants declined to comment.
Representatives for the plaintiffs were not immediately available
for comment on Oct. 23.
The plaintiffs are represented by Kristin Lynn Day and Jamie
Edwards Quadra of Quadra Day PC.
The defendants are represented by Robert Edward Boone, III --
reboone@bryancave.com -- Nafiz Cekirge --
nafiz.cekirge@bryancave.com -- Brian Recor --
brian.recor@bryancave.com -- and Douglas E. Winter --
dewinter@bryancave.com -- of Bryan Cave LLP.
The case is Carla Visendi et al. v. Bank of America NA et al.,
case number 13-16747, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.
BMO HARRIS BANK: Helps Usurious Payday Lenders, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Writing for Courthouse News Service, Courtney Walters reports that
Harris Bank uses its multistate branches to help usurious payday
lenders skirt state laws, a racketeering class action claims in
Federal Court.
Lead plaintiff Patricia Booth sued BMO Harris Bank, First
International Bank & Trust, and North American Banking Co.
These banks act as middlemen for payday lenders that use the
Automated Clearing House to originate unlawful loan transactions,
according to the 64-page lawsuit.
"Payday loans -- small, closed-end loans due in full on the
borrower's next 'payday' -- have a long and sordid history," the
complaint states. "For years, unscrupulous lenders have taken
advantage of desperate borrowers who are unable to obtain funds
anywhere else in order to make ends meet, by offering loans at
usurious and unconscionable rates. Payday lenders operate on the
shadowy fringe of the mainstream financial system.
"At least 13 states across the nation have either banned payday
loans directly or effectively banned them by operation of an
interest rate cap. Payday loans are illegal in Arizona, Arkansas,
Connecticut, Georgia, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New
York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and West
Virginia (the 'banned states'), and the District of Columbia."
Payday lenders, purportedly based offshore or on Indian
reservations, use the Internet to defy state laws and charge
residents of those 13 states, and others, interest rates of 500
percent and more, according to the lawsuit.
The defendant banks participate in the scheme by entering payday
loan transactions into the Automated Clearing House electronic
payment system, Booth says.
She claims it would be impossible for the usurious lenders to make
these unlawful loan transactions without assistance from the
defendants.
"Defendants know that they are crediting and debiting consumers'
accounts for unlawful purposes because they know they are acting
on behalf of Out-Of-State Payday Lenders and that the entries they
originate on the ACH Network on behalf of such Out-Of-State Payday
Lenders will credit or debit funds in states in which the Out-Of-
State Payday Lenders' loans are illegal and unenforceable," the
complaint states. "Defendants are required by federal banking
regulations and the rules of the ACH Network to know the
identities of the entities for which they originate transactions
and to assure themselves that such transactions do not violate
state or federal law.
"Defendants' illegal schemes with Out-Of-State Payday Lenders have
victimized Plaintiff and millions of others. Unless enjoined,
defendants will continue to engage in these schemes and cause
substantial injury to consumers."
Booth seeks class certification, an injunction and damages for
RICO violations, unjust enrichment and aiding and abetting
violations of Pennsylvania laws.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James C. Shah, Esq.
Natalie Finkelman Bennett, Esq.
SHEPHERD FINKLEMAN MILLER & SHAH LLP
35 E. State Street
Media, PA 19063
Telephone: (610) 891-9880
Facsimile: (610) 891-9883
E-mail: jshah@sfmslaw.com
nfinkelman@sfmslaw.com
- and -
Darren T. Kaplan, Esq.
CHITWOOD HARLEY HARNES LLP
1350 Broadway, Suite 908
New York, NY 10018
Telephone: (917) 595-3600
Facsimile: (404) 876-4476
E-mail: dkaplan@chitwoodlaw.com
- and -
Norman E. Siegel, Esq.
Steve Six, Esq.
J. Austin Moore, Esq.
STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 714-7100
Facsimile: (816) 714-7101
E-mail: siegel@stuevesiegel.com
six@stuevesiegel.com
moore@stuevesiegel.com
- and -
Jeffrey M. Ostrow, Esq.
Jason H. Alperstein, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
200 S.W. 1st Avenue, 12th Floor
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
Telephone: (954) 525-4100
Facsimile: (954) 525-4300
E-mail: ostrow@KOlawyers.com
alperstein@KOlawyers.com
- and -
Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
Anna C. Haac, Esq.
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
2000 L Street, N.W., Suite 808
Washington, D.C. 20036
Telephone: (202) 973-0900
Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com
jkaliel@tzlegal.com
ahaac@tzlegal.com
The case is Booth v. BMO Harris Bank, N.A. et al., Case No. 2:13-
cv-05968-RBS, in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia).
BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Faces Class Action Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that BMW engines with "auto start
stop function" turn off when the vehicle comes to a halt but fail
to restart when the driver accelerates, "creating a possibly life-
threatening situation," a class action claims in California
Superior Court.
BRIGHTON HALL: Clayton Utz Discusses Class Action Court Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
Clayton Utz reports that the court held each class action
plaintiff's claim against Brighton Hall was a separate claim, and
subject to the claim excess under the policy. It is possible for
a successful class action to turn out to be almost worthless,
according to a new Federal Court decision.
The Court held that, where damages were payable out of a
defendant's insurance, each class action plaintiff's claim was a
separate claim. This meant that each claim was subject to the
claim excess under the policy.
Background
Brighton Hall was a financial services company. It advised some
clients to invest in Westpoint. When Westpoint collapsed, some of
those clients began class actions against Brighton Hall for
negligent advice. Brighton Hall claimed indemnity from its PI
insurer in respect of the class action claims.
By now under the control of liquidators, Brighton Hall arrived at
a settlement with its insurer. Under that settlement, the insurer
agreed to pay the full policy limit of $2 million on the condition
that the liquidators were to distribute that money in accordance
with section 562 of the Corporations Act. If there was any money
left over, it was to be repaid to the insurer.
The Court was asked for directions on two points:
did the class actions give rise to one claim or multiple claims
under the insurance policy?
could the liquidators recoup their remuneration out of the
insurance money?
One claim or multiple claims?
Under the insurance policy, the insurer's liability for "each
claim" was limited to the excess over the deductible. The insurer
said that, although the payout was in response to two class
actions, those class actions each involved multiple "claims"
within the meaning of the policy (each of which would, therefore,
be individually subject to the deductible).
Two arguments were raised against this:
each class action was a single "claim" within the meaning of the
policy;
if each class action was not a single "claim", all the individual
claims could be aggregated within the terms of the policy which
provided that "all claims that arise from any one act, error or
omission, or series of related acts, errors or omissions, are
deemed to constitute one claim".
The Court rejected both arguments.
It held that the very nature of a class action was that there were
multiple claims:
"[T]he whole essence of the representative claim is that there are
multiple claims before the Court. The character of each claim is
not changed by the proceeding which embraces it. The
representative proceeding is simply designed to facilitate an
efficient and cost-effective way to resolve multiple individual
claims. "
The argument that these individual claims should be aggregated
under the policy foundered because the test for whether multiple
claims can be brought together in a class action was a lot looser
than the insurance policy's requirement that the claims "arise
from any one act, error or omission, or series of related acts,
errors or omissions":
"Although it might be said that inclusion of the Westpoint
products on [Brighton's 'Approved Product List'] or even orally
recommending those products consistently to clients of the Company
might be a common feature, there were different products,
different clients, different times of investment, different
circumstances of taking advice, different levels of investment and
perhaps most importantly, different circumstances and times and
amounts of sustaining loss. Without the loss, there can be no
cause of action in each instance."
Comment
This decision has potentially major significance for class action
claimants, litigation funders and insurers. To take an extreme
example, in the English case of Standard Life Assurance Ltd v Oak
Dedicated Ltd & Ors [2008] EWHC 222 (Comm), the effect of
inability to aggregate underlying claims against an insurance
policy deductible meant that the company which settled these
claims for over œ100 million had effectively no insurance
protection, even though it had purchased œ75 million of cover.
The GBP25 million self-insured retention applied to "each and
every claim and/or claimant".
Since many companies rely on their liability insurances in the
event of class actions, and likewise the successful plaintiffs and
their litigation funders, the excess aggregation language assumes
critical importance. The widest-reaching wording based on the
cases, which is generally available in the financial liability
insurance markets, is that which applies one excess in respect of
all claims or losses "arising out of or in connection with a
single source or originating cause."
While the operation of any insurance term will depend in some part
on the facts of the case, clearly this formula offers a much
better prospect of applying only one excess to accumulated class
action claims. Policyholders who may be at risk of class actions
should review their liability insurances and, if in doubt, obtain
advice on the aggregation language used.
(And, for the record, the Court also held that, where the
insurance proceeds are virtually the only assets available, a
liquidator's remuneration is payable out of the proceeds as a
priority ahead of claimants -- another blow to claimants.)
CANADA: Sued Over Decision to Dismantle Wheat Board
---------------------------------------------------
Kelsey Johnson, writing for iPolitics, reports that the
government's decision to dismantle the Canadian Wheat Board's
monopoly has landed them in federal court, again, this time to
face a potential class action lawsuit seeking more than C$17
billion in damages.
Four Western Canadian grain farmers have launched a class action
lawsuit, accusing the federal government of mismanaging the
dissolution of single desk grain marketing. Agriculture Minister
Gerry Ritz's refusal to hold a producer vote on the issue, their
statement of claim reads, "infringed the producers' right to
freedom of expression."
They're also accusing the government from seizing Wheat Board
property -- grain cars, grain handling equipment etc. and cash --
without compensation. Government lawyers disagree, arguing the
farmers claims are "entirely speculative." There was no loss of
property, they explained, because there was no transfer of assets.
The Canadian Wheat Board still exists within the country's grain
market, it just doesn't operate as a single desk.
Also, there are no specific federal laws that state when a
government decides to amend or alter legislation people are
entitled to compensation, the defendant's lawyers argued.
The Oct. 23 four-hour long federal court appearance was to
determine whether the farmers should be allowed to go ahead with
their class action lawsuit.
CHICAGO, IL: Gets Favorable Judgment in "Portis" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
District Judge Thomas M. Durkin entered judgment in favor of the
City of Chicago in the case captioned RONALD PORTIS AND MARDRIC E.
LANCE, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF CHICAGO, Defendant, CASE NO. 02 C
3139, (N.D. Ill.).
The City of Chicago moved the Court for judgment as a matter of
law under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a) saying: (1) plaintiffs have failed
to put forth evidence sufficient to show that the length of their
detentions from arrest to release were unreasonable in violation
of the Fourth Amendment; and (2) plaintiffs have not established
that a City official policy or custom caused any deprivation of
plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment rights through its deliberate
indifference to the known and obvious consequences of its official
policy.
The Plaintiffs have not provided evidence showing any other type
of damages suffered as a result of the detentions in this case,
says Judge Durkin. Based on the complete lack of evidence to
support a claim for damages, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs'
claim fails as a matter of law.
A copy of the District Court's October 16, 2013 Opinion is
available at http://is.gd/BZ1WWdfrom Leagle.com.
Matthew C. Singer -- mcsinger@jonesday.com -- June K. Ghezzi --
jkghezzi@jonesday.com -- Brian J. Murray -- bjmurray@jonesday.com
-- Morgan R. Hirst -- mhirst@jonesday.com -- Mark W. DeMonte --
mdemonte@jonesday.com -- Matthew C. Singer, at JONES DAY, Chicago,
Illinois, Attorneys for the Defendant.
CIERRA MARINE: Owed Overtime Wages and Other Damages, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Andre J. Ezell v. Cierra Marine GP, LLC, Case No. 3:13-cv-00362
(S.D. Tex., October 9, 2013) seeks to recover the alleged unpaid
overtime wages and other damages owed to the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff alleges that he generally worked well in excess of
40 hours in a single workweek, but Cierra Marine did not pay him
overtime. Instead, Cierra Marine classified him as exempt from
the overtime requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act although
he does not qualify for any FLSA exemption, Mr. Ezell alleges.
Therefore, he argues, Cierra Marine owes back overtime wages to
him.
Andre J. Ezell worked for the Defendant as a tankerman during the
relevant statutory time period.
Cierra Marine is a foreign limited liability company doing
business in Texas.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew Dunlap, Esq.
FIBICH, HAMPTON, LEEBRON, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON, L.L.P.
1150 Bissonnet
Houston, TX 77005
Telephone: (713) 751-0025
Facsimile: (713) 751-0030
E-mail: mjosephson@fhl-law.com
adunlap@fhl-law.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
CINTAS CORP: U.S. Supreme Court Remanded EEOC & Serrano Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court on October 7, 2013, remanded all claims of
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the 13 individuals
it claimed to represent against Cintas Corporation back to the
District Court consistent with the Sixth Circuit Court's November
9, 2012 decision, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended August 31, 2013.
Cintas is a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit, Mirna
E. Serrano, et al. v. Cintas Corporation (Serrano), filed on May
10, 2004, and pending in the United States District Court, Eastern
District of Michigan, Southern Division. The Serrano plaintiffs
alleged that Cintas discriminated against women in hiring into
various service sales representative positions across all
divisions of Cintas. On November 15, 2005, the EEOC intervened in
the Serrano lawsuit. The Serrano plaintiffs seek injunctive
relief, compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees
and other remedies. On October 27, 2008, the United States
District Court in the Eastern District of Michigan granted summary
judgment in favor of Cintas limiting the scope of the putative
class in the Serrano lawsuit to female applicants for service
sales representative positions at Cintas locations within the
state of Michigan. Consequently, all claims brought by female
applicants for service sales representative positions outside of
the state of Michigan were dismissed. Similarly, any claims
brought by the EEOC on behalf of similarly situated female
applicants outside of the state of Michigan have also been
dismissed from the Serrano lawsuit. In September 2010, the Court
in Serrano dismissed all private individual claims and all claims
of the EEOC and the 13 individuals it claimed to represent. The
EEOC appealed the District Court's summary judgment decisions and
various other rulings to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Sixth Circuit. On November 9, 2012, the Sixth Circuit Court of
Appeals reversed the District Court's opinion and remanded the
claims back to the District Court. On April 16, 2013, Cintas filed
with the United States Supreme Court a Petition for a Writ of
Certiorari seeking to review the judgment of the United States
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. On October 7, 2013, the
Court denied Cintas' Petition, thus remanding the claims back to
the District Court consistent with the Sixth Circuit Court's
November 9, 2012 decision.
The litigation, if decided or settled adversely to Cintas, may,
individually or in the aggregate, result in liability material to
Cintas' consolidated financial condition, consolidated results of
operations or consolidated cash flows and could increase costs of
operations on an ongoing basis. Any estimated liability relating
to the proceeding is not determinable at this time. Cintas may
enter into discussions regarding settlement of this and other
lawsuits, and may enter into settlement agreements if it believes
such settlement is in the best interest of Cintas' shareholders.
Cintas Corporation provides specialized products and services to
businesses of all types throughout the North America, Latin
America, Europe and Asia. The Company operates in four segments:
Rental Uniforms and Ancillary Products, Uniform Direct Sales,
First Aid, Safety and Fire Protection Services, and Document
Management Services. As of May 31, 2013, the Company provided
products and services to over one million businesses. As of May
31, 2013, Cintas had approximately 8,200 local delivery routes,
446 operational facilities and eight distribution centers.
CINTAS CORP: Court Denied Class Certification of Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on May
30, 2013, affirmed the denial of class certification of all
plaintiffs in the Serrano/Avalos lawsuits, according to Cintas
Corporation's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended August 31,
2013.
Cintas is a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit, Blanca
Nelly Avalos, et al. v. Cintas Corporation (Avalos), which was
filed in the United States District Court, Eastern District of
Michigan, Southern Division. The Avalos plaintiffs alleged that
Cintas discriminated against women, African-Americans and
Hispanics in hiring into various service sales representative
positions in Cintas' Rental division only throughout the United
States. The Avalos plaintiffs sought injunctive relief,
compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and other
remedies. The claims in Avalos originally were brought in the
lawsuit captioned Robert Ramirez, et al. v. Cintas Corporation
(Ramirez), filed on January 20, 2004, in the United States
District Court, Northern District of California, San Francisco
Division. On May 11, 2006, the Ramirez and Avalos African-
American, Hispanic and female failure to hire into service sales
representative positions claims and the EEOC's intervention were
consolidated for pretrial purposes with the Serrano case and
transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan, Southern Division. The consolidated case was
known as Mirna E. Serrano/Blanca Nelly Avalos, et al. v. Cintas
Corporation (Serrano/Avalos). On March 31, 2009, the United States
District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division
entered an order denying class certification to all plaintiffs in
the Serrano/Avalos lawsuits. Following denial of class
certification, the Court permitted the individual Avalos and
Serrano plaintiffs to proceed separately. In the Avalos case, the
Court dismissed the remaining claims of the individual plaintiffs
who remained in that case after the denial of class certification.
On May 11, 2010, Plaintiff Tanesha Davis, on behalf of all
similarly situated plaintiffs in the Avalos case, filed a notice
of appeal of the District Court's summary judgment order in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. On May 30,
2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
affirmed the denial of class certification.
The litigation, if decided or settled adversely to Cintas, may,
individually or in the aggregate, result in liability material to
Cintas' consolidated financial condition, consolidated results of
operations or consolidated cash flows and could increase costs of
operations on an ongoing basis. Any estimated liability relating
to the proceeding is not determinable at this time. Cintas may
enter into discussions regarding settlement of this and other
lawsuits, and may enter into settlement agreements if it believes
such settlement is in the best interest of Cintas' shareholders.
Cintas Corporation (Cintas) provides specialized products and
services to businesses of all types throughout the North America,
Latin America, Europe and Asia. The Company operates in four
segments: Rental Uniforms and Ancillary Products, Uniform Direct
Sales, First Aid, Safety and Fire Protection Services, and
Document Management Services. As of May 31, 2013, the Company
provided products and services to over one million businesses. As
of May 31, 2013, Cintas had approximately 8,200 local delivery
routes, 446 operational facilities and eight distribution centers.
CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: Court Dismisses Cactus Petroleum Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Joe Heaton dismissed without prejudice the case
entitled CACTUS PETROLEUM CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. CONTINENTAL
RESOURCES, INC., Defendant, NO. CIV-13-0798-HE, (W.D. Ok.).
In this case, the Plaintiff challenges the timeliness of royalty
and overriding royalty payments made by Defendant Continental
Resources Inc., as operator of oil and gas wells in which
plaintiff and others have an interest. It seeks to recover unpaid
interest on what it alleges are late-paid proceeds, based on
Oklahoma's Production Revenue Standards Act, 52 Okla. Stat.
Sections 570.1 et seq., and similar provisions of the laws of
other states. Plaintiff brings the case as a putative class
action, seeking to recover on behalf of a class composed of
royalty owners in Oklahoma, Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South
Dakota and Wyoming.
Judge Heaton granted the Plaintiff's motion to dismiss. The Court
said dismissal under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(2) is "on terms the court
considers proper."
"To minimize the unfairness to defendant of being forced to
litigate again in a second and different forum (assuming
plaintiff's refiling of the case elsewhere), the court concludes
that dismissal should be conditioned on defendant's recovery, in
the event of a refiling of a case raising substantially the same
issues as those involved here, of its reasonable attorney's fees
incurred in connection with the removal of this case and the
disposition of this motion. Plaintiff's apparent forum shopping
should have some consequence. The court will retain jurisdiction
of this case, notwithstanding remand, for the limited purpose of
determining those fees and entering an appropriate judgment in the
event of a refiling. Defendant is directed within ten days of any
refiling to file an appropriate motion requesting a fee award,"
says Judge Heaton's ruling.
A copy of the District Court's October 16, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/3sarDwfrom Leagle.com.
CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: Faces Class Suits Over Bakken Royalties
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jay Kohn, writing for Q2 News, reports that 10 class action
lawsuits filed seek millions in lost royalties from some of the
nation's largest oil companies due to the flaring of natural gas
in the Bakken oil fields.
Reporter Clifford Krauss with the New York Times reports that the
suit was filed by North Dakota mineral owners who believe they are
losing money due to the fast expansion of oil production in the
Bakken oil patch.
Over the past two years the amount of flared gas in the Bakken has
nearly tripled, in fact the value of flared gas in North Dakota
alone is estimated at $100 million a month.
The companies that are being sued include Continental Resources,
XTO Energy, SM Energy and Marathon Oil.
The Times article points out that the state of North Dakota does
allow companies to seek exemptions for flaring while they build
additional pipelines, but the lawsuits accuse the companies of
violating deadlines. It is estimated that as many as 1500 flare
fires are currently burning at well sites across western North
Dakota.
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Lies About Job Placement Rates, AG Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Writing for Courthouse News Service, Matt Reynolds reports that
Corinthian Colleges lie about their job placement rates and use
unofficial military seals in predatory ads to reel in society's
most vulnerable people, California's attorney general claims in a
blistering lawsuit.
California sued Corinthian Colleges and nine of its profit-seeking
affiliates in Superior Court. Attorney General Kamala Harris wants
the chain schools enjoined from making untrue or misleading
statements to low-income students.
The Courthouse News database shows more than 200 lawsuits against
Corinthian Colleges, many of them class actions, accusing the
profit-seeking chain of a wide range of misrepresentations.
According to California's lawsuit, Corinthian ads target single
parents close to the federal poverty level of $19,530 for a three-
person household. The college and its subsidiaries, however,
often charge more than $40,000 for tuition, fees and books,
according to the complaint.
Corinthian "targets this demographic, which it describes in
internal company documents as composed of 'isolated,' 'impatient,'
individuals with 'low self-esteem,' who have 'few people in their
lives who care about them' and who are 'stuck' and 'unable to see
and plan well for future,' through aggressive and persistent
internet and telemarketing campaigns and through television ads on
daytime shows like Jerry Springer and Maury Povich,'" the 33-page
complaint states.
The attorney general claims that Corinthian exaggerates job
placement rates to students and investors, lies about the programs
it offers to trick prospective students, and includes illegal
clauses in enrollment agreements, purporting to shield the schools
from student claims.
Claims that job placement rates were as high as 100 percent for
some programs were found to be false, the state says, with no
evidence that a single student secured employment in a time frame
specified in Corinthian's disclosures.
Corinthian uses the official seals of the Army, Navy, Air Force,
Marine Corps and Coast Guard in mailers and on its Web site,
though the U.S. armed forces have no relationship with the schools
and are not affiliated with them, according to the attorney
general.
"The seals and related content were used in a manner that
reasonably could be interpreted or construed as implying federal
government connection, approval, or endorsement," the complaint
states.
California calls Corinthian's practices "all the more egregious"
because of California's 6-year-old injunction against the for-
profit's Everest campuses.
The state seeks civil penalties, disgorgement of profits,
restitution, and damages for untrue or misleading representations,
unfair competition, securities fraud, and violation of injunction.
Named as defendants are Heald College, Corinthian Colleges,
Corinthian Schools, Sequoia Education, Career Choices, MJB
Acquisition, Titan Schools, Rhodes Colleges, Florida Metropolitan
University, and Everest College Phoenix.
Harris said in a statement that Corinthian's "unconscionable"
predatory ads rake in profits, "mislead investors" and "targeted
some of our state's most particularly vulnerable people --
including low income, single mothers and veterans returning from
combat."
"My office will continue our investigation into the for-profit
college industry and will hold accountable those responsible for
these illegal, exploitative practices," Harris said.
Based in Santa Ana, Corinthian runs 24 Everest, Heald and WyoTech
campuses in California, 111 North American campuses and three
online programs. The state says 81,000 students are enrolled at
Corinthian colleges, 27,000 of them in California.
Corinthian Colleges spokesman Kent Jenkins said the company was
"disappointed" the attorney general had sued, and said the school
had been "cooperating extensively with the attorney general's
office for nine months, as we have previously disclosed."
Jenkins said Corinthian is "committed to regulatory compliance,"
and that the school has "robust processes in place to correctly
record and disclose the job placement information we receive from
our graduates and their employers."
"We will vigorously defend against this complaint," Jenkins wrote
in an e-mail.
The case is being litigated by:
Kamala D. Harris, Esq.
Attorney General of California
Frances T. Grunder, Esq.
Senior Assistant Attorney General
Nicklas A. Akers, Esq.
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
Nicholas G. Campins, Esq.
Angela M. Munoz, Esq.
Caroline N. Dessert, Esq.
Deputy Attorneys General
455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000
San Francisco, CA 94102-7004
Telephone: (415) 703-5500
Facsimile: (415) 703-5480
E-mail: Nicholas.Campins@doj.ca.gov
The case is The People of the State of California v. Heald
College, LLC, Corinthian Colleges, Inc., et al., Case No. CGC-13-
534793, in the Superior Court of the state of California for the
County of San Francisco.
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: "Erickson" Suit Transferred to California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Frank Erickson v. Corinthian
Colleges Inc., et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-04308-PKC (S.D.N.Y., June
20, 2013) was transferred on October 9, 2013, to the United States
District Court for the Central District of California.
The lawsuit is now captioned Frank Erickson v. Corinthian Colleges
Inc., et al., Case No. 2:13-cv-07466-PA-JC (C.D. Cal., October 9,
2013), and is assigned to District Judge Percy Anderson.
The complaint is purportedly brought on behalf of all persons, who
acquired shares of the Company's common stock from August 23,
2011, through June 10, 2013, against the Company and Jack
Massimino, Robert Owen and Kenneth Ord, all of whom are officers
of the Company. The complaint alleges that, in violation of
Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Act"), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the
Securities and Exchange Commission, the defendants made certain
material misrepresentations and failed to disclose certain
material facts about the condition of the Company's business and
prospects during the putative class period, causing the Company's
common stock to trade at artificially inflated prices at the time
when plaintiff purchased his stock. The plaintiff seeks
unspecified amounts in damages, interest, attorneys' fees and
costs, as well as other relief on behalf of a class of similarly
situated persons.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Murielle J. Steven, Esq.
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
POMERANTZ GROSSMAN HUFFORD DAHLSTROM AND GROSS LLP
600 Third Avenue 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
E-mail: mjsteven@pomlaw.com
jalieberman@pomlaw.com
lfportnoy@pomlaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
John Michael Gildersleeve, Esq.
MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON (LA)
355 South Grand Avenue, 35th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560
Telephone: (213) 683-9100
Facsimile: (212) 474-3700
E-mail: john.gildersleeve@mto.com
DAVID BLOTT: Blood Tribe Members Launch Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Caroline Zentner, writing for Lethbridge Herald, reports that
three members of the Blood Tribe launched a class action on
Oct. 23 against a Calgary lawyer they allege failed to adequately
represent aboriginal claimants under the Indian Residential
Schools settlement agreement.
Doris Bird, Andrew Bull Calf and Tyrone Weasel Head filed the
lawsuit on behalf of all former clients of David Blott, his law
firm and associated individuals with Court of Queen's Bench in
Calgary.
In the claim, the plaintiffs say Mr. Blott and other defendants
were not only negligent how they represented their residential
school clients, more than 5,600 of them, but they also failed to
fulfill their fiduciary duties.
They allege Mr. Blott hired form fillers who were paid on
commission to sign up clients and then largely ignored them until
shortly before their hearings under the Independent Assessment
Process (IAP), which is reserved for serious abuses. They say
claimants often met their lawyer for the first time just before
their hearings began and support services available to all
claimants were not provided or offered. The claim further alleges
many claimants received settlements far lower than appropriate or
were denied any compensation at all because of their legal
representation.
The class action also names lending companies and individuals who
participated in loans to survivors for charging excessive or
criminal rates of interest.
"Today brave members of our community have stood up, on behalf of
thousands of victims, to demand justice," said Chief Charles
Weasel Head in a news release. "Our community and aboriginal
people across Canada have been let down by Mr. Blott and his
colleagues. We entrusted him to obtain fair compensation for the
physical and sexual abuse suffered at the hands of the Indian
residential schools system. Instead he took advantage of our
people for his benefit."
Maxime Faille, lawyer for the plaintiffs, said once all defendants
have been served he'll be bringing forward a unique motion to have
the defendants pay the legal costs up front.
"It's an exceptional remedy that the court can order. It's only
reserved for the most exceptional cases," Mr. Faille said, adding
it has occurred more typically in cases involving the government
but is not unknown in cases involving private parties.
Defendants have 20 days to file their statements of defense. The
court must also determine if it is an appropriate case to proceed
by way of class action.
"We are certainly going to try and move this matter forward as
quickly as possible and try and get some justice for these
individuals who really have been re-victimized. These are
individuals who are victims of some of the worst crimes ever
committed in our country and then to have been taken advantage of
by their legal counsel as is being alleged is quit
unconscionable," Mr. Faille said.
DENSO CORP: Faces Antitrust Class Suit Over Air Conditioners
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Denso, Mitsubishi, et al.,
conspired to fix prices on vehicle air-conditioners, a class
action claims in British Columbia Supreme Court.
DIAMOND FOODS: Jan. 9 Final Hearing on $11 Million Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The final approval hearing is currently scheduled for January 9,
2014, on the $11.0 million settlement of putative securities class
action suits alleging that Diamond Foods, Inc., and certain of its
former executive officers failed to disclose material facts
regarding Diamond's financial results, according to the Company's
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2013.
In November 2011 and December 2011, various putative shareholder
class action and derivative complaints were filed in federal and
state court against Diamond and certain current and former Diamond
directors and officers.
Beginning on November 7, 2011, the first of a number of putative
securities class action suits was filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California against
Diamond and certain of its former executive officers
("defendants"). These suits allege that defendants made materially
false and misleading statements, or failed to disclose material
facts, regarding Diamond's financial results, operations and
prospects, including its accounting for payments to walnut growers
and the anticipated closing of Diamond's proposed merger of the
Pringles business from P&G. On January 24, 2012, these class
actions were consolidated by the court as In re Diamond Foods
Inc., Securities Litigation. On March 20, 2012, the court
appointed a lead plaintiff, and on June 13, 2012, the court
appointed lead counsel for the plaintiff. On July 30, 2012, an
amended complaint was filed in the consolidated action naming
Diamond, certain of its former executive officers and its former
independent auditor as defendants. The amended complaint purports
to allege claims covering the period from October 5, 2010 through
February 8, 2012, and seeks compensatory damages, interest
thereon, costs and expenses incurred in the action and other
relief. On September 28, 2012, Diamond moved to dismiss the
action. On November 30, 2012, the court denied Diamond's motion
allowing the matter to proceed with respect to Diamond and the
former executive officers, and dismissed claims against Diamond's
former independent auditor with leave to amend. On December 21,
2012, Diamond and the former executive officers filed answers to
the amended complaint.
On May 6, 2013, the court certified a class in the consolidated
action. Thereafter, the parties reached a proposed agreement
subject to final court approval, to settle the action.
On August 21, 2013, a motion for preliminary approval of the
settlement was filed which was granted on September 26, 2013. A
final approval hearing is currently scheduled for January 9, 2014.
Pursuant to the terms of the preliminarily approved settlement,
Diamond would pay a total of $11.0 million in cash and issue 4.45
million shares of common stock to a settlement fund to resolve all
claims asserted on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired Diamond stock between October 5, 2010 and February 8,
2012, inclusive. A portion of the $11.0 million in cash would be
funded by Diamond's insurers. The total amount of director and
officer liability coverage available under Diamond's insurance
policies is $30 million. As of July 31, 2013, insurers had paid
approximately $12.9 million in insurable expenses. As of July 31,
2013, Diamond had recorded a $15.5 million receivable, $12.1
million which will be used for the settlement and other legal
expenses and $3.4 million for the shareholder derivative
settlement. In addition, Diamond expects to receive $1.6 million
related to the shareholder derivative settlement in the first
quarter of fiscal 2014 which will be recorded as a gain. Pursuant
to the preliminary approval motion, the estimated value of the
4.45 million shares of Diamond's common stock was valued at $85.1
million based on the closing market price of Diamond's common
stock on the day before the preliminary approval motion was filed,
August 20, 2013. The value of the 4.45 million shares of common
stock at July 31, 2013 was $90.7 million. With respect to the 4.45
million shares, Diamond would have the ability to privately place,
or conduct a public offering of, the shares with the consent of
the lead plaintiff and its counsel, prior to distribution of the
settlement fund. In that event, the settlement fund would include
the proceeds of the offering in lieu of the settlement shares.
Diamond Foods, Inc. (Diamond) is a packaged food company focused
on building, acquiring and energizing brands. Diamond specializes
in processing, marketing and distributing snack products and
culinary, in-shell and ingredient nuts. The Company sells its
products to global, national, regional and independent grocery,
drug and convenience store chains, as well as to mass
merchandisers, club stores and other retail channels. It has three
product lines: Snack, Culinary and Retail In-shell and Non-Retail.
It distributes the products from production facilities in Alabama,
California, Indiana, Oregon, Wisconsin, and Norwich, England, and
from leased warehouse and distribution facilities in California,
Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, New Jersey, Oregon, Wisconsin,
Ontario, Canada and Snetterton, England. In April 2011, Diamond
announced that it entered into an agreement with the Proctor &
Gamble Company (P&G) to merge P&G's Pringles business into its
Company.
FIFTH THIRD: Maguire Obtains Favorable Ruling in "Bihn" Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jacqueline Bihn, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, sued Fifth Third Mortgage Company and Maguire &
Schneider, LLP. Plaintiff's First Claim for Relief is for unfair
debt collection practices pursuant to Sections 1692(e) and 1692(f)
of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act against both Defendants.
Plaintiff's Second Claim for Relief is for deceptive and
misleading practices under Section 1345.01 of the Ohio Consumer
Sales Practices Act against both Defendants. Plaintiff's Third
Claim for Relief is for unjust enrichment against both Defendants.
Plaintiff's Fourth Claim for Relief is for breach-of-contract
against Defendant FTMC.
Pending before the Court is Defendant Maguire's Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings.
In an October 16, 2013 Entry and Order available at
http://is.gd/ZlRSrYfrom Leagle.com, District Judge Thomas M. Rose
held that Ms. Bihn's FDCPA and OCSPA claims against Maguire are
barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Further, Ms.
Bihn has not pled a prima facie case of unjust enrichment against
Maguire nor does she have a breach-of-contract action against
Maguire. Therefore, Maguire's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
is granted, rules Judge Rose.
The case is JACQUELINE BIHN, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FIFTH THIRD MORTGAGE COMPANY, et
al., Defendants, CASE NO. 3:13-CV-00057, (S.D. Ohio).
FORD MOTOR: Settles Class Action Over Navistar Diesel Engines
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sean Gagnier and Richard Truett, writing for Automotive News,
report that Ford Motor Co. has agreed to settle a class-action
lawsuit over claims that it sold defective diesel engines in its
2003-07 Super Duty pickups and E-series vans.
The now discontinued diesel 6-liter V-8, manufactured by Ford's
former diesel engine supplier, Navistar International, had myriad
problems with the fuel system, turbochargers and other major
components.
According to the settlement, any U.S. purchaser and lessee of any
2003-07 Ford vehicle equipped with a 6-liter Power Stroke diesel
engine is covered if the vehicle's exhaust gas recirculation (EGR)
cooler and EGR valve, oil cooler, fuel injectors, or turbocharger
was repaired, replaced or adjusted prior to 135,000 miles or six
years.
Each component is given a reimbursement limit. In addition,
according to the settlement, if a class member paid a $100
deductible more than once for repairs under the five-year/100,000-
mile engine warranty, Ford will reimburse $50 each for the second
through fifth deductible paid, up to a limit of $200 for four
deductible payments.
The settlement resolves dozens of class-action lawsuits against
the company and entitles owners to be able to claim between $50
and $825 in reimbursement for post-warranty repairs to their
engine and engine components.
Poor engine quality, high repair costs and sinking customer
satisfaction ended the relationship between Ford and Navistar,
which had built every Power Stroke engine used in Ford's F-Series
since 1994. In 2010, Ford replaced the Navistar diesel with a new
6.7-liter diesel V-8 that the company designed in-house. That
engine is built in a plant in Mexico.
Some 6-liter failures were so severe that Ford had to replace
complete engines. Ford also ended up buying back hundreds of
trucks that couldn't be easily repaired. The engine problems
dramatically increased Ford warranty costs and led to litigation
with Navistar.
According to court documents, Ford will pay roughly 50 percent of
the full value of the claims made in the class action and was
ordered to pay $150,000, in total, to the 16 named plaintiffs.
Navistar, which was dismissed from the litigation, had no comment,
according to a company spokesman.
Ford said customers can visit http://www.dieselsettlement.comfor
more information. Those eligible have until Dec. 31 to download
and submit claims to the settlement administrator.
HARLEY-DAVIDSON INC: Recalls More Than 29,000 2014 Motorcycles
--------------------------------------------------------------
David Schuyler, writing for The Business Journal, reports that
Harley-Davidson Inc. said on Oct. 16 that it is voluntarily
recalling more than 29,000 model year 2014 motorcycles to repair
potential hydraulic clutch problems.
The Milwaukee-based company is asking owners to hold off on riding
the motorcycles and dealers to hold off on delivering motorcycles
until the problems can be identified and fixed, the company said
in a press release. The company is recalling the bikes
voluntarily and under the process set by the National Highway
Transportation Safety Administration, which has been closed for
the past couple of weeks because of the government shutdown.
Harley-Davidson said some bikes may exhibit a condition in which
the hydraulic clutch system may lose the ability to generate
enough lift to disengage the clutch. If the clutch does not
disengage as intended, the rider may have difficulty slowing or
stopping the motorcycle, which could result in an accident.
The recalls affect 25,185 Touring motorcycles, models FLHTCU,
FLHTK, FLHTP, FLHX, FLHXS, FLHTKSE and FLHRSE, and 3,861 Softail
CVOs and Trikes, models FLHTCUTG, FXSBSE and FLSTNSE, built
between May 3 and Oct. 14, 2013.
The company wants owners of affected motorcycles to contact an
authorized Harley-Davidson dealer immediately to arrange for an
inspection. The dealer will pick up, inspect and make the
necessary repairs at no cost to the owner. The repairs have been
identified and should take less than one hour.
"The safety of our customers is our highest priority," said
Tony Wilcox, Harley-Davidson general manager of motorcycle new
product delivery. "We have identified potential safety issues and
are moving quickly to notify our customers and dealers. The
inspection and repair of these motorcycles is extremely important,
so it's critical that our customers with affected vehicles contact
their dealers immediately. We apologize for this circumstance."
JANSSEN PHARMA: Faces Suits Over Topamax Birth Defect Risks
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sophia Pearson, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that
Johnson & Johnson's Janssen Pharmaceuticals failed to inform
expectant mothers of risks that its epilepsy drug Topamax could
cause birth defects, a lawyer for the mother of a Virginia 6-year-
old told a jury.
April Czimmer wouldn't have taken Topamax for more than six months
had she known the risks associated with the drug, her attorney
Tommy Fibich said in opening statements on Oct. 15 in state court
in Philadelphia.
Ms. Czimmer blames the drug for her son's cleft palate and lip and
claims Janssen negligently failed to inform patients about its
risks until the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ordered stronger
warnings in 2011.
"It is the pharmaceutical equivalent of a drive-by shooting,"
Mr. Fibich said. "The pharmaceutical company, when they put this
drug out into the market knowing it has these causes, they don't
know who it's going to hit."
Janssen said in court papers that it isn't liable for the boy's
injuries. Topamax came with FDA-approved prescribing information
that adequately set forth warnings and precautions associated with
its use, the company said.
The company is facing the first two of 63 cases over the seizure
drug this month in Philadelphia. Topamax, approved by the FDA in
1996, was one of New Brunswick, New Jersey-based J&J's top sellers
before it lost patent protection in 2009 and sales plummeted 58%
to $1.15 billion, according to the company's annual report.
Migraine Treatment
Ms. Czimmer said she was prescribed Topamax from August 2006
through February 2007 to treat migraines. Her son Blake was born
in September 2007 with defects requiring four surgeries since
birth, Fibich said.
The FDA on March 4, 2011, said preliminary studies suggested
Topamax might contribute to cleft lips and cleft palates in
infants born to women who used the medication during pregnancy.
The government asked the company to update the label enclosed with
the medicine to reflect a stronger classification and warning for
the drug.
The birth defects, known as oral clefts, occur when parts of the
lip or palate do not completely fuse together in the first
trimester of pregnancy, the FDA said. The defects range from a
small notch in the lip to a groove that runs into the roof of the
mouth and nose. The condition, which can lead to ear infections
and problems with eating and talking, often requires surgery to
close the lip and palate.
Raise Risks
Lawyers for mothers who took the drug during pregnancy claim
Janssen knew as early as 2002 that Topamax could raise the risk of
birth defects, according to a master complaint filed in September
2011.
They claim the company and its predecessor, Ortho-McNeil
Pharmaceutical, promoted Topamax for off-label use since at least
2001. The off-label uses included weight loss, anxiety disorders,
cluster headaches, sleep apnea, diabetes and substance abuse,
according to court papers.
Janssen aggressively advertised and sold Topamax for these off-
label uses "without any valid scientific evidence" that supported
the use of the drug for the treatment of such ailments, according
to the master complaint.
The company hired outside physicians to promote the drug for off-
label use and implemented programs such as "Doctor-For-a-Day," in
which physicians accompanied sales representatives on calls to
push the drug.
Criminal Case
In April 2010, J&J paid $81 million to resolve criminal and civil
cases over illegal promotion of the drug. A month later, Ortho-
McNeil admitted that it illegally marketed Topamax and pleaded
guilty to a misdemeanor charge of selling a misbranded drug as
part of the settlement.
Judge Arnold New, who is overseeing the lawsuits in Philadelphia,
granted Janssen's request to bar punitive damages in the case. He
also dismissed an accusation that Janssen failed to warn patients
and claims that the drug was defective in design, according to a
July 16 court order. The trial is going forward on claims of
negligence, fraud and misrepresentation.
The case is Czimmer v. Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc., 110503459,
Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. The
master case is In Re Topamax Litigation, 110602131, Court of
Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania.
JEFFERIES GROUP: Still Faces 7 Suits Over Leucadia Merger
---------------------------------------------------------
Seven putative class action lawsuits have been filed against
Jefferies Group LLC on behalf of its shareholders, alleging that
that the Company and Leucadia National Corporation aided and
abetted their directors' breach of fiduciary duties, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended August 31,
2013.
The Company states: "Seven putative class action lawsuits have
been filed in New York and Delaware concerning the merger
transactions whereby Jefferies Group LLC became a wholly owned
subsidiary of Leucadia National Corporation ("Leucadia"). The
class actions, filed on behalf of our shareholders prior to the
merger transactions, name as defendants Jefferies Group, Inc., the
members of the board of directors of Jefferies Group, Inc.,
Leucadia and, in certain of the actions, certain merger-related
subsidiaries. The actions allege that the directors breached their
fiduciary duties in connection with the merger transactions by
engaging in a flawed process and agreeing to sell Jefferies Group,
Inc. for inadequate consideration pursuant to an agreement that
contains improper deal protection terms. The actions allege that
Jefferies Group, Inc. and Leucadia aided and abetted the
directors' breach of fiduciary duties. The actions filed in New
York have been stayed, and the actions filed in Delaware are
proceeding. We are unable to predict the outcome of this
litigation."
Jefferies Group LLC and its subsidiaries operate as a securities
and investment banking firm. The Company operates in two business
segments: Capital Markets segment consists of the Company's
securities and commodities trading activities and its investment
banking activities, and Asset Management segment includes asset
management activities and related services. On July 1, 2011, the
Company acquired the Bache Global Commodities Group from
Prudential Financial, Inc., and as of November 30, 2011, the
Company operated a futures commission merchant through Jefferies
Bache, LLC in the United States and a global commodities and
financial derivatives broker through Jefferies Bache Limited in
the United Kingdom. Effective March 1, 2013, Leucadia National
Corp acquired the remaining 71.4% interest in Jefferies Group Inc.
Effective March 1, 2013, Leucadia acquired the remaining 71.4%
interest in Jefferies Group Inc.
JPMORGAN CHASE: $5BB Settlement Hardly Ends Legal Troubles
----------------------------------------------------------
Ken Sweet and Marcy Gordon, writing for The Associated Press,
reports that the $5.1 billion that JPMorgan Chase has agreed to
pay hardly ends its legal troubles over mortgage securities it
sold.
It's merely a down payment.
JPMorgan still faces heavy financial burdens. The bank has set
aside $23 billion to cover legal costs -- and it may need it all.
In a statement on Oct. 25, JPMorgan called its latest settlement
an "important step" toward resolving allegations over mortgage-
backed securities it sold. The $5.1 billion would resolve federal
claims that it misled Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac about risky home
loans and securities they bought before the housing market
collapsed.
Fannie and Freddie were rescued in a taxpayer bailout in 2008 as
they sank under the weight of mortgage losses.
Between 2005 and 2007, JPMorgan sold $33 billion in mortgage
securities to Fannie and Freddie, according to their regulator.
That was the second-most sold to Fannie and Freddie ahead of the
crisis, behind only Bank of America. The securities soured after
the housing bubble burst in 2007, losing billions in value.
Fannie and Freddie own or guarantee about half of all U.S.
mortgages, worth about $5 trillion. The two don't directly make
loans to borrowers. They buy mortgages from lenders, package them
as bonds, guarantee them against default and sell them to
investors. This system helps make loans widely available to
borrowers.
The Federal Housing Finance Agency, which oversees Fannie and
Freddie, announced the Oct. 25 settlement with JPMorgan, the
largest U.S. bank.
The deal is expected to be followed by a broader agreement with
the Justice Department that's still being negotiated. JPMorgan
earlier reached a tentative deal with Justice to pay $13 billion.
The $13 billion tentative deal included $4 billion to resolve the
FHFA claims. Even reduced by that amount, it would be the largest
penalty the government has extracted from a company for actions
related to the financial crisis. It's unclear when the broader
agreement will be finalized.
The bank still faces local, state and federal investigations into
its sale of the mortgage-backed securities. Most of the trouble
stems from JPMorgan's acquisition of Bear Stearns in March 2008.
In September, JPMorgan agreed to pay $920 million and admit that
it failed to oversee trading that led to a $6 billion loss last
year in its London operation. That combined amount, in
settlements with three regulators in the U.S. and one in Britain,
is one of the largest fines ever levied against a financial
institution.
In another case, the company agreed to pay a $100 million penalty
and admitted that its traders acted "recklessly" with the London
trades.
If that weren't enough, JPMorgan is tied up in litigation over the
Bernard Madoff Ponzi scheme. JPMorgan has said it's responding to
investigations by Justice and other regulators. The bank hasn't
given details. But it has previously faced accusations that it
and other banks ignored signs that Mr. Madoff was a con artist.
Edward DeMarco, the FHFA's acting director, said the settlement
with JPMorgan "provides greater certainty in the marketplace and
is in line with our responsibility for preserving and conserving
Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's assets on behalf of taxpayers."
The FHFA sued 18 financial institutions in September 2011 over
their sales of mortgage securities to Fannie and Freddie. The
total price for the securities sold was $196 billion.
The government rescued Fannie and Freddie during the financial
crisis when both were on the verge of collapse. The companies
received taxpayer aid totaling $187 billion. They have since
become profitable and repaid $146 billion.
Of the $5.1 billion it's agreed to pay, New York-based JPMorgan
will pay about $2.74 billion to Freddie and $1.26 billion to
Fannie for mortgage bonds it sold. JPMorgan is paying a separate
$1.1 billion for home loans it sold them.
The mortgage securities that JPMorgan sold to Fannie and Freddie
included billions that were packaged by two institutions that
failed in 2008: Wall Street bank Bear Stearns and Seattle-based
Washington Mutual, the largest U.S. savings and loan. JPMorgan
bought Bear Stearns and Washington Mutual in deals brokered by the
government.
A number of big banks, including JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs and
Citigroup, previously have been accused of abuses in sales of
securities linked to mortgages in the years leading up to the
crisis. Together, they have paid hundreds of millions in
penalties to settle civil charges brought by the SEC, which
accused them of deceiving investors about the quality of the bonds
they sold.
But no high-level Wall Street executives has been sent to jail
over charges related to the financial crisis. And the banks in
all the SEC cases were allowed to neither admit nor deny
wrongdoing -- a practice that brought criticism of the agency from
judges and investor advocates. Some lawmakers and other critics
have demanded that the big bailed-out banks and senior executives
be held accountable.
JPMorgan had long enjoyed a reputation for managing risk better
than its Wall Street competitors. The bank came through the
financial crisis in better shape than most of its rivals.
But in recent months, it has been engaged in a number of
embarrassing and costly settlements. In September, the bank
agreed to pay $920 million and admit that it failed to oversee
trading that led to a $6 billion loss last year in its London
operation. That combined amount, in settlements with three
regulators in the U.S. and one in Britain, is one of the largest
fines ever levied against a financial institution.
In another case, the company agreed to pay a $100 million penalty
and admitted that its traders acted "recklessly" with the London
trades.
And in a first for a major company, JPMorgan admitted in the
agreement with the SEC over the trading loss in London that it
failed in its oversight.
KB HOME: Seven Drywall Suits Being Dismissed
--------------------------------------------
KB Home disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended August 31,
2013, that "As of August 31, 2013, we were a defendant in eight
lawsuits relating to allegedly defective drywall manufactured in
China. Seven of the lawsuits are "omnibus" class actions
purportedly filed on behalf of numerous homeowners asserting
claims for damages against drywall manufacturers, homebuilders and
other parties in the supply chain of the allegedly defective
drywall material. These class actions are now in the process of
being dismissed pursuant to a final global settlement of claims
approved in February 2013 by the federal court judge overseeing a
multidistrict litigation case -- In re: Chinese Manufactured
Drywall Products Liability Litigation (MDL-2047). We were also a
defendant in one lawsuit brought in Florida state court by
individual homeowners. Except for the Florida state court case,
the global settlement resolved all current claims against us,
including the seven omnibus class actions in which we were named
as a defendant, and bars any future claims against all
participating defendants, including us. Our total obligation as a
participating defendant under the global settlement was $.3
million, which we paid on March 25, 2013. We also expect to
receive certain amounts under the global settlement in 2014 based
on repairs we made to homes of certain settlement class members.
The plaintiffs in the Florida state court case opted out of the
global settlement, and we settled the case with the plaintiffs."
KB Home is a builder of single-family residential homes, townhomes
and condominiums. It constructs and sells homes through its
operating divisions under the name KB Home. It operates
homebuilding and financial services business serving homebuyers in
various markets across the United States. Its homebuilding
operations offer a variety of new homes designed primarily for
first-time, move-up and active adult homebuyers, including
attached and detached single-family residential homes, townhomes
and condominiums. The Company's financial services segment
provides insurance services to its homebuyers in the same markets
where it builds homes and provides title services in the majority
of its markets located within its Central and Southeast
homebuilding segments. In August 2013, KB Home acquired 40 acres
of land in Eastvale, Calif. from Irvine-based Stratham
Communities. In October 2013, KB Home acquired property at 72
Townsend in San Francisco.
KEY WEST SEAPORT: Faces "Spartichino" Class Suit in Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
Malcolm C.T. Spartichino v. Key West Seaport, Inc. d/b/a Schooner
Wharf Bar, Evalena Worthington, and Paul Worthington, Case No.
4:13-cv-10152-JEM (S.D. Fla., October 9, 2013) alleges violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").
During one or more workweeks, Mr. Spartichino alleges that the
Defendants did not pay him time and one half his regular rate of
pay for overtime hours worked in violation of the FLSA. He
asserts that he was unlawfully denied overtime wages in violation
of the FLSA.
Mr. Spartichino has worked for the Defendants from August 2008 to
the present. As a bar back, his primary duties and
responsibilities include overlooking supplies for the bar, and
checking in beer, liquor, and dry goods deliveries.
Key West Seaport, Inc. had employees engaged in commerce or in the
production of goods for commerce, or had employees handling,
selling, or otherwise working on goods or materials that were
moved in or produced for commerce by a person. The Worthingtons
were the Plaintiff's employer as defined by law.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd William Shulby, Esq.
TODD W. SHULBY, P.A.
4705 S.W. 148th Avenue, Suite 102
Davie, FL 33330-2417
Telephone: (954) 530-2236
Facsimile: (954) 530-6628
E-mail: tshulby@shulbylaw.com
KORE OF INDIANA: Capstone Discusses Judge Posner's Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------
Capstone Law's Senior Counsel Glenn Danas praised the Seventh
Circuit's decision to uphold the viability of consumer class
actions in a new ruling authored by Judge Richard Posner. The
Seventh Circuit's decision follows the Supreme Court's recent
opinion in Comcast v. Behrend. Hughes v. Kore of Indiana
Enterprise Inc. involved an appeal from an order decertifying a
class action. The suit concerned the defendant's alleged failure
to post required notices of fees charged to users of its ATMs.
During the relevant time period, at least 2800 ATM transactions
were each saddled with a $3 fee. The lower court gave two reasons
for decertifying the class of ATM users: (1) class members would
theoretically be better off bringing individual suits, since they
would then get statutory damages of between $100 and $1000 instead
of just a few dollars to cover their ATM fees; and (2) individual
notice to the class members was practically impossible.
The Hughes court rejected both of the district court's reasons for
decertifying the class. First, the court noted that individual
suits would be extremely unlikely due to the difficulty of hiring
counsel, since no lawyer "could expect the court to award an
attorney's fee commensurate with his efforts in the case, if the
client recovered only $100." Instead, the court found that the
case should proceed as a class action, and that damages should be
donated to a charity instead of being distributed to class
members. Even if the class would not benefit from this, and the
remedy were thus "purely punitive," this would still be preferable
to individual suits, since one of the goals of a class action is
to prevent the defendant from "walking away from the litigation
scot-free."
The court also rejected the idea that the impracticality of
individual notice defeats certification, holding that individual
notice is required only if class members can be identified with
reasonable effort. In this case, stickers placed on ATMs and
publication notice in a newspaper and on a website was sufficient,
in part because the small dollar value of the claims meant that
there was little possibility that anyone would opt out.
Glenn Danas, Senior Counsel at Capstone Law, is hopeful about the
impact this decision will have on class actions in general: "Judge
Posner's opinion in Hughes demonstrates that class actions have a
critical utility for resolving small claims, and that some of the
most respected federal appellate courts will continue to apply
Rule 23 with a fidelity to the rule's original purpose,
notwithstanding the agenda of the Supreme Court's narrow
majority."
If you wish to discuss this or any other matter with us, please
contact the following attorney:
Stephen Gamber, Esq.
Senior Counsel
Capstone Law
1840 Century Park East, Suite 450
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: 310-556-4810
E-mail: Stephen.Gamber@CapstoneLawyers.com .
Visit the Capstone Law website -- http://www.CapstoneLawyers.com
-- for more information about the firm. You can also visit our
blog at http://capstonelawapc.wordpress.com/
MERACORD LLC: "Lomax" Class Suit Transferred to Wash. Dist. Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Stanley R. Chesler granted a motion to transfer the
class action captioned REGINA LOMAX, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MERACORD LLC, and JOHN
DOES 1-5, Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-1945 (SRC), (D. N.J.).
The transfer motion was filed by Defendant Meracord LLC pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a).
The Court concluded that a transfer of the action to the United
States District Court for the Western District of Washington would
promote the convenience of the parties and serve the interests of
justice.
"Meracord has demonstrated that a transfer pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 1404(a) is warranted," Judge Chesler said.
A copy of the District Court's October 16, 2013 Opinion is
available at http://is.gd/aS91oifrom Leagle.com.
MOYLE INC: Consent Judgment Entered in "Jousma" Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Timothy P. Greeley certified, for purposes of
effectuating a settlement, a Class consisting of all persons who
worked as laborers and construction mechanics for Thomas J. Moyle,
Jr., Inc. on Federal Davis-Bacon Projects and State Prevailing
Wage Projects in the years 2009-2012 (the "Class"). The term
"laborers and construction mechanics" refers to persons who
performed work of the type covered by applicable Federal Davis-
Bacon and/or State Prevailing Wage laws.
Plaintiffs Benjamin Jousma, Mark Kela, Darin Burcar, Michael
Newkirk, Daniel Ghazale and Richard Simons have been designated as
the Class representatives.
Judge Timothy held that the Parties and all Class Members are
bound by a Consent Final Judgment, under which a Settlement
Agreement is incorporated, and is approved in its entirety.
The Court directed Defendant Moyle, Inc. to:
(1) pay the pension contribution amounts owed, as determined and
verified by a jointly retained, independent certified public
accountant (CPA) selected by U.S. Magistrate Judge Timothy
Greeley, into Moyle, Inc.'s Davis-Bacon Pension Plan (the
"Plan") for work performed by Class Members on Davis-Bacon
projects and State Prevailing Wage projects during the period
January 1, 2009 through December 31, 2012; and
(2) pay $56,000.00 to the Plan for lost opportunity costs which
shall be allocated to the Class Members proportionally to the
amounts owed for each Class Member.
These payments, which will be made by Moyle, Inc. alone, will be
made according to a payment schedule. The $56,000 for lost
opportunity costs shall be paid out of the first installment. The
total amount due under the Judgment shall be reduced by any
amounts already paid by Moyle, Inc., pursuant to the terms of the
Parties' agreement.
The entire settlement amount, i.e., both contributions and lost
opportunity costs, will be paid by September 30, 2014, according
to the payment schedule, regardless of when the jointly-retained
CPA begins or completes his/her work, Accordingly, Moyle, Inc.,
will pay to the CPA:
(1) $100,000.00 within 2 weeks of the time the Settlement
Agreement is signed and submitted to the Court for approval.
The CPA will escrow this initial payment. Upon the Court's
approval of the Settlement, the CPA shall pay the escrowed
amount to the Plan;
(2) $100,000.00 no later than 2 weeks after Court approval of the
settlement;
(3) $100,000.00 no later than 4 weeks after court approval of the
settlement.
(4) $100,000.00 no later than June 30, 2014; and
(5) $100,000.00 no later than September 30, 2014.
The final September 30, 2014 payment may be adjusted.
Judge Greeley noted that Moyle, Inc., has defaulted on the
Settlement Agreement-required payment schedule and did not timely
cure its default.
"This Consent Judgment is now entered against Moyle, Inc. for the
entire amount owed, as determined by the jointly-retained CPA,
less any amounts already paid by Moyle, Inc., pursuant to the
terms of the Settlement Agreement," says the Court. "For the
duration of the payment plan . . . Moyle, Inc. will make timely
pension contributions to the Plan for post-December 31, 2012 work
so that the payments required under the Settlement Agreement and
Court-ordered payment schedule are not made or financed by
deferring any of Moyle's current Plan contributions obligations.
The CPA will verify compliance with the requirements of this
paragraph and immediately report to Plaintiffs' Counsel any
delinquent payment not made on its due date."
Plaintiffs' claims against the individual Defendants and Orchard
are reinstated retroactive to February 24, 2012, Judge Greeley
added.
The case is BENJAMIN JOUSMA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THOMAS J.
MOYLE, JR., INC., et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 2:12-CV-106, (W.D.
Mich.).
A copy of the District Court's October 16, 2013 Opinion is
available at http://is.gd/C5d9vAfrom Leagle.com.
Christopher P. Legghio -- cpl@legghioisrael.com -- (P27378)
Michael Joseph Bommarito -- bommarito@legghioisrael.com --
(P36870) LEGGHIO & ISRAEL, PC, Royal Oak, MI, Attorneys for
Plaintiff.
Attorney for Defendant Orchard Trust Company:
Scott A. Storey, Esq.
FOSTER SWIFT COLLINS & SMITH, P.C.
313 South Washington Square
Lansing, MI 48933-2114
Tel: (517) 371-8159
Fax: (517) 371-8200
Peter J. Kok -- kokp@millerjohnson.com -- Keith E. Eastland --
eastlandk@millerjohnson.com -- Katerina M. Vujea --
vujeak@millerjohnson.com -- MILLER JOHNSON, Grand Rapids, Ml,
Attorneys for Defendants Thomas J. Moyle, Jr., Inc., Thomas J.
Moyle, Jr., Andrew J. Moyle, Gary A. Moyle, Thomas Helminen and
Kimberly R, Moyle.
MTR GAMING: Being Sold to Eldorado for Too Little, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that MTR Gaming Group is selling
itself too cheaply through an unfair process to Eldorado Holdco,
for $30 million or $5.15 a share, shareholders claim in Delaware
Chancery Court.
NATROL INC: Faces Consumer Fraud Class Action in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
Debra S. Dunne, Esq., Laurie A. Henry, Esq., and Madeleine
McDonough, Esq. at Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP report that a
California resident has filed a putative statewide consumer-fraud
class action against the company that makes Natrol Glucosamine
Chondroitin supplements and promotes them as products that can
"Help[] Rebuild Cartilage Tissue" and contain "Clinically Tested
Ingredients to Promote Optimal Joint Flexibility, Lubrication,
Mobility and Comfort." Dao v. Natrol, Inc., No. 13-2433 (U.S.
Dist. Ct., S.D. Cal., filed October 9, 2013). According to the
complaint, scientific studies confirm that these products "have no
efficacy at all: that they are ineffective in the improvement of
joint health, provide no benefits related to the reduction of pain
in human joints, and they do not protect cartilage from
breakdown."
The plaintiff alleges that she relied on the product labeling to
purchase a bottle for $25 and did not obtain the promised relief.
While she does not claim damages for physical harm, she contends
that she lost money and would not have purchased the product if
she had known it would not work. The complaint details the many
studies published since 1999 indicating that the main ingredients
in the defendant's products are no more effective than placebos.
Alleging violations of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act and
Business & Professions Code, as well as breach of express
warranty, the plaintiff seeks damages, restitution and
disgorgement, injunctive relief including a corrective advertising
campaign, attorney's fees, and costs.
RICHARDSON ELECTRONICS: Received $2.1MM From Settlement of Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
During the first quarter of fiscal 2014, Richardson Electronics,
Ltd., received a settlement in the amount of $2.1 million related
to an anti-trust class action lawsuit settlement, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended August 31, 2013.
The Company states: "During the first quarter of fiscal 2014, we
received a settlement in the amount of $2.1 million related to an
anti-trust class action lawsuit settlement. The settlement was
recorded as proceeds from legal settlement within the Other Income
section of our Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income."
Richardson Electronics, Ltd. is a provider of engineered
solutions, power grid and microwave tubes and related components,
and customized displays solutions, serving customers in the
alternative energy, aviation, broadcast, communications,
industrial, marine, medical, military, scientific, and
semiconductor markets. The Company operates in two operating
segments: Electron Device Group (EDG) and Canvys. The Company's
products include electron tubes and related components, microwave
generators, subsystems used in semiconductor manufacturing, and
visual technology solutions. These products are used to control,
switch or amplify electrical power signals, or are used as display
devices in a variety of industrial, commercial, medical, and
communication applications. On September 4, 2012, the Company
acquired the assets of D and C Import-Export, Inc.
ROTH II ENTERPRISES: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Debbie Bermudez, a single woman; Jennifer Miller, a married woman;
Chantel Norris, a single woman; and Beverly Walton, a single woman
v. Roth II Enterprises, Inc., an Arizona Corporation; Mark Roth
and Jennifer Roth, husband and wife, Case No. 2:13-cv-02052-LOA
(D. Ariz., October 9, 2013) is brought against the Defendants for
their alleged unlawful failure to pay overtime wages in direct
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
For at least two years prior to the filing of this action, the
Defendants had a consistent policy and practice of requiring its
employees to work well in excess of 40 hours per week without
paying them time and a half for hours worked over 40 hours per
week, the Plaintiffs allege. The Plaintiffs contend that they
worked between 45 and 60 hours per week and were not paid time and
a half for the hours worked above 40.
The Plaintiffs are residents of Maricopa County, Arizona. At all
relevant times, the Plaintiffs were "employees" of the Company.
Roth II Enterprises, Inc. owned and manages Bright Star Care of
Phoenix, which specializes in adult and elder care, pediatric and
newborn care, disabled care and more. The Roths are residents of
Maricopa County, Arizona. The Plaintiffs allege that Jennifer
Roth and Mark Roth have caused events to take place giving rise to
this Complaint as to which their marital community is fully
liable.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Trey Dayes, Esq.
Dawn M. Sauer, Esq.
John L. Collins, Esq.
PHILLIPS DAYES LAW GROUP PC
3101 North Central Avenue, Suite 1500
Phoenix, Arizona 85012
Telephone: (602) 258-8900
E-mail: treyd@phillipsdayeslaw.com
dawns@phillipsdayeslaw.com
johnc@phillipsdayeslaw.com
SAC CAPITAL: Institutional Investor Can Serve as Lead Plaintiff
---------------------------------------------------------------
Max Stendahl, writing for Law360, reports that an institutional
investor that has served as the lead plaintiff in five different
securities class actions in the past three years is not barred
from leading another suit over SAC Capital Advisors LP's alleged
$276 million insider trader scheme, a New York federal judge ruled
on Oct. 22.
U.S. District Judge Victor Marerro said the federal "five-in-three
rule" -- which bars people from serving as the lead plaintiff in
more than five securities class actions in any three-year period
-- was meant to apply to private individuals who act as
"professional plaintiffs," not to institutional investors like KBC
Asset Management NV.
The judge said KBC could therefore serve as lead plaintiff in the
SAC case, overruling objections by the hedge fund. The
plaintiffs, Wyeth Ltd. investors, claim they were duped by SAC's
supposed insider trading scheme involving the pharmaceutical
giant's stock.
The City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief System also will
serve as lead plaintiff, while Scott & Scott LLP and Motley Rice
LLC will serve as lead counsel, Judge Marrero said.
The complaint in New York federal court stems from a federal
government investigation of Mathew Martoma, a former SAC portfolio
manager accused in November of trading on confidential information
about a trial for an Alzheimer's drug being developed by Wyeth and
Elan Corp.
The price of Wyeth and Elan shares plummeted when the companies
announced in July 2008 that the trial had gone poorly.
Mr. Martoma, who had shorted the stocks based on an inside tip,
earned the hedge fund $276 million in profits and avoided losses,
according to prosecutors.
Wyeth was acquired by Pfizer Inc. in January 2009.
The defendants named in the suit include SAC, owner Steven A.
Cohen, Mr. Martoma and Sidney Gilman, a professor of neurology at
the University of Michigan Medical School who chaired the
committee overseeing the drug trial and allegedly provided the
tips.
Elan investors have launched a separate class action in New York
over the alleged scheme. The suits by Elan and Wyeth shareholders
have been consolidated by the court but are proceeding on behalf
of separate classes.
SAC has been buffeted by insider trading allegations in recent
months. It reached a $600 million settlement in March with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission without admitting or
denying wrongdoing, and was criminally indicted in July.
Meanwhile, former SAC portfolio manager Michael Steinberg and
Mr. Martoma are set to go on trial in November and January,
respectively.
The plaintiffs in the Wyeth case are represented by Scott & Scott
LLP and Motley Rice LLC.
The plaintiffs in the Elan case are represented by Wohl & Fruchter
LLP and Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP.
SAC and Cohen are represented by Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton &
Garrison LLP and Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP. Martoma is
represented by Goodwin Procter LLP.
The Wyeth case is Birmingham Retirement and Relief System v. SAC
Capital Advisors LLC et al., case number 1:13-cv-02459, in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The
Elan case is Kaplan v. SAC Capital Advisors LP et al., case number
12-cv-09350, in the same court.
SCHNUCK MARKETS: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Kavita Kumar, writing for St. Louis Post-Dispatch, reports that
Schnuck Markets has agreed to a proposed class-action settlement
stemming from the breach of its computer systems in which an
estimated 2.4 million payment cards were compromised.
The preliminary settlement was presented to St. Louis Circuit
Judge David Dowd on Oct. 23. He is expected to rule on it in the
coming weeks.
He also is considering a motion to intervene in the case by a
lawyer pursuing one of the related federal lawsuits still pending.
The lawyer, Matt Armstrong, argued at the court hearing that the
proposed settlement may not be a good deal for consumers.
Under the proposed settlement, Schnucks would pay up to $10 to
customers for each credit or debit card that was compromised and
had fraudulent charges posted on it that were later credited or
reversed.
Schnucks also would pay customers for certain unreimbursed out-of-
pocket expenses such as bank, overdraft and late fees as well as
up to three hours for documented time spent at the rate of $10 an
hour for dealing with the security breach. There would be a cap
on these expenses of up to $175 per class member.
The aggregate cap that Schnucks would pay on the above claims
would be $1.6 million. If claims exceed that amount, customers
would still be guaranteed at least $5 for each compromised card.
Furthermore, Schnucks would pay: up to $10,000 for each related
identity theft loss, with the total capped at $300,000; up to
$635,000 for the plaintiff and settlement attorney's fees; and
$500 to each of the nine named plaintiffs in the lawsuit.
The proposed settlement says Schnucks denies any wrongdoing but
recognizes the uncertainty of continued litigation and considers
it desirable that the case be settled and dismissed to avoid
further expense and disruption.
The lawsuit, which was filed on behalf of Susan McGann and other
Schnuck customers, is one of several lawsuits that was brought
against the Maryland Heights-based grocery chain after its systems
were breached by hackers between December 2012 and March 2013.
They claim that Schnucks failed to secure customers' personal
financial data and did not notify them in a clear and timely
manner that their information had been stolen.
"Of the cases I've had, this is a tremendous settlement,"
Ben Barnow, a Chicago attorney representing plaintiffs, said at
the hearing.
Mr. Barnow has also helped settle other large security breach-
related consumer class actions including those against TJX Cos.
and mortgage lender Countrywide.
But attorney Matt Armstrong, who has brought one of the federal
cases against Schnucks, said at the hearing that his client was
not being adequately represented by the proposed settlement. He
claimed that proper discovery had not been done in the case so a
better sense of the scope of damages and losses has not yet been
disclosed. So he filed a motion to intervene in the case.
"Nobody can figure out if this is a good deal," he said.
Among his concerns is that the proposed settlement could release
Schnucks from some federal claims that could hold it responsible
for as much as $1,000 for each violation. So he was worried that
this settlement would submerge his federal case.
But the lawyers for the plaintiffs in the circuit case bristled at
Armstrong's attempted intervention, calling it highly unusual.
They also noted that Armstrong had filed the motion before he had
even seen the proposed settlement. That suggests, said John
Steward, one of the settlement class' attorneys, that the motion
was more "lawyer-driven."
SITEL OPERATING: Violates WARN Act, Class Claims in Nevada
----------------------------------------------------------
Reika Michiko, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated as referenced herein v. Sitel Operating
Corporation, a foreign corporation; Does I through V, inclusive;
and Does I through V, inclusive, Case No. 2:13-cv-01846-JCM-CWH
(D. Nev., October 9, 2013) alleges violations of the Worker
Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN).
As technical support for the Defendant, Ms. Michiko relates that
she would handle telephone calls for its "call campaigns." She
says that they were approximately 150 employees in her call
campaign.
Ms. Michiko alleges that the Defendant has informed these 150
employees that their employment would either end or they would be
required to re-apply for new positions within the Company. She
contends that none of these 150 employees has been automatically
transferred to other positions with the Defendant, in violation of
the WARN Act. She insists that the Company filed to provide her
and other similarly situated employees the proper notice required
by the WARN Act.
Ms. Michiko worked in technical support at the Defendant's Las
Vegas, Nevada-based call center.
Sitel Operating Corporation employed over a thousand people at its
Las Vegas, Nevada-based call center. The true names and
capacities of the Doe Defendants are currently unknown to the
Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew L. Rempfer, Esq.
Ryan Howard Devine, Esq.
COGBURN LAW OFFICES
2879 St. Rose Parkway, Suite 200
Henderson, NV 89052
Telephone: (702) 384-3616
Facsimile: (702) 943-1936
E-mail: alr@cogburnlaw.com
rdevine@cogburnlaw.com
SMITH BARNEY: June 2014 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
No. 05 Civ. 7583(WHP)
TO: All persons and entities who purchased or sold shares in any
of the following Smith Barney mutual funds1 ("Smith Barney Funds,"
or the "Funds")2 during the following time periods, inclusive, or
their successors in interest, and who were damaged thereby:
Smith Barney Aggressive Growth Fund, Inc.: September 11, 2000 -
December 26, 2002;
Smith Barney Allocation Series, Inc. - Allocation Growth
Portfolio: September 11, 2000 - May 28, 2003;
Smith Barney Appreciation Fund, Inc.: September 11, 2000 - April
25, 2002;
Smith Barney Income Fund Series-Smith Barney Convertible Fund:
September 11, 2000 - November 25, 2002;
Smith Barney Income Fund Series-Smith Barney Diversified Strategic
Income Fund: September 11, 2000 - November 25, 2002;
Smith Barney Income Fund Series-Smith Barney High Income Fund:
September 11, 2000 - November 25, 2002;
Smith Barney Income Fund Series-Smith Barney Premium Total Return
Fund: September 11, 2000 - April 25, 2002;
Smith Barney Fundamental Value Fund, Inc.: September 11, 2000-
January 23, 2003;
Smith Barney World Funds, Inc.-International All Cap Growth
Portfolio: September 11, 2000 - February 26, 2004;
Smith Barney Managed Governments Fund, Inc.: September 11, 2000 -
November 22, 2002;
Smith Barney Investment Funds, Inc.-Peachtree Growth Fund:
September 11, 2000 - April 25, 2002;
Smith Barney Investment Funds, Inc.-Investment Grade Bond Fund:
September 11, 2000 - April 25, 2002;
Smith Barney Investment Funds, Inc.-Small Cap Growth Fund:
September 11, 2000 - January 27, 2003;
Smith Barney Investment Trust-Large Capitalization Growth:
September 11, 2000 - March 27, 2003;
Smith Barney Managed Municipals Fund, Inc.: September 11, 2000 -
June 24, 2003;
Smith Barney Money Funds, Inc.-Cash Portfolio: September 11, 2000
- April 27, 2004; and Smith Barney Equity Funds, Inc.-Social
Awareness Fund: September 11, 2000 - May 29, 2002.
THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT. IT IS NOT A LAWYER
SOLICITATION. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS
ENTIRETY, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT
PENDING IN THIS COURT.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, (i) that the above-
captioned litigation has been certified as a class action on
behalf of a class of all persons and entities who purchased or
sold the Smith Barney Fund shares identified above between
September 11, 2000 and June 24, 2004, inclusive, or their
successors in interest, pursuant to a prospectus allegedly signed
by Lewis E. Daidone and who were damaged thereby, except for
certain persons and entities who are excluded from the Class, as
described Amended Stipulation; and (ii) that Court-appointed Lead
Plaintiff and the Class Representatives in the Action have reached
an agreement to settle the Action for an aggregated settlement
payment of $4.95 million in cash to the Class. A hearing will be
held on June 13, 2014 at 10:00 a.m. before the Honorable William
H. Pauley III at the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States
Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, Courtroom 20B, New York, NY 10007,
to determine (i) whether the proposed Settlement should be
approved as fair, reasonable and adequate; (ii) whether the
proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved as fair and
reasonable; (iii) whether the Action should be dismissed on the
merits and with prejudice against the remaining Defendant,
Lewis Daidone, and whether the releases specified and described in
the Amended Stipulation should be granted; (iv) whether Lead
Counsel's application for (a) an award of attorneys' fees to
compensate Lead Counsel for prosecuting the Action and achieving
the benefit for the Class embodied in the Settlement, (b)
reimbursement of expenses incurred by Lead Counsel directly
relating to the prosecution of the Action, and (c) reimbursement
of expenses incurred by Lead Plaintiff and Named Plaintiffs
(including lost wages) directly relating to the representation of
the Class should be approved.
If you are a member of the Class, your rights will be affected by
the Action and the Settlement, and you may be entitled to share in
the Settlement Fund. If you are interested in receiving more
details concerning the (I) Class Action, (II) Proposed Settlement
and Plan of Allocation, (III) Settlement Hearing, (IV) Motion for
Award of attorneys' fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses
and Plaintiffs' Expenses, (V) procedure for exclusion from the
Class, (VI) objections to the Settlement, and/or (VII) filing
claims, you may obtain a Mailing Notice, Proof of Claim and/or
Long-form Notice at http://www.transferagentssettlement.comor by
contacting the Claims Administrator:
In re Smith Barney Transfer Agent Litigation
c/o RG2 Claims Administration LLC
P.O. Box 59479
Philadelphia, PA 19102-9479
E-mail: info@transferagentssettlement.com
Telephone: (866) 742-4955
If you are a member of the Class, you may be eligible to receive a
payment under the proposed Settlement in accordance with the
proposed Plan of Allocation. To determine which purchasers and
sellers of Smith Barney Funds during the Class Period are entitled
to receive a portion of the proceeds of the Settlement proceeds
(net of taxes, the costs of notice and administration and such
fees and expenses the Court may award to Lead Counsel and
Plaintiffs) and in what amounts, Plaintiffs' expert calculated
estimated alleged damages incurred by investors in each Fund
during each year of the Class Period (based upon the transfer
agent fees paid by each Fund during the Class Period) and the
number of outstanding shares in each Fund during that year to
derive a "Harm Per Share Per Month" calculation. The "Per-Share
Harm" is described in Paragraph B of the Notice of (I) Pendency
of Class Action; (II) Proposed Settlement and Plan of Allocation;
(III) Settlement Fairness Hearing; and (IV) Motion for an Award of
Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses and
Paragraph B and 31-39 of the Long-Form Notice of (I) Pendency of
Class Action; (II) Proposed Settlement and Plan of Allocation;
(III) Settlement Fairness Hearing; and (IV) Motion for an Award of
Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Expense and may be
utilized to calculate your approximate "Recognized Loss" and
potential recovery before proration and deduction of Court-
approved attorneys' fees and other expenses. A more detailed
discussion of the Plan of Allocation can be found in the Mailing
Notice and Long-Form Notice, which is available at
http://www.transferagentssettlement.com
If you are a member of the Class and wish to exclude yourself from
the Class, you must submit a request for exclusion such that it is
received no later than January 22, 2014, in accordance with the
instructions set forth in the Long-Form Notice or the Mailing
Notice. If you properly and timely exclude yourself from the
Settlement Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders
entered by the Court in the Action and you will not be eligible to
share in the proceeds of the Settlement.
Any objections to any aspect of the proposed Settlement or Lead
Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of Litigation Expenses or Plaintiffs' Expenses, must
be filed with the Court and delivered to designated representative
Lead Counsel and counsel for the Defendant such that they are
received no later than January 22, 2014.
PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE. Inquiries should be directed to Lead Counsel or the
Claims Administrator:
Lead Counsel
Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
WEISSLAW LLP
1500 Broadway
16th Floor
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (212) 682-3025
(888) 593-4771
Mark Levine, Esq.
STULL, STULL & BRODY
6 East 45th Street
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 687-7230
(800) 337-4983
Dated: October 7, 2013 By Order of the Court
1 In 2006, the Smith Barney family of mutual funds was reorganized
into the Legg Mason Funds. The Settlement only applies to the
Smith Barney Funds, not the Legg Mason Funds.
2 All capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have
the meanings provided in the Amended Stipulation and Agreement of
Settlement executed by the Parties on August 8, 2013, which is
available at http://www.transferagentssettlement.com
STM: Canada High Court Rejects Class Suit v. Maintenance Workers
----------------------------------------------------------------
CJAD reports that it's the end of the road for a group that wanted
to launch a multi-million dollar class action lawsuit against the
STM's maintenance workers. The Supreme Court of Canada has
refused to hear the case that argued union pressure tactics in
2007 deprived users of public transit.
The plaintiffs alleged the union supported, encouraged and urged
its members to use illegal pressure tactics between September and
December 2007 -- which significantly disrupted service.
The case was rejected at Quebec Superior Court, then the Quebec
Court of Appeal earlier this year -- and now it's been rejected by
the Supreme Court of Canada.
TOYOTA MOTOR: Enters Into Settlement With Camry Crash Victims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sean Murphy, writing for The Associated Press, reports that Toyota
Motor Corp. reached a confidential settlement with the victims of
a deadly crash in Oklahoma to avoid punitive damages in a case
where a jury found a 2005 Camry's on-board electronics system was
defective and caused it to accelerate suddenly.
A day earlier, the Oklahoma Country jury awarded a total of $3
million in monetary damages to the driver of the car, who was
injured, and the family of the passenger, who was killed in the
crash in 2007.
It's the first jury ruling against Toyota in a personal injury
case involving unintended acceleration. Of equal significance was
the jury's determination that a defect in a Toyota vehicle's
software linked to the electronic throttle-control system was to
blame. The Japanese automaker has recalled millions of car
following claims of unintended acceleration. It has denied that
electronics played any role in the problem.
On Oct. 25, Judge Patricia Parrish announced the parties had
reached a deal that eliminated the need for the second stage of
the trial over punitive damages.
The terms of the settlement were not disclosed, but it includes a
provision that Toyota will not appeal the jury's decision, said
Jere Beasley, an attorney for the plaintiffs. "You can rest
assured they did not want to go to the punitive phase," Mr.
Beasley said.
A spokeswoman for Toyota said in a statement the company disagrees
with the jury's verdict.
"While we strongly disagree with the verdict, we are satisfied
that the parties reached a mutually acceptable agreement to settle
this case," said Toyota spokeswoman Carly Schaffner.
On Oct. 24, the jury awarded $1.5 million in monetary damages to
Jean Bookout, 82, the driver of the car who was injured, and $1.5
million to the family of Barbara Schwarz, who died. Ms. Bookout's
Camry ran through an intersection near Eufaula and slammed into an
embankment.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs maintained Toyota knew about the
problems, but concealed that information from the public.
Toyota denied those claims. Toyota attorney Randolph Bibb Jr.
theorized that Ms. Bookout mistakenly pumped the gas pedal instead
of the brake.
Toyota previously agreed to a more than $1 billion settlement in
2012 to resolve hundreds of lawsuits claiming economic losses
Toyota owners suffered when the Japanese automaker recalled
millions of vehicles because of the sudden acceleration problems.
That settlement did not include those suing over wrongful death
and injury. Hundreds more of those lawsuits remain.
A punitive damages phase was called for after the jury decided
Toyota acted with "reckless disregard" for the rights of others.
By law, the jury would have been limited to punitive damages in
the amount of $3 million.
The verdict came just weeks after Toyota won a separate case in
California. There, a jury found Toyota was not liable for the
death of a woman who was killed when her 2006 Camry apparently
accelerated and crashed despite her efforts to stop.
A federal judge in Orange County, California, is dealing with
wrongful death and economic loss lawsuits that have been
consolidated.
TRAVELERS LLOYDS: Seeks Dismissal of Hurricane Ike Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Heallen, writing for Law360, reports that a Travelers Cos.
Inc. subsidiary asked the Texas Supreme Court on Oct. 21 to axe a
putative class action over Hurricane Ike claims, saying the
proposed lead plaintiff settled with the insurer and shouldn't be
allowed to extend the litigation to the class certification stage.
Travelers Lloyds of Texas Insurance Co. told the high court in a
petition for mandamus that after Samuel Guerra filed the suit
alleging he had been shortchanged on his damage claim, the insurer
settled with him pursuant to an appraisal process mandated under
Guerra's homeowner's policy, mooting his lawsuit. But instead of
granting Traveler's request to disqualify Mr. Guerra as lead class
plaintiff -- which would effectively end the suit -- the trial
court is allowing the case to proceed to class certification,
Travelers says.
"By incorrectly applying the doctrine of mootness in conjunction
with class action law, and disregarding the well-settled rule that
the class action device cannot alter substantive contract rights,
the trial court improperly denied Travelers' right to resolve this
dispute conclusively and exclusively by appraisal," the petition
said.
Representatives for Mr. Guerra did not immediately respond to a
request for comment Oct. 23.
Travelers says that it initially settled with Guerra in 2008
shortly after Hurricane Ike devastated the Gulf Coast. After
issuing him a check for $2,200, the insurer says it never heard
anything more from Guerra until a year later, when his wife
appeared in a television commercial with attorney Javier Delgado
-- jdelgado@merlinlawgroup.com -- describing a class action
lawsuit she was pursuing against Travelers.
The insurer says it contacted Delgado about the suit and invoked a
contractual appraisal process required under Mr. Guerra's policy
for resolving disputes over underpayments. After an appraisal
panel awarded Guerra an additional $765, Travelers says it paid up
and then moved for summary judgment, saying Mr. Guerra was
ineligible to serve as a class representative and that the case
need not move to certification proceedings.
But the trial court denied the motion, citing the Texas Supreme
Court's 2012 decision in Heckman v. Williamson County. In that
case, the high court recognized a narrow exception to the mootness
doctrine for claims in a proposed class action of an "inherently
transitory" nature. The First District Court of Appeals upheld
the trial court's ruling earlier this month.
On appeal to the Texas Supreme Court, Travelers says that the
Heckman exception does not apply in Mr.Guerra's case because it
allows Mr. Guerra to use a class action suit to trump the
insurance policy's appraisal provision, violating the "well-
established rule that the class action mechanism cannot diminish a
party's substantive rights."
And Travelers says that Mr. Guerra's claims are not "inherently
transitory."
"The reason Guerra's claims were resolved prior to class
certification was not because his claims were 'short-lived' by
their nature," the petition said. "Rather, he agreed in the
policy to resolve the dispute by appraisal instead of in court."
Travelers is represented by Martin R. Sadler -- msadler@lawla.com
-- of Lugenbuhl Wheaton Peck Rankin & Hubbard, Stephen D. Goldman
-- sgoldman@rc.com -- and Wystan M. Ackerman -- wackerman@rc.com
-- of Robinson & Cole LLP and Charles T. Frazier Jr. --
cfrazier@adjtlaw.com -- of Alexander Dubose Jefferson & Townsend
LLP.
Mr. Guerra is represented by Javier Delgado and William F. Merlin
Jr. -- cmerlin@merlinlawgroup.com -- of The Merlin Law Group PA
and by Peter M. Kelly of Kelly Durham & Pittard LLP.
The case is In re Travelers Lloyds of Texas Insurance Co. case
number 13-0849, in the Texas Supreme Court.
UNILEVER US: Suave Keratin Infusion Kit Melts Hair, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Angela Watkins at Courthouse News Service reports that hundreds of
women suffered hair loss and scalp burns from using Suave
Professionals Keratin Infusion 30-Day Smoothing Kit, citing a
class action filed in the California Federal Court.
Lead plaintiffs Josephine Wells and Catherine Reny sued Unilever,
Suave's manufacturer, LEK Inc., and Conopco. They claim Unilever
used deceptive advertising and failed to warn consumers though it
knew of the risk of hair loss and scalp burns before the product
was introduced in late 2011.
Reny claims her hair began "melting" immediately after she applied
the product.
"Unilever knew, but failed to disclose to plaintiffs and the
class, that the treatment contains an ingredient or combination of
ingredients that causes significant hair loss upon proper
application," the lawsuit states. "The active ingredient in the
treatment, thioglycolic acid, including its salts and esters, is
the same active ingredient that is used in hair depilatories and
some hair perming solutions."
The "devastating" effects of the treatment were documented by
hundreds of women on a public Facebook page, "Suave-Keratin-
Infusion-Kit-Destroyed-my-Hair," screen shots from which are
included in the complaint.
Furthermore, the class claims, Unilever falsely advertised that
the treatment contained "No Formaldehyde," though it contains DMDM
Hydantoin, a chemical that releases formaldehyde, a carcinogen.
Unilever recalled the product in May 2012, characterizing it as a
decision to "discontinue" it, but maintaining that it was still
safe to use, and without disclosing reports of scalp burns and
hair loss, according to the lawsuit.
Wells claims she's still suffering the wretched effects of the
product today, 2 years after she used it: "After proper
application of the treatment, Wells noticed her hair breaking at
the crown and she experienced significant hair loss at the crown
and on the sides of her head. Because of the breakage and hair
loss, she has had to cut approximately ten inches off her hair and
has spent thousands of dollars on weaves, hair extensions, and
other treatments to attempt to restore the damage to her hair. The
straightening effects and damage to Wells' hair continues to this
day -- nearly two years after she used the product. Her once
long, beautiful, natural curly healthy hair is now dull, fragile
and short. Her hair is extremely thin and the bald spots caused
by the treatment are still visible."
Finally, the women claim, Unilever tried to placate distressed
women with an unconscionable release form: "In its continuing
efforts to conceal the dangers and serious harm attendant to use
of the product, Unilever has also engaged in a campaign designed
to obtain unconscionable and unenforceable releases from consumers
injured by use of the product. Upon information and belief,
Unilever has solicited and obtained numerous releases from
California consumers and others in the United States who were
injured by use of the product, without advising them of their
right to obtain legal counsel to review the form releases that
Unilever propounded and without fully explaining the terms or
legal effect of the form releases, including that (a) the form
releases purport to release third party retailers for no extra
consideration; (b) the form releases purport to release personal
injury claims for no extra consideration beyond the economic
losses incurred by the consumer; (c) the form releases require
consumers to indemnify Unilever for all losses 'from any and every
claim or demand of every kind and character, including claims for
contribution;' (d) the form releases require the consumer to
indemnify Unilever from any claims for payment of medical expenses
by Medicare/Medicaid; and (e) the form releases require the
consumer to hold Unilever harmless 'from any and all adverse
consequences in the event this settlement results in the loss of
right to Social Security and/or Medicare/Medicaid.' The release
forms that Unilever required its unrepresented consumers to sign -
- in order for them to get meager reimbursement from Unilever for
as little as $50.00 for a haircut -- contain terms that are so
outrageous that they should be set aside as unconscionable and
unenforceable."
The women seek class certification, cancellation of the releases,
and damages for negligence, gross negligence breach of warranty,
deceptive advertising, unjust enrichment, and violations of the
Magnuson-Moss Act and business and consumer laws.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Azra Z. Mehdi, Esq.
THE MEHDI FIRM, PC
One Market
Spear Tower, Suite 3600
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 293-8039
Facsimile: (415) 293-8001
E-mail: azram@themehdifirm.com
- and -
Peter Safirstein, Esq.
Elizabeth S. Metcalf, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.C.
Five Penn Plaza, 23rd Floor
New York, NY 10001
Telephone: (212) 564-1637
Facsimile: (212) 564-1807
E-mail: psafirstein@forthepeople.com
emetcalf@forthepeople.com
- and -
Christopher S. Polaszek, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.C.
One Tampa City Center
201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 314-6484
Facsimile: (813) 222-2406
E-mail: cpolaszek@forthepeople.com
- and -
Jana Eisinger, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF JANA EISINGER, PLLC
11 West Prospect Avenue
Mount Vernon, NY 10550
Telephone: (914) 418-4111
Facsimile: (914) 455-0213
E-mail: Jana.Eisinger@gmail.com
The case is Reny, et al. v. Unilever United States, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 3:13-cv-04749-EDL, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California (San Francisco).
UNITED FURNITURE: Accused of Violating Fair Labor Standards Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stevy Carothers, a single man; James Chandler, a married man;
Carol Doss, a married woman; Randal Hughes, a man; Edward Dean
Linzey, a single man; James Mask, a man; Edward Dean McMillan, a
single man; Lizzie McMillan, a single woman; Ronald Seger, a man;
Frank Walker, a married man; Troy Weaver, a married man; Shayla
White, a single woman, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. United Furniture Industries Incorporated, an
Ohio corporation; United Furniture CA, Inc., a Mississippi
corporation; United Furniture Industries NC, LLC, a Mississippi
limited liability company; Larry George and Jane Doe George,
husband and wife; Douglas Hanby and Jane Doe Hanby, husband and
wife, Case No. 1:13CV203-A-S (N.D. Miss., October 15, 2013)
accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA").
The Plaintiffs allege that the lawsuit is brought because of the
Defendants' failure to pay overtime wages in direct violation of
the FLSA. The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants had a
consistent policy and practice of requiring their employees to
work well in excess of 40 hours per week without paying the
Plaintiffs time and a half for hours worked over 40 hour per week.
The Plaintiffs are residents of Monroe County, Mississippi.
The United Furniture Entities are headquartered in Okolona,
Mississippi. Larry George and Douglas Hanby are day to day owners
of United Furniture Industries and made all managerial and
ownership decisions on behalf of the Company. They are both
residents of Chickasaw County, Mississippi. The Jane Doe
Defendants are fictitious names for Messrs. George's and Hanby's
wives.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Richard T. Phillips, Esq.
Jason L. Nabors, Esq.
SMITH, PHILLIPS, MITCHELL, SCOTT & NOWAK, LLP
P.O. Drawer 1586
Batesville, MS 38606
Telephone: (662) 563-4613
Facsimile: (662) 563-1546
E-mail: flip@smithphillips.com
jason@smithphillips.com
- and -
Trey A.R. Dayes, III
PHILLIPS DAYES LAW GROUP PC
3101 North Central Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85012
Telephone: (602) 258-8900
E-mail: treyd@phillipsdayeslaw.com
VALEO SA: Faces Antitrust Class Suit Over Air Conditioning System
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ifeoma Adams, Melissa Barron, David Bernstein, Tenisha Burgos,
Kent Busek, Jennifer Chase, Nathan Croom, Lori Curtis, Jessica
Decastro, Alena Farrell, Jane Fitzgerald, Jason Grala, Ian Groves,
Curtis Gunnerson, Paul Gustafson, Tom Halverson, Curtis Harr, John
Hollingsworth, Carol Ann Kashishian, Robert Klingler, Kelly
Klosterman, Susan Lacava, James Marean, Ellis Winton Mcinnis,
Nilsa Mercado, Rebecca Lynn Morrow, Edward Muscara, Stacey
Nickell, Sophie O'keefe-Zelman, Roger Olson, Susan Olson, William
Picotte, Jesse Powell, Lauren Primos, Cindy Prince, Virginia
Pueringer, Janne Rice, Robert Rice, Jr., Frances Gammell-Roach,
Darrel Senior, Meetesh Shah, Darcy Sherman, Erica Shoaf, Richard
Stoehr, Arthur Stukey, Kathleen Tawney, Jane Taylor, Michael
Tracy, Keith Uehara, Michael Wick, Thomas Wilson, Phillip Young,
on Behalf of Themselves and all Others Similarly Situated v. Valeo
S.A., Valeo Japan Co., Ltd., Valeo Inc., Valeo Electrical Systems,
Inc., Valeo Climate Control Corp., Mitsubishi Heavy Industries,
Ltd., Mitsubishi Heavy Industries America, Inc., Mitsubishi Heavy
Industries Climate Control, Inc., Denso Corporation, and Denso
International America, Inc., Case No. 2:13-cv-14289-PDB-MJH (E.D.
Mich., October 9, 2013) is brought as a proposed class action
against the Defendants and unnamed co-conspirators, manufacturers
and suppliers of Air Conditioning Systems for engaging in a long-
running conspiracy to unlawfully fix, artificially raise, maintain
and stabilize prices, rig bids for, and allocate the market and
customers in the United States for Air Conditioning Systems.
The Plaintiffs seek to represent all persons and entities who,
during the period from and including January 1, 2001, through the
time as the anticompetitive effects of the Defendants' conduct
ceased (the "Class Period"), purchased or leased a new vehicle in
the United States for personal use and not for resale which
included one or more Air Conditioning System(s) as a component
part, or indirectly purchased one or more Air Conditioning
System(s) as a replacement part, which were manufactured or sold
by the Defendants, any current or former subsidiary of the
Defendants or any co-conspirator of the Defendants. The
Plaintiffs argue that the Defendants and their co-conspirators
participated in a combination and conspiracy to suppress and
eliminate competition in the automotive parts industry by agreeing
to rig bids for, and to fix, stabilize, and maintain the prices
of, Air Conditioning Systems sold to automobile manufacturers and
others in the United States.
Ifeoma Adams is a California resident. Melissa Barron is an
Oakland, California resident. David Bernstein is a Minnetonka,
Minnesota resident. Tenisha Burgos is a Bronx, New York resident.
Kent Busek is a North Dakota resident. Jennifer Chase is a
Waterloo, Iowa resident. Nathan Croom is an Omaha, Nebraska
resident. Lori Curtis is a St. Louis, Missouri. Jessica DeCastro
is a St. Louis, Missouri. Alena Farrell is a South Burlington,
Vermont resident. Jane Fitzgerald is a Milton, Vermont resident.
Jason Grala is a Holbrook, New York resident. Ian Groves is an
Albuquerque, New Mexico resident. Curtis Gunnerson is a South
Haven, Minnesota resident. Paul Gustafson is a Milwaukie, Oregon
resident. Tom Halverson is an Arizona resident. Curtis Harr is a
Fargo, North Dakota resident.
John Hollingsworth is a Saratoga, California resident. Carol Ann
Kashishian is a Milwaukee, Wisconsin resident. Robert Klingler is
a Manchester, Missouri resident. Kelly Klosterman is a Mooreton,
North Dakota resident. Susan LaCava is a Wisconsin resident.
James Marean is a Westbrook, Maine resident. Ellis Winton McInnis
is a Flowood, Mississippi resident. Nilsa Mercado is a Waterford,
Michigan resident. Rebecca Lynn Morrow is a Glendale, Arizona
resident. Edward Muscara is a Manchester, New Hampshire resident.
Stacey Nickell is a Beckley, West Virginia resident. Sophie
O'Keefe-Zelman is a Phoenix, Arizona resident. Roger Olson is a
South Haven, Michigan resident. Susan Olson is a South Haven,
Michigan resident.
William Picotte is a former South Dakota resident. Jesse Powell
is a Lehi, Utah resident. Lauren Primos is a Flowood, Mississippi
resident. Cindy Prince is a Pahoa, Hawaii resident. Virginia
Pueringer is a Billings, Montana resident. Janne Rice is a
Kenova, West Virginia resident. Robert Rice, Jr. is a Kenova,
West Virginia resident. Frances Gammell-Roach is a Warwick, Rhode
Island resident. Darrel Senior is a Lenexa, Kansas resident.
Meetesh Shah is a Daly City, California resident. Darcy Sherman
is a Minneapolis, Minnesota resident. Erica Shoaf is a Phoenix,
Arizona resident. Richard Stoehr is a Henderson, Nevada resident.
Arthur Stukey is a Montpelier, Vermont resident. Kathleen Tawney
is a Charlotte, North Carolina resident. Jane Taylor is a Kapa'a,
Hawaii resident. Michael Tracy is a Pensacola, Florida resident.
Keith Uehara is a Waipahu, Hawaii resident. Michael Wick is a Rio
Rancho, New Mexico resident. Thomas Wilson is a Tupelo,
Mississippi resident. Phillip Young is an Aqua, Tennessee
resident.
All of the Plaintiffs purchased at least one Air Conditioning
System indirectly from at least one Defendant.
Valeo S.A. is a French societe anonyme with its principal place of
business in Paris, France. Valeo Japan Co., Ltd. is a Japanese
corporation based in Saitama, Japan. It is a subsidiary of and
wholly controlled by Valeo S.A. Valeo Inc. is a Delaware
corporation headquartered in Troy, Michigan, and is an affiliate
of and wholly controlled by Valeo Japan, Co., Ltd. Valeo
Electrical Systems, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered
in Troy, Michigan, and is a subsidiary of and wholly owned and
controlled by its parent, Valeo Inc. Valeo Climate Control Corp.
is a Delaware corporation based in Bingham Farms, Michigan, and is
a subsidiary of and wholly owned and controlled by its parent,
Valeo Electrical Systems, Inc.
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. is a Japanese corporation
headquartered in Tokyo, Japan. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries
America, Inc. is a Delaware corporation based in New York, and is
a subsidiary of and wholly owned and controlled by its parent,
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries
Climate Control, Inc. is an Indiana corporation headquartered in
Franklin, Indiana, and is a subsidiary of and wholly owned and
controlled by its parent, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd.
DENSO Corporation is a Japanese corporation headquartered in
Kariya, Japan. DENSO International America, Inc. is a Delaware
corporation based in Southfield, Michigan, and is a subsidiary of
and wholly owned and controlled by its parent, DENSO Corporation.
The Defendants -- directly or through its affiliates, which they
wholly controlled -- manufactured, marketed and sold Air
Conditioning Systems that were purchased throughout the United
States during the Class Period.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
E. Powell Miller, Esq.
Adam T. Schnatz, Esq.
THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
950 W. University Dr., Suite 300
Rochester, MI 48307
Telephone: (248) 841-2200
Facsimile: (248) 652-2852
E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com
ats@millerlawpc.com
- and -
Hollis Salzman, Esq.
Bernard Persky, Esq.
William V. Reiss, Esq.
ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER & CIRESI L.L.P.
601 Lexington Avenue, Suite 3400
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 980-7400
Facsimile: (212) 980-7499
E-mail: hsalzman@rkmc.com
bpersky@rkmc.com
wvreiss@rkmc.com
- and -
Marc M. Seltzer, Esq.
Steven G. Sklaver, Esq.
SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 950
Los Angeles, CA 90067-6029
Telephone: (310) 789-3100
Facsimile: (310) 789-3150
E-mail: mseltzer@susmangodfrey.com
ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com
- and -
Terrell W. Oxford, Esq.
Warren T. Burns, Esq.
SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
901 Main Street, Suite 5100
Dallas, TX 75202
Telephone: (214) 754-1900
Facsimile: (214)754-1933
E-mail: toxford@susmangodfrey.com
wburns@susmangodfrey.com
- and -
Frank C. Damrell, Esq.
Steven N. Williams, Esq.
Adam J. Zapala, Esq.
Gene W. Kim, Esq.
Elizabeth Tran, Esq.
COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP
San Francisco Airport Office Center
840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
Burlingame, CA 94010
Telephone: (650) 697-6000
Facsimile: (650) 697-0577
E-mail: fdamrell@cpmlegal.com
swilliams@cpmlegal.com
azapala@cpmlegal.com
gkim@cpmlegal.com
etran@cpmlegal.com
VERIFONE HOLDINGS: Feb. 6 Fairness Hearing on $95MM Accord
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Edward M. Chen of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California issued an amended order
preliminarily approving a settlement and providing for notice of
the settlement in the case captioned In re VeriFone Holdings, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Master File No. 3:07-cv-06140-EMC.
The Amended Order provides that the Court preliminarily approves
the Stipulation of Settlement dated as of August 9, 2013, which
sets forth the terms and conditions for a proposed settlement of
the Litigation, which includes, among other things, a Settlement
Fund of $95,000,000 in cash plus any interest earned, and for
dismissal of the Litigation with prejudice.
The Court certifies a Class, for settlement purposes only, defined
as: "all Persons who purchased VeriFone Publicly Traded Securities
between August 31, 2006 and April 1, 2008 on any domestic or
foreign exchange or otherwise, excluding all Defendants,
VeriFone's former and current officers and directors and their
families and affiliates. Also excluded from the Class are those
Persons who validly and timely request exclusion from the Class."
A hearing will be held before the Court on February 6, 2014, at
1:30 p.m., at the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA
94102, to determine whether the proposed settlement of the
Litigation on the terms and conditions provided for in the
Stipulation is fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Class and
should be approved by the Court.
The firm of Gilardi & Co. LLC is appointed to supervise and
administer the notice procedure as well as the processing of
claims.
The Deadlines for the parties in the case to:
* Submit a Claim is on January 29, 2014;
* Request Exclusion is on December 30, 2013; and
* File Objection is on December 30, 2013.
A copy of the District Court's October 16, 2013 Amended Order
is available at http://is.gd/IpWPb6from Leagle.com.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP CHRISTOPHER P. SEEFER --
chriss@rgrdlaw.com -- CHRISTOPHER M. WOOD -- cwood@rgrdlaw.com --
San Francisco, CA, PATRICK J. COUGHLIN -- patc@rgrdlaw.com --
RANDI D. BANDMAN -- randib@rgrdlaw.com -- FRANCIS A. DIGIACCO --
fdigiacco@rgrdlaw.com -- San Diego, CA, Lead Counsel for
Plaintiffs.
VOXX INTERNATIONAL: Received $5.2-Mil Settlement Funds
------------------------------------------------------
Voxx International Corporation received $5.2 million during the
second quarter of Fiscal 2014 as a result of the distribution of
settlement funds, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended August 31, 2013.
The Company has been a plaintiff in a class action lawsuit against
several defendants relating to the alleged price fixing of certain
thin film transistor liquid crystal display flat panels and
certain products containing these panels purchased between the
years 1999 and 2006, and the violation of U.S. antitrust laws.
This class action suit was decided in favor of the plaintiffs and
in July 2013, the judge in the case ordered the distribution of
the settlement funds that had been ordered to be put aside by the
defendants. Voxx received a sum of $5.2 million during the second
quarter of Fiscal 2014 as a result of the distribution of these
funds, which has been recorded in "Other Income (Expense)" in the
Consolidated Statement of Operations and Comprehensive Income
(Loss). A final accounting of these settlement funds has not been
completed as of August 31, 2013, and Voxx expects to receive
approximately $1.2 million of additional funds during the third
quarter of Fiscal 2014. No gain contingencies were recorded for
these additional funds as of August 31, 2013.
VOXX International Corporation (Voxx), formerly Audiovox
Corporation, is an international distributor in the accessory,
mobile and consumer electronics industries. The Company markets
its products under the Audiovox brand name, other brand names and
licensed brands, such as Acoustic Research, Advent, Ambico, Car
Link, Chapman, Code-Alarm, Discwasher, Energizer, Energy, Heco,
Incaar, Invision, Jamo, Jensen, Klipsch, Mac Audio, Magnat,
Mirage, Movies2Go, Oehlbach, Omega, Phase Linear, Prestige,
Pursuit, RCA, RCA Accessories, Recoton, Road Gear, Schwaiger,
Spikemaster and Terk, as well as private labels through a domestic
and international distribution network. The Company also functions
as an Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) supplier to customers.
On March 14, 2012, the Company acquired Car Communication Holding
GmbH and its worldwide subsidiaries (Hirschmann). On March 1,
2011, the Company acquired Klipsch Group, Inc. and its worldwide
subsidiaries (Klipsch).
WARNER CHILCOTT: Four Class Suits Consolidated in Antitrust MDL
---------------------------------------------------------------
Four antitrust class action lawsuits against Warner Chilcott
Public Limited Company, et al., were transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island. The cases
are assigned to the Honorable William E. Smith for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings with a multidistrict litigation
(Case No. 1:13-md-02472-S-PAS) pending there.
The four lawsuits are:
(1) United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1776 &
Participating Employers Health and Welfare Fund v. Warner
Chilcott (US), LLC, et al.
Old Case No.: 2:13-cv-01807
New Case No.: 1:13-cv-02473-S-PAS
(2) Fraternal Order of Police, Fort Lauderdale Lodge 31,
Insurance Trust Fund v. Warner Chilcott Public Limited
Company, et al.
Old Case No.: 2:13-cv-02014
New Case No.: 1:13-cv-02475-S-PAS
(3) Electrical Workers 242 and 294 Health & Welfare Fund v.
Warner Chilcott Public Limited Company, et al.
Old Case No.: 2:13-cv-02862
New Case No.: 1:13-cv-02476-S-PAS; and
(4) New York Hotel Trades Council & Hotel Assoc. of New York
City, Inc., et al. v. Warner Chilcott Public Limited
Company, et al.
Old Case No.: 2:13-cv-02000
New Case No.: 1:13-cv-02474-S-PAS
The lawsuits allege that Actavis, Inc.'s 2009 patent lawsuit
settlement with Warner Chilcott related to Loestrin 24 Fe(R)
(norethindrone acetate/ethinyl estradiol tablets and ferrous
fumarate tablets, "Loestrin 24(R)") is unlawful. The complaints,
generally allege that Actavis, Inc. and another generic
manufacturer improperly delayed launching generic versions of
Loestrin 24(R) in exchange for substantial payments from Warner
Chilcott, in violation of federal and state antitrust and consumer
protection laws. The complaints seek declaratory and injunctive
relief and damages.
On June 18, 2013, the defendants filed a motion with the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to consolidate these cases in
one federal district court.
WHITE CASTLE: Must Answer Discovery Bid in "Jenkins" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Jimmy Jenkins brought a complaint against White Castle
Management Company for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act,
29 U.S.C. Section 201, et seq., the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, 820
Ill. Comp. Stat. 105/1, et seq., and the Illinois Wage Payment and
Collection Act, 820 Ill. Comp. Stat. 115/1, et seq., on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated. Jenkins alleged that White
Castle improperly reduced his wages and failed to pay him for
overtime work. Jenkins also alleged that White Castle retaliated
against him for protesting these violations. Jenkins sought to
bring his FLSA claims as a collective action and sought class-
action treatment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23
for his Illinois state-law claims. Jenkins moved to compel White
Castle to answer his discovery requests.
District Judge Joan B. Gottschall granted the motion in large
part, and directed the parties to meet and confer with the goal of
agreeing to a protective order governing the discoverable evidence
and to a schedule for responding to the document requests and
interrogatories. The parties were further ordered to file a
proposed schedule and protective order.
The case is JIMMY JENKINS, Plaintiff, v. WHITE CASTLE MANAGEMENT
CO., Defendant, CASE NO. 12 C 7273, (N.D. Ill.).
A copy of the District Court's October 17, 2013 Memorandum Opinion
& Order is available at http://is.gd/96tfNwfrom Leagle.com.
* Class Action Litigation Funding in Australia Needs Regulation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Merritt, writing for The Australian, reports that a legal
reform conference in the US has been told that Australia's hands-
off approach to the litigation funding industry has triggered an
influx of unregulated financiers who are investing in class
actions and taking up to 50 per cent of settlements.
The conference, hosted by the US Chamber Institute for Legal
Reform, heard that Australia's largest funder, IMF (Australia),
charged between 20 per cent and 45 per cent of any settlement.
But LCM Litigation Fund had suggested its commission was between
35 per cent and 50 per cent, the conference heard.
Mallesons Stephen Jaques partner Moira Saville --
moira.saville@au.kwm.com -- presented a report that says it is
difficult to see how the problems associated with litigation
funders and class actions can be resolved without new regulations.
This comes soon after US constitutional lawyer Samuel Issacharoff
praised Australia's pro-plaintiff legal regime that is "emerging
as an attractive forum for securities class actions".
However, the call for regulation is at odds with the view of
Monash University's Vince Morabito, who warned that care should be
taken not to rereduce competition as this could allow funders to
charge more.
Ms. Saville's report, Third Party Litigation Financing in
Australia, says the problems that need to be addressed include:
What happens if a funder collapses or walks away in the course of
a class action?
How will the problem of competing class actions funded by rival
funders be addressed?
Should litigation funders owe duties to claimants who have not
signed funding agreements?
Her report says four of Australia's 10 funders were incorporated
in other countries and seven did not provide public accounts. It
says the inherent risk of a conflict of interest involving law
firms and litigation funders has not been the subject of effective
oversight.
The Australian Securities & Investments Commission required
funders to have written procedures for dealing with conflicts of
interest but "no direct consequences flow from failure to comply".
It says the risks associated with conflicts of interest have been
heightened by the links between law firm Maurice Blackburn and
Claims Funding Australia, which finances class actions involving
the firm.
CFA is a discretionary trust whose beneficiaries are the
principals of Maurice Blackburn.
Ms. Saville's report says if conflicts of interest arise between
CFA and claimants, "the principals of the law firm have a greater
pecuniary incentive to side with the funder, given the funder is
acting in the principals' financial interest".
The interests of the principals of the law firm and the funder
were more directly aligned because any profit made by the funder
was, "despite the interpolation of a trust structure", effectively
made on behalf of the principals of the law firm. It says the
arrangement exacerbates the issues that High Court judge Pat Keave
referred to in a 2009 speech when he said the vindication of
victims' rights "is the last thing on the mind of the funders and
the lawyers whose interests they serve".
The Claims Funding Australia structure, which is being considered
by the Federal Court, was defended last month by the head of
Maurice Blackburn's class action practice, Andrew Watson. He told
The Australian that the firm would have no concerns if the
Productivity Commission chose to examine the relationship between
the firm and CFA.
*********
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 * * *